394 HIGHLAND AVENUE - STASIONS, MICHAEL - ZBA (2) 39 Highland Ave, R-1/RC/BPr
Michael Stasinos
Q
II
�j
2 �
C300 leg ew salem,stasinos 02
2 e 05 07 86
CITY OF SALEM
BOARD OF APPEAL
745-0215
Will hold a Public Hearing for all persons in-
terested in the petition submitted by Mike
Stasinos for Variances to allow construction of
163 residential units at 394 Highland Avenue
(RC/R-1/BPD).Said hearing to be held Wednes-
day,May 14,1986 at 7:00 P.M.,One Salem Green,
2nd floor. r
JAMES B. HACKER, Chairman
April 30; May 7, 1986
CITY OF SALEM
L F�'z
BOARD OF APPEAL
bY486
22
SALEM, AtHUSEITS
L
A'.'Ab�-
�40;4
Alto N o
e Roa
ley, - -019 9
/�*dp
e
V r- _
I
LAW OFFICES
HAROLD MEIZLER
AND ASSOCIATES
FIFTEEN COURT SQUARE
C7 G
BOSTON,MASSACHUSETTS 02108-n76 s ^
CABLE"HARMIZE",BOSTON C,.y REXCODE 617 22�4818
June 11 , IH6 c�
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN- RECEIPT REQUESTED
Board of Appeal
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:
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 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 SAU� BENOl9IIZv�
Q
SLB :mh
Encl . (Complaint)
cc : Mr. Mike Stasinos
i
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX:SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
CIVIL ACTION NO. p6_1S3L1
MIKE STASINOS, Plaintiff ) a
vs )
CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF ) " m
APPEAL, and JAMES B: HACKER, ) — --
RICHARD A: BENCAL, ) COMPLAINT
JAMES M: FLEMING;
EDWARD LUZINSKI , )
PETER STROUT; ) _
ARTHUR LaBRECQUE, )
PETER A: DORE; as they are ) a r
Members of the City of
Salem Board of Appeal , j
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
S44 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 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
Richard A: Bencal Arthur LaBrecque
19 Goodell Street 11 Hazel Street
Salem; .MA 01970 Salem, MA 01970
: • iiD of S
re
12 Bentley toStreet 8G
Salem, MA 01970
R=C:- _U
rt Only the Defendant Bo1aijFsFfem erss Hacker,
Bencal , Fleming , Luzinski , and Strout acted on the
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,
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
BO fiD 0F Appc4 L S
6. The decision of the Board of J4� �al8ee�d� its
authority in that : E �• 0
RECFIVED
a) the Defendants failed toDltbftW_ie�; possible
conditions , safeguards or limitations ' in
denying the petition;
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,
Section 1. Voting Requirement which states "The
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.
MIKE STASINOS, PLAINTIFF
By his attorneys;
HAROLD MEIZLER AND ASSOCIATES
By: .
OLD MEIZL$R, ESQ.
SAUL L. BENOWITZ, ES .
1S Court Square
Suite 1100
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 227-1818
„ Dated: June 10, 1986
f
Pefrttrtment of Public Porky
(One Cttlem Green.
PAUL S.NIWAN
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICES March 27, 1987
-d
!It. Gerard Kavanaugh
City Planner
One Salem Green
Salem, MA. 01970
RE: Development — Highland Avenue/Stasinos
Dear Gerry:
Please be advised that I have reviewed the plans submitted by Michael
Stasinos with revisions dated March 26, 1987. These plans address the major
concerns which I addressed in our meeting of City Officials on March 24, 1987.
Accordingly, since I have no objections, I have approved the changes as submitted
as they pertain to the Department of Public Works.
If you have any further questions please feel free to call me.
° Very truly yours,
Paul S". Niman
Director of Public Services
PSN/cmc
cc: Councillor Frances Grace
Councillor Vincent Furfaro
4 Councillor Leonard O'Leary
Buildidng Inspector
Board of Appeals
a City Solicitor
:d
APPEAL CASE NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ctv Df 'Salem, 'MttSsar4l;seffs
paurb of ( "eel
TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS:
petitioners regarding
The Undersigned represent that they Xx are the nxaerxxok a certain parcel of land located
at NO. . .4T4. Ri 0 iand .&vanue. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . .f4 ; Zoning District. . . . . .
R-1. and.R,-C,/W P. . . . . . . . . . . . . : and said parcel is affected by Section(s). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2�xt�x613Cs�:H ?tXx%> H�i�t6ix� ax
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 pl-C district. The petitioner proposes to develop
the site by constructing a cluster of residential units.
J
LJ
cl e
The Application_for Permit was denied by the Inspector of Buildings for the following
reasons: = f
O LO
Thies-'is a ar c`L. appeal
4 � p—
� � U
CC)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 permit to build as filed, as the enforcement of said
Zoning By-Laws and Building Code would involve practical difficulty or unnecessary
hardship to the Undersigned and relief inay be granted without substantially dero-
gating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code for
the following reasons:
See Attachment No. 1
Owner. . . .Mike..Stasahos.. . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . .
Address. .544 Chestnut
Telephone. . . . . .. .593-6350
' Petitioner i°Like.S.tasiziP$. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Address 544. .. . . . .
Date. . . . . . . . . . . . . : Telephone. 593-E .1. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
5 ' . . . . . . . . . . . .
MIKE STASINOS
Three copies of the application must be filed with the Secretary of the Board of
Appeals with a check, for advertising in the amount of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
four weeks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Check payable to the
Evening News.
4
NO....................................
PETITION TO BOARD OF APPEALS
LOCATION
................................................................
PETITIONER..........................................
ADDRESS...............................................
................................................
CONDITIONS
.................................................................
.......................................................
................................................................
........................................................
.................................................................
PETITION APPROVED.................... ❑
DENIED......................... ❑
.................................................... 19.........
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
The land area which is the subject of this petition is
currently undeveloped. It is without roadways, buildings or
improvement of any kind.
i
The general terrain given its hard surface, ledge and lack F
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" ir
as set forth in M.G .L . , Chanter 40 . Additionally , the subject
parcel is cross zoned in a manner which makes residential deve-
lopment impractical.
The subject parcel is underdeveloped from the standpoint of
the Community ' s interest . Construction on the site as proposed f
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. i
The zealous enforcement of the present zoning applicable to
the subject parcel would deprive the owner and petitioner from
the right 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 Ordinance Cluster Residential Development provisions which
units would be substantially set back from the said Highland
Avenue.
'�M,co.oT4� Tifly of .�;11 FIll� ���iI55iI Cl�lI5Ftf5
Offirc of flle (Elitn QT0111161
' s Mitg drill
r
WARD COUNCILLORS
GEORGE P. McCABE 1986
COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE PRESIDENT
7986 1 GEORGE A. NOWAK
JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO KEVIN R. HARVEY
ROBEIRT E. GAUTHIER CITY CLERK VINCENT J. FURFARO
FRANCES J. GRACE LEONARD F. O'LEARY
NEIL J. HARgiNGTON
JEAN-GUY J. MARTINEAU
RICHARD E. SWINIUCH GEORGE P. MCCABE
JOHN R. NUTTING
February 21 , 1986
Dear Resident:
I would ask you to please attend the Board of Appeal meeting
on Wednesday, February 26 , 1986 at 7 : 00 p.m. sharp to register
your opposition to the petition of Mr. Stasinos in connection
with his 185 condominiums . I have filed on your behalf
petitions but it is very important that you appear in person
so that the Board will know how you feel. We feel that the
petition is bad for several reasons :
1 . It is an attempt to get a zoning change without
going through proper procedures .
2 . The impact on everybody of 185 new units will
disrupt not only traffic but everything else
in our neighborhood.
3 . The Petition should be denied and they should
come in for a zoning change which will give
everyone time to ask all the necessary questions
and give the city a chance to investigate the
petition.
Very truly yours, M °
Leonard F. O'LearyCn
1
Councillor, Ward Four
1 c,3 o —o
f
vcv u+
'cowmr4 Q-Tltti of 'm1Mll1 I.,155adpi5Ptt5
Offire of file Titu T01111Cil
,e
4r e
��Olxn:c ' WARD COUNCILLORS
GEORGE P. MCCABE 1986
COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE PRESIDENT '
1986 GEORGE A. NOWAK
JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO KEVIN R. HARVEY
RCB T E. GAUTHIER CITY CLERK VINCENT J. FURFARO
FRANCES J. GRACE LEONARD F. O*LEARY
NEIL J. HARRINGTON JEAN-GUY J. MARTINEAU
RICHARD E. SWINIUCH
GEORGE P. MCCADE
JOHN R. NUTTING
February 21 , 1986
Board of Appeal
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Attn: James B. Hacker, Chairman
Dear. Mr. Hacker:
Once again as Councillor of Ward Four, I wish to state my
opposition and that of my constituents as they appear in the
.petitions previously filed with you in connection with the
application filed by Mr . Stasinos concerning his Highland
Avenue development. In previous letters we have made our ob-
jections known to the members of the Board. These objections
still stand. We feel that the proposed matter amounts to a
zoning change without any of the safeguards that accompany
zoning change procedures . My constituents strongly feel that
these procedures set up standards for not only their protection
but those of the entire city. I would ask on their behalf
that this petition be denied.
Very truly yours ,
Leonard F . O'Leary C a
Councillor, Ward Four <
o rn
to
CJ --YJ
Ell �7
B7
f f
Gifu Ili �11101il, r�iassarl��>seffs
r
kffirr of thr (Fitt/ Cruiuil
Ilk
ma y CIrtg Pall
9tn, �t
.MrNB_b' WARD COUNCILLORS
JOHN R. NUTTING i983
COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE PRESIDENT ,
1933 ' GEORGE A. NOW'AK
JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO STANLEY J. USOVICZ. JR.
JCSEPH M. CENTORINO CITY CLERK STEPHEN P. LOVELY
FR AIJCES J. GRACE '
LEONARD F. O•LEARY
JEAN-GUY J MARTINEAU
JEAN MARIE ROC,HNA
- GEORGE P. MCCABE
RICHARD E. SWINIUCH JOHN R. NUTTING
Mr. James B. Hacker
Chairman, Board of Appeals
7 Ugo Road
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Mr. Hacker:
Enclosed copy of Petition asks you to consider voting against the Stasinos proposal
concerning the 185 condominiums to property he owns on Highland Avenue, Salem,
continued for a vote by your Board to February 26, 1986. All of the names on the
enclosed Petition are against this project. I have personally gathered most of the
signatures, and everyone feels that the request for variances should be denied. Both I
and my constituents, who are the people most directly affected and will be affected
permanently, want to see this go through the regular rezoning process where there will
be much more detailed investigation and where it will finally be up to the City Council
-to decide if it is in the best interest of the residents. People have followed this
project for some time and feel that the variance procedures are not appropriate for such
a large project. I would ask you, as Councillor of Ward 4, in light of this overwhelming
opposition, to vote against this project on February 26. The people in the neighborhood
have had this problem hanging over them for too long. Please support their wishes
and vote no on December 4th. _ p T.
< r _3
Sincerely'� -,•" CID
c1
Councillor, Ward 4
cc : S. Charnas " G'
P. Strout
ells WI.
E. Luziriski
Gig D c 71L'Ilt, r�'IiIFSiICI�ItSE #5
''qq
O firr of the Tlitu G1 01111C11
a
1�,;� s (QIfU ��nil •
4Y `J
WARD COUNCILLORS
GF4 MGCABE 1986
COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE �F F., •PRESIDENT
GEORGE A. NOWAK
1986
JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO KEVIN R. HARVEY
ROB'E�RT E. GAUTHIER .� 11pY -9 CIlI9�L'C�C VINCENT J. FURFARO
FRANCES J. GRACE f LEONARD F. O•LEARY
NEIL J. HARRINGTON JEAN-GUY J. MARTINEAU
RICHARD E. SWINIUCH CITY CLERKS OFFICE GEORGE P. MCCABE
_I; ,1C JOHN R. NUTTING
SAL
May 9, 1986
Mr. James Hacker, Chairman
Board of Appeal
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Re: Petition of Michael Stasino:
I would like to have this complaint be of public record, that
on May 8, 1986, I was denied the privilege, by Mr. James Hacker
chairman of the board of appeals, of having the agenda changed
so that the appeal of Michael Stasino could be moved up to' a
later time, that same evening, which would have enabled me to
vote in the election of the North Shore Health Planning Council,
of which I am a Candidate for Consumer-at-Large, thank you,
I remain,
Sincerely,
- c
Leonard F. O 'Leary
Councillor Ward Four
Copy: Mayor Anthony V. Salvo
City Clerk Office
4
CITY OF SALEM
In City Council,___ApYiL._10,..19$6_______..__.__
Ordered:
that this council adopt the following resolution to be sent
to 'the Board of Appeals prior to their May 14th meeting.
BE IT RESOLVED that this council go on record as supporting the
objections of the residents of Ravenna Ave. , Savona St. , Madeline Ave. ,
Sophia Rd. , Pyburn Ave . , Barcelona Ave,, , and Appleby Rd. , numbering
some 17.5, to the manner in which the so-called Stasinos project has
been allowed to be continued without a final denial for the period of
time commencing December of 1983 to the present hearing to be held on
May 14th, 1986 .
j
In City Council April 10, 1986
Adopted
ATTEST: JOSEPHINNE R. FUSCO
CITY CLERK
SALEM FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
48 LAFAYETTE STREET
SALEM, MA 01970
(617) 745-7777
TO: Board of Appeal
FROM: Fire Prevention Bureau
RE: Comments relative to Agenda of May 14, 1986
50 Winter Island Road
Park & Recreation Commission
Hearing Date: 5/14/86
The Salem Fire Department has no opposition to the granting of a Special
permit to allow overnight camping at #50 Winter Island Road, provided that
the necessary precautions are observed relative to fire safety .
394 Highland Avenue
Mike Stasinos
Hearing Date: 5/14/86
The Salem Fire Deppartment has no objection to the granting of Variances
to allow construction of 163 residential units at #394 Highland Avenue,
provided that plans are submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review
prior to the granting of building permits.
51 Summit Avenue
Donald McEwan
?fearing Date: 5/14/86
The property located at #51 Summit Avenue has no current compliance with
the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 148, Section 26E,
relative to the installation of automatic smoke detectors.
The Salem Fire Department has no objection to the granting of a Variance
to convert this property to a two-family dwelling, provided the following
conditions are met:
1 : The owner obtain the necessary compliance for this property- prior to
the granting of a certificate of occupancy.
2. The property is in compliance with the Salem City Ordinance relative
to the proper numbering -of buildings.
414 Lafayette Street
Roger s Colleen Ryan
.Kearing date : 5/14186
The property located at #414 Lafayette Street is currently in compliance
with the provisions of Chapter 148, Section 26E, Massachusetts General
Laws, relative to the installation of automatic smoke detectors.
The Salem Fire Department has no objection to the granting of a Variance
to convert this property into a three-family -provided the following
conditions are met:
1. Plans are provided to the Fire Prevention Bureau, prior to the
issuance of a building permit, showing the proposed configuration of
the fire alarm system, as required in a three-family dwelling.
2. The property is in compliance with the Salem City Ordinance relative
to the proper numbering of buildings.
220 Highland Avenue
Sunburst Fruit Juices, Inc.
Hearing date: 5/14/86
The Salem Fire Department has no objection to the granting of a Special
Permit at #220 Highland Avenue provided the following conditions are met:
1. Plans for the proposed construction are presented to the Fire
Prevention Bureau prior to the issuance of a building permit,
indicating the type and location of fire protection equipment to be
installed.
2. Compliance with the provisions of Massachusetts General laws, Chapter
148, Section 2GG, relative to the installation of automatic sprinklers
shall be adhered to.
3. All laws, ordinances, and regulations of both the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts and the City of Salem relative to fire safety shall be
adhered to.
Signed,
Robert W. Turner,
Fire Marshal
d.00 , Titu of �571eztt, lassarhlisetts
(Offirr of the Tito Tuintril
cit; pall
WARD COUNCILLORS
,F,QR -P. McCABE 1986
COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE r, -'\PRESIDENT
f�E .: _.
1986 GEORGE A. NOWAK
JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO KEVIN R. HARVEY
ROBERT E. GAUTHIER '86 MV _n CI INF L'�F)( VINCENT J. FURFARO
FRANCES J. GRACE 77 ff J LEONARD F. O'LEARY
NEIL J. HARRINGTON JEAN-GUY J. MARTINEAU
RICHARD E. SWINIUCH CITY jai OFFICE GEORGE P. MCCABE
r�l�. JOHN R NUTTING
May .9, 1986
Mr. James Hacker, Chairman
Board of Appeal
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Re : Petition of Michael Stasino:
I would like to have this complaint be of public record, that
on May 8, 1986 , I was denied the privilege, by Mr. James Hacker
chairman of the board of appeals, of having the agenda changed
so that the appeal of Michael Stasino could be moved up to a
later time, that same evening, which would have enabled me to
vote in the election of the North Shore Health Planning Council ,
of which I am a Candidate for Consumer-at-Large, thank you,
I remain,
Sincerely,
/%�J!/J
Leonard F. O'Leary
Councillor Ward Four
Copy: Mayor Anthony V. Salvo
City Clerk Office
6 1 '
�Jp�IMMt ♦Y CITY OF SALEM
In City Council,___Aprtl__1n., _L9_&6_______________
Ordered:
that this council adopt the followinq resolution to be sent
to the Board of Appeals prior to their May 14th meeting.
BE IT RESOLVED that this council go on record as supporting the
objections of the residents of Ravenna Ave. , Savona St; , Madeline Ave . ,
Sophia Rd. , Pyburn Ave. , Barcelona Ave,. , and Appleby Rd. , numbering
some 17.5, to the manner in which the so-called Stasinos project has
Ibeen allowed to be continued without a final denial for the period of
Itime commencing December of 1983 to the present hearing to be held on
May 14th, 1986 .
In City Council April 10, 1986
Adopted
l
ATTEST: JOSEPHI_NE R. FUSCO
CITY CLERK
of C$aleln, 'fliassacC t5Ctt5
(Office of #lte (fi#u1 (foiuiril.
C>lify pall
SY
WARD COUNCILLORS
G -P. M6CABE 1986
COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE '
•PRESIDENT
1986 GEORGE A. NOWAK
JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO KEVIN R. HARVEY
ROBE'RT E. GAUTHIER Mt11 -9CI73I;C VINCENT J. FURFARO
FRANCES J. GRACE l LEONARD F. O•LEARY
JEAN-GUY J. MARTINEAU
NEIL J. HARRINGTON
RICHARD E. SWINIUCH CITY CLERK'S OFFICE FORGE RPN MCCABE -
i
May 9, 1986
Mr. James Hacker, Chairman
Board of Appeal
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Re: Petition of Michael Stasino:
I would like to have this complaint be of public record, that
on May 8, 1986, I was denied the privilege, by Mr. James Hacker
chairman of the board of appeals, of having the agenda changed
so that the appeal of Michael Stasino could be moved up to a
later time, that same evening, which would have enabled me to
vote in the election of the North. Shore Health Planning Council ,
of which I am a Candidate for Consumer-at-Large, thank you,
I remain,
Sincerely,
1
Leonard F. O'Leary
Councillor Ward Four
Copy: Mayor Anthony V. Salvo
City Clerk Office
y
i
CITY OF SALEM
z X.01 �
?,J
In City Councll,___April__10,._19H6--------------_
Ordered:
that this council adopt the following resolution to be sent
to the Board of Appeals prior to their May 14th meeting.
BE IT RESOLVED that this council go on record as supporting the
objections of the residents of Ravenna Ave . , Savona St: ,, Madeline Ave. ,
Sophia Rd. , Pyburn Ave. , Barcelona Ave,. , and Appleby Rd. , numbering
some 17.5, to the manner in which the so-called Stasinos project has
been allowed to be continued without a final denial for the period of
time commencing December of 1983 to the present hearing to be held on
May 14th, 1986 .
in City Council April 10, 1986
Adopted
A` rEST: JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO
CITY CLERK
w
D C.'I�EIIt� r �iI552ICh1t5Et5
Offire of the cfi#v Gaintril
�Y 5
\9��HtAE Mod WARD COUNCILLORS
GEr,RR.PE,-P. MGCABE 7966
COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE r 1`,'
Gf r PRESIDENT
GEORGE A. NOWAK
7966
JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO KEVIN R. HARVEY
ROBORT E. GAUTHIER —9 cr?3q%( VINCENT J. FURFARO
FRANCES J. GRACE II LEONARD F. O'LEARY
JEAN-GUY J. MARTINEAU
NEIL J. HARRINGTON
RICHARD E. SWINIUCH CITY jai FcE4'S OFFICE GEORGE P. MGCABE
I,iy 'C JOHN R. NUTTING
SAL.—, 1�.
May 9, 1986
Mr. James Hacker, Chairman
Board of Appeal
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Re: Petition of Michael Stasino:
I would like to have this complaint be of public record, that
on May 8, 1986, I was denied the privilege, by Mr. James Hacker
chairman of the board of appeals, of having the agenda changed
so that the appeal of Michael Stasino could be moved up to a
later time, that same evening, which would have enabled me to
vote in the election of the North Shore Health Planning Council ,
of which I am a Candidate for Consumer-at-Large, thank you,
I remain,
Sincerely,
Leonard F. O 'Leary
Councillor Ward Four
Copy: Mayor Anthony V. Salvo
City Clerk Office
ti CITY OF SALEM
In City Council,.__ApsiL_.10,..19-a6.___.___.____-
'r`�OWnt
V
Ordered:
that this council adopt the following resolution to be sent
to the Board of Appeals prior to their May 14th meeting.
BE IT RESOLVED that this council go on record as supporting the
objections of the residents of Ravenna Ave . , Savona St.. ,, Madeline Ave. ,
Sophia Rd. , Pyburn Ave . , Barcelona Ave,. , and Appleby Rd. , numbering
some 17.5, to the manner in which the so-called Stasinos project has
been allowed to be continued without a final denial for the period of
time commencing December of 1983 to the present hearing to be held on
May 14th, 1986 .
I rn. City Council April 10, 1986
:adopted
ATTEST: JOSEPHLNE R. FUSCO
CITY CLERK
MINUTES - MAY 14, 1986
page two
50 Winter Island Road - Park & Recreation Commission
Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to allow the overnight of not more
than sixty(60) recreational vehicles during the summer months in this R-1 zone.
Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection.
Gary Moore, Manager of Winter Island, represented the Park & Recreation Commission.
This is the fifth time we have petitioned the Board for this use. It has always
been granted for a period of one year, we are asking for two years this time as
we feel these campers have proved themselves. Mr. Fleming: why are you coming now
for two years, I have a problem with granting this for two years. Mr. Moore:
it was our intention to come for two years last year but because of the change
from the Winter Island Commission to the Park & Recreation Commission we decided
to wait. This is the first year it has come under the Park & Recreation.
Speaking in opposition. Gerry Irish, no address, I am concerned about the policing
of this area, teenage drinking and partying. Mr. Hacker: that is why we have
given them the permit for one year at a time, it polices itself, if there were
any problems and complaints we would know about them. Speaking in favor:
Councillor Swiniuch, as far as the owners of these vehicles, these are adult
vehicles and very well behaved people, for the most part these people belong to
the National Recreation Vehicle Association. This is very well run and they
police themselves. There have been no problems and I am in favor. Armand Blaise,
2 Madeleine Ave. , there are no teenage problems, these people are courteous to
each other, it is well run. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinksi: this is the fifth
year they have been here and I have been very impressed with them. They come and
stay in Salem, they visit our tourist attractions, this is good for Salem, I would
be in favor. Mr. Fleming I would like to move to amend their application and
grant for only one year rather than the two years they requested. Mr. Strout
seconded the motion. Messrs. , Fleming, Hacker & Strout voted in favor of the
motion to amend application. Messrs. , Bencal rand Luzinski voted against the
motion. Motion did no carry. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the Special
Permit to allow the overnight camping of not more than 60 recreational vehicles
for the period of May 1 , 1986 to October 15, 1986 and May 1 , 1987 to October 15,
1987 on condition the location of the recreational vehicles shall be approved
by the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau to guarantee access by fire fighting
apparatus. Mr. Luzinski seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
394 Highland Ave. - Mike Stasinos
Petitioner is requesting Variances to allow construction of 163 residential
units in this R-1 /R-C/BPD district. Mr. Bencal read the application, a petition
signed by 12 neighbors in favor, a petition signed by 8 neighbors in favor, a
letter from the City Planner listing 17 conditions the Planning Dept. would like
to see put in the decision if this is granted (on file) , a letter of opposition
from Ward four Councillor O' Leary and an attached petition signed by 134 neighbors
in opposition, a letter from hte Fire Dept. , no objection. Mr. Luzinski: Mr.
Chairman, the correspondence from Councillor O' Leary and the petition of opposition
is dated February 26, 1986 and is in opposition of 185 units. The petition we
are hearing is for 163 units. Mr. Hacker: we will accept the petition as sub-
mitted by the Councillor and assume that if they were against 185 they are
against 163. Attorney John Keilty, Peabody, represented the petitioner. My
client purchased the property last summer from Mr. Fiore. This was advertised
for 163 residential units, this would be 8 units per acre, these units will be
townhouse style units. There will be tennis courts, swimming pool. He displayed
plans to the assemblage and explained the proposal. The proposed roadway will be
f
MINUTES - MAY 14, 1986
page three
394 Highland Ave. - Continued
will be on the Northeast side onto the site, it will be single divided road and
the inner road will be cul-de-sac, the proposal allows for a connector to Camp
Lions. The land is rocky, the work presently being done is being done with a
building permit and in conjunction with commercial use. About 100 feet from
Highland Ave. the property slopes up, there is a large outcropping of rock and
large deposits of ledge. This is a mixed zoned area, my client has a building
permit for commercial shopping area. The zoning was changed, my client went to
court and won. Under the court decision we are allowed the B-2 uses. Part of
this land is in the RC district and because of that we will have to go to the
Conservation Commission. It is unusual to have a lot split in three different
zones. We would like to develop the rear portion of the parcel for residential,
the front part would be business office park. The feasibility plan was reviewed
by the Planning Board. If this is granted tonight we could abandon the building
permit we currently have. The Planning Board was concerned about commercial
being so far from the downtown area. We offered to compromise. There has been
a lot of talk regarding our coming to the Board of Appeal, we feel we are properly
before this Board and it is not our intention to avoid the Planning Board and it
never was our intention. Regarding the water and sewer situation, the developer
is agreeable to retooling of the wastewater pumping facility on Ravenna Ave.
The only access and egress to the development will be from Highland Ave. These
units will not encroach, will be at least 190 feet from any abutter except for
Mr. Amanti's property and we will be 70. feet from that. At the rear of the
property there is a significant drop, it you combine that drop with the 190 feet,
the impact would be minimal. It would be almost impossible to see the condominiumsJ
It is not economically feasible for single family homes due to the ledge and
topography. The plan makes sound planning sense and is compatible with the
area. The water supply is adequate, this will not improve the pressure but we
will retool the pumping station. The sewer is presently adequate, the existing
system will adequately handle this development and any future development. There
are 4 significant drains, the front portion connects to 36" pipe on Highland
Ave. With regards to drainage and wetlands, we still have to go to the Conservatior,
Commission and also to the Planning Board. I don' t think we will impact the
water shed. Regarding traffic, the traffic would be substantially greater if
used for commercial, the shopping mall, would be ten times greater than the
proposed residential use. We have been before this Board before, we at the
point now where we have entered into negotiations for uses as a shopping mall.
We feel residential use is the best use. We would leave the front area to be
developed at a later date, perhaps an office park. This is, in all likelihood,
the last attempt to develop as residential, but it will be developed. Mr.
Luzinski: let me make sure I have this right, right now the front is being
prepared for commercial but it this goes through tonight the commercial use will
be abandoned, is that correct? Mr. Keilty: yes, we will abandon our building
permit for the mall and the front will be left alone for the moment. Mr. Fleming:
did you hear the conditions the Planning Board sent to us, do you have any
problems with them, would you agree to all of them, even cutting this down to
126 units? Would you be willing to help obtain from the state additional traffic
controls? Mr. Kavanaugh: this would be with contributions from all the developers
in the area. Mr. Hacker: if we grant this and make these conditions a part of
the decision, they have to go along with them of it is not granted. No one
appeared in favor.
MINUTES - MAY 14, 1986
page four
394 Highland Ave. - Continued
Speaking in opposition: Councillor Leonard O'Leary, for the record, the traffic
light is already there. I am Councillor of Ward 4, we are the people who live
there, we will be there when the developer is long gone. People have homes there,
they established roots thinking they will be protected. This developer has
refused to bring this before the Planning Board, they insist on coming to this
Board instead of getting a zoning change throught the proper procedure. What are
they afraid of, that there might be an investigation and there project would not
stand up under scrutiny. If this is approved, there is another large piece of
land further up, they could come in for variances. For a developer to go this
route makes sense to him, going to the Planning Board makes sense to the people.
There it can be studied and continued, shouldn' t the citizens of Salem be
protected. We feel strongly this should go through the rezoning procedure. Just
think of what we have heard from this developer, each time he comes it is with
a different number of units. Maybe even the developer knows he is wrong. Some
of you know the history of this developer and it has not been good, yes it is
true he has the right to try, site plan review will not change that. Once he
is granted a variance he has the right to build this, we have rules, lets follow
them. Gilbert Gillespie, 5 Ravenna Ave. , is in the hospital, he has some questions
Mr. Meaney who has a bad back could not be here. Why is the City Planner
recommending this, what improvements have been made on his recommendations made
previously. How could he recommend such a bad plan. Mr. Hacker: I don' t think
we have established it was not a good plan. Councillor O'Leary: asked the
City Planner how he could recommend this plan. Mr. Kavanaugh: based my
recommendations on my concerns regarding traffic, by right he can put in a shopping
mall with no review at all with any city board. There is a major food chain
ready to come in, the impact of traffic with residential use would be much
lesser than with commercial use, on this basis it is a better plan. With this
plan we could get some funds to help with a comprehensive traffic study and
some recreational land for the city if it is not granted, there will be no funds,
no land. The zoning issue has trouble me for year or more. We tried to get
this rezoned for light industry. These people, through a legal technicality
were able to freeze the zoning. It is true, this development is unacceptable,
I have tried to make compromises. The existing zoning is unacceptable, have
tried to make compromises, tried to get public recreation area. Of the two
proposals, the residential would have the lesser impact. Mr. O' Leary: why are
you recommending they come to this Board. Mr. Kavanaugh: I have no problem if
it is conditioned upon Planning Board approval. There is a State law as to what
Board they can go to, the law says they can come to the Board of Appeal. Mr.
Hacker: what is the neighborhood review process? Mr. Kavanaugh: at this hearing
we are not sitting around a table discussing changes, etc. , but I think things
can be worked out. It is important to note that this petition is not only for
163 residential units but for office space also, 126 should be the maximum allowed.
If an approval of 126 is approved, there will be needed a site plan review and
this will be done with Planning Board process. Mr. Hacker: according to your
plan there is 7 ,000 sq. ft. per unit, can you tell me what the city is requiring
of the Fafard project? Mr. Kavanaugh: 5,000 sq. ft. Mr. O'Leary: these
neighbors were here before this Board another time for another petitioner and
planning board gave 17 conditions, that person is still without a Certificate of
Occupancy and has not complied with the conditions and here we are again. Mr.
Hacker: that is what we have Zoning Enforcement Officer for. Councillor
Vincent Furfaro, Ward three, I myself am becoming confused, I have heard so much
MINUTES - MAY 14, 1986
page five
394 Highland Ave. - Continued
tonight. My concerns would be basically the same as Councillor O'Leary's. Would
like the Board to keep in mind the other large piece of land that could possible
come for Variance. Mr. Kavanaugh: I would like to mention that condition number
17 requiring a written statement from the City Planner be provided to the Building
Inspector prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy is a safeguard.
With the Planning Board process there will be as a rule, 30-40 conditions.
Dick Williams, Pyburn Circle, what kind of precedent would you be setting if this
is granted. Mr. Hacker: each and every case is decided on its own merits. Mr.
Williams: what kind of a bond is the developer willing to put up. Mr. Hacker:
we have not reached a point where we are asking for that. Mr. Fleming: what
would you rather see there, would you prefer a business? yes. Mr. D'amato,
Clark St. , what about blasting? Mr. Hacker: we could set conditions as to the
time of day they could start work and when they would have to stop, without
conditions he can continue what he is doing now. Mr. Amanti, 392 Highland Ave. ,
I am representing my father, would not mind seeing some condominiums, realize
that something is going to go there but this is too many, if it was down to only
100 maybe we would consider it. It is too close to my fathers property. Is it
the function of this Board to grant something like this and if it is granted
tonight, is this it. Mr. Hacker: this petitioner or any petitioner can come
to this Board and what we do tonight is final. Mr. Amanti: we have not seen
anything. Mr. Hacker: this Board relies on the expertise of other departments.
What the City Planner has tried to do is say this is the lesser of two evils.
Mr. Amanti: if this is granted it is going to be a disaster. Mr. Hacker:
according the communication from the City Planner, the commercial use could
generate in excess of 20,000 trips per day, in contrast, the residential would
generate only 650. They can, by right, put in the shopping center, the Court
has given them that right. Mr. Amanti: the road is so close to my fathers land.
Mr. Hacker: we could put condition on that they change the road. If this is
granted, this plan would have to be amended. Louise Pelletier, Ravenna Ave. ,
after he gets this, he says he will put a business there. Mr. Hacker: the Board
could condition this on there being no business use. Louis Dimambro, 1 Ravenna
Ave. , I don' t think this Board has the teeth or the control for a project this
size, one a building is there, it is there and we have to look at it. Mr. Hacker:
the petitioner has said there is a rise in the property, can you see the project
from your property. No I can' t. Bill Antoniades, 20 Barcelona Ave. , what is
the sense of the rezoning process if anyone can get a variance. Wallace Miller,
Pyburn ave. , very much opposed. Councillor Nutting: it is a pleasure to take
part in this discussion, I realize the Board of Appeal is overworked, in fact the
Planning Board is overworked. If the Board has any qualms, perhaps it should
let the developer withdrawn. Mr. Bencal: the City Council issue a resolution
regarding continuing this any longer. George Antonio, 20 Appleby Rd. , opposed.
Armand Blais, 2 Madeleine Ave. , we have a water problem here, there has always
been a water problem here, if you don' t believe me you can come and take a shower
at my house. Supposedly this problem was rectified years ago, but it is still
there. I am not the only one with a water problem. Elizabeth Winiarczyk, 39
Ravenna Ave. , I don' t think a project this size should be decided a a limited
meeting with limited time, should be the rezoning process. Paulette Langone,
29 Barcelona Ave. , part of my driveway collapsed this morning, there is problem
in this area. We need protection. There is no legal hardship and there is no
question in my mind that if this is granted it won' t stand up in court.
MINUTES - MAY 14, 1986
page six
394 Highland Ave. - Continued
Marjorie Holland, 22 Barcelona Ave. , I am opposed to the way this is being
presented, how many of you have viewed this site? .All members of the Board of
Appeal informed Mrs. Holland they have indeed viewed the site. Mr. Hacker:
what is your biggest concern, someday this land is going to be developed for some-
thing. Mrs. Holland: I realize that but I am very concerned with the traffic,
it is bad enough that Fafard railroaded us we don' t need any more. Mr. Hacker:
if this plan were approved tonight, according to the City Planner it would
generate about 600 trips per day, much less that a supermarket. Mrs. Holland:
there was a supermarket by Rich's and that did not bother me. Irene Provo,
9 Pyburn Ave. , Emily Boucher, 43 Ravenna Ave. Gerard Yarosh, Sophia Rd. , I
concur with all that has been said. Don' t want more lights there. As far as
having soccer field, how many of you people play soccer. Mr. Hacker: do you
think the commercial use would be better? Mr. Yarosh: I would like single family
homes. Think of what has been said, everything they've mention is adequate, that
is just another word for mediocre. Mr. Hacker: would you prefer the commercial
use? Mr. Yarosh: yes. Shirley Yarosh, 8 Sophia Rd. , concerned with crime, more
dwellings more crime. Catherine Harmon, 19 Madeline Ave. ,I don' t want to see any
business here, would rather see condominiums but there is water problem. Mr.
Kavanaugh: The City is upgrading the Highland Ave. pumping station, the Engineer
says when it is done the problem will improve. Mr. Antonio, Appleby Rd. , if we
have any more meetings we should have them somewhere else, there is not enough
room here, half of us have been standing all evening. I want to go on record as
being opposed, I think you people should be more familiar with whats going on in
the neighborhood, it is a mess, all I do is dust. You ask if we prefer commercial
to condomiums, well T think Councillor O'Leary said it all. Michael Francullo,
19 Barcelona Ave. , opposed. Bruce Macrae, 4 Sophia Rd. , T think the Members of
Board and Mr. Stasinos have really held there cool. We are going to have something
there, I know that. You can put all the conditions you want but who is going to
police them. Mr. Hacker: the Building Inspector. Mr. Macrae: that is the
problem and my concern, they are supposed to do something but it doesn; t get done,
you can' t do it all, you are overworked. All these things sound good on paper.
Linda Vaughn, Greenway Rd. ,not for or against, I am a member of the Planning
Board. If this is accepted I think all developers should have to go to neighbor-
hood review, I have seen some developers sit down and talk to the neighbors but
not all developers do that . We are the ones who have to live there and we are the
ones who know what the problems are. Neighborhood review is the best way to
handle projects such as this and T would like to see all developers be required
to do this. Wilfred Dupuis, 14 Madeline Ave. , opposed; Domenic Scaparotti, 17
Madeline, opposed; Nelson Deroin, 6 Sophia Rd. , opposed, don' t want a compromise.
Mr. Hacker: I am trying to ascertain the number of cars that would be generated,
it seems to me that a commercial use would generate more than residential. The
petitioner is allowed by law to build 400,000 sq. ft. shopping center, the City
has no control over that, T certainly think that would produce more traffic,
he could even put a small factory there. Mr. Nelson: we ,lust don' t want the
condominiums. James & Lillian Twomey, opposed.
REBUTTAL: Attorney Keilty: One the the big questions is, why are here before
this Board. We don't feel the Planning Board has the right to grant this, this
Board does. Another question is, what protection to they have against further
development, we have agreed to relinquish our building permit for the shopping
center, once we do that, we lose the right to have commercial use there. To
clarify this, the former use is highway use and we can build under that use, the
court gave us that right, and we can build under the new Business Park Develop-
ment use, which it is presently zoned as. We think our plan is a compromise.
Hearing closed.
MINUTES - MAY 14, 1986
page seven
394 Highland Ave. - Continued
Mr. Hacker: Any abutters here that their property touches the land in question?
Mr. Amanti: yes? Mr. Hacker: in your estimation, would you, considering the
topography, be able to see the projection from your house. Not sure. Mr.
Hacker: any other abutters be able to see the condominiums from there house?
Mr. Harmon, 19 Madeline Ave. : yes. Mr. Luzinski: I really don' t know where to
start. I am surprised that the neighbors would rather have business there
considering the traffic impact. Mr. Bencal: I agree, the figures indicate
the commercial development would have an adverse affect and I am also surprised
the neighbors prefer business. Mr. Hacker: I feel if Highland Ave. is hit with
all this traffic that the business use would generate, it would be horrendous.
I personally think the 126 units is too many but I would reluctantly go along
with the Planner. There are other conditions I would like to see put on this.
I think we can control the growth. Mr. Fleming: I think we have a duty to
promote the public good. Do we listen to the developer or listen to the public.
I is a hard decision but I think we are better off if we listen to the people,
although I do not agree with them that the commercial would have less traffic.
If they have made that decision then I am prepared to vote that way. Mr.
Luzinski: if it does become commercial, we would have another route 114 on
Highland Ave. , and I would hate to see that. I still prefer the condominiums.
Mr. Fleming made a motion to deny the petition. Mr. Strout seconded. Messrs.
Bencal, Fleming and Strout voted in favor of the motion to deny. Messrs. ,
Hacker and Luzinski voted against the Motion. By a vote of three to two, the
motion carried and the petition was denied.
DENIED
51 Summit Ave. - Donald & Ida McEwan
Petitoners are requesting a Variance to convert a single family dwelling into
a two family dwelling in this R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application
and a letter from the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau stating the property is not
in compliance with laws relative to the installation of smoke detectors.
Donald McEwan represented 'himself. There is only my wife and myself left at
home, it is a big house. Mr. Fleming: There was a previous decision granting
this property for use as a three family. Mr. McEwan: Was never used as three
family. There is adequate parking. Mr. Strout: Would you be changing the
structure at all? Mr. McEwan: no. Mr. Hacker: Any other two family homes
in the area? Mr. McEwan: yes, there are about five. Mr. Bencal: what is the
hardship? Mr. McEwan: financial, this is a twelve room house and to maintain
it and heat it is outragious, the heating bill alone was $1 ,400, if we can' t
use it as a two family we will be forced to sell. Mr. Fleming: can this be
a Special Permit? Mr. Hacker: yes, we can down grade the request. Speaking
in favor: Councillor John Nutting: I am familiar with the petition, they
have live in the area for six to eight years and it is a big house. It looks
more like a three family, I would not like to see the trees removed but have
no problem with granting it for two family, would not be detrimental to the
neighborhood. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Strout:
where are you parking now? Mr. McEwan: in the garage, third car would park
in driveway. Mr. Fleming: it is almost impossible to find a hardship, I think
we should grant a Special Permit. Mr. Hacker explained to Mr. McEwan the
difference between the Special Permit and a Variance and asked if he would
mind if the Board modified the application for a Special Permit. Mr.McEwan:
would have no problem with that. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant a Special
Permit to allow conversion to a two family on condition, three on site parking
spaces be maintained, it be owner occupied, Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
MINUTES - MAY 14, 1986
page two
50 Winter Island Road - Park & Recreation Commission
ti C j Petitioners are requesting a Special Permit to allow the overnight of not more
than sixty(60) recreational vehicles during the summer months in this R-1 zone.
Mr. Bencal read the application and a letter from the Fire Dept. , no objection.
Gary Moore, Manager of Winter Island, represented the Park & Recreation Commission.\
This is the fifth time we have petitioned the Board for this use. It has always
been granted for a period of one year, we are asking for two years this time as
we feel these campers have proved themselves. Mr. Fleming: why are you coming now
for two years, I have a problem with granting this for two years. Mr. Moore:
} it was our intention to come for two years last year but because of the change
from the Winter Island Commission to the Park & Recreation Commission we decided
to wait. This is the first year it has come under the Park & Recreation.
Speaking in opposition. Gerry Irish, no address, I am concerned about the policing
of this area, teenage drinking and partying. Mr. Hacker: that is why we have
S given them the permit for one year at a time, it polices itself, if there were
any problems and complaints we would know about them. Speaking in favor:
Councillor Swiniuch, as far as the owners of these vehicles, these are adult
vehicles and very well behaved people, for the most part these people belong to
the National Recreation Vehicle Association. This is very well run and they
police themselves. There have been no problems and I am in favor. Armand Blaise,
2 Madeleine Ave. , there are no teenage problems, these people are courteous to
each other, it is well run. Hearing closed. Mr. Luzinksi: this is the fifth
year they have been here andyI have been very impressed with them. They come and
stay in Salem, they visit our tourist attractions, this is good for Salem, I would
be in favor. Mr. Fleming I would like to move to amend their application and
grant for only one year rather than the two years they requested. Mr. Strout
seconded the motion. Messrs. , Fleming, Hacker & Strout voted in favor of the
motion to amend application. Messrs. , Bencal and Luzinski voted against the
motion. Motion did no carry. Mr. Bencal made a motion to grant the Special
Permit to allow the overnight camping of not more than 60 recreational vehicles
for the period of May 1 , 1986 to October 15, 1986 and May 1 , 1987 to October 15,
1987 on condition the location of the recreational vehicles shall be approved
by the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau to guarantee access by fire fighting
apparatus. Mr. Luzinski seconded.
UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
394 Highland Ave. - Mike Stasinos
Petitioner is requesting Variances to allow construction of 163 residential
units in this R-1/R-C/BPD district. Mr. Rencal read the application, a petition
signed by 12 neighbors in favor, a petition signed by 8 neighbors in favor, a
letter from the City Planner listing 17 conditions the Planning Dept. would like
to see put in the decision if this is granted (on file) , a letter of opposition
from Ward four Councillor O'Leary and an attached petition signed by 134 neighbors
�- in opposition, a letter from hte Fire Dept. , no objection. Mr. Luzinski: Mr.
Chairman, the correspondence from Councillor O'Leary and the petition of opposition
is dated February 26, 1986 and is in opposition of 185 units. The petition we
are hearing is for 163 units. Mr. Hacker: we will accept the petition as sub-
r
mitted by the Councillor and assume that if they were against 185 they are
a against 163. Attorney John Keilty, Peabody, represented the petitioner. My
Y client purchased the property last summer from Mr. Fiore. This was advertised
for 163 residential units, this would be 8 units per acre, these units will be
townhouse style units. There will be tennis courts, swimming pool. He displayed
plans to the assemblage and explained the proposal. The proposed roadway will be
0
MINUTES - MAY 14, 1986
page three
394 Highland Ave. - Continued
Cwill be on the Northeast side onto the site, it will be single divided road and
the inner road will be cul-de-sac, the proposal allows for a connector to Camp
Lions. The land is rocky, the work presently being done is being done with a
building permit and in conjunction with commercial use. About 100 feet from
Highland Ave. the property slopes up, there is a large outcropping of rock and
large deposits of ledge. This is a mixed zoned area, my client has a building
permit for commercial shopping area. The zoning was changed, my client went to
court and won. Under the court decision we are allowed the B-2 uses. Part of
this land is in the RC district and because of that we will have to go to the
Conservation Commission. It is unusual to have a lot split in three different
zones. We would like to develop the rear portion of the parcel for residential,
the front part would be business office park. The feasibility plan was reviewed
by the Planning Board. If this is granted tonight we could abandon the building
permit we currently have. The Planning Board was concerned about commercial
being so far from the downtown area. We offered to compromise. There has been
a lot of talk regarding our coming to the Board of Appeal, we feel we are properly
before this Board and it is not our intention to avoid the Planning Board and it
never was our intention. Regarding the water and sewer situation, the developer
is agreeable to retooling of the wastewater pumping facility on Ravenna Ave.
The only access and egress to the development will be from Highland Ave. These
units will not encroach, will be at least 190 feet from any abutter except for
Mr. Amanti's property and we will be 70 feet from that. At the rear of the
property there is a significant drop, it you combine that drop with the 190 feet,
the impact would be minimal. It would be almost impossible to see the condominiums.
It is not economically feasible for single family homes due to the ledge and
topography. The plan makes sound planning sense and is compatible with the
area. The water supply is adequate, this will not improve the pressure but we
will retool the pumping station. The sewer is presently adequate, the existing
system will adequately handle this development and any future development. There
are 4 significant drains, the front portion connects to 36" pipe on Highland
Ave. With regards to drainage and wetlands, we still have to go to the Conservation
Commission and also to the Planning Board. I don' t think we will impact the
water shed. Regarding traffic, the traffic would be substantially greater if
used for commercial, the shopping mall, would be ten times greater than the
proposed residential use. We have been before this Board before, we at the
point now where we have entered into negotiations for uses as a shopping mall.
We feel residential use is the best use. We would leave the front area to be
developed at a later date, perhaps an office park. This is, in all likelihood,
the last attempt to develop as residential, but it will be developed. Mr'.
Luzinski: let me make sure I have this right, right now the front is being
prepared for commercial but it this goes through tonight the commercial use will
be abandoned, is that correct? Mr. Keilty: yes, we will abandon our building
permit for the mall and the front will be left alone for the moment. Mr. Fleming:
did you hear the conditions the Planning Board sent to us, do you have any
problems with them, would you agree to all of them, even cutting this down to
126 units? Would you be willing to help obtain from the state additional traffic
controls? Mr. Kavanaugh: this would be with contributions from all the developers
in the area. Mr. Hacker: if we grant this and make these conditions a part of
the decision, they have to go along with them of it is not granted. No one
appeared in favor.
C
MINUTES - MAY 14, 1986
page four
! 394 Highland Ave. - Continued
Speaking in opposition: Councillor Leonard O'Leary, for the record, the traffic
light is already there. I am Councillor of Ward 4, we are the people who live
there, we will be there when the developer is long gone. People have homes there,
they established roots thinking they will be protected. This developer has
refused to bring this before the Planning Board, they insist on coming to this
Board instead of getting a zoning change throught the proper procedure. What are
they afraid of, that there might be an investigation and there project would not
stand up under scrutiny. If this is approved, there is another large piece of
land further up, they could come in for variances. For a developer to go this
route makes sense to him, going to the Planning Board makes sense to the people.
There it can be studied and continued, shouldn't the citizens of Salem be
protected. We feel strongly this should go through the rezoning procedure. Just
think of what we have heard from this developer, each time he comes it is with
a different number of units. Mavbe even the developer knows he is wrong. Some
of you know the history of this developer and it has not been good, yes it is
true he has the right to try, site plan review will not change that. Once he
is granted a variance he has the right to build this, we have rules, lets follow
them. Gilbert Gillespie, 5 Ravenna Ave. , is in the hospital, he has some questions,
Mr. Meaney who has a bad back could not be here. Why is the City Planner
recommending this, what improvements have been made on his recommendations made
previously. How could he recommend such a bad plan. Mr. Hacker: I don' t think
we have established it was not a good plan. Councillor O'Leary: asked the
City Planner how he could recommend this plan. Mr. Kavanaugh: based my
recommendations on my concerns regarding traffic, by right he can put in a shopping
mall with no review at all with any city board. There is a major food chain
ready to come in, the impact of traffic with residential use would be much
lesser than with commercial use, on this basis it is a better plan. With this
plan we could get some funds to help with a comprehensive traffic study and
some recreational land for the city if it is not granted, there will be no funds,
no land. The zoning issue has trouble me for year or more. We tried to get
this rezoned for light industry. These people, through a legal technicality
were able to freeze the zoning. It is true, this development is unacceptable,
I have tried to make compromises. The existing zoning is unacceptable, have
tried to make compromises, tried to get public recreation area. Of the two
proposals, the residential would have the lesser impact. Mr. O'Leary: why are
you recommending they come to this Board. Mr. Kavanaugh: I have no problem if
i i conditioned upon Planning Board approval. There is a State law as to what
t s c p g pp
Board they can go to, the law says they can come to the Board of Appeal. Mr.
Hacker: what is the neighborhood review process? Mr. Kavanaugh: at this hearing
we are not sitting around a table discussing changes, etc. , but I think things
can be worked out. It is important to note that this petition is not only for
163 residential units but for office space also, 126 should be the maximum allowed.
1' If an approval of 126 is approved, there will be needed a site plan review and
' this will be done with Planning Board process. Mr. Hacker: according to your
plan there is 7,000 sq. ft. _ per unit, can you tell me what the city is requiring
of the Fafard project? Mr. Kavanaugh: 5,000 sq. ft. Mr. O'Leary: these
neighbors were here before this Board another time for another petitioner and
tiplanning board gave 17 conditions, that person is still without a Certificate of
Occupancy and has not complied with the conditions and here we are again. Mr.
Hacker: that is what we have Zoning Enforcement Officer for. Councillor
Vincent Furfaro, Ward three, I myself am becoming confused, I have heard so much
P
5
i
f
MINUTES - MAY . 14, 1986
page five
394 Highland Ave. - Continued
tonight. My concerns would be basically the same as Councillor O'Leary's. Would
like the Board to keep in mind the other large piece of land that could possible
come for Variance. Mr. Kavanaugh: I would like to mention that condition number
17 requiring a written statement from the City Planner be provided to the Building
Inspector prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy is a safeguard.
With the Planning Board process there will be as a rule, 30-40 conditions.
Dick Williams, Pyburn Circle, what kind of precedent would you be setting if this
is granted. Mr. Hacker: each and every case is decided on its own merits. Mr.
Williams: what kind of a bond is the developer willing to put up. Mr. Hacker:
we have not reached a point where we are asking for that. Mr. Fleming: what
would you rather see there, would you prefer a business? yes. Mr. D' amato,
Clark St. , what about blasting? Mr. Hacker: we could set conditions as to the
time of day they could start work and when they would have to stop, without
conditions he can continue what he is doing now. Mr. Amanti, 392 Highland Ave. ,
I am representing my father, would not mind seeing some condominiums, realize
that something is going to go there but this is too many, if it was down to only
100 maybe we would consider it. It is too close to my fathers property. Is it
the function of this Board to grant something like this and if it is granted
tonight, is this it. Mr. Hacker: this petitioner or any petitioner can come
to this Board and what we do tonight is final. Mr. Amanti: we have not seen
anything. Mr. Hacker: this Board relies on the expertise of other departments.
What the City Planner has tried to do is say this is the lesser of two evils.
Mr. Amanti: if this is granted it is going to be a disaster. Mr. Hacker:
according the communication from the City Planner, the commercial use could
r generate in excess of 20,000 trips per day, in contrast, the residential would
�. generate only 650. They can, by right, put in the shopping center, the Court
has given them that right. Mr. Amanti: the road is so close to my fathers land.
Mr. Hacker: we could put condition on that they change the road. If this is
granted, this plan would have to be amended. Louise Pelletier, Ravenna Ave. ,
after he gets this, he says he will put a business there. Mr. Hacker: the Board
could condition this on there being no business use. Louis Dimambro, 1 Ravenna
Ave. , I don't think this Board has the teeth or the control for a project this
size, one a building is there, it is there and we have to look at it. Mr. Hacker:
the petitioner has said there is a rise in the property, can you see the project
from your property. No I can' t. Bill Antoniades, 20 Barcelona Ave. , what is
the sense of the rezoning process if anyone can get a variance. Wallace Miller,
Pyburn ave. , very much opposed. Councillor Nutting: it is a pleasure to take
part in this discussion, I realize the Board of Appeal is overworked, in fact the
Planning Board is overworked. If the Board has any qualms, perhaps it should
let the developer withdrawn. Mr. Bencal: the City Council issue a resolution
regarding continuing this any longer. George Antonio, 20 Appleby Rd. , opposed.
Armand Blais, 2 Madeleine Ave. , we have a water problem here, there has always
been a water problem here, if you don' t believe me you can come and take a shower
at my house. Supposedly this problem was rectified years ago, but it is still
there. I am not the only one with a water problem. Elizabeth Winiarczyk, 39
Ravenna Ave. , I don' t think a project this size should be decided a a limited
meeting with limited time, should be the rezoning process. Paulette Langone,
29 Barcelona Ave. , part of my driveway collapsed this morning, there is problem
in this area. We need protection. There is no legal hardship and there is no
question in my mind that if this is granted it won't stand up in court.
I
MINUTES - MAY 14, 1986
page six
394 Highland Ave. - Continued
° Marjorie Holland, 22 Barcelona Ave. , I am opposed to the way this is being
presented, how many of you have viewed this site? All members of the Board of
Appeal informed Mrs. Holland they have indeed viewed the site. Mr. Hacker.:
what is your biggest concern, someday this land is going to be developed for some-
thing. Mrs. Holland: I realize that .but I am 'very concerned with the traffic,
it is bad enough that Fafard railroaded us we don' t need any more. Mr. Hacker:
if this plan were approved tonight, according to the City Planner it would
generate about 600 trips per day, much less that a supermarket. Mrs. Holland:
there was a supermarket by Rich's and that did not bother me. Irene Provo,
9 Pyburn Ave. , Emily Boucher, 43 Ravenna Ave. Gerard Yarosh, Sophia Rd. , I
concur with all that has been said. Don' t want more lights there. As far as
having soccer field, how many of you people play soccer. Mr. Hacker: do you
y think the commercial use would be better? Mr. Yarosh: I would like single family
q homes. Think of what has been said, everything they've mention is adequate, that
' is just another word for mediocre. Mr. Hacker: would you prefer the commercial
use? Mr. Yarosh: yes. Shirley Yarosh, 8 Sophia Rd. , concerned with crime, more
dwellings more crime. Catherine Harmon, 19 Madeline Ave. ,I don't want to see any
business here, would rather see condominiums but there is water problem. Mr.
Kavanaugh: The City is upgrading the Highland Ave. pumping station, the Engineer
says when it is done the problem will improve. Mr. Antonio, Appleby Rd. , if we
have any more meetings we should have them somewhere else, there is not enough
room here, half of us have been standing all evening. I want to go on record as
being opposed, I think you people should be more familiar with whats going on in
the neighborhood, it is a mess, all I do is dust. You ask if we prefer commercial
to condomiums, well I think Councillor O'Leary said it all. Michael Francullo,
19 Barcelona Ave. , opposed. Bruce Macrae, 4 Sophia Rd. , I think the Members of
i Board and Mr. Stasinos have really held there cool. We are going to have something
there, I know that. You can put all the conditions you want but who is going to
police them. Mr. Hacker: the Building Inspector. Mr. Macrae: that is the
problem and my concern, they are supposed to do something but it doesn;t get done,
you can' t do it all, you are overworked. All these things sound good on paper.
Linda Vaughn, Greenway Rd. ,not for or against, I am a member of the Planning
Board. If this is accepted I think all developers should have to go to neighbor-
hood review, I have seen some developers sit down and talk to the neighbors but
not all developers do that . We are the ones who have to live there and we are the
ones who know what the problems are. Neighborhood review is the best way to
handle projects such as this and I would like to see all developers be required
to do this. Wilfred Dupuis, 14 Madeline Ave. , opposed; Domenic Scaparotti, 17
Madeline, opposed; Nelson Deroin, 6 Sophia Rd. , opposed, don't want a compromise.
Mr. Hacker: I am trying to ascertain the number of cars that would be generated,
it seems to me that a commercial use would generate more than residential. The
petitioner is allowed by law to build 400,000 sq. ft. shopping center, the City
has no control over that, I certainly think that would produce more traffic,
he could even put a small factory there. Mr. Nelson: we just don' t want the
condominiums. James & Lillian Twomey, opposed.
REBUTTAL: Attorney Y.eilty: One the the big questions is, why are here before
4 this Board. We don' t feel the Planning Board has the right to grant this, this
r Board does. Another question is, what protection to they have against further
5 development, we have agreed to relinquish our building permit for the shopping
center, once we do that, we lose the right to have commercial use there. To
Ci clarify this, the former use is highway use and we can build under that use, the
court gave us that right, and we can build under the new Business Park Develop-
ment use, which it is presently zoned as. We think our plan is a compromise.
{. Hearing closed.
y
MINUTES - MAY 14, 1986
page seven
C 394 Highland Ave. - Continued
Mr. Hacker: Any abutters here that their property touches the land in question?
Mr. Amanti: yes? Mr. Hacker: in your estimation, would you, considering the
topography, be able to see the projection from your house. Not sure. Mr.
Hacker: any other abutters be able to see the condominiums from there house?
Mr. Harmon, 19 Madeline Ave. : yes. Mr. Luzinski: I really don' t know where to
start. I am surprised that the neighbors would rather have business there
considering the traffic impact. Mr. Bencal: I agree, the figures indicate
the commercial development would have an adverse affect and I am also surprised
the neighbors prefer business. Mr. Hacker: I feel if Highland Ave. is hit with
all this traffic that the business use would generate, it would be horrendous.
I personally think the 126 units is too many but I would reluctantly go along
with the Planner. There are other conditions I would like to see put on this.
I think we can control the growth. Mr. Fleming: I think we have a duty to
promote the public good. Do we listen to the developer or listen to the public.
I is a hard decision but I think we are better off if we listen to the people,
although I do not agree with them that the commercial would have less traffic.
If they have made that decision then I am prepared to vote that way. Mr.
Luzinski: if it does become commercial, we would have another route 114 on
Highland Ave. , and I would hate to see that. I still prefer the condominiums.
Mr. Fleming made a motion to deny the petition. Mr. Strout seconded. Messrs.
Bencal, Fleming and Strout voted in favor of the motion to deny. Messrs. ,
Hacker and Luzinski voted against the motion. By a vote of three to two, the
motion carried and the petition was denied.
DENIED
\ 51 Summit Ave. - Donald & Ida McEwan
Petitoners are requesting a Variance to convert a single family dwelling into
a two family dwelling in this R-1 district. Mr. Bencal read the application
and a letter from the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau stating the property is not
in compliance with laws relative to the installation of smoke detectors.
Donald McEwan represented himself. There is only my wife and myself left at
home, it is a big house. Mr. Fleming: There was a previous decision -granting
this property for use as a three family. Mr. McEwan: Was never used as three
family. There is adequate parking. Mr. Strout: Would you be changing the
structure at all? Mr. McEwan: no. Mr. Hacker: Any other two family homes
in the area? Mr. McEwan: yes, there are about five. Mr. Bencal: what is the
hardship? Mr. McEwan: financial, this is a twelve room house and to maintain
it and heat it is outragious, the heating bill alone was $1 ,400, if we can' t
use it as a two family we will be forced to sell. Mr. Fleming: can this be
a Special Permit? Mr. Hacker: yes, we can down grade the request. Speaking
in favor: Councillor John Nutting: I am familiar with the petition, they
have live in the area for six to eight years and it is a big house. It looks
more like a three family, I would not like to see the trees removed but have
no problem with granting it for two family, would not be detrimental to the
neighborhood. No one appeared in opposition. Hearing closed. Mr. Strout:
where are you parking now? Mr. McEwan: in the garage, third car would park
in driveway. Mr. Fleming: it is almost impossible to find a hardship, I think
we should grant a Special Permit. Mr. Hacker explained to Mr. McEwan the
difference between the Special Permit and a Variance and asked if he would
mind if the Board modified the application for a Special Permit. Mr.McEwan:
would have no problem with that. Mr. Fleming made a motion to grant a Special
Permit to allow conversion to a two family on condition, three on site parking
spaces be maintained, it be owner occupied, Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
Mr. Luzinski seconded. UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED
1
7" T &N n# 5aleni, fflttssadjusdis
Poar 1 of �ppeui
\<tcxc
TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS: petitioners regarding
hie Undersigned represent that they 89 are the owner 0 a certain parcel of land located
at NO. . .191. iiiO AXI --Venue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .fa4 ; Zoning District. . . . . .
F-:1. and ,R,-C,/BRD. . . . . . . . . . . . : and said parcel is affected by Section(s): . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
� X6F�5�a�HtX�#}t�fX%�$�e�CG{Y{�7d7�`deb7c
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
sub ect site lies within a R-C district. The petitioner proposes to develop
the site by constructing a cluster of residential units.
C_'J U;
CiT G� N
The Applicdt orrnfdr Permit was denied by the Inspector of Buildings for the following
reasons:
Thissis a diregt appeal
_ � r
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 permit to build as filed, as the enforcement of said
Zoning By-Laws and Building Code would involve practical difficulty or unnecessary-
hardship to the Undersigned and relief may be granted without substantially dero-
gating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code for
the following reasons:
See Attachment No. 1
Owner. .. .Mike. .StasiAos. .. . . .. .. .. . . . . . .. . .
Address. .*!4. Chestnut
Telephone. .. . . .. ,59. . . . . . .. . . ... . . . . . . . . . . .
Petitioner. . Make.Stasi.pos.. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .
Address544.
Date. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tele hone -§ �D. . .
S . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MIKE STASINOS
Three copies of the application must be filed with the Secretary of the Board of
Appeals with a check, for advertising in the amount of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
four weeks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Check payable to the
Evening News.
ATTACHMENT NO . 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" j
as set forth in M.G .L . , Chapter 40 . Additionally , the subject
parcel is cross zoned in a manner which makes residential deve-
lopment impractical.
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_ght 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 Ordinance Cluster Residential Development provisions which
units would be substantially set back from the said Highland
Avenue.
m
_
JE,v cowiy�bs
(1�i# oftt1em, ttssttc!#use##�
PottrD of �ppenl
�LL OVE W'
June 2, 1986
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT AS OF MAY 27, 1986 THE DECISION
OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CITY CLERK TO DENY THE PETITION OF MIKE STASINOS FOR VARIANCES
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION. 163 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AT 394 HIGHLAND
AVE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
Brenda M. Sumrall
Clerk
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION, IF ANY, SHALL BE MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE MASS.
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, AND SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PURSANT TO MASS GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL PERMIT
GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAIfE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THEDECISION, BEARING THE CERT-
FICATION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED,
OR THAT. IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS HISSED OR DENIED IS ,
RECORDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER
OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
' a
e Q�ltjl of ` il�l'tgl il5ac�l� �ll$CfS f%�2v
Office of tile(44u,"'C`incnl
eN,, mail `aff
WWI
WARD COUNCILLORS
GEORGE R,/ M6CtABW% 1986
COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE I&-' T ,
1986 � _ �t O ��S• GEORGE A. NOWAK
JOSEPHINE R 1FU'SC KEVIN R. HARVEY
I.v
ROB'ERT E. GAUTHIER CI vGL'4 FI�Rr � VIN CENT J. FURFARO
tk
PRANCES J. GRACE LEONARO F. O'L EARY
JEAN-GUY J MARTINEAU
NEIL J. HARRINGTON
GEORGE P. MCCASE
RICHARD E. SWINIUCH
JOHN R, NUTTING
February 21 , 1986
Board of Appeal
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Attn: James B . Hacker, Chairman
Dear Mr. Hacker :
Once again as Councillor of Ward Four, I wish to state my
opposition and that of my constituents as they appear in the
petitions previously filed with you in connection with the
application filed by Mr. Stasinos concerning his Highland
Avenue development. In previous letters we have made our ob-
jections known to the members of the Board. These objections
still stand. We feel that the proposed matter amounts to a
zoning change without any of the safeguards that accompany
zoning change procedures . My constituents strongly feel that
these procedures set up standards for not only their protection
but those of the entire city. I would ask on their behalf
that this petition be denied.
Very truly yours,
%�;D lv"
Leonard F. O'Leary
Councillor, Ward Four
DATE OF HEARING
PETITIONER.
LOCATION 395� 4Gcy/ n/ Cif %g/'d
MOTION: TO GRANT SECONDED
TO DENY � SECONDED
" DF
LEAVE TO WITHDRAW SECONDED
CONTINUE SECONDED
ROLL CALL ABSENT PRESENT GRANT DENY/ WITHDRAW CONTINUE
RICHARD BENCAL V
SI a i
JAMES HACKER v
EDWARD LUZINSKI /
:PETER STROUT d
ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
PETER DORE
-ARTHUR LARRFrnTTF
DISCUSSION & CONDITIONS: /((�
DftzlPm, ttssttrllitsE##s
Paurb of Appeal
mt.cd
DECISION ON SHE PETITION OF MIKE STASINOS FOR
VARIANCES FOR 394. HIGHLAND AVENUE
A hearing on .this petition was held May 14, 1986 witHAyttq f lq}�ipg, rd
Members present: James Hacker,' Chairman; Messrs. , Benca`il, e1�i inski
and Strout. Notice of the hearing was sent to abut£ and others and notices
of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance
with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. CITY CLFu!' cctm MASS.
Petitioner, owner of the property, requests Variances to allow construction of
163 residential units in this R-1/R-C/DPD 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;
k 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
games B. Hacker, Chairman
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
APPEAL FROM THIS DECISWN, IF ANY, SHALL BE hSADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 11 OF THE MASS.
RENCRAL LAWS. CHAPTER 80F, AQ SHALL BE FILED IWTH11; 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FIWI
OF THIS DECISION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
URSANT 10 f1:AS". CENDri L'O.S. C:i A?TCR gOE. SECT] N 11. THE £°FCI:.L FER"''IT
1[,W:T.ED HEREIN, SHALL NL' TAr.E EFFECT UNTIL A. UP` OF T]HLD:;'C'_.
FVTION OF THE CITY CLER,( Thi :0 E'.7S Pu'E ELA=CG 60 i•=-_ .- H'S
Qf'i THAT, IF SUCH AN APPEAL.HAS ECE; FILE, THAT IT S;,S oEE'; L13'.SSLED UP, LEI:;-O iS
FECCRDED IN THE SOUTH ESSEX P.EG:STRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED THE I;A-6E OF THE OWNER
• OF RECORD OR IS RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL
7
PETITION
We, the undersigned, residents of the City of Salem, Massachusetts,
believe that the property at 394 Highland Avenue in Salem, Massachusetts
would be more appropriately developed as the site of a residential con-
dominium community. We would prefer to see residential development of
the twenty-six acres rather than commercial development of the same area.
NAME ADDRESS
��
U
I '
f 6.
R Wrye,ccthe dno±signed residents of Ward 4, respectfully request the Board of Appeal
to relec� the request for variance submitted by Mr. Stasinso and Company to construct
185 condominiums on hj�rllighland Avenue property.
o`s, 30
yW,e Zfeel?-tha a project of this size should go through the rezoning procedures
with the PlTin B'o'ard�end City Council to afford full investigation. We ask you to
vote NO.
COSY TAME ADDRESS
.'?
rl
ae
20
�r i�� rl�tir o rD �7,012 F B V Q n
A A Rvp k—),"/ 41�)
r-) Seth 4, � �c�. .
We,�i�h�eVundersigned residents of Ward 4, respectfully request the Board of Appeal
to rejee 'the request for variance submitted by Mr. Stasinso and Company to construct
185 condominiums onrbt��§§ Aighland Avenue property.
c��17
P7 c3t`ebl that -aa proj�ct of this size should go through the rezoning procedures
with .the lane ng.eBo`srd44 n ' City Council to afford full investigation. We ask you to
vote,,NO. p�
f. ' AME ADDRESS
(y/�L` ���,1.-.��/'�7Y/✓���^�_�rz,.c-cv� GCS �Y�v7��a:.�tQ.c.:.,gD ��'N��'_-
ALL. . �, s eA
r1 �c rE����
1q�Al ev undersigned residents of Ward 4, respectfully request the Board of Appeal
to reject the request fgi%iV ence submitted by Mr. Stasinso and Company to construct
185 condomiiniivis ?nv:F4'Highland Avenue property.
G o
We feel t�iat ;aiproj 'of this size should go through the rezoning procedures
with the Plarm r)CBJ6a`rd 'and City Council to afford full investigation. We ask you to
vote NO. G���
N E ADDRESS
� o
G_� 392 Hzt� Pie Htil
tfie undersigned residents of Ward 4, respectfully request the Board of Appeal
to r 7ect the request for variance submitted by Mr. Stasinso and Company to construct
185 condominiums8olnAhikHighland Avenue property.
t•'feel that a project of this size should go through the rezoning procedures
with the PlanhI%$aAW'3Ahd City Council to afford full investigation. We ask you to
vote N4.1�� U
NAM771;-7. 12011AI
En ADDRESS
r I�i�Zf�
/l L�7✓. /; / I i�i} 1/J N �/l..Rr�A1�1N1' / / :.r S
t�/� ti' /�� �GT�I? �A�z nl `1 �c�A ✓G r✓iv a AIn
./
`Z/, a-./.�.rr„�� A-✓
. r
03 e, the undersigned residents of Ward 4, respectfully request the Board of Appeal
to reject the requ"', �fo8 variance submitted by Mr. Stasinso and Company to construct
185 condom ini`untsdon� his Highland Avenue property.
�A1b
CVe�N�,l-,1th'Kg� q,,�Aject of this size should go through the rezoning procedures
with the PJ%mirig oard and City Council to afford full investigation. We ask you to
vote N@.�j..
NAME / ADDR/EJSS
T�i �n�,✓ 3s l�l L.G� C
�J
n?,
f tv,�
Lam,
eL
r
i
a 'he, lurecsiihed residents of Ward 4, respectfully request the Board of Appeal
to rele ti t�e request for variance submitted by Mr. Stasinso and Company to construct
185 condominiums on his Highland Avenue property.
Zteel2tflg't� project of this size should go through the rezoning procedures
with the Planning,-Board and City Council to afford full investigation. We ask you to
vote NO. RECt-
CITY 01 CEI' ASS.
ADDRESS
C
J��, ,� fir,
Id
v
hdl.�U lrlf}s��l l/4�(F , GhQ/1`PO� 7/1 Q. n.I,o Q',(/lm j.
��'i �i, ... /1�` l-�'- 6/� o "_� /,S� �A�Cf[ D.t1,q /�✓c. ,Si?tc�i�
i
Tim 4
I
We, the undersigned, abutters and nearby homeowners to that certain parcel of
land located at 394 Highland Avenue, Salem, wish to be recorded in favor of the
granting by the Salem Board of Appeal of the variance sought by Mike Stasinos,
which hearing is to be held on May 1.4, 1986. The reasons for the petitioning of
said variance have been fully explained to us and we are of the opinion that the
granting of said Variance will in no way be detrimental to the public good and
will not derogate from the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
NAME ADDRESS
ip CAW l�a.rJ
pp -7 d r
�M
MICHAEL E. O'BRIEN 3 LEONARD F. FEMINO
CI.Ty SOLICITOR 'o �g ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR
93 WASHINGTON STREET 93 WASHINGTON STREET
and "�i .i ,ll ?:J ttCi 't1� and
81 WASHINGTON STREET CITY OF SALEM _ ONE BROADWAY
SALEM, MA 01970 MASSACHUSETT =�'=�"���,��.�,;�. BEVERLY, MAO/915
745.4311 `� U'r $ �'�' S. 745.4311
744.3363 921.1990
Pease Reply to 81 Washington Street - Please Reply to One Broadway
May 16 , 1986
James B. Hacker, Chairman
Salem Board of Appeals
7 Ugo Road
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Dear Mr. Hacker:
This is to confirm our telephone conversation of May 15 , 1986
wherein you requested my opinion whether a variance was granted,
denied, or not acted upon by a recent vote of the board. while the
Code of Ordinances (Sec. 2-181) provides that such requests be in
writing, I will respond to the same in this one instance. However,
in the future, all such requests must be in writing as provided for
in the Code of Ordinances .
It is my understanding that after a hearing on a request for
a variance, a motion was made and seconded to deny relief from the
operation of the zoning ordinance. It is further my understanding
that the vote was three ( 3 ) in favor of denial and two ( 2 ) opposed
to denial.
The fourth paragraph of GLc40A, s15 provides in part "The
concurring vote . . . of four members of a board consisting of
five members , shall be necessary : : . to effect any variance
in the application of any ordinance : - " The Fifth paragraph '
of the aforementioned statute provides in part "Failure by the
board to act within said seventy-five days shall be deemed to
be the grant of relief application or petition sought*. . " .
_ v
The language of the statute is unambiguous in that four
votes are necessary to grant a variance. The fact that the
question was posed in the negative rather than the affirmative
does not alter the fact that the requisite number of votes was
not obtained. Further, to argue that four votes are necessary
to defeat a requested variance when the question is posed in
the negative, is to read something into the statute which is
not there.
Lastly, in the instant case, there can be no constructive
grant of the variance because of a failure of the board to act
James B. Hacker, Chairman - 2 - May 16 , 1986
Board of Appeals
�n
within the requisite time perio,j,, _uvote�-by` the board regard-
less of whether or not is it framed iA_the, negative or affir-
mative is clearly action within the "_ 'Ijrig;:.bni intent of the
statute. CIT`f Cr �• -
ry ruly ours ,
c ael E. O'Brien
ity Solicitor
MEO/jp
cc: City Clerk
board of Appeals
Y