7-17 THOMAS CIRCLE - ZBA 7-17 THOMAS CIRLCE
NONDAS LACONARIS
i
i
'V
V\
I Legal Notice
CITY OF SALEM I
BOARD'APPEAL
745-95955,EXT.381
Will hold a public hearing for all
persons interested in the petition sub-
mitted by Nondas Iagonakis request-
ing Variances to lot width and area
' to allow four(4)new house lots and
a Variance to allow the residential
use in a small portion of the B-2
zone for the property located at 7-17
\� Thomas Circle B2/Rl. Said hearing
to be held Wednesday, August 23,
i 2000 at 6:30 P.M.,One Salem Green,
I 2nd Floor.
Nina Cohen t
Chairman
(6/9,16)
i
f.
. cc: CITY SOLICITOR 9/18/00
CHAIRPERSON,=BDOF APPEALS
U BD. OF_APPEAL3S
SERAFINI, SERAFINI, DARLING & CORRENTI, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
63 FEDERAL STREET
SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970
JOHN R. SERAFINI. SR. TELEPHONE
JOHN R. SERAFINI, JR. 978-744-0212
JOHN E. DARLING
781-58I-2743
JOSEPH C. CORRENTI TELECOPIER .
ROBERT T. FORD
978-741-4683
September 15. 2000
VIA HAND DELIVERY
City Clerk' s Office
City Hall
93 Washington Street
Salem, Massachusetts 01970 n
Re: Lagonakis v. Cohen, et al
L,� rn-
Dear Sir or Madam:
Enclosed for filing please find a Notice of Appeal of a
Decision of the Salem Zoning Board of Appeal and a copy of a
Complaint filed in the Superior ourt Department, Essex County
Division, being Civil Action No. 11-17({
(jser cel���.
h C. Correnti
JCC:dl
Enclosures
NOTICE OF APPEAL
�U
O
OF A DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL FOR THE ` n "
CITY OF SALEM BY WAY
OF A COMPLAINT FILED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
The Plaintiff named in the attached Complaint hereby gives
notice of his Appeal of the Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeal
of the City of Salem entitled "Decision on the Petition of Nondas
Lagonakis Requesting a Variance for the Property Located at 7-17
Thomas Circle B2/R1211 , dated August 23 , 2000 and filed with the
Salem City Clerk on August 31, 2000.
Dated: September 15, 2000
hoe C. "rr nti
51666
ni, Serafini and Darling
eeral Street
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
(978) 744-0212
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Essex, ss. Department of the Superior Court
Civil Action No. :
NONDAS LAGONAKIS, )
Plaintiff,
V. )
NINA COHEN, as she is CHAIRPERSON, and )
RICHARD E. DIONNE, STEPHEN C. BUCZKO, )
STEPHEN HARRIS, JAMES B. HACKER )
and PAUL VALASKATGIS, AS THEY ARE )
MEMBERS OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL )
OF THE CITY OF SALEM, )
Defendants _.
COMPLAINT J'
1. This is an appeal from a Decision b the Board of A n
Y ppeaL�of Y
the City of Salem, Massachusetts (hereinafter the "Boar")
wherein the Board exceeded its authority by denying the
Variance Petition (hereinafter the "Petition") applied for by
Nondas Lagonakis (hereinafter the "Petitioner") with reference
to the property at 7-17 Thomas Circle, Salem, Massachusetts
(hereinafter the "Site") owned by the Petitioner. The
Decision exceeds the authority of the Board in that it is not
factually based, but rather is based on legally untenable
ground, is arbitrary and capricious in a manner contrary to
the Salem Zoning Ordinance (hereinafter the "Ordinance") and
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Parties
2 . The Plaintiff, Nondas Lagonakis, is a natural person with an
address of 9 Bridge Street, Salem, Massachusetts 01970, and is
the owner of the property located at 7-17 Thomas Circle,
Salem, Massachusetts.
3 . The Defendant, Nina Cohen, is a Member of the Salem Zoning
Board of Appeal and resides at 22 Chestnut Street, Salem,
Massachusetts 01970 .
1
4. The Defendant, Richard E. Dionne is a Member of the Salem
Zoning Board of Appeal and resides at 23 Gardner Street,
Salem, Massachusetts 01970.
5. The Defendant, Stephen C. Buczko, is a Member of the Salem
Zoning Board of Appeal and resides at 27 Surrey Road, Salem,
Massachusetts 01970.
6. The Defendant, Stephen R. Harris, is a Member of the Salem
Zoning Board of Appeal and resides at 148 North Street, Salem,
Massachusetts 01970>
7. The Defendant, James B. Hacker, is a Member of the Salem
Zoning Board of Appeal and resides at 4 Mayflower Lane, Salem,
Massachusetts 01970.
8. The Defendant, Paul Valaskatgis, is a Member of the Salem
Zoning Board of Appeal and resides at 24 Gables Circle, Salem,
Massachusetts 01970.
Jurisdiction
9. This Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 17.
Facts
10. On June 28, 2000, the Petitioner filed with the Board a
Petition seeking Variances to allow the creation of four
undersized residential house lots. The Petition lists Nondas
Lagonakis as owner of the Site. A true copy of the Petition
is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" .
11. The Petition which was filed on June 28, 2000 ("Second
Petition") was identical to an earlier Petition ("First
Petition") filed on August 25, 1999 . The First Petition was
withdrawn prior to opening the public hearing on the Second
Petition. The necessity of filing the Second Petition
occurred when over ten months had lapsed from the opening of
the public hearing of the First Petition and, during that
time, two Board of Appeal members had resigned their positions
on the Board. The filing of the Second Petition with the
accompanying requisite public notice was to allow for a full
five member Board to be able to sit and hear the entire public
2
hearing on the Second Petition.
12 . At the opening of the public hearing on the First Petition on
October 20, 1999, the Board requested that the Petitioner
bring its proposed plan for the creation of four new house
lots to the Planning Board, so that issues such as adequacy of
roadways and utilities could be addressed prior to the Board
taking its vote. The Petitioner reluctantly agreed to the
Board' s request and continued the matter for two months so as
to allow time to prepare and file plans with the Planning
Board.
13. The Petitioner requested, by letter dated December 9, 1999, a
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" , that the
Board again continue the hearing until the February, 2000
meeting, as extensive preparations for the Planning Board
filing, as outlined in the letter, were necessary.
14. The Petitioner appeared in public hearings before the Planning
Board on April 6, 2000, April 24, 2000, May 4 , 2000 and May
18, 2000, at which time a Decision was rendered granting the
relief necessary to create the four residential lots.
15. The Planning Board voted eight in favor, none opposed (8-0) to
unanimously grant the Petitioner's request, subject to the
nine conditions listed in the four page Decision, a copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C" .
16. During the four public hearings conducted by the Planning
Board, issues such as utilities, road widening and traffic
safety were addressed and discussed between the Board, the
Petitioner, and the abutters who attended the hearings.
17. The Planning Board's Decision requires the Petitioner to do
extensive work in widening the road, repaving the entire
circle and installing highway guardrails, among other things.
18. Once the Planning Board Decision was filed with the City Clerk
on June 15, 2000, the Petitioner prepared to return to the
Board of Appeal to complete the public hearing,- which had been
repeatedly continued.
19 . Upon learning that at least one Board member who had sat
during the opening of the hearing had since resigned from the
Board, the Petitioner filed the Second Petition, so as to open
3
a new public hearing with a full five member Board.
20. On August 23 , 2000, the Petitioner withdrew the First
Petition, and then immediately opened the public hearing for
the Second Petition. After the Petitioner's presentation and
hearing, the Board voted three in favor, two opposed (3-2) to
grant the Variances requested. Thus, failing to garner the
necessary four votes, the Variances were denied.
21. On August 31, 2000, the Board filed its Decision dated August
23 , 2000 with the Salem City Clerk, a certified copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit "D" .
22 . The Petitioner is the owner of the Site and is a person
aggrieved by the Decision of the Board.
The Decision of the Board exceeds its authority, is arbitrary
and capricious, based on legally untenable grounds, and made in bad
faith in that:
a. The Board's vote fails to cite any reasons supporting its
denial of the Variances' requested.
b. The Board failed to make the requisite findings of fact
that the Variances failed to meet the statutory
requirements of M.G.L. c. 40A.
C. The Board members who voted in opposition to the granting
of the Variances were sitting members on the First
Petition who voted, on October 20, 1999, to send the
Petitioner to the Planning Board for permitting prior to
the Board of Appeal rendering its Decision.
d. The Petitioner, after spending thousands of dollars in
engineering, surveying and legal fees in preparing the
Planning Board filing and attending four Planning Board
hearings over several months ' time, returned to the Board
of Appeal, as requested, with a unanimous Planning Board
Decision, only to have the requested Variances summarily
denied in a hearing that lasted not more than one hour,
without any findings of fact made by the two dissenting
members in support of their denial.
e. The Petitioner presented evidence at the hearing
demonstrating the special conditions affecting his land
and how literal enforcement of the Ordinance would create
a substantial hardship. Additionally, the Petitioner
demonstrated that the desired relief, i.e. , the creation
4
of four single-family house lots, would fit in with the
neighborhood without causing detriment to the public
good.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that:
1. The Decision of the Board be annulled.
2. That he be awarded his costs.
3 . The Court grant such other relief as is just and
equitable.
PLAINTIFF,
Nondas Lagonakis
By his Attorney,
Dated: September 15, 2000
)eerafini,
C. Correnti
551666
Serafini, Darling
orrenti, LLP
63 Federal Street
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
(978) 744-0212
5
,�� IXHIBIT
t
SERAFINI, SERAFINI, DARLING & CORRENTI, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
63 FEDERAL STREET
SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970
JOHN R. SERAF.M. 5R.
JOHN R. SERAFINI. JR, TELEPHONE
JOHN E. DARLING 976-744-0212
JOSEPH C. CORRENTI 761-561-2743
December 9, 1999 TELECOPIER
976-741-4663
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Nina Cohen, Chairperson
Zoning Board of Appeal r
One Salem Green, 2nd Floor
Salem, Massachusetts 01970 r c
m r
V:CI C'7 O
I
Re: Petition of Nondas Lagonakis S5'—' -0
7-17 Thomas Circle m m Q O
31� m
Dear Ms. Cohen:
D
As you know, when the Petitibner, Nondas Lagonakis, appeared
before this Board in October and presented his case for the
necessary zoning relief to create four lots, the Board requested
that, prior to rendering its decision, the Petitioner file with the
Planning Board and undergo subdivision review and approval.
The Board indicated at that time that, while it did not
necessarily have a problem with the four lots proposed, there were
questions raised by neighbors which could be more fully addressed
at the Planning Board. The Petitioner agreed to the Board's
request, and continued the matter before the Board for two months,
which would allow time to prepare and file with the Planning Board.
Since we last appeared before you in October, the Petitioner
has had to undertake the following tasks in order to prepare and
receive approval for its plan for the four lot subdivision filing
with the Planning Board:
1. To clear the lots of small trees, excess brush and scrub,
so as to be able to allow for an accurate survey of the
land;
2 . To retain a surveyor to conduct a complete survey of
Thomas Circle;
3 . To retain a surveyor to conduct a topographical survey of
the four lots;
Nina Cohen, Chairperson
Zoning Board of Appeal
December 9, 1999
Page Two
4 . To retain a surveyor to conduct an existing and proposed
property line survey which would meet Land Court
requirements, as the proposed site is registered land;
5. To arrange and attend meetings with the Land Court
engineer's office in Boston;
6. To retain a civil engineer to design the sewer and water
line service for the four lots;
7 . To arrange for a drill rig to be brought on -site to
determine depth of ledge for utility and foundation
locations;
S. To conduct several meetings between the City Engineer and
the Project Engineer, so as to be able to prepare
definitive subdivision plans;
9. To finalize a full set of plans and drawings for the four
lot subdivision to be filed with the Planning Board;
10. To prepare an environmental impact statement, as required
under the Subdivision Regulations, to be filed with the
Planning Board;
11. To file and attend two to three meetings with the
Planning Board for subdivision approval with both the
Attorney and Project Engineer; and
12. To receive subdivision approval for four lots, while
having the plans prepared to Land Court standards for
registering the new lots.
Once the four lots are approved, we would then need to come
back to the Board of Appeal on our Petition, seeking the
appropriate relief to allow the creation of these four lots.
As you can imagine, to complete the above listed work in order
to obtain full subdivision approval requires considerable time and
expense.
Nina Cohen, Chairperson
Zoning Board of Appeal
December 9, 1999
Page Three
Therefore, the Petitioner respectfully requests an additional
extension of time from the Board of Appeal to the regularly
scheduled meeting in February of 2000, so as to be able to first
complete the Planning Board process, as requested.
Very truly yours,
Nondas Lagonakis, Petitioner
By is Attorr��
o y,,
(ep C. Correnti
JCC:dl
cc: Mr. Nondas Lagonakis
Patrick Reffett, City Planner
t �
EXHIBIT
,N�ONOIT -
4 �R of Tatem, a�gacYju�ett5 �����
t a Planning 38oarb
ene .1baletn Oreen
Decision
May 18, 2000
Nondas Lagonakis
c/o Atty. Joseph Correnti — — _
Serafini, Serafini, Darling, and Correnti
63 Federal Street
Salem, MA 01970
RE: Decision for Thomas Circle—Waiver From Frontage
Dear Arty. Correnti:
A Public Hearing on this petition was opened on April 6, 2000 and continued to April 24, 2000
May 4, 2000, and May 18, 2000. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board held
on May 18, 2000,with the following Board members present: Walter B. Power III, Bill Luster,
John Moustakis, Lee Harrington, David Weiner, Bill Cullen, Gene Collins, and Chuck Puleo
Notice of this meeting was sent to abutters and notice of the hearing was properly published in
the Salem Evening News.
The petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a waiver from frontage requirements from the
Subdivision Regulations and under MGL Chapter 41, Section 8IT, to allow the property located
at 7-17 Thomas Circle to be subdivided into four lots. This section states that "A Planning Board
may in any particular case, where such action is in the public interest and not inconsistent with
the intent and purpose of the subdivision control law, waive strict compliance with its rules and
regulations, and with frontage or access requirements specified in the law...."
The waiver from frontage is being granted for the property located at 7-17 Thomas Circle upon
the findings by the Board that:
I. Special circumstances exist which especially affect the land and structures involved and
which are not generally affecting other land and structures involved;
One Salem Green, Salem, Massachusetts 01970 (978) 745-9595 ext. 311 Fax (978) 740-0404
Thomas Circle
May 18, 2000 - 2
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Regulations would involve substantial hardship,
financial or otherwise, to the petitioner;
3. Petitioner shall comply with all conditions of the Board of Appeals Decision: and
Therefore, the Planning Board voted by a vote of eight(8) in favor, none (0) opposed, to grant
the waiver from frontage requirements for 7-17 Thomas Circle, subject to the following
conditions:
1.
Conformance with the Plan
Work shall conform to the set of plans containing sheets 1 through 4, entitled, "Plan of Land
for site located at 7-17 Thomas Circle, Salem, Massachusetts", prepared by Patrowicz Land
Development Engineering, 60 Washington Street, Salem, MA, dated February 7, 2000, and
revised March 10, 2000, April 5, 2000 and June 15, 2000.
2. Utilities
a. The water line proposed to be constructed in Thomas Circle, which was proposed to end
at Lot#3 shall be extended, beyond Lot#4, to the property line of the parcel located at 3
Thomas Circle. Such extension is for the benefit of the abutting owner of 3 Thomas Circle.
The cost of extending the water line from the property line of Lot#3 to the property line of 3
Thomas Circle shall be born equally by both the developer and the owner of 3 Thomas
Circle. The cost of the extension shall be based on the RH Means Cost Estimator. Should
the owner of 3 Thomas Circle decide not to participate financially in such water line
extension as described above, then the applicant is not obliged to conduct such work.
b. The sewer easement located to the rear of the lots shall be extended to the eastern most
property line of Lot#4 for the benefit of the owner of 3 Thomas Circle. The developer shall
choose the exact location of the easement across its property.
c. Utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 0ti
o
d. All utilities shall be installed underground.
3. Fire Department
The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department. D
M-1—
4. Building Inspector W
The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City of Salem Building Inspector.
5. Thomas Circle
a. Thomas Circle must be overlayed with asphalt in its entirety.
b. The City Electrician shall receive a determination as to whether a street light is required
to be installed on Thomas Circle prior to the issuance of the first building permit. If it is
determined by the City Electrician that a street light is required, the applicant, his successors
Thomas Circle
May 18, 2000 - 3
or assign shall install a street light on Thomas Circle in the location designated by the City
Electrician.
c. Thomas Circle shall be widened so that it is no less than 18 feet in width at the location of
retaining wall A, which is located adjacent to 310 Highland Avenue.
d. A striping plan for Thomas Circle shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
their review and approval prior to the issuance of the first building permit.
e. A detail of the guard rail to be'installed on Thomas Circle shall be provided to the City
Planner prior to the issuance of a street opening permit.
f The applicant shall work in good faith in assisting the City in obtaining an easement for
the portion of land located on 3 Thomas Circle which has.been utilized as roadway.';
However, should an easement not be obtained, the applicant shall proceed with the-plans and
conditions as listed herein.
6. Construction Practices _
All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the following conditions: Y =,
a. No work shall commence before 8:00 AM on weekdays and Saturdays. No work s mll
continue beyond 5:00 PM. There shall be no work conducted on Sundays or holidays.
Inside work of a quite nature may be permitted at other times.
b. All reasonable action shall be taken to minimize the negative effects of construction on
abutters. Advance notice shall be provided to all abutters in writing at least 72 hours prior to
commencement of construction.
c. Drilling and blasting shall be limited to Monday—Friday between 8:00 AM and 5:00
PM. There shall be no drilling or blasting on Saturday, Sundays, or holidays.
d. All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the
Planning Board, and in accordance with any and all rules, regulations, and ordinances of the
City of Salem.
e. The applicant shall conduct street sweeping on Thomas Circle, as deemed necessary by
the City Planner.
f. All construction vehicles left overnight at the site, must be located completely on the site
and not on Thomas Circle.
g. The applicant shall provide a plan to the City Planner for his approval which illustrates
how Thomas Circle will be open to the public for safe travel at all times. The plan must be
provided prior to the issuance of a street opening permit.
Thomas Circle
May 18, 2000 -4
7. As-built Plans
As-built plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer or Land Surveyor, shall be
submitted to the Planning Department and Engineering Department.
8. Clerk of the Works
The City's Clerk of the Works shall be on site during construction, as deemed necessary by
the City Planner. The cost for this service shall be borne by the applicant, his successors or
assigns.
9. Violations
Violation of any condition contained within this decision may result in revocation of this
permit by the Planning Board.
This endorsement shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing certification of the
City Clerk that twenty (20) days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed or that is such appeal
has been filed, and it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in the Essex South Registry of
Deeds and is indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded on the owner's
Certificate of Title. The fee for recording or registering shall be paid by the owner or applicant.
I hereby certify that a copy of this decision and plans are on file with the City Clerk and a copy is
on file with the Planning Board.
Walter B. Power, III
Chairman
ti
r -
w —
�A TRUE COPY ATTEST
C6 11 `�
SALEM, ?BASS.
i
(city of �2)atern,At jSoarb of aggac�jugPttg
ap�eat
-
x -
nDu
=1
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NONDAS LAGONAKIS REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7-17 THOMAS CIRCLE B2/R12
A hearing on this petition was held on August 23, 2000, with the following Board
Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Buczko, Stephen Harris, James
Hacker and.Richard Dionne. 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 requesting Variances to lot width and area.to allow four (4) new house lots
and a Variance to allow the residential use in a small portion of the B-2 zone for the
property located at 7-17 Thomas Circle.
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 represented by Joseph C. Correnti, Esq. seeks a variance to allow the
property at 7-17 Thomas Circle to be developed into four single family homes. The
proposed lots lack sufficient frontage on Thomas Circle, and they do not meet the
required 15,000 s.f. in area. Additionally, since the property is bisected residential
use on lots which contain land in a B-2 zone.
2. At the Zoning Board's request, petitioner sought approval of the subdivision plan
from the Planning Board. Following a lengthily series of public meetings, such
approval was granted unanimously on June 20, 2000. Planning Board requirements
included installation of water and sewer service to the new development and
improvements to the roadway to facilitate passage of existing and proposed traffic.
The findings and decision of the Salem Planning Board with respect to this property
are adopted and incorporated by reference herein.
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NONDAS LAGONAKIS REQUESTING A VARIANCE
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7-17 THOMAS CIRCLE
page two
3. Each of the proposed lots would have an area of greater than 11,500 s.f. None of the
proposed units would require dimensional variances, and all would provide adequate
off-street parking for the single-family homes proposed.
4. Several neighbors opposed the granting of the requested variances on the grounds
that traffic on Thomas Circle would be increased. The proposed development was
also criticized because it might lower property values. Letters in opposition were
received from John Adamo, 318 Highland Avenue, David Zizza, 310 Highland
Avenue, Richard Williams, 3 Thomas Circle, and statements in opposition were given
by Susan Howland, 3 Thomas Circle and Mr. Deschamps of Crosby Street.
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. 1
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 3 in favor and 2 in opposition to grant the
requested variances. Having failed to gamer the four affirmative votes required to pass,
the motion is defeated and the petition is denied.
VARIANCE DENIED
August 23, 2000
Nina Cohen, Chairman
Board of Appeal
G
U r. .
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NONDAS LAGONAKIS REQUESTING A VARIANCE
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7-17 THOMAS CIRCLE B2/R1
page three
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 t
GL
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
0
G
C _
CJ
TI.�.
O M,
N T-
00
A TAUS COPY ATTEST
CITY CLEH
SALEM, MASS.
Citp of *aiem, Anzarbuottg
�3oarb of appeal
AUGUST 31, 2000
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT AS OF AUGUST 31, 2000 THE DECISION
OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY
CLERK TO DENY THE VARIANCES REQUESTED OF NONDAS LAGONAKIS
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7-17 THOMAS CIRCLE B-2/R-1
PETITION DENIED
AUGUST 23, 2000
BOAR OF APPEAL
SALLY C. MURTAGH
CLERK OF THE BOARD
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 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/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 elapsed 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 the
record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of title.
Board of Appeal
Citp of %alem, f am6arbue e w
SIM=
[6 J U4 31
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF NONDAS LAGONAKIS REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7-17 THOMAS CIRCLE B2/R12
A hearing on this petition was held on August 23, 2000, with the following Board
Members present: Nina Cohen, Chairman, Stephen Buczko, Stephen Harris, James
Hacker and Richard Dionne. 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 requesting Variances to lot width and area to allow four (4) new house lots
and a Variance to allow the residential use in a small portion of the B-2 zone for the
property located at 7-17 Thomas Circle.
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 represented by Joseph C. Correnti, Esq. seeks a variance to allow the
property at 7-17 Thomas Circle to be developed into four single family homes. The
proposed lots lack sufficient frontage on Thomas Circle, and they do not meet the
required 15,000 s.f. in area. Additionally, since the property is bisected residential
use on lots which contain land in a B-2 zone.
2. At the Zoning Board's request, petitioner sought approval of the subdivision plan
from the Planning Board. Following a lengthily series of public meetings, such
approval was granted unanimously on June 20, 2000. Planning Board requirements
included installation of water and sewer service to the new development and
improvements to the roadway to facilitate passage of existing and proposed traffic.
The findings and decision of the Salem Planning Board with respect to this property
are adopted and incorporated by reference herein.
4
6
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NONDAS LAGONAKIS REQUESTING A VARIANCE
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7-17 THOMAS CIRCLE
pagetwo
3. Each of the proposed lots would have an area of greater than 11,500 s.f. None of the
proposed units would require dimensional variances, and all would provide adequate
off-street parking for the single-family homes proposed.
4. Several neighbors opposed the granting of the requested variances on the grounds
that traffic on Thomas Circle would be increased. The proposed development was
also criticized because it might lower property values. Letters in opposition were
received from John Adamo, 318 Highland Avenue, David Zizza, 310 Highland
Avenue, Richard Williams, 3 Thomas Circle, and statements in opposition were given
by Susan Howland, 3 Thomas Circle and Mr. Deschamps of Crosby Street.
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 3 in favor and 2 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
August 23, 2000
Nina Cohen, Chairman
Board of Appeal
C^J
Q
v^
.y. V
Y. C:.
Y
N
cc
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NONDAS LAGONAKIS REQUESTING A VARIANCE
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7-17 THOMAS CIRCLE B2/R1
page three
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
t'-
I,Q D>
August 20, 2000
To the Board of Appeal:
My name is David Zizza. I live at 310 Highland Avenue.
However, the only access to my home is via Thomas Circle.
Thomas Circle is a quiet little neighborhood, and would really like
to keep it that way. I thought that the reason for zoning
requirements was to cut down on housing congestion. I am really
concerned about how the increase of traffic will impact our
neighborhood. This would create a major safety issue for all, and
the City will be responsible if anything went wrong. After all, the
entrance to Thomas Circle is not road code regulated. I feel the
residents of Thomas Circle should not have to suffer because of
one man's business needs. I strongly feel that this project will
cause severe headaches for contractors, the City, and the residents.
Please take our issues seriously.
Respectfully submitted,
David Zizza
JAMES J ADAMO
21 THOMAS CIRCLE
SALEM, MA 01970
--------------- . __-____._ -________ _________ ._-_-----
August 16, 2000
City of Salem
Board of Appeal
One Salem Green
Salem MA 01970
Ms.Nina Cohen,Chairperson
Dear Ms. Cohen and members of the Board,
As I am unable to attend this meeting in person, please accept this letter as my opposition to the Plan to be
presented to the Board of Appeal at the August 23,2000 meeting regarding the property at 7- 17 Thomas
Circle.
There is not enough area for the construction of four additional homes in Thomas Circle. Thomas Circle is a
very small area and this project in its current plan is unacceptable. The increase in traffic on such a narrow
road would create a very hazardous situation. Even though road improvements have been proposed in the
past, there is no way that the road can be widened enough at the curve coming up from Highland Avenue
as there is a ledge cliff on one side and a shear drop on the other side.
I don't understand how four homes could even be considered with the amount of frontage that is available.
When my home was constructed in 1990, 1 was made to adhere to the one hundred foot frontage rule. If
this role was enforced in this case,there would only be room for two homes.
Sincerely, ^
James J. Adamo
8/20/00
Dear Board Members,
This is in regard to Mr. Nondas Lagonakis's request to put an extra house on his property.
I hope your board sees this as the "for profit"proposal that it is and deny his request.
Mr. Lagonakis's family, (Mrs. Valerie Geronis)recently came before your board to deny
my request to simply enlarge one room by 7 foot. Her husband stated that it would
decrease the value of their home. Under that line of thought, a complete extra house
squeezed onto a building lot would certainly decrease the property values of that
neighborhood.
Mr. Lagonakis's daughter, Valerie Geronis may come before your board to try to show
need in stating the homes would be for his daughters. However in the August 4`h's Salem
News Real Estate page, the article states that she is selling her home in North Salem
because, "a career move has meant the family must relocate", I believe, to Greece.
I hope your board will be fair and consistent in your decisions and recognize this as a
"profit-making"plan and not a"necessity of need" for his family.
Thank You,
Victoria Papalard
To: Board of Appeals
From: Susan Howland
3 Thomas Circle
Salem, MA 01970
RE: Lagonakis Petition
Date: August 23, 2000
Starting at the Appeals Board meeting last October 20, 1999, and continuing at
the long and drawn out Planning Board process, from April 6, through May 18,
2000, 1 have expressed my opposition to the proposed 4-lot subdivision on
Thomas Circle. I have voiced my concern for the safety of those living on
Thomas Circle, with the increase of 4 homes, without addressing the roadway.
After the May 4th meeting, per the suggestion of the Planning Board, I took the
initiative and arranged for a meeting with Mr. Correnti. Mr. Petrowicz also
attended. At this meeting we discussed a small section of my property on the
southeast corner that has been used as roadway for Thomas Circle. My father,
Richard Williams intentionally used this piece of land, when he graded the road
over 30 years ago. At the time, there were only 3 homes and 3 cars that
accessed Thomas Circle. Currently, there are 5 homes and 11 cars. With an
addition of 4 more homes, potentially there could be approximately 20 cars that
would need access and egress to and from Thomas Circle.
At this meeting, we discussed our concerns, as well as the possible granting of
an easement to our corner section of our property. In exchange, we had asked
that a paper sewer easement be extended through the proposed Lot #4 to the
edge of our property line. Additionally, we had asked for the water line to be
extended to the end of the proposed project, as previously stated by Mr.
Bornstein in a letter to the Appeals Board, dated 10/20/99. In this letter he
stated,
"I have been asked to review and comment on the above referenced
project. The project would create four new house lots and improve the
Thomas Circle roadway.
The water line would be extended to the end of the proposed project and
there would be a hydrant at the Lot 4 property line."
We were not asking for more than Mr. Bornstein had already recommended for
this project. On behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Correnti offered a sum of$3600.00,
rather than extending the water line. According to Mr. Correnti, this amount was
calculated at the standard or normal installation rate of$60.00 per foot. The
linear footage is 60 feet. We contacted a contractor and got a verbal estimate for
ledge installation of$200-300 per foot. When I informed Mr. Correnti of the cost
discrepancy, he eventually came back with a final offer of$5000.00 from his
client, rather than extending the water line. We have never asked for money, just
for the water line to go where Mr. Bornstein said it should go.
Though we expressed our lack of support for this proposed project, on May 181h
the Planning Board conditioned its approval, and felt a compromise for the
installation of the water line would be appropriate. This condition was made after
the public meeting was closed. The following is a direct quote from the Planning
Board Decision, dated May 18th, and stamped at the City Clerk's Office on June
15th "The water line proposed to be constructed in Thomas Circle, which was
proposed to end at Lot#3 shall be extended, beyond Lot#4, to the property line
of the parcel located at 3 (it should state 5) Thomas Circle. Such extension is for
the benefit of the abutting owner of 3 Thomas Circle. The cost of extending the
water line from the property line of Lot#3 to the property line of 3(again 5)
Thomas Circle shall be born equally by both the developer and the owner of 3
Thomas Circle. The cost of the extension shall be based on the RH Means Cost
Estimator. Should the owner of 3 Thomas Circle decide not to participate
financially in such water line extension as described above, then the applicant is
not obliged to conduct such work."
Mr. Correnti had not contacted me in over 3 months, until he left a message on
August 21St. I returned his call on the 22nd. However, the plans for the Petitioner
(dated June 15th) show a "proposed access easement" on my property. We
never came to an agreement to grant this easement.
From the minutes of the Planning Board meeting on May 18th, 'Mr. petrowicz
explained that they propose to widen the road 20 feet, with the exception of one
section that they could only get 14 feet. He also noted that if they move the
boulders at the neck of the road, and put in a guard rail they would gain
additional 1 % -2 feet in that area."
Without my piece of property, the road can only be widened to 14-16 feet
maximum at that point. With a guardrail, the road will likely remain approximately
14 feet, as the guardrail will take up space and needs to be securely fastened
into the ledge on the Highland Avenue side. This width at this point is not
acceptable, with the increase of 4 homes to Thomas Circle. Safety is our main
concern. However, it is not our responsibility to solve this problem. Mr.
Lagonakis is looking for variances for lot width and area, and we are looking to
protect our future and ourselves. We do not feel that we should give up a piece
of our property in exchange for a water line run to our lot line where it should be
placed anyway. The subdivision control laws, as well as Mr. Bornstein, mandate
that the petitioner extends the water line to the end of the proposed project.
I respectfully ask that you reject the request for a variance for lot frontage and
area on this 4-lot subdivision. If approval is granted, I would like a specific plan of
how the water and sewer lines and the Thomas Circle roadway can be
completed without infringing on my property line.
Thank you for your time. This has been an arduous and time-consuming
experience, spanning almost one year. Please consider the impact that approval
2 of tof t is project would have on our neighborhood.
a ow��Cl��CGl�C
To: Board of Appeals
From: Richard A. Williams
3 Thomas Circle
Salem,MA 01970
RE: Lagonakis Thomas Circle Subdivision
Date: August 23, 2000
I am writing this letter in opposition of the proposed 4-lot subdivision variance requests.
On April 6, 2000,the petitioner and several concerned owners/residents of Thomas Circle
appeared before the Planning Board to discuss this proposed 4-lot subdivision. The
residents each made written and verbal statements in opposition of this proposed
subdivision, as it was presented. My biggest problem with this proposed plan of land is
the fact that it does not come close to meeting our Zoning Ordinance Standards for R-1
Zoning. It lacks 40% or 150+/- lineal feet of lot frontage requirements and 25%or
13,000 +/- square feet of lot area for four lots. The total lot frontage is 247+/- linear feet
and the total lot area is approximately 47,000 +/- square feet. This land area now exists
in a five-lot division, from Land Court Plan 11802. According to Article IV., Section
4.4 "No yard or lot existing at this time of passage of this ordinance shall be reduced in
dimension or area below the minimum requirements set forth herein. Yards or lots
created after the effective date of this ordinance (1965) shall meet at least the minimum
requirements established by this ordinance."
The petitioner went to the Planning Board meeting, per Appeals Board request, with a
Plan of Land prepared to Land Court requirements and Mr. Correnti basically spoke to a
waiver from R-1 frontage requirements. In reading over Article 2.2 in the Zoning
Ordinance book of the City of Salem, there is no reference to the word"waiver."It is my
opinion that the Appeals Board requested clarification and more information in good faith
from the Planning Board. I thought that the results of the Planning Board meetings
would help achieve this end. Instead,I listened to some members of the Planning Board
negotiate the Sub-division regulations of the City into a biased finding for the Petitioner.
I feel I must also make note of the lack of professionalism shown by some of the
Planning Board members over the course of several meetings. The derogatory statements
and attitudes toward the Appeals Board were totally unnecessary and unacceptable.
When I began reading my statement into the record, some of the Board Members
interrupted me and did not give me the courtesy of listening to the text of my statement. I
don't think that my concerns were listened to in a positive atmosphere.
The up-dated Plan of Land, dated 6/15/00, is being submitted under a Form"A", which
does not require public hearing. However,there have been public hearings with the
Planning Board on April 6, April 24,May 4, and May 18, 2000. Since the original
meeting on April 6 was an advertised published meeting,the process has already gone
beyond the Form"A." Because the process has already gone beyond the Form"A", we
should be entitled to more notified public hearings under Form `B"or Form "C." If we
do not have input to the Definitive Plan,then we, as direct abutters, are being shut out of
this process.
The possible granting of this request should be conditioned upon the opportunity for the
residents of Thomas Circle to continue to participate in the preliminary/definitive
planning process. Without this, we will lose our voice as residents in the City of Salem.
It should also be conditioned on the submission by the Petitioner to submit specific
infrastructure plans and surety bonds to guarantee completion of the infrastructure and
sub-pavement before building permits are allowed.
It is also important to note that this variance request potentially could set a precedent for
the 160 acre DiBiase property which is currently under City Council and Planning Board
consideration, regarding lot frontage and area.
In Article 2.2, "Variance" is defined as: "A relaxation of the terms of this ordinance
where such relaxation will not be contrary to the public interest and where, owing to the
conditions peculiar to the property and not the result of the actions of the applicant,a
literal enforcement of this ordinance would result in unnecessary and undue hardship."
In the case of this particular variance request, it is "contrary to the public interest,"in that
all abutters have voiced negative concerns, either at Planning Board or Appeals Board
meetings. The request for the variances is the result of the actions of the applicant, by not
abiding with City Zoning Ordinances and subdivision regulations.
I respectfully ask this Appeals Board to reject the Variance requests asked for in this 4-lot
subdivision plan, and invite the petitioner to submit a subdivision plan that is more in line
with our R-1 Zoning Ordinances. If limited to 3 buildable lots, this new proposed plan
would bring the Petitioner's available lot area and lot frontage into reasonable
conformance with applicable Zoning Ordinances/density requirements and compatibility
with existing properties on Thomas Circle.
Thank you for yourattention and for letting my voice be heard in my absence.
Richard A. Williams
I
J
Citp of balem, 41atzarbuott5
n µ
r o Manning 39oarb
e
(One baCem green
June 20, 2000
Nina Cohen, Chairperson
Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 7-17 Thomas Circle - Proposed Division of Land
Dear Ms. Cohen:
The Planning Board understands that the Zoning Board of Appeals opened a public hearing
pertaining to a request for variances to frontage and lot size for four lots proposed to be located at
7-17 Thomas Circle. In the proceedings of the public hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeals
required the applicant to apply with the Planning Board so that the Planning Board could address
development issues, such as access and utilities.
The Planning Board opened a public hearing for a Waiver from Frontage request, which is the
application required for the proposed development, on April 6, 2000. The Planning Board
reviewed the project over four meetings and discussed access issues and the safety of the existing
Thomas Circle in conjunction with the addition of four lots. Through the review process, the
Board required the applicant to widen Thomas Circle to approximately 16 to 20 feet in all areas,
in addition to overlaying the roadway in its entirety. The Board has determined that the work
required to be completed by the developer through the Board's decision (the decision has been
attached for your information) will ensure that the roadway will provide safe access for those lots
currently located on Thomas Circle and those lots proposed for construction. The Board
unanimously approved the Waiver from Frontage.
Please contact me at the Salem Planning Department at(978) 745-9595, extension 311 if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
_ _
Denise Sullivan
Assistant City Planner
One Salem Green, Salem, Massachusetts 01970 (978) 745-9595 ext. 311 Fax (978) 740-0404
Citp of harem, Aammrbuoettz
Planning 38oarb
One *alem Oreen
Decision
=a
U
May 18, 2000 r
D r
Nondas Lagonakis "==
n•
c/o Atty. Joseph Correnti
w ='
Serafini, Serafini,Darling, and Correnti �-
63 Federal Street
Salem, MA 01970
RE: Decision for Thomas Circle—Waiver From Frontage
Dear Atty. Correnti:
A Public Hearing on this petition was opened on April 6, 2000 and continued to April 24,2000
May 4, 2000, and May 18, 2000. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board held
on May 18, 2000, with the following Board members present: Walter B. Power III, Bill Luster,
John Moustakis, Lee Harrington, David Weiner, Bill Cullen, Gene Collins, and Chuck Puleo
Notice of this meeting was sent to abutters and notice of the hearing was properly published in
the Salem Evening News.
The petitioner, owner of the property, is requesting a waiver from frontage requirements from the
Subdivision Regulations and under MGL Chapter 41, Section 81R, to allow the property located
at 7-17 Thomas Circle to be subdivided into four lots. This section states that"A Planning Board
may in any particular case,where such action is in the public interest and not inconsistent with
the intent and purpose of the subdivision control law, waive strict compliance with its rules and
regulations, and with frontage or access requirements specified in the law...."
The waiver from frontage is being granted for the property located at 7-17 Thomas Circle upon
the findings by the Board that:
1. Special circumstances exist which especially affect the land and structures involved and
which are not generally affecting other land and structures involved;
One Salem Green, Salem, Massachusetts 01970 (978) 745-9595 ext.311 Fax (978) 740-0404
Thomas Circle
May 18, 2000 -2
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Regulations would involve substantial hardship,
financial or otherwise, to the petitioner;
3. Petitioner shall comply with all conditions of the Board of Appeals Decision: and
Therefore, the Planning Board voted by a vote of eight (8) in favor, none(0) opposed,to grant
the waiver from frontage requirements for 7-17 Thomas Circle, subject to,the following
conditions:
1. Conformance with the Plan
Work shall conform to the set of plans containing sheets 1 through 4, entitled, "Plan of Land
for site located at 7-17 Thomas Circle, Salem,Massachusetts",prepared by Patrowicz Land
Development Engineering, 60 Washington Street, Salem, MA, dated February 7, 2000, and
revised March 10, 2000, April 5, 2000 and June 15, 2000.
2. Utilities
a. The water line proposed to be constructed in Thomas Circle,which was proposed to end
at Lot#3 shall be extended, beyond Lot#4,to the property line of the parcel located at 3
Thomas Circle. Such extension is for the benefit of the abutting owner of 3 Thomas Circle.
The cost of extending the water line from the property line of Lot#3 to the property line of 3
Thomas Circle shall be born equally by both the developer and the owner of 3 Thomas
Circle. The cost of the extension shall be based on the RH Means Cost Estimator. Should
the owner of 3 Thomas Circle decide not to participate financially in such water line
extension as described above,then the applicant is not obliged to conduct such work.
b. The sewer easement located to the rear of the lots shall be extended to the eastern most
property line of Lot#4 for the benefit of the owner of 3 Thomas Circle. The developer shall
choose the exact location of the easement across its property.
c. Utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. o -
I -
rn _
d. All utilities shall be installed underground. z ;c
U/T
3. Fire Department D �n
The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department. — cs
M—
W D
4. Building Inspector a
The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City of Salem Building Inspector.
5. Thomas Circle
a. Thomas Circle must be overlayed with asphalt in its entirety.
b. The City Electrician shall receive a determination as to whether a street light is required
to be installed on Thomas Circle prior to the issuance of the first building permit. If it is
determined by the City Electrician that a street light is required, the applicant, his successors
Thomas Circle
May 18, 2000 - 3
or assign shall install a street light on Thomas Circle in the location designated by the City
Electrician.
c. Thomas Circle shall be widened so that it is no less than 18 feet in width at the location of
retaining wall A, which is located adjacent to 310 Highland Avenue.
d. A striping plan for Thomas Circle shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
their review and approval prior to the issuance of the first building permit.
e. A detail of the guard rail to be installed on Thomas Circle shall be provided to the City
Planner prior to the issuance of a street opening permit.
f. The applicant shall work in good faith in assisting the City in obtaining an easement for
the portion of land located on 3 Thomas Circle which has been utilized as roadway.
However, should an easement not be obtained, the applicant shall proceed with the I`gns and `=-
conditions as listed herein.
Ln o r
6. Construction Practices
All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the following conditions: D ,
_ D
a. No work shall commence before 8:00 AM on weekdays and Saturdays. No work s`h'all
continue beyond 5:00 PM. There shall be no work conducted on Sundays or holidays.
Inside work of a quite nature may be permitted at other times.
b. All reasonable action shall be taken to minimize the negative effects of construction on
abutters. Advance notice shall be provided to all abutters in writing at least 72 hours prior to
commencement of construction.
c. Drilling and blasting shall be limited to Monday—Friday between 8:00 AM and 5:00
PM. There shall be no drilling or blasting on Saturday, Sundays, or holidays.
d. All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the
Planning Board, and in accordance with any and all rules, regulations, and ordinances of the
City of Salem.
e. The applicant shall conduct street sweeping on Thomas Circle, as deemed necessary by
the City Planner.
f. All construction vehicles left overnight at the site, must be located completely on the site
and not on Thomas Circle.
g. The applicant shall provide a plan to the City Planner for his approval which illustrates
how Thomas Circle will be open to the public for safe travel at all times. The plan must be
provided prior to the issuance of a street opening permit.
Thomas Circle
May 18, 2000 -4
7. As-built Plans
As-built plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer or Land Surveyor, shall be
submitted to the Planning Department and Engineering Department.
8. Clerk of the Works
The City's Clerk of the Works shall be,on site during construction, as deemed necessary by
the City Planner. The cost for this service shall be borne by the applicant,his successors or
assigns.
9. Violations
Violation at on of ancondition contained within
this decision may result in revocation
Y Y of this
permit by the Planning Board.
This endorsement shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing certification of the
City Clerk that twenty (20) days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed or that is such appeal
has been filed, and it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in the Essex South Registry of
Deeds and is indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded on the owner's
Certificate of Title. The fee for recording or registering shall be paid by the owner or applicant.
I hereby certify that a copy of this decision and plans are on file with the City Clerk and a copy is
on file with the Planning Board.
Walter B. Power,III
Chairman
N
0
o -
c_
c
cn c,o c
V�
r
w
n�
o-
Citp of 6alem, Aa5zatbagett _-_ ., MA
38oarb of Zippeal
20GJ ;viG z4 P 1 s
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF NONDAS LAGONAKIS REEQUESTING A
VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7-17 THOMAS CIRCLE B2/R1
A hearing on this petition was held September 15,1999 and continued until August 23,
2000 with the following Board Members were present: Nina Cohen Chairman, Stephen
Buczko, Richard Dionne and Stephen Harris. 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.
At the request of the petitioner's Attorney Joseph Correni, the Salem Board of Appeal
voted 5-0, to grant leave to withdraw this petition without prejudice for Variances to lot
width and area to allow four (4) new house lots and a Variance to allow the residential
use in a small portion of the B-2 zone for the property located at 7-17 Thomas Circle 132-
R-1
GRANTED LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE
August 23, 2000
Nina Cohen, Chairman
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
Massachusetts General Laws 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 Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein
shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk
that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has
been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied 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
C itp of 6alem, Alazzarbuotu;
Planning Jgoarb
®tte Salem green
June 20, 2000
- -Nina Cohen, Chairperson - -
Salem Zoning Board of Appeals
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 7-17 Thomas Circle - Proposed Division of Land
Dear Ms. Cohen:
The Planning Board understands that the Zoning Board of Appeals opened a public hearing
pertaining to a request for variances to frontage and lot size for four lots proposed to be located at
7-17 Thomas Circle. In the proceedings of the public hearing, the Zoning Board of Appeals
required the applicant to apply with the Planning Board so that the Planning Board could address
development issues, such as access and utilities.
The Planning Board opened a public hearing for a Waiver from Frontage request,which is the
application required for the proposed development, on April 6, 2000. The Planning Board
reviewed the project over four meetings and discussed access issues and the safety of the existing
Thomas Circle in conjunction with the addition of four lots. Through the review process, the
Board required the applicant to widen Thomas Circle to approximately 16 to 20 feet in all areas,
in addition to overlaying the roadway in its entirety. The Board has determined that the work
required to be completed by the developer through the Board's decision (the decision has been
attached for your information)will ensure that the roadway will provide safe access for those lots
currently located on Thomas Circle and those lots proposed for construction. The Board
unanimously approved the Waiver from Frontage.
Please contact me at the Salem Planning Department at(978) 745-9595, extension 311 if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
_ _
Denise Sullivan
Assistant City Planner
One Salem Green, Salem, Massachusetts 01970 (978) 745-9595 ext. 311 Fax (978) 740-0404
ti
Citp of 6alem, Aamgarbuattg
Manning 39narb
®ne ,6alem Oreen
Decision
CJ
U I May 18, 2000 c -
Nondas Lagonakis
c/o Atty. Joseph Correnti _ n
Serafini, Serafini,Darling, and Correnti
63 Federal Street
Salem, MA 01970
RE: Decision for Thomas Circle—Waiver From Frontage
Dear Any. Correnti:
A Public Hearing on this petition was opened on April 6,2000 and continued to April 24, 2000
May 4, 2000, and May 18, 2000. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board held
on May 18, 2000,with the following Board members present: Walter B.Power III,Bill Luster,
John Moustakis, Lee Harrington,David Weiner,Bill Cullen, Gene Collins, and Chuck Puleo
Notice of this meeting was sent to abutters and notice of the hearing was properly published in
the Salem Evening News.
The petitioner,owner of the property, is requesting a waiver from frontage requirements from the
Subdivision Regulations and under MGL Chapter 41, Section 81R,to allow the property located
at 7-17 Thomas Circle to be subdivided into four lots. This section states that"A Planning Board
may in any particular case,where such action is in the public interest and not inconsistent with
the intent and purpose of the subdivision control law,waive strict compliance with its rules and
regulations, and with frontage or access requirements specified in the law...."
The waiver from frontage is being granted for the property located at 7-17 Thomas Circle upon
the findings by the Board that:
1. Special circumstances exist which especially affect the land and structures involved and
which are not generally affecting other land and structures involved;
One Salem Green, Salem, Massachusetts 01970 (978) 745-9595 ext.311 Fax (978) 740-0404
Ihomas Circle
May 18, 2000 - 2
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Regulations would involve substantial hardship,
financial or otherwise, to the petitioner;
3. Petitioner shall comply with all conditions of the Board of Appeals Decision: and
Therefore, the Planning Board voted by a vote of eight(8) in favor, none (0)opposed,to grant
the waiver from frontage requirements for 7-17 Thomas Circle, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Conformance with the Plan
Work shall conform to the set of plans containing sheets 1 through 4, entitled, "Plan of Land
for site located at 7-17 Thomas Circle, Salem,Massachusetts",prepared by Patrowicz Land
Development Engineering, 60 Washington Street, Salem,MA, dated February 7, 2000, and
revised March 10, 2000,April 5, 2000 and June 15, 2000.
2. Utilities
a. The water line proposed to be constructed in Thomas Circle, which was proposed to end
at Lot#3 shall be extended,beyond Lot#4,to the property line of the parcel located at 3
Thomas Circle. Such extension is for the benefit of the abutting owner of 3 Thomas Circle.
The cost of extending the water line from the property line of Lot#3 to the property line of 3
Thomas Circle shall be bom equally by both the developer and the owner of 3 Thomas
Circle. The cost of the extension shall be based on the RH Means Cost Estimator- Should
the owner of 3 Thomas Circle decide not to participate financially in such water line
extension as described above,then the applicant is not obliged to conduct such work.
b. The sewer easement located to the rear of the lots shall be extended to the eastern most
property line of Lot#4 for the benefit of the owner of 3 Thomas Circle. The developer shall
choose the exact location of the easement across its property.
c. Utility installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. o
_.
z
d. All utilities shall be installed underground. =c
;n cri
3. Fire Department r, ��—
The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Salem Fire Department. — c�
M r
4. Building Inspector °-
The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City of Salem Building Inspector.
5. Thomas Circle
a. Thomas Circle must be overlayed with asphalt in its entirety.
b. The City Electrician shall receive a determination as to whether a street light is required
to be installed on Thomas Circle prior to the issuance of the first building permit. If it is
' determined by the City Electrician that a street light is required, the applicant, his successors
Thomas Circle
May 18, 2000 -3
' or assign shall install a street light on Thomas Circle in the location designated by the City
Electrician.
c. Thomas Circle shall be widened so that it is no less than 18 feet in width at the location of
retaining wall A,which is located adjacent to 310 Highland Avenue.
d. A striping plan for Thomas Circle shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
their review and approval prior to the issuance of the fust building permit.
e. A detail of the guard rail to be installed on Thomas Circle shall be provided to the City
Planner prior to the issuance of a street opening permit.
f. The applicant shall work in good faith in assisting the City in obtaining an easement for
the portion of land located on 3 Thomas Circle which has been utilized as roadway.
However, should an easement not be obtained, the applicant shall proceed with the pans and '
conditions as listed herein.
rf1 C f"'
6. Construction Practices D =i
All construction shall be carred out in accordance with the following conditions: rn
_
D
a. No work shall commence before 8:00 AM on weekdays and Saturdays. No work&I
continue beyond 5:00 PM. There shall be no work conducted on Sundays or holidays.
Inside work of a quite nature may be permitted at other times.
b. All reasonable action shall be taken to minimize the negative effects of construction on
abutters. Advance notice shall be provided to all abutters in writing at least 72 hours prior to
commencement of construction.
c. Drilling and blasting shall be limited to Monday—Friday between 8:00 AM and 5:00
PM. There shall be no drilling or blasting on Saturday, Sundays, or holidays.
d. All construction shall be carried out in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the
Planning Board, and in accordance with any and all rules,regulations, and ordinances of the
City of Salem.
e. The applicant shall conduct street sweeping on Thomas Circle, as deemed necessary by
the City Planner.
f. All construction vehicles left overnight at the site,must be located completely on the site
and not on Thomas Circle.
g. The applicant shall provide a plan to the City Planner for his approval which illustrates
how Thomas Circle will be open to the public for safe travel at all times. The plan must be
provided prior to the issuance of a street opening permit.
Thomas Circle
May 18, 2000 -4
7. As-built Plans
As-built plans, stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer or Land Surveyor, shall be
submitted to the Planning Department and Engineering Department.
8. Clerk of the Works
The City's Clerk of the Works shall be on site during construction, as deemed necessary by
the City Planner. The cost for this service shall be borne by the applicant,his successors or
assigns.
9. Violations
Violation of any condition contained within this decision may result in revocation of this
permit by the Planning Board.
This endorsement shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing certification of the
City Clerk that twenty (20) days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed or that is such appeal
has been filed, and it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded in the Essex South Registry of
Deeds and is indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded on the owner's
Certificate of Title. The fee for recording or registering shall be paid by the owner or applicant.
I hereby certify that a copy of this decision and plans are on file with the City Clerk and a copy is
on file with the Planning Board.
Walter B. Power,III
Chairman
0
o --
L
w
n�
o-
e Cite of *afem, Bao.5arbuzettz
Mepartment of Public berbiceg
r �
One 6alem green
(978) 745-9595 (ext. 321
STANLEY I.BORNSTEIN,P.E.
City Engineer -lax: (978) 745 5877
Director of Public Services
10-20-99
FROM: Stan Bornstein P.E.
Dir. of Public Services/City Engine
TON Cohen Chairperson
Board of Appeals
RE: Petition for Thomas Circle
I have been asked to review and comment on the above referenced project. The project
would create four new house lots and improve the Thomas Circle roadway. The water
line would be extended to the end of the proposed project and there would be a hydrant at
the Lot 4 property line.
The roadway in front of the proposed project would be widened and improved while
maintaining the approximate present elevation.
The four houses would each be directly connected to the City sewer line at the rear of the
property.
Other than minimal temporary disruption during the construction there would be minimal
impact to the area and minor additional traffic.
The developer is required to work closely with this office during the development of final
plans and construction to assure the proper layout of the roadway and the size and
location of utilities.
In summary this office has reviewed the proposed preliminary plan and finds no
objections.
CC: Mayor
Councilor O'Leary, Peter Strout
October 20
1999
To the Board of Appeal:
My name is David Zizza. I live at 310 Highland Avenue.
However, the only access to my home is via Thomas Circle. I
have lived on Thomas Circle for the past four years. It is a quiet
little neighborhood and I am interested in keeping it that way. I am
against any subdivision due to the increase in traffic that would
ensue. I have a six year old son, and feel it would be a safety
issue.
I also don't think that the inconveniences we will have withstand
such as: blasting, ripped up roads, and the operation of
construction vehicles in and out of the Thomas Circle area are fair
or tolerable. I also feel that the entrance to Thomas Circle can not
accommodate a high traffic area, which the circle would become.
This is an additional safety concern of mine for all of the children
living on Thomas Circle.
I work nights and could not be in attendance at this meeting.
Thank you for letting my voice be heard in my absence.
Respectfully submitted,
David Zizza
310 Highland Avenue
Salem, MA 01970
October 20, 1999
To the Board of Appeal:
My name is Richard Williams. I reside at 3 Thomas Circle, in the home now
owned by my daughter, Susan Howland. I have lived at 3 Thomas Circle for the
past 32 years. I am here to speak on behalf of my family and share with you the
reasons for our opposition to this variance request. The plan as presented
seems to simply define a conceptual idea of intent, surely not enough to make a
reasonable decision on either variance request. Verification for this concept
sketch is shown as using Land Court Plan #11802 for useable information. The
Land Court Plan #11802 contains all the information pertaining to all the actual
lot lines and dimensions. It gives the viewer a good idea as to how much this
concept sketch has altered the placement of lot lines and dimensions. A
question that comes to mind in regard to this information is, "Can this board grant
variances on land that has already been sub-divided, according to Land Plan
#11802?"Article/Y, Sec.4.4 "No yard or lot existing at this time of passage of this ordinance
shall be reduced in dimension or area below the minimum requirements set forth herein. Yards
or lots created after the effective date of this ordinance shall meet at least the minimum
requirements established by this ordinance."
Additionally, the following reasons also support our opposition.
The lot frontage measurements for the original 5 lots seem to total 243.57 feet,
according to Plan # 11802. The indicated lot frontage on the concept sketch
indicates each proposed lot to have 60 +/- feet per lot. According to the City
Assessors Map#8, these original 5 lots (#206, 207, 208, 209, 210) were reduced
by common ownership to conform to the correct zoning ordinance designation,
Lots#20, 21 and 22. This concept sketch seems to indicate the splitting of
these lots to now represent 4 new lots. This runs counter to our existing zoning
ordinances. Article Vl, Sec. 6.1 "A dwelling hereafter erected in any district shall be located on
a lot having not less than the minimum requirements set forth in Table I following section 6.4, and
not more than one(1)dwelling shall be built upon any such lot. No existing lot shall be
changed in size or shape so as to result in a violation of the requirements set forth in
Table I." The last sentence in the aforementioned ordinance clearly states our
concerns on these variance requests.
Section 9-5 "Variances," indicates that (a) substantial detriment to the public
good will take place, and (b) substantial derogation from the intent and purposes
of this ordinance.
We think that it is important to note that Thomas Circle is an undeveloped road.
At this time the road has an approved sewer main in place, approximately 300
feet long. The road contains three private water services. It should be obvious
to all present that an approved water main does not exist. The
placement/construction of a water main for this sub-development constitutes a
great concern for"detriment to the public good." The sewer main will have to be
extended to the sub-development's furthest lot line, approximately 300 feet. The
sewer will have to be extended to the developer's furthest lot line, along with the
installation of a six-inch water main, approximately 600 feet long. The time
necessary to accomplish this road project alone would work a total hardship on
the families that reside on Thomas Circle, not to mention the concern for safety
for the young children that live here. Without a definitive plan for the proposed
development, we think it would be absolutely wrong to consider the variance
requests at this time.
We respectfully suggest and hope that this Board will find in favor of the
residents of Thomas Circle, until more definitive plans and timetables are
submitted, both to this Board and the Planning Board, for consideration of the
proposed variances requested.
Our conceptual sketch would contain 2 spacious lots, each with approximately
23, 500 square feet, each having 125-foot frontage on Thomas Circle, thereby
negating all the variances requested. According to our current Zoning
Ordinances for R-1 districts in the City of Salem, only two lots should be allowed.
Thank you for time, attention, and consideration.
Respectfully submitttted,
I�ch Lard . illi1 �
3 Thomas Circle
Salem, MA 01970
October 18, 1999
2 Thomas Circle
Salem,MA 01970
Nina Cohen,Chair
Board of Appeal
One Salem Green
Salem,MA 01970
Dear Ms. Cohen:
My property is the center of Thomas Circle with the roadway serving as my entire lot line. My property is directly
across the street from all the land owned by Mr.Nondas Lagonakis for which he is requesting a variance to build homes. I
would like to offer in writing a few recommendations to be read into the record. I respectfully request:
• That any new homes built be strictly single family dwellings.
• That sidewalks are not placed around the entire perimeter of my property as this would require,by local ordinance,
that I am responsible for snow removal. If it is necessary for the planting bed at the front of my house, which
encroaches on city property,to be removed,I would not be against a small sidewalk in its place with the actual
length to be determined as the design progresses.
• That there be further discussion as to the treatment of the road edge. I would likely be opposed to there being no
treatment of the road edge as this would encourage vehicles to park on the edge of my lawn. Whatever the agreed
upon method,the design will have to consider that my vehicle and visiting vehicles pull into my yard in one specific
area rather than park around the edge,therefore requiring a cut in the road edge material.
• That the location of road edge stakes be rechecked. The accuracy of the survey recently undertaken is questioned
in one area which may effect the location of my property line.
• That should it be necessary to remove my shed,which appears to encroach on city property,it be replaced with a
comparable shed and pad or be relocated at a prior agreed upon location. However,I prefer that the shed remain as
it currently exists.
• That the roadway be no wider than is necessary for one parked and one moving vehicle to fit. I feel that any
additional width to allow another travel lane will encourage the increase of vehicle speed around my property.
• That any widening of the road which would result in removal of the grassy hill area which I currently maintain,
albeit city property,be appropriately designed and edged so as to prevent any erosion of my property and to
prevent the weakening of my house foundation.
• That the project be denied if it would require my being financially responsible for any costs(i.e.planting bed
removal,shed removal/relocation,road edge treatment,erosion prevention,foundation reinforcement,etc.).
• That the design of the entrance to Thomas Circle be improved upon so as to enhance access and improve visibility,
and to decrease the possibility of accidents that may result with the expected increase of neighborhood vehicles.
• That construction vehicles not be allowed to park on Thomas Circle.
• That as many existing trees as possible be retained,including those on city property. No land clearing should
commence until trees to remain have been tagged.
• That other than land clearing on the site to accommodate the staging area,no housing construction be allowed to
commence until the required street improvements are completed.
• That no blasting be conducted on weekends.
• That no work begin prior to 7:00 a.m.on weekdays and 9:00 am. on weekends.
• That all work(blasting,water/sewer work,road improvements,etc.)be undertaken with due diligence so as not to
prolong the inconvenience and be undertaken with consideration to ensure the safety of the neighborhood residents
and their property.
While I understand that many of the above requests will be discussed during the Planning Board review, I feel it
important that the Board of Appeal also know what issues are important to me with regard to this development. For the items
above that do not come under the jurisdiction of the Planning Board(i.e.no financial responsibility on me), I respectfully
request that any Board of Appeal approvals provide for these conditions. I would be pleased to work with Mr.Lagonakis or
his representatives to provide design input in order to create a development p that is within these parameters. Thank you
for your consideration.
Sincerely
Jane A. y
All
ZONING REQUIREMENTS
\ tli� �i/ I��/ / ;tea/�i/j ,�� •.• �. - v,
THE SITE LOCATED MOSTLY WITHIN THE R-1 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. THE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR R-1
PER ARTICLE V1, TABLE 1 ARE AS FOLLOWS: A
REQUIRED PROVIDED
I OT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT
n
MINIMUM LOT AREA 15,000 SF 11,251tSF 11,216tSF 11l11,274tSF
CP , t r � 4 + , t ��i� � rra ♦ � 5it • a�� �
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 100 FEET 62.47 FEET 68.50 FEET 82.28 FEET 63.76 FEET / f, r of )�It`i� ` ' s ,-,. y: ' 4= •�
ZJif.
'$
I,l '� /� � �,/�S /�� r`[ i• ,_, �S 1 •t�1��f �'" } f a i ` 4F��?'l�
N/F AMENTA MESSINA DESCHAMPS � '/ / ��/ I� i
MAP 8, LOT 29 t296 HIGHLAND AVENUE I,JL.C.C. 58896/232 \3-11
y
\\
LOT 4
/ /' `�`, (ro��.�I' a�118;: y, •�as 1..�'., } $��;r�,`\,` I.�.�, � {f i 1.�J
0 1000
11 1274 ± SF /'' LINE/ / SCALOCUS1000' G CSC
/
NG /
LOT 3
111277 +— SF, -
-50 P'Il
277 ± SF,-50PCK o. / a
` � ' 4o // N/F SUSAN M. HOWLAND
\ MAP 8, LOT 23 & 24
\ / o / 5 THOMAS CIRCLE
\ � J / / 6`O L.C.C. 66531/321
\C, . 4p
N/F CITY OF SALEM
MAP 8, LOT 8 L 0 T 2 - R°
RAVENNA AVENUE REAR
DEED BK 8343, PG 39 ` \ �y oot 'S J
111216 ± SF , F COOa
- - - - - - - - - - - / ' y ��
GRAPHIC SCALE
/L 0 T 1 I 20 0 10 20 40 80
� / I
11 , 2 51 ± SFJ' N/F PHILOMENA MORIN ( IN FEET )
g/ . MAP 8, LOT 26
1 inch = 20 ti
0 N�/ I 2 THOMAS CI CLE
Z \ L.C.C.
_ _ L 66630 322
ZONE
LOCUS IS SHOWN ON SALEM ASSESORS MAP 8, LOTS 20, 21 & 22.
LOCUS IS SHOWN ON LAND COURT PLAN # 11802-E AS LOTS
206, 207, 208, 209 & 210.
� �� THE ZONING DISTRICT LINE SEPARATING B-2 FROM R-1 WAS
"perINTERPRETED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR IN A MEETING WITH PLDE
T� N/F PETER D. PASQUALE ON AUGUST 9, 1999.
npcp ALEXANDRA M. ADAMO
p r a MAP 8, LOT 19
to ll O p 19 THOMAS CIRCLE
od N N L.C.C. 68875/345
io p 9G 'cti ''
t� �G
a � �
o T�O CONCEPT SKETCH
3 MA LAND SUBDIVISION
x (40 All p l��
F r �/ PLAN OF LAND
for a site located at
3
a
p '7- 1 '7 THOMAS CIRCLE
�0� Salem, Massachusetts
Owner: a
9 Brri geSt Street, Salem, MA01970
Date: August 16, 1999
`` �� �• i N 6F aAs�c'A PLDE #99-32 Scale: 1" = 20' Sheet 1 of 1
o `� F�2 COTT IAN
yGw
w ANYNo.CIVIL 33658 PATROWICZ
Y T ATROWICZ
-
LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING
j E ISTEP�\�}t'
NvI E�6 60 Washington Street, Salem, MA 01970
ILA (978)745-2288
o
L
CZ
a
c
J
O
ZONING REQUIREMENTS � .!1, '�,/ � jv, 7 � �• •-� '': '
i t I ih, of
� t r/ 1 Jit
//n I�!�'' a
THE SITE LOCATED MOSTLY WITHIN THE R-1 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. THE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR R-1
PER ARTICLE V1, TABLE 1 ARE AS FOLLOWS:
REQUIRE PROVIDED
L4L1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 / %----� 1 � �1 1 r ,...�'-h'1/ a.�•
/i` _ �• _
MINIMUM LOT AREA 15,000 SF 11,251tSF 11,216tSF 11,277tSF 11.274tSF
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 100 FEET 62.47 FEET 68.50 FEET 82.28 FEET 63.76 FEET i nI }`( j( i T�} ^ I'�*rs'. I I !! \
�a \\ Irr 1��1,I� f�" �t�,('�'Ci��a C.f�•".,s� �. •C.s�v �-
I/ '
N/F AMENTA MESSINA DESCHAMPS j f 14 !"} ' , ®� iV y f:
1 � 1; 4 7I
MAP 8, LOT 29
296 HIGHLAND AVENUE
L.C.C. 58896/232 ' /, 11 1, . • i + I' 1J� ' l
LOT 4 ..
�
/ /
IDOO
,, 1PHIC
1 , 2 7 4 ± S F LINE/ / SCALE:
1"=
1000' G CALF
T
i' / gICT/
/ IS /
NG /
LOT 3 1 VY
112277 ± SF,
Ra
/ Q
.60 �p6K
\
� � '' �o L - - - - - - - � / , N/F SUSAN M HOWLAND/� MAP 8, LOT 23 & 24
5 THOMAS CIRCLE
J /
L.C.C. 66531/321
1,10
/
60. 40j,
N/F CITY OF SALEM
MAP 8, LOT 8RAVENNA AVENUE AR LOT 2 \ \�
DEED BK 8343, PC 34 � �
-' ' ' \ \ \ \ oo� Es
11 , 216 ± SF ,�� hoe
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 60
iz
y - - - - - - - -- - - /
\\ / p)
I O; GRAPHIC SCALE
LOT 1in W-7 rq
20 0 10 20 40 So 1 '0
11 , 2 51 ± S FJ'N /F PHILOMENA MORIN ( IN h 20 ft
FE )
R \,--
MAP 8, LOT 26 1 in
Z0 E/ \ i 2 THOMAS CIRCLE
2 L.C.C. 66630/322
13
ZINE � -
LOCUS IS SHOWN ON SALEM ASSESORS MAP 8, LOTS 20, 21 & 22.
LOCUS IS SHOWN ON LAND COURT PLAN # 11802—E AS LOTS
x 206, 207, 208, 209 & 210.
no9o`�' THE ZONING DISTRICT LINE SEPARATING B-2 FROM R-1 WAS
n INTERPRETED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR IN A MEETING WITH PLDE
ALEXANDRA M. ADAMPETER D. ALE OON AUGUST 9, 1999.
MAP 8, LOT 19
mr t°x o p 19 THOMAS CIRCLE
8m L.C.C. 68875/345
io G
9
a
a � �
LL o ?'jy0 CONCEPT SKETCH
3A LAND SUBDIVISION
v� (40' S C
R/GyT 0 PLAN OF LAND
Ffor a site located at
3
17
7 - 17 THOMAS CIRCLE
Salem, Massachusetts
�\X Owner: Nondas Lagonakis
9 Bridge Street, Salem, MA 01970
1999
f v w..
Date: August 16,
� 1x or�'''"az PLDE #99-32 Scale: 1" = 20' Sheet 1 of 1
i y j SCOTT IAN �.rATROWiC �',�
u PNo.33s 62 s` LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING
PATROWICZ
CML
N ISTfP�O��� I`� 60 Washington Street, Salem, MA 01970
\ °`�lOM AI ET's\~ (978)745-2288
T�P/Ir;
0
L
fl
C
J
O
/
r'
ZONING REQUIREMENTS \ '1+;jrtl�' 1 � f ", irt# '•� `�
�\`���`��-,�=�����%�4 ��f �� •♦tom � •--� , � � �..\♦,
THE SITE LOCATED MOSTLY WITHIN THE R-1 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. THE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR R-1 \ t f'2J9 v\ rR �
PER ARTICLE Vl, TABLE 1 ARE AS FOLLOWS: i i ��yty� j ` ;, .E� �� • � ��
PROVIDED ' /i
REQUIRED f/ (ti' ~. f'G • �� = {
L4L1 LOT 2 LOT 3 t47 4 p/r l '.\ p Its''{� Y ;r C ,;
MINIMUM LOT AREA 15,000 SF 11,251±SF 11,216±SF 11,277±SF 11,274±SF 9 � t 82
. d > �,, ;; F H�'Yri ♦ ;
�i off ��$'ll�' fi R45 •� �• lye+ �, `
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 100 FEET 62.47 FEET 68.50 FEET 82.28 FEET 63.76 FEET ; 4 + +
11%
' �/ �.']h
M r 1s y "
T '�� tiii r/ ..�`., , 11 ( ♦� •it ]'ll, ,V
N/F AMENTA MESSINA DESCHAMPS
MAP 8 LOT 29 / f< �/� i ; , I ' ✓ v7� t
296 HIGHLAND AVENUE
L.C.C. 58896/232 � ' // 1�� 1' . • +11,A, \ \ ��� ` � g` ) I
! � i
/J i � ' taw �; iJ� � � •,i1 �'`
LOT 4 ,��,.♦,� ,., ._ . .Y.. �s.o . .n { 'A� ..,.� .�
NE/ / LOCUS GRAPHIC o 1000, 111 2 7 4 ± S F I / SCALE: 1"= 1000' SCALE
ICT/ L
D�sT g/
LOT 3 — Q ' Z0N� /
, � i
11 , 277 ± SF,
RE R of / k0
30FQCK ` p�GP � � �
0.
N/F SUSAN M. HOWLAND
MAP 8, LOT 23 & 24
\ J 5 THOMAS CIRCLE
/
O" L.C.C. 66531/321
N/F CITY OF SALEM
MAP 8, LOT 8 LOT 2 � � \� \� � �
RAVENNA AVENUE REAR � '� 1011
DEED BK 8343, PIC 34 -
11 , 216 ± S F
>
ti
- - - - _ _ _ _ 6
\ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- / /
cs
GRAPHIC SCALE
L 0 T 1 t 20 0 10 20 40 80
In
/ I
11 , 251 ± S FJ' N/F PHILOMENA MORIN ( IN FEET )
MAP 8, LOT 26 1 inch = 20 fL
_ 2 THOMAS CIRCLE
Z��/ n/ \\ _ _ _ . - L C.C. 66630/322
ZONE
LOCUS IS SHOWN ON SALEM ASSESORS MAP 8, LOTS 20, 21 & 22.
LOCUS IS SHOWN ON LAND COURT PLAN # 11802-E AS LOTS
206, 207, 208, 209 & 210.
rto9 -Ts
c-,o`d
Q -1�� 'r N/F PETER D. PASQUALE THE ZONING DISTRICT LINE SEPARATING B-2 FROM R-1 WAS
rn a
INTERPRETED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR IN A MEETING WITH L
ALEXANDRA D. ADAMO ON AUGUST 9, 1999.
MAP 8, LOT 19
19 THOMAS CIRCLE
od N N L.C.C. 68875/345
lT1 �G
.�l
a >
0 7'110 CONCEPT SKETCH
MA,s'
C> LAND SUBDIVISION
m N X40 R�GyT C/T
RC' PLAN OF LAND
3 OF W
AY) for a site located at
7 - 17 THOMAS CIRCLE
Salem, Massachusetts
�.� Owner: Nondas Lagonakis
�\ 9 Bridge Street,
Salem, MA 01970
a Date: August 16, 1999
PLDE #99-32 Scale: 1" = 20' Sheet 1 of 1
%SCOTT UN G
CIV L
No.330582 LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING
PATROWI
9c,5TEP`° " 60 Washington Street, Salem, MA 01970
Npi f��a (978)745-2288
11IK
a
a
C
f0
J
O