103 HIGHLAND AVENUE - ZBA (6) X03 Highland Ave. R=1
William & Thomas Katsapetsas
(fit ofttlem, tts�tttljuse#�#s
AP ' 13 P3 :Q5
s Paarb of Mvd
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
construction of a sin
setbacks to allow the c le family dwelling the that location.g
Thero ertY is located in an R-1 zone.
P P
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 of the evidence presented at the
hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the fo_iowing findings of fact:
1 . There was substantial neighborhood oppo: _ __-,n to the petition,
including Ward Three Councillor Vincent. = .rfaro;
2. There was evidence presented that there is a serious water runoff
problem which would be compounded by development of the lot in question;
m
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 petitioners
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 Massachusletts 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 `I
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
/.tames M. Fleming, Esq.
Member, Board of Appeal
A COP_' =HIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 11 OF THE MASS:,
CEfi ERAL LAl"/S. CHAPTER 805. AFiD SHA'_L BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
CLE
.�E 0' THE CITY 0
F THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE
PURSA;T TO MASS. GENERAL LA`:iS. CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VA'.IAfJCE OR SPECIAL FcR511T
GE-RTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UIITIL A COPY OF THE DECISQN. BEAR!!+ THE CERT-
FIC-.TION OF THE CITY CLERK. THAT 20 DAYS HAKE ELAPSED AND N0 APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED,
07 TH+T, IF SCCri AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DISS'.ISSED OR DENIED IS
R ECG4i;ED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX RECISRY OF LEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE RAt:E OF THE OF'fFlER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE O'WNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
i
COMM014WEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Department Of The Trial Court
U
I
I
Essex, ss. Superior Court
i! No. 87-8b1
II William N . Katsapetses, at al
II
VS. �I
i
II William H. Munroe, Individually II
and as Salem Building Inspector,
et als
i
i
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
MASS. H. CIV. P. 50 )
This action came to be heard before the Court, Kelley, J.
II presiding, upon the motion of the plaintiffb4 motion for partial
lsummary judgment on Count IV pursuant to Mass. H. Civ. P. 509
!i the parties having been heard, the Court finds that there is no i
IIS genuine issue as to material fact, and tnat the plaintiffs
' William N . natsapetses and Thomas N . Katsapetses are entitled
to a judgment as a matter of lax.
It is ordered tnat ;
the decision of the Salem Board of Appeal filed witn
me Cit? C1erK on April lj, 1987, denying the Plaintiff's'
application for variance, be and hereby is annulled and the
proceedings are remanded to the Salem Board of Appeal for
reconsideration of the plaintifi'st application for variance.
Date - r+ovember j, 1988.
Assistant Cler�r
4'
711 n1i
UR
..N ui11'a JillUll
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUPERIOR COURT
( ESSEX, ss CIVIL ACTION
No. 87-861
I
I
( WILLIAM N. KATSAPETSES and
( THOMAS N. KATSAPETSES , _
PlaintiffsCIO
) K A
I4
� WILLIAbi ri. MUNRO£, INDIVIDUALLY
IAND AS HE IS THE SALEM BUILDING ) o
INSPECTOR CITY OF SALEM, CITY OF ) n s
.
HACKER JAMES FLEMING, ) �+
SALEM, JAMES B.
( PETER STROUT, PETER DORE, RICHARD ) m
IBENCAL, as they are Members of the
I
llSalem Board of Appeals,
nefendants )
i
i I
ORDER
111 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 Plaintiffsapplication for
variance, be and hereby is annulled and the proceedings are re-
manded to the Salem Board of Appeal for reconsideratil,r. of the
Plaintiffs ' application for variance.
Dated: z� R ar S . Ke ey
Justice of the Superior Court
i
nLI
GREENWAY HOMEOWNERS'
ASSOCIATION
38 GREENWAY ROAD
SALEM, MA. 01970
March 14, 1987
..ra
City of Salem n'
Board of Appeals = "
One Salem Green 3- cn un
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 103 Highland Avenue
Dear Sirs:
On Wednesday, March 18, 1987, the Board of Appeals will again hear the
petition of Mr. William Katsapetsis to allow a modular home at the corner
of Highland Avenue and Greenway Road. As most of you know, this lot has
been of great concern to the residents of the area as this lot was not of
buildable size being under 5,000 ft. and many interested parties were
denied the opportunity to develop this area because of that reason.
This property was sold for a meager amount of money considering
what-land in Salem is going for and we assume it is because this is a
non—conforming lot. The developer put a house on a foundation that had
a stop work order on it in defiance of the city building inspector.
The developer backfilled a state drain causing the DEQE to investigate .
They also were notified by the city Health Inspector because of the
condition of the property.
The dirt and debris has fallen into the abutters yard because of the
height of the developers lot. This is not only a question of lot size ,
but 'a' question of principles. . How can this lot be large enough for
this developer and not large enough for others who were interested?
Since we cannot be heard at this meeting, please file this letter
as a protest from the Greenway Homeowners Association.
Sincerely,
Stan P. Poirier, President
Robert Theriault, Vice President
cc: 'Mayor Salvo
William Munroe
Greenway Homeowners
9
GREENWAY HOMEOWNERS'
ASSOCIATION
38 GREENWAY ROAD
SALEM, MA. 01970
nCD
March 14, ' 1987 '
1.
f'
City of Salem
Board of Appeals
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 103 Highland Avenue
Dear Sirs:
06 Wednesday, March 18, 1987, the Board of Appeals will again hear the
petition of Mr. William Katsapetsis to allow a modular home at the corner
of Highland Avenue and Greenway Road. As most of you know, this lot has
been of great concern to the residents of the area as this lot was not of
'buildable size being under 5,000 ft. and many interested parties were
denied the opportunity to develop this area because of that reason.
This property was sold for a meager amount of money considering
what land in Salem is going for and we assume it is because this is a
non—conforming lot. The developer put a house on a foundation that had
a stop work order on it in defiance of the city building inspector.
The developer backfilled a state drain causing the DEQE to investigate .
They also were notified by the city Health Inspector because of the
condition of the property.
The dirt and debris has fallen into the abutters yard because of the
height of the developers lot. This is not only a question of lot size ,
but 'a question of principles. How can this lot be large enough for
this developer and not large enough for others who were interested?
Since we cannot be heard at this meeting, please file this letter
as a protest from the Greenway Homeowners Association.
Sincerely,
Stan P. Poirier, President
Robert Theriault, Vice President
cc: . Mayor Salvo
William Munroe
Greenway Homeowners
GREENWAY HOMEOWNERS'
ASSOCIATION
38 GREENWAY ROAD
SALEM, MA. 01970
March 14, 1987
.. C�
City: of Salem -_
r—
Board. of Appeals n
One Salem Green '
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 103 Highland Avenue
DearSirs:
On Wednesday, March 18, 1987, the Board of Appeals will again hear the
petition of Mr. William Katsapetsis to allow a modular home at the corner
of Highland Avenue and Greenway Road. As most of you know, this lot has
.. been of great concern to the residents of the area as this lot was not of
buildable size being under 5,000 ft. and many interested parties were
denied the opportunity to develop this area because of that reason.
This property was sold for a meager amount of money considering
.what land in Salem is going for and we assume it is because this is a
non-conforming lot. The developer put a house on a foundation that had
a stop work order on it in defiance of the city building inspector.
The developer backfilled a state drain causing the DEQE to investigate .
They also were notified by the city Health Inspector because of the
condition of the property.
The dirt and debris has fallen into the abutters yard because of the
height of the developers lot. This is not only a question of lot size ,
but 's question of principles. . How can this lot be large enough for
this developer and not large enough for others who were interested?
Since we cannot be heard at this meeting, please file this letter
as a protest from the Greenway Homeowners Association.
Sincerely,
--------------
Stan P. Poirier, President
Robert Theriault, Vice President
cc: Mayor Salvo
William Munroe
Greenway Homeowners
GREENWAY HOMEOWNERS'
ASSOCIATION
38 GREENWAY ROAD
SALEM, MA. 01970
rn
March 14, 1987 n
.a
c C)
City of Salem > �13
Board of Appeals o,
rn
One Salem Green s e4
Salem, MA 01970 S r
cn r� N
cn
RE: 103 Highland Avenue
-Dear Sirs:
On 'Wednesday, March 18, 1987, the Board of Appeals will again hear the
petition of Mr. William Katsapetsis to allow a modular home at the corner
of Highland Avenue and Greenway Road. As most of you know, this lot has
been of great concern to the residents of the area as this lot was not of
buildable size being under 5,000 ft. and many interested parties were
denied the opportunity to develop this area because of that reason.
This property was sold for a meager amount of money considering
what''land in Salem is going for and we assume it is because this is a
non-conforming lot. The developer put a house on a foundation that had
a stop work order on it in defiance of the city building inspector.
The developer backfilled a state drain causing the DEQE to investigate .
They also were notified by the city Health Inspector because of the
condition of the property.
The dirt and debris has fallen into the abutters yard because of the
height of the developers lot. This is not only a question of lot size ,
but 'a question of principles. How can this lot be large enough for
this developer and not large enough for others who were interested?
Since we cannot be heard at this meeting, please file this letter
as a protest from the Greenway Homeowners Association.
Sincerely,
Stan P. Poirier, President
Robert Theriault, Vice President
cc: Mayor Salvo
William Munroe
Greenway Homeowners
GREENWAY HOMEOWNERS'
ASSOCIATION
38 GREENWAY ROAD
SALEM, MA. 01970
March 14, 1987
E3
City.'of Salem
Board of Appeals cn L
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 103 Highland Avenue
Dear Sirs:
On Wednesday, March .18, 1987, the Board of Appeals will again hear the
petition of Mr. William Katsapetsis to allow a modular home at the corner
of Highland Avenue and. Greenway Road. As most of you know, this lot has
been of great concern to the residents of the area as this lot was not of
buildable size being under 5,000 ft. and many interested parties were
denied the opportunity to develop this area because of that reason.
This property was sold for a meager amount of money considering
what land in Salem is going for and we assume it is because this is a
non—conforming lot. The developer put a house on a foundation that had
a stop work order on it in defiance of the city building inspector.
The developer backfilled a state drain causing the DEQE to investigate .
They also were notified by the city Health Inspector because of the
condition of the property.
"'The dirt and debris has fallen into the abutters yard because of the
height of the developers lot. This is not only a question of lot size ,
but 'a, question of principles. . How can this lot be large enough for
this developer and not large enough for others who were interested?
Since. we cannot be heard at this meeting, please file this letter
as a protest from the Greenway Homeowners Association.
11
Sincerely,
Stan P. Poirier, President
Robert Theriault, Vice President
cc: Mayor Salvo
William Munroe
Greenway Homeowners
,
.ca.v?A CnttU D# cljpilt, r'��tI55F1C�1IS£tt5
mfficc of the ((ifn Council
y
s Cita Pall
tpOW�,g�pF WARD COUNCILLORS
LEONARD F.OLEARY 1987
COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE PRESIDENT GEORGE A.NOWAK
188]
JOSEPHINE R.FUSCO KEVIN R.HARVEY
ROBERT E.GAUTHIER
CITY CLERK VINCENT J.FURFARO
FRANCES J.GRACE
LEONARD F.O'LEARY
NEIL J.HARRINGTON
JEAN-G UVJ.MARTINEAU
RICHARD E.SWINIUCH
GEORGE P.McCABE
JOHN R.NUTTING
February 18, 1987
Mr. James Hacker, Chairman
Board of Appeal
City of Salem
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Mr. Hacker & members of the Board:
I am writing—to_y_ou on behalf�rof the abutters and neighbors of the
property at iO3 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,
VIN=J.J. �
COUNCILLOR THREE
of !m1Em, ttssttcljus>?##s
'• Pourb of �"rzd
May 1 , 1987
a.
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
11 91c-E l!/ ✓, F l'
James B. Hacker
Chairman
JBH:bms
11 Qla
oQ DISTRICT n5 OFFICE 9
485 MAPLE STREET, DANVERS .01937
Permits - Salem
April 30, 1986
Mr. William Monroe 411
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 hilhcaay
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 tire -as this matter is resolved.
Your cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Very truly yours,
A�os5� ph 'AngeI
Acting District Highway Engineer <
FJH/as r
cc: RC MOB PN WM
=_ G
Certified Mail - P 644 050 620 y
P 644 050 622
P 644 050 . 621 �'
Logan
- `
En9intttin9 & cCuwty
7rb t . . i'� - �_ ,. �� NL[ tP : 4'ID- � > 41 , 11 PUTNAM S'REET
_ �' PEABODY, MA O1960
J.
4, . b
C
_ ,;sr BnarA,M sY
WILLIAM� L. CLARKE, P.C., AL-S. i L
c 'r 1 I O o C�Axe
_ REGISTERED SINCE 1D5G
NOME'. 5310534
/ y `rl `A Zfil k)
•- 1
° I {
'- 0
r
�_..�'rs '" 1'4 r4 --. ti, t yi ,. `I:, • 'S , YrEr yi S,i� 41 .y,.y.,�eq.', VGer�xq�pv i ,,.V
l
j Date
�", �',i (y '
(Article '
Section ,'� � `ppf,�The Zoning Ordinance) x4n; 0
WHEREAS, violations of{ Article 'j/y , Section_Ilai of the Building Code have been found on
Articles .:.Section - of_the
these premises, IT IS HEREBY_ORDERED in accordance with the above Code that all persons cease, desist
c , w
from, and «� ' , , VA
NA
tiY 1 l`, a 4 at once pertaining to construction, alter ti r repairs on these�ypre sed g.
�'. `tl r �1 �a nt • f:, is �' 'S N, , '�! .rT.k 1 tiY '+�'�'Nr �}� 4'iPf�`s� i
known os "i '. H/�/De�.✓t L��. � ': K C ' 1 Fi� <,
\+ IY1 } r �1p 1i114. .
All ^persons acting contrary .to this order or removing or mutilating this once a I. 18167Iarrest
unless such action is authorized by the Deportment d i
�1 ti
fi, T rpt';
jZD .. ;.
Ile
Ali
I VC
u jR e.
i
4 h{ •x t � t �'<. a � 51 r >� r +. .fir. ,rtf �,
±or ,'r yIf
T }'t fs z t ��:a A J+' ''t u, : ,8G•� rt 4 9a Ir '1 '`+'i
rf r
Gx:
;347%5 ? - ttj
I. NAR:i- •%INN01AA, 1:1i', I N111 •1
p ti
, ql Gxaoe F. nty i',uL,II, -n ' Y
of
Salem,
♦ �, l u .) }Jn •.,L.,�.1Y,
PW
,
0
<s
v.at?�MGef.r*Vp1rAFlygv�) efi 'Valiy_ng f1i.'Sr<cV tiv1,i 1111.,1,.InJ and wi to,
.�.. .e+ as tenant■ by the entirety, filth of le t II Ih w . Street. Sales,
Us" county, Massachusetts
eM
:� h', t e,tft lleuf4tm lsaneele uhr l.L,11n S'Iid Salrm h, iL1 I•It mania ,,•d our (1) on
t .1 plan of
'Land of The Play Trust, Lot Nn. I •M1•an Vlrw P.rh, Salem,
- Mase..' made by Thomee A. Appleton• ,'.1 . d.111 ,1 slay 11410 and recnrded
with deed from trona S. Almy, et ala to M.,,1It•.,uv.y JUIrd May 11, I410
and recorded with the teeGx South nt:-„ L•I 11.11:11 ry •1t ucods in Suok
1 7646, Page 532.
•I'1: said lot hereby convey0d is houndoJ arol dr•Irrik It as. fulllws:
0
i0 tpMS71L5LY by M19h le nd Avenue, sixty (MII I'.•vu
tASTMY by Greenway Avenue, One 1u,n3,.,d om and twenty-eight
hundredths (101.15) feet .
`1 SOUT=RLY by lot nrunbered three. III 111, ::.cid 1.1111, forty`tvn and
rbl twelve hundredths (72.1:1 Ir1't ' .11,AWESTERLY by lot 'numbered two t2), on ::a(d yl:.n, ninety-nine and
ninety-seven hundredths (99.9)) fent.
) -
' Said premises are conveyed mab)ect to rretrict;ons nu far as they are
raw in force mentioned in said deed from;t}uma S. Almy, at als•
por my title see Estate of Grace r. Rooney, Fstivx County Probate Court
no. 261325. .
5 �}
.'a 11�11•_ !tL) =17 V:•._:i.'_ l'�IIL
X..,AW.•Wal tnwnw.t tka 13th 7 d.,I'd M.IJ' Iy 55 w
-� Afr ivCon nu Il y, -P"xrcdtrlx — -
Moria Gin riJ]ly, 1nQ}llidually
l - W*'tlrnelswwllk of ma"T"O sli. - -
Y' •'•{ UYsx, e. tiny l t, ly 55
-•1 y71•n PeeonJlr•PP.a•e th,A ..awn.d Marie Connolly,. as atnre.aid
'r
ad dw4ds.d tN f•..p;,,t MlnaTtM b(., her I....•�...I a.
1wee, To y T. L.sxiar is ww,•r r.ro.
q M................a 2/16 Iy 90
y WE, SAMUEL L. PAPALARDO and MARY P . PAPALARDO, husband wife, as
+J tenants by the entirety, both of 16 Calabreses Street,
ai
04
N of Salem, EssexCounty, Massachusetts
m
in consideration of Seven Thousand ($7 ,00( . 00) -----------------dollars
x
0
rn
C) ,1
� o
rn .�
o grant to THOMAS N. KATSAPETSES and WILLIAM N. KATSAPETSES
b 3 _
� b �
m o of Peabody, Essex County, Massachusetts
•Q with quitclaim ratertants
rI y v the land in said Salem being lot numbered one (1) on plan of "Land of
m a The Almy Trust, Lot No. 1 - Ocean .View Park, Salem, Mass . , " made by
0) . Thomas A. Appleton, C.E. dated May 1930 and recorded with deed from
v Emma S . Almy, et als to Mary Rooney dated May 31, 1930 and recorded
7 mai with the Essex South District Registry of ,Deeds in Book 2846 ,
Ci m 4J
Q) Page 532 .
> x �'
• +J Said lot hereby conveyed is bounded and described as follows :
c z c
ro m NORTHERLY by Highland Avenue, Sixty (60) feet;
0
-4 EASTERLY by Greenway Avenue, one hundred one and twenty-eight
x N hundredths (101. 28) feet;
M _
O ..
r-4 m SOUTHERLY by lot numbered .three (3) on said plan, forty-two and
o twelve hundredths (42 . 12) feet; and
P
cd 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 Connelly 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 .
j
i; C.hc L.nnuttonfncatj;{� tr� ��asssrhttsr+tF
l_
e b N.
PLA �a
LIL °
Lpd � G° °
go3
ate, \ y`
I
� �Dh
� 1
w
�• h p c• h J w
> 3
LoT 2 \ I °
1 b IQ z
112,121 'v Il
PLAN OF LAND
LOCATED IN
SALEM DEED
mA.SSAC USETTS B°°K
PAGE
°wxEB Br PLAN
5AMIELIAH'ALAKp� No
,l-LoW10rAl
G120 p0:° t7 1{p�5 f: I.OGA'(101.1 1985
MAY 27 .
SCALE
,f BRADFORD ENGINEERING CO.
1 P.O. BOX 1244 44'
IL KAIS sfx Haverhill, Mass 011331
9 _ io ae
TEL 373 2396
� �s� � qa1
t (TO PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY: Please Ci,cle T)pe of Artini Im olred: — TORT — MOTOR VEHICLE TORT —
CONTRACTEQUITABLE REI-IEF OTHER.)
0
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION
No.
Z
{J 4Jy
c WILLIAM N. KATSAPETSAS AND
m
•o THOMAS N. KATSAPETSAS
mO ............................................................_..............................................Plaintiff(s)
m w
c L -
^ c ` r
a CITY OF SALEM, ET ALS......... ................................•--...Defendant(s)
Cn . G
.G rj Ctop w
U
SUMMONS
0. 4 To the above named Defendant: JAMES B. HACKER:
79
8
You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon .Emmanuel_ N.--Pa-panickolas
01960
b plaintiffs attomey, whose address is .... 6----Chestnut-_Street,.-„PeaboMa..........
dy an answer to the
complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 20 days after service of this summons upon you, exclu-
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
of this court at ----....SALEM-----•••--•••---,--„--,. either before service upon plaintiffs attorney or within a reasonable
ti 4.
a4
3 time thereafter. Y _
a = Unless otherwise provided by Rule 13 (a), your answer must state as a counterclaim any claim which you
•� may have against the plaintiff which arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the
g a plaintiffs claim or you will thereafter be barred from making such claim in any other action.
r
IW •
F• m
Z
pE WITNESS,Thomas R. Morse,Jr., Esquire, at Salem, the 23rd
W '. Y121�/d -7 day of APRIL in the year of our Lord one thousand
Gm
it nine hundred and eighty- seven.
tc',UE
COPY vTTESTT
r Uz
[- c D r
o2
z �
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 Form 1
TYPE OR USE BALL POINT PEN
MASSACHUSETTS TRIAL COURT SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMEN
SSI X CIVIL ACTION COVER SHEET
SS. (To be filed with each Complaint) NO.
PLAINTI,°F-(S) DEFENDANTS) WILLIAM H. MUNROE Individual
WILLIAM 61 . PCA'PSAPSASAS and as Salem Building Inspector, Cit
AND Trlorif�s N . xATSAP>;TSAs y
- --- _- — ------- ---- —Salem,_e_�a1s--
ATI ORNEY(S) (Firm Name, Address,Tel.) ATTORNEY(S) (If known)
Emmanuel N . Papanickolas
.6 Chestnut Str-eeL
11I1, # Peabody , Pia. 01.960 Tel : 531-3200
S.
Place an PJ in one box only ORIGIN
IX 1. 1-01 Complaint ❑ 4. F04 Dlst. CL Appeal 0.231, s.97 -
I .i 2. I-il't Removal to Sup. 01. c231, 5.104 (_I 5. F05 Reactivaled after Rescript; Relief
I-; 3. I`03 Retranslcr to Sup. Ct. c231, s.102C from judgment/order (Mass. R. Civ, P. 60)
Place an (`? in one box only NATURE OF ACTION
CONTRACT ' REAL PROPERTY MISCELLANEOUS
❑ A01 Services, labor and materials ❑ C01 Land taking (eminent domain) ❑ E02 Appeal from administrative agency,
[J A02 Goods sold and deliveredCO2 Zoning appeal, G.L. c.40A G.L. c.30A
L] A03 Commercial paper I] CO3 Dispute concerning title [] E03 Action against Commonwealth or
58
FI A08 Sale or lease of real estate L] C04 Foreclosure of mortgage Municipality, G.L.
LJ A99 other (specify) D C99 Other (specify)_ ❑ E04 Taxpayer suit, G.L. cc.4.40 s.53
❑ E06 Confirmation of arbitration awards,
G.L. c.251
TORT EQUITABLE REMEDIES ❑ E06 Massachusetts Antitrust Act,
D B03 Motor vehicle negligence-personal ❑ D01 Specific performance of contract G.L. c.93
injury/property damage ❑ EBB Appointment of receiver
❑ B04 olher negligence-personal Injury ❑ D02 Reach and apply, G.L. c.214,
C] E09 General contractor's surety bond,
property damage s.3(6)-(9)
❑ D06 Contribution or indemnification G.L. marry process
ap
❑ BGS Products liability ❑ D07 Imposition of trust ❑ Ell Summary process appeal
❑ 806 Malpractice-medical ❑ Ell Workman's Compensation
❑ B07 Malpractice-other D D08 Minority stockholder's suit ❑ E12 Small Claims Appeal
(specify) D D70 Accounting - ❑ E13 Labor Dispute
❑ E308 Wrongful death, G.L. c.229, s.2A ❑ D12 Dissolution of partnershipE) E14 Chapter 123A Petition — SDP
❑ B15 Defamation 0ibel-slander) D D13 Declaratory judgment, G.L, c.231A D E15 Abuse Petition, G.L. c.209A
D B99 Other (specify) ❑ D99 Other (specify) — ❑ E16 Auto Surcharge Appeal
PPeal
❑ E17 Civil Rights Act, G.L. c.12, ss.11 H-1
IS THIS A JURY CASE? i❑xYES ❑ NO ❑ E99 Other (specify)
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 atemer t, where appropria e, will result in transfer of this action (Superior
Cour ule 29(2).
St ATURE OF ATTORNEY RE RD DATE:
4/24/87
FFI —DO N T W I E BELOW IS LINE) RECEIVED
DISPOSITION BY:
A. Judgment Entered B. 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. After jury verdict BY:
❑ 4. After court finding DATE:
[_I 5. After post trial motion Disposition date _—_
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
L:SSB\
' SS Superior Court Department
Statement of Damages Pursuant to
Superior Court Rule 29
To Prevent Transfer to District or Municipal Court Departments
(Applicable to Civil Actions)
1. This action is not subject to Rule 29 Remand for the following reason(s): (concise statement
as to why this action is not remandable, e.g., party seeking equitable relief, declaratory
judgment, action against commonwealth or municipality, etc.)
Party seeking equitable relief against municipality .
2. This action is subject to Superior Court Rule 29 and the following detailed statement pursu-
ant to Rule 29 sets forth the facts in full and itemized detail upon which the plaintiff relies as
constituting the damages in this action:
(if tort action, for example, specify doctors' bills, hospital bills, out of pocket expenses,
etc. that would warrant a reasonable likelihood that recovery will exceed $15,000. )
(if contract action, state with particularity damages which would warrant a reasonable
likelihood that recovery will exceed $15,000. )
N/A
i
r
/¢ 8�
(d ) (signature of attorney of racer r pro se)
Bencal. and James Fleming of Salem, Massachusetts , are duly
apppoi.nteil members of the Salem Board of Appeals for the1
pertinent period of time .
i
FACTS
5 . On or about May 13 , 1985 , Martie Connolly, individually
and as executrix of the estate of Grace F . Rooney conveyed a
parcel. of land to Samuel L . Papal-ardo and Mary P . Papalardo
of Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts , and .located at the
corner of Greenway Avenue and highland Avenue , 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.
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 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 , 1985 , poured the full foundation for said
dwelling , intending to construct a single family dwelling .
Ll. . On September 10 , 1985 , 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 SeptemiDer 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 0£ Massachusetts State Building Code
provides as follows :
"Ly 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
6,
owner .is a corporate body, shall he stated in the
application . "
It 'foes 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 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 ofthiscode 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 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 Order" .
18 . Subsequently, the swimming pool was removed by the
adjoining abutter ; a minimal amount of further work was
performe=d by the plaintiffs upon said property to secure said
dwelling from unnecessary damage by weather and vandals ,
pending resolution of the within controversy .
19 . The building inspector on Novemher 18 , 1985 , forwarded
to my client a letter indicating to flim that since no
building permit was issued to him in his name he violated
section 113 . 1 of the Massachusetts State Bu«lding Code , and
now for 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 thedenial , of the
building inspector to the Board of Appeals pursuing their
l
administrative 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 a,
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 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 .
WHPREFORE , the plaintiffs demand judgment :
1 . That the Court make a binding declaration 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 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 dwelling 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 , William H . 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 with the intent to hurt , damage , and denegrate the
plaintiffs , taxpayers of the City of Salem .
WHEREFORE , 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 42 of the United States Code ,
Section 1983 .
34 . Each and a7.1 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 no t�-- to be deprived of life ,
liberty or property without due process of lava 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 . l'
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 .
4spectfully it N . Papani o asfs Attorn ynut Street
Peabody , Ma . 01960
Telephone : 531-3200
April 22 , 1987
YYY /
(GIN of
Ozlrb of ( Ypeitl
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,
19B7 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 denia
of the Building inspector of the City of Salem for a single family residence at
103 Highland Avenue, or in th ealternative a Varianceefrom 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 ijhich 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 inv.
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= 'he evidence presented at th
hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the fo'lD.:ing findings of fact:
1 . There was substantial neighborhood oppc: . . __n to the petition,
including Ward Three Councillor Vincent - ., arc;
2. There was evidence presented that there is a serious water runoff
problem which would be compounded by development of the lot in question.
y
3. The Building Permit 4375, 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 constructi
of a building utilizing different plans than those submitted by petitie
4 . The petitioners have substantially completed work on the building with(
a building permit and in disregard of a Stop-Work order dated Septem'oe:
23, 1985;
5 . Ttie Board further finds that the lot in question does not 5-DO'-
square feet of ] Fr,d , condition necessary For' the pe'La.',in;,
:.Onsidere(1
cam_!-• , .a ,p -i-i _.L"n : �i c1 _.
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 do the evidence presented at the
Hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1
1 . Special conditions do not exist which espectially affect' the subject
property and not the district generally;
1,
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 4OA. 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
9, mes M. Fleming, Esq.
Member, Board of .Appeal
A COPY I-IS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLEF.]
APPEAL FRO'd THIS DECISION. If ANY. SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE Ki ASS:•
L EGERAL LA71S. CHAPTER 605; AND SHALL BE FILED PlIT HILA 2D DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECISION 114 THE OFFICE or THE CITY CLERK. _
PURSA;T TO VASS. GENERAL LI.BIS. CHHAPTER POB. SEC11D'i 11. THE VA2[ANCE OR SPECIAL FERIMT
GL<STED HEREIN, SHALL N0i Tr>:: EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OFc1C ELk?�?ErL BH AS BEENTHE
FiLEDT
FIC C=.T I:N OF THE CITY CLERK IIIAi 20 DAYS HAVE ECA;SEDV AND N DISi7S:ED OR DEt:ECI IS
OR THAT. IF SGCH AN APPEAR HAS BEEN FILE. THAT IT HAS
R_::D.°.DED IN THE SCUTH ESSEX P.ECISiR`. OF DEEDS AND IRDEXCD WIPER THE I<.:.'E OF THE
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDLD AND NOTED ON THE 07lNERS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
t. _ - __ .. ___- --' •s/;LEN1 L7YGm DEPT. ._-:
AREA _ 6y
t _
S-cii
_.
s - ZC'4f6 �
0
� o a
_
60
o,
449 74 J C. . . aQ .._ .... . ._..
4,9 74 4 ti
C2_
�-
C-
47 re� ! a S//,/ C a:
z - a
al
ss
RCOWIA�S 750W 10104 lift -
Oi?//s/oN of coT 2 oN RAN -
Ql� _.
SAGEM� MAS$, " 29 NoV_ 1572: ��'. .. 9 �r 3S, .-
4 Dec. /972 24 -
E Ra mord C, PressB -r/,e. 5 -
Y Y Y
... i . . �Y1 .. : ;�� �° Lt SCI del f4"• 6ar'w a f•s-LE®® Y��
t `_''zo ;:T. ` �,� Nov. 19-72. '
Rue.. A! '_a 0 `�,L �Ir� a ►t b e C. t 9 1 Z
—�J •`+ RNIMor{O C.pResse�, 1Kc.
Q64.LAr4D SuRVEyoct ��
�`1 $ �cBi Y of DeR�� _ ` :; 1 1 3 M ok R o e sT. , L-(M r4
\ - �;._� - Cn- .. t•, c1 NA n9 •'ETM Of pl
J `
�� u pawl v by
�Y�RT �&TE.'. LA5ENEKt PLAW DK. 95104P.478 :•� 4.••msro�
AND W.Doc* lo7SSe. 98 Do V+ T AGREE. Y ¢�zw.u- 9j9
D'RhMAGE LocAT.°w Hol CeRTAIu CJ f/`•m. .3 !,�'�a r cr
SUKW
p
YE
S..Elf.
s 4'
• q g•9 7 �� 5�A�� 5 Et 2�1i�6
y / fiw
DRPIJ W1, LD 7 /7 • v�,
v,
o Q
DRAIW N•8. \ b�
a _ MAIC S. 3
F
m a
SEE
BFAse. $I PLAw Tt egoRoeo
K.l Syo Y.9-7e
C � C
�. ..� . K' /= NAY BE Z. - �OSD S` '��� • 'i
oRalu HERE .' 1-aT 7 fy►r .;pl � _ _ �.
Yi>'t \ 15' R.C.PIve oSTAl rh
SypxB SEP 565' 17. zz'E 79'S� to i i� A"ORov.G To STATe SYRVEY
1 N.O. Zol 58 P.98
p
�.
° LoT 2 Pipe n N 5�5gq \ 100.00
r N
Se
80.00
ZP.k1 roala� r Sp.00 ~ X39 O- + 1
0J8 LL
4
v l GATAGt
�. � � .. 9Fys•t; w N
"FoKxeRL`( 4. ppL . xo1�
148
W QLAl1 v.tslH DCGO DK. 3135 FJJNO .
F Vog NAA Okss. WIPe
�olt_oo.95• s ry of o14A l�ol� 111E t$S 1-1 u581WD QND
t ul H. ANrsA 58$0
\\3,j 0` ` MiI SINc6 LoT ZA is To BE L,rWgEYEo To ZHE ow%ER of LANDuT
ow TAF_ SoK AND LOT
\ aQ r 1 kS To BE COWIaTEO To THE aujmcR of Lot 3 —
1
IrNVI/ i
1 1
P�E tj
O���� i
1603
IZA
h �
_1° 2k' a
1 W
ILIN.
\Y u
i -
FLAN OF LAND ZONE
LOCATED IN
SALEM DEED
MASSACHUSETTS BOOK
PAGE
I
OWNED Ely
Ely PLAN
JAHoEL rD.l 'Q�fi. r. �� N0. Io6._ 5•-3r !✓
I�f20pOh�rJ NO��� LOGATIDtJ MAY 07 , 1985
SL
IS MTRINQ.�,
P O. BOX
}zae t
r► s._ .._ _ -p.,j t ::,..,.. bi�'�i'w.ay'n- � �Ll.�e iM 011 () [��V
1 rc r a
+� �W
I -
JOHN F & ANNE
VON WEISS
FOR REGISTRY USE ONLY
THOMAS A . Si BARBARA L . o
ST PIERRE o.
LOT 2
5,060 50 FT.
� � y
o 0 y
r a
N
0
�1
9� \` LOT I ND F� � I
0 ? 04
LOT 3 \ N r)N 4 c.-„ z;G, FT I
V>� 5,000 SO FTs 1� �'- •/u✓ 6300 rJ
a
G" r✓G
THIS PLAN COMPILED FROM FOLLOWING PLANS
- - -- - - -- - - �d97en serY� � ��e%/ee �E-e✓Ge
91 23 101 28 • BK 2846 PAGE 532
BK 3530 PAGE 600
__ - ---- - r — ---- - - - -- -- = BK 3590 PAGE 428
'AVE i 40 WIDE "� STATE HWY, LAY OUT June 18 1946
IVB' X9./0
s 5 5 v
lc/M 57z
;A/V ¢t?4 /k! x•74
I hereby certify that this plan conforms to the
rules Q regulations of the registry of deeds
AREA LOT 2 5,060 ,AREA LOT 1 4,950
SHOWN ON PLAN FI ED , ESSEX SOUTH f
BOOK 2846 PAGE 532 •. �� 9 K4 !- /d-dG
BOOK 3530 PAGE 600 James W. BOUGIOUKAS R .L.S .f9529 Date
Lot I is similiar and larger than lot 2
as shown on recorded plans ,
CHAPTER 380 ACTS OF 1966
BK 3530 PG 600 , May 1929 , Revised �,, �•. {
April 11 1934 , BK 2846 PG 532 `�� 1 certify that the property lines shown hereon are the
lines of existing ownership R the lines of street and COMPOSITE
See state highway alterations , June 16. 1946 , I ,t ways shown are those of public or private streets or PLAN OF LAND
LOT I APPROXIMATES 5,000 t ways already established , and that no new lines for
division of existing ownership or for new ways are shown SALEM , MASS
OWNED BY
/ THOMAS N. WILLIAM N . KATSABETSES
,..., n•J`Q S• /d• dG
SCALE 1" - 20 ' James W . BOUGIOU KAS R.L.S . 't 9529
0 10 20 40 60 80 BRADFORD ENGINEERING CO.
P.O. Box 1244
HAVERHILL , MASS 01831
Tel. 373 2396
s
NOTES
1. ) REFERENCE PLAN 40 OF 1973 FILED AT
THE ( SOUT
( SOUTH ) SEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS
IN BPG
V
2. )LOT A IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED A
0000 SEPERATE BUILDING LOT BUT TO BE
1 ) COMBINED WITH LOT IA .
LOCUS MAP Ir I 3. )LOT B IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED A
SEPERATE IN
Noll COMBINED WITH 2B1 . BUT TO BE
APPROX. LOC . 15" CULVERT J°r� vOn
SEE REF' D PLAN IN NOTE I .
LO APPROVAL UNDER SUBDIVISION
0,1N69g\ N Qo °'�22 � or m CONTROL LAW NOT REQUIRED
e �e cr N65 -I960ON tP SALEM PLANNING BOARD
0
O" L O T 2B
I Q r
_ 0, . m 0
LOT 3 _ N S54o8549-50"E 0 0
r3- .�
_ +i 674'7 — 1 9io
r- POOL S - LOT A Cr
g9.97 O,.W ,+_ 0'
O Gi N54°_54-5 p �L
0 Or
O
O W Q,
N � � w " 2
Q Q Q ~-� %
_� `m G
.i 46
00 " N,
U)
to LJ LOT B '6;- LOT IA
101.29' S 44°-36'- 34" E
GREENWAY c 40. 00' WIDE ) ROAD
LOT NO. AREA
SUBDIVISION PLAN OF LAND
IA 4725 SF LOCATED IN
2B 1 2562 SF SALEM , MASS.
For Registry Use Only A 520 SF PREPARED FOR
B 259 SF WILLIAM KATSAPETSES
SCALE : I " = 20' OCT. 15, 1985
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THIS PLAN CONFORMS TO THE
s ,
RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE REGISTERS OF DEEDS PREPARED BY
OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS . �� � EASTERN LAND SURVEY ASSOCIATES , INC.
CHRISTOPHER R. MELLO P. L.S.
v� 7��lr,�ca 40 LOWELL STREET PEABODY, MASS.
STEPHEN T. LaMONICA S. I .T.
0 10 20 40 60 80 6077
JOHN F & ANNE
VON WEISS
FOR REGISTRY USE ONLY
THOMAS A . & BARBARA L . o
0
ST PIERRE 0-
LOT 2
5,060 SO FT.
� � y
o
v o 2
N $ O
N_ m
'72-
9 �[ ✓ o o o
G� ND pd04-
LOT 3 LOT 1 bP�1 ( �� o N p
N
�' 5,000 SO FT.'- �_.—� iu✓
rn
1 " OP��� L �' r✓G J THIS PLAN COMPILED FROM FOLLOWING PLANS
` � - - - - - - — - - �HJG�C' �[Y,(� - : SEG/G'E' ��-e✓Gry
N
BK : 2846 PAGE 532
91.23 ' 101 28 ' BK 3530 PAGE 600
—__ - - _ - _
_--- - - - - _= --- -_= BK 3590 PAGE 428
— -- - 4j 4 WIDE ---- _<i
�, J1 ✓✓h•/�,�, STATE HWY , LAY OUT June 18 1946
IVt -59./0
���1H G' vC 1GJE£ ivv 6jF�� Eft/ G7E0
Citi! -672C
t/✓ 4z �4 /�/✓ l0 X
I hereby certify that this plan conforms to the
rules 8t regulations of the registry of deeds
AREA LOT 2 5,060 ,AREA LOT 1 4,950 �i,
SHOWN ON PLAN FI ED , ESSEX SOUTH ,
BOOK 2846 PAGE 532
BOOK 3530 PAGE 600 James W BOUGIOUKAS R.L.S .t9529 Dote
Lot I is similiar and larger than lot 2
as shown on recorded plans , CHAPTER 380 ACTS OF 1966
BK 3530 PG 600 , May 1929 , Revised � . �•. ,
April It 1934 BK 2846 PG 532 �� "_ '^` I certify that the property lines shown hereon are the
lines of existing ownership a the lines of street and COMPOSITE
See state highway alterations , June 16 1946 , - I '..� ways shown are those of public or private streets or PLAN OF LAND
LOT I APPROXIMATES 5,000 t Z� t ways already established , and that no new lines for
division of existing ownership or for new ways ore shown SALEM , MASS
r-�
OWNED BY
THOMAS N. WILLIAM N . KATSABETSES
SCALE 1" 20 ' James W BOUGIOUKAS R.L.S . 't 9529
0 10 20 40 60 80 BRADFORD ENGINEERING CO.
P.O. Box 1244
HAVERHILL , MASS 01831
Tel. 373 2396