The URL can be used to link to this page

103 HIGHLAND AVENUE - BUILDING INSPECTION Tito of '*tttem, massac4usetts s ?�a Public Prapertg Department 1Nuilbing Department (One Salem (green 500-745-9595 Ext. 380 William H. Munroe Director of Public Property Inspector of Buildings Zoning Enforcement Officer 8/25/92 William Katsapetses 75 Walnut Street Peabody Ma . 01960 Re : 103 Highland Ave . Dear Sir'. This notice is sent pursuant to Massachusetts General Law 143 Section 9 . Please be advised that the survey board report conducted according to Mass . General Law 143 Section 8 has concluded that the structure , open foundation located at the above mentioned address is dangerous to life and limb ( copies enclosed) . Therefore if you fail to remove this structure by September 1 , 1992 this office will employ the services neccessary and place a lien on the property. Sincerely Maurice M. Martineau Acting Inspector of Buildings cc : Ward Councillor City Solicitor I , CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL ' q 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR JL;`. L� �1 �f6c SALEM, MA 01970 1 e'gyMe TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX (978) 740-9846 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. 2003012100060 Bk;20051 P53 2 MAYOR 07/27/2003 pry ©6.27.00 OTHER Pg 1/3 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EMILY MORGAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 103 HIGHLAND AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on September 18, 2002, with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Harris, Joseph Barbeau and Bonnie Belair. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and other and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting Variances fro, - Ict size to construct a single family dwelling for the property located at 103 Highland Avenue located in an R-1 zone. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exit 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 ZoningµOrdinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise;to the petitionerya c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from they Intent of the'distnct or the purpose of the Ordinance ?r, A '.Skr alt 15,' The Board of Appeal, after careful consider ion of the evidence ptesented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findingsoffact 1. Petitioner is a prospective buyer who has entered a purchase and sale agreement with the owner of a lot at 103 Highland Avenue with the intention of building a single family home on the lot. 2. The lot in question is 4,950 square feet in area. It does not meet the zoning Ordinance's 15, 000 square foot requirement for single-family homes. It is not a grandfathered lot because it falls below the square footage required for single-family homes at the time this ordinance was enacted. Petitioner was aware that the lot did not meet the zoning requirements when she entered the purchase and sale agreement. 3. Several neighbors opposed the petition. Mr. & Mrs. Jon Lunt, abutters at 6 Greenway Road, delivered a letter describing previous dealings with the property owner, who built a home on the site despite having been denied a variance several years ago. The foundation of the earlier home was removed at the expense '2003012700060 BOOM Pg,54 01/27/2003 08:27 00 OTHER P9 213 9 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EMILY MORGAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED A 103 HIGHLAND AVENUE R-1 pagetwo of the City of Salem. Stan Poirier of 8 Cottage Street described flooding problems that was worsened by the owner's dumping fill on this property. He indicated that the fill brought by the owner covered a storm drain installed by Mass Highway Engineers. s. 4. There was no showing of hardship with respect to the proposed variance. 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. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to the petitioner. 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially hardship derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance w n , Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 0 in favor and 4 in opposition to grant the requested variances Having failed to garner the fouraffirme ve votes required to pass, r the motion is defeated and the petttion is darned: r x . "Y 3 xF � ,ar •..,LW.' ¢<* '"kifxZP" + x t§ -n+ - ' .VARIANCE DENIED f � x�•, e, k int, o m SEPTEMBER 18 f2002 M�' ar� Y �Y4 �L�R t� Si •Ylk K G � �� i��Y'/i/x�y{�\\\\S a„Yy Nina Cohen, Chairman ';A4*Board of Appeal +. :. Date N 0 V 2 1 M I hereby certify that 20 days have expired from the date this instrument was received, and that NO APPEAL has been filed In this office. ATrue Cop ATTEST_CITY CLERK, Salem, Mass. 101/27/2003 003011700060 Sk10051 Pg,55 —� QOTHER Py 3/3 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 MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the -office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have passed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owners Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal N ` U1rn,. t'f a k.S 1Fa1"}`ym` r,nTyy { ,�tom N •�' _ W^ 4: �+.s � r . y � � y yr J•i Tv,��h{ ii� * - ! (sv "� �; r i; { r = x� k{ �( • �'� ; �� x^a.IP Rr Y a.y, 1 �• ## � �, S r #� I i / ( # � r '#'ir7,es , 4'hA7¢Xrf{3 i y yr• 163 � k: ,,.d ,'�Je-- ^tel e l e l Ac. HARD OF PP[ALS `ON CITY OF SALEM AR 23 12 37 '92 In City Council, Aril 9 1992 RF'f'n;�'PO °cohroecA*� 1;11_ .T W- Ja1 Lc H,KA 7S. Ordered: THAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AND LEGAL DEPARTMENT TAKE ALL NECESSARY STEPS TO REMOVE THE CON RFTF FOUNDATION LOCATED AT 103 HIGHLAND AVENUE IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND BE IT FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL BE INFORMED OF ALL STEPS TAKEN ON A MONTHLY BASIS. In City Council April tAF10P---TED App--oved by the Mayor OR A—p--r-1-1 21 , 1992 AT^7=T- JOSEPHINE R FUSCO CITY CLERK T tg of Itittlem, Massnr#usetts �. . a Public t1rnpertg Department Nuilbing Department (One #stem (Breen 508-745-9595 Fxt. 300 William H. Munroe Director of Public Property Inspector of Buildings Zoning Enforcement Officer 6/9/92 William Katsapetses 75 1Jalnut Street Peabody Ma . 01960 Re : 103 Highland Ave . Dear Sir : Please be advised that the structure ( open foundation) , Located at the above mentioned address is dangerous to life and limb and a public nuisance .As per the Massachusetts State Building Code section 123 , ( Unsafe Structures ) you are here by ordered to begin to remove this structure by twelve o ' clock noon of the day following the service of this notice . This notice is sent pursuant to Massachusetts General Law 143 section 6 . Failure to do so shall result in this office taking the proper legal action to demolish the foundation and placing a lien on the property. Sincerely *Wt.+ , *4 Maurice Martineau Acting Inspector of Buildings cc: Ward Councillor City Solicitor 0tv of '11,165allem, Aussac4uoEtto I°a Public Pru ertg Otpartment Nuilbing Re}tnrhnent ane £�nlem �reea 508-745-9595 Ext. 380 William H. Munroe Director of Public Property Inspector of Buildings Zoning Enforcement Officer 6/10/92 Stanton W. Bigelow, City Engineer Joseph Sullivan, Fire Chief Mr . Peter Strout 29 Riverview St . , Salem Gentlemen: I hereby appoint you a survey board to inspect thoroughly the premises at 103 Highland Avenue , in accordance with the provisions of Section 124 . 3 of the Massachusetts State Building Code. A written report of your findings and conclusions shall be made to this office in order that a determination may be made with the regard to the future of this structure . r Sincerely f. Maurice Martineau Acting Inspector Of Buildings cc . City Solicitor Ward Councillor 3 Tifg of %Ijem, massac4usc##,s public Vrapertg Department iluilbing Department (Pne ftem (green 500-745-9595 Ext. 300 William H. Munroe Director of Public Property Inspector of Buildings Zoning Enforcement Officer 9/24/92 Dennis Daley Purchasing Agent 1 Salem Green Salem Ma . 01970 Re : Bids Dear Mr . Daley Enclosed are the three bids that were required for the demolition of 103 Highland .Ave . This office was unaware of the new regulation that required your assistance for obtaining these bids . Sincere apologies for any inconvenience . It was a department procedure that I had followed and not made aware of the change until our conversation. Thank you for your understanding. Sincerely Maurice M. Martineau Acting Inspector Of Buildings TitV of *a em, Massar4usetts Public Propertq Department 9g°�''11NBtl'N1�` 1Nuilbing }Department (One Salem (6reen 5110-745-9595 Ext. 3 8 0 William H. Munroe Director of Public Property 0 Inspector of Buildings Zoning Enforcement Officer i 9/29/92 Kevin Daley Esq . 30 Church St . Salem Pla . 01.970 Re : 103 Highland Ave . Dear Kevin , Enclosed is a copy of the ' Statement of Claim you requested regarding a previous project . If you need any further information regarding 103 Highland Ave . please contact me . Sincerely David J . Harris Assistant Building Inspector MIN { 300 Forest Street • PO Box 6087 • Peabody.MA 01961.USA • (508)535-4144 • FAX(508)535-4252 June 30, 1992 Dave Harris City of Salem - 103 Highland Ave. Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. Harris: Wood Recycling Inc. is pleased to submit the following bid proposal for the aforementioned structure. The work is to include; foundation torn down, removed and filled in with 150 yards of fill. It is understood that Wood Recycling Inc. will supply all labor and equipment for the com- pletion of the job. Wood Recycling Inc. is not responsible for the overseeing of the removal of any hazardous materials that may be located in or at the location, nor are they responsible or liable for the disposal of such materials. The total cost of the aforementioned work inclusive of all the items mentioned above is $3, 500. 00 for solid fill complete. Payment of 50% will be due upon signing of the contract. The remaining 50% will be due upon completion of the demolition. The above demolition should take 2 - 3 days to complete. Should there be any questions regarding the job at any time, please feel free to contact us directly at your convenience. We wish to thank you in advance for the opportunity to submit this proposal. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely yours, William Phillips Vice President, Wood Recycling, Inc. Accepted by: 19. Aach "C 60".5, 3i"t' GENERAL CONTRACTORS 58 BROADWAY•P.O. BOX 366 TRUCKING&EXCAVATING•DEMOLITION WORK SALEM, MA 01970•617 744-3849 GRAVEL•LOAM•FILLING•BLACKTOP Jure 2) , 1992 CITY CP SALLA: VcparLmer:L of Public Property -- Or.e Salem Creer. Sale", NA . J1970 = At e it io i:: Nr . Lavid Barris Dcar Mr . Aarris : li rup:y to a request for a yUotatior. to demolish LEL- remoVe coicreta fOurdati0L arZ footirg locaL ,d at the coriur of Li,LiaiZ Aver:u, ail Greei.way Load . W, will perfurw Lhis work fur the sum of $320U -06 - 1his yu..L at iUL i111,16US dewul ish aL& remove co Le r=Le fuutuatioL ail backfill cellar hole to the uliSCIQ „radus . hupilo to 'bear fru: you favorably . 'lours very Lruly `lia r.iu1 J . P7aci:ey Cei.cral Aaia6er \. I . VACVEY a SONS , I"C . J J::: i:. Fold at l>I to fit TTI DUOVUE- Envelope -For longer proposals,use with 2543 SPWflCAuOI`Form r E �✓ C , 7 �Ir-om.,a s41111.b"Nary[TpLLFYQ"rSWEu`* - Page No. 1 of 1 pages NEPTUNE DEMOLITION CORP. � � j 14519 P.O. Box 910 1 GEORGETOWN, MASSACHUSETTS 01833 PHONE GATE 508-745-9595 9 July 1992 (508) 352-6210 ,JOB NAME I LOCATION � C— TO - To Dave Harris Building Inspector _ One Salem Green u z Salem, Ma. 01970 salArn MA JARCHITUtaATE OFtRLANE —o We hereby propose to furnish,in accordance with specifications below Or on ettachetl pages,ell materiel and labor necessary to comp e e the following: D.emolish_.concrete foundation and_ footngs and remove all debris caused by said work from the site. Fill cellar hole to the existin.g .ground_grades with gravel . ..... .. . . . — — dollars (S o2.86 ` OCt for the Mum Of - �WFNT y ElC,it7 , I PAYMENTS TO BE MA E A8 FOLLOWS ...-......". Terms........... 30 day' s _. "- "_.. _ - __. ASBESTOS OR ANY OTHER MATERIALS ---- CLASSIFIED AS HAZARDOUS BY THE DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ENGINEERING -IN-THI NTAACT-OR-0 RE.-- E the All materiel la guaranteed to be as specified. All work Is to be completed In a work- Authorized ��" manlike Bove omanner attached specifications involving ard ractices Any extra costs will be etxecuted oion or nly uponation written Signature — e: orR RI' sell Pres. 1� orders,and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate.All agreements Note: 18 propp osal maydays wb contingent upon strikes,accidents or delays beyond our control.owner to carry fire, withdrawn by us If no tornado and other necessary insurance.Our workers are fully covered by Workmen's t accepted within— Compensation Insurance. __#�- _—♦,_,,.tet- 'O C (1) " O W r-1 J n 3 C 'J O QI > > 7 C 4 M U In M y n 3 `li N 'w C CtD : \ :7 U u .-+ "', >, a Q) � a-• �� -� r0 C Q) '.� C •.i f3 N to L L lr !n W N 'rl 7 L a-r co co C i ..: ..+ U >1 la ITJ Q) U M Q) I I tit m C cn 14 �y O —'., 1, Q) O a 1, W Im m O is O aJ 4 W Ql S.i R9 n Ln U) 17:1 vO u o v1 TJ 1Q). QJ C C +j bt >L 8 to C > ro Q) :Q Q) -0 Q) U e, to N M � - = E V) U Q) to °1 ca ::3 m _ H m >, H a to O Ql L Sa l+ N 00 LL tLl ul ro � •' '. 27 I also wish to receive the Hems 1 and/or 2 for additional services. i ` r-' ate Hems s,and 49&b. following services (for anextra .e, t.+..fJrrt your name and address on the reverse of title Conn so that we can .fe); •.a _Y'�I 1•`•fl U t_4'ium this card to you. ••❑ Addresse is N �. • Attach this form to the from of the msilplece,or on the back if space s•AddreY r,l\ y� y� does not permit. v. Qi tiC` '¢' Write"Return Receipt Requested"on the msilpiece below the article number q• ❑ Restricted De)ivery T U 2 Ql f+ • The Return Receipt Fee will provida you the signature of the person dell" t Consult ostmaster-for fes §'�\4 N.a N w Cr lr O U end the date of deliva O .n O 3. Article Addressed to: be p a b y V L =' - W�EX_.C_eC+ry -4b:'Semice.Type $ ems'— ❑ Registered C1 Insured Ir3 OF P?Certified El COD -� �uryvh. 0" o CD �0��.�•� ❑ Express Mail E] Return Receipt fordifult Merchan N 7. �O ti ✓—Sir°" = u n,'� ` 8. Addressee's Address tunly If requested 5. Signature (Addresseel y,clvr<j� 3 O p (o and fee is paid) 8. Signature (Agent) PS Form 3811, November 1990 eU"PO:1991-9e7-0se DOMESTIC RETURN,RECEIPT Fold at(>)to lit 771 DU-6yUE® Envelope —For longer proposals,use with 264-3 Specification Form AT, >AOgx? JQIrc,GNmv Nra el 01111.TOx a E rpt FREE IaaAaSaJR NEPTUNE DEMOLITION CORP. Page No. 1 of pages GEORGETOWN, MASSACHUSETTS 01833 Aria aiial 14519 FEA DATE (508) 352.6210 -9595 9 July 1992 TO Dave Harris Building Inspector OCTIONP fn Ifndatinn,One Salem Green and Avanit -n C=) _ ED Salem, Ma. 01970 ��"D�� _ r ARCHITE TSS 4T0 OFlpLANS7. '— \ ITN We herebyc'J propose to furnish,in accordance with specifications below or on attached pages,all material and labor necessary to camp e e the following: >i Demolish concrete foundation and footings and remove ell .debris caused by said work from the site. Fill cellar hole to the existing ground grades with gravel . j 1 i 1 it for the sum of ^I � R T /ycP,'VOR.0. n 6 d 0 r Q� PAYMENTS TO 6E MADE AS FOLLOWS Y E� G/t -- x,? —' dollars�$ � Terms 30 day' s I e ASBESTOS OR ANY OTHER MATERIALS ...... . CLASSIFIED AS HAZARDOUS BY THE DEPT. -----._____- OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ENGINEERING All material is guaranteed to be as specifletl. All work is to be completed in a work- GI_TH) NTRACI-OR-P Irr ii manlike manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from the AuthoriEed above or attached specifications involving extra costa will be executed only upon written Signature orders,and will become an extra charge over antl above the estimate.All agreements C contingent upon strikes,accidents or delays beyond our control.Owner to carry fire. G� is ord R R11f sell Pres, tornado and other necessary insurance.Our workers are fully covered by Workmen'a withtlrawn by if not accepted 1 Compensation Insurance. — — — 20 days. AIMP} UnrP UfrD}}TASMI -----attached --` ,I specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted You are Signature authorized to do the work as specifletl.Payment will be made as outlined above. .N "i 8 12 Date of Acceptance: Signature RFTuR N' DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONSILOCATIONSIVeMICLES/SPECIAL ITEMS Demolition Contractor CERTIFICA SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE De$CRIIBD POLICIES BB CAM"LLEO REFORI 1 n City Of Salem EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOn . One Salem Green MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE"OLDER NAMED TO 1111 Salem, Massachusetts. LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION 1 LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE COMPANY,ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVI AUTMOMElD INE CMTATIY! ACORD 2&S(7190) F: WPRRNRATION Ing EU!1_0-ING DEF "`°" CITY OF SALEM t, An 17 3 PFI 992 a a� c In City Council, A_ ugusti ) �P99�2rv;F �„µv$ eo, Ordered: j That the sum of Two Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($2,800-00) is herebv appropriated to the "Public Property - Demolition” Account (01-4-0553-390) to be funded by property tax state aid and non-property tax revenue when the FY 93 tax rate is set in accordance with the recommendation of His Honor the Mayor. - r na^��ed—��e�saslaeas ' oz�ef the mules Approved by the Mayor on August 10 1992 AJOSEPHINE R. FUSCO CITY CLERK c�rp- rr 4UIM1. CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS KEVIN T.DALY Legal Department LEONARD F FEMINO City Solicitor 93 Washington Street Assistant City Solicitor 508-745-0500 Salem, Massachusetts 01970 508-921-1990 STATEMENT OF CLAIM RE: Property Location: 103 Highland Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts 1 Owner: Thomas N. Katsapetses Title Reference: Book 7839, Page 366 I, Neil J. Harrington, Mayor of Salem, hereby upon oath depose and say that a building on the above-entitled land was demolished on or about September 16, 1992 at a total cost to the City of Salem in the amount of $2 ,800. 00, as per the attached i statement. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 139, Section 3A, a claim is made in the amount of $2,800.00 upon the land which the building was located. Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 1st day of October, 1992 . NEZ J. #ARRINGTOV MAYOR Commonwealth of Massachusetts Essex, ss. Salem, Massachusetts October 1, 1992 Then personally appeared the above-named Neil J. Harrington, Mayor, and acknowledged the foregoing to be his free act and deed, before me. , KEVI T. DALY, ESQUIRE Notary Public % My Commission Expires� -�1/4/96 cossoc O r � �e69 NEPTUNE DEMOLITION CORP. DATE 9/16/92 P.O. BOX 910 ACCOUNT NUMBER GEORGETOWN, MASSACHUSETTS 01833 14519 (508) 352.6210 FAX (508) 352.2446 CITY OF SALEM ONE SALEM GREEN SALEM, MA. 01970 AMOUNT ENCLOSED E RETURN THIS PORTION WITH PAYMENT 7 A_ .. _.MO .. c flEQ•�10 �REDI�''�`�+'� = ; _ UNT 9/16/92 DEMOLISH AND REMOVE FOUNDATION GRADE LOT CONTRACT PRICE $2,800.00 TOTAL $2,800.00 PAY LAST AMOUNT C ,,„INT1TIIIS COLUMN NEPTUNE DEMOLITION CORP. r [t Mllly ^. ._Af SSP I ' CITYiQRSALEV MASSACHUSETTS KEVIN T.DALY Legal DepaHnnent LEONARD F FEMINO City Solicitor 93 Washington Street Assistant City Solicitor 508.745.0500 Salem,Massachusetts 01970 508"921.1990 STATEMENT OF CLAIM RE: Property Location: 37 Walter Street , Salem, Massachusetts Owner: John J. Suldenski and Virginia Suldenski Title Reference: Book 8775 , Page 402 I , Neil J. Harrington, Mayor of Salem, hereby upon oath depose and say that a building on the above-entitled land was demolished on or about August 26 , 1991 at a total cost to the City of Salem in the amount of $8 , 000. 00, as per the attached statement. Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 139 , Section 3A, a claim is made in the amount of $8 , 000. 00 upon the land which the building was located. Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 5th day of September , 1991. /Z NEIL J.(HARRINGTZq, MAYOR Commonwealth of Massachusetts Essex, ss. Salem, Massachusetts September 5 , 1991 Then personally appeared the above-named Neil J. Harrington, Mayor, and acknowledged the foregoing to be his free act and deed, before me. KEVIN T. DALY, ESQUIRE Notary Public l/ My Commission Expires: 1/4/96 SENDEfrr' Cnrw�'ue items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. I also Wish t0 receive the •r. e;iete items 3,and as&b. following services (for an extra nt your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can fee): 'f n this card to you. • • Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece,or on the back if space 1. ❑ Addressee's Address .does not permit. • Write"Return Receipt Requested"on the mailpiece below the article number. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery • The Return Receipt Fee will provide you the signature of the person delivers to and the date of delivery. Consult postmaster for fee. ' 3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Ar le Number ./J� /,,Q��u�y./• J Type ElRegistered ❑ Insured �2 Certified ❑ COD /LJ "r�7�1nQ✓ 71 Express Mail ❑ Mer rh Re is for 7. Date/of Deli ery 5. Signature (Addressee) 6. Addressee's Address(Only if requested I and fee is paid) 6. Signature (Agent) PS Form 3811, November 1990 bu.e.G1`0:19e1_287-M DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE III II Official Business oil, - PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, 3300 Print your name, address and ZIP Code here TitV of 11$ittlrm, fitttssar4usetta Public Propertg Department Nuilbing Department (one Salem (green 500-745-9595 Ext. 300 William H. Munroe Director of Public Property Inspector of Buildings Zoning Enforcement Officer 8/25/92 William Katsapetses 75 Walnut Street Peabody Ma . 01960 Re : 103 Highland Ave . Dear Sir : This notice is sent pursuant Lo Massachusetts General Law 143 Section 9 . Please be advised that the survey board report conducted according to Mass . General Law 143 Section 8 has concluded that the structure , open foundation located at the above mentioned address is dangerous to life and limb ( copies enclosed) . Therefore if you fail to remove this structure by September 1 , 1992 this office will employ the services neccessary and place a lien on the property. w Sincerely Maurice M. Martineau Acting Inspector of Buildings cc : Ward Councillor City Solicitor SENDER: I also wish to receive the Complete items 7 and/or 2 for additional services. • Complete items 3, and 4a & b. following services Ifor an extra • Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so feel: that we can return this card to you. • AttBch this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the 1. ❑ Addressee's Address back if space does not permit. • Write "Return Receipt Requested" on the mailpiece next to 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery the article number. Consult postmaster for fee. 3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Article Number�f l7 t4 C � cLrr� �4 o � 46. Service Type �— ElRegistered ❑ Insured �1 ZCertified ❑ COD �, `��/� G/ 3 ✓ ❑ Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise e� 7. Date of Delivery w� � G d 5. Signature (Addressee) 8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested and fee is paid) 6. Signature (Agent) PS Form 3811, October 1990 *U.S.GPO:1990-273.861 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT United States Postal Service I Official Business El PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, 3300 Print your name, address and ZIP Code here ° Titg of *ttljeut, Massacllusjetto Public Pro ertg Belrnrtment NuilUnq Department (ane Salem (green 500-745-9595 Ext. 300 William H. Munroe Director of Public Property Inspector of Buildings Zoning Enforcement Officer 6/9/92 William Katsapetses 75 Walnut Street Peabody Ma . 01960 Re : 103 Highland Ave . Dear Sir: Please be advised that the structure ( open foundation) , located at the above mentioned address is dangerous to life and limb and a public nuisance .As per the Massachusetts State Building Code section 123 , ( Unsafe Structures ) you are here by ordered to begin to remove this structure by twelve o ' clock noon of the day following the service of this notice . This notice is sent pursuant to Massachusetts General Law 143 section 6 . Failure to do so shall result in this office taking the proper legal action to demolish the foundation and placing a lien on the property. Sincerely Maurice Martineau Acting Inspector of Buildings cc: Ward Councillor City Solicitor k ,Y (nttu of #a1Em, massar4uoetts << Public Propertq Deparbuent q�YMryg Nuilaing Department (One #stem (green 588-745-9595 Ext. 380 William H. Munroe Director of Public Property Inspector of Buildings Zoning Enforcement Officer 6/10/92 Stanton W. Bigelow, City Engineer Joseph Sullivan, Fire Chief Mr . Peter Strout 29 Riverview St . ,Salem Gentlemen : I hereby appoint you a survey board to inspect thoroughly the premises at 1-03 Highland_ Ave nue , in accordance with the provisions of Section 124 . 3 of the Massachusetts State Building Code . A written report of your findings and conclusions shall be made to this office in order that a determination may be made with the regard to the future of this structure . Sincerely Maurice Martineau Acting Inspector Of Buildings cc. City Solicitor Ward Councillor UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE I II II I OFFICIAL BUSINESS SENDER INSTRUCTIONS Print your name,address and ZIP Code In the space below. • Complete items 1,2,3,and 4 on the It reverse. sommoomm • 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 David J . Harris / Public Prnp_erty One Salem Green Salem.MA 01970 • SENDER: Complete items 1 ad 2 when additional services are desired, and complete items 3 and 4. Put your address in the"RETURN TO" Space on the reverse side. Failure to do this will prevent this card from being returned to you.The return receipt fee will rovide ou the name of the P. delivered to and the date.For ad ivonal eed f s the following services are available. onsult postmaster or tees and c eck oxles or additional service(s) requested. 1. Ll Show to whom delivered, date, and addressee's address. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery (Extra charge) (Extra charge) 3. Article Addressed to: 4. Article Number t ' P 070 314 301 William Katsapetses Type of Service: 75 Walnut Street ❑ Registered ❑ Insured IX Certified ❑ COD pp Peabody ,MA 0 1 °6 0 Elur Express Mail ❑ Return or Rece se han Always obtain signature of addressee or agent and DATE DELIVERED. 5. Signature — Addressee 8. Addressee's Address (ONLY if X A t 'Act,/. p� requested and fee paid) 6. Signature Agent C.L X 7. Date of D liver 1 Ly/y PS Form 38 11, Apr. 1989 *U.S.G.P.G.1989238-815 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT P 070 314 301 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) Sen to b 2� Street an N S P.O., are An ZIP Cod(7 O Postage S Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee RestricteQ Delivery Fee Return Receipt showing to whom and Date Delivered N Return Receipt showing whom, Date,and Address of Delivery d j TOTAL Postage and Fees 5-r 0 a d C; Postmark or Date E 0 LL rA CL STICK POSTAGE STAMPS TO ARTICLE TO COVER FIRST CLASS POSTAGE, CERTIFIED MAIL FEE,AND CHARGES FOR ANY SELECTED OPTIONAL SERVICES.(see Iran) 1. It you want this receipt postmarked,stick the gummed stub to the right 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. If 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 if space per- mits. ermits. 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 if you make inquiry. n U.S.G.P.O.1988 21 7-1 32 V P �itp of batem, Ala nrbugettg � r iublic i3ropertp ;Department rnHea�` Nuilbing Department (One lbalem Orten 745-9595 GCxt. 380 William H. Munroe Director of Public Property Inspector of Buildings Zoning Enforcement Officer January 17 , 1991 William Katsapetses 75 Walnut Street Peabody , MA 01960 RE : 103 Highland Ave . , Salem,MA Dear Mr . Katsapetses , On October 18 , 1990 a permit was issued for the removal of a house and foundation at the above referenced property . The house was removed the foundation was not , leaving a dangerous condition at the site . Please be advised that this is a violation of the Mass State Building Code , Section 123 , (unsafe structures ) . Anyone who shall violate a provision of this code shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $ 1 , 000 . 00 or by imprisonment for not more than one year or both , for each violation . Each day during which any portion of a violation continues shall constitute a seperate offense . You have seven days from receipt of this letter to correct such � - violation . Failure to do so will result in this office issuing a Ct complaint in Salem District Court . Sincerell t David J . Harris Assistant Building Inspector DJH/eaf C . C . City Solicitor Ward Councillor AREA cf". 407, i5,6 ; . A 5SeSsors 1f101 14 Lay / 4(O G 3 11,15 /2 Ale—, - _ Are¢ = CL Q = 2074 S' 7-074L 41574 Sr �a e `) X974 S>r �\ arm - a6 SIN C c' _ of 407' 2 ON PL 4N r P„Eco tlrJj” 9k 35-aoP600 i �2 "r6 ilj SFLr.M�MASS " 29 /Jov_ . /972:..: 4 � Dee: 19.72-. 24 _:. =` Gr Roymwad C, PressFy SAG, RI-f 5 _; _ f 6 C f !rn 3 ( , r r w Z Q v 6 ii 7 ri '• Y r+r{M Y3ra" ik` 4 4 4 4 y{iii! � 4 � ,� c a • e • •A n • w e e "}" n'7y,r ,. 4 .. dx , wfa � _ B 9 Q •. Y I J r� O _ • s { o T rc Yr .r z � • a. 'v d R G • o o • � YJQ� p4 v4'� 4s an� �'7s e�'�i'�X.4a ":' � riq ° ; O 0 (�^' §'r ayx M 8 t a., Nf uO'tT jAv'xj 3'`"-'r"dy� yF't � :•�• 'Ottzt " i�` o- .�.. �i:" t'"��'tx�•tr1"t }avfiro�tna� � �E'C w T`"�'(*sr* ✓«� >< "' a ^f 3 l� t! . ri":eYJ+�rtf�T"(y�,'�'��a +4x ,�,,� S .�u,�, y ?'•ren,yi�`F':'^' I r' dY.�'R`'� E f D qq �' *.`.t ring K l ^t x *..x M1•�a�:3�s '+ x��k-lid Yr"'z�ax"rya $i w7nu 4 7 • (�'..� i� • 5 k4p.b�rq f} sy'`E}' 'f ri _ r ¢ „ n {(} a r•> Jt s °e r alt n e r ? 'Q 4 7 / u O O. �1 .2 e. a•.k r P x � a . �Y o r r 9 e C! 0 � ('1 r, - .C� 2 _ un : a St 3 d ?j fi;TIP, b y C • • P R a O a R a • A k t 'O" �h • i y` ae eeenea O' nn j' ;'u Na � >7+. prt ( � •r"' f,:i - • a a 4 n a • t `N } YOwl a - '2" O 103 f1 ®r ,? _ u a • � e i • o- n • •' e �'`k = '" a a` . s } n4 F '� ' ;-' 3 r > �' i s" a o- r bt � • , rk y x-H. w • • < a v a • • • • _ • `� Atir i�, e4 { n 1 n n 0. . 0 , a 4 4 000 0 WIWI r. A i•y.L° d �S,-nt t �{ hsk»3a xn.A9e♦ � `��' � t a t.� dN t.^ C)9 � 2 l /.a V T A -1 a ry�ef'"` woe,• e e e o s o •� o ,y • �i%ax.'n �u�^ akr��v��iff�,•°R v`r' +L4•'s>>�f'3 ' .t r -r:R" ' s r rr 6 0 0 O.(l I a +� •, e ...> 15 + yv ,«r T�' +a k�a- a #"a5 viaa r ;t< � "n r' ^.� o v v a ¢'.• a R'a v e ,� F +ak Tri-4+{P}�('''f u. r � sq tixY4y`a •,moi. s x l(�� 4 t� r'.. < s'+y g rt to r iA' ynonM1 t v � sy �,< •_ Z a r� � �i r) n �� 7 7 J R 0. _. t T. • t . 677 -Y, t> V. r t :.;� �,n a a -• a v e r e- e e . .. � A #��'� � �' t� i 54r r f t ' •-. t t.•�uv 6 ,�+ .} my, ix i a • O 1' O • N fA + Y 1'$ 4c,n,t R r 7 { n_.a i1 l n ".1i r 'A6St(•'+ %�•y f>}i tAs i $ 4i � T �` ,*f+„e ° `, 9 f � .. . r • P e • • ,� '�+rs o e'F�'r W � r, .a � .F >u � ° �r4 a *"^ + � �y,Lp a — • a e e s e C�� °�+t'`'��'$, `+�.�9Y.;�v r + � yJK ? k «"� 1 i a Q j$s-x I) T.R rW r7 . �. gt L� xar`f �.-rtr mo-.. sr im +' F.7 v�5!�m r a '•} t s ,,+� L 4 y�di l • F��f- ,tY2sm¢*�,a Y�dA 4.k..}1'4ra -rtPS.�•• izxrt�a.T. A A. O A • n G •^• • e YY'' raT,oc AREA - 4 974 F , '' ;F iQA w k JHJ S all 4 +a i r9+. 8tally. v a d ar a: x,✓ '� - + Fh 4 1 f Ml tf ryt �. 4 i i ,e ; F�� ."� a rti.. y +i r 5� �a�, x •r'r a+k� fa µ �..v �,� s..r + f iu r �,er�*. +� � �, ,< - _ :` .r . KLQ o v .*Z ams 3-11973 � 'L.EM -fess a44 a� res c a14Ld u-0 i413p SCAL15 � `= ao �T 29 NOV. 19 2 RAYMa+C C.pRSsse�(, 1rtc. '� '�V Rti4.LR.tzD SuRVEye¢ g $ R¢g1*YoE DeA�� 1 1 3 M JN Ro a ST. L-je+H L, N.q r19 r ,0% V v tiff j \�,p\ koTE: EM*4CUT PLAu D K. 354o P.47 a srae AkO WD00* X6158R 98 DO IbT AaREe.. ¢e su. 9/53 i DRhMA6E LocwTaa✓+ Met GeRTAIN ! c"•a r er C � 5 IL 5 She 54 go � 99.9? 5�pr,B 5Et I � i Qvca+•It++l. \ \ � . MAP �'S '�e �'/�3 � j: ARAN M•K. \ O , -t' S.F• V- SEE EASE PLAM-Rew \ �' •ti. f w . 5K.35.10P,r�Tg RUED \ S ze O C �r I How 19F � LOT J psT 51`1 i • plVr T9.58 % W N t2' z2'E T + r \ \ 1S R.C.PIve ORAIU M • i .•'$ .S lo� •to 1 .�� AccoROawG TO STATE SURVEY if0' T n.e. zcT 58 v 98 �. r /� ' . . LO•T Z Pry N N %JI v - I c ,ak oQ-�G 8O•Co oa8 oN t ! e 0 22 ` W 99.91 I� les 12 WootS o ': ` GArAc 1 ? Fri to'3 o �a _ Felf 10 e i r-oxS•f/ w �!• 4.148 ao s tAua 1 W QIAU wµN RDCD135 FOJNO '. :.i F Vo4 Val EtsS.� . + loa+oyo95 to l SOti+N Yost WEt5S }1u58DJ1D ANvW 1Pe ll1 N FI AMNA $x. .5880. Tel p —z , 51 NC t oT 2Q 1S To Be C.wgEY60 To THE OWNER of LANo ow THE Soli TN Alto LOT a� •r ,.c 15 TO BE CONVeTEO To TNS owNE'R OF t-oT 3 aloe AJ 7• � - -Pt Aslausv sa...— A.zm®nVAt r1w>s.as r.... c.....e...� .. i.._�.e. r na.. er_—•ate_ _ �Tt ofale ansa setts Poxrb of A}r vd DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM & THOMAS KATSAPETSAS FOR AN APPEAL OF THE BUILDING INSPECTO_R.S:DEN_IAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT OR FOR A VARIANCE FOR f03 HIGHLAND AVE f ( R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held February 18, 1987 and continued to March 18, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, Strout and Associate Member Dore. 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, represented by Attorney Emmanuel Papanickolas, are appealing a denial of the Building Inspector of the City of Salem for a single family residence at 103 Highland Avenue, or in th ealternative a Variance from lot size, density and setbacks to allow the construction of a single family dwelling the that location. The property is located in an R-1 zone. The Variance vihich has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the 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 and 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 of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration 'cf' the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . There was substantial neighborhood oppcc _ ._or, to the petition, including Ward Three Councillor Vincent r`aro; 2. There was evidence presented that there is a serious water runoff problem which would be compounded by development of the lot in question; ro 3. The Building Permit #375, City of Salem, dated June 3, 1986, and issued to a previous owner of the lot in question was not legally transferred to the petitioners. Furthermore, said permit was issued for construction of a building utilizing different plans than those submitted by petitioner: 4. The petitioners have substantially completed work on the building without a building permit and in disregard of a Stop-Work order dated September 23, 1985; 5. The Board further finds that the lot in question does not contain 5000 square feet of land, a condition necessary for the petition to be, considered under the provisions of Massachusl?'tts General Law Chapter 40A. , Section 6. In making this finding, the Board relys on the calculations and measurement performed for the Board by the Engineering Department .,r F r•i f" of Cal pm rvDECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM & THOMAS KATSAPETSAS FOR AN APPEAL OF THE BUILDING INSPECTORS DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT OR FOR A VARIANCE FOR 103 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SALEM. page two 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 . Special conditions do not exist which espectially affect the subject .. property and not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. 4. The lot in question does not meet the minimum requirements to be treated under the provisions of Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A. Section 6. The Board, , therefore, upholds the Buildings Inspector's denial of a building permit _to the petitioners. Therefore,the Zoning Board of Appeal voted two (2) in favor (Messrs. , Fleming and Strout) ; and two (2) opposed (Messrs. , Hacker and Dore) ; to the granting of the requested Variance and to overrule the decision of the Building Inspector. By the vote of 2-2 the Variance is denied and the decision of the Buidling Inspector is upheld. VARIANCE DENIED DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR UPHELD /games M. Fleming, Esq. ✓Member, Board of Appeal A COP`_- _ -:=:IS 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 I-MvS, CHAPTER 608, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION Ifv THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PUPSA%T TO WASS. GENERAL LAClS. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL ERT- T GF=."TED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TARE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECIS01;- BEARING THE C`_RT- FIC=.TIDN OF THE CITY CLERV.. THA? 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THA?. IF SUCH AN APPEAL H.AS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS3ISSED OR DENIED IS OF JRECORDIORTHE IS RECORDED ESSEX ANDRD ISTRY I�OiEO ONcTHEDEEDS O'NN ER'SI CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. NDEXED UNDER THE ,,IE OF THE Ok';t:ER BOARD. OF APPEAL r - R1� 2� 3 co Pr� '89 (ISitU of �ttfem, C4 a992jr4USetfs JAN Fy 3 ILE Paur l of Appral 'ITY 6LER.'(--', : 44:: DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM KATSAPETSIS REGARDING AN APPEAL OF._THE_BUILDING INSPECTORS DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR f03 HIGHLAND AVENUE-(R=1 ) A hearing on this petition was held January 11 , 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Vice Chairman; John Nutting, Secretary; Edward Luzinski and Associate Member LaBrecque. The hearing was held as a result of a Court remanded decision that the Board reconsider the petitioners application for a Variance. The petitioner is appealing a denial of the Building Inspector of the City of Salem for a single family residence, or in the alternative a Variance from lot size, density and setbacks to allow construction of a single family dwelling in this R-1 zone. That Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the 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 and 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 of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Substantial opposition was presented by neighbors, abutters and others. No one, other than the representative of the petitioner, spoke in favor; 2. The petitioner did not have a legal building permit to construct the dwelling; 3. The petitioner, despite fact two & direct warnings from the Building Inspector, allowed the dwelling to be placed illegally on the lot; 4. Evidence and facts presented in opposition indicated an extremely serious water runoff problem which would be further compounded by the development of the lot in question; 5. The lot in question was filled by the petitioner without legal permits. Said fill flowed over to abutting property causing further problems for the abutters; 6. Because of the illegal fill the abutter was caused harm to their property due to water runoff and damage which harm inlcuded, but not limited to a substantial amount of water filling their finished basement; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM KATSAPETSIS REGARDING AN APPEAL OF THE BUILDING INSPECTORS DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR 103 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM page two 7. The lot in question has remained vacant due to it being undersized and the serious water and drainage problems associated with it; 8. Any hardship claimed by the petitioner was self created; 9• Evidence presented to the Board that the lot was filled by the petitioner in an attempt to make the lot a suitable lot for the construction of a dwelling. Yet, there was evidence presented to the Board indicating that water, soil and debris was falling onto and collecting within the property of the abutters. 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 . The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted One ( 1 ) in favor, (Mr. Fleming) and four (4) in opposition, (Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski, Nutting and LaBrecque) to the granting of the requested Variance and to overrule the decision of the Building Inspector. By reason of the 1-4 vote, said Variance request is denied and the decision of the Building Inspector is upheld. ch�Bencal, Vice Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, T: ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF T'HE :!A-'S. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 508. AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILMG OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PAISANT TJ PASS. GENERAL LAWS. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL P'_^.'^IT R, .J-O HEREIN. SHALL NOT TAI(E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE OECISI:;N. BE -HE'l—;'T- I•;ATP,iN CF IHE CITY CLERK THAF 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEE'rl F ED. -R :HAI IF SJLH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DISNIISSED OR DENIED IS RcC.:'G EO iN THE SJJIH ESSEX RE^JSTR',' OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NWAE OF THE OCPIER OF RECORD OR IS R:GURDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL November 29, 1988 6 Greenway Road Salem$ Massachusetts 01970 Mr . James Fleming Chairman of the Board of Appeals One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Mr. Flemings My name is John M. bunt and I own the property at 6 Greenway Road in Salem where I reside with my family. I am writing in regard to the property located at 103 Highland 'Avenue owned by Thomas and William Katsapetsas. My property abuts this lot on two sides. Any decision made regarding its existence will drastically affect me and •my family. I therefore respectfully request that you allow 'me to make a few points that are of grave concern to us. Construction on this property began in the summer of 1985 - Mr . K. backfilled his land at this time about 20-25 feet. We believe he did this is direct violation of City Code Article VI Drainage Alteration Permits. Sec . 26-170 and 171 . The .city engineer has no application for a permit regarding this article on file . Mr. K. also backfilled our property about 3, 000 square feet--20 feet deep. We tried to no avail to get Mr. K. to remove this fill on his own but he refused to cooperate and legal action was necessary. Again, Mr. K. did not cooperate. ]: It took three hearings with Mr . Grant' at the Clerk of Courts Office before an attempt was made . Although Mr. K. was not complete with his efforts we did accept it out of frustration. Many years ago; to our understanding, homes in this area had a major problem with flooding. Much was done to correct this problem including a culvert installed in 1948. The problem with flooding had been arrested for. years. Since Mr. K raised the levelof his land in this wetland which is protected by the Wetlands Protection Act, we have suddenly had water in our basement. We have been advised by our lawyer to investigate this situationas he believed , as we now do, that the raising of the level of the land is the direct cause of our flooding. It is also the same opinion of other professional we called upon including contractors and City employees. We are very concerned about the future of that house for this reason as well as others:-...including the fact that the house was put on the land without any building permit.and�that the land does not meet the requirements for square footage . However, we feel the above issues are very serious and, need tb,;be carefully con- sidered. before any decision about that problem is made. Mr . K. has clearly disregarded every rule regarding the con- struction of his house and the filling of his property. We all have to live by rules. I have worked very hard to get what ismine and have done so by following the rules. I Bon't believe that a contractor from Peabody who has violated so many rules should have such a negative impact on me and my family. Mr . K. 's only concern is to finish his house and sell it. I, a lifelong resident of Salem, will be left to suffer the consequences.if this situation is allowed to exist., I ask that you carefully consider these conditions and understand that the issue of land size and building permit although very serious are not, by far, the only. issues. I would like to thank you for taking the time to read my concerns and ask that you share this information with the other board members. If you have any questions, thoughts or comments concerning this matter please do not hesitate to contact me or my wife. We would be. very interested in hearing from you. Sincerely, A '4- John M. Lunt Marlene A. Lunt cc William Munroe , City of Salem Building Inspector cc Stanley Poirier, President Greenway Road Homeowners Association (1�itn ofttlem, Ca99ttc4u9ett9 Potts of '�Fveal kprem�.o`N AGENDA January 11 , 1989 - 7:00 P.M. 2nd Floor - One Salem Green 1 . Petition of William Katsapetses regarding an appeal of the Building Inspectors denial of a building permit for 103 Highland Ave. (R-1 ) Said appeal was denied by the Board and subsequently remanded back by the Court. 2. Continued - Petiiton of John Keane requesting removal of eleven (11 ) conditions of a variance granted in 1983, said petition was denied by the Board and subsequently remanded back by the Courts relating to 382 Highland Ave. (B-2) 3. Continued - Petition of Stephen & Peggy Masella for Variances to allow property at 24 Barnes Circle to be divided into two lots (R-1 ) 4. Petition of Joyce Nelson & Michael Correale for Variance to allow installation of a kitchen on the second floor for separate living quarters at 401 Highland ave. (R-1 ) 5. Petition of Donald R. Burnham for Variances from setbacks, density, use and parking to allow property to be divided into two lots and to construct four unit building on one lot at 100-102 Boston St. (R-2/B-2) 6. Petition of Richard Bresnahan for Variances to allow an existing single family dwelling at 2 Cheval Ave. (R-1 ) 7. Petition of Nondas Lagonakis for a modification nd an extension of the date of previously granted Variances at 1 1-211 Washington/ 29 New Derby Sts. (B-5) 60 l,Mk 0 4 U-1 , DEC 6 04 November 29, 1988 Al RECEIVED 6 Greenway Road ,CITY Of SALEM,MASS. Salem, Massachusetts 01970 �P Mr . James. Fleming Chairman of the Board of Appeals One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Mr. Fleming: My name is John M. Lunt and I own the property at 6 Greenway Road in Salem where I reside with my family. I am writing in regard to the property located at 103 Highland 'Avenue owned by Thomas and William Katsapetsas. My property abuts this lot on two sides. Any decision made regarding its existance will drastically affect me and my family. I therefore respectfully request that you allow me to make a few points that are of grave concern to us. Construction on this property began in the summer of 1985 • Mr. K. backfilled his and at this time about 20-25 feet. We believe he did this is direct violation of City Code Article VI Drainage Alteration Permits. Sec. 26-170 and 171 . The city engineer has no application for a permit regarding this article on file. Mr. K. also backfilled our property about 3, 000 square feet--20 feet deep. We tried to no avail to get Mr. K. to remove this fill on his own but he refused to cooperate and legal action was necessary. Again, Mr . K. did not cooperate , T `It took three hearings with Mr . Grant at the Clerk of Courts Office before an attempt was made . Although Mr. K. was not complete with his efforts we did accept it out of frustration. Many years ago, to our understanding, homes in this area had a major problem with flooding. Much was done to correct this problem including a culvert installed in 1948. The problem with flooding had been arrested for years. Since Mr. K raised the levelof his land in this wetland which is protected by the Wetlands Protection Act, we have suddenly had water in our basement. . We have been advised by our lawyer to investigate this situationas he believed , as we now do, that the raising of the level of the land is the direct cause of our flooding. It is also the same opinion of other professional we called upon including contractors and City employees. f We are very concerned about the future of that house for this reason as well as others . including the fact that the house was put on the land without any building permit ,and _that. the land does not meet the requirements for square footage . However, we feel the above issues are very serious and need tb .be carefully con- sidered before any decision about that problem is made . Mr. K. has clearly disregarded every rule regarding the con- struction of his house and the filling of his property. We all have to live by rules. I have worked very hard to get what is: mine and have done so by following the rules. I don' t believe that a contractor from Peabody who has violated so many rules should have such a negative impact on me and my family. Mr . K. ' s only concern is to finish his house and sell it. I, a lifelong resident of Salem, will be left to suffer the consequences - if this situation is allowed to exist. I ask that you carefully consider these conditions and understand _ that the issue of land size and building permit although very serious are not, by far, the only issues. I would like to thank you for taking the time to read my concerns and ask that you share this information with the other board members. If you have any questions, thoughts or comments concerning this matter please do not hesitate to contact .me or my wife . We would be very interested in hearing from you. Sincerely, John M. Lunt ` f A" Marlene A. Lunt cc William Munroe , City of Salem Building Inspector cc Stanley Poirier, President Greenway Road Homeowners Association ,cowo� P1 5 01"I NOV CITY OF SALEM HEALTH DEPARTMENT 1 j I r T7 BOARD OF HEALTH `'''`lr + CITY -- Salem, Massachusetts 01970 ROBERT E. BLENKHORN 9 NORTH STREET HEALTH AGENT (617) 741-1800 November 5, 1987 William Katsapetsos 75 Walnut Street RE: 103 Highland Ave Peabody, Ma. 01960 Dear Sir; This letter confirms that a hearing held on November 4, 1987 in Salem District Court, Court Magistrate Robert Grant dismissed the matter of illegal dumping at Greenway Road in Salem, which was initiated by the Salem Health Department. Any further action in this matter will be within the jurisdiction of the Engin— eering Department for the City of Salem, and Building Inspectors office. FOR THE BOARD OF HEALTH �RC�ERT E. BLENKHORN, C.H.O. HEALTH AGENT REB/j Certified Number P 734 235 768 cc; John & Marlene Lunt 6 Greenway Rd. Salem, Ma. 01970 William Monroe Building Inspector George Whittie Director of Municipal Services COPY FOR COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPERIOR COURT ESSEX, ss CIVIL ACTION No. 87-861 i I IWILLIAM N. KATSAPETSES and ) THOMAS N. KATSAPETSES, Plaintiffs K V3 . v m 00 4 WILLIAEi H. MUNFOE, I*]DIVIDUALLY ) m< u+ Q AND AS HE IS THE SALEM BUILDING ) =o INSPECTOR CITY OF SALEM, CITY OF ) n x ( SALEM, JAMES B. HACKER, JAMES FLEMING, ) N m PETER STROUT, PETER DORE, RICHARD ) m !IBENCAL, as they are Members of the Salem Board of Appeals nefendants ) f I ) i ORDER n i This matter came on to be heard upon Plaintiff ' s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Count IV Of the Plaintiffs ' com- ',plaint, as amended. After hearing, the motion for Partial Summary Judgment is allowed for the reason that the Board' s finding of fact' No. 5 is based on an error of law. It is therefore ordered : that the decision of the Salem Board of Appeal filed with the City Clerk on April 13 , 1987 , denving the Plaintiffs ' application for i; " variance, be and hereby is annulled and the proceedings are re- manded to the Salem Board of Appeal for reconsideraticr. of the 'iPlaintiffs ' application for variance. Dated:, I•I' I�� Via= S . Ke ey Justice of the Superior Court In Ln COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS I j Department Of The Trial Court Essex, ss. Superior Court No. 87-8b1 'i it William N . Katsapetses, at al VS. I William H. Munroe, Individually and as Salem Building Inspector, at als it i PARTIAL SUMMAHY JUDGMENT MASS., H. CIV. P. 5b ) This action came to be heard before the Court, Kelley, J. I'Ipresiding, upon the motion of the plaintiffbh motion for partial summary judgment on Count N pursuant to Mass. H. Civ. P, Sor � the parties having been heard, the Court finds that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that the plaintiff's 11 william N. ratsapetses and Thomas N . Katsapetses are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. It is ordered tnat ; the decision of the Salem Board of Appeal filed with me city Ciera on April lj, 1987, denying the Plaintiffs' application for variance, be and hereby is annulled and the proceedings are remanded to the Salem Board of Appeal for reconsideration of the plaintiffs' application Xor variance. 1988. Date ; November 3, ` AssigLaI1L C1erK- � 'nh �l - ,f�pco�niy��' ofttlem, lr't�`u-#e##s Poxrb of exl RECEIb'ED CITY OF SALE"''ASS. February 13, 1987 William H. Munroe Inspector of Buildings City of Salem RE: 103 Highland Ave. Dear Bill: As you no doubt are aware, the Board of Appeal is having a public hearing February 18, 1987. Number one on the agenda that evening will be the petition of William & Thomas Katsapetsas requesting either an appeal of the Building Inspectors denial of a building permit or a variance to allow a single family dwelling at 103 Highland Ave. The Board would appreciate any comments, advise or guidance you are able to give. Sincerely, James B. Hacker Chairman WHM:bms �o tJlf D1 "3ale tt tB of rig of '�Fpcal f. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WII,LIAI' 8 THOMAS KATSAPETSAS FOR AN APPEAL OF THE BUILDING INSPECTORS DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT OR FOR A. VARIANCE FOR 103 HIGHLAND AVE . ( R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held February 18, 1987 and continued to March 1E, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, Strout and Associate Member Dore . 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, represented by Attorney Emmanuel Papanick.olas, are appealing a deoia of the Building Inspector of the City of Salem for a single family residence at 103 Highland Avenue, or in th ealternative a Variance from lot size, density and setbacks to allow the construction of a single family dwelling the that locatic-:, The property is located in an R-1 zone. The Variance vihich has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building or structure inV-olved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district; b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would ir.'•. 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 of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal , after careful consideration c` the evidence presented at t. hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the fe'lowing findings of fact: 1 . There was substantial neighborhood oppc: . . __•n to the petition, including Ward Three Councillor Vincent ":aro; 2. There was evidence presented that there is a serious water runoff problem which would be compounded by development of the lot in ouestic _ 3 . The Building Permit #375, City of Salem, dated June 3, 1986, and issue to a previous owner of the lot in question was not legally transferred to the petitioners. Furthermore, said permit was issued for construe :of a building utilizing different plans than those submitted by petit: 4 . The petitioners have substantially completed wok on the building wit: r a building permit and in disregard of a Stop-Work order dated Septecx_ 23, 1985; 5 . The Board further f.nds t-at ' Ile lOt. ee' een . r tip;: r . or so.�a^e s � _. _ DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM e, THOMAS KATSAPETSA.S FOR AN APPEAL OF THE BUILDING INSPECTORS DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT OR FOR A VARIANCE FOR 103 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SALEM page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the he ,ring, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . Special conditions do not exist which espcctially affect the subject property and not the district generally; 2 . Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; 3 . The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. 4 . The lot in question does not meet the minimum requirements to be treated under the provisions of 1.9assachusetts General—Law Chapter WA. Section 6 The Board , , therefore, upholds the Buildings Inspector' s denial of a building permit to the petitioners. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted two (2) in favor (Messrs. , Fleming and Strout) ; and two (2) opposed (Messrs. , Hacker and Dore) ; to the granting of the requested Variance and to overrule the decision of the Building Inspector. By the vote of 2-2 the Variance is denied and the decision of the Buidling Inspector is upheld. VARIANCE DENIED' DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR UPHELD Fames M. Fleming, Esq. Member, Board of .Appeal Y , A COP': -::IS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLEF% APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE WSS? GENERAL LA71S. CHARIER EOC; AuD SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS OECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. THE V:.^-.�AiJCE OR SPECIAL F:A!!IT PJCW I TO LASS. GENERA', LIV;S. CHAPTER 808. SECTIPiJ 11, G C'h TED HEREIN. SHALL NOT TR�:E EFFECT UN1IL A COPY OF THE GECiSi:It, BEA"d; THE C:RT. FIC-.i IOR OF THE CITY CLERK TIIAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND RO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED. OR T'H.AT. IF SCCii AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DISi:ISSED OR DEIJ!ED IS F_::GRCED IN THE S^MH CSSEE F.Eif'!SiRY 0.` DEEDS AND INDEXED UfiDER THE N 'lE OF THE MMER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON Ili' O'"ER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPCId MICHAEL E. O'BRIEN LEONARD F. FEMINO CITY SOLICITOR ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR 93 WASHINGTON STREET '`0��°M1°0� 93 WASHINGTON STREET and and 81 WASHINGTON STREET CITY OF SALEM ONE BROADWAY SALEM, MA 01970 MASSACHUSETTS BEVERLY, MA 01915 745.4311 745.4311 744.3383 921.1990 Please Reply to 81 Washington Street Please Reply to One Broadway September 4 , 1986 C Emmanuel N. Papanickolas, Esq. 16 Chestnut Street Peabody, Massachusetts 01960 Re : 103 Highland Avenue (William Katsapetses ) Dear Mr. Papanickolas : This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of September 3 , 1986 relative to a building permit at the above location. I have discussed the matter with Mr. Munroe and he will not issue such a permit because the lot in question does not have suffic- ient area to be buildable. Specifically, the lot does not con- form to Section IV, Table 1 (Residential Density Regulations - Minimum Lot Area ) of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance in that it contains only 4 , 974 square feet of land. Additionally, it is Mr. Munroe ' s position that the lot does not fall within the ex- ception afforded by GLc40A s6 and Section VIII , Subsection B of the City of Salem. Zoning Ordinance because of the absence of a minimum of 5 , 000 square feet of land. Accordingly, I am enclosing the documents you left with me along with the application fee. ery truly you i ichael E. O' Brien City Solicitor MEO/jp = 3nclosures -. cc: William H. Munroe — co c� �vf 3u1�nt tz�sttc�lizse#ts Pnur6 of �Appuil DECISION ON THE, PETITION OF WILLIAM 8 'THOMAS KATSAPETSAS FOR AN APPEAL. OF THE BUILDING INSPECTORS DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT OR FOR A VARIANCE FOR 103 HIGHLAND AVE . ( R- 1 ) A hearing on this puLilion was held February 18 , 19f17 and continued to March lei . 1 ()!i7 with Lbo lol lowing Board Members present: Jame, Hacker, Chairman; Messrs . , I'.leming" :,;trout and A:aoci-ale Member Dore . Notice of LK he!;!ring was sent to abutters and other; hud notices of the hearing were: properly published in L'n!: 7alc:m Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter QUA . Peti.t.i.oner:;, represented by Attorney Emmanuel. Papani.ckolas, are appealing a don of the Building Inspector or the City or Salem for a single family residence at. 103 Highland Avenue, or in th ealternati.ve a Variance from lot size, density an setbacks to allow the construction of a single family dwelling the that Iocatio ']'De property is located in an R-1 zone. The Variance 4hich has been requested may be granted upon a Finding of the Boar 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 and structures in the same district; In. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in 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 tt. intent of the district of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal. , after careful consideration c- the evidence presented at hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the fo:lo'ving findings of fact: 1 . There was substantial neighborhood oppo: to the petition , including Ward Three Councillor Vincent ` . faro; 2. There was evidence presented that there is a serious water runoff problem which would be compounded by development of the lot in ouestir ti 3 . The Building Permit 4375, City of Salem, dated .lune 3, 1986, and issuf to a previous owner of the lot in question was not legally transferre to the petitioners. Furthermore, said permit was issued for construe of a building utilizing different plans than those submitted by petit If . The petitioners have substantially completed work on the bui, ding wit` a P building armit and in disregard o; a Stop-Work order, dated Seple7" _'3 , 1985; y ; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM & THOMAS KATSAPETSAS FOfi AN APPEAL. OF THE BUILDING INSPECTORS DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT OR F013 A VARIANCE FOR 103 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SALEM page two On the ha;is of the ❑hove findings of fact , and on the evidence presented at the he.lri_ng, the Board of Appeal concluder; as follows: 1 . Special conditions do not exist which e:specLially affect the subject property and nut the district R',enerally ; Literal erlfurcement, oftalc pr,ov,i ::,ions of the %oni.ng Ordinance would not, involve subst.unl.inl hnrdsh.ip Lo tAw petitioner; i. The relilf requesi.ed uuuult he granted wiThOLlt, substantial deLriinenf. to the public good or' wil.hout r1u1] il'ying Or subsl,ant,i.ally derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. 4 . T'he lot in quc:;tiun does not meet, the mi.nimum requirements Lo he LreaLe under the provisions of Inas:,;achuseLts General Law Chapter 40A . Section The Board , therefore, uphold;'. the Buildings Inspector' s denial of a building permit to the petitioners. Theref'orr_, t.he Zoning Board of Appeal voted two ( 2) in favor (Messrs. , Fleming and Strout) ; and two ("l_) opposed (Messrs. , Hacker and Dore) ; to the granting of the requested Variance and to overrule the decision of the Building Inspector. By the vote of 2-2 the Variance is denied and the decision OF the Buidling Inspector is upheld. VARIANCE DENIED DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR UPHELD j 64"/ �ames 11. Fleming, Esq . Member, Board of .Appeal A COP: _ 'IS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLE: APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF AiY. SHALL BE MACE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE F1ASSr� GENERU LAWS. C1i Al'TER EDS, AII'J SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF 1HIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. P'JRSl;Sf TO L:/3S, GEIJER4! L!:"1S, CHAPTER 208. SEC11ON ]l. TIIE W.RWICE OR SPECIAI. PE7!!IT LI:=.'(TED HEREIN. SHALL NO1 TA�.E EFFECT UN111- A CDPY OF THE DEC'.IS13I;, GEA:l:IP, THE C_RT- FICF.YI^.N OF THE CITY CLERK TIIAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FIEED. Dil "j H:,l, IF SCli AN APPEP.I HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS.v ISSED OR DG!!ED IS PE:;O°SED IN )HESO1rIh ESSEX EE;l ISi RY DF DCEGS AND INDEXED LI;iOFR THE I11!'E OF THE OWNER • OF RECORD OR IS RELCADEU A;lD NOSED ON THE OWNER'S CERHFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL Titu of '-'�3afpm, �'�11a55car4uuffs 21AR P.oarb of a real REVISED AGENDA AGENDA February 26, 1986 - 7:00 P.M. 2nd Floor - One Salem Green 1 . Continued - Petition of Michael Stasinos for Variances to allow construction. of residential units at 394 Highland Ave. (R-1/R-C/SPD) 2. Continued - Petition of Robert Ouellette for a Special Permit to reconstruct 1 / a two story building and to add a third story within the same footprint at `/ `✓/ 3 White St. (B-1 ) 3. Continued - Petition of Sally Flint for a Variance to allow premises at . 7 Winter St. to be used as a lodging house/inn. (R-2) Petition of Mark Liptak for modification of a Special Permit granted 9/10/80 allowing premises at 9-11 Ocean Terrace to be used as a three family. (R-1 ) ()5. Petition of William & Thomas Katsapetsas for a Variance from density, lot 'X size and setbacks to allow a single family dwelling at 103 Highland Ave. (R-1 ) Petition of Mary Lou Sorgini for a Special Permit to allow premises at O• 15 Hancock St. to be used as a three family. (R-2) 7. Petition of Charles & Alexander Hincman for an extension of a Special Permit granted 8/22/84 to allow the premises at 459 Highland Ave. to be used for \\ the display, sale, installation & service of miscellaneous truck equipment / and accessories and to conduct a welding and light to medium fabricating shop. (B-2) 8 Petition of John Spinale for Variance from density, height, lot size, //••�� ry lot coverage and any and all applicable setbacks in order to complete "l construction of building at 34� Bridge St. (B-2) Yv J 9. Petition .of Robert A. Cohn for a Variance from any and all density and setbacks in order to construct a two car garage with an apartment above at 60 Proctor St. (R-3) 10. Continued - Petition of Michael & Josephing Fusco for Variances to allow D (� division of property located at 410, 412 Loring Ave. &-3 Riverview St. (R-1 ) ��-itu of z G. I�t1IT� rLlilJ5li1T15.t1Si �;.� y;;� ;. _ �Juftlit �raprrt>1 �cpnrtruent \ �iuilDitt$ epntrtPttt William H. aunrce One Saler. Green 745-0213 September 15, 1935 'zamuel racalardo St. alem, !.A 01970 RE: Revocation of Permit 103 Highland Ave. Gear Mr. Papalardo: Please be advised that, as permitted under Section 114 .7 of the f:assachusetts State Building Code, I have revoked your Building Permit , ' issued aiune`,39"' 1985 for the following reason: The site plan submitted with your permit application iY wa ems. It is my under- standing that a portion of an existing swimming pool presently enc^^aches on the property and would constitute a g«vicseaaiaN. Massachusetts State Building Code) Be further advised that should this matter be resolved and the proparty sold that a rpz0nalAk application must be made by the new owner of the building as required under-4fik# 1£ of the t^.assachusetts Sate Buildins C::ie. If 1 can offer any advice or be of service in this matter, please -n, 3 Sincerely, William H. Munroe inspector of Buildings Zoning Fnforcer:ent Officer cc: City lerk i _ouncillor Lovely , Ward i?I i N U N WE, SAMUEL L. PAPALARDO and MARY P . PAPALARDO, husband wife , as a' tenants by the entirety, both of 16 Calabreses Street, v a ; ro (1( Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts N i in consideration of Seven Thousand ($7 , 000 . 00) - dollars x 0 2 so M CD 5H o C) iro grant to THOMAS N. KATSAPETSES and WILLIAM N. KATSAPETSES ro 111 o of Peabody, Essex County , Massachusetts A with quildnim ratrenants vro Ili the land in said Salem being lot numbered one (1) on plan of "Land of ro N a. The Almy Trust , Lot No. 1 - Ocean View Park, Salem, Mass . , " made by rn 4J v Thomas A. Appleton, C.E . dated May 1930 and recorded with deed from v ro (U Emma S . Almy , et als to Mary Rooney dated- May 31 , 1930 and recorded [ w a) with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds in Book 2846 , ai m y Page 532 . > as to +� Said lot hereby conveyed is bounded and described as follows : C 2 C ro rd d Y g NORTHERLY b Highland Avenue Sixty Y (60) feet; @ :3� EASTERLY by Greenway Avenue, one hundred one and twenty-eight E hundredths (101. 28) feet; r•1 o .. N SOUTHERLY by lot numbered three (3) on said plan, forty-two and Q) twelve hundredths (42 .12) feet; and v WESTERLY by lot numbered two (2) , on said plan, ninety-nine and o ninety-seven hundredths (99 . 97) feet. . 0 Said premises are conveyed subject to restrictions so far as they are now in force mentioned in said deed from Emma S . Almy , et als . For my title see deed of Marie Connolly Executrix under the Will of Grace F. Rooney , dated May 13 , 1985 , and recorded at the Essex South District Registry of Deeds , Book 7752 , Page 337 . Executed as a sealed instrument this 19th day of JULY 19 85. APPLICATION Ej ADULT NUMBER Trial Court of Massachusetts �L.-. POR COMPLAINT D JUVENILE District Court Department \' ❑ ARREST AJ HEARING LJ SUMMONS (_� WARRANT I COURT DIVISION The within named complainant requests that a complaint issue against the within Salem District Court named defendant. charging said defendant with the offense(s) listed below. RyTF,��k.ePLICATION DATE OF OFFENSE PLACE OF PFFENSE 65 Washington Street I 11 LL// 225577 continuing 103 Highland Ave., Salem, MA Salem, MA 01970 l_ I NPME,AO013E55 AND ZIP CODE OF COMPLAINANT r-William H. Munroe, Insp. of Bldgs. —I NO. OFFENSE G.L. Ch. and Sec. One Salem Green __.__. ____ __ ._ Salem, MA 01970 failure to obtain a 780 CMR _-_-- __ building permit for a new Sec. 113.1 . 8welling State -- -- -- — --- ----------- — - — 2erecting a new dwelling Chapter' . NAME,ADDRESS AND ZIP CODE OF DEFENDANT on an undersized lot. 40A Sec, 6 William N. Katsapetses -- --- .__. . ___._ - __... . ._ 75 Walnut Street 3. I Peabody, MA 01960 4. COURT USE A hearing upon this complaint application DATEOF HEARING TIME OF HEARING COURT USE ONLY III I will be held at the above court address on AT t—ONLY CASE PARTICULARS — BE SPECIFIC NAME OF VICTIM DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY VALUE OF PROPERTY TYPE OF CONTROLLED NO. Owner of property, Goods stolen,what Over or under SUBSTANCE OR WEAPON person assaulted,etcdestroyed,etc. $100. Marijuana,gun.etc. 7-- 2 I � 4 OTHER REMARKS: Despite certified notice from this.department, Defendant has continue construction of a single family dwelling on an undersized lot at 103 Highland Ave. Salem, MA without first obtaining the necessary 1uilding permit. SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT DEFENDANT IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION — Comolete data below if known. D4 EOFE'RTH PLACE OF BIRTH SOCIAL SECURITY NUM3ER SEX RACE HEIGHT WEIGHT EYES HAIR CCCUPATION E M PLOY ERISCHOOL MOTHER'S NAMEIMAIDENI FATHER'S NAME COURT USE ONLY 4 DATE DISPOSITION AUTHORIZED BY NO PROCESS TO ISSUE At request of complainant Complainant failed to prosecute Insufficient evidence having been presented } 0. PROCESS TO ISSUE TYPE OF PROCESS C Sufficient evidence presented ❑ Warrant Defendant failed to appear ❑ Summons returnable i Continued to O U COMMENTS 3 i APPLICANT COPY p _ z THIS PERMIT NOT VALID UNLESS BUILDING 04 PROPERLY RECEIPTED BY CASHIER CITY OF SALEM SALEM, MASSACHUSM- S 01970 PERMIT t VALIDATION Ta�`om[ June 3„ 19 B5 PERMIT NO.I #375 DATE (� ..rG�CE Salem[Ma " . SPay.eI F3Palardo ADDRESS ICO%TR'! OCENSEI APPLICANT 1x0.1 If TRE[TI NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS�— PERMIT ro _rect sin-le family dwg lli¢EaToRT RRoros[O ua[I IiTEE OE IMIIIOV[M[xil xo• ZONING ,I _ DISTRICT i AT RounoNl 103 Fti ,bland Avenue IsrR[[Tl xo.l AND ICROSt STREET) BETWEEN ICROfY STRE[tl LOT LOT BLOCK S1ZE - SUBDIVISION 'i.�.. :�;... �..:„I -. .� .. 1 FG IN NE LGNT ANO SMALL CONFORM Iq CONSTRUCTION FT, WIDE By FT. LONG BV.� BUILDING IS TO BE I>' —�� — BASEMENT WALLS OR FOUNDATION USE GROUP ITR[; TO 7TPE REMARKSV�fAauY: ♦ "CETT FOR P..RI�SIT TO OCCQPYT' FEEMIT �'.: 155.00 E[�. 155800 :. AREA OR — — ESTIMATED COST $P VOLUME ICURIC/[O VAREEEETI Samuel PStre8tdo Streot OWNER 1 Cross Salem, LOORES5 T/('Z S sa :SA z EM MASS so 3o zaa.0 s -- 145� Yl� Scale ll./ 46fr lni� ✓.� aJ ( 1 1 an O77 717 -L 00- 4A 0* 0e /j g C -'ieJ INN c 2 _ 00.0 P` 70 o \\ r \lip1g ,yob ao 50 \�ry3 k M04—Ll J c (L Jo ee /6 a \ ��a / S + Q\.. \foQOg\ \ �o 5 \\Ooe 10 0 1 � p• R O \fo 06 n g A e WA _ Pp£M \ rj \010pP /oo`r �q }'J \b 6ahO h � O \ e r- J \ .945, /95 3 J5s \\ \4 6 co ap0ro \100 \\ /98 �soo?02 o JO. ) y��\y sy6y J > ,2. `I 8 — �o 00\\ .100/ / / tK lrjr / _130.3 b \O 92 / o V �J34, OO ' O �Oy — 11(i. � a - / ro O . 7,060 cl 0 J Z O a 1, � e / 6 _ io \ �� = 307 'r44 °'s . O� - ti^y0 D //565 + . '�`\ a>. 0 190 �h 203 - 6075 + 212 Z, 12 AC. \/655 191 \ 0 6C�5 0 4) r 'you• en Y Q O Q W • m� Go - 49 40 .00 ESSEX REJISTRY OT UZOSr50.DIST.5MzxfH1z5, �� Hecelved�`.�_19DA. �fth��,aJ�fyy�yr� i Rec .B,��P._d.3.y )riled �r'H`o,_1q�183y�, Atteett � r�„ R.Ir;ete- � 0 � � LANb oF•THE .4LMYTF2UST r No. I.-Ocr= A" ViEw PARK_ �f S A L_ E M, M A55. , ..a � A. ' -.vi.s t^'r qs" ''iMF' �.. ,,,! , _:.�3,Tp t.l.. �>{•A ilYr S ttif''' 'yt� � ..y 4�4� I.��.'�. �• ,"�• Xy�f�,_ ,.� � ,�) ' Date_ k ( Article Sectio� f the Zoning Ordinance WHEREAS, violations of{ Article ' J� , Section UJA :, of the Building Code have been found on l Article_ Section of the Code these premises, IT IS HEREBY_ORDERED in accordance with the above Code that all persons tease, desist i from and ��pp�u P , ,t r V. the 'o.r" tUie at once pertaining to construction, alter do r repairs on these prem�se5 ' � rat Y y w' /�!/ 11 VM t `� known as�' All persons acting contrary to this order or removing or mutilating this otice a iable°to arrest unless such action is authorized by the Department i 'y i SUI DI FI GA! ITSS = 54 � ,d h �o12O - -2 1. 31 - 2 5� � � +' • �SS � � uz� CoZ GngIncctin9 Fi suu•ey N - I�11" I 11 %17NAM STREET •"Cn -. . . L - �-lr _ .. ^� L� �},-.:♦•E, : Q-IE- PEABODY, MA 01V,'' I WILLIAM L CLARKE, P.E., R.LS. C F I C REGiS1ERED SINGE 1959 v � F HOME. 531-0534 •p �7, � 0 _/ 1 � 0 1 ; 0 7 s� .o `v I\ ; nrdo 01970 YOUR SPECIAL ATTENTION Is c,dlwl to Uni Ldluwhag: This permit is granted on the express condition that the said construction sIudll, to ill re Spec ts.4mill B' CC i,713}tS@itlPn', ,e of this urisdiction including Ihei;Zsdil4gRiAH' e, regulating the construction anduseof bulNdmhs, and may Witeikk6kiit any time upora*010toct of any provisions of said ordinances. l\erdhcq+rouf Alia, nI ,va:n at Liu time permit is issutd must be disployud „n {,remises. ne department must N- notified ;and uispoa-tion i rule of prior c.nrstru,tion murk m' rrrluontr•d on %,jithur cavd. All new b , uildin s avid nLli ti,in. .ural .dtrr:vions b, r\i.sting buildings ft - n minimum of Uireo call insp,ot ions, mm�ely, qmi; t� driJn lily tee=toms, fMIfI7�iCk0Ua fit l�,rgpIQJ4Gwalln, llficn ll'nlls are at I,•nvt two ft-(-t high, b'M tW9glhidt tf.r unit and I,e•form pmmrrlin¢ with the sul,ernw alums. (2) Frrvning prior to Inching w,d l l,wtering, duct work, fare sbggiiug amd -0,r , juipinent before it is oom viJrd. (1) Find inspe•r tun when huilding or slruc;Lurt• is conn• pbdcd. I (),a jobs--, in,okmi r•udnroed concrete wwk, instperliun must be made after steel is in ploce avid before concrol.c is poured. '. Thr U•pevl m.-i,t reserves the right to reject ;my ve>rk which hits linen runceiJed or aimplet.ad without first hnving la -n rn:1 i ,-u,l and approc,d bN tI he. Ckpivtm,•nt in maordnnra• with the requirements of the vivious dodos. An,, dr,iul ism from ahi ;yipro%ed plans must he :wthoriz,d b1the uppmvd of revisal plwrs sohlect to the. stvne J' procedure esbJdi.,hc.l fav da• cxa mination of Iho originid plans. An additional permit fee is nlso chewed pots icnt,.d on the extent of the v.viidiun from the original plans Permits are no, \':dial if construction work is not swted within six months from date peanut is issued. Rexpn!st for Fined Inspection should be mrd\' by pustowd or phone call to ibis department when the constnichon awrk is rnmpleb•d and heating sppwnnrs hetes hien instilled. Pwnting or decxintnng is not r•quired ),,alis- I4..-1'i u,J It...tiling Insprcbun. Final In::f».rtion anal certilicnte of occupmev must be ohtwned before co, upying building. 7•� .: J�t�(..5.�.. r •. .�,. `a4 .•^+I��t, ,:ii: t t �.y�• �r((•• �T�LH� 2" � . • '' �T � 1t?�4 7^ ' X717 �7 ..i A^ 1, Y,\N:i. .•.'NNn1.L1, I'... ,I . � . MI It 1� Glee* Y. Llnol •.mt)' I'nd•av, ...,, v Y 'i ^f Salem. w .L,.a..1,.0,•.•,� 1.ul,.•e d tg1YAfEiiu+� 1iNC+ 4 ,w+ln:-:roe. ustt.l.Ak , sed M O iB,n rln ._i ,lad arid rite, .t. as tsnanta by the entirety, birth of It, (al +w rev:. Strout, Salron, V . = bsea County, Maaaerhueett■ evU pNr"If reserves"'it, i.-A.n a'.W S.ron'. (I) or, plea of 'Land of The Allay Tru.t, Lot N•,. I •M.•un Vl.v Pnrk, %,lee, �] p masa.," node by Thema A. Applet,m, ,'J'. d.ov i !riy I',10 and rernrded g7 with deed !rola !Sema S. Almy, rt n1N 1,r M.,,, y -I vv,•vl May 11, 1410 o and [•carded with the taxaa S„uth Drntl ','Iri.-.I+' ,ry -it Uvod,, to INtok •p 7646, Pago 112. •II r Said lot hereby conveyv,l la MTundo•l amt dr•:.-r i L,d .14 fol lover: n of N01eT8EELY by Highland Avenue, elxty 1,•n, t,•rt : 'K SASTEIG,Y by Greenery Avnnne, one Iue+dv.,d nn, and twenty-eight hundradtha 1101.:61 reel ; Sp(1.1'EEItLY by lot muabered thrco 1 4 •+n :wn'I Ilan, forty-two and - twelve hundredtht, (42.121 I,•,'I ao.i rr NEST'StLY by lot nuebcred two (2) , :'n u.rid pt in. ninety-nine and Y•' ninety-seven hundredthN (9e.9f) fe,'t. - '. � said pralaises are convoyed ntbjset to rear rlet ion" nn tar art they au -� now in tome skentionad in said dead from kaulaa S. Aley, at els- For q title one Estate of Grace P. 64+ nny, Ecnrn County Probate Court it t .1 v W ,l.'i Eeavr.d raeLkd„•,waret kW. 17th 7t it., _ May ly 85 w - � — Aifr ir�'onnolly, �rziutrl x-- Mario clan nJ]Ip, ln{I}'vidually all, dawsavedW of Sl..rrYeart" y. y, M..)' 11, Iy BS '•1 Ta„pwneeJlr wP.+•.d rb wSv..aaa+d Marie Connolly, as afnreeaid ..d eiwlMawd rh.Iwee"N'n„n m.m w N, her �� '•.fbp' ,T. 1..�pYeft l/s1�~ M✓•„A61., 1' i -• �• • �lv.J :r vL VVV C: I! t;E , S7• •1UEL L. PAPALARDO and NARY P. PAPALARDO, husband vrife , as tenants by the entirety , both of 16 Calabreses Street, J I m of Salem, Essex CouniN Massachuscus = incon>idcmtion of Seven Thousand ($7 000 . 00) -----------------dollars a it r I o i I r c CD EranI to THO!,;AS h. }A,TSP?ETSES andL 7 , - - £ rv � l Peabody, Essex County , Massachusetts `' r !I the land in said Salem beinglot numbered one ( 1 ) on pian of "Land c' n c P_ ! The Almy Trust, Lot No. - Ocean Vie',., Par:: , Sale:-:, ''ass . , " ...ade o Thomas A. Appleton , C.E. dated Mav 10, 30 and recorded _ _ c_e:i Erma S . rimy , et als to Mary Rooney dated :lay 31 , 1930 and recorcec 7 wC) with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds in Boca: 2646 , c u i. Q r.. _ ii Paye 532 . rLo 7 = j Said lot hereby conveyed is bounded and described as follows : ri c c 'I L'. NORTHERLY by Highland Avenue , Sixty (60) feet ; t7) c ! EASTERLY by Greenway Avenue , one hundred one and tr:er.tyel cht a " hundredths (101 . 28) feet ; — o .. I SOUTHERLY by lot numbered three (3) on said pi-an , forty-two and c !i twelve hundredths (42 . 12) feet; and J W C r, WESTERLY by lot numbered two (2) , on said plan, rrnety-nine a. ^.d p I ninety-seven hundredths (99 . 97) feet. -, Said premises are conveyed subject to restrictions so far as they are now in force mentioned in said deed from Emma S . A-rmv , et ;;) r; . For my title see deed of Marie Connolly Executrix under the 4;i11 I of Grace F . Rooney, dated May 13 , 1985 , and recorded at the Esse: South District Registry of Deeds , Book 7752 , Pace 337 . • .:) ,.. io?�' "l ✓ .r. .. ..}. vj. t�'ly j?.-.�11iu.:1_ La. Exec cd as a seal nstrument this 19th day of JULY 19 85 . Che CDnintnnfvzalfl) of :tssar4u5chs ESSEX, ss. July 19 ,19 85 Then personally appeared the above named SAMUEL L. PAPALARDO and MARY P. PAPALARDO and acl.nouledged the foregoing instrument to be their free act and decd. B(fore me. Maori Puhhr t,jy commission expires 4�� Ge v 19 9 ,' I !ii'.RIE CONNOLLY, Executrix under the 1'iill of ;i Grcce F. Rooney, Essex County Probate Court No. 361325,and in-,' Yic3LI.aljy aalem, c ; Essex Cor;r.ty, Masachuseus, for the full consideration of SIX THOUSAND ($6 , 000. 00) DOLLARS , pa; ] r' gmntto SAI,iUEL L. PAPT_LARDO and MP.RY P. PAPALA.RDO, huEband and wi`c , u as tenants by the entirety, Doth of 16 Calahrescs Street , Esse: County, A,assachusetts TF Cg's Pt ' LJ p-I 'C (L OSS � .�.. S > I v?t.h rttitrlaim iocrnants the land in said Salem being lot numbered one (1) on Ipian of "Land of The Almy Trust, Lot No. 1 — Ocean Vrew rark , Sale—,, glass. , " made by Thomas A. Appleton , C". E. dated May 1930 and recorded With deed from Erma S . Almy, et alsto Mary Rooney dated May 31 , 1930 ii and recorded with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds 'in Boo'.: i 2896 , Page 532. Said lot hereby conveyed is bounded and described as follows : c NORTHERLY by Highland Avenue, sixty (60) feet; EASTERLY by Greenway Avenue, one hundred one and twenty-eight v hundredths (101. 28) feet; SOUTHERLY by lot numbered three (3) on said plan, forty-two and Q twelve hundredths (92. 12) feet; and VESTERLY by lot numbered two (2) , on said plan, ninety-nine and ninety-seven hundredths (99. 97) feet. s i! Said premises are conveyed subject to restrictions so far as they are now in force mentioned ,in said deed from Erma S. Almy, et als • For my title see Estate of Grace F. Rooney, Essex County Probate Court No. 361325. ` I —` _• ._ r r Executed as a scaled instrument this 13th dayofMay 19 85 &�ieC 7zz(/ n/J y , executrix Marie Conno ly, Inidually lEt)r Comutanmraltt) of 4 n f{z:artta Essex, Ss. May 13 , h'' 85 Then personally appeared the above named Marie Connolly, as aforesaid and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be her free d �act and drr , C l.�-.(� � - B Ore 77'.e, Lai :ar1S fuG!i; �I 2/16 .'• s' commissian exp;:es to05 \ / o� o ' ' 2k "q �� 00 o Q 5 _ v 1 l� /_0 j `Q 11 0 \ Q 10 \ ,1 m / Coj 3 I PLAN OF LAND ZONE : P2" 1 LOCATED IN SALEM DEED MASSACHUSETTS eooK PAGE _ 6w'rt0 By PLAN PK'O5r) LOGS j IOM MAY 2 ,1985 SCALEj`1'—-9 j BRADFORD ENG1tiEERING CO. �_ .. , >' P.O. BOX 1244 i C t�•<--. Haverhill, Mass olesi I .A� ;C;Lj1"IOUKAS RLS 7529 TEL. 373 2386 EU'!rD c ♦x Via-�`..:�� ._M x 'x,.'41. _ xs�.w.en, a nt �u 3ya 1 tM '�r'..4''z.f" " ur, .._._r��..rs_..._ .... �.F....._.cL_.,_...�_..... ....... .. " . ED.u7b3() FAGC 366 L I WE, Sr1DSUEL L. PAPALARDO and MARY P. PAPALARDO, husband wife , as 0 j tenants by the entirety, both of 16 Calabreses Street, r, a of Salem, Essex County, Dlassachusctts n concidcrnion of Seven Thousand ($7, 000 . 00) -----------------dollars i I . 0 it E p " ^ grant to THOMAS N. KATSAPETSES and WILLIAM N. KATSAPETSES i F A of Peabody, Essex County, Massachusetts with t)uiftl:tint ruvrn:utfs �. the land in said Salem being lot numbered one (1 ) on plan of "Land of m Fj The Almy Trust, Lot No. 1 – Ocean View Park , Salem, N,ass . , " made by uy Thomas A. Appleton, C.E . dated May 1930 and recorded with deed from � o G I Emma S . Almy, et als to Mary Rooney dated May 31 , 1930 and recorded c Lr, o4 registry with the Essex South District re istr of Deeds in Book. 2646 , m . i Page 532 . I o +' � Said lut hereby conveyed is bounded and described as follows : r5 @ NORTHERLY by Highland Avenue Sixtyfeet ;r Vj EASTERLY by Greenway Avenue, one hundred one and twenty-eight — N M �I hundredths (101. 28) feet; nF w i SOUTHERLY by lot numbered three (3) on said plan, forty-two and e ! twelve hundredths (42 . 12) feet; and i a i WESTERLY bar lot numbered two (2) , on said plea, n'i::et, -:ine ar.c ninety-seven hundredths (99 . 97) feet. j ij Said prc–ises are cGnve}'ed sub-ect tG 7E=5t_'Ct1GL5 sO fa_ a5 are now in force mentioned in said deed from cc:a S . „;-_• or r.,y title see deed of D'arie Connolly Exec:::rix under the Grace P. ij of Gra ROOne}•, cant 13, 10(,�� , and re—corded at South District Registry Of Deeds, book 1752 , Pace 337 . ij • li :.�I ..�. .li,�,. �I J . �."�' W. ..(_ t) i.� 1... Ll'I' _ac l:./ i� I Escd as a sealfJ nstrumcnt this 19th day of ' JULY 19 85 . July 19119 85 ?;, and DLARY P. . . .. . .. _ _ _. E:cc. I .. \;r eommissien tapires �, �,C; �—.�"�'^'•"'?%-�X,'L.Y.X � u 19 I t toxw14 e� a 9�A J'�fOl1,M6�� CITY OF SALEM HEALTH DEPARTMENT BOARD OF HEALTH Salem, Massachusetts 01970 ROBERT E. BLENKNORN Jan11, 1989 9 NORTH STREET HEALTH AGENT �-Y (617) 741-1800 --- William Katsapetsos 79 walnut Street Peabody, IIa 01960 Dear Sir: In June 1987, a ccrplaint was received by this department that cuttings of trees, grass and weed from your property at 103 Highland Avenue in Salem were illegally placed on an abuttor's land. On October 14, 1987 hearing, Salem District Court Clerk Magistrate continued this matter to November 4 with the condition that you contact the Health Department an October 15 to arrange for an on site reinspection. At this.;reinspecticn, the Health Department representative noted that all cuttings had been removed, the area cleaned and all violations corrected, and on November 4, 1987, Clerk Hebert Grant dismissed this matter. In August of 1988, a cmiplaint was received that overgrowth of grass, weeds, etc. around the structure were creating a blind corner for both pedestrian and vehicular traffic. A reinspection of the area by this department noted that all overgraath had been cut and removed. At this writing, all Health Code Violations cited by the Salem Health Department have been corrected. Very truly yours, C1 c._ FOR = 3aARD OF HEALTH < a a m r �rn ry r-- m ROBERT' E. BIENKHOIN, C.H.O. m r Health Agent cz n — c� - cc: Building Inspector William H. Munroe * TO: BOARD OF APPEALS, SALEM, MA JANUARY 5, 1989 RE: 103 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SALEM, MA GENTLEMEN: ATTACHED IS A PETITION SIGNED BY THE RESIDENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SURROUNDING THE ABOVE PROPERTY. WE WOULD LIKE TO LET IT BE KNOWN THAT WE ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE ALLOWING OF THE VARIANCE FOR THIS PROPERTY SO AS TO KEEP THE HOUSE THAT WAS ILLEGALLY PUT UPON SAID PROPERTY. AS WE ARE SURE YOU KNOW FROM PAST EXPERIENCE, THIS LOT IS UNDERSIZED. THE PUTTING UP OF THIS HOUSE WAS DENIED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, LAND WAS FILLED OVER A STATE DRAIN AND WETLAND WAS FILLED WHICH HAS NOW CAUSED THE WATER TABLE TO RISE AND FLOOD THE NEIGHBORING HOME ON GREENWAY ROAD WHEN THERE IS HEAVY RAIN. THIS WAS NEVER A BUILDABLE LOT THOUGH OTHERS HAVE COME BEFORE YOUR BOARD AND WERE EITHER DENIED OR WERE ASKED TO WITHDRAW. CONSIDERING THE PROBLEM THIS HAS CAUSED FOR ITS ABUTTOR AND THE ILLEGALITY OF THE HOUSE IN THE FIRST PLACE, WE WOULD HOPE THE BOARD WILL NOT RULE IN FAVOR OF THIS PETITION FOR VARIANCE. CC: MAYOR ANTHONY SALVO COUNCILLOR VINCENT FURFARO COUNCILLOR NEIL HARRINGTON COUNCILLOR FRANCIS GRACE COUNCILLOR GEORGE MCCABE COUNCILLOR DONALD BATES GEORGE WHITTIE WILLIAM MUNROE b N � Q � A T (a) co w w u-- } u a 00 u U� y W U '� U INED i / 1112 ill ��IjiL!/��i/ FIX WIN P-m Ig- I w 1 - • ._ �; - VA all HIM 1,!f , y � �tb A *baQgss sKY - s > i MICHAEL E. O'BRIEN +� LEONARD F. FEMINO CITY SOLICITORASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR 93 WASHINGTON STREET r°"�McyO93 WASHINGTON STREET and and 81 WASHINGTON STREET CITY OF SALEM ONE BROADWAY SALEM, MA 01970 MASSACHUSETTS BEVERLY, MA 01915 745-4311 745.4311 744-3383 921.1990 Please Reply to 81 Washington Street Please Reply to One Broadway May 13 , 1987 William H. Munroe, Building Inspector City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re : Katsapetsas v Munroe, et als Essex Superior Court #87-861 Dear Bill : Kindly provide me with copies of any of the documents you may have relative to the enclosed request no later than May 22 , 1987 . Very 'truly, '. Michael E. O' Brien City Solicitor MEO/jp Enclosure COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPERIOR COURT .' ESSEX , S5 . NO. 87-861 WILLIAM N . KATS'APFTi3AS - ) AND THOMAS N . KATSAPET$A.S ) PLAINTIFFS ) IX VS LNDIVIOUALLY WILLIAM H . MUNROF.. , ) , AS HE IS THE SALEM BUILDING, OF ) INSPECTOR CITY OF SALEM; ) SALEM, JAMES B . HACKER, ) JAMES FI,EMING , PE"PER. STROUT.; ) PETER DORE , RICHARD BENCAL ) AS THEY ARE MEMBERS OF THE . , ) SALEM BOARD OF APPEALS' ) DEPENDANTS ) IRST 'RFQUES-_-- T FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PLAINTIFF S F - _ FROM THE DEFENDANTS action Now come , the Pla'intif£s , in the above-entitled duce the following items and request that the Defend ants pro set forth in the attached schedule for inspection and copying Civil Procedure at the pursuant to Rule 34 .0f the Rules of office of the .at.to'rney for the Defendant , Emmanuel N . Papanickolas ; '16 Chestnut Street , Peabody , • . Thehuef.end within thirty (30) days' of ,service upon you . The Defendants may choose to comply Wi'th .this ,request by forwarding a coYY . plaintiffs , of. any documents to , the counsel for the . postmarked prior .to the date called for production and all documents ; plans , data , •letters , etc . filed Of Salem by or on behalf of Mr . Samuel 1 . Any permit in with the City building p Papalardo , in his effortof tostbructure on the parcel of . 1985 for the building Avenue , Salem , land located at , 103. Highland Massachusetts .', ' a arding 2 Any and all intra ' - Or interagency documents r -9 enalY'siS , recommendations , or opinions pa ions as conclusions , permit to 61r . Papalardo , to whether to grant -,a building p including , but ,not, limited to internal memoranda , administrative reports , documents reflecting policy decisions , ' :and transcripts and minutes from admnistrative ,meetings .and hearings . . 3 . A copy of the building permit which was issued to Mr . Papalardo . . 4 . Any and all intra - ' or interagency documents . regarding conclusions , analysis , recommendations or opinions as to the decision to revokethe building permit issued to Mr . Papalalydo , . includ•ing , but not limited to , internal memoranda ; . administ'rat.ive reports , documents reflecting Policy decisions , and' transcripts and minutes from administrative meetings and hearings . 5 . Any and all documents , letters., petitions , memoranda evidencing telephone calls or the like , indicating any opposition to the building permit issued to Mr . Papalardo , from Iany person or entity whatsoever , including , 'but not limited to , government agents , public officials , businesses , private persons , corporate entities and/or ; n.ei,ghbors of Mr . Papalardo . 6 . Any and all, documents indicating any response given to by the City of Salem', or any of the defendants to the entities or indiv'idual$ mentioned in Request No . 5 above . 7 . Any and all documents , reports , notes or letters incident to ,any" inspection of the structure being built at 103 Highland Avenue , Salem , including but not limited to an inspection which took place on or about September 12 , 1985 . 8 . A copy indibating any notice given to Mr . Papalardo indicating the defendants ' decision :to revoke a building permit and/or ,'to', order work to stop . .9 . A copy of. the stop wor,k. 'order issued to Mr . Papalard'o and/or to .the plainti,f,fs in this action . 10 . Any and all intra , - or interagency documents regarding conclusions.; .,analysis -,! .recommendations or opinion's. as to the decision to ;order work to stop at .103 Highland Avenue , Salem, incl'udin;g ; 'but hot limited to internal memoranda , ;administrative reports , documents reflecting policy dec,isionp,, and transcripts and. minutes from administrative meetings and hearings . 11 . Any and all documents , letters , petitions , memoranda evidencing phone 'calls' 'or the like , indicating any request or desire' to have a stop work order issued , from any person or entity whatsoever , includign , but not limited to , 'government - agents , public officials , businesses ,. private persons , corporate entities and/or neighbors, of : Mr . Papalardo or of the plaintiffs . .12 , Copies of any: reports , letters , evidence , or rules or regulations used to come to the decision to revoke the building permit in. question . 13.. Copies of, an'y rep orts , ' le.tters , evidence or rules- or regulations used b come. to the decision .to issue a stop work order in this case ., 19 . Copies oP any notes , l.et'ters , memoranda , reports oc any other documents in. yout possession indicating the opinion (s)' ; oE. any -and all land surve'yers reyardi.ng the parcel of land . in que,s'£ion . 15 . Copies of the 'minutes and/or transcriptsfrom any: and all meetings and./or hearings ;whether public or private , formal or informal related in any way whatsoever to the parcel of land .involved in this case . . 16 . Copies of .the minutes and/or transcripts from any and all meetings' 'and/or hearings , whether public or private formal or informal , related in any way whatsoever to any aspect and/or any issue of this case . 17 . Any documents evidencing intra - or interagency communications regarding conclusions , analysis , and/or recommendabions', concerning future actions which would relate to the future disposition of , use of , zoning of or any other matter regarding the parcel of land located at 103 Highland Avenue ; Salem , Massachusetts . 18 . Copies of any administrative. staff manuals and/or instructions, memos , letters , and/or records of phone calls indicating 'instruct.ions to staff members which would tend to' af'fect .the rights of the plaintiffs . 19 : Copies of any ,dq,cuments , not covered by the previous requests ( 1 ' 18) whic'yi the defendants intend to offer as. evidence the trial of this action . Res ctfully subm' ted , �/AVPapa is o as Plaintiffs ' Attorne ' 16 Chestnut Street Peabody , ma .. 01960 Telephone : 531-3200 April 29 , 1987 ��re�:xz�tueG ./� J.cr��uvz:ikoCcrd , 16 _(�iedLrrul�LiesG 6/960 April 28 , 1987 �� i�sri tf66 Mr . William Munroe , Building Inspector One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 ✓ � ��1 City Clerk , City of Salem 93 Washington Street Salem , Massachusetts 01970 Mr . James Fleming , Esquire 47 Bufum Street Salem, Massachusetts 01Q70 n_ Mr . James B. Hacker — 7 Ugo Road _ Salem , Massachusetts 01970 Mr . Peter Strout 17 oakview Avenue Salem, Massachusetts 0197 Mr . Peter Dore 12 Bentley Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Mr . Richard Bencal 19 Goodell Street Salem , Massachusetts 01970 RE: William N . Katsapatesas , et al VS . William H . Munroe , et al Essex Superior Court No . 87-861 Dear Sirs : Notice is hereby given to you that William N . Katsapetsas and Thomas N. Katsapetsas have filed the above action on Friday , April 24 , 1987 , with the Essex Superior Court in Salem. Enclosed please find the Complaint as filed . This notice is being given to you pursuant to M.G.L.A. Chanter 40A, Sectio Very truly u s , mmanue N Pa an a At orney for William N Katsapetsas and Thomas N. atsapetsas ENP:gk CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED a�rlMorlwl�:n1,'rn o1� Mns;;nr_Inlr;l: r•r5 t•s;sr:x, ss . sula:P. Lor, cl�u1� I. l ?7-'F41 kllI,[JAM N . KAT!;fW '.'I'SA; ) AND 'I'IIUMA: N . P,fVT -;AI'liT!;f ; ) PI •AIITTI PN'; ) 1 �III ,I, Inrl n . rnnaR�,l;, Irll� tvruuni,i, r ) AC III: I ;i THE tWvIJ M BI) I I'I� [ NO ) INSPKCVUH CITY OF :-OhPM , CITY OP ) JAMI':F; I', . IIAC1',,Fk, ) JAMES P'I,I•:P11 Nr; , I'li'I'I P .,"TROUT, ) i'r"FNR I)ORK , R I CIIARU AKNCAK )AS THEY ARE MKMHKRS QF 'Nf ) SAI,I:M ROAR[-, ,tb' AI'IICALR ) C0MPKAINT AND CLAIM OF JURY TRIAL FOR COUNTS If AND [II PARTIES William N . Katsapeltsas and Thomas N . Katsanetsas ( Owners ) are W Peabody , Massachusetts , and the owners of parcel of real estate located at the corner of Greenway Avenue and highland Avenue identified as 103 Ni-ghland Avenue , Salem, Massachusetts , as of July 19 , 1905 , when they received title Cram a deed of Samuel L. Papal_ardo and Mary P . Papalardo , both of Salem, Massachusetts . 3 . Wi_ILLan, H . Munroe is of Salem, and is the duly appointed building insppctor , and agent of the City of Salem for the pertinent period of time . 3 . City of Salem is a ,1uly constituted municipal corpora- tion in ex sLence in the Commonwealth of: Massachusetts . 4 . lames 3 , ILacknr , P„ __ ,- Dori , Peter Strout , Richard L'encal and James Fleming of SaLem , Massachusetts , are duly npppoi_ntcd mem'uers of the Salem Board of Appeals for the perti.nenl. period W ti.mc . FAC"P S , tin gin- nL�nil F1•iy 1 ? , 1gH5 , M-iri.e (WHI11ly , i.VIA ividea I I and gist ur.(Icul.ri )I l.Iv� at of (;re_•n• P . P""ney conveyed zi par mil " r Land t_ � ;;nnn_iel 1„ i,.-,j-)ales l. ) ,ind Hary P . Papal ,ardr) of „i l.�::m , I':ssu:: Gnunty , MrIssa .:hiS;nitr„ and 1 "u"ted at the covHur of Greenway Avenue and HL IhIan I Avanun , identified ns 10"i Ili_�:Ihlruid Av" nIluc , 8+ilein , sntLN , containing morn on less 5 , IHU erluorc VOL but not less than 5 , ono square [out or 1Dori which Land i_s Located in ( R-1 ) residential district of Salem . 6 . The aforesaid lot of land was owned by Grace F . Rooney or her fam.ili.al predecessors , prior to the enactment of the Zoning ordinance of the City of Salem . 7 . On or about June 3 , 1085 , Samuel. Papalardo, as owner of the aforesaid parcel of Land , applicd to the building inspector inspector for the City of Salem , Wi. l. Li.am W . Munroe , and obtained a building permit for a single family dwelling to be erected upon the aforesaid Lot of land . A . Samuel. Panalar_do submitted all the necessary and required documents , plans , and data requested by the building inspector of the City of Salem . 9 . On or about July 1.9 , 19f15 , the plaintiffs purchased the aforesaid Lot of land with building permit ,tram Samuel L . Papalardo and Miry P . Pap Lardo . 1.0 . On or about. Anglust 21_ , 1A85 , the pl.ai-miffs , being in possession of a I.ngally issued permit , and upon reliance Lhercuf poured Che Foundation footings , and the eaf. tcu on August 30 , lg85 , poured the full. foundaCLon for said dwelling , intending to construct a s.inll.a family dwelling . II '. On F;epCcmhcr 10 , 19105 , the Plaintiffs insulated the (oundoCion walls , and the assistant. hui King Lnsucctor of Ci.t.y of Salem inspected and approved UP said foundation on Sapkemher 12 , OR5 , which was thereafter huck,` i LI_ed . 12 . During this interim of: Amo the Plaintiffs had p-Laced an order. , and (lid Ln fact purchase a pro: Vabricated single family dweLLing from a New Hampshire manufacturer , which dwelling was to be delivered on September 20 , 1985 , according to prearranged schedule with crane operators . 13 . Unbeknown to the plaintiffs , on or about September 16 , 1985 , the buil.di.ng inspector arbitrarily , capriciously , an - maliciously sent a "Stop order " letter. to Samuel Papalardo of 14 Cross Street , Salem , Massachusetts , ( a copy of which is attached and marked Exhibit A) revoking the previously legally issued building permit alleging that the site plan dial not indicate the encroachment of an abutter ' s small. above-ground pool , and he further alleged that the huildi_n,-,; permit was also void since there was a new owner that had acquired the property subsequent to the issuance of the building permit alleging violations of Sections 114 . 7 and 113 . 3 of the Massachusetts State Building Code . 14 . Section 11.3 . 3 of Massachusetts State Building Code provides as follows : "fly whom application is made : Application for a permit shall be mach,• by .the owner of the bui.ldinq or structure . The f-ul. l names and addresses of the owner , applicant , and of: the responsible officers , if the owner is a corporate body , shall_ he stated in th . application . '' It Ou"s not prohibit the assignment of saLA permit to a subsequent owner , nor does said section require the necessity [or a new permiC to he sought by a subsequent owner. . 1.5 . Section 1. 14 . 7 of. Massachusetts State RuLldi_nr Code provi.des as [allows : " Revocation of. permits : The building commissioner or inspector of buildings may revoke a permit or approval issued under the provisions of this code in case of any false statement or misrepresentation of fact in the application or the plans on which the permit or approval was based Upon examination of the application , plans , and data submitter) by Samuel Papalardo to the building inspector , such information does not reveal any misrepresentations or false statements . 16 . On September 20 , 1985 , the previously ordered prefabricated home was set upon the foundation of this property . 17 . On September 23 , 1985 , a "Stop Order" placard by the building inspector was placed upon the front door of said newely delivered dwelling , it being the first notice to the plaintiffs of any "Stop Or1er" . IA . subsequently , the swimming pool was removed by the adjoining ahutter ; a minimal amount of Further work was performed by the pl_ai_nt.i. ffs upon said proparty to secure said dwelling from unnecessary damage by weather and vandals , pending resolution of: the within controversy . 19 . The building inspector on November In , I `rll5 , forwarded La my client a letter indicating to him LhaL si.nco nr:, building permit was issued to him in his name by violated suel_ ion 1.1.3 . 1 of the Massachusetts state Building Code , and now for the first time the hui_ldi.rub Lnnpow"r further alleged that the aforesaid lot of land diel not contain 5 , 000 square fret of: land as required by M . G . L . n . Chapter: 40n and the City of: Salem Zoning ordinance (minimum lot size) . 20 . Plaintiffs subsequently engaged two land surveyors who surveyed the lot of land and both concluded that the lot of .Land had more or less than 5 , 100 square feet , but not less than 5 , 000 square feet of land . 21 . Plans were drafted , and on August 20 , 1926 a plan was duly recorded with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds showing the aforesaid parcel of land with square footage in excess of 5 , 000 square feet as the original_ subdivision plan of such parcel prepared in 1930 was seriously flawed . 22 . Notwithstanding the new pian and representations of land surveyors , the building inspector for whatever arbitrary, capricious , malicious or even political reasons has steadfastly continued to abuse the power and authority granted him as building inspector by denying the plaintiffs their legal- right to finish bu:i.ldind said dwelling , and by denying the lawful use and occupation . 23 . The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the denial. , of the building inspector to the Board of Appeals pursuing their admi.nistr. ativo remedies , which petitinn was presented in the alternative to the Board of Appeals primarily seeking a reversal of: the building .inspector ' s denial and in the alternative seeking a variance From the Board of Appeals if it concluded than the lot was less, than 5 , 000 Yquare Feet. , it 1winq minimum Lot ai. zo . 24 . On March 18 , 19117 the Board of Appeals after conducting hearings , by a split decision , denied the plaintiffs ' petitinn , which was filed with the City Clerk on April. 13 , M7 , and attached hereto as " Exhibit A" . 25 . That the said Board of Appeals exceeded its authority by . denying the petitioners relief: and the reinstatement of the building permit , and/or by denying the petitioners the variance requested in the alternative . 26 . That the plaintiffs have suffered substantial financial hardship and losses due to the unreasonable arbitrary , capricious and malicious conduct of the building inspector . COUNT—1 DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 27 . The plaintiffs incorporate and make a part hereof. paragraphs 1 through 25 . 28 . The plaintiffs being aggrieved by the decisions of the Salem Building Inspector , and the Salem Board of Appeals do hereby further allege that there :is a controversy between the plaintiffs and the defendants as to the legal rights of the plaintiffs under the law , and do hereby appeal the decision of the defendants . WHEREFORE , the plaintiffs demand judgment : 1 . That the Court make a hind ing declaration of r. iyhts in the controversy hetween the Plaintiffs and Defendants . 2 . That the Defendant , huiIdi_ny inspector William H . Munroe , he ordniad to reinstat" An oKU1nal lr,_tally i ;sund building permit , forthwith . 3 . That the defendant building i_nspeciz"r , William H . Munroe he ordered to refrain. From mal. i.ciously , ar.hlt.rarily , nr capricously intimidating and harr:assinU the plaintiffs h}, denying them their right to finish this dwRllinY and use thereof . 4 . That the damages be awarded to the plaintiffs for their financial losses including their attorneys Fees and costs . 5 . For such other further relief that this; Court deems meet and proper . COUNTIT TORT nF BAD FAITH 29 . The plaintiffs reaffirm and reallegc the allegations set forth in paragraphs I through 27 of Count I of this Complaint and hereby incorporate them in this Count II by reference . 30 . That the plaintiffs further allege that the building inspector , William H . Munroe , in his capacity as building inspector is a servant of the public and the public ' s interest: and is empowered to exercise the statutory powers given to him in his official_ capacity in good faith and fair dealing 31 . That the building inspector , William H . Munroe , by his aforesaid conduct has breached this standard of care of good Faith and fair dealing by exercising his power uneasonbly ar. hit:raril.y , capriciously , and maliciously towards the plaintiffs with the intent to hurt , damage , and dencgratr tho plaintiffs , taxpayers of tho City of Salem . WHEREFnRE , the plaintiffs demand judgment: against the defendant , William H . Munroe , individually and as fuci_ldinc.l inspector of the City of Salem , and the City of Salem as follows : I . That the plaintiffs he awarded damages in the amount of one million ( $1 , 000 , 000 . 00) dollars . 2 . That the plaintiffs he awarded punitive damages in the amount of five million ( $5 , 000 , 000 . 00 ) dollars . 3 . That . the plaintiffs be awarded their attorneys ' fees and costs . 9 . That a Jury Trial he granted on this Count . COUNT .III USCA TITLE 1983 32 . The plaintiffs reaffirm and reall.ege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 30 of Count I and III of: this Complaint and hereby .incorporate them in this Count III by reference . 33 . This action arises under the United States Constitution particularly under the, provisions of th^ lath Amendment to the Constitution of the United States , and under. the Federal Law particularly Title 42 of the United Stages Code , Section 1.983 . 3A . Bach and al. l. of: the arts of the defendants al.l.eged herein were done by the (1ofendants under the color and pretense of Lhr, StatuLes , Ordinanccas , Regul.aLi.ons , Cusl;nms , and Usayes or Lhe (,f)mmonwfaIL11 of Massachusetts , tn City of Salem and the County of Essex , and under the auLliority of. their office f.or such city and county . 35 . The conduct of the defendants and each of: them deprived Lhe plaintiffs of the f:ol.lowiny rights , pr. iviloyns , immunities , secure to them by the Consti. tuti.on and Laws of the United States : 36 . The right of: the plaintiffs not to he deprived of life , liberty or property without due process of law and the right to the equal protection of the laws , secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States . 37 . That the plaintiffs suffered much anxiety , distress , discomfort and against William H . Munroe , individually and as Salem Building Inspector , and the City of Salem , embarrassment due to the unwarranted , unreasonable , arbitrary , malicious conduct of: William H . Munroe . WHEREFORE , plaintiff demands judgment : 1 . That the defendant , building inspector , William H . Munroe be ordered to reinstate the original legally issued building permit- , forthwith . 2 . That the defendant , building inspector , William H . Munroe , he ordered to refrain from maliciously , arbitrarily or capriciously intimidating and harrassing the piai.ntitFs by denying them their legal right to finish this dwelling and use same . 3 . That damages he awarded to the plaint. iU s for Choir Financial_ fusses , att"rneys ' Foos and costs , in Ch� amounC " f one million ( $ l_ , On0 , 000 . on) dollars . 4 . That plaintiffs demand a Trial by Jury upon this Count . 5 . For such other further relief that. this Court dorms meet and proper . Respectfully tt c , .mmanuel. N : Pap ani .o as � Plaintiffs Attorn 16 Chestnut Street Peabody , Ma . 01960 Telephone : 531-3200 April_ 22 , 1987 • MICHAEL E. O'BRIEN ; LEONARD,F. FEMINO. . CITY.SOLICITOR '. .ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR 43 WASHINGTON STREET °� .93 WASHINGTON STREET . . and ., . and 81.WAS14114GTON STREETCItY OF SALEM ONE BROADWAY SALE14,AA01970 - ., MASSACHUSETTS _ - -BEVERLY'.MA 01915 . 745.4311 745.4311 744*3363 921-.1990 Please Reply to*B.1 Washington Street ,Please Reply to One Broadway May 13 , 1987 Clerk for Civil Business , Essek County Superior' Court ;. 34 ',Federal Street. Salem, Massachusetts G1970 Re ; Katsapetsas , . et al. v. William* H. Munroe, et 'alS Civil Action No'.'1 .87=;861 ; Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed please; ;find Answdr of defendants in the .above matter. Kindly file ,the' same Very' wly yp�r chael 'E. olBrien ity Solicitor MEO/7P Enclosure "co: Emmanuel N. Papariickolas, .tsq.. c� ti C6MM6NWEALTH' OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. THE TRIAL COURT . SUPERIOR COURT DEPT. NO. 87-861 'WILLIAM M. KATSAPETSAS AND '< THOMAS M. KATSAPETSAS,'; PLAINTIFFS .VS. ANSWER WILLIAM 'H. MUNROE, INDIVIDUALLY AS HE IS THE SALSA BUILDING' INSPECTOR CITY OF' ;SALEM,..'•C.I.TY.OF SALEM, JAMES . B. HACKER, ,JAAES . FLEMING, PETER STROUT,. PETER DORE, RICHARD BENCAL; .A'S' WHEY. ARE MEMBERS OF THE SALEM BOARD OF APPEALS, DEFENDANTS' • Now come the defendants ;and answer plaintiffs ' numbered Complaint,. as amended, ' as follows : 1. Admitted, . 2 . Admitted 3 . Admitted 4 . Admitted 5 . Admitted .as to..the parties, but denied As to the amount of square .fbo'tage. 6 . The defendants..are' without sufficient knowledge or information •to fotm. a .belief as to the allegations contained .in paragraph .$ x (6') of plaintiffs ' amend- ed Complai.nt.'. . 7 . Admitted 8 . Admitted ' . 9 . The 'defendadts, are without sufficient knowledge or information to. form.;. belief as to 'the •allegations contained in..'p.aragraph.. -nine (9 ) of plaintiffs'' amended C'omplai'nt.' 10 . The defendants are 'witkbut sufficient' knowledge or information'.e .to form a. bb,lief as to the .allegations contained in,para.9r4ph-ft2n (10 ) of plaintiffs ' . amended CompSint,. . 11 . The defendants are;wi.th'out sufficient knowledge or The defenda is form a belief a•s to the allegations infcontained in- para.graph eleven ( 11 ) , of p'laintiffs'' amended Complaint, 12 . The defendants are,,without sufficient knowledge or , information '-to .fosm a belief as to the allegations contained in .paragraph-'tw.elve ( 12 ) of plaintiffs ' amended Complaint. . 13 . The defendants admit the, Building Inspector revoked. the building .permit, ' but deny the remaining allega tions in paragraph thirteen ( 13 ) of plaintiffs ' amended Complaint. 14 . The defendant's admit that Sec. 113.. 3 of the Mass. State Building Code reads as the plaintiffs ' maigran tain, but deny the remaining allegations in p graph fourteen ( 14,) of .plaintiffsamended Complaint. 15 . The defendants admit .that Sec. 114 . 1 ofthe main. State Build'ing . Cgd,e reads as the p ara- tain, but . n' the . rema ning allegations in p graph fifteen ('15). '.of p;la.intiffs' amended Complaint. 16 . The defendants are without sufficient knowledge or. information to ' form a ,b'elief as to the as contained iri ,'paragraph. 'sixteen (16 ) of p'laintiffs amended Complaint,: ; 17 The defendants admit a "Stop Order"placard was placed upon the front doo1.r,' but. deny it was the first notice of the same to the plaintiffs. e or 18 . The defendants are without oliefuaslto the nt kallegations information to form a' be . laintiffs ' contained, i.n: paragraph'..ei.ghteen ( 18 ) of p amended Complaint., nt 19 .• • The, defendants admit that the Bedlabut denyeitowas ethe.. the plaintiffs the letter alleg ed the first time the . Build i'ng,•Inspeuare feetctor gof land. did not contan . at least 5,;000 sq 20 . The defend8nts are without sufficient knowledge or Alleatins rmatito form on a belief as to the infolaintiffs' contained in.paragraph twenty ( 20) of p amended Complaint.. ; 21 . The defendants are without sufficient knowledge, or information.;to: fbrm 'a belief as to the allegations contained in par'agraph ',twenty-one (21 ) of plai.ntiffs ' amended •.Complaint.; 22 . The def endants. adinit• the. 'allegation that the Building Inspector has ,denyed `the ..plaintiffs 'a building .permit, but deny the. remainin4, allegation in paragraph twenty- two ( 22 ) o$ 'plaintiffs' amended Complaint. 23 . Admitted 29 . Admitted 25 . Denied . 26 . Denied. COUNT ,I 27 . The defendants incorporate and make a part hereof their answers to paragraphs- one (1 ) through twenty-six ( 26 ) . 28 . Denied ' FIRST ,AFV.T.RMATIVE .DEFEN..SE The ,plaiAtiffs ' Complaint fails to state a Complaint upon which, relief . can ,die„granted. SECOND,,.AF,FIRMATIVE :pEFENSE There has been insufficient services of process on the defendants. WHEREFORE, the de£endants demand that Count I 'of Plaintiffs',' Complaint': be dismissed and they be awarded, their costs. ,,and ',attoXn.ey fees. COUNT. ,II. 29. • The defendants. reaffirm, and reallege their answers set forth in paragraphs one ( 1) thorugh twenty-seven ( 27 ) of Count I of this' Compiiant, as amended, and thereby incor- porate them' in .their answer to Count iI by reference. 30 . Admitted 31 . Denied FI R.ST..AFFIRMAT.I.VE DEFENSE The'plaintiff ' s ,complaint, as amended, fails to state a . causeof . action , upon. which relief can be grant- ed. SEC.Olt'. .F.FIRMATIVE ,DEFENSE There has ' den insufficient service of process on the defendants . i. THIRD!,:AFFIRMATIVE .DEFENSE Count !.11 ' being 'in the nature of tort, the plaintiffs have failed to comply 'w.ith the presentment and pleading . requirements of GLc258 '66mmonly referred to as the "Mass- achusetts Tort Claims Act'% WHEREFORE; the. defendants demand that Count II be dismissed and that the'. defendants be awarded their costs and reasonabXe •attorney fees as Count II of plaintiffs' Complaint. 'is frivolous and brought in bad faith. COUNT LLI 32 . The defendants reaffirm and reallege their answers set forth in para grap'hs .one( 1 ) through thirty ( 30') of Count. I and II `.of this Complaint, as amended, and hereby incor- porate them, in .their 'answers to Count III by reference. 33 . The defendants a e' ,'without sufficient knowledge or in- formation. ,to forfi a belief as to the allegations contain- ed in paragraph';thirty-three (33 ) of plaintiffs ' Complaint as amended.; 34 . The defendants hr,e without sufficient knowledge or in- formation. to;•fo.rm a• belief as to the allegations contain- ed in .paragraph ''thirty-four ( 34 ) of plaintiffs ' Ccmpliant as amender] . 35 . Denied 36 . Denied 37 . Denied. FIRSTAFFIRMATIVE .DEFEND The plaintiffs ' .C'ompliant, as amended, fails to state a cause of action ppOn ,which relief can be granted . SEC..OND,.AFFIRMATIVE .DE.FENS.E There has, been insufficient service of process on the defendants . . THIRD AF.FIRMATIVE .DEFENSE The Court lacks-;urisdiction over the subject matter of Count. IIT of ' Plaintiffs' amended Compliant. WHEREFORE, the defendants demand that Count III be dismissed .'and that the defendants be awarded their costs and reasonable 'Att'grney fees as Count III of plaintiffs ' Complaint.is .fri.volous .and brought in bad faith. THE DEFENDANTS CLAIM `iTRIAL BY JURY AS TO COUNTS II AND III . WILLIAM H. MUNROE, INDIVIDUALLY AS HE. IS. THE SALEM BUILDING INSPECTOR CITY OF SALEM, CITY 01 SALEM, JAMES B. HACKER, JAMES FLEMING, PETER STROUT, PETER DORE, RICHARD BENCAL, AS THEY ARE MEMBERS OF THE SALEM BOARD OF APPEALS by their. attorney: 22 Michael- E: O' Brien City Solicitor '81 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Telephone 744=3363 Dated : May 13,. ;1987 .�Oi'r�rccr�.v�eG ./� ��iaiucicaCae- `leaGrloTdr�, JfLadd, ac/uve//. 0/960 cel ✓,a�ii�iitiefolad- April. 29 , 1.987 Clerl,, of Court Essex Superior Court rederal Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 RE : Thomas N . Katsapetsas , et al VS . City of Salem , et al Essex Superior Court No . S7-861- Dear Sir : Please find Plaintiffs ' Amended Complaint - As of Course , Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents from the Defendants , and Plaintiffs ' Motion to Advance for Speedy Trial to he heard on May 12 , 1987 at 9 : 30 a .m . at the Essex Superior Court , Motion Session , sitting at the Peabody District Court , Peabody , Massachusetts , for filing with your Court this day . Ver ruly you ` 4manuel N . Papa 0-- as ENP-9k Enclosures cc : To all Defendants of Record c:: COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX , SS . SUPERIOR COURT NO. 97-861 WILLIAM N. KATSAPETSAS ) AND THOMAS N. KATSAPETSAS ) PLAINTIFFS ) VS . ) WILLIAM 11. MUNROE , INDIVIDUALLY ) AS HE IS THE SALEM BUILDING ) INSPECTOR CITY OF SALEM, CITY OF ) SALEM , JAMES 13 . HACKER, ) JAMES FLEMING, PETER STROUT, ) PETER DORE , RICHARD BENCAL ) AS THEY ARE MEMBERS OF THE ) SALEM BOARD OF APPEALS ) DEFENDANTS ) PLAINTIFF' S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM THE DEFENDANTS Now come the Plaintiffs , in the above-entitled action and request that the Defendants produce the following items set forth in the attached schedule for inspection and copying pursuant to Rule 34 of the Rules of Civil Procedure at the office of the attorney for the Defendant , Emmanuel N . Papanickolas , 16 Chestnut Street , Peabody , Massachusetts , within thirty ( 30) days of service upon you . The Defendants may choose to comply with this request by forwarding a copy of any documents to the counsel for the Plaintiffs , postmarked prior to the (late called for production . 1 . Any and all documents , plans , data , letters , etc . filed with the City of Salem by or on behalf of Mr . Samuel Papalardo in his efforts to obtain a building permit in 1985 for the building of a structure on the parcel of land located at 103 Highland Avenue , Salem , Massachusetts . 2 . Any and all intra - or interagency documents regarding conclusions , analysis , recommendations , or opinions as to whether to grant a building permit to Mr . Papalardo , including , but not limited to internal memoranda , administrative reports , documents reflecting policy decisions , and transcripts and minutes from admnistrative meetings and hearings . 3 . A copy of the building permit which was issued to Mr . Papalardo . 4 . Any and all intra - or interagency documents regarding conclusions , analysis , recommendations or opinions as to the decision to revoke the building permit issued to Mr . Papalalydo , including , but not limited to , internal memoranda , administrative reports , documents reflecting policy decisions , and transcripts and minutes from administrative meetings and hearings . 5 . Any and all documents , letters , petitions , memoranda evidencing telephone calls or the like , indicating any opposition to the building permit issued to Mr . Papalardo , from any person or entity whatsoever , including , but not limited to , government agents , public officials , businesses , private persons , corporate entities and/or neighbors of Mr . Papalardo . 6 . Any and all documents indicating any response given to by the City of Salem , or any of the defendants to the entities or individuals mentioned in Request No . 5 above . 7 . Any and all documents , reports , notes or letters incident to any inspection of the structure being built at 103 Highland Avenue , Salem , including but not limited to an inspection which took place on or about September 1.2 , 1985 . 8 . A copy indicating any notice given to Mr . Papalardo indicating the defendants ' decision to revoke a building permit and/or to order work to stop . 9 . A copy of the stop work order issued to Mr . Papalardo and/or to the plaintiffs in this action . 10 . Any and all intra - or interagency documents regarding conclusions , analysis , recommendations or opinions as to the decision to order work to stop at 103 Highland Avenue , Salem including , but not limited to internal memoranda , administrative reports , documents reflecting policy decisions , and transcripts and minutes from administrative meetings and hearings . 11 . Any and all documents , letters , petitions , memoranda evidencing phone calls or the like , indicating any request or desire to have a stop work order issued , from any person or entity whatsoever , includign , but not limited to , governm:,^t ,aci-,nor , ouhlir, official:; , businesses , private persons , corporate entities and/or neighbors of Mr . Papalardo or of the plaintiffs . 12 . Copies of any reports , letters , evidence , or rules or regulations used to come to the decision to revoke the building permit in question . 13 . Copies of any reports , letters , evidence or rules or regulations used to come to the decision to issue a stop work order in this case . 14 . Comes of any notes , letters , memoranda , reports or any other documents in your possession indicating the opinion ( s) of any and all land survo-yers regarding the parcel of land in question . 15 . Copies of the minutes and/or transcripts from any and all meetings and/or hearings whether public or private , formal or informal related in any way whatsoever to the parcel of land involved in this case . 16 . Copies of the minutes and/or transcripts from any and all meetings and/or hearings , whether public or private formal or informal , related in any way whatsoever to any aspect and/or any issue of: this case . 17 . Any documents evidencing intra - or interagency communications regarding conclusions , analysis , and/or recommendations concerning future actions which would relate to the future disposition of , use of , zoning of or any other matter regarding the parcel of land located at 103 Highland Avenue , Salem , Massachusetts . 18 . Copies of any administrative staff manuals and/or instructions , memos , letters , and/or records of phone calls indicating instructions to staff members which would tend to affect the rights of the plaintiffs . 19 . Copies of any documents , not covered by the previous requests ( 1-18) which the defendants intend to offer as evidence the trial of this action . Res ctfuull/ly subm ' ted , el N . Papa is o as Plaintiffs ' Attor. ne 16 Chestnut Street Peabody , Ma . 01960 Telephone : 531-3200 P.pril 29 , 1907 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX , SS , SUPERIOR COURT NO . 87-861 WILLIAM N . KATSAPETSAS ) AND THOMAS N . KATSAPETSAS ) PLAINTIFFS ) VS . ) WILLIAM H . MUNROE , INDIVIDUALLY ) AS IIP; IS T11E SALEM BUILDING ) INSPECTOR CI'T'Y OF SALEM , CITY OF ) SALEM , JAML;S 13 . HACKER , ) ` JAMh:S FLEMING , PETER STROUT, ) PETI?R DORE , RICHARD RENCAL ) AIS THEY ARI? MEMBERS OF THE ) _ SALEM BOARD OF APPEALS ) DEFENDANTS ) PLAINTIFF ' S AMENDED COMPLAINT AS OF COURSE Now comes the plaintiffs in the above action and , as of course in accordance with Rule 15 (a) of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure , and before a respoive pleading to U. has been served upon them , amends the compl.aintAin this action so that the same will read as follows : AMENDED COUNT III USCA TITLE 1983 32 . The plaintiffs reaffirm and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 30 of Count I and III of this Complaint and hereby incorporate them in this Count III by reference . 33 . This action arises under the United States Constitution particularly under the provisions of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of: the United States , and under the Federal Law particularly Title 42 of the United States Code , Section 1983 . 34 . each and al-1 of the acts of the defendants alleged herein were clone by the defehdants under the color and pretense of: the Statutes , Ordinances , Regulations , Customs , and Usages of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts , the City of Salem and the County of Essex , and under the authority of their office for such city and county . 35 . The conduct of. the defendants and each of them deprived the plaintiffs of the following rights , privileges , immunities , secure to them by the Constitution and haws of the United States : 36 . The right of the plaintiffs not to he deprived of life , liberty or property without due process of law and the right to the equal protection of the laws , secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States . 37 . That the plaintiffs suffered much anxiety , distress , discomfort and against William 11 . Munroe , individually and as Salem Building Inspector , and the City of Salem , embarrassment due to the unwarranted , unreasonable , arbitrary , malicious conduct of William H . Munroe . WHEREFORE , plaintiff demands judgment : 1 . That the defendant , building inspector , William H . Munroe be ordered to reinstate the original legally issued building permit , forthwith . 2 . That the defendant , building inspector , William H. Munroe , he ordered to refrain from maliciously , arbitrarily or capriciously intimidating and harrassing the plaintiffs by denying them their legal right to finish this dwelling and use same . 3 . That damages be awarded to the plaintiffs for their financial losses , attorneys ' fees and costs , .in the amount of one million ( $1 , Opn , 000 no) dollars . 4 . That the Plaintiffs be awarded punitive damages in tha' amOUnt of Five million ( $5 , 000 , 000 . 00) dollars . 5 . That plaintiffs demand a Trial by Jury upon this Count . 6 . For such other further relief that this Court deems meet and proper . ect��fu--l''7.y sub ' tte , mmanue Papanick as Plaintiffs Attorne 16 Chestnut Street Peabody , Ma . 01960 Telephone : 531-3200 April 29 , 1987 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX , SS . SUPERIOR COURT NO . 87-861 WILLIAM N. KATSAPETSAS ) AND 'THOMAS N . KATSAPETSAS. ) PLAINTIFFS ) VS . ) WILLIAM H . MUNROE , INDIVIDUALLY ) AS HE IS THE: SALEM BUILDINK ) INSPECTOR CITY OF SALEM , CITY OF ) SALEM, DAMPS B . HACKER , ) JAMES FkEMING , PETER STROUT, ) PETER DORE , RICHARD BRNCAh ) A[i THEY ARE MEMBERS OF THE ) SALEM BOARD OF APPEALS ) DEFENDANTS ) ) MOTION TO ADVANCE FOR SPEEDY TRIAL Now come the plaintiffs and hereby move that the issues of fact in the above action be advanced for speedy trial . As reason therefore , the plaintiffs state that delay of the disposition of this action is resulting in undue hardship to the plaintiffs as their property is subject to frequent attacks by vandals and is subject to deterioration . spectf.ully subs t ed , �R Pa i s Plaintiffs ' A Corney 16 Chestnut treet Salem , Mass chusetts Telephone : 531-3200 April 29 , 1987 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I , Emmanuel N . Papanickolas , hereby certify that on April 29 , 1987 , I served a copy of : Plaintiffs ' Motion to Advance for a Speedy Trial , by mailing copies of said motion by first class mail , postage prepaid to each of: the Defendants , with notification thereof that the motion will be heard at the Essex Superior Court sitting at the Peabody District Court , Peabody Square , Peabody , Massachusetts , on Tuesday , May 12 , 1987 at 9 : 30 a .m . 4EmmanVAI ! Papani olas 16 Chestnut Street Peabody , Ma . 01960 Telephone : 531-3200 (TO PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY: Plean•Cirrle Tvpe,,1 A,w)n lurn6 ed: — TORT — MOTOR VEHICLE TORT — CONTRACT EQUITABLE REl-1�— OTHER.) COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX,ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION No. r- , ,r WILLIAM N. KATSAPETSAS AND THOMAS N. KATSAPETSAS aO .....................................................................-......-...-.........-...-..........-......-...Plaintiff(s) "t a s E � -7 E .CITY OF SALEM,....ET. ....ALS................... .. .. .......................................................Defendant(s) e '2 0 c ' 'So e .. $ SUMMONS ETo the above named Defendant, William H. Munroe, Salem Building Inspector 8 and Individually; You are hereby summoned and required to serve upondP.?.Ilickolas------------------ 01960 jt laintiffs attorney, whose address is ....16....Chestrnut...Street. Peabofl. , Ma_.-...--.... an answer to the b P Yr ,. . y.. ... 8 complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 20 days after service of this summons upon you, exelu- o2 sive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief de- manded in the complaint. You are also required to file your answer to the complaint in the office of the Clerk 0 of this court at ......SALEM........................... either before service upon plaintiffs attorney or within a reasonable X d a time thereafter. . eUnless otherwise provided by Rule 13 (a), your answer must state as a counterclaim any claim which you 3 may have against the plaintiff which arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the "c plaintiffs claim or you will thereafter be barred from making such claim in any other action. a. o Z > a 7 p � WITNESS, Thomas R. Morse,Jr., Esquire, at Salem, the 23rd z ° day of APRIL in the year of our Lord one thousand o _ u 'A � UE COPY ATTES I.' nine hundred and eighty- seven. J De_ t . Sheriff / o ; z Com' Clerk NOTES: 1. This summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. When more than one defendant is involved, the names of all defendants should appear in the caption. If a separate summons is used for each defendant, each should be addressed to the particular defendant. SC 15 Forrn 1 CertifiCate -of Service I , Michael E' O'Brien, attorney for the defendant, William H'. Munroe, et al'S ,, hereby,' certify that I caused a copy of the above Answer` to . b `:serv,ed,' oq the plaintiff by mailing, postage paid, to Emmanuel •N. P•apanickolas, Esq. , 16 Chestnut 'Street, : Peabody, Massachusetts 'Q196Q. M chael E. O' Brien Dated : May 13 , 1997 1 I COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, Ss . SUPERIOR COURT NO . t WILLIAM N. KATSAPETS.AS ) { AND THOMAS N . KATSAPETSAS ) • `+a PLAINTIFFS ) VS . ) WILLIAM H. MUNROE, IDIDIVIDIL4LLY ) AS HE IS TUE SALEM BUILDING ) INSPECTOR CITY 017 SALEM, CITY OF ) SALEM, JAMES 13 . HACKER ) JAMES FLEMING, PETER STROUT, ) PETER DOPE, RICHARD BENCAI., ) AS THEY ARE MEMBERS OF THE ) SALEM BOARD OF APPEALS ) DEFENDANTS ) COMPLAINT AND CLAIM OF JURY TRIAL FOR COUNTS II AND III PARTIES William N. Katsapetsas and Thomas N. Katsapetsas (Owners) are of Peabody, Massachusetts , and the owners of a parcel of real estate located at the corner of Greenway Avenue and Highland Avenue identified as 103 Highland Avenue , Salem,• Massachusetts , as of July 19 , 1985 , when they received title from a deed of Samuel L. Papalardo and Mary P. Papalardo, both of Salem, Massachusetts . 2 . William H . Munroe is of Salem, and is the duly appointed building inspector , and agent of the City of Salem for the pertinent period of time. 3 . City of Salem is a duly constituted municipal corpora- tion in existence in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts . 4 . James D . Hacker. , Peter Dore , Peter Strout, Richard Bencal and James Fleming of Salem, Massachusetts , are duly apppoi.nted members of the, Salem Board of Appeals for the pertinent period of time . FACTS 5 . On or about_ May 13 , 1985 , Marie Connolly , indi.vidualty and as executrix of: the estate of Grace F . Rooney conveyed a parcel of land to Samuel. L . Papalardo and Mary P . Papalardo of Salem, Essex County , Massachusetts , and located at the corner of Greenway Avenue and Highland Avenoo , .identified as 103 highland Avenue , Salem , Massachu- setts , containing more or less 5 , 100 square feet but not less than 5 , 000 square feet of land which land is located in ( R-1 ) residential district of Salem. 6 . The aforesaid lot of land was owned by Grace F . Rooney or her familial predecessors, prior to the enactment of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Salem . 7 . On or about June 3 , 1985 , Samuel Papalardo, as owner of the aforesaid parcel of land , applied - to the building inspector for the City of Salem, William H . Munroe, and obtained a building permit for a single family dwelling to be erected upon the aforesaid lot of land . 8 . Samuel Papalardo submitted all the necessary and required documents , plans , and data requested by the building inspector of the City of Salem. 9 . On or about July 19 , 1985 , the Plaintiffs purchased the aforesaid lot of land with building permit from Samuel L . Papalardo and Mary P . Papalardo . 10 . On or about August 21 , 1985 , the plaintiffs , being in possession of a legally issued permit , and upon reliance thereof poured the foundation footings , and thereafter on August 30 , 1935 , Loured the full foundation for said dwelling , .intending to construct a single family dwelling . 11 . On September 1.0 , L935 , the Plaintiffs insulated the foundation walls , and the assistant building inspector of the City of Salem inspected and approved the said foundation on September 12 , 1985 , which was thereafter backfilLed . 12 . During this interim of time the plaintiffs had placed an order , and did in fact purchase a prefabricated single family dwelling from a New Hampshire manufacturer, which dwelling was to be delivered on September 20 , 1985 , according to prearranged schedule with crane operators . 13 . Unbeknown to the plaintiffs , on or about September 15 , 1985 , the building inspector arbitrarily, capriciously, and maliciously sent a "Stop Order" letter to Samuel Papalardo of 14 Cross Street , Salem, Massachusetts, ( a copy of which is attached and marked Exhibit A) revoking the previously legally issued building permit alleging that the site plan did not indicate the encroachment of an abutter ' s small- above-ground pool , and he further alleged that the building permit was also void since there was a new owner that had acquired the property subsequent to the issuance of the building permit alleging violations of Sections 114 . 7 and 113 . 3 of the Massachusetts State Building Code . 14 . Section ].1.3 . 3 of Massachusetts State Building Code provides as follows : ' Py whom application is made : Application for a permit shall be made by the owner of the building or Structure . The full names and addresses of the owner. , applicant , and of the responsible officers , .if the owner is a corporate body, shall he stated in the application . '' It does not prohibit the assignment of said permit to a subsequent owner , nor does said section require the necessity for a new permit to be sought by a subsequent owner . 15 . Section 11.4 . 7 of Massachusetts State Building Code provides as follows : " Revocation of permits : The building commissioner or inspector of buildings may revoke a permit or approval issued under the provisions of^this code in case of any false statement or misrepresentation of fact in the application or the plans on which the permit or approval was based . Upon examination of the application, plans , and data submitted by Samuel Papalardo to the building inspector, such information does not reveal any misrepresentations or false statements . 16 . On September 2.0 , 1985 , the previously ordered prefabricated home was set upon the foundation of this property . 17 . On September 23 , 1985 , a "Stop Order" placard by the building inspector was placed upon the front door of said newely delivered dwelling , it being the first notice to the plaintiffs of any "Stop Order" . 13 . Subsequently, the swimming pool. was remove,.l by the adjoining abutter. ; a minimal amount of further work was per. for.med by the plaintiffs upon said property to secure said dwel.l.ing from unnecessary damage by weather and vandals , pending resolution of the within controversy . 19 . The building inspector on November 13 , 1935 , forwarded to my client a letter indicating to him that since no building permit was issued to him in his name he violated section 113 . 1 of the Massachusetts State Building Code , and now Ebr the first time the building inspector further alleged that the aforesaid lot of land did not contain 5 , 000 square feet of land as , required by M. G. L. A . Chapter. 40A and the City of. Salem Zoning Ordinance (minimum lot size) . 20 . Plaintiffs subsequently engaged two land surveyors who surveyed the lot of land and both concluded that the lot of land had more or less than 5, 100 square feet, but not less than 5 , 000 square feet of land . 21 . Plans were drafted , and on August 20, 1986 a plan was duly recorded with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds showing the aforesaid parcel of land with square footage in excess of 5, 000 square feet as the original subdivision plan of such parcel prepared in 1930 was seriously flawed . 22 . Notwithstanding the new plan and representations of land surveyors , the building inspector for whatever arbitrary, capricious , malicious or even political reasons has steadfastly continued to abuse the power and authority granted him as building inspector by denying the plaintiffs their legal right to finish building said dwelling , and by denying the lawful use and occupation . 23 . The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the denial , of: the building inspector to the Board of Appeals pursuing their administraLive remedies , which petition was presented in the alternative to the Board of Appeals primarily seeking a reversal of the building inspector ' s denial and in the alternative seeking a variance [ coin the Board of Appeals if it concluded that the lot was less than 5 , 000 square feet , it hei.ng minimum lot size . 24 . On March 18 , 1987 the Board of Appeals after conducting hearings , by a split decision , denied the plaintiffs ' petition , which was filed with the City Clerk on April 13 , 1987 , and attached hereto as " Exhibit A" . 25 . That the said Board of Appeals exceeded its authority by denying the petitioners relief and the reinstatement of the building permit , and/or by denying t`he petitioners the variance requested in the alternative . 26 . That the plaintiffs have suffered substantial financial hardship and losses due to the unreasonable arbitrary , capricious and malicious conduct of the building inspector . COUNT I DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 27 . The plaintiffs incorporate and make a part hereof paragraphs 1 through 25 . 28 . The plaintiffs being aggrieved by the decisions of the Salem Building Inspector , and the Salem Board of Appeals do hereby further allege that there is a controversy between the plaintiffs and the defendants as to the legal rights of the plaintiffs under the law , and do hereby appeal the decision of the defendants . WHEREFORE , the plaintiffs demand judgment : 1 . That the Court make a binding d.=cl.aration of rights in the controversy between the Plaintiffs and Defendants . 2 . That the Defendant , building inspector William H . Munroe , be ordered to reinstate the original. lo=gally issued building permit , forthwith . 3 . That the defendant building inspector , William H . Munroe be ordered to refrain from maliciously , arbitrarily , or capricously intimidating and harrassing the plaintiffs by denying them their right to finish this dwelling and use thereof . 4 . That the damages be awardeel to the plaintiffs for their financial losses including their attorneys fees and costs . 5 . For such other further relief that this Court deems meet and proper . COUNT II TORT OF BAD FAITH 29 . The plaintiffs reaffirm and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 27 of Count I of this Complaint and hereby incorporate them in this Count II by reference . 30 . That the plaintiffs further allege that the building inspector , William H . Munroe , in his capacity as building inspector is a servant of the public and the public ' s interest and is empowered to exercise the statutory powers given to him in his official capacity in good faith and fair dealing . 31 . That the building inspector , will. iam 11 . Munroe , by his aforesaid conduct has breached this standard of care of: good faith and fair dealing by exercising his power uneasonbly arbitrarily , capriciously , and maliciously towards the plaintiffs withthe intent to hurt , damage , and denegrate the plaintiffs , taxpayers of the City of Salem . wHEREPORF. , the plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendant , wi.11iam H . Munroe , individually and as building inspector of the City of Salem , and the Cit; of Salem as follows : 1 . That the plaintiffs be awarded damages in the amount of one million ($1 , 000 , 000 . 00) dollars . 2 . That the plaintiffs be awarded punitive damages in the amount of five million ( $5 , 000 , 000. 00) dollars . 3 . That the plaintiffs be awarded their attorneys ' fees and costs . 4 . That a Jury Trial be granted on this Count . COUNT III USCA TITLE 1983 32 . The plaintiffs reaffirm and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 30 of Count I and III of this Complaint and hereby incorporate them in this Count III by reference . 33 . This action arises under the United States Constitution parti.Cularly under the provisions of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States , and under the Federal Law particularly Title 42 of the United* States Code , Section 1983 . 34 . Each and all of the acts of the defendants alleged herein were done by the defendants under the color and pretense of the Statutes , Ordinances , Regulations , Customs , and Usages of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts , the City of Salem and the County of Essex , and under the authority of their office for such city and county. 35 . The conduct of the defendants and each of them deprived the plaintiffs of the following rights , privileges , immunities , secure to them by the Constitution and Laws of the United States : 36 . The right of the plaintiffs not- to be deprived of life , liberty or property without due process of law and the right to the equal protection of the laws , secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States . 37 . That the plaintiffs suffered much anxiety , distress , discomfort and against William H . Munroe , individually and as Salem Building Inspector , and the City of Salem , embarrassment due to the unwarranted , unreasonable , arbitrary , malicious conduct of William H . Munroe . WHEREFORE , plaintiff demands judgment : 1 . That the defendant , building inspector , William Ii . Munroe be ordered to reinstate the original legally issued building permit , forthwith . 2 . That the defendant , building inspector , William A . Munroe , be ordered to refrain from maliciously , arbitrarily or capriciously intimidating and harrassiny the plaintiffs by denying them their legal right to finish this dwelling and use same . 3 . That damages be awarded to the plaintiffs for their financial losses , attorneys ' fees and costs , in the amount- of one million ( $ 1 , 000 , 000 . 00) dollars . 4 . That plaintiffs demand a Trial by Jury upon this Count . 5 . For such other further relief that this Court deems meet and proper . R spectfully it mmanuel N . Papani o as Plaintiffs Attorn y 16 Chestnut Street Peabody ,- Ma . 01960 r Telephone : 531-3200 April 22 , 1987 TYPE OR USE BALL POINT PEN MASSACHUSETTS TRIAL COURT SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMEN- ES S1•.;: CIVIL ACTION COVER SHEET SS. (To be filed with each Complaint) NO. PLAINTlrr(S) . DEFENDANT(S) WILLIAM H. MUNROE , Individual. WILLIAM N . P(A'iPETSASAS and as Salem Building Inspector , City c AND '1'fIOh1A5 N. Y.A'1'SAI:)✓`I'SAS -----... --------- ------ -- - ------- – -Salem.,—e.�als ATI OR- NI-Y(S) (Firm Name, Address, Tel.) ATTORNEY(S) (If known) I�nllnanuel N . PapanicYclas J.(i Chestnut Street IloolPcabody , Ma. 01960 Tel : 531-3200 Place an N in one box only ORIGIN IX 1. r01 Complaint ❑ 4. F04 Dlst. Cl. Appeal x231, s.97 7 2. 1:I12 Removal Ic Sup. Ct. c.231, x.104 CI 5 F05 Reactivated after Rescripl{ Relief [! 3. F03 Retransfer to Sup. Cl. c.231, s.102C from judgment/order (Mass. R. Civ. P. 60) Place an f J in one box only NATURE OF ACTION CONTRACT REAL PROPERTY MISCELLANEOUS ❑ A01 Services, labor and materials ❑ C01 Land laking (eminent domain) ❑ ED2 Appeal from administrative agency, G.L. c.30A ❑ AC2 Goods sold and delivered XQ CO2 Zoning appeal, G.L. c.40A E-] A03Commercial paper ❑ CO3 Dispute concerning title L] E03 Action against Commonwealth or Municipality, G.L. c.258 ❑ A08 Sale or lease of real estate ❑ C04 Foreclosure of mortgage El A99 Other (specify) ❑ C99 Other (specify) E) E04 Taxpayer suit, G.L. c.40 s.53 ❑ E05 Confirmation of arbitration awards, G.L. 0.251 TORT EQUITABLE REMEDIES ❑ E06 Massachusetts Antitrust Act, ❑ B03 Motor vehicle negligence-personal ❑ D01 Specific performance of contract G.L. c.93 injury/property damage ❑ E08 Appointment of receiver ❑ B04 Other negligence-personal Injury ❑ D02 Reach and apply, G.L. c.214, ❑ E09 General contractor's surety bond, property damage s.3(6)-(9) G.L. c.149, ss.29, 29a ❑ B05 Products liability ❑ D06 Contribution or indemnification ❑ E10 Summary process appeal ❑ D07 Imposition of trust E] 606 Malpractice-medical ❑ E17 Workman's Compensation ❑ 807 Malpractice-other ❑ D08 Minority stockholder's suit ❑ E12 Small Claims Appeal (specify) M D10 Accounting ❑ E13 Labor Dispute ❑ B08 Wrongful death, G.L. c.229, s.2A ❑ D12 Dissolution of partnership ❑ E14 Chapter 123A Petition —SDP ❑ B15 Defamation (libel-slander) ❑ D13 Declaratory judgment, G.L. c.231A ❑ E15 Abuse Petition, G.L. c.209A ❑ B99 Other (specify) ❑ D99 Other (specify) — ❑ E16 Auto Surcharge Appeal ❑ E17 Civil Rights Act, G.L. c.12, ss.11 H-1 IS THIS A JURY CASE? ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ E99 Other (speclfA SUPERIOR COURT RULE 29. Requirement of statement as to money damages to prevent the transfer of civil actions to District or Municipal Court Departments. 1. Superior Court Rule 29, as amended requires the statement of money damages on the reverse side be completed. 2. Failure to complete the ateme t, wher0appropria , will result in transfer of this action (Superior Cour ule 29(2). SI .ATURE OF ATTORNELCTW E RD DATE: 4/24/87 FFI —DO I E BELOW IS LINE) RECEIVED / DISPOSITION BY: A. Judgment Entered B. No Judgment Entered DATE: ❑ 1. Before jury trial or non-jury hearing 11 6. Transferred to District Court ❑ 2. During jury trial or non-jury hearing under G.L. c.231, s102C DISP ENTERED ❑ 3. After jury verdict BY: ❑ 4. After court finding DATE: -1 5. After post trial motion Disposition date __ .,etc•. '.�.... m IIfzz1P , � � sttcl�uSQtt� �ulilit �ru}rextg �e�2srtment � utlain Z:epartment William H. Munro November 18, 1985 One Salem Green 745-0213 William N. Katsapetses Colonial Ornamental Iron Works 75 Walnut St. Peabody, M 01960 RE: 103 Highland Ave. , Salem a Dear Mr. Katsapetses: ou time to resolve problems asso- atient in allowing Y with you and This office has been most p Ave. Despite meetings of a "Stop Work" our property located at 103 Highlandposting ciated with Y over forty five (45) days have elapsed since the your attorney, resented to this Department. The notice at this site and still no solution has been p facts remain the same: isan000) square feet of 1 . The property does not contain the five tho, ssachusetts General Laws land to be a buildable lot as required eZonby Ordinance; Ma Chapter 40A and the City the necessary the Massachusetts 2, - A house has been erected on the site without first obtaining permit as required by MGL, specifically, Section 113.1 of State Building Code; t property, work has 3sting of a , Despite the po "Stop Work" order at the P as November 15, 1985• - = T continued as recently the City of Salem of the You to see to the removal of this your complete fdisregaaate�nativelbut to orderoymonwea�adeth awathin seven (7) m= leaves me with n finish g Failure on your part to comply will be met with immediat o house and to floft�hisnoce foundation hole to existing n3 of your receipt "F E, legal action. Code carries a tia -� 000) at day for each violation and each day the p, 3 Please be advised that violation of the Massachusetts State Bui in fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1 , violation continues is a separate offense. Sincerely, . 1 N H• �> William Munroe mN Inspector of Buildings - <o Ha wHM:bms - = cc: City Clerk _ - Mayor Salvo Stephen Lovely, Ward Councillor City Solicitor f�tfg of Satem, gassar4ns2ffs �� `��: t4 s �uhlir �ra{sertg �e}�urfm>rnt �<tmc�� uLLl�wµl � ) C1I11.LC111 William H. Munroe One Salem Green 745-0213 September 16, 1985 Samuel Papalardo 14 Cross St. Salem, MA 01970 RE: Revocation of Permit 103 Highland Ave. Dear Mr. Papalardo: Please be advised that, as permitted under Section 114 .7 of the Massachusetts State Building Code, I have revoked your Building Permit, #375, issued June 3, 1985 for the following reason: The site plan submitted with your permit application does not indicate all existing structures on the site. It is my under- standing that a portion of an existing swimming pool presently encroaches on the property and would constitute a zoning violation. (Section 113.6, Massachusetts State Building Code) Be further advised that should. this matter be resolved and the property m sold that a new permit application must be made by the new owner of the building as required under Section 113.3 of the Massachusetts State Building Code. f If I can offer any advice or be of service in this matter, please f -contact me. 0 ;f Sincerely, �P " P r oN %o William H. Munroe Inspector of Buildings Zoning Enforcement Officer 4 0 a fo WHM:bms o � og cc: City Clerk Councillor Lovely, Ward III O G � d U,-1-Umew �} �: P�ttrfinenf j I William H. Munroe One Salem Green 745-0213 September 25, 1985 Mr. Samuel Papalordo 14 Cross Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: 103 Highland Ave., Salem, MA Dear Mr. Papalordo This is to notify you that the work being conducted at the above address is in direct violation of the General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; specifically Section 113.1 (NO PERMIT) of the Massachusetts State Building Code. The building on the property must be removed within seven (7) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to comply with this order will result in court action. Sincerelsaq: Edg Asst. Building Inspector EJP/jdg c.c. :City Clerk Mr. Mroz, Mayor's Office Councillor Lovely Electrical Department Plumbing Inspector Fire Department Mr. Niman 780 CMR: STATE BUILDING CODE COl21ll SSION shall cause such buildings and structures to be periodically or otherwise inspected as specified in Section 108.5.1 and Section 120.4, for compliance with this code. SECTION 112.0 RIGHT OF ENTRY 112.1 General: In the discharge of his duties, the building, official shall have the authority to enter at any reasonable hour ..' any building, structure or premises in the municipality to en- force the provisions of this code. If any owner, occupant, or other person refuses, impedes, inhibits, intereferes with, restricts, or obstructs entry and free access to every part of the structure, operation or premises where inspection authorized by this code is sought, the building official, or state inspector may: 1. seek in a court of competent jurisdiction a search warrant so as to apprise the owner, occupant or other person concerning the nature of the inspection and justification for it and may seek the assistance of police authorities in presenting said warrant; and/or 2. revoke or suspend any permit, license, certificate or other permission regulated under this code where inspection of the structures, operation or premises is sought to deter- mine compliance with this code. 112.2 Office badge: The Commission may adopt a badge of office for building officials which shall be displayed for the purpose of identification. 112.3 Jurisdictional cooperation: The assistance and cooper- ation of police, fire, and health departments and all other officials shall be available to the building official as required in_ the performance of his duties. Ewa SECTION 113.0 APPLICATION FOR PERMIT 113.1 When permit is required: It shall be unlawful to con- struct, reconstruct, alter, repair, remove or demolish a structure; or to change the use or occupancy of a building or structure; or to install or alter any equipment for which pro- vision is made or the installation of which is regulated by this code without first filing a written application with the building official and obtaining the required permit therefor. Exception: Ordinary repairs as defined in Section 201.0. 113.2 Form of application: The application for a permit shall be submitted in such form as the building official may prescribe 9/1/80 14 780 CMR: STATE BUILDING CODE COMMISSION and shall be accompanied by the required fee as prescribed in Section 118.0. !l 113.3 By whom application is made: Application for a permit 7t shall be made by the owner of the building or structure. The %7 full names and addresses of the owner, applicant, and of the 4 responsible officers, if the owner is a corporate bony, shall be stated in the application. { 113.4 Description of work: The application shall contain a general description of the proposed work, its location, the use and occupancy of all parts of the building or structure and of all portions of the site or lot not covered by the building; and shall state whether or not fire extinguishing equipment, plumb- ing, water piping, gasfitting, heating or electrical work is in- volved, the estimated cost of such work including the general If work, and such additional information as may be required by the building commissioner or inspector of buildings. The build- ing commissioner or inspector of buildings may require the facts �0. contained in each application to be certified by the applicant 1" under oath. S 113.5 Plans and specifications: The application for the permit shall be accompanied by not less than three (3) copies of spec- ifications and of plans drawn to scale, with sufficient clarity and detail dimensions to show the nature and character of the work to be performed. When quality of materials is essential for conformity to this code, specific information shall be given to establish such quality; and the code shall not be cited nor ' the term "legal" or its equivalent be used as a substitute for specific information. The building official may waive the re- quirement for filing plans when the work involved is of a minor nature. i. When such application for a permit must comply with the pro- visions of Article 4 or Article 12 of this code, the building official shall cause one (1) such set of plans and specifications received by him to be forwarded simultaneously to the head of the fire department for his file and approval of the items spec- ified in Section 1200.0 as they relate to the applicable sections of Article 4 and Article 12. The head of the fire department shall within ten (10) working days from the date of receipt by y him approve or disapprove such plans and specifications. Upon request by the head of the fire department, the building official .r may grant one (1) or more extensions for such review, pro- viding, however, that the total review by said head of the fire 4 ® department shall not exceed thirty (30) calendar days. If such it approval, disapproval or request for an extension of time shall not be received by the building official within said ten (10) j working days, the building official may deem the plans and specifications to be in full compliance with the applicable sec- tions of Article 4 and Article 12 and, therefore, approved by the head of the fire department. 9/1/80 15 780 CMR: STATE BUILDING CODE COMMISSION All.plans filed with the building official shall include but not be limited to: 1. the accurate locations and dimension of all means of egress from fire and an occupancy schedule of persons for all occupiable spaces; 2. the method and amount of ventilation and sanitation; 3. the methods of firestopping as required in this code; and 4. schedules and details indicating compliance of interior trim and finish with provisions of Article 9. 113.5.1 Structures subjgct to control: In those structures subject to control as required in Section 127.0, affidavits must be submitted with the permit application that the individuals and testing laboratories responsible for carrying out the duties specified in Section 127.0 have been licensed by the Commission. 113.5.2 Architects' and engineers' seals: Unless otherwise provided in this code, all plans and specifications for buildings and structures containing more than thirty-five thousand (35,000) cubic feet of enclosed space shall bear the Massachu- setts seal of registration of a qualified registered professional engineer or architect. Plans and specifications, plats and records whenever re- quired to be stamped with the seal of a registered professional engineer or architect shall be signed by the registrant named thereon. The use of a facsimile signature stamp shall not be deemed to comply with this section. 113.6 Site plan: There shall also be filed prior to a permit being granted for the excavation or for the erection of any building or structure a site plan showing to scale the size and location of all new construction and all existing structures on the site, distances from lot lines, the established street grades if they exist (verified by the town or city) and proposed finished grades. In the case of demolition, the site plan shall show all construction to be demolished and the location and size of all existing structures and construction that are to remain on the site or plot. The site plan shall not be changed except as specified in Sections 113.8 and 115.3. 113.7 Engineering details: The building official may require adequate details of structural, mechanical and electrical work, including computations, stress diagrams and other essential technical data, prepared by a registered professional engineer qualified by experience in the specific field of construction, to be filed. All such plans and computations shall bear the Massa- chusetts seal of registration and signature of the qualified reg- istered professional engineer or architect. 9/1/80 16 780 CMR: STATE BUILDING CODE COMMISSION Pea 113.8 Amendments to application: Subject to the limitations of 1'�' Section 113.9, amendments or revisions to a plan or other :«. records accompanying the same may not be made until the pro- posed changes have been filed with and approved by the building official; and such approved amendments shall he ' S deemed part cf the original application and shall be filed g therewith. «. 113.9 Time limitation of application: An application for a per- mit for any proposed work shall be deemed to have been abandoned six (6) months after date of filing, unless such application has been diligently prosecuted or a permit has been . . issued; except that for reasonable cause the building official •2 may grant one or more extensions of time for additional periods Aft not exceeding ninety (90) days each. IX t9 SECTION 114.0 PERMITS I" 114.1 Action on application: The building commissioner or in- spector of buildings shall examine or cause to be examined all _ applications for permits and amendments thereto within thirty (30) days after filing. If the application or the plans do not conform to the requirements of Section 113.0 or other related sections of this code or of all pertinent laws, he shall reject such application in writing citing the specific sections of this code or pertinent law. If he is satisfied that the proposed work conforms to the requirements of this code and all perti- nent law applicable thereto, he shall issue a permit. ' 114.2 Report to assessors: The building official shall give to the assessors of the municipality written notice of the granting by him of permits for the construction of any buildings or structures, or for the removal or demolition, or for any sub- stantial alteration or addition 'thereto. Such notice shall be given within seven (7) days after the granting of each permit, and shall state the name of the person to whom the permit was granted and the location of the building or structure to be con- structed, reconstructed, altered, demolished or removed. 114.3 Expiration of permit: Any permit issued shall be deemed abandoned and invalid unless the work authorized by it shall have been commenced within six (6) months after its issuance; however, for cause, one or more extensions of time, for periods not exceeding six (6) months each, may be granted in ® writing by the building commissioner or inspector of buildings. Work under such a permit in the opinion of the building com- missioner or inspector of buildings, must proceed in good faith continuously to completion so far as is reasonably practicable under the circumstances. I' For purposes of this section, any permit issued shall not be considered invalid if such abandonment or suspension of work is 9/1/80 17 f, a r� 780 CMR: STATE BUILDING CODE COMMISSION due to a court order prohibiting such work as authorized by such permit; provided, however, in the opinion of the building commissioner or inspector of buildings, the person so prohibited by such court order, adequately defends such action before the court. 114.4 Previous approvals: Nothing in this code or the rules and regulations pursuant thereto shall affect any building per- mit lawfully issued, or any building or structure lawfully begun in conformance with such permit, before the effective date of this code or any amendments thereto. 114.5 Signature to permit: The building commissioner or in- spector of buildings shall attach his signature to every permit, or he may authorize a subordinate to affix such signature thereto. 114.6 Approved plans: If approved by him, the building com- missioner or inspector of buildings or his authorized subordi- nate shall stamp and endorse in writing the plans submitted in accordance with Section 113.5; one (1) set of such stamped and endorsed plans shall be retained; the other set of plans shall be kept at the building site, open to the inspection of the building commissioner, inspector of buildings, or his authorized subordinate, at all reasonable times. 114.7 Revocation of permits: The building commissioner or in- spector of buildings may revoke a permit or approval issued under the provisions of this code in case of any false statement or misrepresentation of fact in the application or the plans on which the permit or approval was based. I 114.8 Approval in part: When application for a permit to erect or add to a building or structure has been filed, as required in Section 113.5 and pending issuance of such permit, the building commissioner or inspector of buildings may, at his discretion, issue a special permit for the foundations or any other part of a building or structure. The holder of such a special permit may proceed at his own risk without assurance that a permit for the entire structure will be granted. 114.9 Posting of permit: A copy of the building permit pro- vided by the building department shall be kept in view and pro- tected from the weather on the site of operation during the entire time the work is under execution and until the certificate of use and occupancy shall have been issued. The building permit shall serve as an inspection record card to allow the building official conveniently to make entries thereon regarding inspection of the work. 114.10 Notice of start: At least twenty-four (24) hours' notice of start of work under a building permit shall be given to the building official. 9/1/80 16 F') t;! 780.CMR: STATE BUILDING CODE COM.�fISSION < SECTION 115.0 CONDITIONS OF PERN11T 115.1 Compliance with code: The permit shall be a license to proceed with the work and shall not be construed as authority } to violate, cancel or set aside any of the provisions of this code, except as specifically stipulated by modification or legally granted variation in accordance with Section 126.0. 115.2 Compliance with permit: All work shall conform to the stamped or endorsed application and plans for which the permit iy has been issued and any approved amendments thereto. ;j 115.3 Change in site plan: A lot or site shall not be changed, t' ® increased or diminished in area from that shown on the official i site plan, as specified in Section 113.6, unless a revised plan showing such changes accompanied by the necessary affidavit of iR owner or applicant shall have been filed and approved. 1� Exception: A revised site plan will not be required if the change is caused by reason of an official street opening, street widening or other public improvement. t� ,t SECTION 116.0 DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES 116.1 Service connections: Before a building or structure can be demolished or removed, the owner or agent shall notify all utilities having service connections within the building or struc- ture, such as; water, electric, gas, sewer and other connec- tions. A permit to demolish or remove a"building or structure shall not be issued until a release is obtained from the utilities, 7771II stating that their respective service connections and appurten- ant equipment, such as; meters and regulators have been re- moved or sealed and plugged in a safe manner. 116.2 Lot regulation: When a building or structure has been demolished or removed and a building operation has not been �p projected or approved, the vacant lot shall be filled with non- organic fill, graded and maintained in conformity with adjacent grades. The lot shall be maintained free from the accumulation of rubbish and all other unsafe or hazardous conditions which endanger the life or health of the public; provisions shall be j made to prevent the accumulation of water or damage to any foundations on the premises or the adjoining property; and the necessary retaining walls and fences shall be erected in accord- ance with the provisions of Article 13. SECTION 117.0 MOVED STRUCTURES I 117.1 General: Buildings and structures moved into or within the jurisdiction shall comply with the provisions of this code. 9/1/80 19 IM yk k Ad R 1 Koo WITS 0 u ITT 4'L, 11'-%-,j- r Iry t it NI vp rtl +•^ pt, 4' fxll b (01" WON w RIM, 7,11AT: .,Igl aq 1 Q, 'M • low j. MY allay 'I ARC" f 4r 0" UR E OKI: _'2 r- 1,V, 3 Pq Ali L n-tz�g"mg vq I-�, j;r it 1 :Lti ♦ J. NOE-tt . ";.QiLPI't._Iii, " q ki .......... tq Fy V,V, _M-; x.rt I '11 p I i�f a 5:1' —c i rpSWINP hyj MIT of";.1 jz l 'j JU 1V WR Ing•- MM3 0 :kI pt Pu MAP Y':i My, ,I; I M pli ,1 ,ct t -t:�1� Cf: , � � Ft 1 .1. r � !v .a rr'^ ;�H`" N Ye i' V ± - �}d�t". sa,+, •`� !I yl 7�'a. .i i,I; "VV "MI r IT, W,, "n. 0.: tog, 10 1 A 1P 95 to Q, Lin P I ....c. ............................. .............................................. rL c D o I 1 \ � Oq / �0 J W Ooh o �, �. 5 3 a 2 v Car 3 • I PLAN OF LAND ZONE LOCATED IN SALEM DEED MASSACHUSETTS BOOK .. PAGE OWNED BY PLAN ,-"6, )E L �4 p�aL,A, 2rlO tip. 5No�11�JC I��OpOh�t7 Hol)5� FOGA j IDrI MAS' �7 198; SCALE : -l' DRADFORD ENGINEERING CO. 4 P.O. BOX 1244 F Haverhill, Mass rna3i I r.i. IKAS P, LS T329 TEL. 373 2396 4 P\ koTE'. EASEMENT PIAN VX. i o P.47ik ANv N. 1o,58P. Do tvT AvR EE 4a0•"ArS.TuOW PRhMp6E LocAT.� _ G v 7 ►rAif9r1 P p ,,;, t Noy Cele'fA1N )1� 9/.93 Qip` SEt ;� �� 3. �D �u Ki tau pt - � St �� N �} Dec- Ig77- ,p 3 9T a 5 X5, 654' go c Ay l� m pear w1. � -400, i 6 Ja 56k.3 SYo P Y7N Re�Rve\ \ 4, 7 / - MAY BEOBC S, olwr MERE L-0-T 2 $ 3) Pve plPe •E{ y T9. 58 v, N \ 1S.. R.C.P'Pe 0RINIM cT 12' zz'E — (>flltCrr S(•S• vp � ACIoRCM-0 TO STATE SuRYEY so P99 O 7 87 \ Lo T 2 ^ Pik r w �Tga4 loo.00 1 ID A �,'oF4L Ij le QO.00 `l r H 65' ►2' z 2 " `� 99.91 f/9 ARAGE a Q - FOBRE N�IMI ,n R;HlRL`C 4.1`F8 1 V W 'FLAN ""M veto 8K. 'i 135 1 xo�� loin 5 In � 3OMN FVoN WEISS. � - ' WIPE FouNo W NI'� AVMA Voll WEISS "uSEAND Aw is, to $C. S a� y .e If; 5141LLo7 2A IS To BE �.rM YE.YtO To -THE OWNER of LANUoN THE Sou-TN Allo LOT 2B ate,! * zt 15 To BE CONVETEO To TME owNER of Lo., 3 — 'g.!a _ pLA14N 1WG 90ARD APPROYAI uMOGR THE SYBON1S114 CON1RpL LAty NoS'Re U 1 ED SkA L E c A, 4 R Y 4 ' Y .. r 41, -:c . � 6.45 >6 3 46 ' Y al 5 65" 1 .L .. ..,.. . ... ..lit: .�'aneft- .t it .-.W •rl v C .� m a a.1 u 044 JJ u O +-> >, O a) 7C: ro U l� Q) V) V) V) '0 Q) 4 N Q) •.i •0 `+( N O O C 4 U > M •+ E 4-4 > W 4 U :j '• 4 VI Q7 DND }R N ro u u (1) U) M 'O C U) U cn N ° aro M u Q ) m 0 4j C O '7 <- i N r 0 0 4 rl o a m v a N .-a .G Q) L cD aj O •.+ O C >> -rj L64 C �••� aj Ln 4 V1 > 3 0 o M a a) o yj u o cn u Q) (1) C O O V) u (1) 1,4 ft1 4 �C.a M p O 4 O. E 4 'M •C v W M aw. L b U1 O a 4 bD G _ U At w 1n r Q O '" u ,� O rn U N 8 k M Q) T1 Ql N a� >> C •rl Si y gg m X-1Q) U -� 0 Q) CO 4 C 7 C W fS 'A O1 +� C C C 'd N tv (1) Q) td 4 G i UUli O U) O r+ bD SENDER: •.+ • Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. Lfee): to receive the -� • Complete items 3, and 4a & b. ices (for an extra •�j' • Print your name and address on the reverse of this form soM N that we can return this card to youA"Vch this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on thessee's Address M, Ln O back if space does not permit. Write "Return Receipt Requested" on the mailpiece next tocted Delivery a O ,� the article number. ester for fee. _ i••rr w u ro 4 c 3. Article Addressed to: 4a. icle Number rc,) v N o o ro m �c 1� P a ter; /!� - . � Z "03oz 6` " m 4b. Service Type a u 7 r/�L� /, /1L f ElRegistered E:1Insured 0 - •- r•7 ,-) 1 1 n �-1 g' Certified ❑ COD 0. Ga ,U, 'H � z �y�t +//J-r1 C f^/r1C"" 61� 6;� ❑ Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt for a 'stere w O e Merchandise ,$4 W 0 O 7. Date of Delivery 1 lL 0 W .� ? GCG c ,; O 00 5. S tura (Addressee) r 0 u C S. Addressee's Address(Only if requested ?lero = M tl and fee is paid) s v O 6. Signature (Agent) h•„clvttl� 3 A � N PS Form 11, October 1990 eu.s.aro:1990--Vaeet DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT of '*ttltm' massac4usE##s ffire Depmrtmem 3Hmbquurters 46 ir,afagette street %lem. Massachusetts H19711-3695 Joseph F. Sullivan Fire Prevention Chief Bureau 508-744-1235 Fax 508-744-3938 508-745-7777 June 11, 1992 City of Salem Mr. Maurice Martineau Acting Inspector of Buildings One Salem Green Salem, Ma 01970 Dear Mr. Martineau: Upon inspection of the property located at #103 Highland Avenue, the following was noted: (a) The property was undeveloped but for a foundation located on the center of the lot. The foundation is being used, apparently by neighbors, as a dumping place for agricultural waste. (b) The foundation, by virtue of being unguarded/unfenced presents an attractive nuisance which could present a hazard to the public safety. If this foundation is not to be used as originally intended, it should be removed to alleviate the above issues. Signed, � W )AAAAAAA_ Robert W. Turner, Acting Chief STROUT BROS. CONSTRUCTION, INC. 244 LAFAYETTE STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (508) 7444342 6/16/92 Maurice Martineau Acting Inspector of Buildings Mr. Martineau: After viewing the foundation at 103 Highland Ave. , it is my opinion that it could potentialy be a danger to the public and should be barricaded in some way, or filled in to prevent any accidents from happening in the future . Since Peter Strout �aN01""�.. �,145J L4 Gi4P�Ll� ,�/y{.Ii�YGL�LIA4 P ,ZF o 7Peparrtmentoffy1j uh1ir ,$eriTiices One (�ne N alem Oreen 745-9595 �xt. 3z1 STANTON W.BIGELOW,P.E. City Engineer Director of Public Services June 24, 1992 Maurice Martineau Acting Building Inspector One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Re: 103 Highland Avenue Dear Maurice: As per your request, I visited the above referenced location and found the condition of the site to be very unsafe. It is my opinion that the existing foundation be removed or filled in to prevent any unfortunate accidents. If you have any questions, please fell free to contact me. Assistant City Engineer f Titu of li�ttlzm, Aussac4usctts Public prnpertg Department �f y, iguilbing Department (One Snlun (green 508-745-9595 Ext. 380 William H. Munroe Director of Public Property Inspector of Buildings Zoning Enforcement Officer 7/14 /92 the IonOrable. Neil .I . iiarrin ton 'nvnr . tv 0 Saieui Re : :Appropriation for Demolition 103 fi ; ghland Avenue Dear :'avor Harrington : :1t its meeting of April. 1) . 1992 the Salem City ;ouncil declared the foundation at 103 Highland Ave . a threat to public safety and ordered this department to see to its removal . pealed bids were solicited from demolition ontr.actors and the low bid received was $2800 . 00 from Neptune Demolition Corp . I respectfully request the sum of $2800 . 00 be appropriated from the demolition account # ( 01- .-0553-390 ) , so this office can proceed with the demolition of this structure . Sincerely ERaurice Martineau Acting Inspector Of Buildings �A� n �n r r 143 § 7 PUBLIC SAFETY s} 0 S down or removed, the lot shall be levelled to uniform grade by a proper if sanitary fill to cover any cellar or foundation hole and any rubble not q removed. Amended by St.1949, a 156, § 2; SL1957, c. 214, § 2. �* Historical and Statutory Notes . ry v'& r St.1878, c. 47, § 2. St.1894, c. 481, §§ 15, 49. SL1913, a 655, § 5. r ;+ EP.S.1882, c. 104, § 5. St.1899, c. 139, § 2. - .., } = q St.1888, c. 399, § 3. R.L.1902, c. 104, § 5. tp St.1949, c. 156, § 2, approved April 8, 1949, it secure,' and "or to make it secure" and e, 4� t 'fr added the second sentence. added ", or to be made secure". � St.1957, c. 214, § 2, approved March 19, r,. 1957, in the first sentence, inserted"or to make t 4 . F s Cross References �tr< `ti �',$,� ! Conveyance of real estate to evade nuisance provisions, penalty, see c. 111, § 1270. Nuisance, burnt or dangerous building as, see c. 139, § 1. nv State inspectors, removal or repair of dangerous buildings by, see § 14 of this chapter. m r Library References ?fi' Health and Environment 4=32. C.J.S. Health and Environment §§ 28 to 36, g ; WESTLAW Topic No. 199. 52. s Notes of Decisions In general I owner's right to repair it, as previously autho- y, Fire escapes 2 rized. Burofsky v. Turner (1931) 175 N.E. 90, 274 Mass. 574. fi 1. In general 2. Fire escapes 1• a f Municipal building superintendent's letter The city of Lynn has the authority to require extending time for demolishing building, un- the installation of fire escapes on old buildings 3`c� der G.L.1921, c. 143, §§ 4 to 8, did not defeat in the city. Op.Atty.Gen., April 15, 1943, p. 39. _ rR t § 8. Failure to remove or make structure safe; survey board; survey; c report 1�r If an owner, lessee or mortgagee in possession of such unsafe structure `. refuses or neglects to comply with the requirements of such notice within the ! `' ft *ti3 time limited, and such structure is not made safe or taken down as therein ordered, or made secure, a careful survey of the premises shall be made by a yn i�$ board consisting in a city of the city engineer, the head of the fire department, as such term is defined in section one of chapter one hundred and forty-eight, s' and one disinterested person to be appointed by the local inspector, and in a r+•, _` town of a surveyor, the head of the fire department and one disinterested � a person to be appointed by the local inspector. If there is no city engineer in such city or no head of the fire department in such city or town, the mayor or ` �• s, selectmen shall designate one or more officers or other suitable persons in , Irlt�, r place of the officers so named as members of said board. A written report of 140 tS \�. .IC SAFL' , 1I31ING INSPECTION, ETC. 143 § 9 by a propet's� �ttcyey shall be made, and a copy thereof served on such owner, lessee or I ' rubble'ttot� �rlgostgagee in possession. nded.by SL1945, c. 697, § 1; SL1949, c. 541, § 2; St.1957, c. 214, § 3; St.1972, c. t Mok g z4: ,1 Historical and Statutory Notes jft,.c..47, § 3. St.1894, c. 481, §§ 16, 50. St.1913, c. 655, § 6. ' I" a �, Itlbl,c. 104, § 6. SL1899, c. 139, § 3. rt c-399, § 4. R.L.1902, c. 104, § 6. pt it secure". Vit_ , x" $1445"a 697, § 1, an emergency act, ap- "lessee or mortgagee in possession" for "agentI yr1 • :hly.24, 1945, substituted "head" for or person interested in". •itft engineer"throughout the section and, in St.1957, c. 214, § 3, approved March 19, p 4€ (i{el-sentence, inserted ", as such term is 1957,in the first sentence,inserted"or to make ' "A{Naed;in section one of chapter one hundred it secure;'. , fprtytight,". St.1972, c. 802, § 24,approved July 19, 1972, ke , a' S ;• .,w,t and by§ 77 made effective Jan. 1, 1975, in the ` ` .R 0 - , r• x,4; 1949,c. 541, § 2, approved July 13, 1949, first sentence, substituted "local inspector' for '> " 9„ ;16e first and third sentences, substituted "inspector of buildings" in two places. it apter. c -+'It t d4 �. ybtrt.-.' ',. v<° �,: 4 Cross ReferencesNA, ) " m+� x ,'i' titFeyaitce of real estate to evade nuisance provisions, penalty, see c. I 11, § 1270. it 3, ^9 < t>a burnt or dangerous building as, see c. 139, § 1. i §§ 28 1 )' a a3tnspectors, removal or repair of dangerous buildings by, see § 14 of this chapter. 9'I :V Notes Notes of Decisions wx (rA'isneral 1 Under this section authorizing building in- vtously authd. i Nttfinent of nuisance 2 Spector to notify owner of dangerous condition " 175 N.E. of building and that if owner continues such ,1 ^'Y�9 P= neglect building inspector should cause it to be a,i'�,y `,� » �, made safe or taken down and that costs in- t;�`,•� �` l in general Of-4 4t a �, curred should constitute a lien and that owner U +3`4, etltpinistrative determination of city build- should, for every day's continuance of such s uy to regyjl+sF it Vnunissioner, after proper notice and op- neglect after being so notified, forfeit to city - old builtBttOli u' 'j ity to be heard, that buildingshould be not less than$10 nor more than$50,the forfei- 5 1943 p.;y b .� " °ice as dangerous to public health and tore, or the liability to it, cannot be regarded !* '6 "',a,`,•' y cogld not be attacked collaterally in either as an encumbrance within statutoryy c against wrecking company which acted quitclaim covenant or as giving rise to a d, Bury du k'. breach of a statutory warrant Silverblatt v. flllcotnmissioners order. Di Maggio v. Mystic Livadas (1960) 164 N.E.2d 875 340 Mass. 474. - & Wrecking Co. (1960) 166 N.E.2d 213, 340 . 3 -• "686'' 2. Abatement of nuisance struetum +% 24A-A i9txcking company acting, in good faith This section relating to convening board within the 011 +++t„ ander abuilding commissioner's order, while where owner of unsafe structure refuses to as therels �,, trry -,r.'1k'i "in effect unattacked, is entitled to rely comply with requirements set forth in noticei >kkr ,syll�+tq order without making, at its peril, a de- from building inspector did not apply to action made ion whether the commissioner's con- to abate nuisance. City of Woburn v. Busa + par[metlt,',�"` c�„ 06Fwas correct. Id. (1980) 403 N.E.2d 422, 9 Mass.App. 903. :1 ort -et t y �,t "'�a .Dangerous or abandoned structures removed or made safe by local _- *.a �" inspector; lien for costs; penalty; use of structure mterestCl��', -, t 'r . ,. lgmeer [Ga4 ,, If such report declares such structure to be dangerous or to be unused, mayor pYuttthabited or abandoned, and open to the weather, and if the owner, lessee tersons`I'iiM inotgagee in possession continues such refusal or neglect, the local ° 3{ ' 4f report oEi '. f4tor shall cause it to be made safe or taken down or to be made secure, 141 a aA { wrt ? y$}+ hl .. DEMOLITION NEPTUNE DEMOLITION CORP. P.O. BOX 910,70 TENNEY ST. GEORGETOWN, MA 01833 508 - 352 - 62101 FAX 508 - 352- 2446 A LDGIFFORD .RUSSELL I ,--- ireo[or of Operations DAVID SENNEIT Manager � Page No. 1 of 1 pages NEPTUNE DEMOLITION CORP.P.O. Box 910 }art GEORGETOWN, MASSACHUSETTS 01833 r { �E ,I � 14519 PHONE DATE (508) 352.6210 508-745-9595 9 July 1992 JOB NAME/LOCATION To Dave Harris Building Inspector " C_ undat i-o. — One Salem Green vEnu c Salem, Ma. 01970 r°:Z: r7 c� ARCHITE TS bATEOP,FaANS [� x rn rte+ We hereby propose to furnish,in accordance with specifications below or on attached pages,all material and labor necessaryto comp ate the following: > Demolish concrete foundation and footings and remove all debris causedby work from_.the site. Fill _cellarhole to.ahe existing ground _gradeswith .gravel .__ for the sum of LVfI✓7 7 '...E�C� / . tivE . '..�1 � � — ..... dollars ($ .v 6 o ` /6 ............) PAYMENTS TO BE MA EAS FOLLOWS: Terms _ 30 day_' .... .. ............... ......... .. ASBESTOS ORA ANY OTHER BY TH D OF ENVIRONMENTAL AS HAZARDOUS LI RY THE DEM. Of ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ENGINEERING _11SIANOT-INCIL! III IN THIS QONTR CT OR All material is guaranteed to be as specified. All work is to be completed in a work- manlike manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from the Authorized above or attached specifications involving extra costs will be executed only upon written Signature orders,and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate.All agreements G ord R Rte$$el 1 Pres. contingent upon strikes,accidents or delays beyond our control.Owner to carry fire, Note: is proposer may e tornatlo and other necessary insurance.Our workers are fully covered by Workmen's withdrawn by us if not accepted within 120 days. Compensation Insurance. .C1raptunre of Frapast I — The above or attached prices, 2i2"a�-r+cP�s specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted.You are Signature authorized to do the work as specified.Payment will be made as outlined above. /Z c— h Signature Date of Acceptance: .J //9 L. RF7-tlR Al I NIMBI—, ��`• CER IA ISSUE DATE(MM/UUP'+ri FBNV_A `:'' 07/09/92 I PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OFNF ATION ONLY AND LEO RUSH INSURANCE CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICA 1 131 MAMMOTH ROAD DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY i II, PELHAM, NH 03076 POLICIES BELOW. ... COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE COMP ETTER Y A COMMERCIAL INDEMNITY INSURED LETTER PANY B NATIONAL ORANGE MUTUAL NEPTUNE DEMOLITION LETTTERRYC LIBERTY MUTUAL 70 TENNEY ROAD GEORGETOWN, MA 01833 LETTER COMPANY D COMPANY E LETTER CoVERA 8 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PEmot) INDICATED,NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT,TEAM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH Twn CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERM': EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE SEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. CO TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY BXINII I LTR POLICY NUMBER DATE IMM/DD/YY) DATE(MMIDDIYY): LIMITS GE--RAL LIABILITY --- GENERAL AGGREGATE f 500000 A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY PROOUCTS•COMPOP AGO. f 500000 CLAIMS MADE X OCCUR. 20039200600CI 3-13-92 3-13-93 PERSONAL ADV.INJURY • 500000 OWNER'SA CONTRACTOR'S PROT. BACH OCCURRENCE • 500000 FIRE DAMAGE IAAF oII•fin) f 50000 MED.EXPENSE MAY aM p1FCI1) f .n AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY X ANY AUTO COMBINED SINGLELIMIT • 50000 B ALL OWNED AUTOS M2R12578 1-17-92 1-17-93 BODILY INJURY SCHEDULED AUTOS Me, HIRED AUTOS NON-OWNED AUTOS BOOILY INJURY (PAT FCCIUlM) GARAGE LIABILITY PROPERTY DAMAGE S EXCESS LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE f UMBRELLA FORM AGGREGATE f OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM L — WORKER'S COMPENSATION STATUTORY LIMITS C AND WC162-080381 3-13-92 3-13-93 EACH ACCIDENT • 100000 EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY DISEASE—POLICY LIMB f 5500000 DISEASE—EACH EMPLOYEE f 100000 OTNER -- DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS,LOCATIONS/VENICLESMPECIAL ITEMS Demolition Contractor CERTIFICA SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE 0E60111188D POLICIES BE CANCELLED REFORI I'n City Of Salem EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR One Salem Green MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE"OLDER NAMED TO i 111 Salem, Massachusetts. LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE COMPANY,ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVI AUTHORIZED REPR Acono ze Isnot r; � b011PORATION 199 �y • 300 Forest Street• PO Box 6087 •Peabody,MA 01961,USA• (508)535-4144• FAX(508)535-4252 C_ June 30, 1992 C) n c� (ji Dave Harris 3 City of Salem = 103 Highland Ave. c a Salem, MA 01970 .� Dear Mr. Harris: Wood Recycling Inc. is pleased to submit the following bid proposal for the aforementioned structure. The work is to include; foundation torn down, removed and filled in with 150 yards of fill. It is understood that Wood Recycling Inc. will supply all labor and equipment for the com- pletion of the job. Wood Recycling Inc. is not responsible for the overseeing of the removal of any hazardous materials that may be located in or at the location, nor are they responsible or liable for the disposal of such materials. The total cost of the aforementioned work inclusive of all the items mentioned above is $3,500. 00 for solid fill complete. Payment of 50% will be due upon signing of the contract. The remaining 50% will be due upon completion of the demolition. The above demolition should take 2 - 3 days to complete. Should there be any questions regarding the job at any time, please feel free to contact us directly at your convenience. We wish to thank you in advance for the opportunity to submit this proposal. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely yours, William Phillips Vice President, Wood Recycling, Inc. Accepted by: "'„t' GENERAL CONTRACTORS 58 BROADWAY•P.O.BOX 366 TRUCKING&EXCAVATING•DEMOLITION WORK SALEM, MA 01970.617 744-3849 GRAVEL•LOAM•FILLING•BLACKTOP June 29 , 1992 CITY OF SALEM Department of Public Property One Salem Green Salem, MA . 01970 +�V' 'j �R ra C;73 _x ;r tYY G7 Atte nt io n: Mr . David Harris Dear Mr . Harris : (1 U) Ir. reply to a request for a quotation to demolish a.ncP remove concrete foundation and footing located at the corner of Highland Avenue and Greenway Road . We will perform this work for the sum of $3000 .00 . This quotation includes demolish and remove concrete foundation and backfill cellar hole to the existing grades . Hoping to hear from you favorably . Yours very truly Daniel Mackey General Manager T . MACKEY & SONS , INC . DJM:m 3 P Tito of t*ttlzm, massac4usetts Public Prnpertg i3epnrtment Nuilbing Uepnrtment (One 6alem Green 500-745-9595 Ext. 300 William H. Munroe Director of Public Property Inspector of Buildings Zoning Enforcement Officer 9/24/92 Dennis Daley Purchasing Agent 1 Salem Green Salem Ma . 01970 Re : Bids Dear Mr . Daley Enclosed are the three bids that were required for the demolition of 103 Highland Ave . This office was unaware of the new regulation that required your assistance for obtaining these bids . Sincere apologies for any inconvenience . It was a department procedure that I had followed and not made aware of the change until our conversation . Thank you for your understanding . Sincerely Maurice M. Martineau Acting Inspector Of Buildings e U "< e �i Izlilune (bemolidion orp. o o F 1� P. O. BOX 910•GEORGETOWN, MASSACHUSETTS 01833 a m Cn � Cb � N Dave Harris Building Inspector One Salem Green Salem, Ma. 01970 'Demolition Bid' ► dotiks kgfi,��,�fses /�,. t�,�, I ARCA LoT / -76 A5cessors A10/0 /4 L07` /96 .103 1111.5h/ano Ale. 4�/6�86 T, if'out,-At// P 5 z l 4 f c, G 12�• �o.o a = 2o7/. 5 Q` = 2 402. S T FeA.= 9,974 SF •a 4,974. S'jc ... �f avec_ = —' 4S/N C � 5F CL I i R( arin9 s tavi-en froW �IO/J . 'a �f is 40T 2 oN PLAN _ iP,Eca�GF1j Bk 353o p6 0o i . . _'.2 ,' __ s,9ctM, MAsS. " z9 Nov_ /972 42 �, 4 oee. 1492 24 6y Raymo,ad C. P�essey tic. . �'C r 5 N. SALEM MkGS r�,-e g� P glad a � 1973 p� 5 cats l = Zo 0T. . 29 N off/. 19'12 b le C. t 9'1 Z. o�. � R^yMor�p C.pRssse`{, 1rlc. CCC"' i� R64.LAKD �.. � $ �, tFaAi�2rof DI',�'� %' � �,pA 1 t 3 M UN Ro a luOf Q O s a u MSsrll CC\�Y�`'PT _ koTe•. EASt�Eut P�Au DI(. 954o4.47a goI'll"Tw� #� •► st91 1,. \ AND N.BmI( 1015-SP- 19 W 1bT AGREE. �rf'aQiLW�LL 9t.93a <vI' e'y,� _y PKNIMA6E LOCK-EIC I Mut CIRTAIN I_� 1 �� .1 ' 2' •,Q` �SEt \ 5 _�T6 T / v I sT s4' sO^V v� •� Qoedu \ *,I 'IZAIW �� _ • .t. °° FC Q3 ' m s SE40 E EASE. SI PLAM 'Rew ROE\ �� - •F. `ry NAY BE Z •� OSO S.F.' o �� kn vsenl� HeRE t-OT r 11E Yivr 79• S 8 W ' \ 1 s" It C.Pipe oRntu 22•E j " q<coRO�wG to SATES al P98 M SASE f s65' IZ' t •� _ n.a. z�ISB O ° 1-0-T •L. �c"t \ \ (00.00 '. ti +t1 1 - � ¢ P.K tOP•ciC 80.00 3 \ I JAI ". I ��' 0 •Y 'N o ��' 22 W 99.91 Woob a i n d 9 1 GA4AG� r W a o • 1 a o 17 _ V < "r-0vMCRL`C BRE NII 13 5 S4.IR 148- v 1� .xo�rAlr m PI_au v.L�TH Deco 4K. XoL . Foul.o ,� o41 h( F yON VIEISS. us9Au WIPE olt�"9z ua l�HtyA VoK WEISS N n Auv 117 �' Ul f,2l fiX. 5880 SINCE 1-oT 2{l IS To BE I-'>HtEY EO To jHE AWNER of LAID Ou 1'rkE 5o4ZN A1lD LOT l5 IO Be Cow,Lyeb To THE owmeR OF La-i 3 ._�— v r�oxw CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS 5c�6 BOARD OF APPEAL `-' 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR ]1 �1Fsa SALEM, MA O 1970 L/ TEL. (978) 745-9595 rr ' FAX (978) 740-9846 ' STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR. G 'i MAYOR DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EMILY MORGAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE .y FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 103 HIGHLAND AVENUE R-1 A hearing on this petition was held on September 18, 2002, with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Harris, Joseph Barbeau and Bonnie Belair. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and other and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting Variances from lot size to construct a single family dwelling for the property located at 103 Highland Avenue located in an R-1 zone. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exit 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 and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner is a prospective buyer who has entered a purchase and sale agreement i with the owner of a lot at 103 Highland Avenue with the intention of building a single 1 family home on the lot. 2. The lot in question is 4,950 square feet in area. It does not meet the zoning Ordinance's 15, 000 square foot requirement for single-family homes. It is not a grandfathered lot because it falls below the square footage required for single-family homes at the time this ordinance was enacted. Petitioner was aware that the lot did not meet the zoning requirements when she entered the purchase and sale agreement. 3. Several neighbors opposed the petition. Mr. & Mrs. Jon Lunt, abutters at 6 Greenway Road, delivered a letter describing previous dealings with the property owner, who built a home on the site despite having been denied a variance several years ago. The foundation of the earlier home was removed at the expense V 4 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EMILY MORGAN REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED A 103 HIGHLAND AVENUE R-1 page two of the City of Salem. Stan Poirier of 8 Cottage Street described flooding problems that was worsened by the owner's dumping fill on this property. He indicated that the fill brought by the owner covered a storm drain installed by Mass Highway Engineers. 4. There was no showing of hardship with respect to the proposed variance. 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. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to the petitioner. 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially hardship derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 0 in favor and 4 in opposition to grant the requested variances. Having failed to garner the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. VARIANCE DENIED SEPTEMBER 18, 2002 Chairman � ZlvC�Nina Cohen, Board of Appeal r 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 MGL Chapter 40A and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have passed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owners Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal c:. r. c: r.; f r �� e/87 .;.{';: ' .� k �4_ "o.rti``4 s� A\ e .0 CITY OF SALEM HEALTH DEPARTMENT BOARD OF HEALTH Salem, Massachusetts 01970 ROBERT E. BLENKHORN January 11, 1989 9 NORTH STREET HEALTH AGENT (617) 741-1800 k William Katsapetsos 79 Walnut Street Peabody, i1a 01960 Dear Sir: In June 1987, a carplaint was received by this department that cuttings of trees, grass and weed from your property at 103 Highland Avenue in Salem were illegally placed on an abuttor's land. On October 14, 1987 hearing, Salem District Court Clerk I9agistrate continued this matter to November 4 with the condition that you contact the Health Department on October 15 to arrange for an on site reinspection. At this reinspection, the Health Department representative noted that all cuttings had been removed, the area cleaned and all violations corrected, and on November 4, 1987, Clerk Robert Grant dismissed this matter. In August of 1988, a cmiplaint was received that overgrowth of grass, weeds, etc. around the structure were creating a blind corner for both pedestrian and vehicular traffic. A reinspection of the area by this department noted that all overgrowth had been cut and removed. At this writing, all Health Code Violations cited by the Salem Health Department have been corrected. Very truly yours, n c_ FOR THE 30ARD OF HEALTH K — L - --m ry c" — IMERr E. BIM<IiOFN, C.H.O. Health Agent IZE��4 ti co cc: Building Inspector William H. Munroe TO: BOARD OF APPEALS, SALEM, MA JANUARY 5, 1989 RE: 103 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SALEM, MA GENTLEMEN: ATTACHED IS A PETITION SIGNED BY THE RESIDENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SURROUNDING THE ABOVE PROPERTY. WE WOULD LIKE TO LET IT BE KNOWN THAT WE ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE ALLOWING OF THE VARIANCE FOR THIS PROPERTY SO AS TO KEEP THE HOUSE THAT WAS ILLEGALLY PUT UPON SAID PROPERTY. AS WE ARE SURE YOU KNOW FROM PAST EXPERIENCE, THIS LOT IS UNDERSIZED. THE PUTTING UP OF THIS HOUSE WAS DENIED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, LAND WAS FILLED OVER A. STATE DRAIN AND WETLAND WAS FILLED WHICH HAS NOW CAUSED THE WATER TABLE TO RISE AND FLOOD THE NEIGHBORING HOME ON GREENWAY ROAD WHEN THERE IS HEAVY RAIN. THIS WAS NEVER A BUILDABLE LOT THOUGH OTHERS HAVE COME BEFORE YOUR BOARD AND WERE EITHER DENIED OR WERE ASKED TO WITHDRAW. CONSIDERING THE PROBLEM THIS HAS CAUSED FOR ITS ABUTTOR AND THE ILLEGALITY OF THE HOUSE IN THE FIRST PLACE, WE WOULD HOPE THE BOARD WILL NOT RULE IN FAVOR OF THIS PETITION FOR VARIANCE. CC: MAYOR ANTHONY SALVO COUNCILLOR VINCENT FURFARO COUNCILLOR NEIL HARRINGTON COUNCILLOR FRANCIS GRACE COUNCILLOR GEORGE MCCABE COUNCILLOR DONALD BATES GEORGE WHITTIE WILLIAM MUNROE m W N r .¢ wo ® w uw 00 U N © Vit. - r m U .�= rte• .� - . t I � Ell IVA I, 11 11 =11 / i I �/ w �✓ adi M win OR i i s f �} ►A f12 b A DMess Z� � �%� �/i��g�� /��/�- 'J ap Poarb of �Fpett1 May t , 1987 Michael O'Brien, Esq. City Solicitor City of Salem Dear Mr. O'Brien: A complaint filed by Attorney Papanickolas on behalf of William and Thomas Katsapetsas has been forwarded to you under separate cover. This complaint is concerning a Board of Appeal decision for 103 Highland Avenue. This complaint was discussed at our last meeting, April 29, 1987. As you are aware, the Board of Appeal is not offended by a suit where a legitimate difference of opinion seems to arise. However, after reviewing the testimony and recalling the circumstances of events, we feel this suit is frivilous, capricious and totally unjustifiable. Therefore, it was unanimously voted to have the City of Salem Legal Department explore the possibilities of a countersuit against the plaintives and or their attorney. We would appreciate your immediate attention in this matter and would welcome a meeting with you at our next scheduled hearing which will be May 13, 1987. Thank you for your- cooperation, if I can be of any help, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, for the BOARD OF APPEAL James B. Hacker Chairman JBH:bms it 'COVry{A., fdi# ofS�ttrm, Httssttci�use##� � a Paurb of April 13, 1987 Notice is hereby given that as of this date the decision of the Board of Appeal has been filed in the office of the City Clerk to deny the petition of William & Thomas Katsapetsas for an appeal of the Buildings Inspectors denial of a building permit and for a Variance at 103 Highland Ave. BOARD OF APPEAL Brenda M. Sumrall Clerk APPEAL FROM THIS DPCISION. IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 11 OF THE MASS. GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 303, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PU"SANT TO LIASS. "ENERAL LS':lS. CHAPTER 303, SECIIOfI 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN. SHALL NPT TAPE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OFATHEN,OCAPPEAL BHAR�'I; !TIFILED T FICATICN IiF THE CITY CLERK TI:AT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED :0AS UAPPEAL CR UENI SF IS OR THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL Hr1J BEEN FHE, THAT IT UilDER OFCRECORD THE S',IJIH RELORUED SAN OP T NOED YON DEDS OF TIITLE,A„lE OF T:11 fi vl tiE' BOARD OF APPEAL r( of Iem, 'T- assadjusetts i M V DECISION ON THE PETITION OF THOMAS N—KATSAPETSES..REQUESTINC FORA: VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT-103 HIGHLAND AVENUE (R-1) A hearing on this petition was held on November 13, 1996 with the following Board Members present: Gary Barrett, Chairman; Paul Valaskagis, Nina Cohen, Richard Dionne and Albert Hill. 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 property, is requesting Variance from lot size and front yard setback to allow construction of a single family dwelling in this single family district. The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the 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 and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. There is a City of Salem mandate by the Salem City Council dated Oct. 28, 1993 that the backfill be removed and renew the property to its original grade. 2. In opposition are: Ward 3 Councillor, John Donahue, Ward 4 Councillor, Leonard O'Leary, John Lunt and Stanley Porier. 3. The petitioner failed to demonstrate or to meet the burden of proof relative to legal hardship. 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. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject property and not the district in general. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF THOMAS KATSAPETSES REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 103 HIGHLAND AVENUE page two 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner. 3. 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 five (5) to (0) , in opposition to the motion to grant, having failed to garner the required four affirmative votes to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. VARIANCE DENIED NOVEMBER 13, 1996 Albert C. Hill, Jr. Member, Board of Appeal A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MGL CHAPTER 40A AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSUANT TO MGL CHAPTER 40A, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED HEREIN SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION BEARING THE CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE PASSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT, IF SUCH APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL � .s, � sa1 /� <.n � �� (ERV of �$ttlPm, cfflttssadjusetts .al paurb of '4pnd DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM & THOMAS KATSAPETSAS FOR AN APPEAL OF THE BUILDING INSPECTORS DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT OR FOR A VARIANCE FOR 103 HIGHLAND AVE . ( R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held February 18, 1987 and continued to March 18, 1987 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Fleming, Strout and Associate Member Dore. 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, represented by Attorney Emmanuel Papanickolas, are appealing a denial of the Building Inspector of the City of Salem for a single family residence at 103 Highland Avenue, or in th ealternative a Variance from lot size, density and setbacks to allow the construction of a single family dwelling the that location. The property is located in an R-1 zone. The Variance nhich has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the 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 and 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 of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration cf the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the fo_iz)wing findings of fact: 1 . There was substantial neighborhood oppo: _ __r, to the petition, including Ward Three Councillor Vincent -- :,,'aro; 2. There was evidence presented that there is a serious water runoff problem which would be compounded by development of the lot in question; 3. The Building Permit #375, City of Salem, dated June 3, 1986, and issued to a previous owner of the lot in question was not legally transferred to the petitioners. Furthermore, said permit was issued for construction of a building utilizing different plans than those submitted by petitioner: 4. The petitioners have substantially completed work on the building without a building permit and in disregard of a Stop-Work order dated September 23, 1985; 5• The Board further finds that the lot in question does not contain 5000 square feet of land, a condition necessary for the petition to be, considered under the provisions of Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A. , Section 6. In making this finding, the Board relys on the calculations and measurement performed for the Board by the Engineering Department of the City of Salem DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM & THOMAS KATSAPETSAS FOR AN APPEAL OF THE BUILDING INSPECTORS DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT OR FOR A VARIANCE FOR 103 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SALEM page two 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 . Special conditions do not exist which espectially affect the subject .. property and not the district generally; 2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. 4. The lot in question does not meet the minimum requirements to be treated under the provisions of Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A. Section 6. The Board, . therefore, upholds the Buildings Inspector's denial of a building permit to the petitioners. Therefore,the Zoning Board of Appeal voted two (2) in favor (Messrs. , Fleming and Strout) ; and two (2) opposed (Messrs. , Hacker and Dore) ; to the granting of the requested Variance and to overrule the decision of the Building Inspector. By the vote of 2-2 the Variance is denied and the decision of the Buidling Inspector is upheld. VARIANCE DENIED DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR UPHELD dames M. Fleming, Esq. it Member, Board of.Appeal ✓ A COP`_' -`IS 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 LA:VS, CHAPTER 806: AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PURSkNT TO MASS. GENERAL LA16-6. CHAPTER 808. SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT GELATED HEREIN. SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECIS13N, BEAR:3G THE CERT• RCATION OF THE CITY CLERK. THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, 07 TILAT. IF SGCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS fi CORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NA'LE OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL _ ,q I C2SS leg ew sale m ,atsavetsas 02 8 e 02 1187 OP SALEM CITY OF,AFPEAL 0215 BOX R 745. ersons in' allwtllia0f athe lic hearingt edbY W. hold etitionsubmor appeal ermit theP etsas for a a bmldfag p et tehe ted ZisaP is denial of density and seo8 Building mas TnsPQeto frors m lot sizes dWeBingbetheld Variance . family for atn single earing to . One b Safd ooP• bacWS hland ArFetiTuaLY 18.1987 at7° M an �VednesdaY' Chairm Salem Green,2nd AMES B.RACxER February 4.11,1987 r• - ` APPEAL CASE NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . r-' (Eiia of t,%xlem., 1, 1 TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS: The Undersigned represent that he is are the owners of a certain parcel of land located at NO. .IU3 . Wzhland. Avenue.,. .Sa1em. :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..�S r ; Zoning District. . . . . . . . . . . . .!3,1, • „ • . . . • , . . . . . ; and said parcel is affected by Sections) . . . . . . 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,. and he originally issued a building permit for a single family home at 103' Bighland Avenue , Salem, to Samuel Papalardo who then sold said lot to the petitioners who thereafter erected a prefabricated single family dwelling . Subsequently , the Building Inspector revoked the aforesaid issued building permit alleging that a new permit had to be obtained as new owners . Thereafter the building inspector without any bais refused to reissue the building permit to the petitioners , further alleging that the house lot area was less than 5 , 000 square ret,-t- (mini.nrr!': lot size) which the petitioners challenge and appeal theret.-om. (See attached certified plan) . NEW The Application for/Permit was denied by the Inspector of Buildings for the following reasons: .Insufficient area of denuity . The petitioners hereby appeal thr� Building Inspector' s denial of new permit, and respectfully request crier from this Board superceding Building Inspe..cto," s denial arrc: further order that permit issue forthwith. In the event that this honorable board should disagree with the petitioners , stet, nder igna 'hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and/or the Building Code 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 Building Code would involve practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to the Undersigned and relief may be granted without substantially dero- gating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Building CG de for the following reasons: The single family dwelling is upon the foundation with prior approval of Building Inspector and the petitioners have complied with all other departmental requirements , and the lot is unique since the area density is not less than 5 , 000 square feet and probably just 5 , 000 square feet causing an enormous amount of ' financial hardship to the petitioners . p ..r J William N . Katr:apetsas alid c -- 'Thomas iv. !"atS all E'.t:iaS Owner. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . I . . . . . . v 7`i dainut Street. P. ..boc. :]�. .� . �iddre55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teleahone. . .Ll.l 157-h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petitioner. .Wi] 1�: u .T+. . :CatsaYc�tsas. F,rui . . 11'l:omas "N. P.atsapaCsas Address. 75 DateITan Lia?. . . . : . • 198'1 Tele i. i lzmani.,e1 N . _'a,p•_uirckFias , Att01"!iliY' 1 itcStti. t Vit'''^et ea . y�a . . Gi960 Three copies of the application must be filed wT;:h ttie ect"etary of' t�ie r �dh� 1 Appeals with a check, for advertising in the amount of. . .`z`1 . 7n• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • four weeks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Check payable to The Eveninn News. JOHN F 81 ANNE ' VON WFISS / THOMAS A . 8t BARBARA L . l o ST PIERRE LOT 2 5,060 SO . FT it S • ee " � is ! T, 97J s • �I +t ,I 1 f1 ,112.;. t Y �.� ,,.�"� � .c \ /jp fGaL m LOT 3 LOT ' I 1 cLCU �.,�•ll o \ 5,000 iSQ �FT' � - - _ _ ;: I ld9Tet' a5'(V,t:L• i �•' 'B/,/t t' -.�-('vlC.t -• -----91 23 IUI 28 ' Y e J AVE- T 1-0 ' WIDE --- !. ---------- :r � �- C'i•,! r% 'cam �� i;1a 4/Ca i fix,°°"v7,� �Ttv� Df �ct1P11I, r,'�'�tT552Tthu5Eff5 Offirr of the (City ( auuril 2 a a � y ((lite pall �'RRo��,�W�H4Y^ WARD COUNCILLORS LEONARD F.O'LEARY 1987 CCUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE PRESIDENT GEORGE A.NOWAK 1287 JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO KEVIN R.HARVEY ROBERT E.GAUTHIER CITY CLERKVINCENT J.FURFARO FRANCES J.GRACE LEONARD F.O'LEARY NEIL J.HARRINGTON JEAN-GUY J.MARTINEAU RICHARD E.SWINIUCH GEORGE P.McCABE JOHN R.NUTTING February 18, 1987 Mr. James Backer, Chairman Board of Appeal City of Salem Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. Hacker & members of the Board: I am writing to you on behalf of the abutters and neighbors of the property at 103 Highland Avenue. This petition for a variance appeared before your board in February of 1986 and also in September of 1985. In 1986, it was withdrawn without prejudice by the petitioners. The concerns of the abutters and neighbors are as follows: (a) The small lot size which is not in context with the surrounding houses. (b) On-going drainage problems that would result if this variance were allowed. , (c) The presence of sewerage and drainage right of ways that cross this property. Based on the above reasons, I wholeheartedly support the neighbors and abutters objections to the granting of this variance. Very truly yours, VINCENT J.J. � COUNCILLOR . THREE ,,.co>nigb of "$ttlPm, tt9sac4usetts - ? Paur T of hupP211 February 13, 1987 William H. Munroe Inspector of Buildings City of Salem RE: 103 Highland Ave. Dear Bill: As you no doubt are aware, the Board of Appeal is having a public hearing February 18, 1987. Number one on the agenda that evening will be the petition of William & Thomas Katsapetsas requesting either an appeal of the Building Inspectors denial of a building permit or a variance to allow a single family dwelling at 103 Highland Ave. The Board would appreciate any comments, advise or guidance you are able to give. Sincerely, James B. Hacker Chairman WHM:bms �� lfr�i C�Jo��v/rco�n��P�a,�f��i �iG�CUU.�aclzudet� A I p p �� ' ��a�fiozer�fi�i�•.G��` ��i-.i w _ DISTRICT ^5 OFFICE 485 MAPLE STREET. DANVERS 01937 Permits - Salem April 30, 1986 Mr. William Monroe /Q—? AT/ 00H12 Building Inspector City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, Mass. 01970 . Dear Mr. Monroe: Reference is made to a new single family dwelling that is being constructed at the intersection of Greenway Road and Highland Avenue in the City of Salem. It has been called to my attention that the developer has taken the liberty to cover the existing headwall and drainage manhole which lies within this area for which a State easement had been secured many years ago. I am recommending that your office not issue an Occupancy Permit until such time as this matter is resolved. It should be noted that the firm of Charter House Development Corporation, Inc. intends to convert the existing gas station on the opposite side of the hi'h'cay into an office building and they also will be requesting permission to tie into this existing system. I do not intend to honor their request until such ti-,.e -as this matter is res-lved. Your cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, Jos ph D'Ange1 7 Cl) o7sp % Acting District Highway Engineer FJH/as r. cc: RC MOB PN WM ^? ='a Certified Mail - P 644 050 620 P 644 050 622 ti P 644 050 621 c' I Lith L ,lle)il, r�iaosacin;s.tiq William H. :!unrce One Saler. Green 745-021] September 16, 1925 : amuel -acalacdo _. . . .-. c. J Zt . �1 :"A 01 SIV RE: Revocation of Permit 103 Highland Ave. Gear i^.r. Papalardo: Please be advised that, as permitted under Section 114 .7 of the t'assachusetts State Building Code, I have revoked your Building Permit, -4100, issued ridr.e 3W" 1985 for the following reason: The site plan submitted with your permit application d It is my under- standing that a portion of an existing swimming pool presently enc^_acnes on the property and would constitute ageviriaaicJ�. Massachusetts Stafe Building Code) Be further advised that should this matter be resolved and the property sold that a a iw application must be made by the new owner of the building as required uncer 4Cp ( $YcwCEt+ of the Massachusetts State Building C: de. If 1 can offer any advice or be of service in this matter, pl'aa e Sincerely, William H. Munroe inspector of Buildings Zoning =nforce^lent Officer t:-s - - - - - rc: City ;lerk ^_ouncillor Lovely, Ward ll I _ � I —�— — 777 APPLICANT COPY r THIS PERMIT NOT VALID UNLESS PROPERLY RECEIPTED BY CASHIER BUILDING CITY OF SALEM SALEM, MASSACHUSm- s 01970 PERMIT x VALIDATION cocwt June 3* -Ig PERMIT NO.85 #375 4` DATE 4 -.ro�L• SalemF2'(a GE[Da:el Paralardo ADDRESS prA[[TI (CONTA' 3 LICENSE) APPLICANT INC.) NUMBER OF ' DWELLING UNITS��------- PERMIT TO L.r CCC Din^,le family dwglo TORT ---------uf[I IT,, PI INAAOV[Mf xTl TONING DISTRICTS - AT (LOCATION( 103 Ill land Avenue IsrR[[TI x0.1 AND 1[Re.f STREETI BETWEEN ..AO.. .IN[CT) LOT LOT BLOCK SIZE SUBDIVISION LAI `'"'- • "I '" , ��—F?' IN NE[GMT ANO SHALL CO FORM IM CONSTRUCTION FTLONG BY BUILDING IS TO BE FT. WIDE By lo- BASEMENT WALLS OR FOUNDATION ITVRfI TO '-'PE --USE GROUP REMARKS: 155.00 PERMIT S !; 155.00 "CALL FOR PITT T�OCCQPSTI� (c FEE — - — ESTIMATED COST AREA OR VOLUME wuelC/ARUAA[ r[[TI•� _ SemDel Papalerdo OWNER1 Croes street Ss1eEaRTla ADORESS YOUR SPECIAL ATTENTION is c,dlud to th,l tldluwlnc: This permit is granted on the express condition that the said construction shall. In all respects:, 4ffW10Wdlifift of this urisdiction including thts f ,regulating the construction and use of i buijdings, and may ti ke$i at any lime upon.14 (a[>OYrof any provisions of said ordinances. i lV,uuhcrpro,�! l,l,v .,<,I q,ven al the time µunlit ix issued must Lc displayod on premises. 1ho department must N notified mad 'n,,pi-, tion nnv le or Irior ,.tostru-tion twrk aw re,pe,au•d on weath-r card. All new buildings rutd rx ldili ons :iod .dtrr:uinns to -%,sting buildings rvquirr o minimum of Utrc•- cell inspf-chyns, nrvnely, M*$Nftw- drsin til, :%stems, welts, when wills are at lent two feel high. ✓ D9)p MIllinil th, wall and I,for• pmmnline with the sul.ermVurtures. (2) Fravning Irior to letting rvtd plg ;-sing, duct work, fire ..blppklk.and either t•quiPment before it is ronrerilyd. (:1) Fiml insµ-ction when building or sWr_turr• iscom phetrd. On job. involving n•inforced concrete work, in>glection must be made after steel is in place and before concrete is poured. The IM•partei r t rp.svrvea the right to reject my work which hart been concealed or completed without final having born in:q,t'� o-d wnl rlftprov.vl by the Ilopartment in m'c<rdavtre with the requin•menls of Ute various rode•s. An d-oiat...n from th;' :ygvoved plarry must be twthorizid by the approval of revised plans subject to the swne lrocedure• est, di.vh-d for 01e examination of the original phut.. An additional permit fee is also charged prtorlicnUd on the extent of the .',vi„tion from the original plans Permits are or vali,l if construction work in not started within six months from date permit is issued. i Request. for Fiord Inspection should be maxi% by pust.cad or phone call to Ibis department when the constnactinn wvrk i>: ,ompleb•d tend heating wilarntns has been installed. Painting or deamuing i.v not. n•,paired 6i•f.•... ..... I'in..l 16;,61inq Invl�; ,:rano Fined In:;l—r.t.ion ;md rerlilionte of occuprulcy must be obtaim.d before coy-upying building. 1� 1 En9inectin9 Fi cCutvcy ,I 11 PUTNAM STREET C n . . _ -�_ f _ .. ,•J NL �[ }c: Q��C' " .' PEABODY. MA 0195- . . `, ,,�4 t,,`•. . n cWILLIAM L, CLARKE, P.E., RLS.f F, To pL f1 �'� E —I C F �� ` � REGISTERED SINCE 109HOME. 531-0534 ` 25 hy 1PJi E � ✓ iA) •3 1 ,,y•; � ,C L> 1 ly, V T n R r .I.� � �.. v h � ✓'1 f 1iA � 4,6'k6 ` f ..?'}RTW A "N 0 r �_' Article ` Section pf the Zoning Ordinance �„ ' , F WHEREAS, violations of Articled ,. Section f/�J " of the Building Code have been found on Article Section of the Code; ` these premises, IT IS HEREBY,ORDERED in accordance with the above Code\that, all persons cease, desist av from, and .E°e41 f : cis s n v �kiy i at once pertaining to construction,''aifer do r'repairs on these s , >t",► ,j�.:� i t : tl.. 4:- JTb . 11i',R.i�,4c '{.4 •c..di 'iJ _L All persons acting contrary to this order or removing or mutilating this otice a ioble to arrest unless such action is authorized by the Department � .� 1 .1'1'1"'- :! - WILD! fIGAI / Q `- y y.1 f`*'{ r ,�p1 \�Y ri �y ? .�[�//'(((� �Jn IIL! T i �.Sv: a ,• �, Y11ff.. L - I� � I , y WE, SAMUEL L. PAPALARDO and MARY P . PAPALARDO , husband wife , as y tenants by the entirety , both of 16 Calabreses Street, a' to of Salem, EssexCounty, Massachusetts ro in consideration of Seven Thousand ($7 ,000 . 00) -----------------dollars x • o 2 � rn CD 0 � o o grant to THOMAS N. KATSAPETSES and WILLIAM N. KATSAPETSES _4 :4 ro S II roo of Peabody, Essex County, Massachusetts A with quiirtaim ctritenunfs o� the land in said Salem being lot numbered one (1) on plan of "Land of ro utn. The Almy Trust, Lot No. 1 - Ocean .View Park , Salem, Mass . , " made by Thomas A. Appleton , C.E . dated May 1930 and recorded with deed from v ro v Emma S. Almy, et als to Mary Rooney dated May 31, 1930 and recorded o M0 with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds in Book 2846 , v ro Page 532 . > x `n + Said lot hereby conveyed is bounded and described as follows : b z � U) 4 NORTHERLY by Highland Avenue, Sixty (60) feet; EASTERLY by Greenway Avenue, one hundred one and twenty-eight m F hundredths (101. 28) feet; rn o .. SOUTHERLY by lot numbered three (3) on said plan, forty-two and o twelve hundredths (42 . 12) feet; and N • .0 ro WESTERLY by lot numbered two (2) , on said plan, ninety-nine and 0 ninety-seven hundredths (99. 97) feet. Said premises are conveyed subjectYeo restrictions so far as they are now in force mentioned in said eed from Emma S.. Almv , .et als. For my title see deed of Marie Connolly Executrix under the Will of Grace F. Rooney, dated May 13, 1985 , and recorded at the Essex South District Registry of Deeds , Book 7752 , Page 337 . Executed as a sealed instrument this 19th day of JULY 19 85 . i �) _ 1J, !n• C.a,ttutnn(nc::!!It tt �' as=sclnt=t "_ e Jla��w.. ? 'yin � } � ✓ ,ttl• a♦ r A aF �`. . bi, n .m, •k ,,`� �K 775 _' - c� � i� I^ 1 . MAIL:'. .'.INNIII.IA, L.. .i , i will d h , . GI1C6 F. 111h11We , Es.;as nl li o So Lem, .•a ..- l'uu ul.U. vl.nn'lw, r Paid (.s till .,,u„nN�1..I,,.A M '"E�f�}ita:.(�.: .IiMn;-�ml. u�l tit(.+.. , o i �,a(r�+lnUet. Lr`S6aP�LiINP) ati�i�s✓ttkh�.-x')1.41�1wyz�- h�r..h.nd and illIrrr, t. 9 as tael■nta by CM anti racy, brtn of It Yt Pee t, seise, y So■" County, MasaItChusetto aF elle a1erl■tr raertuals Ihr I...I.n a.ud Sa l r n br i . l L It limn'. 1-1•d (I) on ' • plan of 'Land of The Alay Trust, Lot Nor. I w.-an Vlrw Pnrk, Sa(et, p Mase•,• rade by Thowas A. Appleton, C.f. ,L.I d n:ry 1•110 And re.rnrded 57 with deed [roe IN^& e. Almy, '•t Als 1e M.nv wni, y dul•.1 MAY 11, 14M G ted rseerd•d with the Lnsex South Ok:n i l01 ilc n'" ry •,t Ik•vdb in Ikwk s 2676. Pp• 512. M r 1 : � Said lot hereby conveYod is huundnd aed .herribs it as lulLwl;: e ^' pRY9I1lhY by N19hlend Avenue, sixty (bm Y •rl : F' SASTMY by Greaney AviiI one IumJiW on„ An•1 twenty-eight hundredths (101.:8) feel . u SOUTRZItLY by lot musba•red thrc, ( 1) •n, ::.lid 1-1111, forty-crn .Ind - A8 twelve hundredths (77.1:1 It-, 11 - •In•1 ■ NSSTSSLY by lot nurlx:r•d two (2), on 11-kid Plan, ninety-nlno and µ ninety-seven hundredths (99.0/1 feet. } Said pr•rls•a are conveyed subject to resttct inns no far ea they are ' now !n fame mentioned in said dead from U,Jae S. Almy, at ala• Por q title sea Etats of Grace r. Rooney, Fs11rx ('ounty Probate Court 361725. , ur ' I a l N OrWaEr..rld iv W.r■IlW 17th it., 4 _ May ly 85 ro "� • W Ite on ally F'kr:cdtrix- -- fl( _ M Connally nnnJlly R1.O /ldually 1 ' 'i •aewmr•Ily of laaau�asrlle . y, 44 yNx, r' Mny 11, IV 85 •M1 TA.np.non.lh•vP.a.d 1■r.lues•wed Marie Connolly, as afnresaid end.Awl.ala.d dr b•a'�N'n.w...ls r ti herr^w/�/•�. ��w1Jl J.vl. AW. awe ro ➢ Lk af,1/S,�` Nw.1 M1Yr 1 w. r.r. . 7/16 ,r 90 VA tr 00 i Q O n p v 2Q W W m� • ESSEX RE3ISTRY OF GE-�DS'50.DIST.SAIXA MASS; Racelved - Rec.9.1 �.P._d 31, I11eA 'oil Attests L►�tnodr�k, P.orlsts- • LANA OF'TH� a�MYTRUST Lccr NO. I.— Oc.EAN View PAv—, Fc. S A L E M. MA55. t-- o� U P e J J ♦ Baa a b / S + ' SR CO ,Q O \(p09 ah Y A ♦ ti goo a !y lJ �6�0 Aho a' a OJ O o s \ \� m be 40 �� 2p ro 0 � \ /y \� o0 2 q 100 C y /� 1s00 a \l 00P a. tK gso \pA ss S2 O / So k S0N i Op /9 • �, F u y tiO ` d V/e9 BUS2 �T� e qp" Dy 0, 103 x,060 Q 0 -- ti\ ti �Ir. �9 6 — N you _ 307 ld �cM , �S . b A X1FR4 D etia �p //565 111�i. 0 0 r,A 203 n 6090 + X212 ao,d A 191 ' .\ $ 6025 _ �\ ZO • c� �d fih 31 i lo( cra . Gz li SC> ii ,f .t a4R 'r.sr Ll �W `? / v V � L— L_ ✓ I T/j'USt Ee s ,z. a 3, SALEM M,q S.S so °a � r 1 1\r u -501 ./ Y ss�s ° Of/an � 71 ov a a ou r_ San ./ G 73 00 f e INN 2 /00.0 Pa 90 0 ` BOARD of ASSESSORS _ f eI 93 WASHINGTON STREET. CITY HALL. SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (617) 744-0660 DECEMBER 4,- 1986 MAP 14 LOT 196 ABUTTERS TO: 103 HIGHLAND AVENUE ASSESSED OWNERS: THOMAS N. KATSAPEfSES & WILLIAM N. K.4T.S?2ETSES / MAP LOT LOCATION ASSESSED OWNERa' MAILIrG ADDRESS � 14 202 6 Cottage St. Thomas A. & Barbara L. St. Pierre Same as location 14 195 6 Greenway Rd. John M. & Marlene A. Lunt Same as location > 14 164 101 Highland Ave. Philip E. Pelletier Same as location 14 165 99 Highland Ave. Leon J. D. & Georgette E. Gagnon Same as location 14 166 13 Greenway Rd. Mary L. Morris Same as location 14 134 94 Highland Ave. Ronald J. Gauthierb� 126 New Balch St. Beverly, MA 01915 14 198 107 Highland Ave. John F. & Anna Von Weiss Same as location I � s SG r� C� 6\ 1 I ' JgVG oo �/ `I , 160300 ' 1 i \ 1Oh \ P 41 100 < c� � \ Q rn I 10 2A, ' LOT 2 �I /Atot \� ; I PLAN OF LANG ZONE LOCATED IN SALEM DEED MASSACHUSETTS BOOK PAGE OWNED BY PLAN 'A'HUEL PAPAL. rwo No. IOL - 0,4 rvorOhrh H0066 LOGATJOtj MA-( ,,7 .1965 sc. ��PO. BOX Iia"q " c ill Mass^ BST�, f IlU!LRI,�!c:,S ' I CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL 745.0215 ot ersons in' Will hold a public hearing for ay WUUam and terested in the Petition submitted aY eal of the Thomas Katsapetas for an PP ermit Building Inspectors denial i a otos tygand set- or for a Variance frole lfamily dwelling at 103 backs to allow sing be held Highland Ave, (R•1)• Said hearing Swine Greeo,2nd flood., 1987 at 7:00 P.M., Oae JAMES B.HACKER,Chairman January 7,14,1987 r .�Oi7�na�u�eG �!'. J`.a�ia�,ucicaCae- J.eaG�oTd�-, ./�Zaesa�iiee!/e- O/96O ✓�i�ja�s,�re,,�,�/�S�91p-SPOO J_a�idiu�oCoe- January 8 , 1987 Mr. James Hacker, Chairman Board of Appeals City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 RE : Board of Appeal 745-0215 William and Thomas Katspetsas 103 Highland Avenue, Salem, Ma. Dear Sir: Please withdraw the above-entitled petition which was scheduled for January 21, 1987. V - truly yours , Emmanuel N. Pa ani olas gk APPEAL CASE NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1� .0 \' A ON of ,&Iem, Cn]ZZT5sadjuseft5 '.: 1<. .4 >' Ioarb of �Fpcnl TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS: the Undersigned represent that he is are the owners of a certain parcel of land located ;t NO. .1U. H.ighland. A¢enue.,. .Salem. :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:5 ; W; Zoning District. . . . . . . . . . , , ,R- . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . : and said parcel is affected by Section(s) . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . : )f the Massachusetts State Building Code. d ans describing the work proposed, have been submitted to the Inspector of Buildings in accordance with Section IX A. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance,. and he originally issued a building permit for a single family home at 103 ' Highland Avenue, Salem, to Samuel Papalardo who then sold said lot to the petitioners who thereafter erected a prefabricated single family dwelling . Subsequently , the Building Inspector revoked the aforesaid issued building permit alleging that a new permit had to be obtained as new owners . Thereafter the building inspector without anv bais refused tc , reissue the building permit to the petitioners , further alleging that the house lot area was less than 5 , 000 square feet (minimum lot size) which the petitioners challenge and appeal therefrom. (See attached certified plan) . NEW ' The Application for/Permit was denied by the Inspector of Buildings for the following reasons: Insufficient area of density. The petitioners hereby appeal the Building Inspector' s denial of new permit, and respectfully request order from this Board superceding Building Inspectot' s denial and further order that permit issue forthwith. In the event that this honorable board should disagree with the petitioners , then It rrativ f�e 1]ndersig 'hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and/or the Building Code 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 Building Code would involve practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to the Undersigned and relief Tnay be granted without substantially dero- gating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code for the following reasons: The single family dwelling is upon the foundation with prior approval of Building Inspector and the petitioners have complied with all other departmental requirements , and the lot is unique since the area density is not less than 5 , 000 square feet and probably just 5 , 000 square feet causinc an enormous amount of financial hardship to the petitioners . - William N . Katsapetsas and / Thomas N. Katsapetsas / - - Owner. . LLL!!! Address. 5 Walnut Street : Peabody, Ma. , . . . . . Telephone `. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r } f! " Petitioner. �9�] 1�.am .N, . Katsapetsas. an�3 . . Thomas N . Katsapetsas Address. 75. MA- . -Date'. November :9 : 1986 531-14 i4 TeIeil)-hSne. . . ' — � E,Manuel N. Papanickprlas , Attorney lh Ch st ut SStree e a. . 01960 Three copies of the application must be filed with tie �'ecretary otf tie �� o Appeals with a check, for advertising in the amount of. . .s.59 . 70. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . four weeks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Check payable to The a' MICHAEL E. O'BRIEN '� LEONARD F. FEMINO CITY SOLICITOR '':. .g ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR 93 WASHINGTON STREET 0j'^"p0� 93 WASHINGTON STREET and and 81 WASHINGTON STREET CITY OF SALEM ONE BROADWAY SALEM, MA 01970 MASSACHUSETTS BEVERLY, MA 01915 745.4311 745-4311 744.3383 921.1990 Please Reply to 81 Washington Street Please Reply to One Broadway May 13 , 1987 William H. Munroe, Building Inspector City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re : Katsapetsas v Munroe, et als Essex Superior Court #87-861 Dear Bill : Kindly provide me with copies of any of the documents you may have relative to the enclosed request no later than May 22 , 1987 . Very truly our--�� Michael E. O'Brien City Solicitor MEO/jp Enclosure COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPERIOR COURT IiSSEX, SS . NO . 87-8 61 WILLIAM N . KATS'APETSAS ) AND THOMAS N . KATSAPETSAS PLAINTIFFS V S . .WILLIAM H , h1UNR0E , INDIVIDUALLY ) AS HE IS THE SA(;E `M BUILDING ' ) INSPECTOR CITY' OF SALEM; CITY OF j SALEM, JAMES B . HACKER, ) JAMES FLEMING , PE'TER. STROUT.; ) PETrR DORE , RICHARD BENCAL ) AS THEY ARE MEMBERS OF THE '. . ) SALEM BOARD OF APPEALS' ) DEFENDANTSRODUCT) PLAINTIFF' S FIRST FROMETHEFOR DEFENDANTSION OF-DOCUMENTS in't'iffs , in the above-entitled action Now come the Pla and request that the Defendants produce the following items set forth in the attached :5chedule for inspection and copying dur Proce pursuant to Rule 341of the Rules of Civil EmmanueleN .at the office of the attorney for the Defendant , Papanickolas , 16 Chestnut Street , Peabody , Massachusetts , within thirty (3Q) days of ,service upon you . The Defendants a cupY may choose to comply, with this request by forwarding of any documents to the counsel for the P ' postmarked prior to the date called for production . 1 pny and all documents ; plans , data , letters , etc . filed of Salem by or on behalf of Mr . Samuel permit in with the City parcel of . Papalardo . in his efforts tostbructure onlthe np p 1985 for . the tiuilding of a H'ighland Avenue , Salem , land located at , 103. Massachusetts .', ing intra - ,or interagency documents regard. analy'si's , recommendations , or - opinions as z . Any and on Papalardo , conclusions , rant',a building permit to Mr to whether to g not lunited to internal memoranda , including , but . administrative reports , documents reflecting policy decisions , ,and transcripts and minutes from admnistrative ,meetings and hearings . . 3 . A copy of the auilding permit which was issued to Mr . Papalardo . 4 . Any and all intra - ' or interagency documents regarding conclusions , analysis , recommendations or opinions as to the decision to revoke. the building permit issued to Mr . Papalairdo , including , but not limited to , internal memoranda ; . administrat.ive reports , documents reflecting Policy decisions , and transcripts and minutes from administrative meetings and hearings . 5 . Any and all documents , letters , petitions , memoranda evidencing telephone calls or the like , indicating any opposition to the building permit issued to Mr . Papalardo., from any person or entity whatsoever , including , 'but not limited to , government agents , public officials , busine,sses ,, private persons , corporate entities and/or , nei,ghbors of Mr . Papalardo . 6 . Any and all documents indicating any response given to by the City of Salem', or any of the defendants to the entities or individuals mentioned in Request No . 5 above . 7 . Any and .al.1 documents , reports , notes ' or letters incident .to .any' inspection of the structure being built at 103 Highland Avenue , Salem , including but not limited to an inspection which:' took place on or about September 12 , 1985 . B . A copy indicating any notice given to Mr . Papalardo indicating the defendants ' decision to revoke a building permit and/or ,'to' order work to stop . 9 . A copy of the stop work.''order issued to Mr . Papal.ardo and/or to .the plaintiffs - in this action . 10 . Any and all intra - or interagency documents regarding conclusions , ..analysis ,; .recommendation$ or opinion's as to the decision to ,brder work to stop at 103 Highland Avenue , Salem, includin,g , but hot limited to internal memoranda , administrative reports , . documents reflecting policy decisions , and transcripts and minutes from administrative meetings. and hearings . 11 . Any and all documents , letters , petitions , memoranda evidencing phone 'calls"or the like , indicating. any request or desireto have a stop work order issued , from any person of entity whatsoever , includign , but not limited to , government agents , public officials , t businesses ,. private persons , corporate entities and/or neighbors. of Mr . Papalardo or of the plaintiffs . 12. Copies of any: reports , letters , evidence , or rules or regulations used to come to the decision to revoke the building permit in question . 13.. Copies of any reports , letters , evidence or rules• or regulations used to come to the decision .to issue a stop work order in this case. 14 . Conies of any notes , letters , memoranda , reports or any other documents in.. your possession indicating the opinion (s)' ; of. any and all land surveyers regarding the parcel of land , in, ques't'ion . 15 . Copies of the minutes and/or transcripts from an y: and all meetings and/or hearings whether public or private , formal or informal related in any way whatsoever to the parcel of land .involved in this case . 16 . Copies of .the minutes and/or transcripts from any and all meetings' and/or hearings , whether public or private formal or informal , related in any way whatsoever to any aspect and/or any issue of this case . 17 . Any documents evidencing intra - or interagency communications regarding conclusions , analysis , and/or recommendations'. concerning future actions which would relate to the future disposition of , use of , zoning of or any other matter regarding the parcel of land located at 103 Highland ;Avenue ; Salem , Massachusetts . 18 . Copies of any administrative. staff manuals and/or instructions , memos , letters , and/or records of phone calls indicating 'inst.rpct.ions to staff members which would tend to affect .the rights of the plaintiffs . 19 : Copies of any ,do,cument.s , not covered by the previous requests . (1=L8)• .which the defendants intend to offer as evidence the trial of this action . Res ctfully subm' ted , eI N . Papa is o as Plaintiffs ' Attorne 16 Chestnut Street Peabody , Ma . 01960 Telephone : 531-3200 April 29 , 1987 16 Jia , JNneear/ruee�/e- O/960 April 28 , 1987 Mr . William Munroe , Building Inspector One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 ✓ �� n � City Clerk , City of Salem 93 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Mr . James Fleming , Esquire 47 Bufum Street Salem , Massachusetts 01970 n Mr . James B. Hacker 7 Ugo Road Salem , Massachusetts 01970 Mr . Peter Strout 17 Oakview Avenue Salem, Massachusetts 0197n Mr . Peter Dore 12 Bentley Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Mr . Richard Bencal 19 Goodell Street Salem , Massachusetts 01970 RE : William N . Katsapatesas , et al VS. William H. Munroe , et al Essex Superior Court No . P7-861 Dear Sirs : Notice is hereby given to you that William N. Katsapetsas and Thomas N. Katsapetsas have filed the above action on Friday , April 24 , 1987 , with the Essex Superior Court in Salem. Enclosed please find the Complaint as filed . This notice is being given to you pursuant to M.G.L.A. Chapter 40A, Sectio Very truly u s , mmanue N Pa an At orney for William N Katsapetsas and Thomas N. atsapetsas ENP:gk CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED { CnMNnl1EAl,'I'II ()I' N1ASSnCIIIIfII:'I"I'S I:SSI; J:, S!; . Slll'KRIOP. CnIIR'i' NII,i, lnot M1! . CA'I'.';nl'I:'I'Sn'; 1 I'I .n I I'I'I' I PI"; ) 1 111 :,III API if ftlllll'�)I:, I �1101 `J ! UIIAIJ,'f IIP: I }; VII I1.1) 1If ) rl.`-!I1I1:C'I1()IP CITY � )!, hI n.I JiF1, .: I'T A1,JCM, ,1At1I''.S I', . IIA 'I.1:I' , ) .IIV11:::; P1,1:t111%1( PI'.'PICI'- ';'I'Urn"1' , ) AI IPI I ()ARII il' nI'I'I:AI COMPhAIN'I' AND CLAIM OF JURE( 'PRIAL, FOR COUNTS rf AND LII PARTIES William N . K-atsapaLsas and Thomas M . ICats,anetsas ( Owners ) are of Poah"dy , ii.iss;:achusetts , and the owners of -. parcel of real _scan located at the: corner of Greenway Avenue .:and Highland Avoun identified as >,0"1 highland Avenv_ , Salem , Massachusetts , as of July 19 , 1.9BS , when they r„ceive;l Atte Prom a Flu, d o` Samuel L . Papala rdo and Mary P . Papal.ardo , both of .smom , Massachusetts . A . WLI l. i.am H . U. nr"v is of Salem, and is the duly appointed building insppctor , and argent of the City of Salem for the pertinent period of time . 3 . City of Salem in a KAly consti.tutcd muni.ci.pal. cor. porn- Awn in exi-2Kvnce in thy: Commonwealth of Massachusetts . 1 . .- amass n . d n:'k.u. , PDL , n Dora , Petar `ltrnnt. , Richard hcnca 1. and James; P , emou or sa i am , mas:;.tuhus"tts , etre duly aphpoinLed mem'unry of the Salmi 1ward )r nppcalr.; for the pertincnt. Ix, rirnl r.rl. Lime . ' . On •n .,I ,. 11 11.rin'livi.d-lo , I 'i . ):r.c'III r _ „i Ir'i r• I . . � Innd I , 'l.ilnif� l ! , . I`nlarin . I -ln, l [.Elly I' . I'apolard :' ' uit: y , :u - I Itu:.it_cd at the. ,.:ruaur � ,r Gronnway nvenun and Ili llllnnI nvnnHn , Idenarw n; 10-i Ili. llr l and P�v�. ulin , So l r•tu , it i•::t,lrinl- s''Llaonl.. Ii ni n -1 wr,r'• nr lc!;:; hoc,: hl.t P_ uoL Ihou ' ' 000 r,<lum--. , I I 'ni' l w'nir•Ir ! and I.>', Ir)caCed in ( R-:. ) resh,lent.i.at district of SaLem . G . ` Thu aforesaid lot or land was owned by Grace P . Rooney or her Familial predecessors , prier to the enactment of the Zoning ordinanrvu of the City of Salem . 7 . On r)I- nhoul'. June 3 , 1,185 , Samuel Papal.ardo , its owner Df they aforesaid parcel OF Land , aphli d t._n We buil.riW inspector For the City of Salem , WILL= II . Munroe , and obtained a bui.lrl.i.ng permi_ l_ for a si.ngIQ family dwelling to b-. erected upon the aforesaid Lot of .land . R . Samuel Papalardo submitted all the noone.ssary anCl required documents , plans , and data requested by the building inspector of the City of Salem . ') . on nr about July LIA , lqf , the Pla'i_ntLffs purchased the aforesaid Lot OF Land wi.l.n building permit from Samuel L . Papalald" and Mary P . PrIpilardo . 10 . oil or ab,,ul, i' nag .tst 21. , 1985 , the plaintiFfs , hei.ng in possess i_on n a I .n_Inl I issued parmiI , and upon re I.Lance Cherct) F paired thu foundation footings , and thurQaf. tar on AugnsL 30 , 1985 , ;,rynred the I'itl_ L fnundaCL"" for said IwoI I i.nr3 , inPOndiHI to construct a singIa fami I y dwe11 ing . I I tin S�:I-tC ..rll u� r I () , 1 `015 , I.h., P1aint. i I F:; ilis i_tI ,I "o,I tlic I onudoli ion d•tl I s , .nud the ass, i.s tanL hui Irl i.nj i ls"wcLor nr ,. .. _ ' i.ty of 5a1u111 iits1w,:Led :unl apprlive,l th1c said Fouudati.O'1 0:1 �;opiorflwr IA , I ')£1K , which was r_hcranivor hankFl l lett . 12 . Ituri.nrl thin int.orl.m nF tWo I'.w nlai.ntLffs hal place-d o:l ,.n-dcr , and (lid in racL purchase a pry:: Lahr i.ca Lrd aWyle famil 'i dwaLl.iny From a New Hampshire ❑ anufacLurer , which dwelling was Lo be delivered on September 7.0 , 1985 , according to prearranged schedule with crane operators . 1.3 . Unheknowu to the plaintiffs , on or about September 16 , L9115 , thu huiLdi.nq inspector arbitrarily , capriciously , are' mal. i.ci.ousl.y sent a "Stop order " letter to Samuel. Papalardo of 14 Cross Street , Salem, Massachusetts , ( a copy of which is attached and marked Exhibit A) revokinq the previously legally issued building permit alleging that the site plan dial not indicate the encroachment of an abutter ' s small above-ground pool , .;inti he further alleged that the huildi.n : permit was also void since there was a new owner that had acquired the property subsequent to the issuance of the building permit alleging violations of Sections 114 . 7 and 113 . 3 of the Massachusetts State Building Code . 1.4 . Section 11.3 . 3 of Massachusetts State Building Code provides as Follows : ''By whom application is made : Application for a permit shall he made by the owner of the hui.idiny or. structure . The full names and addresses of the owner , appl. i.cant , and of: the respons .hle officers , if the owner is a corporate body , shal_ 1he stated in the appl. i.crti.on . It. loft:; uol; prohibit the assignment of said Kermit to a rn hSUg0UHt ,;caner , nor does said section regoi. ru Ma necessity 'ur a new permlC, to he sought by a subsequent owner . 15 . Section 114 . 7 of Massachusetts ;tato- Rui.idi.ny Cole provi.des as follows : " Revocation of. permits : The building commissioner or inspector of: buildings may revoke a permit or approval issued under the provisions of this code in case of any false statement or misrepresentation of fact in the application or the plans on which the permit or approval was based . Upon examination of the application , plans , and data submitted by Samuel Papalardo to the building inspector , such information does not reveal any misrepresentations or false statements . 16 . On September 70 , 1995 , the previously ordered prefabricated home was set upon the foundation of this property . 1.7 . On September 23 , 1985 , a "Stop Order" placard by the building inspector was placed upon the front door of said newel.y delivered dwelling , it being the first notice to the plaintiffs of any "Stop Order" . Suhscyrtentl.y , the swimming pool. was rennwc l 'uy the a,ljoin_i-n[I :ihutter ; a minimal. amount ()C fnrLher.- work. was 1>nr5urme,l by th . Plai.nti- ffs LI PC)n sai.cl prop'.orty t:() secure sai.rl Iwrn1. 1i.ni Pram unnecessary damage by wenthcr nnl vandals , Ii.nj resolLit O,m oC Lhe wi-thi.n conCrnvc_rs;y . I 'r . TIII-' hu I, I ,li_rna i.nSpec toI- r_,ir November I :I , I 'rf15 , Forwarded my cl. i.enL %r I .LLer i.nrli-cating to hi.m Llrr,t. .; i.rt::r n, r hu.i. ld,i-hy p rmi.L was issued to lIim 'in hi ncunc Ir vi.ol.ated 1.1. ? . I. of. 1-he h1assachusetC;; State Ilui I ,liml "')(Ie , and rr„w rnr Lhe first L.i.ulf2 the hui. l19imj iunpir::tur IIIrC-'her illege'l Ch•, 1. t:he a f.c: r sa i ,l I.ot of Land d i,l hoe crnita i.n r, , O00 square feet of: land :is required by P1 . G . L . A . Chapter 4M\ +Incl the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance (minimum lot size) . 20 . Plaintiffs subsequently engaged two land surveyors who surveyed the lot of land and both concluder] that the lot of land had more or less than 5 , 1.00 square feet , but not less than 5 , 000 square feet of: land . 2.1 . • Mans were drafted , and on August 20 , 1966 a plan was duly recorded with the Pssex South f)i.strict Registry of Deeds showing the aforesaid parcel of land with square footage in excess of 5 , 000 square feet as the original subdivision plan of such parcel prepared in 1930 was seriously flawed . 22 . Notwithstanding the new plan and representations of land surveyors , the building inspector for whatever arbitrary, capricious , malicious or even political. reasons has steadfastly conti.nuecl to abuse the Power and authority granted him as building inspector by denying the plaintiffs their legal rigllL to finish huilrlinrl said dwelling , and by deny.imj Lhta lawful is,: ah l occupation . 2') . 'Che 1)1.a i n t i. F. I. ,; s u 1)s e q u e r i t 1 y a p r)o a I e rl the denial. , of the l)Ll i I (I i n1j i.n S pr"(-, to r to the Board of Appeals pursuing their a(I in ill i!ltr'-1 L iv, remedies , which pe ti 1 1- i o n was p r P F,o n t P(I in t h e a I t e r n a L i vo Lo t In r, Ro a r(I of Appeal!; I)r i ma r i, I y ,>e(2 k i n g a I Ovrll-!;.) I W h(, hinl1ding inspertor ' s (I(�f i i a I and d i n t h i� a 1. t c i n a I: i v f, s(,- k i i i(I a v,,i r i a n(7 o Prom t I i f, Ro a r(I of Appeals if 1. I(,: I urlod lhlt, Llw I ()1 Was Hion 5 , 000 f(j,,t , it 1), inl ill I liffluill 1.ol :; i, xo . 24 ()n MFj c(,,I i J.Ii , 1987 the 11nard ()I: AF I ,r c o n(I J C, t i 1)(1 1(2 1 1- 1 ,1 1)Y a cp1. i. t decision , luii (I t Ill, plaintiffs ' prLiCinri , wh i.ch was F i, Lod with Cho City Clor. k on Ap 17 i L L ,I (I i i-! l I I,I atLilcht I lwrot() zI s " Fx 11 i Y)i L A" . 25 . 'That Lhf-: said Roa r(I of Appea 1.s exceeded its authority i-)y denying the petitioners re Lief and Lhe reinstatement of the hu i 16 ing pe rini. t , an(l/(-)r by denying the pet i t ioners the variance requested in the alternative . 26 . That the plaintiffs h,.lVe suffered substantial financial hardship and losses due to the unreasonable arbitrary , capricious and malicious conduct of the building inspector . COUNT -1 DE,CLARATORY- JUDGMENT 27 . The plaintiffs Incorporate and make a part hereof paragraphs I through 25 . 28 . The plaintiffs being aggrieved by the decisions of the Salem Building Inspector , and the Salem Board of Appeals do hereby further allege: that thprn, is a controversy hetween the plaintiffs and the defendants as to the legal rights of the plaintiffs under the law , and cl(-) liprPhy appeal the decision of the, defen(lants . W I I I,'IZEFOIZE , the plaintiffs demand jud(jinent 1 . That the Court makc, i hindinq do.cL,-.iration (.) f riqhts in the controversy h(,Lwcmon t I)e P I.,i i ii lr. if f s Lunt Dn fell(I,L n :.S 2 . Thal-, t:hf, D, fendanC , hiii1r1inti nsj)c,-,-t ,)r William P . M1111 1'').2 , 1)" o rdf. I '-d to 1-(: i is Il'i tf,� 111w m i �j i ;)e I 1 1. 1 y i hu i Id i n,j pe r in i, t , forthwith . 3 Tha L L)w clrrfendant hn i. kI i fitl :Im 11 M u n r c),%- he n rcle r refrain from oni iQ,-.) I u y , i h i, t r Ii t i v , f I I ("-.11)r icousl y int i in i i ny rind Ila r 1:,Isr; i 1)�j th,., pla i lit i. f I irl.. (I(,n y i i i,I It li(�nn t ho i r r i (I h It to finish t h (I w,, I I inl and LI s,r,. 11 e r eo f 4 That the damages be awarded to the plaintiffs For their financial losses including their attorneys fees and costs . 5 . For such other further relief that this Court deems meet and proper . COU MT I T TORT OF BAD FAITH 29 . 'Phe pla inti f Es reaffirm and reallo(jr, the allegations set forth in paragraphs .1 through 27 of Count I of this Complaint and hereby incorporate them in this Count II by reference . 30 . That the platntiffs further allege that the building inspector , Will. i.am 11 . Munroe , in his capacity as, building inspector is 1-1 servant of the public and the public ' s interest and is empowered to exercise the statutory powers ,Iiv,,,, tj,.) hil!, in capacity in (.1ood faith and [ai - dealing 31 . That the huildiny inspector , William H . Munroe , by his aforesaid conduct has breached this standard of care of goo,l faith and fair dealing by exercising his power uneasnnhly arhitrarily , capriciously , and maliciously towards tho p1nintiffs with the intent to hurt , damage , and donegrVL tho plaintiff: , taxpayers of the City of Salem . w"ERRFnRE , the plaintiffs demand judgment against tV dolendant , William H . Munroe , individually and as building inspector Q the City of Salem , and the City of Salem as, fntlows : 1 . That the plak tiffs he awarded damages in the amount- of one million ( $ 1 , 000 , 000 . 00) dollars . 2 . That the plaintiffs he awarded punitive damages in the amount of five million ( $ 5 , 000 , 000 . 00) dollars . 3 . That the plaintiffs be awarded their attorneys ' fees and costs . 4 . That a Jury Trial he granted on this Count . COUNT III USCA TTTLP 1983 32 . The plaintiffs reaffirm and reallege the allegations set Eorth in paragraphs 1 through 30 of Count I and III of: this Complaint and hereby incorporate them in this Count III by reference . 33 . This action arises under the United States Constitution particularly under the provisions of tire, 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States , and under. the Federal Law particularly Title 4 ?. of the United Stages Code , Section 1983 . 34 . each and a1.1. of the arts of the defendants alloyed herein were dune by the defendants under the color and pro tense of Lho Statutes , ordinance! Reg ul.atinne , Customs , and Usages „f the rommonw(�al.t1) of Massachus(Itts , Llu. Ci. Ly of. Salem and Lho County of Fssex , and under the aulh')ciLy of their office for such city and county . 35 . The conduct of the defendants .and each of them doprived the plaintiffs of the fol.lowin3 rights , privileges , immunitieE; , secure to them by th,a Constitution and Laws of the Uniterl States : 36 . The right of the plaintiffs not to he deprived of: life , liberty or property without due process of law and the right to the equal protection of the laws , secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States . 37 . That the plaintiffs suffered much anxiety , distress , discomfort and against William H . Munroe , individually and as Salem Building Inspector , and the City of. Salem , embarrassment due to the unwarranted , unreasonable , arbitrary , malicious conduct of William if . Munroe . WHEREFORE , plaintiff demands judgment : 1 . That the defendant , building inspector , William H . Munroe be ordered to reinstate the original legally issued building permit , forthwith . 2 . That the defendant , building inspector , WiItLam H . Munroe , be ordered to refrain from maliciously , arhitrarily or capriciously intimidating and harra;sir,_I the plai.ntiU s by denying them their loyal rirlht to finish this dwrll. ing and use same . 3 . That damagn: he nwardod to the pLainP. iCK For Up it financial. l.owns , aLL"rncys Pees and cows , in thy• amnunt . .r "no million ( al. , Of10 , 0o0 . on) dollars . 4 . That plaintiffs, Armand a Trial by Jury upon this Count . 5 . For such other further re.lirf that this court Xemr:. meet and proper . i RespectLu.l].y it 'r. ,mmanuel N . Papani .o as Plaintiffs Attorn _y 16 Chestnut Street Peabody , Ma . 0.1960 Telephone : 531.-3200 April. 22 , 1987 MICHAELE. O'BRIEN : - LEONARD F. FEMINO CITY.SOLICITOR ' ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR 93 WASHINGTON STREET .93 WASHINGTON STREET and and 81.WASHINGTON STREET CITY OF'SALEM ONE BROADWAY SALEM,'.MA 01970 .. MASSACHUSETTS BEVERLY 915 745.4311 - 7455 1 1 7443363 - 921-,1990 Please Reply to Bi Washington Street - - Please Reply to One Broadway May 13 , 1987 X. Clerk for Civil Business Essex County SuperiorCourt '. 34 '.Federal Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 ; Re : Katsapetsas , et: al b, William H. Munroe, et 'als Civil Action No. ' .87=,861 Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed please; ;find Answdr. of defendants in the .above matter. Kindly file the game. very idly You chael E. O'Brien ity Solicitor ME0/JP Enclosure cc: Emmanuel N. Papan,ickolas, c� — f COMMONWEALTH' OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. THE TRIAL COURT . SUPERIOR COURT DEPT. NO. 87-861 WILLIAM M. KATSAPETSAS AND '< THOMAS M. KATSAPETSAS','; PLAINTIFFS VS. ANSWER WILLIAM H. MUNROEi;;INDIVIDUALLY AS HE IS THE SALEM BUILDING' INSPECTOR CITY' OFSAL.EM, .,CITY OF SALEM, JAMES B. HACKER' JAMES . FLEMING, PETER STROUT,. P.ETE'R - '• DORE, RICHARD BENCAL, .AS' THEY. . ARE MEMBERS OF THE SALEM BOARD OF APPEALS, DEFENDANTS • Now come the defendants and answer plaintiffs ' numbered Complaint, as amended, . as follows : 1 . Admitted, . 2 . Admitted 3 . Admitted 4 . Admitted 5 . Admitted .as to- the parties, but denied as to the amount of square footage.. 6 . The defendants are' vrithout sufficient knowledge or information .;ta fotm. a .belief as to the allegations contained .in paragraph . $i,x ( 6 ) of plaintiffs ' amend- ed Complaint.:.. 7 . Admitted . 8 . Admitted 9 . The def enda'iitsp, ar,'e without sufficient knowledge or information to' form' a belief as to 'the .allegations contained in..p.aragtaph; .n'ane (9 ) of plaintiffs'' amended Complaint' 10 . The defendants are without sufficient' knowledge or information., to fo�m' a b"e•lief as to the allegations contained in.•paragraph-',ten (10 ) of plaintiffs' amended Complaint.. . 11. The defenda,�ifs are without sufficient knowledge or information: to 'form albelief a•s to the allegations contained in paragraph eleven ( 11 ) , of plaintiffs" amended ComplaintL- 12 . The defendants are. without sufficient knowledge or information '.to forma belief as to the allegations contained in. para Iqr.aph 'tw.elve ( 12 ) of plaintiffs ' amended Complaint. 13 . The defendants , admit the. Building Inspector revoked the building :permt, ' but deny the remaining allega- tions in paragraph thirteen ( 13 ) of .plaintiffs ' amended Complaint. 14 . The defendant's admit that Sec. 113 . 3 of the Mass. State Building Code reads as the plaintiffs ' main- tain, but deny the remaining allegations in para- graph fourteen ( 141 of plaintiffs ' amended Complaint. 15 . The defendants admit .that Sec. 114 . 1 of the main. State Building Code reads as the plaintiffs tain, but deny ,the remaining allegations in para- graph fifteen. (15) '.of .plaintiffs' amended Complaint. 16 . The defendants are .Without sufficient knowledge or information to fdrm• a.,belief as to the allegation s contained in ,'piragraphsixteen (16 ) of pl amended Complaint: , 17 . The defendants admit a "Stop order" placard was placed oor, but. deny it was the first notice upon the front d of the same to the plaintiffs: 19.. The defendants sufficientare, Withouieknowledge olegatioor information' , form a' bg laintiffs ' contained,`in paragraph':'eighteen ( 18 ) of .plaintiffs amended Complaint.: 19 . The, defendants admit that the Builddeny the Y the plaintiffs the :letter alector� but alleged the. lot did first time the . auilding•, insp care feet of land. not contain at least `5�000 sq 20 . The defendants ar.e' without sufficient knowledge allegations information to form a belief 'as to the plaintiffs ' contained in .paragraph twenty ( 20 ) of amended Complaint- . 21 . The defendants are without sufficient knowledge. or information ,to: •form 'a belief 'as to the allegations contained' i:n pa'ragraph '•twenty-one ( 21 ) of plaintiffs ' amended Complaint.. 22 . The defendants' adinit the allegation that the Building Inspector has denyed `the plaintiffs 'a building .permit, but deny the. iemaining. allegation in paragraph twenty- two ( 22 ) of 'plainfiffs.' amended Complaint. 23 . Admitted 24 . Admitted 25 . Denied 26 . Denied. COUNT _I 27 . The defendants incorpo,zate and make a part hereof their answers to paragriphs• one ( 1 ) through twenty-six ( 26 ) . 28 . Denied FIRST„AFVIRMATIVE ,DEFEN;$E The ,plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a Complaint upon which relief ca4') ,granted. SECOND „AFFIRMATIVE .:DEF..E.NSE There .has been insufficient servicesof process on the defendants. WHERE FORE,' the defendants demand that Count I 'of Plaintiffs° ,•Complaint'';be dismissed and they be awarded, their costs ,and ',attorn.ey fees. COUNT, ,II. 29.. • The defen,dants. reaffirm. a,nd reallege their answers set forth in paragraphs one (1) thorugh twenty-seven ( 27 ) of Count I of this' Compliarit, as amended, and thereby incor- porate them' in :their answer to Count. II by reference. 30 . Admitted 31 . Denied FIRST. ,AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The plaintiff ' s Complaint, as amended, fails to state a cause. of .action upon. which relief can be grant- ed. SECOND 'AF.FIRMATIVE .DEFENSE 77 There has 'bden insufficient service of process on the defendants. i THLRD'.;AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Count :11 ' beinj :ih the nature of' tor.t, the plaintiffs have failed to comply 'with the presentment and pleading requirements of GLc258. ,commonly referred to as the "Mass- achusetts •Tort Claims Act'.' . WHEREFORE; the defendants demand that Count II be dismissed and that. the. defendants be awarded their costs and reasonable attorney fees as Count II of plaintiffs' Complaint. s frivolous and brought in bad faith. COUNT LII 32 . The defendants r'eaff 'irm and reallege their answers set forth in paragraphs .one- (1 ) through thirty ( 30 ) of Count. I and If of this Complaint, as amended, and hereby incor- porate them, in .their answers to Count III by reference. 33 . The defendants are. wiihout sufficient knowledge or in- formation. to -form a belief. as to the allegations contain- ed in paragraph thirty-three (33 ) of plaintiffs ` Complaint as amended. 34 . The defendants are without sufficient knowledge or in- formation. to! form a• beli.ef is- to the allegations contain- ed in paragraph thirty=.fpur (34 ) of plaintiffs ' Compliant as amended. 35 . Denied 36 . Denied 37 . Denied. . FIRST .AFFIRMATZVE .DEFENSE The plaintiffs ' Compliant, as amended, fails to state a cause of action upon !which relief can be granted.. SECOND„AFFIRMATIVEDEFENU There has, been insufficient service of process on the defendants. . THI.FD _AFFZRMATIVE .DEFENSE The 'Court lacks, jurisdiction over the subject matter of Count III ,of ' plaintiffs ' amended Compliant: WHEREFORE, the defendants demand that Count III be dismissed .'and that the defendants be awarded their costs and reasonable 'Attorney fees as Count III of plaintiffs ' Complaint:is .fri.volous .and brought in bad faith. THE DEFENDANTS CLAIM �TRIAL BY JURY AS TO COUNTS II AND III . WILLIAM H. MUNROE, INDIVIDUALL' AS HE. IS' THE' SALEM BUILDING INSPECTOR CITY OF SALEM, CITY c SALEM, JAMES B. HACKER, JAMES FLEMING, PETER STROUT, PETER DORE, RICHARD BENCAL, AS THEY ARE MEMBERS OF THE SALEM BOARD OF APPEALS by their attorney : - Michael E.E. O' Brien city Solicitor '81 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Telephone 744-3363 Dated : May 13,.• ,198' I� �7, /6 _L-ifre%nuL 41lueG �lea��, ./�eea�iieel/e. O/960 r�iirt2�u�eL _�1�• �.a�urn�.tfdab April. 29 , 1987 Clerl-, of Court Essex Superior Court rederal Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 RE : Thomas N . Katsapetsas , et al �B . City of Salem , et al Essex Superior Court No . R7-861- Dear Sir : Please find Plaintiffs ' Amended Complaint - As of Course , Plaintiffs ' First Request for Production of Documents from the Defendants , and Plaintiffs ' Motion to Advance for Speedy Trial to be heard on May 12 , 1987 at 9 : 30 a .m . at the Essex Superior Court , Motion Session , sitting at the Peabody District Court , Peabody , Massachusetts , for filing with your Court this day . Ver ruly you manuel N . Pap/ . as FNP-gk Enclosures cc : To all Defendants of Record COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS . SUPERIOR COURT NO. 97-861 WILLIAM N . KATSAPETSAS ) AND THOMAS N . KATSAPETSAS ) PLAINTIFFS ) VS . ) WILLIAM 11. MUNROE , INDIVIDUALLY ) AS HE IS THE SALEM BUILDING ) INSPECTOR CITY OF SALEM, CITY OF ) SALEM, JAMES 13 . HACKER , ) JAMES FLEMING, PETER STROUT, ) PETER DORE , RICHARD BENCAL ) AS THEY ARE MEMBERS OF THE ) SALEM BOARD OF APPEALS ) DEFENDANTS ) PLAINTIFF' S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM THE DEFENDANTS Now come the Plaintiffs , in the above-entitled action and request that the Defendants produce the following items set forth in the attached schedule for inspection and copying pursuant to Rule 34 of the Rules of. Civil Procedure at the office of the attorney for the Defendant , Emmanuel N . Papanickolas , 16 Chestnut Street , Peabody , Massachusetts , within thirty ( 30) days of service upon you . The Defendants may choose to comply with this request by forwarding a copy of: any documents to the counsel for the Plaintiffs , postmarked prior to the date called for production . 1 . Any and all documents , plans , data , letters , etc . filed with the City of Salem by or on behalf of Mr . Samuel Papalardo in his efforts to obtain a building permit in 1985 for the building of a structure on the parcel of land located at 103 Highland Avenue , Salem , Massachusetts . 2 . Any and all intra - or interagency documents regarding conclusions , analysis , recommendations , or opinions as to whether to grant a building permit to Mr . Papalardo , including , but not limited to intarnal memoranda , administrative reports , documents reflecting policy decisions , and transcripts and minutes from admnistrative meetings and hearings . 3 . A copy of the building permit which was issued to Mr . Papalardo . 4 . Any and all intra - or interagency documents regarding conclusions , analysis , recommendations or opinions as to the decision to revoke the building permit issued to Mr . Papalalydo , inr, Luding , but not limited to , internal memoranda , administrative reports , documents reflecting policy decisions , and transcripts and minutes from administrative meetings and hearings . 5 . Any and all documents , letters , petitions , memoranda evidencing telephone calls or the like , indicating any opposition to the building permit issued to Mr . Papalardo , from any person or entity whatsoever , including , but not limited to , government agents , public officials , businesses , private persons , corporate entities and/or neighbors of Mr . Papalardo . 6 . Any and all documents indicating any response given to by the City of Salem , or any of the defendants to the entities or individuals mentioned in Request- No . 5 above . 7 . Any and all documents , reports , notes or letters incident to any inspection of the structure heing built at 103 Highland Avenue , Salem , including but not limited to an inspection which took place on or about September 1.2 , 1985 . B . A copy indicating any notice given to Mr . Papalardo indicating the defendants ' decision to revoke a building permit and/or to order work to stop . 9 . A copy of the stop work order issued to Mr . Papalardo and/or to the plaintiffs in this action . 10 . Any and all intra - or interagency documents regarding conclusions , analysis , recommendations or opinions as to the decision to order work to stop at 103 Highland Avenue , Salem including , but not limited to internal memoranda , administrative reports , documents reflecting policy decisions , and transcripts and minutes from administrative meetings and hearings . 11 . Any and all documents , letters , petitions , memoranda evidencing phone calls or the like , indicating any request or desire to have a stop work order issued , from any person or entity whatsoever , includign , but not limit^'1 tn , govc,rnincn businesses , private persons , corporate entities and/or neighbors of Mr . Papalardo or of the plaintiffs . 12 . Copies of any reports , letters , evidence , or rules or regulations used to come to the decision to revoke the building permit in question . 13 . Copies of any reports , letters , evidence or rules or regulations used to come to the decision to issue a step work order in this case . 14 . Copies of any notes , letters , memoranda , reports or any other documents in your possession indicating the opinion ( s) of any and all land survr�ycrs regording the parcel of land in question . 15 . Copies of the minutes and/or transcripts from any and all meetings and/or hearing; whether puhlic or private , formal or informal related in any way whatsoever to the parcel of land involved in this case . 16 . Copies of the minutes and/or transcripts from any and all meetings and/or hearings , whether public or private formal or informal , related in any way whatsoever to any aspect and/or any issue of this case . 17 . Any documents evidencing intra - or interagency communications regarding conclusions , analysis , and/or recommendations concerning future actions which would relate to the future disposition of , use of , zoning of or any other matter regarding the parcel of land located at 103 Highland Avenue , Salem , Massachusetts . 18 . Copies of any administrative staff manuals and/or instructions , memos , letters , and/or records of phone calls indicating instructions to staff members which would tend to affect the rights of the plaintiffs . 19 . Copies of any documents , not covered by the previous requests ( 1-18) which the defendants intend to offer as evidence the trial of this action . i Res ctEully subm ' ted , eI N . Papa is o as Plaintiffs ' Attor. ne 16 Chestnut Street Peabody , Ma . 01960 Telephone : 531-3200 April. 29 , 1907 COMMONWEALTH OP MASSACHUSETTS Ussn , SS . SUPERIOR COURT NO . 87-861 W [LLIAM N . KATSAPI?TSAS ) AND THOMAS N . KATSAPETSAS ) PLAINT'IF'FS ) VS . j WTLF,IAM Il . MUNROE , INIITVID[IAI.,LY ) AS IIE IS TIII' SALEM HU11,DfNG ) INSPECTOR CITY OI' SAJ,EM, CITY OF ) SALT?M , JAMES B . HACKER , ) JAMES I'LI?MINt; , PETER STROUT, ) PET1:R DORI? , RTCHARD RENCA[, ) AS THEY AW-? MEMBERS OF THE ) SALEM BOARD OF APPEALS ) DEFENDANTS ) PLAINTIF'F ' S AMENDED COMPLAINT AS OF COURSE Now comes the plaintiffs in the above action and , as of course in accordance with Rule 15 (a ) of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure , and before a respoUive pleading has been served upon them , amends the complaintAin this action so that the same will read as follows : AMENDED COUNT III USCA TITLE 1983 32 . The plaintiffs reaffirm and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 30 of Count I and III of this Complaint and hereby incorporate them in this Count III by reference . 33 . This action arises under the United States Constitution particulzcrly under the provisions of. the 14th Amendment to th(� Constitution of the United States , and under the Federal Law narticul.ai: ly Title 42 of. the United States Code , Section 1983 . 34 . Each and all of the acts of the defendants alleged herein were done by the defehdants under the color and pretensa of the Statutes , Ordinances , Regulations , Customs , and Usages of the Commonwealth of. Massachusetts , the City of Salem and the County of. Essex , and under the authority of their rffic ° for such city and county . 35 . The conduct of the defendants and each of them deprived the plaintiffs of thr following rights , privileges , immunities , secure to them by the Constitution and Laws of the United ;fates : 36 . The right of the plaintiffs not to he deprived of: life , liberty or property without due process of law and the right to the equal protection of the laws , secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of. the United States . 37 . That the plaintiffs suffered much anxiety , distress , discomfort and against William H . Munroe , individually and as Salem Building Inspector , and the City of Salem , embarrassment due to the unwarranted , unreasonable , arbitrary , malicious conduct of William H . Munroe . WHEREFORE , plaintiff demands judgment : 1 . That the defendant , building inspector , William H . Munroe be ordered to reinstate the original legally issued building permit , forthwith . 2 . That the defendant , building inspector , William H . Munroe , be ordered to refrain from maliciously , arbitrarily or capriciously intimidating and harrassing the plaintiffs by denying them their legal right to finish this dwelling and use same . 3 . That damages he awarded to the plaintiffs for their financial losses , attorneys ' fees and costs , in the amount of one million ( $1 , oos o0 . 0o) dollars . 4 . That the Plaintiffs he awarded punitive damages in the amount. of Five Million ( $ 5 , 000 , 000 . 00) dollars . 5 . That plaintiffs demand a Trial. by Jury upon this Count . 6 . For such other further relief that this Court deems meet and proper . ectfull.y sub�J)//tte , mmanue . Papanick as � Plaintiffs Attorne 16 Chestnut Street Peabody , Ma . 01960 Telephone : 531-3200 April 29 , 1987 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX , SS . SUPERIOR COURT NO . 87-861 WILLIAM N. KATSAPETSAS ) AND THOMAS N . KATSAPETSAS ) PLAINTIFFS ) vs . ) WrkkIAM H . MUNROE , INUiVInUALLY ) AS HE IS THE SALEM IIUILDIN(; ) INSPRCTOR CI'T'Y OF SALEM , CITY OF ) 2;AI,rM , JAMES Ti . HACKER , ) JAMES FLEMING , PETER STROUT, PVTHR DORE , RICHARD BENCAV ) AS THEY ARE MEMBERS OF THR ) SALEM HOARD OF APPEALS ) DEFENDANTS ) MOTION TO ADVANCE FOR SPEEDY TRIAL Now come the plaintiffs and hereby move that the issues of: fact in the above action be advanced for speedy trial . As reason therefore , the plaintiffs state that delay of the disposition of this action is resulting in undue hardship to the plaintiffs as their property is subject to frequent attacks by vandals and is subject to deterioration . pectfully subs t ed , Pa i s 416 intiffs ' A torney Chestnut treet em , Mass chusetts Telephone : 531-3200 April 29 , 1987 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I , Emmanuel. N . Papanickolas , hereby certify that on April. 29 , 1987 , I served a copy of : Plaintiffs ' Motion to Advance for a Speedy Trial , by mailing copies of: said motion by first class mail , postage prepaid to each of thF! Nefendants , with notification thereof that the motion will be heard at the Essex Superior Court sitting at the Peabody District Court , Peabody Square , Peabody , Massachusetts , on Tuesday , May 12 , 1987 at 9 : 30 a .m . Emmanuel N . Papani olas 16 Chestnut Street Peabody , Ma . 01960 Telephone : 531-3200 I • I (TO PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY: P/rJm Cir.lr Trpr n/Ar,inn Inrnhed: — TORT — MOTOR VEHICLE TORT — CONTRACTfiQUITABLERELI�— OTHER.) T COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS s ESSEX,as. SUPERIOR COURT T CIVIL ACTION 5 No. u WILLIAM N. KATSAPETSAS AND B THOMAS N. KATSAPETSAS a O ............Plaintiff(s) ° r a o U E •S a ° CITY OF SALEM, ET ALS .................... Defendant(s) 7 ...-............................................ ....................... 0 C 3 SUMMONS ETo the above named Defendants William H. Munroe, Salem Building Inspector 8 � and Individually; You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon ..1r1R1A.dAL10. ..TI......]'dP.?.11Ckolas.,,__,,,,- 01960 plaintif's attorney, whose address is ....16....Chestnut...Stree.t.,.P.eabody.......Ma_........... an answer to the • y w 8 complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 20 days after service of this summons upon you, exclu. esive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief de. r.a manded in the complaint. You are also required to file your answer to the complaint in the office of the Clerk 0 8 of this court at ......SALEM ................... either before service upon plaintiffs attorney or within a reasonable g � xv C4 a time thereafter. 8 Unless otherwise provided by Rule 13 (a), your answer must state as a cottntcrclaim any claim which you 3 may have against the plaintiff which arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiffs claim or you will thereafter be barred from making such claim in any other action. I " Z ° a �� ? q g y / WITNESS,Thomas R. Morse,Jr., Esquire,at Salem, the 23rd z ' day of APRIL in the year of our Lord one thousand O AU E CCi'1'ATT-CST' nine hundred and eighty- Seven. � d --�De_ t , Sheriff. o 2 LS z a � NOTES: 1. This summons is issued pursuant to Rule!of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. When more than one defendant is involved,the names or all defendants should appear in the caption. If a separate summons is used for each defendant, each should be addressed to the particular defendant. SC 15 Form 1 Cestifibate •of Service I, Michael E:• O'Brien, attorney- for the defendant, William H. Munroe, et also hereby,: certify that I caused a copy of the above Answer to. be::served.' on, the plaintiff by mailing, postage paid, to Emmanuel N. Rapanickolas, Esq. , 16 Chestnut Street, Peabody, Massachusetts ' Q1960, M chael E. O' Brien Dated : May 13 , 1987 COMMON47LAL 1'H OF MAS SACILUSLTTs ESSEX, SS . SUPERIOR COURT NO . WILLIAM KATSAPI:TSAS ) _: ` �• �� AND THOMAS N . KATSAPETSAS ) "� PLAINTIFFS ) VS . ) ) WILLIAM H . MUNROE, IND.IVINiLALL`! ) AS IIL' IS THE SALEM BUILDING ) INSPECTOR .CI'rY OF SALEM, CITY OF ) SALEM, JAMES B . HACKER ) JAMES Ff,L'MING, PEI= STROUT, ) PETER DOPE, RICHARD BENCA1., ) AS THEY ARE MEMBERS OF THE ) SAL17M BOARD OF APPEALS ) DEFENDANTS ) COMPLAINT AND CLAIM OF JURY TRIAL FOR COUNTS II AND III PARTIES William N. Katsapetsas and Thomas N. Katsapetsas (Owners) are of Peabody, Massachusetts , and the owners of a parcel of real estate located at the corner of Greenway Avenue and Highland Avenue identified as 103 Highland Avenue , Salem,- Massachusetts , as of July 19 , 1985 , when they received title from a deed of Samuel L. Papalardo and Mary P. Paoalar:3o, both of Salem, Massachusetts . 2 . William 13 . Munroe .is of Salem, and is the duly appointed building inspector , and agent of. the City of Salem for the pertinent period of time . 3 . City of Salem is a duly constituted municipal corpora- tion in existence in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts . 4 . James B . Hacker. , Peter Dore , Peter Strout , Richard [meal. and James Flowing of Salem, Massachusetts , are clul.y apppoi.nte(l members of the Salem Board of Appeals for the Pertinent per. iOfl of Lime . FACTS 5 . On or about May 13 , 199`) , Marie Connolly , indi.vi�lu%I1 ly an(l as executrix of the estate of Grace F . Rooney (:onveyef] a parcel of land to Samue). r„ Papalardo and Mary P . Papalardo of Salem, Essex County , ^Ia.,,ac'nusetts , and located at the corner of Greenway Avenue and highland Aven.e , identified as 103 highland Avenue , Salem , P1assachu- setts , containing more or less 5 , 100 square feet but not less than 5 , 000 square feet of land which land is located in ( R-1 ) residential district of Salem . 5 . The aforesaid lot of land was owned by Grace F . Rooney or her familial predecessors , prior to the enactment of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Salem . 7 . On or about June 3 , 1985 , Samuel Papalardo, as owner of the aforesaid parcel of lard , applied - to the building inspector for the City of Salem, William H. Munroe , and obtained a building permit for a single family dwelling to be erected upon the aforesaid lot of land . 8 . Samuel Papalardo submitted all the necessary and required documents , plans , and data requested by the building inspector of the City of Salem. 9 . On or about July 19 , 1985 , the Plaintiffs purchased the aforesaid lot of land with building permit from Samuel L . Papalardo and Hary P . Papalardo . 10 . On or about August 21 , 1985 , the plaintiffs , being in possession of a legally issued permit , and upon reliance thereof poured the foundation footings , and thereafter on August 30 , 1935 , poured the full foundation for said dwelling , intending to construct a single family dwelling . L1 . On September 10 , L985 , the Plaintiffs insulated the foundation walls , and the: assistant building inspector of the City of Salem inspected and approved the said foundation on September 12 , 1985 , which was thereafter backfilLed . L2 . During this interim of time the plaintiffs had placed an order , and did in fact purchase a prefabricated single family dwelling from a New Hampshire manufacturer, which dwelling was to be delivered on September 20 , 1985 , according to prearranged schedule with crane operators . 13 . Unbeknown to the plaintiffs , on or about September 16 , 1985 , the building inspector arbitrarily, capriciously, and maliciously sent a "Stop Order" letter to Samuel Papalardo of 14 Cross Street , Salem, Massachusetts , ( a copy of which is attached and marked Exhibit A) revoking the previously legally issued building permit alleging that the site plan did not indicate the encroachment of an abutter ' s small above-ground pool , and he further alleged that the building permit was also void since there was a new owner that had acquired the property subsequent to the issuance of the building permit alleging violations of Sections 114 . 7 and 113 . 3 of the Massachusetts State Building Code . 14 . Section 113 . 3 of Massachusetts State Building Code provides as follows : "Gy whom application is maflc : Application for a permit shall. be made by the owner of the building or str. uctui.-e . The full names an9 addresses of th,� ownr_r. , applicant , and of the responsi.hle officers , .if the owner is a corporate body , shall he stated in the application . " it :lees not prohibit the assignment of Sai.il permit to a subsequent owner , nor does said section r. equi.rc Che necessity for a new permit to be sought by a subsequent owner . 15 . Section 114 . 7 of Massachusetts State Building Code provides as follows : " Revocation of. permits : The building commissioner or inspector of buildings may revoke a permit or approval issued under the provisions of this code in case of any false statement or misrepresentation of fact in the application or the plans on which the permit or approval was based . " Upon examination of the application , plans , and data submitted by Samuel Papalardo to the building inspector, such information does not reveal any misrepresentations or false statements . 16 . On September 7.0 , 1985 , the previously ordered prefabricated home was set upon the foundation of this property . 17 . On September 23 , 1985 , a "Stop Order" placard by the building inspector was placed upon the front door of said newely delivered dwelling , it being the first notice to the plaintiffs of any "Stop Order" . 13 . Subsequently , the swimming poolwas remOVe!l by the adjoini.ng abutter , a minima;. amount Of further work was pe r. forme(l by the plaintiffs upon said property to secure said dwelling from unnecessary damaye by weather and vandals , pending resolution of the within controversy . 19 . The building inspector on November 13 , L985 , forwarded to my client a letter indicating to him that since no building permit was issued to him in his name he violated section 113 . 1 0£ the LMassachusetts State Building Corle , and now for the first time the huilding inspector further alleged that the aforesaid lot of land did not contain 5 , 000 square feet of land as required by M. G. L.A. Chapter 40A and the City of. Salem Zoning Ordinance (minimum lot size) . 20 . Plaintiffs subsequently engaged two land surveyors who surveyed the lot of land and both concluded that the lot of land had more or less than 5 , 100 square feet, but not less than 5 , 000 square feet of land . 21 . Plans were drafted , and on August 20, 1955 a plan was duly recorded with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds showing the aforesaid parcel of land with square footage in excess of 5 , 000 square feet as the original subdivision plan of such parcel prepared in 1930 was seriously flawed . 22 . Notwithstanding the new plan and representations of land surveyors , the building inspector for whatever arbitrary, capricious , malicious or even political reasons has steadfastly continued to abuse the power and authority granted him as building inspector by denying the plaintiffs their legal right to finish building said dwelling , and by denying the lawful use and occupation . 23 . The plaint if l's subsequently appealed the denial. , of the building inspr,(,, tor to the Board of Appeals pursuing their administraLivo remedies , which petition was presented in the alternative to the Board of Appeals primarily seeking a reversal of the building inspector ' s denial and in the alternative seeking a variance from the Board of Appeals if It concluded that the lot was less than 5 , 000 square feet , it being minimum lot .size . 24 . On Parch 18 , 1987 the Board of Appeals after conducting hearings , by a split decision , denied the plaintiffs ' petition , which was filed with the City Clerk on April. 13 , 1987 , and attached hereto as " Exhibit A" . 25 . That the said Board of Appeals exceeded its authority by denying the petitioners relief and the reinstatement of the building permit , and/or by denying the petitioners the variance requested in the alternative . 26 . That the plaintiffs have suffered substantial financial hardship and losses due to the unreasonable arbitrary , capricious and malicious conduct of the building inspector . COUNT I DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 27 . The plaintiffs incorporate and make a part hereof paragraphs 1 through 25 . 28 . The plaintiffs being aggrieved by the decisions of the Salem Building Inspector , and the Salem Board of Appeals do hereby further allege that there is a controversy between the plaintiffs and the defendants as to the legal rights of the plaintiffs under the law , and do hereby appeal the decision of the defendants . WHEREFORE , the plaintiffs demand judgment : 1 . That the Court make a binding (lecl.aration of rights in the controversy between the Plaintiffs and Defendants . 2 . That the Defendant , building inspector William H . Munroe , he ordered to reinstate the original legally issued building permit , forthwith . 3 . That the defendant building inspector , William H . Munroe be ordered to refrain from maliciously , arbitrarily , or capricously intimidating and harrassing the plaintiffs by denying them their right to finish this dwel.liny and use thereof . 4 . That the damages be awarded to the plaintiffs for their financial losses including their attorneys fees and costs . 5 . For such other further relief that this Court deems meet and proper . COUNT II TORT OF BAD FAITH 29 . The plaintiffs reaffirm and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 27 of Count I of this Complaint and hereby incorporate them in this Count II by reference . 30 . That the plaintiffs further allege that the building inspector , William H . Munroe , in his capacity as building inspector is a servant of the public and the public ' s interest and is empowered to exercise the statutory powers given to him in his official capacity in good faith and fair dealing . 31 . That the building inspector , will iam il . Munroe , by his aforesaid conduct has breached this standard of care of good faith and fair dealing by exercising his power uneasonbly arhitrarily , capriciously , and maliciously towards the plaintiffs with the intent to hurt , damage , and denegrate the plaintiffs , taxpayers of the City of Salem . WHEREFORF , the plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendant , William H . Munroe , individually and as building inspector of the City of Salem , and the City of Salem as follows : 1 . That the plaintiffs be awarded damages in the amount of one million ($1 , 000 , 000 . 00) dollars . 2 . That the plaintiffs be awarded punitive damages in the amount of five million ( $5 , 000 , 000. 00) dollars . 3 . That the plaintiffs be awarded their attorneys ' fees and costs . 4 . That a Jury Trial be granted on this Count . COUNT III USCA TITLE 1983 32 . The plaintiffs reaffirm and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 30 of Count I and III of this Complaint and hereby incorporate them in this Count III by reference . 33 . This action arises under the United States Constitution • particularly under the provisions of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of. the United States , and under the Federal Law particularly Title 92 of the United States Code , Section 1983 . 39 . Each and al.l. of the acts of the defendants alleged herein were done by the defendants under the color and pretense of the Statutes , ordinances , Regulations , Customs , and Usages of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts , the City of. Salem and the County of Essex , and under the authority of their office Cor such city and county . 35 . The conduct of the deCendants and each of them deprived the plaintiffs of the following rights , privileges , immunities , secure to them by the Constitution and Laws of the United States : 36 . The right of the plaintiffs not, to he deprived of life , liberty or property without due process of law and the right to the equal protection of the laws , secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, of the United States . 37 . That the plaintiffs suffered much anxiety , distress , discomfort and against William H . Munroe , individually and as Salem Building Inspector , and the City of: Salem , embarrassment due to the unwarranted , unreasonable , arbitrary , malicious conduct of William H . Munroe . WHEREFORE , plaintiff demands judgment : 1 : That the defendant , building inspector , William H. Munroe be ordered to reinstate the original legally issued building permit , forthwith . 2 . That the defendant , building inspector , William H . Munroe , be ordered to refrain from maliciously , arbitrarily or capriciously intimidating and harrassing the plaintiffs by denying them their legal right to finish this dwelling and use same . 3 . That damages be awarded to the plaintiffs for their financial losses , attorneys ' fees and costs , in the amount of one million ( $ 1 , 000 , 000 . 00) dollars . 4 . That plaintiffs demand a Trial by Jury upon this Count . 5 . For such other further relief that this Court deems meet and proper . R spectfully it , Amanuel N. Papani o as Plaintiffs Attorn y 16 Chestnut Street Peabody ,• Ma . 01960 Telephone : 531-3200 April 22 , 1987 TYPE OR USE BALL POINT PEN MASSACHUSETTS TRIAL COURT SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMEN ESSEX CIVIL ACTION COVER SHEET SS. (To be filed with each Complaint) NO. PLAIF IrF(S) DEFENDANTS) WILLIAM H. MUNROL , Tndividua. WILLIiN IN . KA'i. PETS'TSAS and as Salem Building Inspector, City c AND TIIOh1As N. Y.A'PSiAI.'L'I'SAS ATI ORNI-Y(S) (Firm Name, Address, Tel.) ATTORNEY(S) (11 known) I Inlnanuel N . Papanlckolas 16 Chestnut Street uljo - I)cabody , Ma. 01960 Tel : 531-3200 Place an ^l In one box only ORIGIN jX 1. roi Complaint n 4. F04 Dist. Cf. Appeal 0.231, s.97 �] 2. 1:02 Removal to Sup. Ct. c.231, s.104 i.; 5. F05 Reactivated after Rescripl: Relief from judgment/order (Mass. R. Civ. P. 60) I ! 3. r03 Rclransler In Sup. Of. c.231, s.102C Place an hJ in one box only NATURE OF ACTION CONTRACT REAL PROPERTY MISCELLANEOUS ❑ AG1 Services, labor and materials ❑ C01 Land taking (eminent domain) CI E02 Appeal from administrative agency AG2 Goods sold and delivered �( CO2 Zoning appeal, G.L. e.40A G.L. c.30A 7 A03 Commercial paper 17 CO3 Dispute concerning title L] E03 Action against Commonwealth allh or � Municipality, G.L. c.258 ❑ A3 Sale or lease of real estate ❑ C04 Foreclosure of mortgage L] E04 Taxpayer suit, G.L. c.40 s.53 ❑ Asa 011ier(specify) ❑ C99 Other (specify) ❑ E05 Confirmation of arbitration awards. G.L. c.251 TORT EQUITABLE REMEDIES ❑ E06 Massachusetts Antitrust Act, ❑ B03 Motor vehicle negligence-personal G.L. c.93 injury/property damage ❑ 001 Specific performance of contract ❑ E08 Appointment of receiver ❑ C) PO4 Other negligence-personal Injury 002 Reach and apply. G.L. c.214-s3(6)-(9) C3 E09 General contractor's surety bond, . properly damage G.L. c.149, ss.29,29a ❑ B05 Products liability ❑ D06 Contribution or indemnification ❑ E10 Summary process appeal ❑ BOB Malpractice-medical ❑ D07 Imposition of trust ❑ Ell Workman's Compensation ❑ 807 Malpractice-other ❑ D08 Minority stockholder's suit ❑ E12 Small Claims Appeal (specify) ❑ 010 Accounting ❑ E13 Labor Dispute ❑ Boa Wrongful death, G.L. c.229, e.2A ❑ D12 Dissolution of partnership ❑ E14 Chapter 123A Petition —SDP ❑ Bi5 Defamation (libel-slander) ❑ D13 Declaratory judgment, G.L. c.231A ❑ E15 Abuse Petition, G.L. c.209A ❑ B99 Other (specify) ❑ D99 Other (specify) — ❑ E16 Auto Surcharge Appeal ❑ E17 Civil Rights Act, G.L. c.12. ss.11 H- IS THIS A JURY CASE? YES ❑ NO - O E99 Other (speclfj) SUPERIOR COURT RULE 29. Requirement of statement as to money damages to prevent the transfer of civil actions to District or Municipal Court Departments. 1. Superior Court Rule 29, as amended requires the statement of money damages on the reverse side be completed. 4FFi — ilure to complete the ateme t, where appropria e, will result in transfer of this action (Superior 29(2). RNEY RE RD DATE: 4/24/87 DO N T W I E BELOW IS LINE) RECEIVED DISPOSITION BY: A. Judgment Entered 8. No Judgment Entered DATE: ❑ 1. Before jury trial or non-jury hearing ❑ 6. Transferred to District Court DISP ENTERED ❑ 2. During jury trial or non-jury hearing under G.L. x231, s102C ❑ 3. Alter jury verdict BY: ❑ 4. After court finding DATE: ._I 5. After pusl trial motion Disposition date .i.-moi..• S Vi r... ..r rl , .:1:,.'.il. .. 1public Vrapzrtg Pepnrttnent puaiIig PP}IMr . k['ccatg William Y.. Munro November 18, 1985 One Salem Green 745-0213 William N. Katsapetses Colonial Ornamental Iron Works 75 Walnut S01960t• Peabody, M RE: 103 Highland Ave. , Salem ' Dear Mr. Katsapetses: problems asso- atient in allowing you time to resolve s with you and This office has been most p posting of a "Stop Work" ciated with your property located at 10S havvelelapsed sincethe meetings The Your attorney, over forty five (45) daY resented to this Dep notice at this site and still no solution has been p facts remain the same: the five thousand (5,000) square feet of 1 . The property does not contain required by Massachusetts General Laws land to be a buildable lotas Zoning Ordinance; _ Chapter 40A and the City the necessary the site witho, Section 113.1 SP of the Massachusetts 2. A house has been erected on ut first obtaining permit as required by MGL, State Building Code; property, work has e_ 3• Despite the posting of a "Stop Work" order at the p P - continued as recently as November 15, 1985• r the of Salem athis You to see to the removal of days Your complete disregard for the laws of the Commonwea�adetb awithin seven (7) finish g leaves me with no further alternative but to order Y will be met with immediat o house and to fll°ft�hisnoice foundation hole to eFailure on1Yourgpart to comply _ ;3 of your receip legal action. Code carries a H at day for each violation and each day the Please be advised that violation of the Massachusetts State Building fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1 ,000) violation continues is a separate offense. _ m Sincerely„ _ 99 �ifjliarmnMunroe m h Inspector of Buildings �G WHM:bms cc: City Clerk Mayor Salvo Ward Councillor m Stephen Lovely, City Solicitor U�NUNW U Ui 6;z l ligu61ic n� erfa Peparfinenf �uil?�iuc� �e�ttrfinenf William H. Munroe One Salem Green 745-0213 September 25, 1985 Mr. Samuel Papalordo 14 Cross Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: 103 Highland Ave., Salem, MA Dear Mr. Papalordo This is to notify you that the work being conducted at the above address is in direct violation of the General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; specifically Section 113.1 (NO PERMIT) of the Massachusetts State Building Code. The building on the property must be removed within seven (7) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to comply with this order will result in court action. Sincerely Edg J. zgtYin Asst. Building Inspector EJP/jdg c.c. :City Clerk Mr. Mroz, Mayor's Office Councillor Lovely Electrical Department Plumbing Inspector Fire Department Mr. Niman /'s e ti �ifg of ;$ttlrm, gassarhusrffs uhlU u rrrt Department t ui13' apartment William H. Munroe One Saler: Green 745-0213 September 16, 1985 Samuel Papalardo 14 Cross St. Salem, MA 01970 RE: Revocation of Permit 103 Highland Ave. Dear Mr. Papalardo: Please be advised that, as permitted under Section 114 .7 of the Massachusetts State Building Code, I have revoked your Building Permit, #375, issued June 3, 1985 for the following reason: The site plan submitted with your permit application does not indicate all existing structures on the site. It is my under- standing that a portion of an existing swimming pool presently encroaches on the property and would constitute a zoning violation. (Section 113.6, Massachusetts State Building Code) Be further advised that should. this matter be resolved and the property sold that a new permit application must be made by the new owner of the building as required under Section 113.3 of the Massachusetts State Building, Code. If I can offer any advice or be of service in this matter, please 'g contact me. Sincerely, . William H. Munroe Inspector of Buildings Zoning Enforcement Officer f_ o �o WHM:bms 0o cc: City Clerk Councillor Lovely, Ward III �P z % drt r'I UG ------------- i' \ 0 oo a e \ 5 G` fff z / ,1 10. \j LAj :Z4 T \ i �o \ rn COT � I i PLAN OF LAND ZONE : k- 1 . LOCATED IN SALEM DEED MASSACHUSETTS BOOK ". PAGE OWNED By PLAN �AMtJG L �4 pALa �i�a NO. �NOWIIJC �ao�o��n No�� t ocaTiorJ MAY 27 SCALE : I` NO -�r3 L) ADFORD ENGINEERING CO. P.O. BOX 1244 Haverhill, MOSS 01831 f PLS TEL. 373 2396 O "'a D \46 Il ►rsaf/ 'P7 OIE EPSENENi PLAN BK. 954 P.479 0 ceaa�TO� AMC, N.B•ot 19758 P. '18 PO Kot A. rt"r �/ [acW�• 9/ 9 'fc A191 ORNMA6E LocATrC" 1101 CEO" l > 9i 93 !/ ."•a r e�'�� 5k 5Et r N IfD ,p��_Ec197 2- � 2 3 54 So'E 999 ? a nre+ SEt re��6 1 all a- u Q } S °RAIU H•N. \ Q r r Iw //A/ ' (�:�(. S•F O i m s SEE EASE. Qr PLAM Reno \ r { • ' 5K.3590 P•rf7B 7 . L MAY BE 2 3,'Dec)8 S.{ •�� Q ORArV NeRE I-OT � TIR p/ y In fEj N y Ylvr am.E 79. 5 °, N \ 1S" R.c.Pwe o5TAI _5 12• i caoRo�.+� To STAiE SYRVE'/ C'E'T S65• 'i �� /A n.a. LOIS$ PIS ��■ I O iO o • t��Jd V x o A N * Tifp ( 100.00 h �o r 1,4310 S.F. Ps w� N 7 gs M R `PH•, .ItC 90.00 7 O Off-0TB 1•� �.� o .� o+ a 12• z 2 " W 9 9.91 •fy � � � r H (eS Wood o i \ n u • Y �yAP Q - $RE N11ldJ '^ V FoRMIRL`C T..148 1 oaO�mtr W QL1>.N v3�1N p!!O BK, j13$ FoJND lorfoO S yr s �014R F VOU WE\SS. �uSSPUD fWDWIPE AMKP• Voy WEISS iA -- Sego ?G.It" p — 51Nc LOT ZA IS To BE L KVEIeD TO THE OWNER OF LANDow THE SoutF1 AµD LOT ZB ad r Ir; IS To 151= CONVEtEO To THE owmm oP Lot 3 — �'^ ! y PLANNING 50ARDAPPRaYA1- wI0CR74E54DO1V15104CpNTRpI LAW AIOZ•RlQIlIREO, v� N 8 S�q L E 1/J p,�A 'A1 N ��.e _G 'B ® a`R o —•�Jar // f l.�•M��ic�<��. � y/� � � 4 C r 4, w �a4J Fouyp ' . , `t' J•71�; 'a N -r' .}�{} yni �`•� �',� f"li.l`r. y, .1:yt i I+l .ql �✓1 1 . ' : rl ( i N i ;!try ;P•; ,y , :. r r. t g4dY.'fa..::r.J:'..lifiisr.•.t.�rla,nymLlEr.drW'ar+r:r±N r..Th......r.t.l :.✓. ...:.1}n:a;'a�ar +r..l:..0-.� hiie�vi�l:r4 �: t ' - " � r.• nR { t + I - .�•�� ( .>3 per', ^-'r••^ 1 a T I .,r_I L ta.R T'I RT ' .`;1 i 41t� a J,,., C ti ., .� ; t .:'$ r .'3 ;.•r�T'1t•' � .• � , b �J w ,. t +! nu , et t it�ry, n tit '� � e!t t .1,(I , i ii.r n'. 4. LI f J.is`�t 'w i '.]fI•� ,' i �4� �9�1•IdF '�i . �il!+1_ try `. '�j�6 It '}'t�11 I'1 °' 1 l; ,I. r i,, , t : I 1 L Y•� 4 f' ••1 - - -'4� �r:� f '(�!`y�f ja N:t�.. Iy _., t. s �yi,S �2r ,�l�il}n e d r`ft$} rpt r t 1 '.� I '.r .. ''. IIS I ( I t'.. It - G jt:, ."'i �S ,t 7(�r s.s �'g'-��I�'� t ii Fe'i l trit�F}u . 1JS �WS2 r + 7.f.r ' ri'A.i', Z k�'t:ii w�si ttja�i 1 4q}.4 , 7. , 1 fyy 1;:"` yy.�' °" °'J" _ .�'} • yy f�� +. \ S Y '��qq'' P,�tc' ![ .,. i F R 70' r, r, t� i 1' + y. y+ t �dtr,�ri+f n7.'tc��',.+�- fl• -d ',�• _,r it• ��.,y}.y� ..l•:.'�� + _ .� a '..y). . .f;"�ie r.,. i'o:�+ :2..}It:•1. °!i� -f.t �tl )'�.7!IS''TMI f�. ,:. .iV I .?t, r ,.,, ' V, , - s I sx.t } ;y�7(; r:S7%i"Y'` iY a .:r-Y'. r�i.. l"1 fl t `t .'� :��•' I r}T{F; .:R.1 ..v. I,'4 f. 4 (.Lr`:j.X1' a. ( j } y :. G:r f .tl, 1 4 r r. .. w I �.{ �i , "..Y/: t 9N ` /�} �' 1►"_�:fr � ` t i t•RN� '�`d �.t. A7TtS �i. �f f._� ,11 �1•FN t-::r,arr L •t � :�. x r7'N,rct14 •,. li a�kr �!1i t}��..:y }i :..}r 011 E i 1 '{�_.: QUI tu. �r"A +91�•1s t �• I M I ,�.7 t. , f I.3r ir. ' � F�Y1 ,. t{ � e !r}II �.� •�t",,J( ; Sq 1 r rh•... 4 r F>+, 1 t. q a�xlt 7 �'i` y �i,., + :::$ n� r rt.4•�:: Y'(' f�/�: :� t#:: r54 t ri., �Ik R' � 1 ' i � �i f r I r f Co, , " fl':;:. tY '4- ,.•1 .I� _-. I�wygl'+ ice..,. ): '.'3 � 1j 4 �,ti".��ty <:ir_-raf . ." 1 a , l 1 f i: • 1 �f L..r.C{ J:y�'1: '.L<.. '.. •�i'` t J 't ., .f a `•. t t t' ry:.. ' r 1 I-,1 r iJ :. f ? u ''YY`` r + i t�F. ,J. f��Y Hifi - ,� '_r 1JS ,i j�--:r_ { u r 3 .:.r-[�i'k� r (.;r I .�;.i.irt t 1 - I. + t} 'f " i �IrsT n', •N: t , t� ..:•. a ' i.i: w:T�a;d't r x.C! 1 .e7 ;i. Y it I. '� , , .'/ (1 ... .+M1!'n'� r}' �. t �'S rfL a.. `t•, t., r -�' 'i•1 i .s,l d d r 1 y} 141 ..A Zl,<. L' �f.y .I•� . 4 � f �''. r L, -k�" ' f.. �tx • n „rJi } 1 I V r , !x. . h A. ; � •. y,I f> )... I �r ± tl I ,.t x.l. .'r EN� :r: �.t ?:p;_ Til; •i.YT' , r..(rr� i.•1 .,5 i t f Y tl �'t 't 1 '��1 lr I} ,':'t Y t ylv, =ylt '' }tX ,b pltr a 1 �i�I(,yl,��[; L :fd: r. ;�t4 L}{ � J �F.'r .t ' �;:�'''" I:i ,j. f 1 , I a�.f t 1 •, ..e'^ Itt I1 ,+.';,Ff �1 ..ISI r,I1. F31+}. (. }'' :.;! -' gY' � ..:"t1L ' 1 'r'I t( tit trr - ;�� . ��,,ff 1 � �r•-� f S- ,M - t i i y +1 II. y t ?". f , 4 1 .. Iltl ij+r 1 !3M1' 11 ' 'N' /} '.'I r , It r{:'1 1 (.•) ', XM t�{ IF ' t ...a1..: _,.•. P Ili l y !•t ' ,iq::.y171 .1� 'l),'•. •�f y.f, i "+";-rF il'?:;,�t,l'I�f,�rr ��r1"} .' t A Ml {i l• I..a�:{, � ,1�� f t,tr4 Itl'i}t}!E.4'i"td } � Y1. I" (•.�'p '; {' ' N: . .t' 9'4 { ' a f, y -F'ar+/i rid, Jai 1..� 1 . �`� F r tj�`AMM� 1N. � � r .6r ti� ' r ' .W 1�,.�{.�+.' ..t.L: L�,.��,yn�v'/ } '++. � �7. }q��h'' 1',��il �(�Ci"; �.jt 1 .I?f;' r t t3 1 � :t.2:ril Ii.: +:�I •fry 4 r'yr''j �• ��: � i' ,`::FPo '!'� :",; { ' a.;;:r JS.+ . J,�,x`µ �ya :'w v� �7 dc� , �--!!,i' ,t+r+ . ' .:d�;r It , il.r• I_al.T �`t,r .:fo '.tll5 ,,. �'. i. (r� N:t P '1 fs'r7 • il .y 1.rq :rc:fl': tf 4 J :t .:lull } t fpr' . Ci tl� ,l • Z. •r. .�v rL: J} ° �}},1 '�'� .�f Pf� It' ��rf( ,-I[s, i � �: j,'�rfJTlt Lafit.}.:f, {h}tY `r + j'-� :'I 1 t•: '.r. I �tfty l: .t 't }: 1 t r7t-. R ., V 7• 1" � 1}i `� .r* 1 :Y .x- r{ 1 W. 'il . trYt;,rr :II. ;rt•��.'.5 :�G, �Y.!t' "/.Ft° �!}- '`K' q � I,,: j7:a / - � y 1' ,r,,,.,.;r:r,� �Ij t� tnI v t �,��:, t �1✓�i; Y.- }., t,:x- (' �q 1 J . 17 e .. '.r{:1 ',.ti. }Y:•1 11. I x Q �`5. } fir#c f r t., [r,, ; t- 3, y.t. ,t f .}fi . 'y"'.r .r, I .:if0`4;I 1.�td -fr j tt � 1 t •!• r�t}'1: � 't: 4It •,ry;i�t,{ . 1 < f. 1 v.-.r'. tic ' , YY pp th' . ( to s■� .�,. r ip��t.Y�t.,:i, d ,t: '_e "r ' 'Is� "`i fe =rq d v � Ar N' 1 it• t t4 YGv ,:1 a6>T •+fl, 1 't tlriir 4 �.,� 1ypy{(.(�J+♦ ,tYI�{. I" Y � NELF� t17V S •'1 `'rJj � N ' f - wY•qf. ra .Y F.�.. `, ,.,4 { q ri II { [L,1 1,, ,,�P+ �P :f p , it .'111. . A t:'t'. t. eS ' 1 . i Q !1 �' 4 '}` 'I 'l 5 h .: /::Y } r 31 I' C t •.'�: ! i- F,},.+ t^ t Jyrt ( tJi FI ; •ln F_' `L r .�I Fri {, n ♦a }9 � n+,r .., N . + J h r t-� +.� :.al Sl�' ' till ,N F '..s: , S • �p1. .I '7. t'1 .yr Ni 1 k 1 1: ftl w17 A q..'S f1t1Y. N (+ X p, z• �1k -r54:: f 1 F r .i i 'f :u 1.9, y fi.rf.'11' t i. J•M'.i - !} - 7{r ,r `g,�f�(,�3r: � .:i4 :4 3.ti :,0!['; Lkitsi`p.� '{.r t iil, {�p t4' 1�:. . '(� 1�ri6Y�111 1.1.{. it.. ll ' .t., t ':`(' yl j SLY+/ r1 r•� ( } ( �'� f tl.-(/. J }.t i,tv' 1. rF... - Fs, it IV --w''' .f i ..:I,p ' r ,4 , 1; i i.:�i :L• .• T7±. .I -L,11i;^,f:"i ". rll .tr}.a. t- . 'ti .t,• r •,y.a �l FI L y 11. �.• 140 4' ;: •��I.. a .r< f:7+ { 't ir'• ;,• F. n ,.,{ t r ,a• > .0 4, rl•�:� [y' tYL .t7 t 7• ;t. st ltsf., y M '�{ tr r.l I Yy RVI Y .wv ' t^' Fpi•1 �i!�$'r. i? :lt:l.e,., trtr y: r �h : :�1. .�tE� t J:•.'r;t ' ,t1.+tit 1 1 .1 � }_ 3 f�. 7 y. iw ♦.r.� (Ly'k 3"r � ti f/' c . Sd: n (l ly 1 t '4 a �i'} }t Y?:: r C !y� i. '. 1.n. R.t/gh.Q .•.N. •.L,f ! lr�r r.lr^ ,'r.i C. �11 "4 r7Gq 11`"a:4�,.`}4•: r� 1 ,rl-1 2 -t.•7! h d' r t 1 f`furf 1 r s-. Irl «!1. .. 4 F, :f 'C•1 f r \'r1"•^n Zi •^_"•'4•r'Rp,u r >< .-;Fir.rl.-n v '1 t 4 ( r r✓i t.t�,>rtl�f" r.: ,v � "r r .0_ :,� 'i-,. F n f t r 1 f�.•f'v w tIq; 1 ,,1. .-lotRRA tf.:. .•:�. ', P• 11{ ' � I•-+t r�rr' �.M.jl' j'.:f { 1 Il -f h �p fi" �° {. � N I'l:N, e 4 �ptl f t t 'lip-: , Y ,!. ..y. .1�',�kaar,? ' ' ;, If ':4: , M1t�'rfi r.'� l'. f o.• tit q �' f ✓ jz'. d t N` Qp �tq •t,; ti ''i�itl�(' .1 Lr:T6.,ltd�t1_:i.w.rl ,A'�.dr t��.lx �: �_,r�r i rr'.C. fie r�! f- :' tiff 1, P,:rj 71 i -:.i}< Y. i!y 7 I -:-1,( rr' :Irl' , ;��,�� P iv f,�1"f� aiF ',.'.t! ' A:.I:. $ ti:, ..�,'�r �w_Frfkku p::,tSt r .'{eu K•, 6 1;,4 ..r ,7r7 'r'?•' tql F !.'�1��'' � ., {!'- F': �'Ir 11 1, 'i t11 '� rrlf�l5 ++ S ': f°' y' '7 II I.r d ! :r,•, '. XJ`:.q � 5+,ty'''f p. d 'f.a. r 7f ��.w{�i,.k�I:}•�:,: i�'� (1�} U t r 1 _i f l , .I. � ',.r:, t. } tit,1 'al�r P. ai.� ri •�• 4''i ,}• - IS 54-f: 1 �°�L ._4..}�i, ` 3 'I•.: .,+fi.�' :.i `d, f4:`.PKo,q.j" r,`t \' E;:6 r I , '.P ' f tVl T. .l F��i ,y )r d �i G y t'ek�(r't�.s 7�t. 1 .y t:r }" .1F�•in\:riSN 'rm+m:l:9r' i . '..I n Z i. h' f `�, ! t i, �,J i-;, .t}, 7rt ., .,r ' 1T 1 I -t r'' u, n1 f, Ia �• t( , _...r. a 1 ..rr..t r I t r't ' f it ri�:,�� t'•" ��till fir' F!'} 1'wt Sdi_!�,V} til.' �;t ' ly ' 't'.:�+ T I r r:,...a F �': rf'1.;. •# tt. 1 �t•.} ^� � � t'. Is .�• �'"- :'� t'' '1{f,{ -I :,�> S T } ,.i• 1. C.. YF �:r IL r.) 1< ��y .5. �� 1 P y.1;r'Iq• .,1 `f ✓ t '. -t�"ii • 1 ,,:,.%A �.:. Y 1 .:is .n.��{ AF�{ 1 :yy,.._ i 1f:v i Jj'rpJ'Af, 1 j r4.tY, t }r ..Y�{�.�.�.; �t!' }� ir'1l�'�t t,��'t,:�.,�.1. •.•:Ir}1 �.71f1 fi {tT"�ctSX. •s(.:�(y �,ytM1y' ,,.�1,:=k�,'1 rFi'-. {q� I � Yt t ^+ , t.•�''Y.'Y -Jiyrr-I:. Ir: 1 . T-. R.,rt lC �.��Mf�{�`S81RFt•s:} f:1tYLi ?9'�t sFb'7Mt.'^IAW A'L'F}+�q.•Li:-�r. X!w.:-d1!�'..i17::�F/1.-IYrl�&'�!61tia^irJ!if >iPYw� t,.: ^� +:r, tf +. Fr � C :t l�+ :,�I f ,47'.N i .�^ .ft:. • �" 4 ! � ,..FF � •F� •,ter-.�..T..,. '-• � �- r _ f ,6p ,t � , iy a �I�r 4: i:��' �� f'• 17w ',T-, � �I.i�,'f,rr r Ih., :o ' %tr�,r'•`C��Q/'' �,�i 'yi. r }; .t ..,L�e+ , a1+ . F . .Er.lr r•,I ti:�i ��✓t R fhi rr7+�ifia l f1 M f.+d(}i .} .4: L •�: A{ �'tr' * +t rM7WM Gr i ':i.. 1 b.:l ,In »! 1 ld.{:� { �,' x;�'!j. pia.. �I I n 114:t j + ��i r �:( t�: IWI 7 1 Tr. ''IY ar:� Dr � . _l,- .•{:.a �r �.-� 5.}r Y.' -.r .r: A' 'W �,1 f-- Y -!I: c. :ry 1}. + t t ,.. I.h ttrtY:. ' s" ! - , A� r,rA .; T',tlq, rM1f .�" rR'Fr .. , d,H;t M:. "itL.. r g .•`""��: Y j.�!'u .1 �P �'lj1- r t y, 1 1 ( �fJ. . ._.t It .16r t �y :a, ,1 f•f iY � �.1 F1: 3,�I.:} L. SL,�'. .r ®/,a N_'" j t Yt � ra�I "1!49 yyl.rr�.i.�'t1 .t :riir � `� _iF'pp.ti'n'"'•lqp y i•i (tl � q"'�n a 7�+ y}ot�L'I !i 4. k��.f;. JIF ;:,9,, ( y It - r.i rt. i f. . t.t: �i l r f i " NA {.... f . r. 3. n V 'A k •r J+ .1.. + �j, y q, F' ! f (i t .. + '1rR fq�•• 1 T 9: i t'+ f , ( 't •'a `;' I t k;::� � y� ii... ,¢la: kr y;.:•, � irF �' 1:�•r1 ..RY�}„it �iil ",l .l3•1 tN,i� q}� t ll�rl itr7"4 ,iS,B'�kr t/�+:7 °t JtS �;1 fi 1. 14 t tlt rL,l,"C•t .d° q3 ',J ?:.:i .T`.,� � 1 :. F N' ,�',��..1� q[a'. '\:�R'{u'M1 1^1'I:f,a . ,t S- +q 3 3�:1��,e1S�.��,{�,�Ydl��':-1 f � YT,C t /. :.�iht 1 , ,�\!!1 ':if.-{'� 'f r t I •:, w 1 '.. '. .',:li. •-:i{ j,f'}1 1 _, 'llj'�•• In !f[`. I l t�K�. o :f .4 r• q cr •..i t[.r o-. . I e-.i,1k�Ifl'rF' t}.L yT i:r�, p.,, 5 F. F, t{I '. d 5'$ v= t 1 f Ih ?f i fI k.-. y q,x.tlf- ny I ^' •'Yi• �,( f_ i'�(' t y4 vF r.jr t rr hi f: -m!{. ,r 1 1 ,aJ t !..f}iL'.Ir fyi 4 f"f 1 ,�j1 ,.{ .. qy •F:'-t.. I'ry}Rum {y IBM y j;.. ' 0.`. r) yi� F Q il,: t'. _ O �• ,Mq. . 4( I G,y� yl-.:1::. .k r �" IS .::J;.• w .4. .,,,�dl Y.. I L"'•w. ',I4)v £ Sgtr VnW i::f tot0 ;i ';IF .jt_.aiJ krT!!7a.r �'r t:: 1r4.3. ? Irr xi7' °t ii, '�It 'tit ,' at tt -, 1, er ;T. f. tl,: ��. ,�}.1.1 '4 3.I' 'lrAitYJTtJP.IV F7ry44s -rri,s. �` I - c -7t- ),_ry l€ni l:i, rrw,q,I}+4 rp�'v7 d'. e'x}:i '• �:r ., Ml... .f ,•:>q,. S ';;. f 1 ' ' L9`i;lif•Pl� f :.i � nl. • -I 1.}VI' .� 'i{ri�: f f:y 't.,.r4. ' 1: �P,2jil. � -�r°f�..'1{ ^, y ,r-.,}. f` - F r'y'.e3;1 { 1 l�•.r. Cr.y,�f � ta:rJ: rF'. Td r-• J"n' :t`]:f t,.qr�� tY+ ti, :7. t14b. �th �t fr .:t, y' V I' r..a' 15� ,f � t ,,4 a i�ftL` . 1-Fq{},r•. .F s r;1L. _ `n""�: - `• 1° ° $: 'l:J�$ 7w:' .{+[ e\t . �t,'�f.4.t'�. ,t,. }S r�, i-} '+��. ;��i. !A !3' t .,I\t r I 1 I 1 Ij!:.Y t t �a'r+ a, •!. '4;';e.� r:.!i Yr ' :t•i:.dStiN. A , � ,}IJ... G�:: - x{i..:_q «Y r•}I,kt4!'1':n sr r i t •4t.} : T°, - F til.;. �1 Yr t ^[ r r L 71 i' r +,. • M .r it�rl+F� �H �i 'M '+7� t 'f lr err PI;': ijF' 1 N' ' 1,y��'�a�'^tf: gyri i I 1+ qyrj_ i f!�i t T r1 t yf,• ' ,51'it .i ,N -wiLf� td•S pit�fry�j � 1'4,F�Tz'�:.- �'$. k'}. : f t (..• �11� urAw � 1.�r fF j `ttFF' ,.�t: i}�r•r�t! wkt�. ;...,4�It,. �J�1 ( xrvtl. l ( •.1r1 Kg�e ^,F�n� .A fa la Y b' i1 . .'y( �t f`tflr St'fF�l� t:t If 1^ r• t','. t r 4rt. •`- 'rf. 59.,: t"" .. ,,�t�i'2,. ..f Ll, '. i3':(}, E.�t"{[ tr :.::,: Ft'-t:1• ...F 1 :;i ! 1 l ''rlt } .r'9,f�� } rj:.i r r : 4 r � a , .; ,. . ;u , hT.<.L• ' " ( .1 t'�'1. .r 1.1 I F• �.tr [[;; i4 1.:� t .�a. M.1. ;.q y ��1 ltf:; k NYin n!Fi_ 0.�Y!;'in� '}tt .4�,py�ti1".il�, t .,,+du t . .q t . G ! r '$': ,;I� iP4° �' #,q,,�p s. ,.�'r-,T \. }+aa. t- 1 y.l q..r t, r.,14. _y K ✓.tJS. -1 Yr. .'t .i: n...i .cl: d r:1::+ rk¢" �� :�' it'+t' f,.} 1 +ey, i'r.t _n r}r !.}}tq 1 ;..YY,�. i.h. yt 4 1 <dF , .i t 1',r .r+�r„n :.r 71�C7.`-+ -:��: - f T1' a: ' rq 1 . :1• n ,v-.,:h .t r j ,,, t _1.11, fi;j N '�' ,.1} 9 /Ph 1,r+F• 11 :: Frtwl >.t 5 YS. C iF r(t 12:y s •: p yf , }i� 1�w t'' v - ' - I ;.,. :• _ I r .r .-, ' F ( .Ai r! 7 ::,'i '!} t7I"l' .3.1,�l�d. .rJP :f}: j'I•NI ,I .,..'.,� Ir t:Cr :u i .lye' r t -'_a_N ` ! ,i< t I .4. i. 1 . {�\.. {!Ff .S}f a'i' n2. °1 ..t f ia� - .NirI.V��.' :�r��i� .5,• ,s11'. i 2ry `t f.t. ,N ' ,.ice ir•'] 1 I I✓<1` :) l ,*y',' hJ '"'r. '^erRf' 7. -^�r'-t,,.. '"' "_ },.,n.-,-•., 1111, tr."?glRf u'14 ..'r :qf "4r 'rts,f tR ,�'!; iA1n' r�'�- n 'ji', 4 :h�: /I C1 r. •:�d" T if, .. f,"i� ''1: ...,;t• .(ry �i.. „•1. . . ,fn ,.:n'tG 1 r t?!'. ti. .!�- .7 d +t :r .' r :rl.{ i. ri 'd':•t.r 1 - r.t .: .. �.tr; ,(T., i`, 1. y CtU of ttlem, C ttssrzt�usP##s .._ � �Botira of �"Zal keruin� MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - JANUARY 11 , 1989 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, January 11 , 1989 at 7:00 p.m. on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notice of the hearing having been duly published in the Salem Evening News on December 28, 1988 and January 4, 1989• Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail. Present at the meeting were Members Bencal, Fleming, Luzinski, Nutting, Associate Member LaBrecque, William Munroe, Inspector of Buildings, James Santo, Assistant Inspector of Buildings, Recording Secretary Brenda Sumrall. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by the Chairman, James Fleming. Mr. Labrecque was appointed a voting member. 103 Highland Avenue - William Katsapetses Mr. Fleming: this is regarding an appeal of the Building Inspectors denial of a building permit which was denied by the Board and subsequently remanded back to us by the Courts. There is no need to read the petition because we have a petition on file and it is the same petition sent back to us. There are two pieces of communication which I have, one is a letter relative to the proper from Neil Harrington,Councillor-at-Large, opposing the granting of the Variance and another is a petition that was sent unsigned dated January 5, 1989 containin a page and a half of names and the next is a letter from John Lunt, 6 Greenway Rd. , which you all have copies of, John and Marlene Lunt relative to their opposition, these will be entered into the record. Mr. Luzinski: the one with all the names is in opposition? Mr. Fleming: yes, the problem with the name one is that it was transmitted with just the names attached to it, we will take that as their being in opposition. Mr. Nutting: you don' t want to read the Councillor's letters. Mr. Lunt: There was a letter attached to the petition Mr. Fleming: we see a letter dated January 5th, it's in the record that way and if you speak out of order again you won't speak for the rest of the night and I'm telling the rest of the people, there are too many people here to sit here and have a disorganized meeting, it you want to say something you will have chance it that opportunity arises and you will speak once, but nobody will speak out of turn. Thank you. Mr. Nutting: along with Councillor Harrington's letter requesting the Board to deny the petition, we have from Councillor-at- Large McCabe stating his opposition. Mr. Fleming: the record will reflect ther, is also a letter from Councillor McCabe in opposition to the granting of this petition has also been received. That takes care of the administrative portion. This is before us and has been advertised. Mr. Bencal: this was not advertised Mr. Fleming: it wasn' t advertised, I thought we advertised. Ms. Sumrall: I contacted Mr. Sheehan regarding the advertisement and he at that time said there was no need to advertised, you were on vacation so I contacted Mr. O'Brien the City Solicitor and he agreed with Mr. Sheehan there was no need as long as abutters were notified, they were all sent copies of the agenda. Mr. Fleming: that's fine then. Mr. Nutting then read the remanded order "This matter came on to be heard upon Plaintiff's motion for Partial Summary Judgement as to Count IV of the Plaintiffs' complaint, as amended. After hearing, the motion for Partial Summary Judgment is allowed for the reason that the Board's finding of fact No. 5 is based on an error of law. It is therefore ordered that the MINUTES - JANUARY 11 , 1989 page two 103 Highland Ave. (continued) decision of the Salem Board of Appeal filed with the City Clerk on April 13, 19 denying the Plaintiffs' application for variance, be and hereby is annulled and the proceedings are remanded to the Salem Board of Appeal for reconsideration of the Plaintiffs' application for variance" . Signed by Richard S. Kelley Justice of the Superior Court. He then read finding number 5 of the said decision. "The Board futher finds that the lot in question does not contain 5000 square feet of land, a condition necessary for the petition to be consider under the provisions of Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A. , Section 6. In making this finding, the Board relys on the calculations and measurement perfor for the Board by the Engineering Department" . James Fleming: The matter, as it stands before us, has been remanded back, that is, ordered back for our consideration again because the Court has found that finding in error. We will limit ourselves to the finding of the Court. Mr. Sheehan, I believe you represent the Katsapetses' , I will have you address the Board relative to the order of the Court. If we proceed to go beyond anything other than sending it back to Court I will open up for public comment. William H. Sheehan, III, Esq. , representing William & Thomas Katsapetses who own the property at 103 Highland Ave. , which is located on the corner of Highland Ave. and Greenway Rd. : The issue is whether or not to grant at varian from the terms of the Zoning Ordinance as was requested in their original application which was denied by a vote of two to two and an appeal was taken from that denial and as a result of a motion for partial summary judgement, the court have found that the Board mistook,if you will, the effect of that statute which says if there are 5000 sq. ft. then you do not need a variance, that is because of the grandfather law. Mr. Fleming: that is the understanding of the Board, it may not have come out well in that particular decision, but the Board agrees with you. If there were 5000 feet and if there were 50 feet of frontage then you would be grandfathered and that lot would not be a subject for this meeting. Attorny Sheehan: the question before this Board is, should you issue the variance, you have the power to, the question is will you. I respectfully suggest you should grant this variance, because the three requirements in the statute for an issuance of a variance are met in this situation. The reason I suggest we meet those requirements are; number 1 , we have to have a special condition that pertains to this lot that does not pertain to other lots and you certainly have that here, you have presently a house that sits on the lot but there's no occupancy permit for it, its an economic waste and the reason for th- situation is the shape of the lot and it is this shape that created the lot to begin with, because when they bought the property they were shown a lot of land. a plot plan which showed in excess of 5000 square feet and based on that plan the building inspector issued the permit and based on that plan they purchased the property. As a matter of fact, there is not 5000 sq.ft. , I have been unab: to get two engineers to agree on just how many square feet there are. Estimate: range from 4,974 to 4,986 or 87 sq. ft. and its all because of the shape. Mr. Rouleau, Salem Engineer Dept. , calculates 4,974 sq.ft. and we' re comfortable wit that calculation for the purpose of your deciding whether to issue a variance. That is 26 sq.ft. shy of what we needed not to have to come to the Board. I respectfully suggest thats diminimous. In addition to the special conditions, we have a hardship, a total economic loss, waste, nothing can be done, the building stands almost completed but not completed. We need a variance in order to complete it, get an occupancy permit and sell it. Thirdly, can you grant the relief without derogating from the Ordinance and for that I respectfully suggest you must look at the area in question. The area, that lot, is one of MINUTES - JANUARY 11 , 1989 page three 103 Highland Ave. - (Continued) five house lots, if you consider it to be a house lot, it is in the Highland Av< Greenway, Cottage and Wilson Block. One of the house lots of the five has 4400 some odd square feet, the average size of those five lots is just over 6000 square feet, across the street from this lot is a multi-family which sits on 5200 sq.ft. and right down the street is a multi-family which is a two or three family at the intersection of Cottage and Greenway, which is on 5400 sq.f So, by issuing the variance you are not changing the character of that area. It is in character for a single family to be built on a lot slightly less than 5000 sq.ft. It would be inappropropiate if all the other house lots had 20,000 or 40,000 sq.ft. then you would properly find it is in derogation. In addition to the average size there have been various issues brought to my attention, I w not here the last time, those issues with respect to drainage, what happened in the past, I would be happy to go into those. Mr. Fleming: no, we don't want you to, we are not going to get into those issues tonight. The drainage you will have to go into if we go beyond this point, the one correspondence that I have seen, the change in topography is very relevent, regarding the alleged change in elevation. In closing since I suggest we have made out a legally recognized reason for the variance. You members know better than I that you don' t want to see waste in the City. I would suggest that we are prepared to ha the following condition which might address the issue of a possible drainage problem, that is, number 1 , we would construct a retaining wall around the lot which would come up above the level of the ground maybe a couple of feet or so which would permit us to build a swale to divert surface water out on to the catch basin on Greenway. We would build a fence along the perimeter of that retaining wall which would serve both privacy and safety. Finally, we would landcape as a buffer on the easterly side of the property. They intentionally did not put a window on that side. Will try to live as good neighbors there. I do have a communication which I would like to enter into the record from Mr. Blenkhorn the Health Agent, which says that any time the Katsapetsis' were aske, to do something, they did it. Mr. Fleming read the letter into the record. (on file) Mr. Sheehan: there is also a letter dated November 20, 1986. Which he read and placed on record. I recognize there is a great deal of opposition to this, I asked to weigh all the consideration, the hardship, th; is clear in this case, and to issue the variance. Thank you. Mr. Fleming: this is a partial summary judgment? Yes What is count four of the complaint? Mr. Sheehan: that is the count which is the standard cause of action, that seep to have the decision annulled and to have the variance granted. Mr. Fleming: the effect of Judge Kelly's partial summary on that count and that count alone at this present time. There are no facts that are being contested and as a reason of law we should re-hear this, is that right. Mr. Sheehan: exactly. Mr. Fleming: does everyone on the Board understand? No. Mr. Fleming: Mr. Katsapetsis through his prior attorney and his present attorney sued the Board relative to its decision denying the requested variance. Each of the allegatiol are broken down into what they call counts, one of the counts that Mr. Sheehan added to the present complaint was one that we acted arbitrarily and capricious_ and did not adhere to the law. They felt by the finding that just because the lot did not have 5000 sq. ft. we could not hear the case, I don' t think that was the situation the night of the vote but it does appear from the decision the we thought that eliminated them from consideration and let me say, that if you have two feet of land and you want to build the empire state building on it, yoi may come to petition this Board. The court agrees with Mr. Sheehan and says it has to come back here to redecide. What ever we decide, it will obviously end up back there. The Court clearly says we should act on the matter before us. Mr. Luzinski: I think my problem is, we did not act on that reason alone MINUTES - JANUARY 11 , 1989 page four 103 Highland Ave. (continued)> there were other things. Mr. Fleming: that is correct. There were five findings of fact, substantial neighborhood opposition, including the Ward 3 Councillor Vincent Furfaro, there was evidence there was serious water runoff problem, building permit 4375 issued to a previous owner was not legally transferred to the petitioners, there was substantial work done without a building permit in disregard of a stop work order. Mr. Luzinski: I think my decision was made on 2 and 3 more than number 5. Mr. Fleming: all these findings may not be relevent, but 1 & 2 certainly are and we are going to vote for or against, we must justify it or justify our denial of it based on whether special conditions exist at that lot, whether substantial hardship would be incurred by the petitioner if we did not grant this and whether or not granting will derogate from present zoning. Just because someone sometime violated the law does that mean forever nothing can be done to that land. I don' t think tha grounds for denial. Mr. Bencal: findings that would substantiate a denial. Mr. Fleming: we have to hear some evidence so we can decide one way or the other. Mr. Nutting: what I don' t understand, you said you would limit the discussion on both sides to just that fifth condition. Mr. Fleming: I did say that at first but I think we will have to get into at least the runoff. We will allow discussion on both sides. The last meeting, we heard about the removal of some swimming pool and I don' t want to go through that again tonight. Would anybody like speak in favor of this petition. Is there anybody who would like speak in opposition. Eleanor McElroy, 1B Greenway Rd. , strongly opposed. Its an eyesore Marleen Lunt, 6 Greenway Rd. , should have approval of conservation and need a permit to change the elevation. Mr. Fleming: I believe that's true. Ms. Lunt: the level of land has been raised. We have had water problem since then. Celle is flooded. I understand years back that had been a problem in the whole neighborhood but we never had the problem before. Back yard is flooded. We hac a culvert in the back yard that was covered and has been uncovered. I assume the raising of the land is the reason for our flooding. The back yard of this house is falling into our property. I understand about the building of the wall but we will still have problem with water. I understand the things that were outlined with regards to the water problem but I am not sure it will solve the situation. John Lunt, 6 Greenway Rd. , I agree with everything my wife said. One thing, regarding the letters from the Health dept. , it wasn' t as simple as it was made out to be. We had to take Mr. Katsapetsis to the Clerk of Courts three times because he never completed the work till the third time. It's been a fight all the way, we have had nothing but trouble with him. As far as hardsh if the house is allowed to stay there will only be one hardship and that will be my property. Mr. Fleming: thats not what hardship means, its a technical term. It means a hardship to the land. Mr. Lunt: I realize that. Joan Tremblay, 33 Greenway Rd. , I agree with the Lunts. They were told to cease and desist but the house was put up anyway. Linda Vaughn, 38 Greenway Rd. number one, I wou like to have the letters from the Councillors read. Mr. Fleming: the Ward Councillor is right here, we are not going to have him testify and then read int the record, the letters are in the record. Ms. Vaughn, I don't know what the big deal is for you to read them so everyone here can hear what the Councillors have to say. They did take the time to write them. Mr. Fleming: I am sure the Councillors can speak for themselves. Ms. Vaughn: another thing could you clarify the law regarding the Grandfathering of lots. Mr. Fleming: a lot that existed prior to enactment of zoning that was 5000 sq.ft. or more and had 50 fee of frontage, was exempt from the application of the ordinance, not only in Salem but throughout the Commonwealth. MINUTES - JANUARY 11 , 1989 page five 103 Highland Ave. (Continued) The great and general court of this commonwealth gave that to us as legislation, not any local rule or interpretation. Ms. Vaughn: thats not what I meant, does it have anything to do with former ownership? Attachment to another piece of property? Mr. Fleming: there are other portions of it, if it was in common ownership with adjoining property, that would prohibit it, are you saying that is the situation here? Ms. Vaughn: no. Just point of informal this had come before the Board a few years ago when someone else tried to build on that property, legally they came before the Board and you people denied it because the lot wasn' t big enough and other people have gone down to City hall and tried to purchase that property and were told it was too small and they tried to do it legally and these people have done it illegally. Mr. Fleming: do you know when we voted, I don' t remember this coming before us. Ms. Vaughn: you may not have been on the Board then. Mr. Fleming: fine, do you know when it was? Ms. Vaughn: not exactly. Mr. Fleming: are you saying it went to a building inspector and he found otherwise because an application for a building permit can be denied in two ways, it can be denied directly by the building inspector or it can come to us for variance and if they don' t get it they can' t get the permit. Ms. Vaughn: I'm not positive. Stanley P. Poirier 8 Cottage St. , I am around the corner, have lived here about 26 years and over the past 26 years minus the last few, this property has never been built on. A problem I have, if you will bear with me, is the fact that Mr. Katsapetsis bought this property from Mr. Papalardo, now, as the Board is well aware of, Mr. Papalardo did his thing, bought the property, had a good friend of his from the state, who is now under indictment, comes down and surveys the property. Mr. Fleming: lets stick to the facts. Mr. Poirier: those are facts. Mr. Fleming: those are not the facts before us. We have to decide if that property needs a variance and I don't want to get in to that. Mr. Poirier: I apologize. The point is, as the Board has pointed out, the building permit was not trans- ferrable and he went ahead with it, the neighborhood had difficulty with what was going on, we came down to the Board of Appeal, made our comments, went to the building inspector, made our comments known and the building inspector, afte the fact, decided that we were correct, went back and in fact, told him to cease and desist. The house, which is a modular, was sitting on the street with a crane after he'd already developed the site, had a foundation, was told not to put it on. He proceeded, that's defiance of the law. With that in mind, in addition to that, the -Lunt's have a thirty foot easement. Mr. Fleming: are you saying there is a violation of an easement. Mr. Poirier: yes sir, there was. The state has an easement. Mr. Fleming: that's not their easement, it belongs to the commonwealth of massachusetts. Mr. & Mrs. Lunt: we own all the way out to Highland Ave. Mr. Poirier: I am trying to explain the facts. Mr. Katsapetsis comes along, he develops the site, we as neighbors told him he would need retaining wall, informed him he was encroaching on their property, the that is an easement that they own. Well he went so far as to throw his trees in there, he backfilled, in fact, the clean out culvert was backfilled over. WE got the state down there, they has to dig it out. The manhole. The state was upset. He has been a flagrant breaker of the law. I think the Board has to stand by what is written in the law. Mr. Fleming: the law is, how can you use that property if you can' t use it for development of a single family house. Mr. Poirier: that's his problem, he's the contractor and he's a business man and he stepped into that deal with Mr. Papalardo, with his eyes wide open. He is in violation of the law. Mr. Lunt: I looked into the City Engineer and that is a wetland and it requires the necessary permits and if he got his variance wouldn' t he have to get these other permits from the engineer for back fill and from the conservation. Mr. Fleming: absolutely. When you change the MINUTES - JANUARY 11 , 1989 page six 103 Highland Ave. (Continued) elevation more than two feet you have to have a permit, we' re not talking about that at all. All we have is use of land and the way you situate a building on the land, we are not the Conservation Commission or the Building Inspector, etc our job is to look at an application for relief from the Zoning Ordinance and t see if it merits consideration or not. Mr. Lunt: that house is literally on top of us and I don' t think any amount of landscaping is going to help. Mark Blair, Councillor of Ward 7, point of order, referring to the two Councillors who wrote letters, I am not one of them, they are at a meeting at City Hall right now, the question is, if this ends up back in court, will their statements be in what ever is supoenaed in court. Mr. Fleming: thats correct. thats the record, they were entered, you heard my words for the record so they are part and parcel of the record. Mary Abraham, 30 Greenway Rd. , Al Bianci, Castle Rd. , Gina Jowarski, 32 Greenway Rd. , concerned with water problems. Robert Vaughn, 38 Greenway Rd. , it struck me funny to see that behind me they are getting 115 thousand dollars for land and this property was bought for abou 7000 dollars. Councillor Leonard O'Leary, Ward 4, I'm opposed through the residents who live on the other side, they are opposed. Not only affects the Ward three side as far as drainage also drains from the ward 4 side, and they did not get a land alteration permit. As you know, you can' t build on every piece of land in the City, there has to be some open space for conservation and for drainage and this may be one of the pieces. Another thing, out of courtesy to the councillors writing the letters, usually they are read before the Board. Mr. Fleming: we are not going into the letter thing again. The letters are part of the record, Councillor Harrington and Councillor McCabe are opposed. Mr. Nutting: I would like to hear from the Building Inspector a brief history of his involvement. William Munroe, Inspector of Buildings, I don't know how in depth you want to get. Mr. Fleming: I would like you to discuss if you would the building permit, the transfer, the cease and desist because that's th, involvement of the building department. The other issue is gone, the size of the land, whether it's 5000 sq. ft. or not is gone, they now agree that the lot is only 4974 sq. ft. at best. Mr. Nutting: Its awful hard to lose sight of all the past discussion on the size of the lot, are they conceding tonight that the property is undersized for their own benefit. Mr. Fleming; not they don' t concede that, they concede that they don' t have 5000 sq. ft. to come unde! the grandfather clause, they don' t concede anything else, they say there would be a total economic loss if they are not allowed to build a single family residential home on the lot. Mr. Nutting: but there wouldn't have been if the, had adhered to the cease and desist order, meaning if they had not gone forward the loss wouldn't have been a total economic loss. Mr. Fleming: I agree with you, it puts us in a very bad position, thats why I want Mr. Munroe to discuss that portion. If there wasn' t a house there they would be here tonight asking us for a variance to put a single family there. I think it's appropriate for Mr. Munroe to discuss the transfer of the building permit and the cease and desist order. Mr. Munroe: initially when Mr. Papalardo applied for a building permit he indicated by a plot plan stamped by a registered professional engineer which we require, that the property had in excess of 5000 sq-ft. Based on that the permit was issued to Mr. Papalardo. I had continuing complaints from the neighbors to the point I had the Engineering Dept. of the City look into it. As the Board says, its not an easy lot, its not a cube. I sent a letter to Mr. Papalardo whom I assumed was the owner, I found Mr. Katsapetsis had purchased tt property in the interim. Mr. Katsapetsis was in my office, I believe it was a Wednesday prior to the house reaching the site, I told him and his builder that there were problems with the site and not to bring it there, you have no permit at this point, I will cancel Mr. Papalardo's permit. The following Monday MINUTES - JANUARY 11 , 1989 page seven 103 Highland Ave. - (Continued) the house was sitting on the site, we issued a stop work order. William Katsapetsis was out of the country at the time but we did communicate with his brother and delivered the stop work. It was because state of the construction at the time, it was open to the elements in order not to have it get damage and have the City liable for any damages, I told him to make the building tight and that was the end of construction. He did adhere to that order. As far as the drainage, the City Ordinance requires that if you change elevation of any property, not necessarily in the wetlands, in excess of two feet you must get a drainage alteration permit from the City Engineer. Apparently, to the best of my knowledge, it hasn' t been done. As far as the drainage and the drain on the property, I have a letter in my possession from the state saying they have considerable interest in the property and that no Certificate of Occupancy be issued until such time as the drainage situation is cleared up. That's where w stand, its the position of the building department in agreement with counsel that the property does not have 5000 sq.ft. , as far as hardship, the Board addresses that, there has to be something unique with the land, there is a criteria that the Board must use. REBUTTAL: Attorney Sheehan, this has been a long running matter and I know the Board wants to dispose of it one way or another, first, with respect to water, the suggestions that I have made that you incorporate into the variance as conditions would take care of many problems that arises from the filling of that land. I 'm sure you all heard the evidence with respect to the water. Apparently there's been a problem there for 30 years, I think its a little unfa: to say all the problem is all of a sudden created by them filling the land. I heard one person say there always been a water problem, I heard one person sa% there was water in the basement presently and there was a previous problem befor fill. We are sensitive to the problem of water, we are willing todo whatever t Board sees fit to impose with respect to conditions. It may not be as simple as I've laid out, perhaps the condition should be that we get together with an expert in the field to make sure that we accomodate whatever drainage problems there could be, that's fine, they simply want to finish what they started. Witt respect to getting into this with their eyes wide open and that everybody knew about it, they didn't know about it because they had a plan. They had a plan and I've got a copy of the plan and the plan shows they have over 5,000 sq.ft. and that plan is in accordance with a description of the deed and anybody lookir, at that plan and looking at the deed would have reasonably expected that there was 5,104 sq.ft. This was prepared by Bradford Engineering Co. in Haverhill, MA They didn' t pull the wool over anybodys eyes, we have conceded there is less the 5000 sq.ft. , if there were 5000 sq.ft. , that would be the sole issue before the Courts, we don't have it and thats why we're here, but we thought we had 5000 sq ft. when we purchased it in accordance with that plan. We weren't the only ones who relied on that plan, the City of Salem relied on that plan, they issued a building permit in reliance on it. When they decided to buy this property the had in their hands, not only the plan, but a building permit. Now the question, was the building permit transferred, was there some funny business going on, I have plans right here that they submitted to the Building Dept. , City of Salem, they were submitted, they got to the Fire Dept. , the Fire Dept. approved these plans on Sept. 9, 1988*long before anybody was told by Mr. Munroe that there was a problem. This was not a stick built house, its not as if after a cease and desist order was given that they went ahead, had carpenters in there and built the house, this house had been purchased at a substantial price, it was made someone outside of 103 Highland ave. , now when that house comes down route 1 *corrected date - September 9, 1985 (see*page eight) MINUTES - JANUARY 11 , 1989 page eight 103 Highland Ave. (Continued) or wherever it came from to get to that site, for somebody to say, well you put the house on there and therefore maybe its a problem of your own doing, wait a minute, we already signed a contract for that house and that house was different from the one for which the building permit was issued and we showed the plans showing a different house, showing a modular house on Sept. 9th. Mr. Fleming: * that was 85 not 88. Mr. Sheehan: did I give a wrong year, I'm sorry Sept. 9, 1985. My point is, long before anybody knew there was a problem and in reliance on the same documents that the City of Salem relied on they went ahead and bought a house and were going to put it on that foundation and they did get a stop work order on September 23rd and it was attached to the house, that is, the house was there when they got the cease and desist order, and they did, as Mr. Munroe indicated, tighten one side because that was the year of the hurricane and they were not going to let that thing waste away, tha would have been silly, but they have not done anything further except clean up. One abutter said it was an eyesore, of course it's an eyesore, it has been sinc Sept. 20, 1985, there's an way to remedy this, fix it, finish it, plant some grass, its not realistic to say, I thought that would be open forever, all of us wish when we but property and there are fields next to it that they would be vacant forever, thats not realistic. The only way to insure that it to buy it yourself. It was the Katsapetsis, in reliance upon a plan that showed they coul' lawfully build, based on a decision of the Salem Building Dept. that they could lawfully build, that they did what they did. Every was done before anyone knew there was a problem. When you think about this I don' t want you to think they were trying to pull something on someone, the evidence is directly contrary. Was somebody trying to pull something? I think the evidence speaks clearly to that to, when somebody submits a plan thats wrong either there was a good faith error or. Mr. Fleming; thats not for us to decide. Mr. Sheehan: as far as the back yard falling into the Lunt property, I think the condition that I proposed will take care of that and to the extent that we have to comply with other Boards in this City, we have to comply with the Commonwealth because Highland Ave. constitutes a state highway, all those things we have to do, but we start here and for all of those reasons and I haven't heard anything here tonight that in my opinion should change the position that we've taken in this case and I think respectfully that the variance should be granted and if there are other problems we will have to take care of them one at a time but we have to start somewhere. Thank you. Public hearing portion closed. Mr. Bencal: Mr. Sheehan, under what authority or permits did they fill the property? Mr. Sheehan: as far as I know, he had no particular permit to fill that property, he was relying upon the building permit that had been issued. Mr. Bencal: to fill the property, he should have known that you have to comply with City requirements so, if he did not, he illegally filled the property. If he had not illegally filled it, he may not have been able to build the house. Mr. Sheehan: with respect to the fill problem, if there is a City Ordinance the says you have to get a permit before you fill more than two feet, we did not comply with that, no question about it. Whether they knew about it or not, I don' t know. Mr. Bencal: it just seems to be individual items like this, taken by themselves may be an isolated case but we've heard of other instances of throwing cuttings, grass and brush on neighbors property on state property. Mr. Sheehan: we disagree with that as a factual matter, the only thing I have heard is they failed to comply with that fill situation. Mr. Bencal: failure to remove fill from the neighbors property without having to be taken to court. MINUTES - JANUARY 11 , 1989 page nine 103 Highland Ave. - (Continued) Mr. Sheehan: I think they did what they were supposed to do with respect to that. Mr. Bencal: after much prodding. Rather than being a good neighbor and doing it. Mr. Luzinski: I think if this came before us as a raw piece of land and they were looking for a variance I am sure we would all be opposed to it. If we did give them permission to build, I am sure would be lot of requirements before we would allow it to be developed. I think we would have denied it in the first place, because of the elevation, the water problems. Mr. Nutting: feel the same. I've been aware of the problem over the years. To me it seem a natural culvert type piece of property. Lower than Highland Ave. Sometimes these lots that are not developed on, theres a reason. There's water on the property, its considered an area for water to flow from the street or from other peoples property, its a natural waterway so to speak, maybe the piec of property was avoided years ago for that reason and to fill it now and build a house on it, only hurts the situation up there. Also, we must remember the intent of the zoning ordinance was the need for 15,000 sq.ft. , this well below. I've agonized over this property over the years, its not an easy vote. Theres been so much said from both sides perhaps have lost something in trans- lation. For so many neighbors to come out so often, talk about a hardship and to come in force the way they have. Must be a reason why they do it and we should consider their comments. Mr. Fleming: for the record, Councillor Furfaro did express his opposition to me, he is not here tonight but I'm sure he has another meeting elsewhere or he would be here. I have no problem countil the noses or counting votes and I can see that this petition is about to be defeated again by virture of not gaining the statutory requirement of obtained four affirmative votes in order for the petitioner to prevail. I will not join in that popular or political position however, I think that this is a classic case of hardship. If this individual, or some individual, down the line can do anything with this property, it is certainly a one or two bedroom single family home. That's what that whole area is devoted to. If this were for a Jiffy Lube or a MacDonalds or something like that, I would say it would certain] derogate from the zoning. Even though I know the votes are not here tonight, I think, whether you like the petitioner or not, your missing the point, this is a classic hardship case, what else is this man, or anybody, to do on that land if he can' t build a single family, R-1 type of home. Nothing else. I imagine there will be a motion, I hope the motion includes the conditions that are offered by Mr. Sheehan, I would hope the inclusion relative to expert relative to draining to establish a draining plan be part of those conditions. But I think that we' ll see this again. Its a thing called inverse condemnation and it thats our reason here tonight and if thats the reason this neighborhood wants to keep this, I'm sure you' ll hear the words later on, inverse condemnation. I think, the right thing to do, certainly not the popular thing tonight is to vote to grant this and I am going to vote to grant this. Is there a motion. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the petition subject to the following conditio 1 . petitioner building a retaining wall around the entire lot above the ground the height to be determined by the city engineer or the building dept. 2. petitioner and/or future owner maintain a five foot fence around the perimeter of said wall 3. Petitioner landscape and petitioner and/or future owner mainta a landscape buffer along the northeast side of the property 4. Petitioner and/or future owners comply with all conditions of the Salem Conservation Commission 5. Petitioner comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire dept. relative to smoke and fire safety 6. Legal building permit be obtained 7. Certificate of Occupancy be obtained 8. Drainage plan submitted by peti- tioners expert be approved by the City Engineer. Mr. Luzinski seconded. Mr. Fleming voted in favor of the motion. Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski, Nutting and Labrecque voted opposed to the motion. Failing to obtained the required four voted, the petition is denied DENIED - 1 to 4 MINUTES - JANUARY 11 , 1989 page ten 382 Highland Ave. - John P. Keane This petition has been continued from the December 7, 1988 hearing. Mr. Nuttin we don' t have the original five members here. Mr. Fleming: is Mr. DeCoulas here? Is anybody here representing Mr. Keane? Mr. Nutting: Mr. Decoulas, fro what I understand from our secretary, was in contact with her today and discuss the fact that Mr. Strout wasn't going to be here tonight. I only say that to clarify the situation and make a statement that Ms. Sumrall would like you to h Ms. Sumrall: I just wanted you to be aware that Mr. DeCoulas called me this morning about a half hour after Mr. Strout had called and I informed him that Mr. Strout was not going to be present and Mr. Decoulas said there was not reason for him to be here tonight. Mr. Fleming; that changes the situation, you told Mr. Decoulas that the original five members would not be present. Ms. Sumrall: yes, so he was aware of that. Mr. Fleming: we have no choice but to continue. Mr. Bencal: I disagree with Mr. Decoulas's statement that there is no reason for him to be here. I believe its encumbent upon him to request the Board to continue, the Board can hear this with just four members, we have gran the courtesy to him by votes of three to one to continue. Mr. Fleming: if you look at the history of this particular petition, he's been the last two or three times, we've had the same problem, this goes back four times, this is the fourth time we haven' t had the same five. Ms. Sumrall: since the first meetin+ in September 28th, came back October 26th, November 9th, and now tonight. Mr. Fleming: Mr. Bencals opinion is that Mr. Decoulas has to be here, is there any other comment? Mr. Nutting: I have asked Mr. DeCoulas to run with four people. he said no he wouldn't be interested in doing that. Mr. Bencal: that is not his right, we have granted him the opportunity of continuance but that right is not given him, we can hear with four and we can hear a continuance with four, he has to make that request. Mr. Fleming: this case is a little different, this is a remanded case and he had five when he had the original decision and I thinF he can argue for the five. Mr. Nutting: I move that the matter be continued to the next meeting. Mr. Labrecque seconded. Councillor O'Leary: can I say something. Mr. Fleming: Councillor, in deference to position as a former president of the City Council and as current Councillor of the ward affected, I' ll give you 30 seconds. Councillor O'Leary: this Board and its wisdom asked Mr. Keane to meet with the neighbors and let them know what he proposed to do with the land, he did not give the uses to the people or let the people know what he's doing. For Mr. Decoulas to call and not even give a letter and say he wanted to continue it because five Board Members aren't here and for Mr. Keane not to show up, I think they give up their rights to tell this Board that they want it continued. Mr. Fleming: there is also a City employee gave information to them that Mr. Strout would not be here, there is an arguement to be made for reliance Councillor, if we don' t give them the opportunity to be heard and he argues reliance they're going to say, come back for a hearing, one way or another these people are coming back so let's get it over with once and for all. Mr. O'Leary: You can vote with four members, right? If one of your terms is up and you don' t get reappointed, you' re only going to have four members, so why not get it over with and vote it. Mr. Fleming: there's been a motion to continue. Is there a second? Mr. Nutting: Mr. Labreque seconded but he's not a voting member. Mr. Luzinski: for the purpose of the vote I will second. The Board voted 3 in favor, 1 opposed (Mr. Bencal) to continuing this until the next scheduled meeting January 25, 1989 CONTINUED UNTIL JANUARY 25, 1989 i� N MINUTES - MARCH 18, 1987 page two 103 Highland Ave. - Thomas & William Katsapetsis The petition has been continued from the February 18, 1987 hearing. Mr. Fleming: I was not present at the last meeting, did not hear comments, however, I have heard things since then and would leave it up to the petitioner, if he wants me to withdraw from this, I will . Attorney Papanickolas, representing the petitioners , we have no problem with Mr. Fleming sitting on this. Mr. Bencal : I did not sit at the last meeting and I will not be voting on this. Mr. Hacker: I would like to hear testimony from the Building Inspector. Mr. Munroe, Inspector of Buildings: Mr. Katsapetsas does not and never did hold a building permit for that property. The original permit was issued on the basis of a plan submitted indicating the property had more than 5,000 sq.ft. , this plan was submitted by Mr. Papalardo. I became aware of other issues due to calls I received. I went deeper into this. The Assessors indicated the lot had less than 5.000 sq.ft. At that time the foundation was in place. A Cease and Desist order was issued because an easement was not indicated on the plan and there was a pool on that property. Mr. Katsapetsis came in on a Wednesday with a contractor, I told him there was a problem and not to put the house on the foundation. The following Monday, we went by the property and the house was there. A building permit is not issued to the land, it is issued to the owner and not transferable. Mr. Fleming: After the Cease and Desist, the house appeared? Mr. Munroe: yes, as I said, Mr. Katsapetsis was informed on a Wednesday and over the weekend the house appeared. He received proper notice. The lot, in fact, has only 4,974 sq.ft. , this is according to Thomas Rouleau, who was the Engineer for the City at that time. Mr. Strout: are these lines true? Mr. Munroe: yes Mr. Fleming: was there ever a question of sq. ftg. on the adjacent lot? Mr. Munroe: no. I believe theres been a complaint filed in district court. I think proper notice was given. The property does not contain the necessary 5,000 sq.ft. to qualify for grandfathering. Mr. Fleming: does this property conform in every other way? Mr. Munroe: yes Mr. Hacker: When you talked to the petitioner was there anyone else present? Mr. Munroe: yes, three members of my staff. Mr. Fleming: failure to state the existence of an easement is reason to deny or to retrieve a permit? Does the code provide for notice? Mr. Hacker: there is a provision, correct me if I 'm wrong, that if false information is given that is reason to revoke. Mr. Fleming: from what I understand, the state wants the catch basin raised, has anything been done about that? Mr. Munroe: not to my knowledge. There have been numerous plans on this property, all different. Mr. Dore: I am still confused, was the permit issued before or after you knew there was less than 5,000 sq.ft.? Mr. Munroe: before. Mr. Fleming: as a courtesy we should extend his rebuttal . Mr. Hacker: do you have anything to say? Mr. Papanickolas: displayed plans to the Board. Mr. Hacker: where is the easement? Mr. Papanickolas: don't have an easement plan. Mr. Hacker: I guess you don 't know. Mr. Dore: you don't know where the easement is but you know where the pipe is? Mr. Papanickolas: my client will raise the manhole. In regards to the foundation, Mr. Martineau inspected the foundation. Mr. Munroe: if he inspected it, he would have signed the card. I have no knowledge of its being inspected. Mr. Hacker: is there any- thing new you want to add in direct response to the Building Inspector? Mr. Strout: Your client did not have a building permit? Mr. Papanickolas : he was under the assumption he had a permit. Mr. Munroe: It was our understanding that Mr. Papalardo was the legal owner till Mr. Katsapetsis came into the office. Mr. Hacker: do you remember stalking to the Building Inspector? Mr. Katsapetsas: yes. Mr. Hacker: you put the house on anyway. Mr. Katsapetsas : I was on the truck. Mr. Fleming: Mr. Munroe, if we vote in the negative, what will be the next procedure? Mr. Munroe: I would have to order the building be removed from the site, if they did not remove it, the City would MINUTES - MARCH 13, 1987 page three 103 Hiqhland AVe. - Contined and they would place a lein on the property. Mr. Fleming: Have we had any cases similar to this? Mr. Munroe; not in my time. Mr. Hacker: Mr. Katsapetsas, what line of work are your in? Mr. Katsapetsas: construction. Mr. Hacker: are you aware that you needed a permit? Mr. Katsapetsas : I am aware you need one when you construct anything. Mr. Hacker: were you aware that as the new owner you needed a permit? Mr. Katsapetsas: no. Mr. Strout: what about the price of the land, after all $7,000 is quite a price. Weren 't you concerned there might be something wrong with the land? Mr. Katsapetsas: I was not aware of anything till I went to change the plans. Mr. Strout: he told you then not to put the house there, but you put the house there anyway. Mr. Katsapetsas: Thought the problem was with the pool and the pool had been moved. The manhole is on the Lunt 's property but I agreed to raise it. Mr. Fleming: Does the Purchase and Sale refer to a plan? Yes, it refers to the original 1930 plan. Mr. Fleming: when it was subdivided was it owned by one individual ? Mr. Papanickolas : I don't know. Mr. Fleming: Are these your calculations? Mr. Papanickolas: it is very easy to calculate. Mr. Fleming: what was the original size of thelot? Mr. Papanickolas : I don 't know. Mr. Fleming: did you aske the two subsequent engineers if they would submit some- thing to us. Could we have their names. Mr. Papanickolas: Bradford from Haverhill and Clark from Peabody. Both are registered land surveyors. Mr. Dore: Have you ever sat with the Building Inspector. Yes, many times. Mr. Strout: you really don' t have anything concrete. Mr. Papnickolas: this plan I submitted to you. Mr. Strout: but that size says plum/minus. Mr. Fleming: I think from what I have learned from talking to the people and talking to Mr. Papanickolas, we are on the horns of a dilemna. If it is indeed over 5,000 sq.ft. and meets other requirements of the grandfather clause, fine. If it is not over 5,000 we could grant a variance, the petitioner has asked for a variance in' the alternative. I think he a right to ask for a variance at this time. That neighborhood averages 5,000 sq.ft. per lot. Again, what is the impact of this building, the area is intended as single family, this is a single family, it does not derogate from the Ordinance. I think most people are concerned that the correct process was not followed. The petitioner has answered very vaguely, but he has counsel and should confer with him. However, I don 't think there was any criminal intent. The proper process was not followed. I think eventually there will be a single family dwelling on this lot and I will not vote against this tonight. Mr. Dore: I have a problem because you were not here when the neighbors spoke. The opposition was very strong. Mr. Hacker: I have some concerns with this. Mr. Katsapetsas would like us to believe that although he got it as such a low price, a red light did not go on. He spoke with the Building Inspector, he has acknowledged that. Instead of calling and having the house stopped, he had it put on anyway. They came to us last week with several plans, all different. TheCity plans say there is not 5,000 sq.ft. I find it very difficult to vote for somehting when he says he cannot bring us the information requested last week. I think there is a principal here, and we should uphold the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fleming: Some day someone is going to own that and there is going to be a single family home there. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant the variance on condition they install to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector, adequate retaining on the southerly boundary on what is shown as lot three; the petitioner comply with all requests, financial or otherwise, relative to alleviating the culvert problem on the northwest corner, including the raising of the manhole; that existing culvert be cleared of all debris, proper numbering be obtained from the City Assessor, all requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. be met, construction be as per plans regarding modular home, a building and/or all other necessary permits be obtained, a Certificate of occupancy be obtained. Mr. Strout seconded. Mr. Fleming & Mr. Stout voted in favor, Mr. Hacker and Mr. Dore voted in opposition. Petition having failed to garner the required four affirmative votes is there for denied. DENIED 2-2 Ctu of ttirm, 411ssttchusetts �attrd of AuVeal MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL MEETING - FEBRUARY 18. 1987 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeal was held Wednesday, February 18, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. on the second floor of One Salem Green. Notices of the hearing were duly advertised in the Salem Evening News on February 4 and February 11 , 1987. Abutters and other interested persons were notified by mail . Members present: James Hacker, Edward Luzinski , Peter Strout. Associate Members Peter Dore and Arthur Labrecque. Hearing was called to order at 7 :00 p.m. by the Chairman James Hacker. Mr. Dore and Mr. Labrecque were appointed voting members. Mr. Dore was appointed Acting Secretary. Mr. Hacker informed the assemblage that the petition of B & M Realty for Variance from parking requirements at 5-7 Derby Square has been withdrawn, should they apply to the Board at a later date, abutters would again be notified and it would be advertised in the paper. 103 Highland Avenue - William and Thomas Katsapetsis Petitioners are requesting an appeal of the Building Inspectors denial of a building permit or for a Variance from lot size, density and setbacks to allow a single family dwelling in this R-1 district. Mr. Dore read the application. There was no communication from the Fire Department. He read a letter from Ward 3 Councillor, Vincent Furfaro supporting the objections of the neighbors and abutters. Attorney Papanickolas, 16 Chestnut St. Peabody, represented the petitioners. My clients are local businessmen. He gave a brief history of the parcel in question. BaCK IN May of 1985 Marie Connolly sold this lot of land to Samuel Papalardo for the purpose of erecting a single family home. Intitially he went to the Building Inspector and submitted plans to him. The plot plan, done by a Register Engineer, indicated the parcel contained over 5,000 sq. ft. Based on that plan, a building permit was issued. He submitted copies of the plot plan and the building permti #375 dated June 3, 1985. Subsequently Mr. Papalardo sold this land with the building permit to my clients in July 1985. The foundation was put in and the dwelling was erected on the foundation, when suddenly,my client submitted the plans for the single family house that was different from the ones submitted by Mr. Papalardo, my client submitted for a pre-fab, the Building Inspector raised some questions about this house and told him not to proceed any further, subsequently sent him a letter revoking the building permit in September of 1985. Not because of the size of the lot, but because the neighbors swimming pool was on his land, he submitted a copy of the letter. My client put siding on to protect the work that had already been done. On September 23, 1985 a stop work order was put on the door. Then a letter was sent saying lot did not contain 5,000 sq. feet of land. The reasons are changing from time to time. The pool has been removed. The only issue is, was there 5,000 sq. ft. or not. He submitted of copy of original subdivision dated 1930. You will note that the lot is located on the corner and is divided into two lots. There is an error on that plan. On lot #2 the frontate is the same as lot #1 , the rear yard is also the same. The length of the lots i MINUTES - February 18, 1987 page two 103 Highland Ave. - Continued changed though. Mr. Papanickolas submitted a piece of paper with some calculations that he made. (on file) As you will note, according to my figures, this lot has 5,137.91 sq.ft. , which is more than is indicated on the plan submitted (plan dated 1930) , also, the Assessors Map (on file) has the erroneous plan. The building permit was based on the plan submitted by Bradford Engineer and they indicated the lot was over 5,000 sq.ft. We went to a second engineer and he cam put with more than 5,000 sq.st. We :vent back to the Building Inspector and he said it was not 5,000 sq.ft. We went back to the Engineer and had him put in sticks, again, he came up with the calculations (5060 sq.ft. ) They went over the entire measurements and determined that Lot #1 was greater than Lot ;2 and he so indicates on the plan (attached to the application) Before November of 1986, when the petition was filed, we brought this to the Building Inspector again and he said no, (NOTE: application was dated November 29, 1986 but never submitted to the Board until December 1 , 1986 and subsequently withdrawn January 21 , 1987, the application being heard tonight was received by the Board January 9, 1987) , he would not re-issue the permit. Meanwhile, the building is still there. My clients have gone to a great expense, we feel we are right and we appeal to this Board to do the right thing. We are asking you to overrule the Buildings Inspectors decision. My clients want to do the right thing, they have greed to an easement, they will raise the manhole above grade. In the alternative, if this Board disagrees with us, that is, if they decide there is not 5,000 sq.ft. , then was are seeking a variance. You have the power to overrule the Building Inspector in this type of case. We think we are entitled to a permit. These are certified plans, done by professionals, the construction is of approved construction. No one appeared in favor. Speaking in opposition. Linda Vaughn, Greenway Road. There are a few discrepancies in what has been said, Marie Connolly had been trying to sell this land for years but had problems because it was too small . If they are so sure that there is 5,000 sq.ft. , why did they try to buy land from the Lunts? Marlene Lunt, 6 Greenway Rd. , we are the direct abutters. There is a culvert on my property which is of concern to all my neighbors, that has been buried for a few years and they have tried to find it. We have a severe water problem. We have asked to have that fill taken care of and I am really concerned with the snow when it starts to melt. She displayed pictures of her property. There is a big heap of dirt and it is washing onto our land. We have asked him to remove the fill and the brush, he said he would, but he hasn't. I am also concerned with the lawyer saying they have more land, if they do, that land is coming from us. Stanley Poirier, 8 Cottage St. , the intitial subdivision was 1930. Dr. Von Weiss cam in for a single family and was denied. There is a serious water problem. Mr. Emmerton, Highland Ave. , very honestly, I question the square footage, not only that, but I think Mr. Papalardo has been very uncooperative. I also question the permit coming with the sale of of the land. I think the permit was revoked prior to the house being there. Mr. Brown, 17 Greenway Rd. , I remember the flood, I was there, kids were in rowboats right on the street. I worked very hard to have something done about this. A kid could run through my yard and drown. I didn 't buy a permit, I bought a house. I go down there regularly to try and find that culvert. Its a very serious matter. Mr. Caron, 108 Highland Ave. , I have been there for 32 years, right now there is a medical building being put up and I understand they have a cease and desist because of the water problems. Is the sale price public information? Mr. Hacker: what was the selling price? Mr. Papanickolas: Seven Thousand dollars. Mr. Caron: seems strange that a lot of land on MINUTES - FEBRUARY 18, 1987 page three 103 Highland Ave. - Continued Highland Ave. would sell for that price, it raises a lot of questions. Mrs. McElroy, Greenway Rd. , opposed; Joan Tremblay, no address, opposed, Mary Morris, Greenway Rd. , opposed; Mr. Pescuma, 39 Greenway Rd. , opposed; Robert Vaughn, no address, opposed; Councillor Furfaro, I just want to reiterate all thats been said and all that was said in my letter. In Rebuttal . Attorney Papa- nickolas: you will note that in the correspondence from the Building Inspector dated September 16, 1985, there was question of a swimming pool , there was negotiations going on between my clients and the Lunts. As far as the drainage, this lot does not create any water problems. It is my understanding that the drainage flows to the opposite side, if flows to the station. Mr. Hacker: I can assure you that is not correct. Attorney Papanickolas: be that as it may, this does not affect this property, other than the manhole which has to be raised. This manhole is on the Lunts property but my client has agreed to raise it. The house was put of the foundation prior to the building permit being pulled. Mr. Hacker: when was the house put on? Mr. Papanickolas: I don't have that information tonight but I can get it. If you look at the property you can see there is not water problem with this lot. Hearing Closed. Mr. Hacker: in the Purchase and Salem agreement there is mention of a recorded deed with the plan dated 1930 and shows less that 5000 sq.ft. Mr. Hacker then read a letter dated April 30, 1986 to Mr. William Munroe, Building Inspector from Mr. Joseph D'Angelo, Acting District Highway Engineer (on file) , part of this letter refers to the covering of the existing headwall and drainage manhole. Mr. Hacker: why would you do that? Mr. Katsapetsas: that was before they were going to put up the medical center. I cleaned up the property good enough for the Health Dept. , the dirt that eroded was an act of God. Mr. Hacker: I go by that property two or three. You are telling me that the calculations on the 1930 plan are incorrect, yet you agreed with them when you bought the property. Mr. Papanickolas: he agreed to buy the property with the building permit. Mr. Hacker: I don't see that he is buying a building permit in the Purchase and Sale Agreement. Did you put the house of the foundation after the permit was revoked? Mr. Katsapetsas: I don't have the dates with me. Mr. Labrecque: I can 't act on this without all the facts. Mr. Hacker: someone is being hoodwinked and I 'm not sure if its us or not. The Assessors shows it as less than 5000 sq.ft. , several engineer reports, including the City, shows less than 5,000 sq.ft. From what I understand, a permit was given, it was revoked and a house was put up. Mr. Strout: when you went to the building dept. to switch plans, was the house there? No, the Inspector said there might be a problem with frontage. Mr. Strout: it might be helpful to have accurate plans, every plan we have is plus/minus, it might be to petitioners advantage to have plans done that are not plus/minus. Mr. Hacker: I would like to continue this and have the Building Inspector here, there are too many questions regarding dates. Mr. Luzinski : I too would like to have this continued until the next meeting and I so move. Mr. Labrecque seconded. UNANIMOUSLY CONTINUED UNTIL MARCH 18, 1987 142 Derby St. - Jonathan Reardon, Tr. Petitioner is requesting a Variance from parking to allow retail on the first floor to be changed to residential in this B-1 district. Mr. Dore read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. stating they had no objections to the Variance being granted, that the property has current compliance with laws relative to smoke detectors. He also read a letter from Jane Gallahue, 780 CMR: STATE BUILDING CODE COAs-missIOS shall cause such buildings and structures to be periodically or otherwise inspected as specified in Section 108.5._ and Section 120.4, for compliance with this code. SECTION 112.0 RIGHT OF ENTRY 112.1 General: In the discharge of his duties, the buildine official shall have the authority to enter at any reasonable hour any building, structure or premises in the municipality to en- force the provisions of this code. If any owner, occupant, or other person refuses, impedes, inhibits, intereferes with, restricts, or obstructs entry and free access to every part of the structure, operation or premises where inspection authorized by this code is sought, the building official, or state inspector may: 1. seek in a court of competent jurisdiction a search warrant so as to apprise the owner, occupant or other person concerning the nature of the inspection and justification for it and may seek the assistance of police authorities in presenting said warrant; and/or 2, revoke or suspend any permit, license, certificate or other permission regulated under this code where inspection of the structures, operation or premises is sought to deter- mine compliance with this code. 112.2 Office badge: The Commission may adopt a badge of office for building officials which shall be displayed for the purpose of identification. 112.3 Jurisdictional cooperation: The assistance and cooper- ation of police, fire, and health departments and all other_ officials shall be available to the building official as required in the performance of his duties. SECTION 113.0 APPLICATION FOR PERMIT 113.1 When permit is required: It shall be unlawful to con- struct, reconstruct, alter, repair, remove or demolish a structure; or to change the use or occupancy of a building or structure; or to install or alter any equipment for which pro- vision is made or the installation of which is regulated by this code without first filing a written application with the building official and obtaining the required permit therefor. Exception: Ordinary repairs as defined in Section 201.0. 113.2 Form of application: The application for a permit shall be submitted in such form as the building official may prescribe VIM 14 4 780 CMR: STATE BUILDING CODE COMMISSION and shall be accompanied by the required fee as prescribed in Section 118.0. tf 113.3 By whom application is made: Application for a permit S shall be made by the owner of the building or structure. The full names and addresses of the owner, applicant, and of the responsible officers, if the owner is a corporate bony, shall be stated in the application. 113.4 Description of work: The application shall contain a ?i general description of the proposed work, its location, the use 1 and occupancy of all parts of the building or structure and of all portions of the site or lot not covered by the building; and i. shall state whether or not fire extinguishing equipment, plumb- ing, water piping, gasfitting, heating or electrical work is in- :; ® volved, the estimated cost of such work including the general work, and such additional information as may be required by ;4 the building commissioner or inspector of buildings. The build- Ing commissioner or inspector of buildings may require the facts contained in each application to be certified by the applicant 4 under oath. ( 113.5 Plans and specifications: The application for the permit iii shall be accompanied by not less than three (3) copies of spec- , ifications and of plans drawn to scale, with sufficient clarity and detail dimensions to show the nature and character of the work to be performed. When quality of materials is essential for conformity to this code, specific information shall be given to establish such quality; and the code shall not be cited nor the term "legal" or its equivalent be used as a substitute for specific information. The building official may waive the re- quirement for filing plans when the work involved is of a minor nature. i When such application for a permit must comply with the pro- visions of Article 4 or Article 12 of this code, the building official shall cause one (1) such set of plans and specifications ireceived by him to be forwarded simultaneously to the head of the fire department for his file and approval of the items spec- ified in Section 1200.0 as they relate to the applicable sections of Article 4 and Article 12. The head of the fire department shall within ten (10) working days from the date of receipt by i him approve or disapprove such plans and specifications. Upon request by the head of the fire department, the building official may grant one (1) or more extensions for such review, pro- viding, however, that the total review by said head of the fire ® department shall not exceed thirty (30) calendar days. If such j� approval, disapproval or request for an extension of time shall not be received by the building official within said ten (10) j working days, the building official may deem the plans and 1 specifications to be in full compliance with the applicable sec- tions of Article 4 and Article 12 and, therefore, approved by ,( the head of the fire department. 4 9/1/80 15 `3 780 CMR: STATE BUILDING CODE COMMISSION All.plans filed with the building official shall include but not be limited to: 1. the accurate locations and dimension of all means of egress from fire and an occupancy schedule of persons for all occupiable spaces; 2. the method and amount of ventilation and sanitation, ` ' 3. the methods of firestopping as required in this code; and 4. schedules and details indicating compliance of interior trim and finish with provisions of Article 9. 113.5.1 Structures subject to control: In those structures subject to control as required in Section 127.0, affidavits must be submitted with the permit application that the individuals and testing laboratories responsible for carrying out the duties specified in Section 127.0 have been licensed by the Commission. 113.5.2 Architects' and engineers' seals: Unless otherwise provided in this code, all plans and specifications for buildings and structures containing more than thirty-five thousand (35,000) cubic feet of enclosed space shall bear the Massachu- setts seal of registration of a qualified registered professional engineer or architect. Plans and specifications, plats and records whenever re- quired to be stamped with the seal of a registered professional engineer or architect shall be signed by the registrant named thereon. The use of a facsimile signature stamp shall not be deemed to comply with this section. 113.6 Site plan: There shall also be filed prior to a permit being granted for the excavation or for the erection of any building or structure a site plan showing to scale the size and location of all new construction and all existing structures on the site, distances from lot lines, the established street grades if they exist (verified by the town or city) and proposed finished grades. In the case of demolition, the site plan shall show all construction to be demolished and the location and size of all existing structures and construction that are to remain on the site or plot. The site plan shall not be changed except as specified in Sections 113.8 and 115.3. 113.7 Engineering details: The building official may require adequate details of structural, mechanical and electrical work, including computations, stress diagrams and other essential technical data, prepared by a registered professional engineer qualified by experience in the specific field of construction, to be filed. All such plans and computations shall bear the Massa- chusetts seal of registration and signature of the qualified reg- istered professional engineer or architect. 9/1/80 16 780 CMR: STATE BUILDING CODE COM1dISSION "= 113.8 Amendments to application: Subject to the limitations of Section 113.9, amendments or revisions to a plan or other records accompanying the same may not be made until the pro- posed changes have been filed with and approved by the building official; and such approved amendments shall be 'i deemed part cf the original application and shall be filed therewith. r. 113.9 Time limitation of application: An application for a per- imit for any proposed work shall be deemed to have been rt, abandoned six (6) months after date of filing, unless such application has been diligently prosecuted or a permit has been issued; except that for reasonable cause the building official 3 may grant one or more extensions of time for additional periods not exceeding ninety (90) days each. is SECTION 114.0 PERMITS 114.1 Action on application: The building commissioner or in- spector of buildings shall examine or cause to be examined all applications for permits and amendments thereto within thirty (30) days after filing. If the application or the plans do not conform to the requirements of Section 113.0 or other related sections of this code or of all pertinent laws, he shall reject such application in writing citing the specific sections of this code or pertinent law. If he is satisfied that the proposed work conforms to the requirements of this code and all perti- nent law applicable thereto, he shall issue a permit. 114.2 Report to assessors: The building official shall give to the assessors of the municipality written notice of the granting by him of permits for the construction of any buildings or structures, or for the removal or demolition, or for any sub- stantial alteration or addition thereto. Such notice shall be given within seven (7) days after the granting of each permit, and shall state the name of the person to whom the permit was ® granted and the location of the building or structure to be con- structed, reconstructed, altered, demolished or removed. 114.3 Expiration of permit: Any permit issued shall be deemed abandoned and invalid unless the work authorized by it shall have been commenced within six (6) months after its issuance; however, for cause, one or more extensions of time, for periods not exceeding six (6) months each, may be granted in ® writing by the building commissioner or inspector of buildings. Work under such a permit in the opinion of the building com- missioner or inspector of buildings, must proceed in good faith continuously to completion so far as is reasonably practicable under the circumstances. For purposes of this section, any permit issued shall not be considered invalid if such abandonment or suspension of work is 9/1/80 17 i 780 CMR: STATE BUILDING CODE CODAIISSION due to a court order prohibiting such work as authorized by such permit; provided, however, in the opinion of the building commissioner or inspector of buildings, the person so prcbibited by such court order, adequately defends such action before the court. 114.4 Previous approvals: Nothing in this code or the rules I and regulations pursuant hereto shall affect any building per- mit lawfully issued, or any building or structure lawfully becun in conformance with such permit, before the effective date of this code or any amendments thereto. 114.5 Signature to permit: The building commissioner or in- spector of buildings shall attach his signature to every permit, or he may authorize a subordinate to affix such signature thereto. 114.6 Approved plans: If approved by him, the building com- missioner or inspector of buildings or his authorized subordi- nate shall stamp and endorse in writing the plans submitted in accordance with Section 113.5; one (1) set of such stamped and endorsed plans shall be retained; the other set of plans shall be kept at the building site, open to the inspection of the building commissioner, inspector of buildings, or his authorized subordinate, at all reasonable times. 114.7 Revocation of permits: The building commissioner or in- spector of buildings may revoke a permit or approval issued under the provisions of this code in case of any false statement or misrepresentation of fact in the application or the plans on which the permit or approval was based. 119.6 Approval in part: When application for a permit to erect or add to a building or structure has been filed, as required in Section 113.5 and pending issuance of such permit, the building commissioner or inspector of buildings may, at his discretion, issue a special permit for the foundations or any other part of a building or structure. The holder of such a special permit may proceed at his own risk without assurance that a permit for the entire structure will be granted. 114.9 Posting of permit: A copy of the building permit pro- vided by the building department shall be kept in view and pro- tected from the weather on the site of operation during the entire time the work is under execution and until the certificate of use and occupancy shall have been issued. The building permit shall serve as an inspection record card to allow the building official conveniently to make entries thereon regarding inspection of the work. 114.10 Notice of start: At least twenty-four (24) hours' notice of start of work under a building permit shall be given to the building official. 9/1/80 18 rti 780 CMR: STATE BUILDING CODE COMMISSION SECTION 115.0 CONDITIONS OF PERMIT 115.1 Compliance with code: The permit shall be a license to proceed with the work and shall not be construed as authority to violate, cancel or set aside any of the provisions of this code, except as specifically stipulated by modification or legally granted variation in accordance with Section 126.0. 115.2 Compliance with permit: All work shall conform to the stamped or endorsed application and plans for which the permit `d has been issued and any approved amendments thereto. 115.3 Change in site plan: A lot or site shall not be changed, ® increased or diminished in area from that shown on the official site plan, as specified in Section 113.6, unless a revised plan showing such changes accompanied by the necessary affidavit of 't owner or applicant shall have been filed and approved. Exception: A revised site plan will not be required if the change is caused by reason of an official street opening, '= street widening or other public improvement. t SECTION 116.0 DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES 116.1 Service connections: Before a building or structure can r be demolished or removed, the owner or agent shall notify all utilities having service connections within the building or struc- ture, such as; water, electric, gas, sewer and other connec- tions. A permit to demolish or remove a'building or structure shall not be issued until a release is obtained from the utilities, stating that their respective service connections and appurten- ant equipment, such as; meters and regulators have been re- moved or sealed and plugged in a safe manner. t116.2 Lot regulation: When a building or structure has been j demolished or removed and a building operation has not been ® projected or approved, the vacant lot shall be filled with non- organic fill, graded and maintained in conformity with adjacent grades. The lot shall be maintained free from the accumulation i of rubbish and all other unsafe or hazardous conditions which endanger the life or health of the public; provisions shall be made to prevent the accumulation of water or damage to any foundations on the premises or the adjoining property; and the necessary retaining walls and fences shall be erected in accord- ance with the provisions of Article 13. SECTION 117.0 MOVED STRUCTURES 117.1 General: Buildings and structures moved into or within the jurisdiction shall comply with the provisions of this code. 9/1/80 19 z �� e� //� 9 cam- , r Citp of Oatem, Alam5acbuzetto Office of tlje City Council �si �Pa Otp fall ��MINg WARD COUNCILLORS KEVIN R. HARVEY 1988 COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE PRESIDENT GEORGE A.NOWAK 1988 DONALD T.BATES - JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO KEVIN R.HARVEY CITY CLERK VINCENT J.FURFARO FRANCES J.GRACE LEONARD F.O'LEARY NEIL J.HARRINGTON JEAN-GUY J.MARTINEAU GEORGE P.McCABE SARAH M.HAYES MARK E.BLAIR January 11, 1989 James M. Fleming, Esq. Chairman, Board of Appeal One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. Chairman: I wish to register my strong opposition to the request for a variance to allow construction of a single family dwell- ing at 103 Highland Avenue. While I will be unable to attend your meeting on January 11 due to a previous commitment, I would like to make the Board aware of the fact that I support the immediate abbuters , Mr. and Mrs . Lunt, and other neighbors in requesting that the variance be denied. I read with interest in the Salem News the comments of Attorney William Sheehan (representing the petitioners) , who claims that the matter could be settled if the variance were to be granted, allowing the home to be completed and then sold. It is clear from Mr. Sheehan's comments that his clients have no intention of becoming good neighbors in the Greenway Road area, but wish to have the neighborhood and the Board bend over backwards so that they can build a home on an undersized lot and then turn around and sell it at a profit. It strikes me that another person whom Mr. Sheehan represents , Mike Stasinos, has exhibited the same attitude with regard to his project at the other end of Highland Avenue. I do not believe it is sound public policy to accede to the demands of individuals who pur- chase property in Salem, ask for concessions, sue when they don' t get what they want, and walk away with a profit -- all at the expense of , and without a care for, Salem and its people . James M. Fleming, Esq. January 11, 1989 Page Two Mr. Chairman, if you and your fellow Board members act in support of the neighbors and vote to deny the variance , you will be sending a message that you, as a public Board, will not tol- erate this attitude . I strongly urge you to send such a message by denying the variance request for 103 Highland Avenue. Sincerely, NEIL J. HPRRINGTON Councillor-at-Large cc: Board of Appeal TO: BOARD OF APPEALS, SALEM, MA JANUARY 5, 1989 RE: 103 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SALEM, MA GENTLEMEN: ATTACHED IS A PETITION SIGNED BY THE RESIDENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SURROUNDING THE ABOVE PROPERTY. WE WOULD LIKE TO LET IT BE KNOWN THAT WE ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE ALLOWING OF THE VARIANCE FOR THIS PROPERTY SO AS TO KEEP THE HOUSE THAT WAS ILLEGALLY PUT UPON SAID PROPERTY. AS WE ARE SURE YOU KNOW FROM PAST EXPERIENCE, THIS LOT IS UNDERSIZED. THE PUTTING UP OF THIS HOUSE WAS DENIED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, LAND WAS FILLED OVER A STATE DRAIN AND WETLAND WAS FILLED WHICH HAS NOW CAUSED THE WATER TABLE TO RISE AND FLOOD THE NEIGHBORING HOME ON GREENWAY ROAD WHEN THERE IS HEAVY RAIN. THIS WAS NEVER A BUILDABLE LOT THOUGH OTHERS HAVE COME BEFORE YOUR BOARD AND WERE EITHER DENIED OR WERE ASKED TO WITHDRAW. CONSIDERING THE PROBLEM THIS HAS CAUSED FOR ITS ABUTTOR AND THE ILLEGALITY OF THE HOUSE IN THE FIRST PLACE, WE WOULD HOPE THE BOARD WILL NOT RULE IN FAVOR OF THIS PETITION FOR VARIANCE. CC: MAYOR ANTHONY SALVO COUNCILLOR VINCENT FURFARO COUNCILLOR NEIL HARRINGTON COUNCILLOR FRANCIS GRACE COUNCILLOR GEORGE MCCABE CD-n n COUNCILLOR DONALD BATES '-) CLD GEORGE WHITTIE WILLIAM MUNROE r .r i' ca N cA / O 014 sv - ILIto 6�� it, ET KGS s S.Z 3.ddV '0 (h loos i BOM D OF WE/ LS' JAN 11 9 13 AM '89 R.ECEIEO ' CITY F SA EMlMA Ss. V I (� I >. I I gO�.F�;C CF APPEALS � November 29, 1988 SEC 5 6 Greenway Road fiEcu"'EO Salem, Massachusetts 01970 CITY OF SALEM,HA55. Mr . James Fleming Chairman of the Board of Appeals One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Mr. Fleming : My name is John M. Lunt and I own the property at 6 Greenway Road in Salem where I reside with my family. I am writing in regard to the property located at 103 Highland Avenue owned by Thomas and William Katsapetsas. My property abuts this lot on two sides. Any decision made regarding its existance will drastically affect me and my family. I therefore respectfully request that you allow me to make a few points that are of grave concern to us. Construction on this property began in the summer of 1985 • Mr. K. backfilled his land at this time about 20-25 feet. We believe he did this is direct violation of City Code Article VI Drainage Alteration Permits Sec . 26-170 and 171 . The city engineer has no application for a permit regarding this article on file. Mr. K. also backfilled our property about 3, 000 square feet--20 feet deep. We tried to no avail to get Mr. K. to remove this fill on his own but he refused to cooperate and legal action was necessary. Again, Mr. K. did not cooperate — ' It took three hearings with Mr. Grant at the Clerk of Courts Office before an attempt was made . Although Mr. K. was not complete with his efforts we did accept it out of frustration. Many years ago, to our understanding, homes in this area had a major problem with flooding. Much was done to correct this problem including a culvert installed in 1948. The problem with flooding had been arrested for years. Since Mr. K raised the levelof his land in this wetland which is protected by the Wetlands Protection Act, we have suddenly had water in our basement. We have been advised by our lawyer to investigate this situationas he believed , as we now do, that the raising of the level of the land is the direct cause of our flooding. It is also the same opinion of other professional we called upon including contractors and City employees. � .Cv We are very concerned about the future of that house for this reason as well as others including the fact that the house was put on the land without any building permit .and . that the land does not meet the requirements for square footage . However, we feel the above issues are very serious and need to be carefully con- sidered before any decision about that problem is made . Mr. K. has clearly disregarded every rule regarding the con- struction of his house and the filling of his property. We all have to live by rules. I have worked very hard to get what isimine and have done so by following the rules. I don' t believe that a contractor from Peabody who has violated so many rules should have such a negative impact on me and my family. Mr . K. ' s only concern is to finish his house and sell it. I, a lifelong resident of Salem, will be left to suffer the consequences . if this situation is allowed to exist. I ask that you carefully consider these conditions and understand that the issue of land size and building permit although very serious are not, by far, the only issues. I would like to thank you for taking the time to read my concerns and ask that you share this information with the other board members. If you have any questions, thoughts or comments concerning this matter please do not hesitate to contact me or my wife . We would be very interested in hearing from you. a sa (t C (3 Y r ti -m Sincerely, DI. = rr JA Cso an John M. Lunt Marlene A. Lunt cc William Munroe , City of Salem Building Inspector cc Stanley Poirier, President Greenway Road Homeowners Association KEVIN T. DALY ° �j-Pi LEONARD F. FEMINO ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR T��_��.'� ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR Dim 93 WASHINGTON STREET 93 WASHINGTON STREET AND CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS AND ONE CHURCH STREET ONE SCHOOL STREET MICHAEL E. O'B RIEN SALEM. MA 01970 BEVERLY. MA 01915 745-4311 CITY SOLICITOR 93 WASHINGTON STREET 745-4311 745-0500 921-1990 AND PLEASE REPLY TO ONE CHURCH STREET 81 WASHINGTON STREET ^LEASE REPLY TO ONE SCHOOL STREET SALEM. MA 01970 745-4311 744-3363 PLEASE REPLY TO 81 WASHINGTON STREET November 28 , 1988 z -77 O � James M. Fleming, Chairman Salem Board of Appeal o TO One Salem Green o Salem, Massachusetts 01970 OT n n CD _71 Re : Katsapetses v Board of Appeal , Essex Superior Court 487-861 n Y-1 N m Dear '-1r. Fleming: Enclosed please find copy of Partial Summary Judgment ind Order of the Essex Superior Court . Also ,inclosed is a copy of a letter [ram the Plaintiff ' s attorney regarding the same. The matter should be placed on the Agenda of the Board at the next available meeting and both this office and the attorney Ear the plaintiff should be advised of the hearing date. Very truly yours , Mi/chael E. O' Brien ` City Solicitor MEO/jp Enclosures cc: William H. Sheehan, Esq. PEARL. MCNIFF. CREAN, COOK & SHEEHAN COUNSELLORS AT LAW 30 MAIN STREET THOMAS C.PEGAN SAMUEL PEARL.COUNSEL PEABOOY.MASSACHUSETTS 019805552 MICHAEL T. SMERCIYNSPI JOHN A. MCNIPP,COUNSEL JOHN M. CREAN PEAWDY 15081 531-1710 F ROBERT ALLISON OLIYER T.COON BOSTON 18171 289-3456 LAWRENCE J. O'MCEEE WILLIAM M. SHEEHAN ul November 9 , 1988 Michael E. O 'Brien, Esquire 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 Ke: Katsapetses VS. City of Salem Dear Mr. O'Brien : I am sure you have received a copy of the court ' s order remanding the variance application of the Katsapetseses to the Salem Board of Appeal for further hearing. My clients are anxious to get back to the board and, therefore, I ask that you cause us to be placed on the agenda of the Board of Appeal on the first available date after November 15, 1988 . I look forward to hearing from you as to the date and time when we are to appear before the board. Thank you. very ruly. yoursi , Wily a III ra x iam w �T WHS :ds ^' n � 1 !n m W i � V it COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPERIOR COURT ,'IESSEX, ss CIVIL ACTION No . 37-861 WILLIAM N. KATSAPETSES and THOMAS N. KATSAPETSES , Plaintiffs ) li ) v s . ) c' WILLIAM H. MUNROE, INDIVIDUALLY ) AND AS HE IS THE SALEM BUILDING ) o c ,IINSPECTOR CITY OF SALEM, CITY OF ) N= m SALEM, JAMES B. HACKER, JAMES FLEMING , ) PETER STROUT, PETER DORE, RICHARD ) _ o 'IBENCAL, as they are Members of the ) - ) T - f ISalem Board of Appeals , > Defendants ) L ORDER This matter came on to be heard upon Plaintiff ' s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Count IV of the Plaintiffs ' com- plaint, as amended. After hearing, the motion for Partial Summary Judgment is allowed for the reason that the Board' s findinc of fact No. 5 is based on an error of law. It is therefore ordered that the decision of the Salem Board of Appeal filed with the City Clerk on April 13 , 1987 denvinq the Plaintiffs ' application f317 variance, be and hereby is annulled and the proceedings are re- manded to the Salem Board of Appeal for reconsideratit:r. of the Plaintiffs ' application for variance. Dated: �1c . {. � � > r' 3 4Ra7r S . Ke eY Jq '�2y Justice of the Superior Court FI � COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Department of Tho Trial Court �Ssez, ss. Superior Court No. d7-8ol William N . Katsapetses, at al S! _ U U - 7 William H. Munroe, Individually=-7 and as Salem Building InspectorfN N at als PARTIAL SUMMAitY JUDGMENT MASS. H. CIV. P. 5e ) This action came to be neard before the Court, Kelley, J. presiding, upon the motion of the plaintiffk' motion for partial summaryudgmenr on Count IV pursuant to Mass. H. Civ. P. 50, the parties naving been neard, the Court finds that mere is no genuine issue as to material fact, and tnat the plaintiffs william N . Katsapetses and Thomas N . Katsapetses are entitled to a judgment as a matter of lax. Jr, is ordered tnat ; the decision of the Salem Board o2' Appeal filed wltn the City ClerK on April 13, 1987, denying the Plaintif2's' application for variance, be and nereby is annulled and tae proceedings are remanded to the Salem Board of Appeal for reconsideration of the plaintif1'31 application for variance. Date . November j, 198d. Assistant ClerF Citp of Oalem, Anzacbugetto Office of the Citp Council �itp fall �Grypyg WARD COUNCILLORS VINCENT J. FURFARO COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE 1989 PRESIDENT 1989 GEORGE A.NOWAK JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO KEVIN R.HARVEY DONALD T.BATES CITY CLERK VINCENT J.FURFARO FRANCES J.GRACE NEIL J.HARRINGTON LEONARD F.O'LEARY GEORGE P.McCAeE JEAN-GUY J.MARTINEAU SARAH M.HAYES MARK E.BLAIR January 11 , 1989 Board of Appeal One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 RE: Variance Request at 103 Highland Avenue Dear Mr. Fleming: I am writing to oppose the requested variance at 103 Highland Avenue. It is clear to all individuals involved in this issue that the granting of a variance would not be in the best interest of the surrounding neighborhood. These families have worked very hard to improve and maintain the quality of their area, and on many occassions have been faced with the possibility of construction or development which would change the quality of their living environments. Through such efforts, they have been able to prevail in most instances. I hope and expect that these neighborhood residents will again prevail and that the Board of Appeal will deny this variance. It will unjustly reduce the quality of the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, George McCabe J2722 Citp of Oalem, AlagoacbUatts Office of the Citp councit BG,ylrygfA WARD COUNCILLORS KEVIN R. HARVEY 1988 COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE PRESIDENT GEORGE A.NOWAK 1988 JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO KEVIN R. HARVEY DONALD T.BATES CITY CLERK VINCENT J.FURFARO FRANCESJ.GRACE LEONARD F.O'LEARY NEIL J.HARRINGTON JEAN-GUY J.MARTINEAU GEORGE P.McCABE SARAH M.HAYES MARK E.BLAIR November 14 , 1988 Mr. James Fleming, Chairman Board of Appeal City of Salem Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. Fleming: It has come to my attention that the Board of Appeals will be discussing, in the near future, the disposition of the property at 103 Highland Avenue. Because of the impact that a decision relative to this property will have on the abutters, and the Greenway Road area in general, please notify me prior as to the date of the meeting at which this matter will be discussed. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Very truly yours, I� ENT J. FURFAR COUNCILLOR WARD THREE VJF/deb GOPp e� �A �J .1fa�MM6 D''�11 CITY OF SALEM HEALTH DEPARTMENT BOARD OF HEALTH Salem, Massachusetts 01970 ROBERT E. BLENKHORN January 11, 1989 9 NORTH STREET HEALTH AGENT (617) 741-1800 William 1Catsapetsos 79 Walnut Street Peabody, Ila 01960 Dear Sir: In June 1987, a coriplaint was received by this department that cuttings of trees, grass and weed from your property at 103 Highland Avenue in Salem were illegally placed on an abuttor's land. On October 14, 1987 hearing, Salem District Court Clerk Magistrate continued this matter to November. 4 with the condition that you contact the Health Department on October 15 to arrange for an on site reinspection. At this reinspection, the Health Department representative noted that all cuttings had been removed, the area cleaned and all violations corrected, and on Noverrber 4, 1987, Clerk Robert Grant dismissed this matter. In August of 1988, a caTiplaint was received that overgrowth of grass, weeds, etc. around the structure were creating a blind corner for both pedestrian and vehicular traffic. A reinspection of the area by this department noted that all overgrawth had been cut and removed. At this writing, all Health Code Violations cited by the Salem Health Department have been corrected.. Very truly yours, FOR THE 30ARD OF HEALTH ROBERT E. BLENKHOIN, C.H.O. Health Agent REB/g cc: Building Inspector William I1. Munroe •$�C��vT.�� P 1 SAY S�f�IHME W��P CITY OF SALEM HEALTH DEPARTMENT BOARD OF HEALTH Salem. Massachusetts 01970 ROBERT E. BLENKHORN 9 NORTH STREET HEALTH AGENT ,617) ; -iaoo November 20, 1986 Mr. William Katsapetes 75 Walnut Street Peabody, MA 01960 Dear Sir: A re-inspection of 103 Highland Avenue on November 18, 1986 by this department revealed that the accumulation of overgrowth had been removed. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, FOR THE BOARD OF HEALTH R BERT E. BLENKHORN, C.H.O. ealth Agent ,JAN Z� 3 eo N '89 y (Ilii of �ttlpm, Aussar4usetts s FIL€r PII2IIb of A7Jpz,,d :ITYCL[F(C'N. ums. DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM KATSAPETSIS REGARDING AN APPEAL OF THE BUILDING INSPECTORS DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR 103 HIGHLAND AVENUE (R-1 ) A hearing on this petition was held January 11 , 1989 with the following Board Members present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal, Vice Chairman; John Nutting, Secretary; Edward Luzinski and Associate Member LaBrecque. The hearing was held as a result of a Court remanded decision that the Board reconsider the petitioners application for a Variance. The petitioner is appealing a denial of the Building Inspector of the City of Salem for a single family residence, or in the alternative a Variance from lot size, density and setbacks to allow construction of a single family dwelling in this R-1 zone. That Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the 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 and 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 of the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . Substantial opposition was presented by neighbors, abutters and others. No one, other than the representative of the petitioner, spoke in favor; 2. The petitioner did not have a legal building permit to construct the dwelling; 3. The petitioner, despite fact two & direct warnings from the Building Inspector, allowed the dwelling to be placed illegally on the lot; 4. Evidence and facts presented in opposition indicated an extremely serious water runoff problem which would be further compounded by the development of the lot in question; 5. The lot in question was filled by the petitioner without legal permits. Said fill flowed over to abutting property causing further problems for the abutters; 6. Because of the illegal fill the abutter was caused harm to their property due to water runoff and damage which harm inlcuded, but not limited to a substantial amount of water filling their finished basement; DECISION ON THE PETITION OF WILLIAM KATSAPETSIS REGARDING AN APPEAL OF THE BUILDING INSPECTORS DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR 103 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM page two 7. The lot in question has remained vacant due to it being undersized and the serious water and drainage problems associated with it; 8. Any hardship claimed by the petitioner was self created; 9. Evidence presented to the Board that the lot was filled by the petitioner in an attempt to make the lot a suitable lot for the construction of a dwelling. Yet, there was evidence presented to the Board indicating that water, soil and debris was falling onto and collecting within the property of the abutters. 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 . The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted One ( 1 ) in favor, (Mr. Fleming) and four (4) in opposition, (Messrs. , Bencal, Luzinski, Nutting and LaBrecque) to the granting of the requested Variance and to overrule the decision of the Building Inspector. By reason of the 1-4 vote, said Variance request is denied and the decision of the Building Inspector is upheld. 'Rchard A. Bencal, Vice Chairman A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION. I'! ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE .'.IA-,S. GENERAL LAMS. CHAPTER 508, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF Fi LIiiG OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. PIRSANT Ti :.:ASS. GENERAL LFSJS. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL P'_^,'IIT - SAIi f ZO HEREIN. SHALL NOT TAI(E EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISC7N, BEA-!N-, VHE BERT• I',ATI-N CF 1HE 0,Y CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS L'E'I FLED. , R ,HAT. IF SI1:1 AN APPEAL HAS SEEN FILE, THAT IT H,,S BEEN DIS4ASSFD GR DENIED IS REG.' .:EO .N THE SC.UTH ESSEX RE^.ISFR9 OF LEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NA,IE OF THE OWNER OF REL�RD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL lei— j i DA I F CERTIFIED ABUTTERS LI---' SUBJECT PROPERTY- HAP. I�t L-Cjl-. SUFF .- H-jfj — IS MAP LOT SUFF PROPERTY ADDRESS ASSESSED 014NER NAILING AllDRES VE I Olut CICU 0cn6FI-i E110 ": R0,' ), i—I I HIA 0 t, -IRN 1jk. T I-,EE 1- . s Ab • p �L s \'b 19 p, X01 P P R 113 20/43 �P n° � + M, fo G( o CO O$\ c v 06 f \ \d9 DL ti to � h \lk 91r s y e s a S 100 A. ) /9 �s 2 i6 0°9 8 02 — z A, vir Q 1,10 1 so U o 6sy2 b O 0�V !a 14K so 0 \ymti y 30T \h O 11565 `I� 203 Z. /2 AC. ,° 190 C ° s Ba \ `� 19.f