394-400 HIGHLAND AVENUE - ZONING ml.x
�sF- k�!� li�-� i�i1" Se, +Y• µii`
�mTt ', II ° � d �p •
_ yk•��. rr� > 01r,
t s:-^�• g+" 4y r s II `t!� lr in - ll" i tt h �I _
t a-
31
G e'y, 'fin , Iw k 1 cY� t ,�y r .F•, 3 �_ i r f?a k. 14�w m R ,:
=�sT ,�h a� .� .�, ` a-% ahK'•?� � F° �• r ��". �� mlhp�-z�,,�1�\; I\\y��� 1�.x 3X���.;. '4,� t'�il��_r+"w���'
pv�`=w'�k
x.T "' `' 3y_, s ,"•4,'�"' ar xi �". t - ' A 9t,1�g d��« �'�+ y,v +s y« -w ' 1
'�f .�,$ �<�, � b e -�4 `Y A� �.� ,'ms's r.*- •/.�►�, '"r }r '^�'.
o-�s� A RF���v�'y�t�tr *' x�' [# ^.. _'�.��+�i�`�i-� '�y• � 1f�C ! 4, ~ �- <E �.+.� i � x^
I ,Ow
"'�',nl��'^ - ..rte..' �'�asb`�'@•"' �Imo' y r� ,v.. T:` + �>,. t �. -�.G�,��B`�"�`n'SFf��� 5 _ . v
G
i
I �7 y
�:`�,y f
' „ �A•Y.hex t'" ,* .f I'" .'' '.� 1 i 2 5. \ 9'`jlly �� '�nA 1
if-
-L
a f d
�,..,,,��...�_ �__.w._.-�..r.�� _,,
� � � .�.,.
�...m.�a�.�.-..�rr.a—.egn..nxae.. - �t . .
ON • ..
i
.. :��; � s
� �
�'
i
..�! I
, �
�' ey asr" .uer4j {rdYA*�t�9'9"r�=* .=wx�� - _ _ - ._ _ _ ._��...._,_ .,""'""w"ur"�
��
._
r
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS'
Essex; ss Superior Court Department
Essex County Division
Civil Action No.
SALEM HIGHLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP. ,
MIRE STASINOS, TRUSTEE OF THE HIGHLAND)
CONDOMINIUM OF SALEM TRUST, and THE )
OLDE VILLAGE MALL, INC. , PLAINTIFFS )
VS. )
LEONARD F. O'LEARY, DEFENDANT )
COMPLAINT
PARTIES
1. The Plaintiff Salem Highland Development Corp.
(hereafter SHDC) is a Massachusetts corporation and is the
owner of, and has a usual place of business a, 394 Highland
Avenue, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts.
2 . The Plaintiff Mike Stasinos, Trustee of The
Highland Condominium of Salem Trust, has a usual place of
business at One Olde Village Drive, Salem, Massachusetts.
3 . The Plaintiff The Olde Village Mall, Inc.
(hereafter Olde Village) is a Massachusetts corporation with
a usual place of business at One Olde Village Drive, Salem,
Massachusetts .
4 . The Defendant Leonard F. O'Leary resides at 31
Barcelona Avenue, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts.
GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
5:' On or about March 12,- 1986, SHDC' s assignor, Mike
Stasinos, president of SHDC, petitioned the Board of Appeal
of the City of Salem (hereafter the Board) for a variance
from the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance in order to
construct a cluster of residential units, totalling 163
units, on the premises located at 394 Highland Avenue, Salem,
Massachusetts which consisted of twenty-five areas, more or
less.
6 . On May 14, 1986, the Board denied the variance,
from which decision Stasinos timely appealed. The appeal was
styled Mike Stasinos v City of Salem Board of Appeal, et al,
Essex Superior Court Civil Action No. 86-1534 .
7 . The above-styled case was settled by an agreement
between Stasinos and the Board, memorialized in a Consent
Judgment dated August 18, 1986, (hereafter the agreement)
whereby, in pertinent part, Stasinos was permitted to build
on the premises 140 condominium residential units plus one
building to be used for a temporary job site/real estate
sales.
8. Stasinos assigned his rights under the agreement
to SHDC, the developer of the premises.
9 . Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, SHDC
commenced development of the premises, including the
obtaining of building permits and the construction of
2
residential units and the job site/real estate sales building.
10. Following commencement of the development, SHDC
instituted a civil contempt action alleging that the Board of
Appeal, defendant in Civil Action No. 86-1534, breached the
terms of the abovesaid Consent Judgment.
11. In addition to the civil contempt action, SHDC
instituted a civil action styled Salem Highland Development
Corp vs. City of Salem and Salem Board of Appeal, Essex
Superior Court Civil Action No. 87-2852, alleging that the
action of the Salem Board of Appeal, in demanding that SHDC
convey to the City of Salem a 3 .95 acre parcel of the
premises at 394 Highland Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts, as a
condition of SHDC ' s obtaining its variance in the Consent
Judgment, constituted an unlawful taking of real property
and, in such action, SHDC demanded return of that parcel and
damages.
12 . On or about July 14, 1988, SHDC, Stasinos, the
City of Salem and Salem Board of Appeal settled all lawsuits
by SHDC ' s and Stasinos ' dismissing the civil contempt action,
the parties amending the abovesaid Consent Judgment, and
judgment entering under Mass. R. Civ. P. 70 vesting title to
the 3 .95 acre parcel in SHDC.
13 . One of the conditions of the settlement of all
actions was that Stasinos and SHDC execute a release of all
claims against Leonard F. O'Leary, the Defendant herein,
3
"individually and as a City Councillor of the City of Salem, "
which either Stasinos or SHDC had as of June 29, 1988.
COUNT I
14 . The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 13 are
incorporated herein by reference.
15 . Subsequent to June 29, 1988, the Defendant,
knowing of the existence of the agreement contained in the
amended consent judgment, has intentionally and without legal
justification interfered with the amended consent judgment to
which Stasinos, and by assignment SHDC, is a party, all to
the great detriment and loss of SHDC.
COUNT II
16 . The allegations of Paragraphs 1-13 and 15 are
incorporated herein by reference.
17 . The Defendant has intentionally, willfully, and
without legal justification committed acts calculated to
cause damage to SHDC in the conduct of its lawful business
developing the premises, which acts include, but are not
limited to, demanding of various officials of the City of
Salem to investigate the settlement of the aforementioned
lawsuits, misrepresenting facts to the media with the
consequence of damaging publicity to SHDC, contacting
4
prospectivepurchasers and 'present condominium owners, and
inducing prospective purchasers not to purchase units,
inducing and inciting present owners to institute suit
against SHDC� and otherwise delaying, hindering, and stopping
SHDC' s development and marketing of the premises.
18 . The Defendant has committed such acts for the
unlawful purpose of causing damage and loss to SHDC.
19 . As a result of the Defendant' s actions, SHDC has
suffered severe economic losses including, but not limited
to, added construction costs, added costs of financing, an
impaired ability to market the residential units, an impaired
reputation in the community, and lost profits.
COUNT III
20. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 13 , 15,
and 17 through 19 are incorporated herein by reference.
21. SHDC ' s ownership of the aforementioned premises
and its amended consent judgment/agreement with the City of
Salem permitting it to develop the premises constitute
property rights secured to SHDC by the constitution or laws
of the United States and/or secured by the constitution or
laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
22 . The Defendant, by his actions alleged above,
interfered with, or attempted to interfere with, SHDC ' s
exercise or enjoyment of said rights.
5
23 . As a result of the Defendant's interference with,
or attempted interference with, SHDC ' s exercise or enjoyment
of said rights, SHDC has suffered severe economic loss
including, but not limited to, added construction costs,
added costs of financing, an impaired ability to market the
residential units, an impaired ability to obtain construction
financing, and lost profits.
WHEREFORE, on each of SHDC' s counts against the
Defendant O'Leary, the Plaintiff SHDC prays :
1 . That a permanent injunction issue against the
Defendant enjoining him from (1) interfering with SHDC' s
construction, development, marketing and sale of SHDC' s
condominium units and (2) interfering with or attempting to
interfere with SHDC ' s exercise of its civil rights.
2 . That this Honorable Court determine the damages
sustained by SHDC as a result of the wrongful acts of the
Defendant O'Leary and order the Defendant to pay same to the
Plaintiff SHDC.
3 . That this Honorable Court order the Defendant to
pay to the Plaintiff SHDC its costs and attorney' s fees
incurred in this action.
4 . For such other relief as this Honorable Court
deems meet and just.
6
COUNT IV
24. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 13 , 15,
17 through 19 , and 21 through 23 are incorporated herein by
reference.
25. The Plaintiff Stasinos, Trustee, is charged with
administering the common areas and facilities for the benefit
of the condominium unit owners at 394 Highland Avenue, Salem,
Massachusetts.
26 . The Defendant intentionally and without legal
justification interfered with, and continues to interfere
with; the said Plaintiff ' s orderly and efficient
administration of the common areas by unlawfully trespassing
upon the common areas, or by causing others to so trespass,
and distributing leaflets and other papers designed to incite
and induce condominium unit owners to institute suit against
the developer SHDC and Stasinos as trustee, all to the great
detriment and loss of the Plaintiff Stasinos, as Trustee.
COUNT V
27 . The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 13 , 15,
17 through 19 , 21 through 23 , and 25 through 26 are
incorporated herein by reference.
i
28 . The Plaintiff Stasinos, Trustee' s, ownership of
the common areas constitutes a property right secured to said
I'
7
t
Plaintiff by the constitution or laws of the United States
and/or secured by the constitution or laws of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
29 . The Defendant, by his above-described actions,
interfered with, or attempted to interfere with, said
i
Plaintiff ' s exercise or enjoyment of said right.
30 . As a result of the Defendant ' s interference with,
or attempted interference with, said Plaintiff ' s exercise or
enjoyment of said rights, said Plaintiff has suffered severe
economic loss including, but not limited to, an impaired
ability to administer the trust.
WHEREFORE, on each of Stasinos, Trustee ' s counts
against the Defendant O'Leary, the Plaintiff SHDC prays :
1 . That a permanent injunction issue against the
Defendant enjoining him from (1) interfering with Stasinos
Trustee ' s administration of the trust property and (2)
interfering with or attempting to interfere with Stasinos
Trustee ' s exercise of his civil rights.
2 . That this Honorable Court determine the damages
sustained by Stasinos, Trustee as a result of the wrongful
acts of the Defendant O 'Leary and order the Defendant to pay
same to the Plaintiff Stasinos, Trustee.
3 . That this Honorable Court order the Defendant to
pay to the Plaintiff Stasinos, Trustee his costs and
i
i
8
__ I
attorney' s fees incurred in this action.
4 . For such other relief as this Honorable Court
deems meet and just.
COUNT VI
31. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 13 , 15,
17 through 19 , 21 through 23 , 25 through 26 and 28 through 30
are incorporated herein by reference.
32 . The Plaintiff Olde Village purchased the
abovesaid 3 .95 acre parcel from SHDC on August 12 , 1988, and
on that date, granted to Eastern Savings Bank a mortgage
securing a construction loan to said Plaintiff in the amount
of $2, 800, 000 .00 .
I
33 . The said Plaintiff intends to develop the said
3 .95 acre parcel in accordance with the terms of the amended
consent judgment.
34 . The Defendant has intentionally, willfully, and
jwithout legal justification committed acts calculated to
itcause damage to said Olde Village in the conduct of its j
i
lawful business developing the premises, which acts include,
I
but are not limited to, demanding of various officials of the
City of Salem to investigate the settlement of the
aforementioned lawsuits, misrepresenting facts to the media
with the consequence of damaging publicity to Olde Village
and otherwise delaying, hindering, and stopping Olde
i
9
Village ' s development and marketing of the premises.
35. The Defendant has committed such acts for the
unlawful purpose of causing damage and loss to said Plaintiff.
36 . As a result of the Defendant ' s actions, said
Plaintiff has suffered severe economic losses including, but
not limited to, added construction costs, added costs of
financing, an impaired ability to market the project, an
impaired reputation in the community, and lost profits.
COUNT VII
37 . The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 13 , 15,
17 through 19 , 21 through 23 , 25 through 26, 28 through 30,
and 32 through 36 are incorporated herein by reference.
38. The Plaintiff ' s ownership of the said parcel and
said Plaintiff ' s, as assignee of SHDC, agreement with the
i
City of Salem permitting it to develop the parcel constitute
i
property rights secured to said Plaintiff by the constitution
or laws of the United States and/or secured by the
constitution or laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
38 . The Defendant, by his actions alleged above,
interfered with, or attempted to interfere with, said
i
i
Plaintiff ' s exercise or enjoyment of said rights.
39 . As a result of the Defendant ' s interference with,
j or attempted interference with, the Plaintiff ' s exercise or
iI
10
i
enjoyment of said rights, the Plaintiff has suffered severe
economic loss including, but not limited to, added 9
construction costs, added costs of financing, an impaired
ability to market its project, an impaired ability to obtain
construction financing, and lost profits.
WHEREFORE, on each of Olde Village ' s counts against
the Defendant O'Leary, the Plaintiff Olde Village prays:
1 . That a permanent injunction issue against the
Defendant enjoining him from (1) interfering with Olde
Village ' s construction, development, marketing and sale of
its project and (2) interfering with or attempting to
interfere with Olde Village ' s exercise of its civil rights.
2. That this Honorable Court determine the damages
sustained by Olde Village as a result of the wrongful acts of
the Defendant O'Leary and order the Defendant to pay same to
the Plaintiff Olde Village.
3 . That this Honorable Court order the Defendant to
I
pay to the Plaintiff Olde Village its costs and attorney' s
fees incurred in this action.
li 4 . For such other relief as this Honorable Court
I
deems meet and just.
PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL COUNTS.
Dated: August 23 , 1988
William H. ee an"
Pearl, McNiff, Crean, Cook & Sheehan
30 Main Street
Peabody, MA 01960
Telephone: (508) 531-1710
BBO# 457060
r• .
� ! ,
�r'� �,
r` � S
' '�� I
�! T`
w
Tiltu of §411VIIIz �ztl is D�
�\ � c ,
• � �;, `� a �ET[2T1TITilt� �Q2IS1 ' __ _
- - "-January.9, 19.84 -
,Ms. Josephine-'Fusco - - -
Citv Clerk
.- --'City,-of Salem . - --- - - _ _
-..Salem;,MA -=-01970 _ r.„-
Dear Ms. -Fusco:
At a regularly =scheduled meeting of the Salem Planning Board held -
on Thursdav;-.January 5,- 1984, it was voted to allow Mr.. 241chael` Stasinos,544 Chestnut Street, :Lynn, to-.withdraw, .without prejudice, his Form C
- Defninitive, Subdivision application. - - _ - - - - -
sincerely vours,
• Walter B. Power, III
Chairman /v(
WBP:dey
•
s
s
G
s
C
a l lowed
L_
a cflti�d be
wow ► ��� 5 33
A W N - apA,-
W
T
` NFI v
F1roW N
Drn
' ro�
r-
__ OD
(D
T
low
N o W
-rOWV% kwy►.scs i►n P V. D uode r-
� �gtere
R-3
A-E �c4 UK�ts 4
1.`}-1 1s 0000 �. N
I � � t ��
@ 3Soo Qe Ks;�-q
Dets,fy
j �" l�n�{S i�• � s e, '/
i Rc ►s
v
Area Cowls
added ' 1P,
10
3
,l C /Fl.sferet� a �F _"J
s a S 42-
I n,
!
J10 ae
c • � 5 r1
r 4 P.U. P. Area J is rM r►�a/� `, //
i � C�to� PJr,� goo
R-C z�.ohr- • � V p w 19'1
pup
B-Z �ov�G. � a�eG►ed un�fS � ���. �_1 a,,.d RC di�.�u�
30�000 0
64
CommFR
R-1 �OnG ` ClA detdc�-a� un��S 6�
I !
i I 3Q�
Goo j Ns /18060
�,cJcOar►d - - -
Part 4 P U D. 0153 Total Units1/ e 9
w�vafCrC,�� 3D�Poo COMh�G► , _)� 1x,664 i loo
6 RES,:dtrt�.8f _ jes ase �iZ---
Wet � y
AVENUE
Ss
__ ._. -. ..., _.. 195 ♦9J 39� . , _-_ -_-_''. � eIT` yc: —
. y401
/ G
u e � �'
SCA[c 1 = 1oa 66�--� m ,
67
i T1 lz
� �r
w 6