ZBA - 394 WASHINGTON STREET DECISION T�
L
T �
ClU of �IFm, ne, c4usetf
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MIKE STASINOS FOR
VARIANCES. FOR 394 HIGHLAND AVENUE
A hearing on this petition was held May 14 1986 witgApff f 1 rd
Members present: ' James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Benca , e , inski
and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutfare>,Kand others and notices
of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance
with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. CITY CLfur,c;; Eh,H6.SS'
Petitioner, owner of the property, requests Variances to allow construction of
163 residential units in this R-1/R-C/BPD district.
The Variance .which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in-
,volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to petitioner; and .
_ 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 purposes of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and
after viewing the plans, makes the .following findings of fact:
1 . There was major opposition;
2. . Small petition of neighbors submitted in favor;
3. No hardship proven.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions and circumstances do not exist which especially
affect the land involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
2. Literal enforcement. of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not
involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; and
3. The desired relief cannot be granted without substantial detriment to
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MIKE STASINOS FOR
VARIANCES FOR 394 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 3-2 to deny the petitioner the
relief requested. Messrs. , Bencal, Fleming and Strout voted to deny, Messrs. ,
Hacker and Luzinski voting against denial.
VARIANCE DENIED
C
aures B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FRO7,1 THIS DECISIDN, IF ANY. SHALL BE WADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE E'ASS.
UNEP.AL LAWS, C9APTER 602, AND SHALL BE FILED V:ITHiN 20 CAPS AFTER THE PATE OF RUNS
uF THIS CEMION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
- P7iiSANT TO ,,,,',SS. CESERi.L !";:5. %P—r-TER 6,3, SECIMN 11. THE VFP.IA CE U C`W L PER:^T
Zo;A:.'ED H`?EC., SHALL M -AEE [:,-ECT UNTIL A CO?V OF C=RT- -
ECATIOH OF THE CIT'i CLERit THA: 20 Cl.YS HAVE E:SPCCD WiD N0 ;"E'.l H!S C:_ ; "IE-C,
7F.. THAT, IF SUCH {d': kPPEAL HAS EEEC FILE, THA'. IT HAS LEE% EG.iISSED UR L_i;:_O is _
E=RDED IN THE.SOUTH ESSEX RMSTRY OF DEEDS AND UiDE7.ED ",;DER TH_ F;k:;E OF THE OMER
W RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. c
BOARD OF APPEAL
Ctv of "itt1em, C �sstte�juse##s
February 24, 1987
To the Honorable City Council
City of Salem
RE: Consent Judgment; 394 Highland Ave.
Ladies & Gentlemen:
Pursuant to the Order of the City Council dated January 27, 1987
relative to the Consent Judgment entered into between the City of Salem
and Mike Stasinos regarding property located at 394 Highland Ave. I am
listing an item by item report as to compliance or noncompliance with the
above mentioned judgment to the best of my knowledge.
Item #1 Completed
Item #2 a. Completed (amended by the Board of Appeal)
b. Incomplete due to time requirements amended by the
Board of Appeal.
c. Incomplete-have not received progress reports from the
Planning Department.
d. I have no knowledge whether complied with or not.
e. Not completed
f. Completed
g. I have no knowledge whether complied with or not.
h. Not completed
i. No knowledge whether complied with or not.
j . No knowledge whether complied with or not. `
k. No knowledge whether complied with or not.
1. No knowledge whether complied with or not.
m. No knowledge whether complied with or not.
n. Not completed
c. No knowledge whether complied with or not.
p. No knowledge whether complied with or not.
q. No knowledge whether complied with or not.
r. No knowledge whether complied with or not.
s. No knowledge whether complied with or not.
t. No knowledge whether complied with or not.
u. No knowledge whether complied with or not.
v. Incomplete due to time requirements.
1 . No knowledge whether complied with or not.
2. Incomplete due to time requirements.
Respectfully,
BOARD OF APPEAL
,James B. Hacker
Chairman
JBH:bms
r'
4.
s e
MICHAEL E. O'BRIEN ' LEONARD F. FEMINO
CITY SOLICITOR9 ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR
93 WASHINGTON STREET J"°""`�p0 93 WASHINGTON STREET
and and
81 WASHINGTON STREET CITY OF SALEM ONE BROADWAY
SALEM, MA 01970 MASSACHUSETTS BEVERLY, MA 01915
745-4311 745-4311
744-3363 921.1990
Please Reply to 81 Washington Street Please Reply to One Broadway
August 21, 1986
James B. Hacker, Chairman
Board of Appeal
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Re : Stasinos vs City of Salem
Essex Superior Court #8'6-1534
Dear Mr. Hacker:
Enclosed please find copy of Judgment which has been
entered in the above matter.
/ Ve y truly yo
� l
/Michael E. O' B
/ City Solicitor
MEO/Jp ((//
Enclosure
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT DEPT.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 86-1534
MIKE STASINOS
VS
CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL,
AND JAMES B. HACKERS RICHARD A.
BENCAL, JAMES M. FLEMING, EDWARD �30TION FGR HEARI*?G ON FORM �� 'ODGt-tE'7T �"
LUZINSKI , PETER STROUT, ARTHUR
LABRECQUE, PETER A. . DORE, AS THEY
ARE MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF SALEM '
BOARD OF APPEAL
Now comes the Plaintiff;. Mike. Stasinos , pursuant to Rule 58 (a ) of
s
the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, and moves this Honorable
Court to schedule a hearingon the form that the
judgment in this action
should take and to order that judgment enter in the form attached hereto.
k
By the Plaintiff ' Attorney
///��� Nicholas G. Curuby, Esq. '
7 Franklin Street, j
C Lynn,. MA. , 01902 ;
( 517 ) 595-0009
Ass ed o by ,Defendant orney
E. O' Brien
City Solicitor
City Hall , 93 Washington St.
Salem, MA. , 01970
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT DEPT.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 86-1534
MIKE STASINOS
VS
CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL,
AND JAMES B. HACKER, RICHARD A.
BENCAL, JAMES M. FLEMING, EDWARD CONSENT .JUDGMENT
LUZINSKI, PETER STROUT, ARTHUR
LABRECQUE, PETER A. DORE, AS
THEY ARE MEMBERS OF .THE CITY CF
SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL
It is hereby agreed by all parties that Consent Judgment
shall be entered in the appeal from a decision of the City of
Salem Board of Appeal, denying the Plaintiff ' s Petition request-
ing the Board to issue. a variance to allow construction on prem-
ises located at #394 Highland. Avenue, Salem, encompassing appro-
ximately twenty-five ( 25) acres and lying in Districts R-1, R-C,
and BPD, which has been previously described as lying in Dis-
tricts R-1 , R-C and B-2 , and that the contested decision of the.
Defendant Board of Appeal be amended and that its decision be
entered granting a variance with the following conditions :
1 ) The Plaintiff , Mike Stasinos , shall withdraw a pending
subsequent petition presently before the Defendant Board of Ap-
peal, with prejudice, upon final approval of this Agreement for
Consent Judgment by this Court.
2 ) That the variance to be granted to the Plaintiff , Mike
Stasinos, by the Defendant Board of Appeal shall contain the fo.l-
lcwing conditions, that the Plaintiff agrees to:
a) That the Plaintiff , Mike Stasinos, shall be allow-
ed to construct 140 condominium residential units and building,
containing a total of 3000 square feet of floor space on one
floor on a parcel of land containing 27 ,000 square feet of land,
all set forth in a plan entitled "Highland Acres , Salem Highland
Ave. Development Corp. , Owner and Developer, Peter F. MiDeo Assoc.
Arch. " , dated August 3, 1986, a copy of which has been furnished
the Defendant Board of Appeal and the City Planner, City of Salem.
Said building is to be deeded to the Condominum Association with-
in a thirty-six month period. from acceptance of this Agreement.
The building is to be used for a temporary job site/real estate
sales . The building is to be used solely by the developer.
b) That the Plaintiff, Mike Stasinos, shall grant to
the City of Salem a-parcel of land totalling 4 . 1 acres of land
which shall be used by the City of Salem for soccer fields ; and,
that the Plaintiff shall develop, at his cost, said proposed area,
including screening, 'grading 'and seeding and fencing six (6 ' ) feet
in height, parking area and water fountain, all as defined and ap-
proved by the City Planner, City of Salem, in the location designat-
ed in the aforementioned plan.
c) That the City Planner, subject to the approval of the
Board of Appeal , shall select a qualified- professional engineer, at
the Plaintiff ' s cost, who shall provide his services, to include the
duties of Clerk of works, and supervise and oversee the construction
to be underaken by the Plaintiff, to insure that said construction
complies with Section IV and V of the Sub-division Regulations of the
City of Salem; and, that said Engineer shall submit to the Board of
Appeal and City Planner; City of Galem, a written progress report of
the undertaken construction every two ( 2 ) weeks. . That said engineer-
ing services shall include the supervision and overseeing of the im-
provements required in the installation of streets, roadways, side
walks, grass strips , monuments and utilities, all as provided in the
approved definitive plans submitted by the Plaintiff. It is agreed
that said services to be furnished by the Plaintiff shall not exceed
any and all normal design standards for traffic impact and allow for
waivers by the Board of Appeal, City of Salem, if deemed proper.
Final approval shall be given by the Board of Appeal, which shall
not unreasonably be with-held .
d) The Plaintiff, Mike Stasinos , shall submit a prelimin-
ary plan of the development to the Board of Health which shall be sub-
mitted and approved by the Board of Health, Conservation Commission,
City Engineer, Superintendent. of .Streets , Fire Department, Police
Department, and School Department; City of Salem.
e) The Plaintiff , Mike Stasinos, shall submit, prior to
the start of construction, a final definitive plan of construction to.
the Board of Appeal, City of Salem, all in proper form and contents
as required by Section IIIB, of the Sub-division Regulations , City of
Salem.
f ) . The Plaintiff, Mike Stasinos, shall, prior to construc-
tion, submit an Environmental Impact. Statement in full and clear form,
indicating the relation of the proposed project to the total environ-
ment of the City of Salem and its inhabitants, and a copy of such to
the Board of Appeal, City of Salem.
g) The Plaintiff, Mike Stasinos, shall file with the City
Solicitor, City of Salem, a performance bond, on approved form, and in
an amount approved by the Director . of Public Services. guaranteeing
that the proposed constructions shall, upon completion, comply with
this Consent Judgment and all pertinent sections of the Sub-division '
Regulations , City of Salem, to be applied to the unfinished work,
prior to issuance of necessary compliance permits .
2
h) That the Plaintiff, Mike Stasinos, in the construction
of the subject project, shall meet all design standards for streets,
easements , open spaces , and therotection of natural features ,r 311
as set forth in Section IV and V of the Sub-division Regulations ,
City of Salem. The Board of Appeal and City Planner, City of Salem,
shall reserve all rights of final approval, which approval shall not
be unreasonably be with-held.
i ) That the plaintiff ,. Mike Stasinos, in the construction
of the subject project, shall meet all required improvements, as set
forth in Section IV and V, sub-division Regulations , City of Salem.
j ) That a neighborhood review process shall be initiated
between the Plaintiff, neighborhood residents and the City Planning
Department, City of Salem, through which a neighborhood meting shall
be held to review the project and its components and necessary changes
and alterations to such plans shall be made as requested within the
parameters of the approved variance.
k) The Plaintiff shall contribute to any and all proposed
traffic improvements on the Highland Avenue-Swampscott Road area, as
defined by the City through its Comprehensive Traffic Study now being
undertaken. Such a contribution shall be made with the approval of the
City Planner according to a ,formula designed such that all developments
within the surrounding geographical area shall fairly share such costs .
1) The Plainitff 'shall be required to reserve a strip of
land to be defined by the City, along Highland Avenue, for the future
widening of the roadway if deemed necessary by the Comprehensive Traf-
fic Study now being undertaken.
m) The Petitioner, Mike Stasinos, amend his deed to the real
property located at 394 Highland Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts , and said
amendment to be a covenant not to build on any portion of said real es-
tate, other than on that portion utilized for 140 condominium units and
3 , 000 square foot building. Said amendment is to be approved in form by
the City Solicitor.
n) That all exterior building designs, building locations ,
lighting, landscaping, infrastructure, and site planning and design
elements of the proposed development shall be subject to the review
and approval of the Board of Appeal and City Planner, City of Salem.
o) That a buffer zone of 200 feet along the eastern boun-
dary of the property shall be created so that the abutters of Pyburn
Avenue and Madeline Avenue not be adversely impacted; and, that in
order to eliminate any visual impact of the development upon the ab-
utting neighborhood, the proposed landscaping to screen buildings
from the residences of the above avenues shall be reviewed and ap-
proved by the City Planner. - The Plaintiff shall also provide that
there be no other access to the parcel other than .from Highland Ave-
nue, prohibiting any access to said parcel from Appleby Road, Made-
line Avenue, Pyburn Avenue, Ravenna Avenue, or Sophia Road or any
other accepted public way.
p) That there will be no attempted closure of the median way
on Highland Avenue, at the entrance of Ravenna AVenue by the develop-
dr or Condominium Association.
- 3 -
q) The Plaintiff shall relinquish the foundation and build-
ing permits , as issued by the City of Salem currently existing for
commercial uses on the parcel, .upon finanal approval by the Board
of. Appeal and allownace of this Agreement for Consent Judgment by
the Superior Court.
r ) That all water, sewer and drainage improvements on the
site shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Plan-
ner and Director of Public Services, City of Salem; and, that all
issues and concerns regarding drainage and wetlands . shall be re-
viewed and approved by the Conservation Commission, ,City. of Salem.
s ) That an. assessment of impact of the proposed project
on existing infrastructure services, including water, sewer and
drainage, shall be made by the City Planner and Director of Pub-
lic Services, City of. Salem. That upon such assessment, the Plain-
tiff shall make any necessary improvements, .at his costs, if re-
quested by the City Planner and Director of Public Services. If
it is deemed that improvements are necessary, and attributable
to the project, to upgrade the existing wastewater pump station
on Ravenna Ave. said improvements shall be implemented by- and at
the cost of the Plaintiff .
t) If required by the State Department of Public Works,
the Plaintiff shall contribute the demanded funds for drainage
improvements proposed in the vicinity of Rich's Department Store,
Highland Avenue,, Salem, in an effort to eliminate drainage pro-
blems found in the geographical area.
U ) That the City Planner shall submit a written state-
ment of .satisfaction of all such conditions to the Building In-
spector, City of Salem prior to the issuance of a building .per-
mit.
V) That the Plaintiff shall complete all cosntruction
and install all required municipal services within three (3 )
years from date of approval of the definitive plans ; and, he
shall provide that the proposed construction will be in five
( S ) phases , all as provided for in the definitive plan to be
submitted for approval.
1. That, in the work to be done on said pro-
ject, the General Contractor and all sub-contractors shall
restrict the performance of the work between the hours of
7 :00 A.M.' and 6 :00 P.M. , Monday through Friday, excluding
work of a quiet nature. The hours for blasting shall be de-
termined by the Salem Fire Marshall. -
2 . That the By-Laws of the Condominium Assoc-
iation, to be executed and administered by the Condominium
Association, shall provide that all costs of trash collec-
tion and snow removal shall be paid for by the Association.
- -- 4 -
w) That the petitioner, Mike Stasinos, upon filing of
the Definitive Pian with the Board of Appeal, shall also file
said Definitive Plan with the Board of Health.
Mike Stasinos, Plaintiff
by his attorney':
Nicholas G. Curuby
7 Franklin Street
Lynn, MA. , 01902
(617 ) 595-0009
City of Salem,
and of Appeal ,
'` b its attorne
Michael E. O' Brien
City Solicitor
City. Hall
93 Washington Street
Salem, MA. O1970 ' ..
August 15, 1986.
5 -
a y.COW COPY FOR YOUR
INFORMATION
MICHAEL E. O'BRIEN 3 LEONARD F. FEMINO
CITY SOLICITOR - 39 ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR
9.3 WASHINGTON STREET �`°�u�•°"� 93 WASHINGTON STREET
and and
81 WASHINGTON STREET CITY OF SALEM ONE BROADWAY
SALEM, MA 01970 MASSACHUSETTS BEVERLY, MA 01915
745-4311 _ 745-4311
744.3383 921.1990
Please Reply to 81 Washington Street Please Reply to One Broadway .
February 10 , 1987
Salem City Council
City. Hall
93 Washington Street
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
. Re : Court Judgment.
394 Highland Avenue, Salem
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council':
Pursuant to an Order 'of-.the City Council dated January 27 ,
_ 1987 relative to an item by . item report ,as to compliance or non-
compliance with the Judgment., please be advised that most of the
information requested is in the province of other municipal de-
partments . However, I respond as best I can as follows :
Item #1 Completed
Item #2 49, Completed '(Subsequently amended by Board
of Appeal to allow for two-story building )
b) Incomplete
Reason: developer has three years to comply
with this condition ( subsequently amended by
Board of Appeal to 3 . 95 acres instead of 4 . 1 ) .
c) T he.ve no knowledge whether complied with or
not.
d ) I have no knowledge whether complied with or
not.
e ) I have no knowledge whether complied with or
not.
f ) I have no knowledge whether complied with or
not.
g) Completed (Bank book held by my office . )
h) I have no knowledge whether complied with or
not.
i ) I have no knowledge whether complied with or
not.
j ) I have no knowledge whether complied with or
not .
k) I have no knowledge whether complied with or
not.
1 ) I have no knowledge whether complied with or
not. .
m) Incomplete
Reason: Inaction on part of developer ' s
Attorney.,
n) I have no knowledge whether complied with or
not.
o) I have no knowledge whether complied with or
not.
p) I have no knowledge whether complied with or
not.
q) Completed
r) I have no knowledge whether complied with or
not.
s ) I have no knowledge whether complied with or
not.
t) I have no. knowledge whether complied with or
not.
u) I have no knowledge whether complied with or
not:
v) Incomplete
Reason: ` Developer has three years to perform.
1. I have no knowledge whether completed or .
not.
2 . Incomplete
Reas'on: ' Developer has three years to per-
form.
I am enclosing a copy of. original Judgment and Amended Judg-
ment for your records .
Ver . truly-you
--"' Michael E. O'Brien
City Solicitor
MSO/7p
Enclosures
cc: City Planner
Building Inspector
Board of Appeal.
Director of Public Services
f�tt� of ,$Ujem, efassar4usetto
' attrD of upeal
. r
July 28, 1986
Michael E. O'Brien, Esq.
City Solicitor
93 Washington St.
Salem, MA 01970
RE: Mike Stasinos vs
Board of Appeal,
Complaint #86-1534
Dear Mr. O'Brien:
On July 23, ig86, after a public hearing held at One Salem
Green, Salem Massachusetts, the Salerr, Board of Appeal voted 5-0 to
request that you enter into negotiations with Mike Stasinos, relative
to the above-captioned case.
The Board of Appeal's decision was predicated on the thirty
three (33) conditions enclosed herein. All these conditions must
be accepted by Mr. Stasinos, on or before August 21 , 1986.
Sincerely,
James M. Fleming
Member, Board of Appeal
JMF:bms
Enclosed: List of conditions
f
CONDITIONS
1 . Petitioner, Mike Stasinos enter into an agreement with the City Solicitor,
City of Salem for dismissal of Complaint X86-1534, now pending in the Superior
Court Department, Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
2. Petitioner, Mike Stasinos waive all his appellate rights in the matter of
his petition to the Board of Appeals, City of Salem, dated May 14, 1986, in
a form approved by the City Solicitor.
3. The petitioner, Mike Stasinos, amend his deed .to the real property located
at 394 Highland Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts, said amep dment to be a covenant
not to build on any portion of said real estate, other than on that portion
utilized for 126 condominium units. Said amendment is to be approved in form
by the City Solicitor.
4.. The petitioner, Mike Stasinos, deed to the City of Salem a total of three (3)
acres, said acres to be used for public soccer fields.
5. That the Board of Appeal have the full time services of a consultant to serve
as a Clerk of the Works, monitored weekly by the City Planner, to ensure that
proper construction practices are adhered to in the development of 394 Highland
Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts. The petitioner, Mike Stasinos, shall reimburse
the City of Salem, on a monthly basis, the full cost of such Clerk of the Works.
No further development of the site shall take place until such Clerk of the
Works is hired and is present on the site of the development.
6. That the preliminary plan of the development, as has been submitted by the
petitioner to the Board of Appeal be approved by the Board of Health, Con-
servation Commission, City Engineer, Superintendent of Streets, Fire Department,
Police Department and School Department.
7. That, prior to any construction, the petitioner file with the Board of Appeal
a Definitive Plan, in form and with the contents required by Section IIT B
of the subdivision regulations.
8. That the petitioner, Mike Stasinos, prior to any construction, file an .
Environmental Impact Statement, clearly showing the relation of the proposed
project. to the total environment of the City and it's inhabitants.
9. That the petitioner, Mike Stasinos, upon filing of the Definitive Plan with
the Board of Appeal, shall also file said Definitive Plan with the Board of
Health. The Board of Health, within thirty (30) days, shall report to the
Board of Appeal the effect of the development on the municipal sewerage system
and whether any building on site might be injurious to the public health.
10. Petitioner, Mike Stasinos file a performance guarantee bond, in an amount
and form approved by the City Solicitor.
11 . Petitioner, Wike Stasinos meet all the design standards for streets, easements,
open space and the protection of natural features, as set forth in Section IV
of the subdivision regulations of the City of Salem, final approval resting
with the Board of Appeal.
r
CONDITIONS - PAGE TWO
1�. Petitioner, Mike Stasinos, meet all the required improvements for an approved
subdivision in relation to street and roadway, sidewalks, grass strips,
monuments and utilities, as set forth in Section V of the subdivision regulations
of the City of Salem, final approval resting with the Board of Appeal.
13. That the petitioner, Mike Stasinos, complete all construction and install all
required municipal services within two (2) years of the date of approval of
the Definitive Plan.
14. That the petitioner meet all the conditions recommended by the City Planner,
and that they be annexed and merged in these above mentioned conditions.
7'-
15. That the petitioner, Mike Stasinos, work on the site only between the hours
of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. , Monday through Friday.
16. That the collection of trash and plowing be done for perpetuity by the
Condominium Association and not the City of Salem.
17. A maximum of 126 units shall be constructed, with such construction taking
place on the northernmost portion of the parcel, as defined by the City
Planner. Such a density on the entire 26 acre parcel represents approximately
6 units per acre, or 7,000 square feet per unit, which is not dissimilar to
the density of the abutting neighborhood.
18. A neighborhood review process shall be initiated between the developer,
neighborhood residents, and the City Planning Department, through which a
neighborhood meeting, at the convenience of the neighbors, shall be held to
review the project and its components, and necessary changes and alterations
to such plans shall be made as requested, within, the parameters of the
approved variance.
19. The developer shall be required to contribute to any and all proposed traffic
improvements in the Highland Avenue/Swampscott Road area, as defined by the
City through its Comprehensive Traffic Study now being undertaken. Such a
contribution shall be made according to a formula designed such that all
developments within the surrounding geographical area shall fairly share such
cost.
20. The developer shall be required to reserve a strip of land to .be defined by
the City, along Highland Avenue, for the future widening of the roadway if
deemed necessary by the Comprehensive Traffic Study now being undertaken.
21 . No commercial development shall be developed on the land parcel at any time
in the future.
22. Three (3) acres, or a greater amount to be defined by the City Planner, shall
be deeded to the City of Salem and be developed, by and at the cost of the
developer, for outdoor recreational use and ancillary parking for such use, as
defined by the City. the developer shall also provide screening, landscaping
and fencing for these facilities as required by the City Planner.
23. All exterior building designs, building locations, lighting, landscaping,
infrastructure, and site planning and design elements of the proposed develop-
ment shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Board.
24. A buffer zone of 200 feet, along the eastern boundary ofthe property, shall be
created so that residential abutters of Pyburn Avenue and Madeline Avenue shall
not be adversely impacted.
CONDITIONS - PAGE THREE
25. Landscaping to screen buildings from the Pyburn Avenue and Madeline Avenue
residences shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and abutting
residents. Such landscaping shall eliminate any visual impact of the develop-
ment upon the abutting neighborhood.
26. No access shall be provided to the parcel other than from Highland Avenue.
Any access to the land parcel from Appleby Road, Madeline Avenue, Pyburn Avenue,
Ravenna Avenue, or Sophia Road is strictly prohibited.
27. No closure of the median way on Highland Avenue, at t)e entrance of Ravenna
Avenue, shall take place.
28. The developer shall relinquish his foundation and building permits which
currently exist for commercial uses on the parcel.
29. All water, sewer and drainage improvements on the site shall be subject to the
review and approval of the City Planner and the Director of Public Services.
30. An assessment of impacts of the proposed project on existing infrastructure
services, including water, sewer and drainage, shall be made by the City Planner
and the Director of Public Services. Following such assessment, the City
Planner and the Director of Public Services shall request any necessary improve-
ments be implemented by the developer at his cost. Particular concern shall be
paid to the potential need to upgrade the existing wastewater pump station on
Ravenna Avenue, which, if improvements are necessary, shall be implemented by
and at the cost of the developer.
31 . All issues and concerns regarding drainage and wetlands shall be reviewed and
approved by the Conservation Commission.
32. The developer shall contribute funds required by the State Department of Public
Works for drainage improvements planned in the vicinity of Rich's Department
Store to eliminate drainage problems in this geographical area.
33. A written statement of satisfaction of all such conditions shall be provided by
the City Planner to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
r�.conntt�
GERARDCITY
PLANNER ONE SALEM GREEN
CITY PLANNE6 qA 01970
(617)744-4580
February 24, 1986
Mr. James Hacker, Chairman
Board of Appeal
One Salem Green
Salem, MA. 01970
Dear Mr. Hacker:
Recently, the Board of Appeals requested that I review a proposed 184 unit
residential condominium development to be located at 394 Highland Avenue. At that
time, I suggested that additional information was necessary to complete a thorough
review, and requested that the petitioner pay for the undertaking of an independent
analysis which would allow judgments to be made regarding the potential impacts of such
a project.
Such funds were not provided, but the petitioner did undertake his own impact
analysis of the proposed development. This analysis has been reviewed, and its facts were
accurate, and it provided a general definition of the impacts involved.
Based upon their research, and an analysis which I have undertaken within the
Planning Department, I cannot recommend that the variance be granted. This
recommendation is based upon the following: /
1. TRAFFIC - Traffic circulation in the Highland Avenue area is currently very
congested, and will become more so as development continues. It is the City's
most highly travelled roadway, and travel demand will continue to increase.
Although this proposed development will not necessarily cause an excessive ,
increase in traffic, the flow and signalization improvements proposed to
facilitate the development's traffic-demands merit a more thorough study,
which has not yet been undertaken. For example, the petitioner has received
approval for the installation of a traffic signal adjacent to the project. Yet,
the traffic flow figures for the project do not merit any consideration of a
traffic signal. In fact, if any signalization were to take place, it should be
coordinated with the signalization presently located at the Rich's Department
Store, for the City should work to minimize the number of traffic lights on
Highland Avenue to provide for greater ease of traffic flow.
In addition, there has been no resolution of the concern of residents of Ravenna
Avenue regarding their ability to enter and exit on Highland Avenue in either
direction. This too must be more formally reviewed, and the State Department
of Public Works must provide a commitment that the current roadway network
will not be altered.
James Hacker's letter -2- February24 1
, 986
The petitioner has yet to clearly define the total development to be proposed.
It has changed repeatedly over the past twelve (12) months. Only when that is
done can a clear indication of traffic impacts be made.
Finally, through a local appropriation of $25,000, the City has recently initiated
a comprehensive Traffic Study for the City. One of the study's primary areas
of concern will be the Highland Avenue area. It may be in the City's interest to
allow the Highland Avenue portion of the study to be completed prior to any
development approvals being granted. The City must address the traffic
conditions of Highland Avenue in a comprehensive manner. With the proposed
improvements for this project, traffic improvements are being planned with a
very narrow, piecemeal approach.
2. ZONING AND LAND USE - The City recently rezoned a major portion of this
land from B-2 to Business Park Development. This rezoning was undertaken on
more than 150 acres of land in the southwest area of the City in an effort to
promote office and light industrial development which would enhance both the
City's employment base and tax base. The proposed development obviously
deviates substantially from that intent. As a result, I believe very strongly that
the City should undertake a more thorough review of the land use impacts upon
our job base and tax base prior to approving any residential development. Such
a development would obviously be contrary to recently enacted public policy
(our new zoning), which has been unanimously endorsed by the City Council and
Mayor.
When the City chose to rezone a major portion of this parcel for office and
industrial use, it also chose to retain several portions of the land in its
existing zoning status. A 2 acre portion of Residential-Conservation (R-C) land
was reserved because of its proximity to other land valuable to the
Salem/Peabody watershed. The proposed development provides for construction
in the R-C area, which would be detrimental to the watershed.
The R-1 land was retained by the City in a low density residential zone because
of the need to protect the single family houses in the adjoining neighborhood
(the Ravenna Avenue area), and provide for a compatible use and density. The
proposed development provides for a development density in the R-1 area far in
excess of the R-1 zoning standards.
As a result, this development would completely undermine the intent of these
two zoning districts.
3. NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS - The concerns of the neighborhood have yet to
be thoroughly reviewed. After two acrimonious neighborhood meetings with
residents of Ward 4, the petitioner has chosen not to meet with the neighbors
again and resolve neighborhood concerns. This process is obviously a vital part
of any review.
James Hacker's letter -3- February 24, 1986
4. EXACT DEFINITION OF PROPOSAL - There has yet to be a clear definition of
the exact development proposed, from which judgments on its actual impacts
can be made. The Salem Planning Board has been presented with several
varying proposals including office space, condominiums, and open space in
differing locations, and varying types of traffic controls and circulation.
The Planning Department has also been presented with a variety of
development schemes, and the Board of Appeal has been presented with yet
another. Any analysis of this site is based upon a variety of development
assumptions which, in this instance, may not be accurate over the long term
because of alterations to the development .
In conclusion, I cannot recommend approval of the variance necessary for this
development at the present time. An approval of this project would be a substantial
contradiction of recently enacted public policy, without the research upon which such a
contradiction must be based. Similar projects have necessitated far more months of
thorough study before final approvals have been granted, with such review processes
progressing with a consistent and cooperative working relationship between the petitioner,
appropriate City departments and boards, and concerned neighborhood residents.
I would recommend, though, that the petitioner withdraw without prejudice so that
the City can take the time necessary to review public policy, initiate its traffic study,
and address the land use issues involved in such a development proposal, and then work
with the developer toward the implementation of a project which will be in the long term
interest of the City of Salem.
Thank you very much for your cooperation in this matter.
Sinc r y,
Gerard avanaugh
City P anner
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
��„cwvyib -
GERARD KAVANAUGH " 4`t' ONE SALEM GREEN
CITY PLANNER 01970
(617)
M (617) 744.4580
cam.,
May 8, 1986
Mr. James Hacker, Chairman
Board of Appeal
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Mr. Hacker:
Over the past several years, the City, through its Board of Appeal and Planning Board,
has entertained proposals for the development of the 26 acre parcel of land located at 394
Highland Avenue.
The parcel had originally been zoned, for both business and single family uses. The
owner of the land, though, desired to cohstruct condominiums. After extended debate
before various boards and agencies, discussions broke down.
The Planning Board, in a 1984 rezoning effort in the entire Highland Avenue -
Swampscott.Road area, attempted to rezone this and other land,parcels for a new Business
Park Development zone, to promote office and light industrial development. The owner,
prior to the rezoning taking place, was able to "freeze" the existing commercial and
residential zoning, avoid the requirements of our new zoning, and avoid a public hearing and
public review process, as is now required.
Since then, the developer has proposed various uses of either a commercial or
residential nature. I have reviewed each of them, and have now been requested to review a
petition for the residential development of 163 units.
First of all, I would recommend to the Board that a residential use, not a commerical
use, be allowed. If proposed uses are analyzed from the perspectives of traffic generation,
density of use, visual impact, and site design, a commercial use would certainly have a much
greater impact upon the neighborhood and the City at large. A commercial use could be
constructed without any public review process, of a scale extremely detrimental to the
neighborhood and the City, and would generate a much higher traffic demand. For instance,
400,000 square feet of commercial space could be constructed immediately, which, from all
perspectives - traffic, design, and land use -would be very detrimental, particularly without
the benefit of public review. Traffic generation, for instance, could exceed 20,000 trips per
day. In contrast, the residential development proposed would generate only 650 trips per
day.
As a result, I would recommend that the residential petition be granted, but only if the
following conditions are also approved:
1. A maximum of 126 units shall be constructed, with such construction taking place
on 20 acres of land on the northernmost portion of the parcel, as defined by the
City Planner. Such a density on a 20 acre parcel represents approximately 6 units
per acre, or 7,000 square feet per unit, which is not dissimilar to the density of the
abutting neighborhood (a typical abutter to the development has a 8,200 square
feet parcel).
2. A neighborhood review process shall be initiated between the developer,
neighborhood residents, and the City Planning Department, through which three (3)
neighborhood meetings, at the convenience of the neighbors, shall be held to review
the project and its components, and make necessary changes and alterations to
such plans within the parameters of the approved variance.
3. The developer shall be required to contribute to any and all proposed traffic
improvements in the Highland Avenue/Swampscott Road area, as defined by the
City through its Comprehensive Traffic Study now being undertaken. Such a
contribution shall be made according to a formula designed such that all
developments within the surrounding geographical area shall fairly share such
costs.
4. The developer shall be required to reserve a strip of land to be defined by the City
Planner, along Highland Avenue, for the future widening of the roadway if deemed
necessary by the Traffic Study now being undertaken.
5. No commercial development, as allowed in a highway business zoning district,
excepting those uses allowed in a Business Park Development zone, shall be
developed on the land parcel at any time in the future.
6. Uses prescribed in the Business Park Development Zone, as defined by Section VII-
Q of the Zoning Ordinance, shall be allowed if the developer receives approval for
such use from the Salem Planning Board, through its Site Plan Review and Business
Park Development process, as defined by Section VII-Q and Section VII-R of said
Zoning Ordinance.
7. Three (3) acres, as defined by the City Planner, shall be deeded to the City of
Salem and be developed, by and at the cost of the developer, for outdoor
recreational use, as defined by the City.
8. All exterior building designs, building locations, lighting, landscaping,
infrastructure, and site planning and design elements of the proposed development
shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Planner, and shall be
reviewed through the neighborhood review process.
9. A buffer zone of 250 feet, along the eastern boundary of the property, shall be
created so that residential abutters of Pyburn Avenue and Madeline Avenue shall
not be adversely impacted.
10.Landscaping to screen buildings from the Pyburn Avenue and Madeline Avenue
residences shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and abutting
residents. Such landscaping shall eliminate any visual impact of the development
upon the abutting neighborhood.
11.No closure of the median way on Highland Avenue, at the entrance of Ravenna
Avenue, shall take place.
12.The developer shall relinquish his foundation and building permits which currently
exist for commercial uses on the parcel.
i
13. All water, sewer, and drainage improvements on the site shall be subject to the
review and approval of the City Planner and the Director of Public Services.
14. An assessment of impacts of the proposed project on existing infrastructure
services, including water, sewer and drainage, shall be made by the City Planner
and the Director of Public Services. Following such assessment, the City Planner
and the Director of Public Services shall request any necessary improvements be
implemented by the developer at his cost. Particular concern shall be paid to the
potential need to upgrade the existing wastewater pump station on Ravenna
Avenue, which, if improvements are necessary, shall be implemented by and at the
cost of the developer.
15. All issues and concerns regarding drainage and wetlands shall be reviewed and
approved by the Conservation Commission.
16.The developer shall contribute funds required by the State Department of Public
Works for drainage improvements planned in the vicinity of Rich's Department
Store to eliminate drainage problems in this geographical area.
17. A written statement of satisfaction of all such conditions shall be provided by
the City Planner to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this matter.
J
ugh
"
LAW OFFICES
HAROLD MEIZLER
AND ASSOCIATES
C—j
FIFTEEN COURT SQUARE �D
BOSTON,MASSACHUSETTS 02108-25I6
CABLE"HARMIZE",BOSTON
��REet'Z:ODE 817 27`1518
June 11 , 1986 t C;o
�� J
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED ' r
.7.
Board of Appeal U c"'
City of Salem
City Hall
Salem, MA 01970
Re : Mike Stasinos vs: City of Salem Board
of Appeal , et al , Essex Superior Court
Civil Action- No: - 86=15'34
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to M: G. L:Chapter 40A, Section 17, notice is
hereby given that Mike Stasinos has filed an appeal from the
decision of the City of Salem, Board of Appeal denying his
petition for a variance to allow construction of 163
residential units on the property known as 394 Highland
Avenue, Salem: Said decision was filed with the City Clerk' s
office on May 27 , 1986.-
A
986:A copy of the Complaint , which was filed on June 11 , 1986
in the Essex County Superior Court Department , is attached
hereto:
Very truly yours ,
MIKE STASINOS
By his attorneys ,
HAROLD MEIZLER AND ASSOCIATES
By• &�Z
SAUL L. BENOWITZ , ESQ:
SLB :mh
Encl : (Complaint)
cc : Mr. Mike Stasinos
COMMONVEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEXSS SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
CIVIL ACTION NO ' J�-_IS3J4
MICE STASINOS, Plaintiff )
vs )
CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF
APPEAL, and JAMES B." HACKER;
RICHARD A: BENCAL, ) COMPLAINT`- m :
JAMES Me FLEMING, `Mco;
EDWARD LUZINSKI, ) ;= 77
rn -'
PETER STROUT,
ARTHUR LaBRECQUE;
PETER Ao DORE, as they are ,—
Members of . the 'City of ) 'S ;
Salem Board of Appeal , )
.. . . . . Defendants' )
1 , This is an appeal pursuant to General Laws,
Chapter 40A, Section 17 from a decision of the City
of Salem Board of Appeal denying the Petition of
Mike Stasinos requesting the Board to issue a
variance to allow construction of 163 residential
units on premises located at' 394 Highland Avenue,
Salem'. encompassing approximately twenty-five (25)
acres and lying in Districts R-1 '. R-C, and BPD,
which has been previously described as lying in
Districts R-1 , R-C, and B-2:
2: The Plaintiff; Mike Stasinos, is a natural
,person aggrieved by said decision with an address at
54.4 Chestnut Street; Lynn; Massachusetts, and owns
the premises in question'.
3e The ]Defendant Board of Appeal of the City of
Salem has a usual place of business at City Hall ,
Salem and is comprised of members made Defendants
herein whose names and addresses are as follows :
James M: Fleming' Edward Luzinski
47 Buffum Street 2S Hardy Street
Salem; MA 01970 Salem; MA 01970
James B ' Hacker Peter Strout
7 Ugo Road; 244 Lafayette Street
Salem; MA 01970 Salem, MA 01970
I
Richard Ao Bencal Arthur LaBrecque
19 Goodell, Street 11 Hazel Street
Salem, MA 01970 Salem; FRA 01970
SURD OF tkPPEALS
Peter A: Dore
12 Bentley Street JUN 17 8 is AM '86
Salem, MA 01970 CCR EC�EI,'_l Ej0r
Only the Defendant BolardFSMemberss Hacker,
Bencal , Fleming, Luzinski ; and Strout acted on the j
decision from which this appeal is taken.
4. On or about March 12, 1986 the Plaintiff filed
an application with the Board of Appeal for the City
of Salem for a variance of the terms of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance and/or the Building Code to permit
the construction of 163 residential units on the
premises known as 394 Highland Avenue; Salem (a copy
of the application is attached hereto; marked "A") .
S. As a basis for his application for a variance, j
the Plaintiff stated that: I
a) special conditions and circumstances exist
which especially affect the land involved and
which do not generally affect other lands,
buildings and structures in the same district.
The land area is undeveloped, rough terrain,
which has no significant waterways and is thus
unsuitable for agricultural , forestry, or
wildlife related uses.
b) literal enforcement of the provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial
hardship; financial or otherwise, to the
Plaintiff, since strict enforcement would make
any development or beneficial use of the
property impractical ; and
i
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 purposes
of the Ordinance. In fact, the proposed
construction would serve two important needs of
the City of Salem: (1) a substantial broadening
of the tax base at minimum expense to the City;
and (2) the need for further affordable and
quality housing.
6. On May 14, 1986 the Board of Appeal of the City
of Salem held a public hearing on the Plaintiff' s
Petition for a Variance and thereafter rendered a
decision which was filed with the City Clerk on May
27; 1986: (A certified copy of the decision is
annexed hereto; marked "B". ) By said decision, the
Board of Appeal of Salem voted 3-2 to deny the
Plaintiff' s Petition.
2 -
- BOARD DF. ;PPEAL
S
6: The decision of the Board of , ppg?al8elx8 � .its
authority in that : p
a) the Defendants failed toC1EYodlEid'Tq p�asible
conditions, safeguards or limitations in
denying the petition;
i
i
b) the Findings and Decision of the Board fail
to state a specific factual basis to support
their decision, .and fail to meet statutory
prerequisites ;
c) the Defendants failed to make specific
findings of fact as to significant special
characteristics existing on the subject land
area ;
d) the Defendants failed to consider the
effect of the "gerrymandering" caused by the
three zoning districts imposed upon the land;
and
e) the Board of Appeal failed to vote in
accordance with its Rules and Regulations,
Article IV; entitled Disposition by the Board;
ect on Votin Re uirement wh c states he
concurring vote o at least four (4) members of
the ZoningBoard of Appeals ppeals shall be necessary
in any action taken by the Board". The vote
cast by the Board was three (3) affirmative
votes in favor of denying the petition and two
(2) negative votes: Therefore, the action
taken by the Board of Appeal still remains
unresolved, as there were only three (3)
concurring votes on the proffered motion.
WHEREFORE, THE PLAINTIFF PRAYS THAT:
1: The decision of the Defendant Board of
Appeal be annulled.
2: The Court grant such other relief as it
deems just and appropriate.
I
MIKE STASINOSI PLAINTIFF
By his attorneys,
HAROLD MEIZLED ASSOCIATES
By: . .
HAROLD ME Z ESQ-.
SAUL L. BENOWITZ, ES .
1S Court Square
Suite 1100
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 227-1818
Dated• June 10, 1986 - 3
Ctu of ttlem, Httsstttl�use##s
J• F Pottrb of tA"ettl
s v
September 19, 1986
Councillor Leonard O'Leary
31 Barcelona Ave.
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Mr. O'Leary:
It has been brought to my attention that any and all building
permits issued for 394 Highland Avenue have been revoked. Therefore,
I believe, eliminating the problem that you had mentioned earlier.
You will also note that I have enclosed a copy of a letter sent
to the City Planner and I think you will concur with this letter. In
the future, when all stipulations have been met, you will be advised
when a discussion will take place by this Board for this project.
If you have any immediate concerns please do not hesitate to contact
me personnally.
Sincerely,
oo
ames B. Hacker
Chairman
JBH:bms
Enclosure
cc; Inspector of Buildings
,.cmvgb
of �9ttlem, assuchuse##s
Foam of �-PVJW
September 19, 1986
Gerard Kavanaugh
Planning Director
City of Salem
Dear Mr. Kavanaugh:
It is my understanding that the building permits issued for
Mike Stasinos at 394 Highland Ave. have been revoked. I am hoping
that in the future Mr. Stasinos will be bound by the thirty, three (33)
conditions stated in our Consent Judgement of August 15, 1986.
I would appreciate your notifying this Board when all thirty
three (33) conditions have been met satisfactorily in your opinion
and returned to us for our approval prior to building permits being
issued. Your help in this matter would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
James B. Hacker
Chairman
JBH:bms
CC: Councillor O'Leary
s f Vepartinrnt of Public Works
�f01lIf�E�
(fr�nettlem Green
PAUL S.NIMAN
DIRECTOR OFPUBLIC SERVICES February 26, 1987
Mr. Michael E. O'Brien
City Solicitor
City Hall
Salem, MA. 01970
RE: Development - Highland Avenue/StaSinOS
Dear Mr. O'Brien:
Following last night's meeting of the Council Committee on Community Development
you requested I submit a letter to you outlining the procedure to be used to deter-
mine an acceptable amount of a Performance Bond for the above referenced project in
accordance with section 2 (g) of the Court Judgement.
The procedure is relatively simple. The developer should have his engineer pre-
pare a detailed cost estimate for the work based on the specific items such as water
mains, sewer mains, drain lines, manholes, catchbasins, ledge removal, gravel, paving,
curbing, lights, landscaping, etc. Quantities of each of these items should be sub-
mitted and unit prices applied. The total of all the items would be the developer's
cost estimate. My office would then review the quantities and unit prices to see if
they are reasonable. Once we have agreed with the cost estimate we would add 25%
for engineering and contingencies in the event that the developer does not complete
the work. This total would be the amount of the Performance Bond.
In reviewing section 2 (g) of the Court Judgement I am confused as to the intent
of what items the Performance Bond should cover. I find it unclear as to whether the
developer is to bond for only the public improvements or if he is to bond for all items
necessary for completion of the project. Since most of the roads and utilities are to
be private, this could have a major impact on the amount of the bond. However, if only
the public improvements are bonded what guarantees are there that all of the work shown
on the site plan will be completed. Accordingly, I hereby request your opinion as to
what the developer is required to bond for to insure compliance with article 2 (g) of
the Court Judgement.
Your prompt attention to this request will be appreciated.
Michael E. O'Brien (Cont'd.) February 26, 1987
r
Very truly,) yours,
Paul S. Niman
Director of Public Services
PSN/cmc
cc: Councillor Frances Grace
Councillor Vincent Furfaro
Councillor Leonard O'Leary
City Planner
Building Inpsector
Board of Appeals
i
7- _It_ ` 'COPY FOR YOUR
:. INFORMATION
MICHAEL E. O'BRIEN �: - LEONARD F. FEMINO
CITY SOLICITOR ''b �� ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR
93 WASHINGTON STREET °'"�•`Ai 93 WASHINGTON STREET
and - - and
81 WASHINGTON STREET 'GITY OF SALEM ONE BROADWAY
SALEM, MA 01970 MASSACHUSETTS BEVERLY, MA 01915
745-4311 - -- - 7454311
744.3363 921.1990 j
Please Reply to 81 Washington S'rest Please Reply to One Broadway
March 3 , 1987
Paul S. Niman, Director
Department of Public Services
V11C Salem eCll '
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Re: Development- 394 Highland. Ave.
Dear Mr . Niman:
This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of February
26 , 1987 requesting my ,opinion as to the bond requirement of
paragraph 2 (g) of the Consent .Judgment in the above entitled
matter.
It is my opinion that the intent of paragraph 2 (g) is to
pr•Dtect the City of Salem from liability regarding those aspects
of the project connected to 'the delivery of municipal services.
The intent of paragraph .2 (g) ;was not to guarantee or warrant
cork to be performed on private property. To do. so, as magnan- '
imous as. it may. be, .would place the City of Salem in the position
of 'a guarantor of the "workmanlike quality" of the entire project.
Under the terms of a Condominium ,Association Master Deed the
individual owners of the condominium units own and are respon-
sible for all maintenanceand repair of common facilities (i .e.
sewers, water, utilities, roads, etc. ) .
Accordingly, it my opinion`.that it was never the intent
of the Board of Appeal to require bonding proposed services ,
within the confines of. the property of the proposed Condominium
Association, See, for example, . paragraph 2 v) 2 . of the Consent
Judgment relative to trash and' snow. removal. Rather, it is my
opinion that it was the intent of . the Board of Appeal that a
bond be required to guar•ante.e. that .entry into existing municipal
services be accomplished. in an approved manner. If such
has already been satisfactorily completed, I can see of no
necessity of a performance bond 'or. its equivalent. To the
contrary, to mandate a bond for performance of services on .
4
Paul S.Niman (page 2) March 3, 1987
private propery might unnecessarily expose the City to
liability. Clearly, such was not, the intent of the Board
of Appeal.
Ver truly y
c�hEcha
. O n
ity Solicitor
cc: Board of Appeal
City planner
Building Inspector
Councillor Furfaro
City Clerk
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS . SUPERIOR COURT DEPT. ..
CIVIL ACTION NO. 86-1534
- - - - MIKE STASINOS , -
PLAINTIFF
VS "
CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF .APPEAL,
AND JAMES, B. HACKER, RICHARD A.
BENCAL, JAMES M. 'FLEMING., EDWARD AMENDED CONSENT JUDGMENT
A. LUZINSKI , PETER STROUT, -ARTHUR
LABRECQUE, PETER A. DORE, AS THEY
ARE MEMBERS OF THE C1TY OF SALEM,
BOARD OF APPEAL; ,
DEFENDANTS
It is hereby agreed b.y' all parties tiat the Consent
Judgment entered. by this Court on August 18 , 1986 , be
amended as follows :
1 . ) Paragraph 2 ) subparagraph a ) line three is
amended by striking out the word "one" and sub
stituting in its place, .the 'word "two" .
2 . ) Paragraph 2 ) subparagraph b.) line two is here-
by amended by striking out the words 4 . 1 acres and
substituting the words,:"3 . 95 acres" in its place .,
3 . ) Paragraph 2 )', subparagraph. c) line two is
amended by striking ,.out. 'the words "professional
engineer" and substituting the words "Clerk of.
the Works line. seve'n' s. amended by striking out ,
the. word "Engineer" and substituting in its place
the words "Clerk of,' the Works".; line ten and eleven
are amended by striking out the word "engineering"
and substituting .the words "'supervision services"
in its place .
Except as expressly hereby amended , the Consent Judg-
ent of .August 18.. 1986 is hereby confirmed . ,
Mike Stasinos , Plaintiff City of Salem,
by his attorney :. Board of .Appeal , _
by its attorney :
Nicholas G. Curuby �--'
ichael E. O' Brt
7 Franklin Street City Solicitor
Lynn, Mass . 01902 93 Washington Street,
Telephone ( 617 ) 595=90.00 Salem, Mass . 01970
Telephone ( 617 ) 7447'3363
Dated :
a'.
COPY FOR YOUR
114FORVIAT{ON
MICHAEL E. O'BRIEN LEONARD F. FEMINO
CITY SOLICITOR14M6i$ ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR
93 WASHINGTON STREET - 93 WASHINGTON STREET
and and
81 WASHINGTON STREET CITY OF SALEM ONE BROADWAY
SALEM, MA 01970 MASSACHUSETTS BEVERLY, MA 01915
745.4311 - 745.4311
744.3383 921.1990
Please Reply to 81 Washington Street Please Reply to One Broadway .
February 10 , 1987
. Salem City Council.
City Hall
93 Washington Street
Salem, . Massachusetts 01970 :•
Re: Court Judgment
394 Highland Avenue, Salem
Dear Ladies and Gentlemenof the Council:
Pursuant to an Order' of-the City Council dated January 27 ,
1987 relative to an item by . item report ,as to compliance or non-
compliance with the Judgment., please be advised that most of the
information requested is in the province of other municipal de-
partments . However, I respond as best I can as follows :
Item #1 Completed
Item #2 a'), Completed (Sub'sequently amended by Board
of Appeal to allow, for two-story building)
b) Incomplete
Reason: developer has three years to comply
with this condition ( subsequently amended by
Board of Appeal to 3 . 95 acres instead of. 4 . 1 ) .
c) T have no knowledge whether complied with or
not.
d ) I have no knowledge whether complied with or
not.
e ) I have no knowledge whether complied with or
not.
f ) I have no knowledge whether complied with or
not.
g) Completed (Bank book held by my office . )
h) I have no knowledge whether complied with or
not.
i ) I have no knowledge whether complied with or
not.
j ) I have no knowledge whether complied with or
not.
k) I have no knowledge whether complied with or
not.
f
1 ) I have no knowledge whether complied withor
not. .
m) Incomplete
Reason:, inaction on part of . developer' s
Attorney. .
n) I have no knowledge whether complied with or
not.
o) I have no knowledge whether complied with or
not.
p) I have no knowledge whether complied with or
not.
q) Completed
r) I have no knowledge whether complied with or
not
s ) I have no knowledge whether complied with or
not.
t) I have no. knowledge whether complied with or
not.
u) I have no knowledge whether complied with or
not:
v) Incomplete
ReasonsDeveloper has three years to perform.
1. I have no knowledge whether completed or
not.
2 . Incomplete
Reason: Developer has -three years to per-
forma
I am enclosing a copy of original Judgment and Amended Judg-
ment for your records .
i Ver . truly'you
Michael E. O'Brien
City Solicitor
MEO/jp
Enclosures
cc:' City Planner
Building Inspector .
Board of Appeal
Director of Public Services
8 �.Co%n411o� Ctu of "*Ufe ' �:. KD�C4L 1{S1S 41�
Bepartment of Public Works
ryF�1.Ml�E�'
"^ One �ttlem Green
PAUL S.NIWIAN
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICES February 27, 1987
Salem City Council
City Hall
93 Washington Street
Salem, MA. 01970
Re: Development - Highland Avenue/Stasinos
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council:
In accordance with the Order of the City Council, dated January 27, 1987, request-
ing a report from the Director of Public Services relative to whether each of the
items listed in the Court Decree have been accomplished, I am hereby submitting my
response to the items which pertain to my Department. Be advised that the item
number listed cos Leaponds to those of the Court Decree.
Item #2(d) A preliminary plan was submitted to my office for review during
August of 1986. Meetings were held between the developer and
representatives from various departments, including Public Works,
to discuss requested changes. A revised plan was submitted which
was reviewed by my office and approved on September 18, 1986.
Item #2(g) The amount of the Performance Bond was never submitted for approval
to my office. Following the Council Committee on Community Develop-
ment meeting on February 25, 1987 the City Solicitor requested a
letter from me outlining the procedures used to arrive at such an
amount. I submitted such a letter to the City Solicitor on February
26, 1987 outlining the procedure and requesting his opinion as to
what items the developer must bond for.
Item #2(h) All water, sewer, and drainage improvements on the site were re-
viewed by Mr. Thomas G. Rouleau of my office as a part of his
review. Approval was granted September 18, 1986.
Item #2(s) An assessment of the impact of the proposed project on existing
infrastructure services, including water, sewer, and drainage was
made by Mr. Thomas G. Rouleau of my office as a part of his review.
No improvements were deemed necessary and accordingly no conditions
were made a part of the approval granted on September 18, 1986.
Salem City Council (Cont'd.) February 27, 1987
r
If you have an further questions lease do not hesitate to call me.
Y Y 4 P
Very truly yours,
Paul S. Niman
Director of Public Services
PSN/cmc
cc: City Planner
Building Inspector
t Board of Appeal ✓
City Solicitor
l
MICHAEL E. O'BRIEN - - LEONARD F. FEMINO
CITY SOLICITOR •'L .g ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR
93 WASHINGTON STREET �01q"'s p0� 93 WASHINGTON STREET
and - and
81 WASHINGTON STREET - CITY OF.SALEM ONE BROADWAY
- SALEM, MA 01970 MASSACHUSETTS - BEVERLY, MA 01915
745.4311 745-4311
.744.3383 921.1990
Please Reply to 81 Washington Street Please Reply to One Broadway
March 2 , 1987
Vincent J. Furfaro, Chairman' ' •
Committee on Community Development
C/O City Clerk
City Hall
93 Washington Street
Salem, Massachusetts. 0.1970 .
Re : Development - 394 Highland Avenue
Dear Councillor Furfaro:
As a follow up to your ,meQting of February 25 , 1987 , en
closed please find copy , of Amended .Judgment which was allowed
on February 27, 1987 .
Very truly ours,
� M, O'Brien ----
'C ' . y Solicitor
MEO/JP
Enclosure '
CC,. City Planner
Building Inspector
Director of Public Services
Board of Appeal
l
" -.- CITY OF SALEM
77
..
In City Council,.-__ JA Y 27 , 1987---- -----------------------
-- I
i
Ordered:
Tinaat the City Planner, Building Inspector, Boar of Appeal, Director of Public
Sz rices, and the City Solicitor report the present status of 394 Highland Avenue
,sc•-called Stasinos project) and reply to the Salem City Council as to whether
Cf. not all of the items listed in the Court Decree have been accomplished.
t-_Z BE IT FURTHER ORDERED: That the above report address each and every item
i
Ln the agreenz*nt as to c=Dliance or non-compliance, and the reasons for any
-.on-caripliance. This information shall be reported back to the City Council
x_ore the next regularly scheduled meeting of February 12, 1987.
=n City Council January 27, 1987 _
puro,e by the 'Mayor on Janua_r-v 29, 1987
=S ': JOSEPHIU'L4 R. FDSCY3 �a c,
�.covazz�
(gi#� ofttlem, Cssttcl#u�e##s
F Paarb of Appeal
September 3, 1986
Gerard Kavanaugh
Planning Director
City of Salem
Dear Mr. Kavanaugh:
Please be informed that Mike Stasinos has submitted to the
Board of Appeal a final definitive plan and environmental impact
study regarding his property located at 394 Highland Ave. These
two items conform with letters E and F of the Consent Judgement.
The Board of Appeal would very much appreciate your reviewing said
items which are on file in our office. We would appreciate your
imput so that we may discuss this at our September 17, 1986 meeting.
I believe it would also be in our best interest if you could set a
--- date for a neighborhood review process, which would satisfy letter J
of the same agreement.
If I can be of any service or If you have any questions please
contact me.
Respectfully,
dames B. Hacker
Chairman, Board of Appeal
JBH:bms
}
Ctu of 'Sttlem, 'fflttssac4usetts
s
,r Pottrb of ' PPpvd
February 9, 1987
To the Honorable City Council
City of Salem
Ladies & Gentlemen:
As of this date the Zoning Board of Appeal is in receipt of your
Council Order concerning the Stasinos project on Highland Avenue.
It is clearly our intent to fully cooperate and comply with this
order, however, since our next regular scheduled meeting is February 18th,
it is impossible to respond by the date indicated on the Order.
I am reluctant to call a special meeting at this time due to our
saturated schedule of meetings in the past and our anticipated heavy _
schedule this spring.
You may rest assured that this order will be given top priority
at our next scheduled meeting, February 18, 1987• The members and myself
appreciate your understanding in this matter. \
Respectfully,
Xames B. Hacker
Chairman, Board of Appeal
JBH:bms
CC: Mayor
Building Inspectors
Members of the Board of Appeal
� �
� �
O- "
����-
3�i� ��7
fi r
/..coniy,M^
oftt1em, C�f$ttsotl#use##�
` _ = Poura of �upettl
March 16, 1987
Gerard Kavanaugh
City Planner
City of Salem
Dear Mr. Kavanaugh:
On August 18, 1986 the Board of Appeal entered into a Consent
Judgment with Mike .Stasinos for property located at 394 Highland
Ave. This Board authorized the City Planner to assume its review
responsibilities for this residential development project. Specifically,
these responsibilities apply to items 2c, 2h and 2n of subject judgment.
City Solicitor, Michael O'Brien has concurred with the Board of Appeal
in this delegation of responsibility as the Board is a volunteer Board
which does not have the staff capability to administer a project of this
scope.
The Board of Appeal's major concerns have always related to the
use and the density of the project which we recognize will remain as
approved.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Very truly yours,
James B. Hacker
Chairman, Board of Appeal
JBH:bms
cc: file
fie 7eammanwealm d��/�a��uclicc�eC
�xecrcfcce 0/0ee o/&Vli'Onnzentlell ix9 JIM 19
700 7oam�xc��e JCxeeC AEC :IVi;p
ei O vA E.-;,MASS.
�:F>o5lon, �/</Ga�Aaclzrc9erf�4 02.20.2
MICHAEL S. DUKAKIS [� v,}5
GOVERNOR
JAMES S. HOYTE June 12 , 1986
SECRETARY W��.
^� co Y9
S r
P Q py
Mr . Michael Stasinos n' a+
544 Chestnut Street fir'
Lynn, MA 01904 caa
cn ,:tip
Dear Mr . Stasinos ,
On June 12 , 1984 , this office completed review of a Final
EIR and certified MEPA compliance with respect to your Highland
Avenue Condominium project , consisting of 216 condominium units
and 30 , 000 square feet of retail and professional office space on
25 acres (Draft EIR, p. 2-1 ) . Subsequent to that finding, state
curbcut permits and sewer permits could be granted for the
project as described.
Recent press accounts (North Shore , May 25 , 1986) suggest
that significant project changes may occur in the project . The
purpose of this letter is to remind you of your obligations , in
the event of project changes , to notify this office and comply
with MEPA regulation 10. 16 . In the absence of such compliance ,
no state permit may be validly issued for any project on the site
containing more than 216 condominium units or 30 , 000 square feet
of retail and professional office space .
For further information, call Richard Foster at 727-5830.
Sincerely, _
Le G . Mygatt
Assistant Secreta y
Environmental Impa R view
sgm
CC : MDPW Dist . 5 , Fred Harney
DEQE/WPC
Salem Board of Appeal
Planning Board
Conservation Commission
IN CITY COUNCIL,
City of Salem, ...._.Mazch..26................ -1987-.
THE COMMITTEE ON amnunity Development
to whom was referred
Council Orders dated 1-27-87 and 2-12-87, regarding the development at
394 Highland Avenue
has considered said matter and would recommend: That the City planner. Board of Appeals, and
Building Inspector vigorously enforce the consent judgement on the development
project located at 394 Highland Avenue.
In City Council March 26, 1987
Adopted by a unanimous roll call vote of 11 yeas, 0 nays, 0 absent
Approved by the Mayor on Marc;-: 30, 1987
ATTEST: JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO
UITY C1-H hK
FOR THE COMMITTEE,
Chairman
1
Cil\DIS
(fit ofttlem, ttssttcl�u�etts
y
2 S, i
Pottra of 'ppenl
February 9, 1987
To the Honorable City Council
City of Salem
Ladies & Gentlemen:
As of this date the Zoning Board of Appeal is in receipt of your
Council Order concerning the Stasinos project on Highland Avenue.
It is clearly our intent to fully cooperate and comply with this
order, however, since our next regular scheduled meeting is February 18th,
it is impossible to respond by the date indicated on the Order.
I am reluctant to call a special meeting at this time due to our
saturated schedule of meetings in the past and our anticipated heavy
schedule this spring.
You may rest assured that this order will be given top priority
at our next scheduled meeting, February 18, 1987. The members and myself
appreciate your understanding in this matter.
Respectfully,/
dames B. Hacker
Chairman, Board of Appeal
JBH:bms
cc: Mayor
Building Inspectors
Members of the Board of Appeal
ti fL�i#g of 3ttlem, ttssttcfluse##s
3 Poxrb of Appeal
February 9, 1987
To the Honorable City Council
City of Salem
Ladies & Gentlemen:
As of this date the Zoning Board of Appeal is in receipt of your
Council Order concerning the Stasinos project on Highland Avenue.
It is clearly our intent to fully cooperate and comply with this
order, however, since our next regular scheduled meeting is February 18th,
it is impossible to respond by the date indicated on the Order.
I am reluctant to call a special meeting at this time due to our
saturated schedule of meetings in the past and our anticipated heavy'
schedule this spring.
You may rest assured that this order will be given top priority
at our next scheduled meeting, February 18, 1987. The members and myself
appreciate your understanding in this matter.
Respectfully,
Vames B. Hacker
Chairman, Board of Appeal
JBH:bms
cc: Mayor
Building Inspectors
Members of the Board of Appeal
CITE' OF SALEM
In City Council,.-_ January 27 , 1987
--
u:YfNC Bp.
Ordered:
That the City Planner, BD.�ilding Inspector, Board of Appeal, Director of Public
Services, and the City Solicitor report the present status of 394 Highland Avenue
(so-called Stasinos project) and reply to the Salem City Council as to whether
of not all of the items listed in the Court Decree have been accomplished.
AND BE IT FURTHER ORDERED: That the above report address each and every itern
in the agreement as to compliance or non-compliance, and the reasons for any
M
nfomation shall be reported back to the City Council
ly scheduled meeting of February 12, 1987.
in City Council January 27 1987
Adopted
Approved by the Mayor on January 29, 1987
ATTEST: JOSEPH I[QE R. FU5CY �a e
Ti#u of "Mlem, 2ISstSCljusP##s
'<r " Poarb of
September 18, 1986
Councillor Leonard O'Leary
31 Barcelona Avenue
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Councillor O'Leary:
It has been brought to my attention that you have grave concerns
4 Highland Ave. Your allegation that the
regarding the development at 39 g g i
conditions have not been met prior to issuance of building permits is of
great concern. As you know our schedule is quite heavy and our agenda is
full for approximately sixty (60) days, however, I feel that your allega-
tion is severe enough to warrant immediate and special attention. There-
fore, I have scheduled you on our agenda for September 22, 1986 at 7:00 P.M.
You will be the first item of business on our agenda.
In order for the Board to assist,you and to facilitate matters,
would you kindly accompany your presentation with a written list of
conditions that you feel have been violated.
Sincerely,
times B. Hacker
Chairman
JBH:bms
cc: Mayor Salvo
Inspector of Buildings
City Planner
' s �
MICHAEL-E. O'BRIEN LEONARD F. FEMINO
CITY,SOLICITOR .� 5 ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR
93 WASHINGTON STREET- °p'una 93 WASHINGTON STREET
and - and
81 WASHINGTON STREET CITY OF SALEM ONE BROADWAY
SALEM, MA019To MASSACHUSETTS BEVERLY, MA 01915
• 745.4311 - 745.4311
744.3363 921.1990
?lease Reply to 81 Washington Street - Please Reply to One Broadway
October 2 , 1986
William H. Munroe, Building Inspector
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachu.4etts 01970
Ree Mike Stasinos
Highland Avenue Development Corp: .
Dear Mr.. Munroe:
Please be advised there has been considerable confusion as
a result of your recent stop work order regarding the above en-
titled matter. You will recall that the Board of Appeal and this
office spent a great deal of time working out the consent.'judg-
ment which was finally allowed by the Superior Court.
Before any legal action is commenced to compel compliance
with your stop work order and shut down the operation, I suggest
that we sit down with Mr. Stasinos and go over the consent jud_g-
ment to see what, . if any, . items Mr. Stasinos is in non-compliance
With. It may very well turn out that Mr. Stasinos is, in fact, in ,
substantial compliance with the consent judgment. Obviously, if
Mr. Stasinos is in non-compliance, this office will assist: you
in effectuating compliance. Z. think it would be beneficial to
have the City Planner and a member of the Board .of Appeal. at
tend such a meeting as their imput was critical: to reaching the
aforementioned consent judgment: .
,,ler truly you
ichael E. O'Brien
City Solicitor
MEO/jp
cc: Board of Appeal
City Planner
Mike Stasinos
FT
PEARL,MCNIFF,CREAN,COOK&SHEEHAN
COUNSELLORS AT LAW
30 MAIN STREET ^
r
JOHN M.CREAN PEABODY, MASSACHUSETTS 01960�a,''Ri J � ' 1�1 ^•� LAWRENCE J.O'K EEFE
OLIVER T.COON
WILLIAM H. SHEEHAN III - PEABODY 16191 531-1710 OF COUNSEL
BOSTON l617I 269-3456 1 .� (^ ,�,;j J• JOHN A. MCNIFF
�'
JAMES F. MCNIFF ItSAMUEL PEARL
March 13 , 1987
James B. Hacker , Chairman
Salem Board of Appeal
Salem, MA 01970
Re : 394 Highland Avenue
Salem, Massachusetts
Dear Mr . Hacker :
This office is counsel` to',Salem Highland Development
Corp. , 394 Highland Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts .
This letter will confirm the w ffhdrawai, with prejudice,
of the petition filed with the Board of Appeal subsequent to
the petition which constitutes the basis for the current development
of 394 Highland Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts , all as more specifically
set forth in, and pursuant to, the Consent Judgment allowed
on August 18, 1986, in the action styled Stasinos v. City of
Salem Board of Appeal, et al, Essex Superior Court, Civil Action
No . 86-1534 .
Zr
rs,
iam an III
WHS:ds
HAND-DELIVERED
cc : Michael E. O ' Brien, City Solicitor
Mike Stasinos
'CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
co.oic,lc
GERARD KAVANAUGH �`Y 1 ONE SALEM GREEN
CITY PLANNER ': 01970
A 16171 744-4560
July 21, 1986
Mr. James Hacker, Chairman
Board of Appeal
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Mr. Hacker:
Over the past several years, the City, through its Board of Appeal and Planning Board,
has entertained proposals for the development of the 26 acre parcel of land located at 394
Highland Avenue.
You will recall that the City attempted to rezone this and other land parcels in 1984 to
promote office and light industrial development. The owner of this parcel, though, prior to
the rezoning taking place, was able to "freeze" the existing commercial and single family
residential zoning, avoid the requirements of our new proposed zoning, and avoid a public
hearing and public review process, as is now required.
Since then, the developer has proposed various uses for the site. I have reviewed each
" of them, as has the Board.
In any future deliberations regarding the proposed development1 I would recommend to
the Board that a residential use be allowed. If potential uses are analyzed from the
perspectives of traffic generation, density of use, visual impact, and site design, a
commercial use would certainly have a much greater impact upon the neighborhood and the
City at large. A commercial use could be constructed without any public review process, of
a scale detrimental to the neighborhood and the City, and would generate a much higher
traffic demand. In contrast, a residential development would entail a substantial review
process, would have a minimal neighborhood impact, and would generate substantially less
traffic.
As a result, I would recommend that a residential use be allowed, but only if the
following conditions are also approved:
1. A maximum of 126 units shall be constructed, with such construction taking place
on the northernmost portion of the parcel, as defined by the
�i
City Planner. Such a density on the entire 26 acre parcel represents approximately
6 units per acre, or 7,000 square feet per unit, which is not dissimilar to the density
of the abutting neighborhood. 4
r
2. A neighborhood review process shall be initiated between the developer,
neighborhood residents, and the City Planning Department, through which a
neighborhood meeting, at the convenience of the neighbors, shall be held to review
the project and its components, and necessary changes and alterations to such plans
shall be made as requested, within the parameters of the approved variance.
3. The developer shall be required to contribute to any and all proposed traffic
improvements in the Highland Avenue/Swampscott Road area, as defined by the
City through its Comprehensive Traffic Study now being undertaken. Such a
contribution shall be made according to a formula designed such that all
developments within the surrounding geographical area shall fairly share such
costs.
4. The developer shall be required to reserve a strip of land to be defined by the City,
along Highland Avenue, for the future widening of the roadway if deemed
necessary by the Comprehensive Traffic Study now being undertaken.
5. No commercial development shall be developed on the land parcel at any time in
the future.
6. Three (3) acres, or a greater amount to be defined by the City Planner, shall be
deeded to the City of Salem and be developed, by and at the cost of the developer,
for outdoor recreational use and ancillary parking for such use, as defined by the
City. The developer shall also provide screening, landscaping, and fencing for
these facilities as required by the City Planner.
s.
7. All exterior building designs, building locations, lighting, landscaping,
infrastructure, and site planning and design elements of the proposed development
shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Board.
8. A buffer zone of 200 feet, along the eastern boundary of the property, shall be
created so that residential abutters of Pyburn Avenue and Madeline Avenue shall--.
not be adversely impacted.
9. Landscaping to screen buildings from the Pyburn Avenue and Madeline Avenue
residences shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and abutting
residents. Such landscaping shall eliminate any visual impact of the development
upon the abutting neighborhood.
10. No access shall be provided to the parcel other than from Highland Avenue. Any
access to the land parcel from Appleby Road, Madeline Avenue, Pyburn Avenue,
Ravenna Avenue, or Sophia Road is strictly prohibited.
11. No closure of the median way on Highland Avenue,.at the entrance of Ravenna
Avenue, shall take place.
12. The developer shall relinquish his foundation and building permits which currently
exist for commercial uses on the parcel.
" :...k
• CL i
i 3. All water, sewer, and drainage improvements on the site shall be subject to the
review and approval of the City Planner and the Director of Public Services.
14. An assessment of impacts of the proposed project on existing infrastructure
services, including water, sewer and drainage, shall be made by the City Planner
and the Director of Public Services. Following such assessment, the City Planner
and the Director of Public Services shall request any necessary improvements be
implemented by the developer at his cost. Particular concern shall be paid to the
potential need to upgrade the existing wastewater pump station on Ravenna
Avenue, which, if improvements are necessary, shall be implemented by and at the
cost of the developer. 11i" . f
15. All issues and concerns regarding drainage and wetlands shall be reviewed and,
approved by the Conservation Commission.
16. The developer shall contribute funds required by the State Department of Public
Works for drainage improvements planned in the vicinity of Rich's Department
Store to eliminate drainage problems in this geographical area.
17. A written statement of satisfaction of all such conditions shall be provided by
the City Planner to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this matter.
Sincerely,
Gerard Pdavanaugh C�
City Planner
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
GERARD KAVANAUGH ONE SALEM GREEN
CITY PLANNER 99� 01970
R (617) 744-4580
C1
's J
October 15, 1986
Mr. James Hacker, Chairman
Board of Appeal
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Mr. Hacker:
As–pa-r-t of=6he_Consent_Jhdgement regarding the Stasinos project at
394 Highland Avenue,,.I–would_like to propose Jonathan Moore as the Clerk
tio-f the–Works—Mr.–Moore is well qualified for this position since he
has been serving as the Clerk of the Works for the Fafard and Pickman '
Park projects, in addition to the Salem Common Restoration project, the
Collins Cove Condominium project, and several small subdivisions.
For this project, Mr. Moore will insure that construction complies
with Sections IV and V of the Subdivision Regulations. He will
supervise and oversee improvements required for the installation of
streets, roadways, sidewalks, grass strips, monuments, utilities, and
all other improvements defined by the Subdivision Regulations, as
provided in the developer' s definitive plans. In addition, Mr. Moore
will submit a written progress report of the undertaken construction
each week.
Regarding payment, Mr. Moore will keep weekly timesheets
documenting his hours at the site. Stasinos will be billed for this
time at a rate of $16.00 per hour, the funds going to a Reserved for
Appropriation Account from which Mr. Moore' s position is funded.
Encolosed is Mr. Moore' s resume. While he is not an engineer, he
has extensive experience with Salem condominium projects, a solid
knowledge of local subdivision regulations, and a thorough familiarity
with site design and infrastructure construction standards. ,, For these
reasons I highly recommend Mr. Moore.
If you have any questions, please contact me. wank you for your
cooperation and assistance. /
Sin kKaanau:gt),�
Ger rd
City Pla ne
C206
JONATHAN W. MOORE
14 Seaview Road
Ipswich, Massachusetts 01935
(617) 356-9490
EDUCATION
University of Vermont - Burlington, Vermont
Graduated in May of 1984 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics. Other
courses included Accounting, Computer Science (Basic & Fortran),
Mathematics and Small Business Management.
Harwick College - Oneonta, New York
Economics Major, 1980-1982
Middlesex School - Concord, Massachusetts
1976-1980
BUSINESS EXPERIENCE
Planning Department, City of Salem, Massachusetts - October, 1984-Present
April 1986 - Present Clerk of the Works
Responsibilities involve serving as a Feild Supervisor and Inspector on a
variety of building and public improvement projects. Specific areas of
supervision include:
residential, commercial, and industrial construction
- .roadway construction
utility installation
park improvements
- sidewalk and street improvements
Work involves knowledge of site work and infrastructure improvements,
construction methods and materials, plan reading, and estimating.
Projects in Salem include:
- Whaler's Lane Condominiums - 520 units
- Pickman Park - 302 units
- Salem Common Restoration
- Village at Vinnin Square Condominiums - 163 units
- Collins Cove Condominiums - 36 units
- Tedesco Pond Place - 14 units
- Vista Avenue Subdivision - 14 units
Jonathan W. Moore
Resume
Page 2
October 1984 - Present Housing Development Coordinator and
Rehabilitation Specialist
Duties involve providing services to Salem's Housing Rehabilitation
Program including:
- assistance in the development and implementation of Salem's Housing
Rehabilitation Programs
- home inspections
- preparation of work write-ups and cost estimates
- construction supervision
- owner counselling
Monserrat Remodeling - Beverly, Massachusetts - Summer 1982-1983
Worked for two summers as a carpenter for this General Contractor that is
involved in commercial as well as residential additions, renovations and new
and historic construction.
Young Carpentry Company - Gloucester, Massachusetts - Summer 1980-1981
Involved in carpentry and painting for two summers in additions and
renovations of residences.
Moore Painting Contractor - Summers during High School
Self employed owner of a small lucrative summer painting company. Became
involved in all aspects of a small business including hiring, supervising,
estimating, marketing and finance.
CAMPUS ACTIVITIES
Varsity Lacrosse
Economic Club
Wilderness Experience Program & Outing Club
INTERESTS
Bird Hunting, Hockey, Skiing and various other outdoor sports
REFERENCES
Available upon request.
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
?f,.conrzt,�
GERARD KAVANAUGH ONE SALEM GREEN
01970
CITY PLANNER -� ✓9 (817)744-4580
r
September 30, 1986
Mr. James Hacker, Chairman
Board of Appeal
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970 °
Dear Mr. Hacker:-
As—part—of—the Consent Judgement regarding the Stasinos project at
394 Highland Avenue Iwould1like to propose Jonathan Moore as the Clerk
of the Works:Mr:Moore`isywell qualified for this position since he
has been serving as the Clerk of the Works for the Fafard and Pickman
Park projects, in additionto the Salem Common Restoration project, the
Collins Cove Condominium project, and several small subdivisions.
For this project, Mr. Moore will insure that construction complies
with Sections IV and V of the Subdivision Regulations. He will
supervise and oversee improvements required for the installation of
streets, roadways, sidewalks, grass strips, monuments, utilities, and
all other improvements defined by the Subdivision Regulations, as
provided in the developer' s definitive plans. In addition, Mr. Moore
will submit a written progress report of the undertaken construction
each week.
Regarding payment, Mr. Moore will keep weekly timesheets
documenting his hours at the site. Stasinos will be billed for this
time at a rate of $$16.00 per hour, the funds going to a Reserved for
Appropriation. Account from which Mr. Moore' s position is funded.
Encolosed is Mr. Moore' s resume. I recommend him for this position
because of his extensive experience with Salem condominium projects and
his knowledge of applicable local regulations and professional
construction standards.
If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you for your
cooperation and assistance.
Sincer y,
Gerar Ka nau
Cit P1a ner
0206
JONATHAN W. MOORE
14 Seaview Road
Ipswich, Massachusetts 01935
X617) 356-9490
EDUCATION
University of Vermont - Burlington, Vermont
Graduated in May of 1984 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics. Other
courses included Accounting, Computer Science (Basic & Fortran),
Mathematics and Small Business Management.
Harwick College - Oneonta New York
Economics Major, 1980-1982
Middlesex School - Concord, Massachusetts
1976-1980
BUSINESS EXPERIENCE
Planning Department, City of Salem, Massachusetts - October, 1984=Present
April 1986 - Present Clerk of the Works
Responsibilities involve serving as a Feild Supervisor and Inspector on a
variety of building and public improvement projects. Specific areas of _.
supervision include:
- residential, commercial, and industrial construction
- roadway construction
- utility installation
- park improvements
- sidewalk and street improvements
Work involves..knowledge of site work and infrastructure improvements,
construction methods and materials, plan reading, and estimating.
Projects in Salem include:
- Whaler's Lane Condominiums - 520 units
- Pickman Park - 302 units
- Salem Common Restoration
- Village at Vinnin Square Condominiums - 163 units
- Collins Cove Condominiums - 36 units
- Tedesco Pond Place - 14 units
- Vista Avenue Subdivision - 14 units
Jonathan W. Moore
Resume
Page 2
October 1984 - Present Housing Development Coordinator and
Rehabilitation Specialist
Duties involve providing services to Salem's Housing Rehabilitation
Program including:
- assistance in the development and implementation of Salem's Housing
Rehabilitation Programs
- home inspections
s
- prepargtion of work write-ups and cost estimates
- construction supervision
- owner counselling
Monserrat Remodeling - Beverly, Massachusetts - Summer 1982-1983
Worked for two summers as a carpenter for this General Contractor that is
involved in commercial as well as residential additions, renovations and new
and historic construction.
Young Carpentry Company - Gloucester, Massachusetts - Summer 1980-1981
Involved in carpentry and painting for two summers in additions and
renovations of residences.
Moore Painting Contractor - Summers during High School
Self employed owner of a small lucrative summer painting company. Became
involved in all aspects of a small business including hiring, supervising,
estimating, marketing and finance.
CAMPUS ACTIVITIES
Varsity Lacrosse
Economic Club
Wilderness Experience Program & Outing Club
INTERESTS
Bird Hunting, Hockey, Skiing and various other outdoor sports
REFERENCES
Available upon request.
r
i
LAW OFFICES
HAROLD MEIZLER
AND ASSOCIATES
FIFTEEN COURT SQUARE
n � _
BOSTON,MASSACHUSETTS 02108-2576 - ^
CABLE"HARM[ZE",BOSTON
c .RFA CODF.ell 27�-1818
June 11 , 1986
r -
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN- RECEIPT REQUESTED
vV ul
�7
(n
L
Board of Appeal i
City of Salem
City Hall
Salem, MA 01970
Re : Mike Stasinos vs: City of Salem Board
of Appeal , et al , Essex Superior Court
Civil -Action- No.- 86-1534 - - - -
Gentlemen:
6-153.4 . . . .Gentlemen:
Pursuant to M: G:L: Chapter 40A, Section 17, notice is
hereby given that Mike Stasinos has filed an appeal from the
decision of the City of Salem, Board of Appeal denying his
petition for a variance to allow construction of 163
residential units on the property known as 394 Highland
Avenue , Salem: Said decision was filed with the City Clerk' s
office on May 27, 1986.-
A
986:A copy of the Complaint , which was filed on June 11 , 1986
in the Essex County Superior Court Department , is attached
hereto.
Very truly yours ,
MIKE STASINOS
By his attorneys,
HAROLD MEIZLER AND ASSOCIATES
By
SAUL L. BENOWITZ , ESQ:
SLB :mh
Encl . (Complaint)
cc : Mr. Mike Stasinos
COMMONWEALTH oMMoxw H OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX:SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
CIVIL ACTION N0:
MIKE STASINOS, Plaintiff ) O
vs )
CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF )
APPEAL, and JAMES B: HACKER, ) 1
RICHARD A: BENCAL; ) COMPLAINTT-,
JAMES M: FLEMINGco
; )
EDWARD LUZINSKI; )
r_-
PETER STROUT; ) -�
ARTHUR LaBRECQUE,
PETER A; DORE.' as they are ) �,
Members of the City of
Salem Board of Appeal , )
Defendants '
1: This is an appeal pursuant to General Laws,
Chapter 40A; Section 17 from a decision of the City
of Salem Board of Appeal denying the Petition of
Mike Stasinos requesting the Board to issue a
variance to allow construction of 163 residential
units on premises located at 394 Highland Avenue,
Salem, encompassing approximately twenty-five (25)
acres and lying in Districts R-1 ; R-C, and BPD,
which has been previously described as lying in
Districts R-1 , R-C, and B-2:
2: The Plaintiff, Mike Stasinos; is a natural
person aggrieved by said decision with an address at
54.4 Chestnut Street , Lynn; Massachusetts, and owns
the premises in question.
3: The Defendant Board of Appeal of the City of
Salem has a usual place of business at City. Hall ,
Salem and is comprised of members made Defendants
herein whose names and addresses are as follows :
James M. Fleming' Edward Luzinski
47 Buffum Street 25 Hardy Street
Salem; MA 01970 Salem; MA 01970
James B: Hacker Peter Strout
7 Ugo Road 244 Lafayette Street
Salem; MA 01970 Salem; MA 01970
Richard A: Bencal Arthur LaBrecque
19 Goodell Street 11 Hazel Street
Salem; .MA 01970 Salem, MA 01970
$G,%D GF.11E 1 LS
Peter A. Dore
12 Bentley Street JuN 17 J '8 (,i5 '86
Salem, MA 01970
Only . the Defendant Boar 'WEIAbe9rs5 Hacker,
Bencal , Fleming , Luzinski , and Strout acted on the j
decision from which this appeal is taken.
4. On or about March 12; 1986 the Plaintiff filed
an application with the Board of Appeal for the City
of Salem for a variance of the terms of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance and/or the Building Code to permit
the construction of 163 residential units on the
premises known as 394 Highland Avenue, Salem (a copy
of the application is attached hereto, marked "A") .
5: As a basis for his application for a variance, j
the Plaintiff stated that :
a) special conditions and circumstances exist
which especially affect the land involved and
which do not generally affect other lands ,
buildings and structures in the same district.
The land area is undeveloped, rough terrain,
which has no significant waterways and is thus
_ unsuitable for agricultural , forestry, or
wildlife related uses:
b) literal enforcement of the provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial
hardship, financial or otherwise, to the
Plaintiff, since strict enforcement would make
any development or beneficial use of the
property impractical ; and
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 purposes
of the Ordinance. In fact, the proposed
construction would serve two important needs of
the City of Salem: (1) a substantial broadening
of the tax base at minimum expense to the City;
and (2) the need for further affordable and
quality housing.
6. On May 14; 1986 the Board of Appeal of the City
of Salem held a public hearing on the Plaintiff' s
Petition for a Variance and thereafter rendered a
decision which was filed with the City Clerk on May
27; 1986: (A certified copy of the decision is
annexed hereto; marked "B": ) By said decision, the
Board of Appeal of Salem voted 3-2 to deny the
Plaintiff' s Petition.
2 -
SOkRD Or 7.PPE4LS
6. The decision of the Board of ,�ogFal c" 4 its
authority in that : c� g A 0
RECctV�p
a) the Defendants failed toC1tbftft0e_X.; possible
conditions , safeguards or limitations ' in
denying the petition;
i
i
b) the Findings and Decision of the Board fail
to state a specific factual basis to support
their decision, and fail to meet statutory
prerequisites ;
c) the Defendants failed to make specific
findings of fact as to significant special
characteristics existing on the subject land
area ; i
d) the Defendants failed to consider the
_effect of the "gerrymandering" caused by the
three zoning districts imposed upon the land;
and
e) the Board , of Appeal failed to vote in
accordance with its Rules and Regulations,
Article IY; entitled Dis osition b the Board
ection VotingRequirement w is states e
concurring vote of at least four (4) members of
the Zoning Board of Appeals shall be necessary
in any action taken by the Board". . The -vote
cast by the Board was three (3) affirmative
votes in favor of denying the petition and two
(2) negative votes: Therefore, the action
taken- by the Board of Appeal still remains
unresolved, as there were only three (3) . .
concurring votes on the proffered motion:
WHEREFORE, THE PLAINTIFF PRAYS THAT:
1. The decision of the Defendant Board of
Appeal be annulled:
2: The Court grant such other relief as it
deems just and appropriate.
MI%E STASINOS, PLAINTIFF
By his attorneys;
HAROLD MEIZLER AND ASSOCIATES
By: . .
MOLD ME Z R, S .
SAUL L. BENOWITZ, ES .
1S Court Square
Suite 1100
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 227-1818
Dated: June 10. 1986 -
KEVIN T. DALY aA .\.; p -� LEONARD F. FEMINO
ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR % ,� *? ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR
93 WASHINGTON STREET um\'' 93 WASHINGTON STREET
AND CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS AND
ONE CHURCH STREET ONE SCHOOL STREET
MICHAEL E. O'BRIEN
SALEM, MA 01970 BEVERLY, MA 01915
93 WASH
745-4311 CITY SOLICITORINGTON STREET 745-4311
745-0500 921-1990
AND
PLEASE REPLY TO ONE CHURCH STREET 81 WASHINGTON STREET PLEASE REPLY TO ONE SCHOOL STREET
SALEM, MA 01970
745-4311
744-3363
PLEASE REPLY TO 81 WASHINGTON STREET
January 15, 1988
James B. Hacker, Chairman
Salem Board of Appeal
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Dear Mr. Hacker:
Please be advised that I would appreciate an opportunity
to meet with the members of your board in executive session
on January 27 , 1988 to discuss two matters currently in liti-
gation. I would also appreciate it if the City Planner and
Building Inspector could be in attendance.
Verb truly. yours,_,
fi..
� I
Michael E. O'Br '
City Solicitor
MEO/jp
cc: City Planner
Building Inspector
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
I,gONIIIL��n
GERARD KAVANAUGH ONE SALEM GREEN
CITY PLANNER 01970
I * A (617) 744-4580
�3� ` -ssc rtir
R`GUmF.a�
February 12, 1987
Mr. James Hacker, Chairman
Board of Appeal
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Mr. Hacker:
Enclosed are our first set of Daily Reports prepared by the
Clerk of the Works on the Stasinos;. Project, 394 Highland Avenue.
In the future, we will be sending these reports to you every two
weeks as required by the Consent .judgment.
S'ncA_�
erely,
0 W
Debra Hilbert
Staff Planner
ire 1 ) 11 . 4' 1 � )lr 1 � }�� �' tI 'k • -• I ` M1�Y
f I. 1
CITY OF SALEM
CLERK OF THE WORKS
DAILY REPORT
D,-TE
CONTRACT
LOCATION .
CONTRACTOR � S cr�lO
WEATHERTEMPERATURE
(A. ,� 2��� t.:s ✓t T� ism-�fC�—
GLS 11 c sC I Lt� �Zi.SZ�
aL
Signature
CITY OF SALEM
LERK 'OF THE WORKS
DAILY REPORT
DATE
CONTRACT
LOCATION `r�iTC� 11 L ✓'� "� �cc"2�;
CONTRACTOR
WEATHER TEMPERATURE
. i
J I
.. .. .... .. .
- J
s
1
Signature
CITY OF SALEM
CLERK OF THE WORKS
. DAILY REPORT J
DATE
CONTRACT
LOCATION el
CONTRACTOR
WEATHER TEMPERATURE
t
S Z�'=z>>C 17�
-_j
Signature
CITY OF SALEM
LERK OF THE WORKS
DAILY REPORT
DA-FE
CONTRACT
LOCATION
CONTRACTOR
WEATHER TEMPERATURE
s
Y
Signature
CITY OF SALEM
CLERK OF THE WORKS
DALLY REPORT
DA-TE la 4 �6
CONTRACT
LOCATIONl
CONTRACTOR
WEATHERTEMPERATURE
Y3 Z- '- �.r.l\SIt �.l t 1�2, �t�-I f�t15 5 ?
-Signature
CITY OF SALEM
L ERS OF THE WORKS
DAILY REPORT
DATE .4' '
i
CONTRACT
LOCATION
CONTRACTOR
WEATHER TEMPERATURE
I
!J
I
I
I
+ J
s
1
Signature
CITY OF SALEM
LERK OF THE WORKS
. DAILY REPORT
DATE
CONTRACT
LOCATION
CONTRACTOR `"JD
WEATHER TEMPERATURE
Signature
CITY OF SALEM
LERK OF THE WORKS
DAILY REPORT
I
CONTRACT
LOCATION I G I-4- ��'�'���
CONTRACTOR
WEATHER
TEMPERATURE
tC)zG`��
J
s
Signature
I
CE-TY OF SALEM
L ERK OF THE WORKS
DAILY REPORT
_- DATEr; l � ;I
CONTRACT /�
LOCATION " � -
CONTRACTOR
WEATHER
TEMPERATURE
�' �,,-� �;�, . ✓fir-- firms (_Q��.. �'-��-:. --t�C���.'`�
V\L� T
Signature
CITY OF SALEM
CLERK OF THE WORKS
. DAILY REPORT
DATE
CONTRACT
LOCATION
CONTRACTOR
WEATHER
TEMPERATURE
(�> L�, SC*K r G—.CN,'\j Gr\� TUB
s
Signature
CITY OF SALEM
CLERK OF TME WORKS
DAILY REPORT
DATE
CONTRACT f �
LOCATION
CONTRACTOR � ��
WEATHER TEMPERATURE
I a ,aye
� 3390c
r 33 �
)33�10d
�C DL 5-1 d 27
-Signature
CITY OF SALEM
CLERK OE THE WORKS
. DAILY REPORT
DATE IS'
CONTRACT
LOCATION
CONTRACTORS""��
WEATHER TEMPERATURE
ila
r.
1-2tz�-�— .ti`c229L J
l
s
Signature
CITY OF SALEM �
?LERK OF THE WORKS
DAILY REPORT
- DATE
t
CONTRACT I
LOCATION Ac: �
CONTRACTOR ,'�5` �� S
WEATHERTEMiPERATURE
L� C TSS —1 21 't1 C.�_j P ✓h L '�
G A P: i vM�s�LV'C'V l
y
• J
C. cd�
Ivy USS C Z � �c�SS
` ter
Signal re
CITU OF SALEM
LERK -' OF THE WORKS
DAILY REPORT
DATE
CONTRACT q
LOCATIONS
CONTRACTOR t r�SO
WEATHER TEMPERATURE
s
C:nnatnrn
CITY OF SALEM
GL ERK OF THE WORKS
DAILY REPORT
DATE I
CONTRACT
LOCATION
CONTRACTOR
WEATHER TEMPERATURE
i-JC _
_ In
Signature
CITY OF SALEM
CLERK OF TELE WORKS
DAILY REPORT
- DATE /
CONTRACT
LOCATION
CONTRACTOR
WEATHER TEMPERATURE
Signature
CITY OF SALEM
LERK OF THE WORKS
DAILY REPORT
DATE
CONTRACT
LOCATION
CONTRACTOR
i
WEATHER
TEMPERATURE
y
s
Signature
CITY OF SALEM
OLERk OF THE WORKS
DAILY REPORT
DATE Is
CONTRACT
LOCATIONi(t
CONTRACTOR
W AT HER TEMPERATURE
NC} S?�S ltiSaQ / CS 1
5 Tj L r-j C cic,✓t 1— L L1�i S GrJ
7E C_ /45 1 =L ��tt
Signature
CITY OF SALEM
CLERk ' OF THE WORKS
DAILY REPORT
D�;TE I
CONTRACT
LOCATION
CONTRACTOR `� v
1;'EATHER
TEMPERATURE
c��S Yvt ✓� .v.5l
z, V\ l� ' rpt
Signature
CITY OF SALEM
Ci E R K OF THE WORKS
DAILY REPORT /
D/;TE
CONTRACT
LOCATION
CONTRACTOR ` ^` C
1 'EATHER TEMPERATURE
s
Signature
CITE' OF 'SALEM j
LERK OF THE WORKS
DAILY REPORT )
DATE
CONTRACT
LOCATION
CONTRACTOR v
WEATHER
TEMPERATURE
1y/ :z
r:f
s
Signature
COMMONVEALTH OF Y„ASSACHUSETTS
De- artn;ent of the Trial Court
Essex, ss. Superior Court
I� No. 85-903
Michael Stasinos
V.
j
City Of Salem, et als
I
JUDGDENT
IIThis action came on for trial before the Court, Hig'ngas, J. !
�I presiding, and the issues having been duly tried and findings i
having been duly rendered, It is .Ordered and Adjudged:
1. That the purported amendments to the Zoning Ordinance of
the City of Salem adopted by the Salem City Council on_ March 114s "
1985 and approved by the Mayor of sB. alem on March 18, 1985 are
` invalid.
2. Judgment for the Plaintiff, Michael Stasinos, without i
i
costs or attorney's fees. j
The Clerk-Magistrate of the Court is directed to mail an
I� attested copy of this judgment within thirty days from the date
I� hereof, to the City Clerk, Building Inspector, and Board of
'i Appeals, respectively of the City Of Salem.
!! Dated at Peabody, Massachusetts, this 15th day of July, 1985-
`4�
it ` �
_ � Assistant Clerk
A TRUE COPY, ATTEST.
i � ASST. CLERK
l ''
I� 1
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS I
I ESSEX, SS. TRIAL COURT OF THE
COMMONWEALTH,
(, SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
�I DOCKET NO: 85-903
I
MICHAEL STASINOS, )
Plaintiff )
FINDINGS RULINGS AND
vs ) ORDER FOR. JUDGMENT
i
CITY OF SALEM, ET ALS )
Defendants ) i
I� The above matter came on to be heard by Highgas , J. ,
sitting without a jury, on June 3 , 1985, on Plaintiff ' s
�i Complaint as Amended, seeking injunctive relief and a
itdeclaration of rights.
BACKGROUND i
!� The Defendant City Council. published Notice of a Public j
Hearing on February 5 , 1985 and February 12, 1985 , to be i
held on"-February 20, 1985 to amend the Zoning Ordinance . of
IE the City of Salem. The Plaintiff, as a party in interest,
Ii [stipulation #1 , option to purchase] in land sought to be
f rezoned, brought suit to enjoin the-zoning amendments and
ii for a declaration of rights .
I - i
I; I
GENERAL FINDINGS
� I
�( I find that G.L. ch. 40A Sec. 5 mandates the require—
ments by which a city may amend its zoning ordinance. Said
�) section requires publication and posting in City Hall for at ;
least 14 days before the Public Hearing, and sets forth the i
�
minimum requirements of said Notice, containing reference q
i "to the subject matter sufficient for identification, and of
i the place where texts and maps thereof may be inspected. "
1 . I find that the Notice as published, Ex. #1 ,
although timely , did not meet that minimum requirement.
I�
2. I find that the Notice, whether posted as Ex. #1 ,
or as Ex. #6 and 8 do not meet the 14 day statutory
requirement.
i
3. I find that the Plaintiff was not represented at
the Public Hearing to the extent that he has waived the
defects in posting and publication.
i
SPECIFIC FINDINGS
4 . I find that there was no reference in the Notice as
I published, Ex. #1 , sufficient to identify the subject
lmatter, and there was no indication as to where the text and
maps of the proposed amendments could be seen or inspected.
j The Notice as published did not indicate even in a broad
j sense what areas of the city or zoning districts were
1 affected, nor what use changes were contemplated if any, and
what dimensional requirements might be modified.
5 . Ch. 40A Sec. 5 requires that the same Notice as
I i
published be posted, i. e. , "-----and by posting such,
1� [emphasis supplied] notice in a conspicuous place in the
city or town hall ----. " I find that Ex. #1 , apart from t
content, was not posted within the statutory period, and
that Exs . #6 and 8 were not such notice as was posted and
did not even refer to the amendment dealing with the Site
Plan Review Requirement.
Ij6 . Attorney George Vallis testified that his first j
indication that there was a public hearing was on February
19 , 1985, one day before the hearing and that Mrs . Yale from i
the Planning Department told him she did not think the
Plaintiff ' s land was involved, that he did not represent_ the
Plaintiff at the public hearing, and that he had other
clients whose land he thought was ipvolved. The minutes of
i) the hearing, Ex. 5 , do not reflect that Attorney Vallis did i
represent the Plaintiff, nor does the letter from Attorney
Vallis, Ex. 2, so indicate representation. The testimony of
ii the Plaintiff indicates he did not request said represen-
tation and did not know of the meeting until it was over and
I the zoning changed. �
I I
Therefore, I further find that on the preponderance of
the credible evidence, Attorney Vallis did not represent the
iPlaintiff at the public hearing, and thus there was no
! waiver by the Plaintiff.
'I
7 . I further find that the Plaintiff has a substantial
interest at risk in this matter, [Ex. 4 , forfeiture of depo-
sit] and that the attempted amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance restricts the use of the Plaintiff ' s land
j [stipulation #10] , and he had a building permit issued on
j! the basis of the "old" zoning. [See Ex. 3 and 3A] .
i�
�i 8 . I further find from the totality of the evidence
that the multiple departures from the requirements of the
provision of notice as set forth in G .L. ch. 40A Sec. 5 do
not meet the statutory language and test. If the Notice
does not indicate with substantial certainty the nature of
the business to be acted on, the amendment of the zoning by-
laws is invalid. Fish v Town of Canton, 322 Mass . 219 .
Nelson v Town of Belmont , Mass 274 Mass 35 ; Moore v Cataldo,
35 Mass 325 ; Kane v Board of Appeals , 273 Mass . 97 .
Y
1
9 , I further find that the action of the Defendant, a !
' showing evidence of state of mind in readvertising the
I! Notice upon commencement of this law suit, reflects these
findings .
i
II THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
i
i
1 . That the purported amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Salem adopted by the Salem City
Council on March 14, 1985 and approved by the Mayor of Salem
tl on March 18, 1985 are invalid.
li 2 . That this ,judgment enter for the Plaintiff, without
costs or attorney ' s fees .
DATED: `
WILLIAM HIGH AS JUST C
i
i
I� 1
I�
it I
li
i I
I;
is
I
(TO PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY: AJ: — TORT — MOTOR VLHICLL TORT —
CONTRACT — EQUITABLE RELIEF �Hfi I
COMMONWEALTH OF_ MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX,ss. SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL ACTION
No. 87-2852
c c _ SALEM HIGHLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP.
....._ ............... ._ ......................................,Plaintiff
y
o.
C
_.......CIIX.Qk..SAGEM..ANR...A9ABI?..9F.1 P S......................Defendant(s)
� a
o :
J
5 SUMMONS
3To the above named Defendant: James B. Hacker, Chairman, Salem Board of Appeals,
a 5
7 Ugo Road, Salem, MA
6 You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon 19tn....I1_..Sheehan..1IZ.............................................
s = plaintiffs attorney, whose address is .....30..Main..St......Peabody.,—MA..............._........................ an answer to the
2 •v
3 o Complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 20 days after service of this summons upon you, exclu-
8 y sive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against yutt for the relief de-
T
amanded in the complaint. You are also required to file your answer to the complaint in the office of the Clerk
E
& _ of this court at .............Salem...................... either before service upon plaintiffs attorney or within a reasonable
`m 3
time thereafter.
n 3
€ Unless otherwise provided by Rule 13 (a), your answer must state as a counterclaim any claim which you
may have against the plaintiff which arises out of the transaction ur occurmne that i% the vibieet matter of the
3 plaintifrs claim or you will thereafter be barred from making such claim in any other action.
j �
I
-31 8 Z
F
C - WITN S, Thomas R, Morse,jr., Esquire,at Salem,the 29th
Z QWk
da f December in the year ofsur Lord one• thousand
Q4- 1 ni ndred and eighty- seven.
p X
Z u
CIerR
NOTES:
1. This summons is issued pursuant to Rule♦of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. When more than one defendant is involved,the names of all defendants should appear in the caption.1f a separate summons is used for each
defendant, each should be addressed to the particular defendant. ' -
C
lI
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Essex, ss. Superior Court Department
Essex County Divisicn
Docket No.
SALEM HIGHLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP.. , ) (J
PLAINTIFF )
VS. )
CITY OF SALEM and SALEM BOARD OF )
APPEALS, DEFENDANT )
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
1 . The Plaintiff Salem Highland Development Corp. is
a Massachusetts corporation with a usual place of business at
580 Chestnut Street, Lynn, Massachusetts.
2. The Defendant Salem Board of Appeals, consisting
of members James B. Hacker, Richard A. Bencal , Janes M.
Fleming, Edward Luzinski, Peter Strout, Arthur LaBrecque, and
Peter A. Dore, has a usual place of busineEs at One Saler.
Greem, Salem, Massachusetts.
3 . The Defendant City of Salem is a municipal
corporation with a usual place of business at 93 Washington
Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
4. The Plaintiff was at all material times the owner
of land in Salem, Massachusetts, located on Highland Avenue,
which land is bounded and described as follows:
The land in said Salem, situated on Highland Avenue
and shown as Lot A on a plan. entitled, "Plan of Land in
Salem, Mass. , Prepared for Salem Highland Development Corp. "
dated August 25, 1966 , Essex Survey Service, Inc. , Rec. Land
Surveyor, recorded wit: Essex South District Registry of
Deeds, in Plan Book 219, Plan 36, and more particularly
bounded and described as follows:
SOUTHEASTERLY by Hichland Avenue, three hundred ninety and
35/100 (390 .35) feet;
SOUTHWESTERLY by Richt of Way, as shown on said plan, four
hundred thirty-three and 54/100 (433 . 54)
feet;
NORTHWESTERLY by Lot C, as shown on said plan, four
hundred forty-six (446 ) feet;
NORTHEASTERLY by Lot B, as shown on said plan, one hundred
seventy-five and 22/100 (175.22) feet;
EASTERLY on a curve having a radius of ninety-one and
66/100 (91 . 66) feet, a distance of one
hundred thirty-five and 07/100 (135. 07) feet.
Said parcel containing 3 .95 acres of land, as shown on
said plan.
5. The Plaintiff has been developing, and continues
to develop, its real estate, of which the above-described
land had been a part, as a residential condominium.
6. The Defendants Salem Board of Appeals and the City
of Salem have taken for public use and/or entered for public
purpose the land of the Plaintiff, but such taking and/or
entry was not effected by or in accordance with a formal vote
or order of the board of officers of a body politic duly
authorized by law.
7. The actions of said Defendants culminated in the
recording of a deed from Plaintiff to Defendant City of
Salem, which deed was dated March 3 , 1987 , and recorded on
December 18, 1987 .
S. Said deed was obtained by the Defendant City of
Salem from the Plaintiff as a result of the unfair,
deceptive, coercive and unlawful acts of the Defendants.
9. The actions of the Defendants by which the City of
Salem obtained the said deed of the Plaintiff included the
unlawful and illegal conditioning by the Defendant Saler„
Board of Appeals of a variance granted to the Plaintiff, or
his predecessor in title, on the Plaintiff ' s granting to
Defendant City of Salem a portion of land which is the land
described in Paragraph 4 , supra.
10. The actions of the Defendants by which the
Defendant City of Salem obtained said deed of the Plaintiff,
specifically the actions of the Defendant Salem Board of
Appeals requiring the Plaintiff, or its predecessor, to
convey a portion of its land to the Defendant City of Salem
in order to obtain a variance, are in excess of the authority
of the Salem Board of Appeals and are null and void.
11. The Defendants paid no money or lawful
consideration to the Plaintiff for the land described in
Paragraph 4 supra.
12. As a result of the actions, taking and/or entry
of the Defendants, the Plaintiff has suffered great monetary
damage both for the land described in Paragraph 4, supra. ,
taken without lawful consideration paid, and to the
Plaintiff 's remaining land being developed for a residential
condominium, the dar;ace to said remaining land being special
and peculiar to said remaining land.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays and demands as follows:
1 . That this Honorable Court declare that the actions
of the Defendants culminating on December 18, 1987 ,
constitute a taking of Plaintiff ' s land within the reaninc of
Mass. Gen. Laws, c. 79 and the applicable provisions of the
United States Constitution and the Massachusetts Declaration
of Rights.
2. That this Honorable Court declare that the
Defendant comply with the provisions of Mass. Gen. Laws, c.
79 or to return to the Plaintiff its land.
3 . Judgment that the loss, injury and damage
sustained by the Plaintiff on account of the abovesaid acts
of the Defendants be inquired into, determined and
ascertained, and that damages be assessed therefor and that
the trial of this complaint for the assessment of its damages
may be by jury.
4. For such other relief as this Honorable Court
deems meet and just.
Dated: December 28, 1987
Sal m Highl elopment Corp.
By ' t At eX
i
William heehan III
Pearl, McNiff, Crean, Cook & Sheehan
30 Main Street
Peabody, MA 01960
Telephone: (617) 531-1710
CON.MONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR -COURT DEPT.
CIVIL ACTION N0. 86-1534
MIKE STASINOS
VS
CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL,
AND JAMES B. HACKER, RICHARD A.
BENCAL, JAMES M. FLEMING, EDWARD CONSENT -JUDGMENT
LUZINSKI, PETER STROUT, ARTHUR
LABRECQUE, PETER A. DORE, AS
THEY ARE MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF
SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL
It is hereby agreed by all parties that Consent Judgment
shall be entered in the appeal from a decision of the City of
Salem Board of Appeal, denying the Plaintiff's Petition request-
ing the Board to issue a variance to allow construction on prem-
ises located at 9394 Highland Avenue, Salem, encompassing appro-
ximately twenty-five (25) acres and lying in Districts R-1, R-C,
.and BPD, which has been previously described as lying in Dis-
tricts R-1, R-C and B-2, and that the contested decision of the
Defendant Board of Appeal be amended and that its decision be
entered granting a variance with the following conditions:
1) The Plaintiff, Mike Stasinos, shall withdraw a pending
subsequent petition presently before the Defendant Board of Ap-
peal, with prejudice, upon final approval of this Agreement for
Consent Judgment by this Court.
2 ) That the variance to be -granted to the Plaintiff , Mike
Stasinos, by the Defendant Board of Appeal shall contain the fol-
lowing conditions, that the Plaintiff agrees. to:
a) That the Plaintiff, Mike Stasinos , shall be allow-
ed
llow ed to construct 140. condominium residential units and building,
containing a total of 3000square feet of floor space on one
floor on a parcel of land containing 27,000 square feet of land;
all set forth in a plan entitled "Highland Acres , Salem Highland
Ave. Development Corp. , Owner and Developer, Peter F. MiDeo Assoc.
Arch. ", dated August 3, 1986, a copy of whichihas been furnished
" the Defendant Board of Appeal and the City 'Planner, City of Salem.
Said building is to be deeded to the Condominum Association with-
in a thirty-six month period from acceptance of this Agreement.
The building is to be used for a temporary job site/real estate
sales. The building is to be used solely by the developer.
.4
b) That the Plaintiff , Mike Stasinos, shall grant to
the City of Salem a parcel of land totalling 4 .1 acres of land
which shall be used by the City of Salem for soccer fields ; and,
that the Plaintiff shall develop, at his cost, said proposed area,
including screening, grading and seeding and fencing six (61 ) feet
in height, parking area and water fountain, all as defined and ap-
proved by the City Planner, City. of Salem, in the location designat-
ed in the aforementioned plan.
c) That the City Planner, subject to the approval of the
a qualified professional engineer, at
Board of Appeal, shall select
the Plaintiff ' s cost, who shall provide his services, to include the
duties of Clerk of. Works, and supervise and oversee the construction
to be underaken by the Plaintiff, to insure that said construction
complies with Section IV and V of the Sub-division Regulations of the
the oard of
City of Salem; and, that said Engineer
shall submit a written to progress report of
Appeal and City Planngr, City of
every two (2) weeks . That said engineer-
the undertaken construction
ing services shall include the supervision and overseeing of the im-
provements required in the installation of streets, roadways, side-
walks, grass strips , monuments and utilities, all as provided in the
approved definitive plans submitted It is agreed
itted by the Plaintiff.
that said services to be furnished by the Plaintiff shall not exceed
any and all normal design standards for traffic impact and allow for
ed proper.
waivers by the Board of Appeal, City of Salem, 1fealemwhich shall
Final- approval shall be given by the Board of App
not unreasonably be with-held.
d) The Plaintiff, Mike Stasinos, shall submit a prelimin-
ary plan of the development to the Board of Health which shall be sub-
mitted and approved by the Board of Health, Conservation Commission,
City Engineer, Superintendent of Streets , Fire Department, Police
Department, and School Department, City of Salem.
e) The Plaintiff, Mike Stasinos , shall submit, prior to
the start of construction, a final definitivplan
lanfoof candtcontentsto
the Board of Appeal, City of Salem, all in proper
as required by Section IIIB, of the Sub-division Regulations, City of
Salem. - -
f } The Plaintiff, Mike Stasinos , shall, prior to construc-
tion, submit an Environmental Impact Statement in
full t d clear for ,
indicating the relation of the proposed project of such to
ment of the City of Salem and its inhabitants, and a copy
the Board of Appeal, City of Salem.
q) The Plaintiff, Mike Stasinos, shall frovedlform, andth the in
Solicitor, City of Salem, a performance bond, on app
an amount approved by the Director of Public Services guaranteeing
with
that the proposed constructions shall, upon completion, comply
ons of the Sub
this Consent Judgment and all pertineliedetont lthe unfinished work,Regulations, City of Salem, to be app
prior to issuance of necessary compliance permits.
2 -
h) That the Plaintiff, Mike Stasinos, in the construction
of the subject project, shall meet all design standards for streets , '
easements, open spaces, and the protection of natural features, all
as set forth in Section IV and V of the Sub-division Regulations ,
City of Salem. The Board of Appeal and City Planner, City of Salem,
shall reserve all rights of final approval, which approval shall not
be unreasonably be with-held
i ) That the plaintiff, Mike Stasinos, in the construction
of the subject project, shall meet all required improvements, as set
forth in Section IV- and V, sub-division. Regulations, City of Salem.
j ) That a neighborhood review process shall be initiated
between the Plaintiff, neighborhood residents and .the City Planning
Department, City of Salem, .through which a neighborhood meting shall
be held to review the project and its components and necessary changes
and alterations to such plans shall be made as requested within the
parameters of the approved variance.
k) The Plaintiff shall contribute to any and all proposed
traffic improvements on the Highland Avenue-Swampscott Road area, as
defined by the City through its Comprehensive Traffic Study now being
undertaken. Such a contribution shall be made with the approval of the
City Planner according to a formula designed such that all developments
within the surrounding geographical area shall fairly share such costs.
1 ) The Plainitff shall be required` to reserve a strip of
land to be defined by the City, along Highland Avenue, for the future
widening of the roadway if deemed necessary by the Comprehensive Traf-
fic Study now being undertaken.
m) The Petitioner, Mike Stasinos, amend his deed to the rea
property located at 394 Highland Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts, and said
amendment to be a covenant not to build on any portion of said real es-
tate, other than on that portion utilized for 140 condominium units and
3 , 000 square foot building. Said amendment -is to be approved in form by
the City Solicitor.
n) That all exterior building designs, building locations,
lighting, landscaping, infrastructure, and site planning and design
elements of the proposed development shall be subject to the review
and approval of the Board of Appeal and .City .Planner, City of Salem.
o) That a buffer zone of 200 feet along the eastern boun-
dary of the property shall be created so that the abutters of. Pyburn
Avenue and Madeline Avenue not be adversely impacted; and, that in
order to eliminate any visual impact of the development upon the ab-
utting neighborhood, the proposed landscaping to screen buildings
from the residences of the above avenues shall be reviewed and ap-
proved by the City Planner. The Plaintiff shall also provide that
there be no other access to the parcel other than from Highland Ave-
nue, prohibiting any access to said parcel :from Appleby Road, Made-
line Avenue, Pyburn Avenue, Ravenna Avenue, or Sophia Road or any
other accepted public way.
p) That there will be no attempted closure of the median way ....
on Highland Avenue, at the entrance of Ravenna_ AVenue by the develop-
er or Condominium Association.
3 -
1
q) The Plaintiff shall relinquish the foundation and build-
ing permits, as issued by the City of Salem currently existing for
commercial uses on the parcel, upon finanal approval by the Board
of Appeal and allownace of this Agreement for Consent Judgment by
the Superior Court.
r ) That all water, sewer and drainage improvements on the
site shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Plan-
ner and Director of Public Services, City of Salem; and, that all
issues and concerns regarding drainage and wetlands shall be re-
viewed and approved by the Conservation Commission, City of Salem.
s ) That an assessment of impact of the proposed project
on existing infrastructure services, including water, sewer and
drainage, shall be made by the City Planner and Director of Pub-
lic Services, City of Salem. .That upon such assessment, the Plain-
tiff shall make any necessary improvements, at his costs, if re-
quested by the City Planner and Director of Public Services. If
it is deemed that improvements are necessary, and attributable
to the project, to upgrade the existing wastewater pump station
on Ravenna Ave. said improvements shall be implemented by and at
the cost of the Plaintiff.
t) If required by the State Department of Public Works,
the Plaintiff shall contribute the demanded funds for drainage
improvements proposed in the vicinity of Rich's Department Store,
Highland Avenue, Salem, in an effort to eliminate drainage pro-
blems found in the geographical area.
U) That the City Planner shall submit a written state-
ment of satisfaction of all such conditions to the Building In_ -
spector, Cit of Salem prior to the '
mit.
V) That the Plaintiff shall complete all cosntruction
and install all required municipal services within three. (3 )
years from date of approval of the definitive plans; and, he
shall provide that the proposed construction will be in five
( 5 ) phases , all as provided for in the definitive plan to be
submitted for approval.
--
_ 1. That, in the- work to be done on said pro--
ject, the General Cortzactor and all sub-contractors shall
restrict -the performance of the work between the hours off .
7 :00 A.M. and 6 :00 P.M. , Monday through Friday, excluding
work of a quiet nature. The hours for blasting shall be de-
termined by the Salem Fire Marshall. .
2 . That the By-Laws of the Condominium Assoc-
iation, to be executed and administered by the Condominium
Association, shall provide that all .costs of trash collec-
tion and snow removal shall be paid for by the Association.
-
4 -
w) That the petitioner, Mike Stasinos, upon filing of
the Definitive Plan with the Board of Appeal , shall also file
said Definitive Plan with the .Board of Health.
I
Mike Stasinos , Plaintiff
by his attorne ,
Nicholas G. Curuby
7 Franklin Street II
Lynn, MA. , 01902
( 617 ) 595-0009
City of Salem, I
and of Appeal,
b its attorney• i
,
Michael E. O'Brien �.
City Solicitor
City Sall
93 Washington Street f
Salem, MA. 01970
t
August 15, 1986
{
- 4
5 -
I
P' F
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Essex, ss . Superior Court
Civil Action
Docket No . 861534.
Mike Stasinos and Salem Highland Development
Corp. Plff.
City 0£ Salem Board Of Appeai.; James B. Hacker, Richard A. Banal,
James M. Fleming, Edward J. Luzinski, Peter Strout, Arthur Labrecque,
Peter A. Dore, as they are members of the City of Salem Board of Appeal
Gerard Kavanaugh, William H. Munroe and The CityDe Oaft.Salem
CIVIL CONTEMPT SUMMONS
To the above named defendants
Pursuant to Mass . R . Civ . P. 65 . 3 and the Order of Judge
Manzi , you are hereby summoned to appear before the
Superior Court, for Essex County, First Session , Peabody, Massachusetts ,
on Wednesday, April 8, 1987, at 10 A.M. for the purpose of:
Holding a trial on the merits of the Contempt Complaint ;
( X ) 2 . Scheduling a trial of the Contempt Complaint ;
( ) 3 . To consider whether the filing of an answer to the
Contempt Complaint is necessary;
( ) 4 . To consider the following matter:
If you fail to appear, judgment of contempt by default may enter
against you and the Court may order that a capias issue for your arrest
in order to bring you before the Court.
Clerk
A TRUE COPY_
ATTEST Date : April 1, 1987.
Constable Richard S.Winer
RETURN OF SERVICE
On I served a copy of the within summons ,
date of service
together with a copy of the contempt complaint in this' action , and any
accompanying affidavits , upon the within named defendant, by delivering
said documents to the defendant in hand . ( "In hand" service is normally
required ; see Mass . R . Civ . P. 65 . 3 ( e ) ) :
( signature
( name and title
address
`^ a7A
i
Q COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Essex, ss. Superior Court Department
Essex County Division
Civil Action No. 86-1534
n f �
i KE STASINOS and SALEM HIGHLAND DEVELOPMENT)
CORP. , PLAINTIFFS )
VS.
,- CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL, JAMES B. )
HACKER, RICHARD A. BENCAL, JAMES M. FLEMING,)
EDWARD J. LUZINSKI, PETER STROUT, ARTHUR )
LABRECQUE, PETER A. DORE, as they are )
members of the City of Salem Board of )
Appeal, GERARD KAVANAUGH, WILLIAM H. MIINROE )
and CITY OF SALEM, DEFENDANTS )
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT .
1. The Plaintiff Mike Stasinos has a usual place of
usiness at 544 Chestnut Street, Lynn, Essex County,
Massachusetts, and is the president and treasurer of the
Plaintiff Salem Highland Development Corp. (hereafter
GZ- Plaintiff Corporation) .
2. The Plaintiff Corporation has a usual place of
business at 394 .Highland Avenue, Salem, Essex County,
Massachusetts.
3 . The Defendant Salem Board of Appeal (hereafter the
Board) , comprised of James B. Backer , Richard A. Bencal,
James M. Fleming , Edward J. Luzinski, Peter Strout, Arthur
Labrecque, and Peter A. Dore, is a board of appeal created
under the authority of G.L. , c. 40A, Section 12, and serving
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Essex, ss. Superior Court Department
Essex County Division
Civil Action No. 86-1534
i
MIRE STASINOS and SALEM HIGHLAND DEVELOPMENT)
CORP. , PLAINTIFFS )
)
VS. )
)
CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL, JAMES B. )
HACKER, RICHARD A. BENCAL, JAMES M. FLEMING,)
EDWARD J. LUZINSKI, PETER STROUT, ARTHUR )
LABRECOUE, PETER A. DORE, as they are )
members of the City of Salem Board of ) j
Appeal, GERARD KAVANAUGH, WILLIAM H. MUNROE )
and CITY OF SALEM, DEFENDANTS )
II VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT
1 . The Plaintiff Mike Stasinos has a usual place of
business at 544 Chestnut Street, Lynn, Essex County,
Massachusetts, and is the president and treasurer of the
I
Plaintiff Salem Highland Development Corp. (hereafter
i
Plaintiff Corporation) .
i
2. The Plaintiff Corporation has a usual place of
i
II business at 394 Highland Avenue, Salem, Essex County, i
Massachusetts.
3. The Defendant Salem Board of Appeal (hereafter the
Board) , comprised of James B. Hacker, Richard A. Bencal ,
James M. 'Fleming, Edward J. Luzinski, Peter Strout, Arthur
Labrecque, and Peter A. Dore, is a board of appeal created
under the authority of G.L. , c. 40A, Section 12, and serving
in accordance with that statute and .the zoning ordinance of
the City of Salem. The Board has a usual place of business
at One Salem Green, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts .
4. The Defendant Gerard Kavanaugh is the City Planner
and has a usual place of business at One Salem Green, Salem,
Massachusetts.
5. The Defendant William H. Munroe has a usual place
of business at One Salem Green, Salem, Essex County,
Massachusetts. ,
6 . The Defendant City of Salem -is a municipal
corporation located in Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts .
7 . On August 18, 1986 , judgment of this Court
(Flannery, J.) entered whereby the Plaintiff Stasinos was
permitted to construct on a parcel of land consisting of
approximately twenty-six acres, at 394 Highland Avenue,
Salem, Massachusetts (hereafter referred to as the premises)
a 140-unit residential condominium complex and a single
building to be used for purposes of .a temporary job site and
real estate sales. That permission was conditioned upon
numerous obligations to be performed by Plaintiff Stasinos.
A copy of the judgment is attached hereto and marked 'A; the
amendment to said judgment is ,attached hereto and marked 'B"
(all hereafter referred to as the judgment) .
8. The Plaintiff Corporation`is successor in interest
to the Plaintiff Stasinos and is the"present owner of the
2 .
premises .
9. On or about October 24, 1986 , and on later dates,
the City of Salem, acting by its Building Inspector,
Defendant Munroe, issued building permits to the Plaintiffs
for 52 residential units and the abovesaid building and the
Plaintiffs commenced construction of same .
10 . On or about February 25, 1987 , the City of Salem,
acting by its Building Inspector , Defendant Munroe, issued a
stop work order to the Plaintiffs.
11 . Following the issuance of said order , the
Plaintiffs, their counsel, the Defendant Kavanaugh, Honorable
I
Anthony V. Salvo, Mayor of the City of Salem, and legal
counsel for the Defendant City of Salem, met on March 4,
1987, and discussed at length the contentions of certain
Defendants that the Plaintiffs had failed- to satisfy their
obligations set forth in the judgment, which obligations
were, in the words of Defendant Kavanaugh,
"non-substantive.' As a result of that meeting , without
further action by the Plaintiffs but,-upon the Plaintiffs '
representation they would attend to the 'non-substantive'
matters, which included filing a revised plan, the Defendant
Munroe revoked the stop work order .
12. Following that meeting , the Plaintiffs, without
waiving their position that they at all times were in full
compliance with the dictates of the judgment, in an attempt
3
i
I
to resolve the matter without litigation, filed a revised
i
plan and .performed other actions, all as requested by the
Defendant Kavanaugh at the March 4, 1987, meeting .
13 . The Plaintiffs and their counsel met with both
Defendant Kavanaugh and counsel for the Defendant City of
Salem on March 9, 1987, and again on March 13, 1987, to
discuss the Plaintiffs ' resolving the "non-substantive"
matters .
I
14. The revised plan, resolving all "non-substantive"
matters, was filed with Kavanaugh 's office and the Board on
i
March 18, 1987 . The plan, as revised ,- is entitled 'The
Highland Condominium at Salem, Highland Avenue , Salem,
I
Massachusetts, Developer: Salem Highland Development Corp. ,
544 Chestnut Street, Lynn, Massachusetts, Scale: 1 inch = 50
feet, Dated : November 4, 1986 , Engineer: Ja-By Engineering ,
18 South Main Street, Topsfield , Massachusetts, "Revision 1A,
date of revision: March 16, 1987 .
15. On March 18, 1987, the Defendant Board , acting
pursuant to Paragraph n of the judgment, approved the plan,
as revised , by a; five-to-zero vote.
16 . The Defendant Kavanaugh, who, together with the
Board , is charged by said Paragraph n-with reviewing
revisions to the Plaintiffs ' plan, has-arbitrarily,
capriciously, unreasonably and maliciously refused to. approve
the plan, as revised , all contrary to"his representations to
the Plaintiffs on March 18, 1987 , and -earlier dates.
4
17 . On March 24, 1987 , the Plaintiffs met again with
the Defendant Kavanaugh who proposed four. more "minor'
changes to the plan, as revised .
18. The next day, on March 25, 1987, the Plaintiffs
filed a further revised plan making each of the "minor'
changes suggested by the Defendant Kavanaugh.
19. The said Defendant Kavanaugh has refused and
continues to refuse to review and approve the plan, as
further revised .
20. As a result of the abovesaid refusal of the
Defendant Kavanaugh, the Defendant Munroe, will not issue
building permits to the Plaintiffs for the remainder of the
140 units .
21. The Plaintiffs have at all times been, and
currently are, in compliance with the judgment.
22. The Plaintiffs have done everything requested of
them by the Defendant Kavanaugh, even those items described
by the Defendant Kavanaugh himself at discussions held on
March 4, 1987, as 'non-substantive .'
23 . The Defendant Board, the named defendant in the
underlying action, has violated the terms of the judgment by
not issuing, or causing to be issued, _to the Plaintiffs the
permits necessary to construct their proposed 140-unit
condominium complex as permitted by the judgment.-
5
i
I
24. The Defendant City of Salem, bound by the terms
i
of the judgment, has violated the terms of the judgment by
(1) not issuing , or causing to be issued , to the Plaintiffs
i
the permits necessary to construct their proposed 140-unit
condominium complex as permitted by the judgment; (2)
arbitrarily, capriciously, unreasonably and maliciously .
i
interfering with the Plaintiffs ' development; and (3)
I
counseling and aiding other named Defendants in disobeying
I
the terms of the judgment.
i
25. The Defendant Kavanaugh, bound by the terms of
the judgment although not a party to the underlying civil
I i
action, is, by virtue of his office as City Planner,
obligated by the terms of the judgment to .perform certain
acts and satisfy certain obligations.
26 . The Defendant Kavanaugh has violated the terms of
the judgment by (1) arbitrarily, capriciously, unreasonably
j
and maliciously interfering with the Plaintiffs ' development
and in refusing to review and approve ,the plan, as revised;
(2) not issuing, or causing to be issued , -to the Plaintiffs
the permits necessary to construct their proposed 140-unit
condominium complex as permitted by the judgment; (3)
arbitrarily, capriciously, unreasonably and maliciously
interfering with the Plaintiffs ' development; and (4) '
counseling and aiding other named Defendants in disobeying
the terms of the judgment.'
i
27 . The Defendant Munroe, bound by the terms of the
judgment, has violated the terms of the judgment by (1)
issuing a stop work order without cause and without
i
I
exercising his independent discretion, all in violation of
law; (2) failing to issue building permits to the Plaintiffs;
(3) arbitrarily, capriciously, unreasonably and maliciously
i
interfering with the Plaintiffs ' development; and (4)
counseling and aiding other named Defendants in disobeying
i
the terms of the judgment.
28. The Plaintiffs have suffered damages as a result
of the Defendants ' violations including , but not limited to,
i
added construction costs, added costs of financing , an
I
impaired ability to market the residential units, an impaired
reputation in the community, and lost profits.
29. The Plaintiffs suffer additional damages in the
I
approximate amount of eight to ten thousand dollars per day,
in financing costs and construction crew costs alone, for
I
every day the Defendants have violated ,-,and continue to
violate, the terms of the judgment and :have interfered, and
continue to interfere, with the Plaintiffs ' development of -
the premises. j
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray for, the following
relief:
1. That a summons issue from this Honorable Court
directing the parties to appear before the Court on April 6,
7
1987 , for the purposes of filing an answer to the Plaintiffs
complaint on that date and scheduling a trial date .
2. That this Honorable Court direct that service be
made on the Defendants by delivering in hand or leaving at
each Defendant 's usual place of business a copy of the
summons and a copy of the complaint' to each of the City
Solicitor, James B. Hacker , Chairman of the Board of Appeal ,
Gerard Kavanaugh, William H. Munroe, and the Honorable
Anthony V. Salvo, Mayor of the City of Salem.
3 . That this Honorable Court appoint Richard S .
Winer, Constable, special process server for all process in
this matter .
4. That this Honorable Court order that requests for
production of documents and requests for admissions
propounded by the Plaintiffs be answered within seven days of
service thereof and that all depositions be conducted on ,
forty-eight hours notice.
5. That this Honorable Court adjudge each Defendant
in civil contempt and (1) order the Defendants to issue
forthwith to the Plaintiffs the building permits for the
remaining units of the condominium development; (2) order the
Defendants to refrain from hindering and interfering with the
Plaintiffs ' development of the premises; and (3) determine
and declare the damages sustained by the Plaintiffs as a
result of the Defendants ' breach of the judgment, assess a
8
i
civil fine in said amount against each Defendant , and order
each Defendant to pay said amount to the Plaintiffs .
6 . That this Court order the Defendants to pay to the
Plaintiffs the legal fees incurred by the Plaintiffs in this
civil contempt proceeding ,
7 . That this Court order such other relief as it i
deems meet and just.
Dated : March 30, 1987
By their Attorney,
William H. Sheehan III
Pearl, McNiff, Crean, Cook & Sheehan
30 Main Street
Peabody, MA 01960
Telephone: (617) 531-1710
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Essex , ss . March 30, 1987
Mike Stasinos, being duly sworn, deposes and says that
he has a usual place of business a 544 Chestnut Street, Lynn,
Massachusetts, and is a Plaintiff herein;- and that he has
read the foregoing Verified Complaint andknowsthe contents
thereof and that the same are true of his own knowledge.
I
Mike Stasinos--
Then personally appeared the above-named Mike
Stasinos, before me, personally known-to me, and acknowledged
9
the foregoing verification to be his free act and deed this
30th day of March, 1987 .
Debra A. Sullivan, Notary Public
My commission expires: 9/28/90
V
1
j
10
1
COMP:ONV"FALTY. OF MASSACHUSETTS
`S�u� I S� SUPERICR COURT DEPT .
CIVIL ACTION 1,0. 86-1534
*:IRE STASINCS,
PLAT,•_ -_ .
VS
CITY OF SA E!: BOARD OF .APPEAL,
AND JAMES B. HACKER, RICHARD A.
BE::CAL, JA!,ES M. FLEMING , EDWARD AMENDED CONSENT JUDGMENT
A. LUZINSKI , PETER STROUT, ARTHUR
LABRECQUE, PETER A. DORE , AS THEY
ARE MEMBERS OF THE CITY' OF SALEM,
BOARD OF APPEAL,
DEFENDANTS
It is hereby agreed by all parties that the Consent
Judgment entered by this Court on August 18 , 1986 , be
amended as `ollows :
1 . ) Paracraph 2 ) subparagraph a) line three is
amended by striking out the word "one" and sub-
stituting in its place the word "two" .
2 . ) Paragraph 2 ) subparagraph b) line two is here-
by amended by striking out the words 4 . 1 acresand
substituting the words 113 . 95 acres " in its place .
3 . ) Paragraph 2 ) subparagraph c) line two oval
is
amended by striking .out the words p
rofesengineer" and substituting the words "Clerk of
the works " ; line ended by seven is amlace
the word "Engineer" and substituting to its p
1.
the words "Clerk of the works" ; line ten ineerinaand en
are amended by striking out the word "eng
and substituting the words "supervision services "
in its place .
Except as expressly hereby amended , the Consent Judg-
ment of Aucust 18 , 1986 is hereby confirmed .
City of Salem,
Mike Stasinos , Plaintiff Board of Appeal ,
by his attorney :: by its attorney :
Y
�!- ichael E. O' Bri ,
Nicholas G . Curuby City Solicitor
7 Franklin Street 93 Washington Street
Lynn , Mass . 01902 Salem, Mass . 01970
Telephone ( 617 ) 595-9000 Telephone ( 617 ) 744-3363
Dated :
i
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
Essex County Division
Civil Action No. 86-1534
MIKE STASINOS and SALEM HIGHLAND )
DEVELOPMENT CORP. , )
Plaintiffs )
VS. )
CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL, ) @
JAMES B. HACKER, RICHARD A. BENCAL, )
JAMES M. FLEMING, EDWARD J. r
LUZINSKI, PETER STROUT, ARTHUR ) cis r
A
LABRECQUE, PETER A. DORE, as they ) r'
are members of the City of Salem )
Board of Appeal, GERARD KAVANAUGH, )
WILLIAM• H. MUNROE and CITY OF ) ��
SALEM, ) a
Defendants )
I
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL,
JAMES B. HACKER, RICHARD A. BENCAL, JAMES M. FLEMING,
EDWARD J. LUZINSKI, PETER STROUT, ARTHUR LABRECQUE,
PETER A. DORE, as they are members of the
City of Salem Board of Appeal, GERARD KAVANAUGH,
WILLIAM H. MUNROE and CITY OF SALEM
Defendants City of Salem Board of Appeal, James B.
Hacker, Richard A. Bencal, James M. Fleming, Edward J.
Luzinski, Peter Strout, Arthur Lebrecque, Peter A. Dore, Gerard
Kavanaugh, William H. Munroe and City of Salem, each appear and
answer the Plaintiffs' allegations as follows:
1. Each Defendant is without sufficient information to
either admit or deny the allegations contained in
Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs' Complaint.
2 . Each Defendant admits the allegations contained in
Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs ' Complaint.
3 . Defendant Salem Board of Appeal admits the allegations
contained in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs ' Complaint.
4 . Defendant Gerard Kavanaugh admits the allegations
contained in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs ' Complaint.
5. Defendant William H. Munroe admits the allegations
contained in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs ' Complaint.
i
6. Defendant City of Salem admits the allegations contained
in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs ' Complaint.
7 . Each Defendant admits only that a consent judgment was
entered with the Court on August 18, 1986, and denies the
remaining allegations inasmuch as the terms of the
judgment speak for themselves.
I
8. Each Defendant is without sufficient information to
either admit or deny the allegations contained in
Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs ' Complaint.
9 . Defendant William Munroe admits the allegations contained
in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs ' Complaint. Each remaining
Defendant is without sufficient information to either
admit or deny same. 0
10. Defendant William Munroe admits the allegations contained
in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. Each remaining
Defendant is without sufficient information to either
admit or deny same.
2
I -
11. Each Defendant admits only that a meeting took place on
March 4, 1987, and denies the remaining allegations
contained in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs ' Complaint.
12 . Each Defendant denies the allegations contained in
Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs' Complaint.
13 . Defendant Gerard Kavanaugh admits only that a meeting
took place on March 9, 1987, and March 13 , 1987 . Each
Defendant denies the allegations contained in
Paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs ' Complaint.
14 . Each Defendant admits only that a plan was filed and
denies the remaining allegations contained in
Paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs' Complaint.
15. Defendant Salem Board of Appeal admits the allegations
contained in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs ' Complaint.
I
16. Defendant Gerard Kavanaugh denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. The
other Defendants are without sufficient information to
either admit or deny same.
17. Defendant Gerard Kavanaugh admits only that a meeting
took place on March 24, 1987 , but denies the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs '
Complaint. The other Defendants are without sufficient
information to either admit or deny same.
18. Each Defendant admits only that a revised plan was filed
on March 25, 1987, and denies the remaining allegations
contained in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs ' Complaint.
3
19 . Defendant Gerard Kavanaugh denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs ' Complaint. The
other Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to
either admit or deny same.
20. Defendants William Munroe and Gerard Kavanaugh deny the
allegation contained in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs'
Complaint. All other Defendants are without sufficient
information to either admit or deny same.
21. Each Defendant denies the allegations contained in
Paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs' Complaint.
22 . Each Defendant denies the allegations contained in
paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs' Complaint.
23 . Defendant Salem Board of Appeal denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs ' Complaint. All
other Defendants are without sufficient information to
either admit or deny same.
24 . Each Defendant denies the allegations contained in
Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs' Complaint.
25. Defendant Gerard Kavanaugh admits that he is obligated
"by the terms of the judgment to perform certain acts and
satisfy certain obligations. " All other Defendants are
without sufficient information to either admit or deny
same.
26. Each Defendant denies the allegations contained in
Paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs ' Complaint.
4
I�
27 . Each Defendant denies the allegations contained in
Paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs' Complaint.
28 . Each Defendant denies the allegations contained in
Paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs ' Complaint.
29 . Each Defendant denies the allegations contained in
Paragraph 29 of Plaintiffs' Complaint.
WHEREFORE, each Defendant demands judgment, plus costs
and attorneys' fees.
I
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim against the
Defendants upon which relief can be granted.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief inasmuch as
they have been guilty of inequitable conduct and have failed to
come into equity with clean hands, in that they have failed to
comply with the terms of the consent judgment in this matter
and have failed to provide Defendants with adequate and
accurate information on plans and other construction documents,
have failed to build according to original plans submitted to
the Defendants, have filed different plans with different
Defendants, have made material changes to the original plans
and construction documents filed with the Defendants, have made
statements and performed acts to intentionally mislead the
Defendants, and have provided information to Defendants late.
5
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendants say that if the Plaintiffs prove any matters
alleged in their Complaint, the Defendants were not the parties
responsible for same, but that the alleged acts were performed
by persons other than the Defendants which persons were not the
employees, agents or servants of the Defendants, nor were they
acting under the direction of the Defendants, nor with the
Defendants' knowledge.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendants say that Plaintiffs ' allegations and claims
contained in their Complaint are unsubstantial, frivolous and
not advanced in good faith in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws
Ch. 231, Section 6F.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Plaintiffs, by their acts and conduct in not
following the terms of the consent judgment in this matter,
having failed to provide Defendants with adequate and accurate
information in a timely manner on plans and other construction
documents, having failed to build according to original plans
submitted to the Defendants, having filed different plans with
different Defendants, having made material changes to the
original plans and construction documents filed with the
Defendants and having made and performed acts to mislead the
Defendants, whether intentional or otherwise, are estopped to
assert that the Defendants have wronged the Plaintiffs in any
manner.
6
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Plaintiffs made completion of the terms of the
consent judgment by their actions, in that they have failed to
provide Defendants with adequate and accurate information in a
timely manner on plans and other construction documents, having
failed to build according to original plans submitted to the
Defendants, having filed different plans with different
Defendants, having made material changes to the original plans
and construction documents filed with the Defendants and having
made and performed acts to mislead the Defendants, whether
intentional or otherwise, are estopped to assert that the
Defendants have wronged the Plaintiffs in any manner.
Dated: April 8, 1987 Respectfully submitted
The Defendants
By their Attorney:
Hard F. Vemino
Assistant City Solicitor
one Broadway
Beverly, MA 01915
(617) 921-1990
•
7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Leonard F. Femino, Attorney for the Defendants, hereby
certify that on the 8th day of April, 1987, I served a copy of
the hereinafter-listed pleading on the Parties by hand
delivering a copy of the same to their counsel William H.
Sheehan III, Esquire, Pearl, McNiff, Crean, Cook & Sheehan,
30 Main Street, Peabody, MA 01960.
1. ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL,
JAMES B. HACKER, RICHARD A. BENCAL, JAMES M. FLEMING,
EDWARD J. LUZINSKI, PETER STROUT, ARTHUR LABRECQUE,
PETER A. DORE, as they are members of the City of
Salem Board of Appeal, GERARD KAVANAUGH, WILLIAM H.
v
MUNROE and CITY OF SALEM
Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury.
110-onard F. Femino
Assistant City Solicitor
One Broadway
Beverly, MA 01915
(617) 921-1990
�'CONor,4{ ..
i b
MICHAEL E. O'BRIEN s 2 LEONARD F. FEMINO
CITY SOLICITORASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR
93 WASHINGTON STREET °"�^'�093 WASHINGTON STREET
and and
81.WASHINGTON STREET CITY OF SALEM ONE BROADWAY
SALEM, MA 01970 MASSACHUSETTS BEVERLY, MA 01915
745-4311 745-4311
744.3363 921-1990
Please Reply to 81 Washington Street - Please Reply to One Broadway
August 21, 1986
James B. Hacker, Chairman
Board of Appeal
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Re: Stasinos vs City of Salem
Essex Superior Court #86-1534
Dear Mr. Hacker: -
Enclosed please find copy of Judgment which has been
entered in the above matter.
Ve y truly yo ,
" -michael E. O'B
City Solicitor
MEO/jp
Enclosure
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT DEPT.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 86-1534
A
MIKE STASINOS
VS
CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL,
AND JAMES B. HACKER, RICHARD A.
BENCAL, JAMES M. FLEMING, EDWARD MOTION FOR HEARING ON FOP.M OF -UDGM£9T
LUZINSKI , PETER STROUT, ARTHUR
LABRECQUE, PETER A. DORE, AS THEY
ARE MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF SALEM
i
BOARD OF APPEAL
Now comes the Plaintiff,. Mike Stasinos, pursuant to Rule 58 (a) of
the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, and moves this Honorable
Court to schedule a hearing on the form that the judgment in this action
}
I
should take and to order that judgment enter in the form attached hereto.
� .
By the Plaintiff ' Attorney -
/3� CNicholas G.
� , Esq.
7 Franklin Street,
�r1T- Lynn, MA. , 01902
( 617 )595-0009
Ass ed o by Defendant orney
1 E. O' Brien
City Solicitor
City Hall, 93 Washington St.
E. Salem, MA. , 01970
yy
1 Ui(Vr
1
�4c
APPEALS
(9itV Of MIPM, MttssZtClius 'o o=
�Rnxrb of �1ppen1
°4acrt.m JUN 17 8 18
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MIKE STASINOS FOR RECEIVED
VARIANCES FOR 394 HIGHLAND AVENUE CITY OF SALEM,IJdSS-
A hearing on this petition was held May 14, 1986 witmAittl f�jlgligg,l ,yard
Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Benca`�t, eta , inski
and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutEd"and others and notices
of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance
with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. CITY C=FAC ;f;,1 /,SS
Petitioner, owner of the property, requests Variances to allow construction of
163 residential units in this R-1 /R-C/BPD district.
The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect
the land, building or structure involved and which are not generally
affecting other lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would in-
volve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to petitioner; and
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 purposes of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . There was major opposition;
2. Small petition of neighbors submitted in favor;
3. No hardship proven.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented, the
Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions and circumstances do not exist which especially
affect the land involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings and structures in the same district;
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not
involve substantial hardship to the petitioner; and
3. The desired relief cannot be granted without substantial detriment to
public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
DECISION ON THE PETITION .OF MIKE STASINOS FOR B�J'R 0' �rrcrl
VARIANCES FOR'394 HIGHLAND AVE. , SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 3-2 to deny the peti'tione the
relief
Hacker and uLuzinskiMvoting,against
,denial.
Flemifng and Stro $ . cLkb to 8eny Messrs. ,
VARIANCE DENIED
ames B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
A TRUE A/TT�ST:
1 i
Jo ephine, ,. Fusco';;'
City Clerk 1
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISIuN. IF ANY, SHALL BE 6.A.DE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
RENEP.AL LAWS. CHAPTER BOB. APD SHALL BE FILEL VJITHIU 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
RF THIS DECISION IN THE OFfiCE OF THE CITY CLERK.
FJRSANT TO ASASS. OEtiCRAI LAWS. CHAPTER SD2. SEC1101i 11. THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT
14ANTEU HEREIN, Slikl NCI TAKE EFFCLT w3fl, A C"c= p; TI;LDE(:!S":i, BEAH:;:B THE CERT.
8TIATION OF TIlC CI71 CLEP.i; THA; 2U CJ:7S H,,VE F.APSLJ ;%, NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED,
[k THAT, IF SUCH LF: APPEAL HAS BEEII FILE. 7HA7 IT LL3S OEEN DIS(::ISSED OR DENIED IS
IF REC ED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX RNOTLTRY OF PEERS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER
RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NUTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE -
BOARD OF APPEAL
BOARD OF APPEALS
Y :
RE
CITY
OF SALEM,J6iASS.
�s
riN
ATTACHMENT N0. 1
The land area which is the subject of this petition is
currently undeveloped. It is without roadways , buildings or
improvement of any kind .
The general terrain given its hard surface, ledge and lack
of significant waterways or areas does not lend itself to agri-
cultural or even forestry related uses . In fact, the parcel does
not even support wildlife inasmuch as it does not prohibit
anything' remotely resembling "lush" ground cover nor does it pro-
vide - a "watering hole" for inhabitants .
The parcel is presently an underutilized area which, due to
its natural features , notably ledge, could be developed but only
At enormous cost to the developer. Under the present zoning
ordinance for R-1 and R-C areas , the ledge and steep grades would
make such an.. undertaking cost prohibitive . These natural charac-
teristics , which are unique and particular to the subject parcel
but do not effect the zoned area generally , create a substantial
hardship within the meaning of the phrase "substantial hardship"
as set forth in M.G .L . , Chapter 40 . Additionally, the subject
parcel is cross zoned in a manner which makes residential deve-
lopment Iimpractical.
The subject parcel is underdeveloped from the standpoint of
the Community ' s interest . Construction on the site as proposed
herein would greatly sAtisfy two important needs for the City of
Salem : 1 . A substantial broadening of the tax base at minimum
expense to the 'City ( i . e . without significant impact upon the
City ' s school system, or public safety department or infrastruc-
ture costs ) and 2 . A .need for further affordable and quality
housing.
The zealous enforcement of the present zoning applicable to
the subject parcel would deprive the owner and petitioner from
the r'lght to utilize the property in a manner which he deems
suitable .
Most significantly , the proposal goes to the very issue of
the intent of a Zoning Ordinance. The proposal would be con-
sistent with and compatable to already developed adjacent par-
cels . It would promote harmonious and controlled growth, and
would not substantially derogate from the welfare , convenience
and interest of the municipality .
The construction undertaken following the hopeful approval
of this petition would be under the supervision of the Planning
Board and 163 'residential units conforming to the City of Salem
Zoning-Orainance Cluster ,Residential Development provisionswhich
units would be substantially set back from the said Highland
Avenue.
0
I' V T t
TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS: petitioners regarding
ire Undersigned represent that they Xx are the nxaz*sxnf a certain parcel of land located
at ti0. . . �4. iii9biarid .ev�nue. . . . . . . . . . .:S4Reek; Zoning District. . . .. .
. . . . . . . . . and said parcel is affected by Section(s). . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .
a�/��w�Y�S'L�li�S�t�`X$�' }�CgIYi�I�711�3�Fd�aC
Plans describing the work proposed, have been submitted to the Inspector of Buildings in
accordance with Section IX A.1 of the Zoning,Ordinance.
The subject parcel contains 25 acres more or less and is compromised of three
zoning districts, principally an R-1 and B-2 district. A minor portion of the
subject site lies within a R-C district. The petitioner proposes to develop
the site by constructing a cluster of residential units.
CO
r5 m
CA VJ V7 H d N
-r
The-Replication-'fkr Permit was denied by the Inspector of Buildings for the following
LJ
rea5dns: _
This*5is a direct appeal
r
C- U
The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to-vary the terms of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance and/or the Building Code and order the Inspector of Buildings to
approve the application fee pennit to build as filed, as the enforcement of said
Zoning By-Laws and Building Code would involve practical difficulty or unnecessary
hardship to the Undersigned and relief may be granted without substantially dero-
gating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code for
the following reasons:
See A'ttachment No. 1
Owner. . . .Mike- .StaS.S10S . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .
Address. .5!4- Chestnut ,St:.,..Lynn,. .MA;, ,
Telephone. . . . . ...593.6350, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Petitioner. . Mike.S:kasinQs.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Address.544. CherV-r'PA -5t,j. Jr Ynn.,. ,M8.. .
Date. . . . . . . . . t . . , Tele hone . S -454 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MIKE STASINOS
Three copies of the application must be filed with the Secretary of the Boarc
Appeals with a check, for advertising in the amount of. . . . . , . . . .payable
.tt
. .
four weeks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeals . Check payable to
Evening trews .
w ,
i.✓
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS. THE TRIAL COURT
SUPERIOR COURT DEPT.
ESSEX COUNTY DIVISION
C.A. NO. 87-2852
SALEM HIGHLAND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,
PLAINTIFF
V ANSWER
CITY OF SALEM AND SALEM BOARD
OF APPEALS, I '
DEFENDANTS
Now come the defendants City Of Salem and Salem Board
of Appeals and answer the plaintiff ' s numbered complaint as
follows :
1 . Admitted
2 . Admitted
3 . Admitted
4 . Admitted
5 . Admitted
6 . Denied
7 . Admitted
8 . Denied
9. Denied
10 . Denied
11. The defendants admit no money was paid, but deny
the remaining allegation as to lack of consideration.
12 . Denied
}
WHEREFORE. the defendants demand that the plaintiff ' s
complaint be dismissed and they be awarded their costs and
reasonable attorney fees in defense of this action.
City of Salem and
Salem Board of Appeals
by their attorney:
M chael E. O' Brien
City Solicitor
81 Washington Street
Salem, Mass. 01970
Telephone 744-3363
Dated : January 15 , 1988
Certificate of Service
I , Michael E. O' Brien, hereby certify I mailed, postage
paid, a copy of. the within Answer to William H. Sheehan III ,
Esq. , 30 main Street, Peabody, Massachusetts 01960 .
Michael E. O' Brien
Dated : January .15 , 1988
b
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS. - SUPERIOR COURT DEPT.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 86-1534
a6 Q MIKE STASINOS,
o Q PLAINTIFF
A O
VS • .
C:.
CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF
APPEAL, AND JAMES .B. . MOTION FOR, HEARING ON
HACKER, RICHARD A. BENCAL,, AMENDED FORM OF JUDGMENT
JAMES M. FLEMING, EDWARD OR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
LUZINSKI , PETER STROUT,
ARTHUR LABRECQUE, PETER A.
DORE, AS THEY ARE MEMBERS
OF THE CITY OF SALEM BOARD
OF APPEAL,
DEFENDANTS
Now comes the Plaintiff, Mike Stasinos, pursuant to Rule
58 (a) and Rule 60 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure,
and moves this Honorable Court' to schedule a hearing on the
amended form that the judgment in this action should take and
to order that amended judgment enter in• the form attached here-
to;
�e. Z7 l 8
By the Plaintiff 's Attorney:
' ' �►1 �L�r� QFC- . C'�
Nicholas G. Curuby, s .
„Z - -2 , �G'�,7 ( . 7 Franklin Street
y Lynn, Mass . 01902
Telephone ( 617 ).. 595-0009
y� O As.sen, to by Defendants '' Attorney
v'
111eo W,
➢iichael E. O' Brien
City Solicitor
City Hall, 93 Washington Street
Salem, MA. 01970
•MABBACHUSMS OUITCLAIM DEED BY CORPORATION (SHORT FORM) Bed
.SALEM HIGHLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP. , : ' -
a corporation duly established under the laws of'. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
and having its usual place of business at Lynn,.'
County,Massachusetts
for consideration paid, and in full consideratiosi•of One,Dollar and other good and valuable
consideration,
XXrantSt6 CITY OF SALEM, a municipal corporation, established under the laws. of
e Commonwealth of. Massachusetts, AO having its usual place of business at
xtf 9.j Washington Street, Salem, MAC ; with guttrlulht tunirnttnto
The land in said Salem; Situated on ,Highland.Avenue and shown as Lot A.ori a plan
entitled, , "Plan of Land .in Salem, 'Mas.s. ,,-.Prepared for Salem Highland Development
Corp." dated August 25, 1986, Essex Survey,Service, Inc. , Reg. Land Surveyor,
recorded with Essex South District- Registry of Deeds, in Plan Book 219, Plan 36,
,and more particularly bounded And described as follows:
SOUTHEASTERLY by Highland Avenue,•.ythre6,.hundred ninety and 35/100 (390.35) feet,;
SOUTHWESTERLY by RightofWay, •ae. shown on said ;plan, four hundred thirty-three
and 54/100
NORTHWESTERLY by Lot C, as. shown on said plan, four hundred forty-six (446) feet;
NORTHEASTERLY by Lot B, as shown on. said plan, one hundred seventy-five and 22/100
(175.22) feet;
EASTERLY on a curve having- a, radius of ninety-one and 66/100 (91.66) feet,
a distance of one Hundred, thirty-five and 07/100 (135.07) feet.
Said parcel containing 3.95 acres o,f, land, as shown on said plan.
Said premises are conveyed subject'to a thirty (30) foot wide easement, as shown on
said plan and a sign easement: for the benefit of the grantor as delineated on said
plan.
Said premises are conveyed together.:with 'an access easement for. the benefit of Lot A,
as shown on said,plan.
Being .a portion.of the premises conve.yeId:;to the grantor by deed of Nicholas P. Fiore,
dated July 26, `1985, recorded with .said.Registry of Deeds', Book 7846, Page 21.
Yn IUt tiPBS w4errot, the said ,Salem •Highland Development .Corp.
..has caused its corporate seal to .be hereto 'affixed, ;and these presents to be signed, acknowledged and
delivered in its•hame and behalf by Mike 3tasinos,, its President
and
its Treasurer hereto duly authorized, this 3 �
day of March in the year one thousand nine hundred and eighty-seven.
Signed and sealed in presence of,
SALEM HIGHLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP
y
b ...
_ MIICE: STASINOS, PRESIDENT & TREASURERS
u�lle �lntntnnntlirn1111 rr# �{tt>ilf#t[IlttSeffls
Essex, 5S. - March _- - 1987.
Then personally appeared the-above named Mixe' otasinos, 2xas1 --_ y & Treasurer aforesaid,
and'acknowledged the foregoing instrument to• be e act and deed of the,., a Develop-
ment Corp. , before me
Notary Public--3axreevfthe-i'eace
'
. My commission ezpfres qz,� 7 19
CHAPTER m SEC,.6 AS,AMENDED•BY CHAPTER 497 OF 19.69 _ -
Every deed presented for record shallcontain or hade endorsed'upon it-the full name,residence and post office address of the grantce_and
a recital of the amount of the full consideration thereof in dollen or the nature of the other consideration therefor,if not delivered for a
specific monetary sum. The full consideration shall mean the:total price(of the conveyance without deduction for any liens or encumbrance
assumed by the grantee or remaining thereon. All such.endorsements and recitals shall be recorded as.part of the deed.Failure to comply with
this section shall not affect the validity of any deed. No.register of deeds shall accept a deed for recording unless it is in compliance with the
requirements of this section.
Covenant
KNOW AtL MEN'BY THES$ PRESENTS THAT: Salem Highland
Development Corp.. j g co•�pdratioh duly organized; under the
laws of the Commonweelt'h' of Massachusetts . with a ,usual place
of business located -at 544 Chestnut Street, Lynn, Massach-
i
usetts, grantee, 'of two pertain. parcels of land by. instru-
ment dated J6ly • 26, .1985',''and .recorded in Essex South .Dis-
trict Registry, df:°Dei4ols. Book. 7846'; Page 211 for itsel'f ,, its
successors and is'signa doe$;:hereby covenant ,it will' not
erect or cause to ;be erected on said parcels no more than
140. condominium residdnt'ieY units, and ancillary building
pursuant to pata5rap� .2`(my of a Consent:Judgment, allowed
by the Essex..Countyon
" August 18 , 1986
.4 .
Salem Highland Development Corp.
A f U11 A44 J It
M ce Stag nos, President and
Treasurer
COMMONIaEALTH. -OF MASSACH SETTS ,.1987
7 .
,Essex, ss ,
Then .persoria,ll appeaped Mike Stasinos, President
and Treasurer of Sai∈ Highland Development Corp. .,.and.
acknowledged :the foregoing,' a the free act and d
of said corporation `
y u lsc,
My Commission .Expires :
s. Ay
5
IN. CITY COUNCIL,
v _ _
City of,Salem, .......March-261... .....: ........1987..... .
THE COMMITTEE ON .: carrmnity Development
to whom was referred
,r . reN Council orders dated 1-27-87 and 2-12-87, regarding the development at
394 Highland Avenue
has' considered sa dVmatter and would recommend: That the City Planner Board of Anneals, and
Building Inspector vigorously enforce the consent judgement on the development
project located at 394 Highland Avenue. r
Council March 26, 1987
* "> Adopted by a unanimous roll call vote of 11 yeas," 0 nays, 0 absent,
t y r
Ma on Marc._ �0, 1987
eE� �: , Approved by the yor 'i
w
4 s< Aqq JOSEPHINE R. FUS00
FOR THE COMMITTEE,
��,.coxnp4�
e'
i 0
MICHAEL E. O'BRIEN a # LEONARD F. FEMINO
CITY SOLICITORlr9 ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR
93 WASHINGTON STREET 93 WASHINGTON STREET
and and
81 WASHINGTON STREET CITY OF SALEM ONE BROADWAY
SALEM, MA 01970 MASSACHUSETTS BEVERLY, MA 01915
745.4311 745.4311
744-3383 921.1990
Please Reply to 81 Washington Street Please Reply to One Broadway
April 15, 1987 rCD
J
CD" rJ
ell
James B. Hacker
City of Salam
Board of Appeal 'r_�t v
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Re: Mike Stasinos vs. The City of Salem
Dear Mr. Hacker:
Enclosed please find a copy of your answer in the above-mentioned matter. S
Please review same. If you have any questions regarding same, please feel free
to contact me at your convenience.
Please be advised that the City of Salem has filed and argued a Motion
for a protective order regarding the depositions which have been noticed by the
plaintiff's attorney in this matter. The Motion was allowed by the Superior
Court judge. Therefore, the discovery conducted by both sides in this matter
will take place at a time schedule permitted under the civil rules of procedure
and will not be conducted in an emergency fashion as was originally contemplated
by the attorneys in this matter. The necessity of a speedy trial has dissipated;
the permits requested by the plaintiff have been issued.
Very truly yours,
Leonard F. Femino
LFF/sbh
Enclosure
t
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
GERARD KAVANAUGH ONE SALEM GREEN,
• CITY PLANNER 01970
K (617)744-4560
October 15, 1986
Mr. James Hacker, Chairman
Board of Appeal
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Mr. Hacker:
As part of the Consent Judgement regarding the Stasinos project at
394 Highland Avenue, I would like to propose Jonathan Moore as the Clerk
of the Works. Mr. Moore is well qualified for this position since he
has been serving as the Clerk of the Works for the Fafard and Pickman
Park projects, in addition to the Salem Common Restoration project, the
Collins Cove Condominium project, and several small subdivisions.
For this project, Mr. Moore will insure that construction complies
with Sections IV and V of the Subdivision Regulations. He will
supervise and oversee improvements required for the installation of
streets, roadways, sidewalks, grass strips, monuments, utilities, and
all other improvements defined by the Subdivision Regulations, as
provided in the developer' s definitive plans. In addition, Mr. Moore
will submit a written progress report of the undertaken construction
each week.
Regarding payment, Mr. Moore will keep weekly timesheets
documenting his hours at the site. Stasinos will be billed for this
time at a rate of $$16.00 per hour, the funds going to a Reserved for
Appropriation Account from which Mr. Moore' s position is funded.
Encolosed is Mr. Moore' s resume. While he is not an engineer, he
has extensive experience with Salem condominium projects, a solid
knowledge of local subdivision regulations, and a thorough familiarity
with site design and infrastructure construction standards. For these
reasons I highly recommend Mr. Moore.
If you have any questions, please contact me. Tank you for your
cooperation and assistance.
sin ly
i
Ger rd Ka an gli
City PIanne
C2O6
JONATHAN W. MOORE
14 Seaview Road
Ipswich, Massachusetts 01935
(617) 356-9490
EDUCATION
University of Vermont - Burlington, Vermont
Graduated in May of 1984 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics. Other
courses included Accounting, Computer Science (Basic & Fortran),
Mathematics and Small Business Management.
Harwick College - Oneonta, New York
Economics Major, 198071982
Middlesex School - Concord, Massachusetts
1976-1980
BUSINESS EXPERIENCE
Planning Department, City of Salem, Massachusetts - October, 1984-Present
April 1986 - Present Clerk of the Works
Responsibilities involve serving as a Feild Supervisor and Inspector on a
variety of building and public improvement projects. Specific areas of
supervision include:
- residential, commercial, and industrial construction
- roadway construction
- utility installation
- park improvements
- sidewalk and street improvements
Work involves knowledge of site work and infrastructure improvements,
construction methods and materials, plan reading, and estimating.
Projects in Salem include:
- Whaler's Lane Condominiums - 520 units
- Pickman Park - 302 units
- Salem Common Restoration
- Village at Vinnin Square Condominiums - 163 units
- Collins Cove Condominiums - 36 units
- Tedesco Pond Place - 14 units
- Vista Avenue Subdivision - 14 units
Jonathan W. Moore
Resume
Page 2
October 1984 - Present Housing Development Coordinator and
Rehabilitation Specialist
Duties involve providing services to Salem's Housing Rehabilitation
Program including:
- assistance in the development and implementation of Salem's Housing
Rehabilitation Programs
- home inspections
- preparation of work write-ups and cost estimates
- construction supervision
- owner counselling
Monserrat Remodeling - Beverly, Massachusetts - Summer 1982-1983
Worked for two summers as a carpenter for this General Contractor that is
involved in commercial as well as residential additions, renovations and new
and historic construction.
Young Carpentry Company - Gloucester, Massachusetts - Summer 1980-1981
Involved in carpentry and painting for two summers in additions and
renovations of residences.
Moore Painting Contractor - Summers during High School
Self employed owner of a small lucrative summer painting company. Became
involved in all aspects of a small business including hiring, supervising,
estimating, marketing and finance.
CAMPUS ACTIVITIES r
Varsity Lacrosse
Economic Club
Wilderness Experience Program & Outing Club
INTERESTS
Bird Hunting, Hockey, Skiing and various other outdoor sports
REFERENCES
Available upon request.
e
PEARL,MCNIFF,CREAN,COOK&SHEEHAN
COUNSELLORS AT LAW //�
N STREET
JOHN M.CREAN PEABODV3 MASSIACHUSETTS 0196`0„{71 1 1 L1� f��
t'rJ t LAWRENCE J.O'KEEFE
OLIVER T.COOK
WILLIAM H.SHEEHAN III PEABODY(617) 531-1710 ;h- ' ('_'s J OF COUNSEL
BOSTON(6171 289-3456iri,1 4v').• JOHN A.MCNIFF
�
JAMES F.MCNIFF II l l�l SAMUEL PEARL
C'f
March 13, 1987
James B. Hacker , Chairman
Salem Board of Appeal
Salem, MA 01970
Re : 394 Highland Avenue
Salem, Massachusetts
Dear Mr . Hacker :
This office is counsel`:.to,',Salem Highland Development
Corp. , 394 Highland Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts .
This letter will confirm the withdrawal, with prejudice,
of the petition filed with the Board of Appeal subsequent to
the petition which constitutes the basis for the current development
of 394 Highland Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts, all as more specifically
set forth in, and pursuant to, the Consent Judgment allowed
on August 18, 1986, in the action styled Stasinos v. City of
Salem Board of Appeal, et al, Essex Superior Court , Civil Action
No . 86-1534 .
Ver r rs,
iam han III
WHS:ds
HAND-DELIVERED
cc: Michael E. O ' Brien, City Solicitor
Mike Stasinos
Y. . . .. . J_A .
I' I ' �,Plrur`r ettt of zLTIt� rrr�;G.v_
\ % (tip �nfrm (preen
1
PAUL S.NIMAN
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICES March 5, 1987
Mr. Michael E. O'Brien
City Solicitor
City Hail
Salem, MA. 01970
RE: Development - Highland Avenue/Stasinos
Dear Mr. O'Brien:
I am in receipt of your letter dated March 3, 1987 in which you give your
opinion "that it was the intent of the Board of Appeal that a bond be required
to guarantee entry into existing municipal services be accomplished in an approved
manner" rather than "bonding proposed services within the confines of the proposed
Condominium Association".
Accordingly, I hereby give my approval to the amount of $25,000.00 for the
performance bond in accordance with section 2(g) of the Court Judgement. , Additionally,
I note that this work has already been accomplished and my office sees no reason
to continue to keep the bond in place.
Very truly yours,
�� 1.
Paul S. Niman
Director of Public Services
PSN/cmc
cc: Councillor Frances Grace
Councillor Vincent Furfaro
Councillor Leonard O'Leary
City Planner
Building Inpsector
Board of Appeal
n
t
I.
MICHAEL E: O'BRIEN LEONARD F. FEMI NO
CITY.SOLICITOR + a9' 'ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR .
93 WASHINGTON STREET - �OjNnit iPy 93 WASHINGTON.S7 ET
and and .
81 WASHINGTON STREET CITY OFSALEM. ONE BROADWAY
SALEM, MA 01970 MASSACHUSETTS - BEVERLY, MA 01915
745.4311 745-4311
� � � � '
744.3383 -•_ _ 921.1990 _
Please Reply to 81 Washington Street Please Reply to One Broadway
March 4 , 1987
Vincent J. Furfaror Chairman
Committee on Community Development COPY C/O City Hall 4 C
93 Washington Street f ��U
Salem, Massachusetts 01970 'NF�Ri
R
Re: Development 7 394 Highland Avenue
Dear Councillor Furfaro:'
As an additional follow-up to your meeting of February 25 ,
1987 , enclosed please find copy of Covenant and deed in compli
ance with paragraphs 2 (m') 'and. 2,(b) of the Consent Judgment. .
'Very ruly yours
ael E. O'
City solicitor
MEO/7P
Enclosures
cc : City Planner
Building inspector
Director of Public Services
Board of Appeal