COMPLETE APPRAISAL 70A NORTH STREET PHELAN REALTY ,ADVISORS
10 First Avenue Suite 31 Peabody, Massachusetts
COMPLETE APPRAISAL PROCESS, SELF CONTAINED
REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL REPORT OF
five properties by the North River in Salem, Massachusetts
Address Land Area Owner of Record
70 A North Street 8,000 +/- Sq Ft Burnham Associates
14 Franklin Street 21,500 Sq Ft Franklin Street Realty Trust
16 Franklin Street 21,500 Sq Ft Edward Ferris
18 Franklin Street 2,512 Sq Ft Edward Ferris
20 Rear Franklin Street 49,200 +/- Sq Ft Edward Ferris
Appraisal Report Prepared for:
City of Salem, Massachusetts
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts
01970
Appraisal Report Authorized by:
Elizabeth Debski
Acting City Planner
Appraisal Report Prepared by:
Phelan Realty Advisors
10 First Avenue Suite 31
Peabody, Massachusetts 01960
Date of Valuation:
June 10, 1996
PHELAN REALTY ADVISORS
10 First Avenue Suite 31 Peabody, Massachusetts
June 14, 1996
Elizabeth Debski Acting City Planner
City of Salem, Massachusetts
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
RE: Complete appraisal process, self contained real estate appraisal report of five
parcels of land located by the North River at 70A North Street, 14, 16, 18 and 20 Rear
Franklin Street in Salem, Massachusetts
Dear Ms. Debski
I am pleased to submit the accompanying appraisal report which provides an opinion
of the market value of the fee simple interest in the above referenced properties. It is my
understanding that the function of the report is to enable the City of Salem's Planning
Department to appropriately analyze the properties for possible purchase.
The narrative appraisal report that follows presents the identification of the
properties, the assumptions and limiting conditions, pertinent facts about the market area
and the subject properties, comparable data and the results of my analysis leading to my
conclusions.
The report, including the accompanying prospective analysis, is based on estimates,
assumptions and other information developed from my research of the market, knowledge
of the industry and information provided to me by individuals or groups identified in the
report. The sources of information and basis of the estimates and assumptions are stated
in the body of this report. Some assumptions inevitably will not materialize and
unanticipated events and circumstances may occur, therefore, actual results achieved will
vary from those described in the report. I have no responsibility to update the report for
events and circumstances occurring after the date of the report: It is noted that the critical
assumptions respect to my value estimates are stated within the body of the report.
rim- IELI REALTY ADVISORS
10 First Avenue Suite 31 Peabody, Massachusetts
Both the interior and the exterior of the property located at 14 Franklin Street as well
as the unimproved land at 70A North Street were inspected by John V. Phelan III on May
31, 1996. On this date the owner of 16, 18 and 20 Rear Franklin Street declined to
participate in the field inspection of his property or to allow the appraiser on site.
Subsequent to this date several inspections / observations were made of the subject
properties from public access points. The last detailed observation of all of the properties
was made on June 10, 1996 which is also the date of value.
My value estimates, subsequent appraisal report and the associated analyses are
intended for the information of the City of Salem's Planning Department and its duly
authorized agents. The report may not be referred to or quoted in any agreement or
document without my written consent.
Based on the analyses described in the accompanying report, it is my opinion that
the market value of the fee simple interest in the properties, "as is" as of June 10, 1996,
were as follows:
70A North Street
Twenty Five Thousand Dollars
$25,000
14 Franklin Street
One Hundred and Eighty Thousand Dollars
$180,000
16, 18 and 20 Rear Franklin Street
Five Hundred and Ten Thousand Dollars
$510,000
Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. I would be pleased to answer any
questions regarding my findings.
Respectfully submitted,
-John V. Phelan III
Phelan Realty Advisors
Massachusetts General Certificate#729
PHELAN REALTY ADVISORS Page 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTIONI.................................................................................................................4
PROPERTYINTRODUCTION .................................................................................4
SUMMARYOF SALIENT FACTS.......................................................................... 5
STANDARD ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS ............................. 10
SPECIAL ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS .................................. 13
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, IDENTIFICATION AND HISTORY .......................... 14
DATE OF INSPECTION AND VALUE................................................................... 15
PURPOSE AND INTENDED USE OF THE APPRAISAL.................................... 15
ESTIMATED MARKETING TIME........................................................................... 16
DEFINITIONS.......................................................................................................... 16
PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED....................................................................... 16
MARKETVALUE.................................................................................................... 17
SECTION11.............................................................................................................. 18
AREAANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 18
REGION AND MUNICIPAL OVERVIEW............................:.................................. 18
CITYDATA..............................................................................................................24
NEIGHBORHOOD ..................................................................................................27
SECTION III ..................................33
PROPERTYDESCRIPTION ..................................................................................33
SITEDESCRIPTION...............................................................................................33
IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIPTION.........................................................................48
ASSESSMENTSAND TAXES...............................................................................49
ZONINGAND RESTRICTIONS .............................................................................51
SECTIONIV.............................................................................................................56
HIGHESTAND BEST USE ....................................................................................56
METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................63
SECTIONV..............................................................................................................65
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ....................................................................65
SITEVALUE ESTIMATE........................................................................................66
COSTAPPROACH.................................................................................................87
RECONCILIATION..................................................................................................94
CERTIFICATION...................................................................................................
ADDENDA
�'ly; ,�1 (,•# h+1,L
t �n4
f i ' � •
C�Xr1-
aa•.� ;`` . Via'. . �,_M. .. . '_ �
�C A1y� 1p
ft O U 1
♦1 \ \�
x
41
0� � 0 o '
96
/
f
Y /
/
M _
L a
rV/
■
JP. 2S I lop ■// fi o \
ri %qc,
i •• m ■
06
• �o m $ \\
• moo► �'s • 'C •s ��•'' �' ��• oa. \
act o 't Y
Vvp
P ■■v
au° ASSESSORS'MAP
PROPERTY LOCATION MAP
S00 .°• .G�, �1 �\
INTRODUCTION Pace 4
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
PROPERTY INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the "as is" fee simple market value of the
subject properties. The intended use of this appraisal is to provide information to the City of
Salem's Planning Department with respect to the subjects' market value and to assist in
forming management decisions regarding the potential purchase of the properties.
R
The subject properties are comprised of five separate and distinct parcels of land.
Four of the properties abut one another along Franklin Street and the North River. The fifth
lot is a landlocked parcel located off of North Street, but with frontage along the North River.
The subjects' street addresses are 14, 16, 18 and 20 Rear Franklin Street and 70A North
Street Salem, Massachusetts. The Salem assessors refer to them as Map 26 Lots 403, 402,
401,400 and 423 respectively. The properties on Franklin Street are in a business zone
(65), while the lot off of North Street is zoned industrial. The neighborhood has good access
to Route 128 by means of Route 114 (North Street).
The property at 14 Franklin Street contains a 1 story pre-engineered metal building
shell. The property at 18 Franklin Street contains a small masonry service shop type
building. The improvements are discussed in further detail in the Property Improvement
Description section of this report. The remaining three lots are unimproved land.
Market trends currently appear to indicate that minimal growth is anticipated in the
near future for the local market. It is anticipated, though, that the greater Salem area should
fare better than some of the other local commercial/industrial markets due to the fact it is the
Essex County seat; has the District, Superior, and Probate Courts; Registry of Deeds; and its
good tourist base. The subject neighborhood is in a period of stability and is unlikely to
experience significant changes in use (unless the subject properties are purchased by the
City of Salem) or value within the foreseeable future.
INTRODUCTION Pate 5
SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS
Property Descri tion
Location 70 A North Street, Salem, Massachusetts
Type Unimproved landlocked waterfront land
j ff Improvements None
or Site 8,000 +/- square feet
Ownership BURNHAM ASSOCIATES, INC.
■
Zoning Industrial
Appraisal Assi nment
�r
Purpose To Estimate Market Value "as is"
Function Potential purchase
i
j Interests Appraised Fee Simple
■ Date of Appraisal June 10, 1996
i
Highest and Best Use as Vacant Remain vacant as. it is landlocked
and without access to utilities
(But with water access from the North River)
" Highest and Best Use as Improved N /A
` —
Indications of Value
I Sales Comparison Approach $25,000
Cost Approach N/A
Income Capitalization Approach N /A
Final Value Estimate $26,000
i
i
INTRODUCTION Page 6
Property Description
Location 14 Franklin Street, Salem, Massachusetts
Type Improved waterfront land
Improvements Vacant one story metal Butler building
Site 21,500 +/- square feet
Ownership Franklin Street Realty Trust.
Zoning Business (135) but with a grandfatherdd
industrial use
Appraisal Assignment
Purpose To Estimate Market Value "as is"
Function Potential purchase
Interests Appraised Fee Simple
Date of Appraisal June 10, 1996
Highest and Best Use as Vacant Remain vacant
Highest and Best Use as Improve Business use
Indications of Value
Sales Comparison Approach $150,000
Plus Cost Approach $ 30,000
Income Capitalization Approach N /A
Final Value Estimate $180,000
INTRODUCTION Page 7
Propeqy Description
Location 16 Franklin Street, Salem, Massachusetts
Type Unimproved waterfront land
Improvements None
Site 21,500 +/- square feet
Ownership Edward Ferris.
Zoning Business (135) but with a grandfather6d
industrial use
Appraisal Assignment
Purpose To Estimate Market Value "as is"
Function Potential purchase
Interests Appraised Fee Simple
Date of Appraisal June 10, 1996
Highest and Best Use as Vacant Remain vacant
Highest and Best Use as Improved N /A
Indications of Value
Sales Comparison Approach Reference 20 Rear Franklin Street
Cost Approach N /A
Income Capitalization Approach N /A
Final Value Estimate Reference 20 Rear Franklin Street
INTRODUCTION Rage 8
Property Description
Location 18 Franklin Street, Salem, Massachusetts
Type Improved land
Improvements Older one story masonry garage
Site 2,521+/- square feet
Ownership Edward Ferris
Zoning Business (135) but with a grandfathered
industrial use
Appraisal Assignment
Purpose To Estimate Market Value "as is"
Function Potential purchase
Interests Appraised Fee Simple
Date of Appraisal June 10, 1996
Hi_qhest and Best Use as Vacant Remain vacant
Hi hest and Best Use as Improved Business use
Indications of Value
Sales Comparison Approach Reference 20 Rear Franklin Street
Cost Approach N /A
Income Capitalization Approach N /A
Final Value Estimate Reference 20 Rear Franklin Street
INTRODUCTION Pa�je 9
Property Description
Location 20 Rear Franklin Street, Salem,
Massachusetts
Type Unimproved waterfront land, potentially
landlocked unless combined with one of the
abutting parcels of land held under common
ownership
Improvements None
Site 49,200 +/- square feet
Ownership Edward Ferris.
Zoning Business (65) but with a grandfathered
industrial use
Appraisal Assignment
Purpose To Estimate Market Value "as is"
Function Potential purchase
Interests Appraised Fee Simple
Date of Appraisal June 10, 1996
Highest and Best Use as Vacant Remain vacant
Highest and Best Use as Improved N /A
Indications of Value
Sales Comparison Approach $510,000
Cost Approach N /A
Income Capitalization Approach N /A
Final Value Estimate $510,000
* Note: This is an aggregate value for 16, 18 and 20 Rear Franklin Street as the
properties are held in common ownership and would convey as a single unit.
INMODUCTION Page 10
STANDARD ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
THE APPRAISER ASSUMES:
1. That the subject properties' fee simple estate as defined by this report is
marketable and that the property is free and clear of all liens, encumbrances,
easements and restrictions unless otherwise noted.
2. No liabilities legal in nature.
R
3. The property ownership and management are in competent, responsible
hands.
4. That the properties are not operating in violation of any applicable government
regulations, codes, ordinances, or statutes. Any zoning variations and special
permits currently in place are assumed to be available as of the date of value.
5. That there are no concealed or dubious conditions of the subsoil or
subsurface waters, including water table and flood plain.
6. The appraiser personally viewed the subject properties from public streets
and ways on several occasions. When the date of inspection differs from the
effective date of appraised value, the appraiser has assumed no material
change in the condition of the properties, unless otherwise noted in the report.
The following limiting conditions are submitted with this report and the estimated value of
the subjects as set forth in this appraisal is predicated on them.
1 . All of the facts, conclusions and observations contained herein are consistent
with information available as of the date of valuation. The value of real estate
is affected by many related and unrelated economic conditions, both local and
national. The appraiser, therefore assumes no liability for the effect on the
subject properties of any unforeseen precipitous change in the economy.
2. The valuation, which applies only to the properties described herein, was
prepared for the purpose so stated and should not be used for any other
purpose.
WIRODUCTION Page 11
3. The appraiser has made no survey of the properties. Any and all maps,
sketches, and site plans provided to the appraiser, or obtained from public
sources, are presumed to be correct, but no guarantee is made as to their
accuracy.
4. Any information furnished by others is presumed to be reliable and, where so
specified in the report, has been verified, but no responsibility, whether legal
or otherwise, is assumed for its accuracy nor can it be guaranteed as being
certain. No single item of information was completely relied upon to the
exclusion of any other information.
5. The signatory herein shall not be required to give testimony or attend court or
appear at any governmental hearing with reference to the subject properties,
unless prior arrangements have been made.
6. Disclosure of the contents of this report is governed by the Ordinances of the
Appraisal Institute. Neither this report nor any portions thereof (especially any
conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraisers or the firm with which he
is connected) shall be disseminated to the public through public means of
communications without the prior written consent and approval of the
appraisers and the firm which they represent.
7. The appraiser has no present or contemplated interest in the subject
properties.
8. Employment for this appraisal and compensation for this report is in no way
contingent on the conclusions reported herein.
9. This appraisal has been made in conformance to the Code of Professional
Ethics and Standards of Practice of the Appraisal Institute and represents the
best judgment of the appraiser.
10. No responsibility is taken for the effect on the subject properties of changes in
market conditions after the date of valuation or for the inability of the property
owners to find a purchaser at the appraised value.
11. No effort has been made to determine the impact on this project of possible
energy shortages or present or future federal, state, or local legislation,
including any environmental or ecological matters or interpretations thereof.
12. The date of valuation to which the value estimate conclusions apply is set
forth in the letter of transmittal and within the body of this report. The value is
based on the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar as of the date of the report.
INTRODUCTION Page 12
13. The appraisal conclusions that apply to the subject properties are based on
economic conditions and estimated supply and demand factors as of the date
of appraisal.
14. The subject properties are not listed in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
"List of Confirmed Disposal Sites and Locations to Be Investigated"; as of the
date of appraisal. The appraiser though has information which MAY indicate
that there MAY be a problem with toxic or hazardous wastes on several of the
sites. Specifically, the properties located at 16, 18 and 20 Rear Franklin
Street have been utilized as an automobile salvage yard (junk yard) for a
number of years. The indicated value given herein is based upon tl�p
assumption that a 21 E assessment would not indicate the presence of any
significant amounts of hazardous or toxic materials.
The report does NOT take into consideration the possibility of the
existence of asbestos, PCB transformers, or other toxic hazardous, or
contaminated substances and/or underground storage tanks containing
hazardous material. The report does not consider the cost of encapsulation,
treatment, or removal of such material. If the herein stated client has a
concern over the existence of such conditions in the subject properties, then
the apipraiser considers it imperative to retain the services of a qualffied
encineer or contractor to determine the existence and extent of such
hazardous conditions. Such consultation should include the estimated cost
associated with any required treatment or removal of hazardous material.
15. 1 did not ascertain the legal and regulatory requirements, except for zoning
applicable to this project, including permits and licenses and other state and
local government regulations. Further, no effort has been made to determine
the possible effect on the subject properties of present or future federal, state
or local legislation or any environmental or ecological matters.
16. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became effective January 26,
1992. 1 have not made a specific survey or analysis of the properties to
determine whether the physical aspects of the improvements meet the ADA
accessibility guidelines. Since compliance matches each owner's financial
ability with the cost to cure the property's potential physical characteristics, the
real estate appraiser cannot comment on compliance to ADA. A brief
summary of physical aspects is included in this report. It in no way suggests
ADA compliance by the current owner. Given that compliance can change
with each owner's financial ability to cure non-accessibility, the value of the
subject does not consider possible non-compliance. Specific study of both
the owner's financial ability and the cost to cure any deficiencies would be
needed for the Department of Justice to determine compliance.
INTRODUCTION Pa,-�,e 13
SPECIAL ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
My valuation analysis and conclusions are premised on the following conditions and
assumptions. If it is later determined that any of these key assumptions or conditions no
longer accurately apply to the subject property then my value estimate may require
adjustment or complete revision.
Environmental Assessment -- Phelan Realty Advisors requested an environmental
assessment of each of the sites in an effort to determine the existence of hazardous
materials in conjunction with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 21 E. No 21 E reports
or site assessments were made available. The subject sites are not listed in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts "List of Confirmed Disposal Sites and Locations to Be
Investigated"; as of the date of appraisal. The appraiser contacted the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection on June 6, 1996 for confirmation. The appraiser
assumes that the subject sites are not contaminated and that they are not significantly
adversely affected by oil or other hazardous materials. .My value estimates assume the
sites to be essentially free of materials which might have an adverse affect on the value of
the real property.
Request for Information -- Phelan Realty Advisors requested information deemed relevant in
the valuation of the subject properties located at 16, 18 and 20 Rear Franklin Street. The
owner of these parcels or land declined to allow the appraiser to physically inspect the on
site improvements or to walk on or over the land. It is assumed that there are no hidden
defects within these properties and what could be observed by the appraiser from the
overall four boundaries of the land is typical of what is on site
Encumbrances to the Property -- A review of the deeds to the subject properties shows no
encumbrances of record. No extensive deed research or analysis has been done and the
subjects are assumed to have no easements or encroachments that would adversely affect
the marketability of them.
Ll TTRODUCTIOti Page 14
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, IDENTIFICATION AND HISTORY
The subject properties have the following street addresses.
Address Land Area Owner of Record
70 A North Street 8,000 Sq Ft Burnham Associates
14 Franklin Street 21,500 Sq Ft Franklin Street Realty Trust
16 Franklin Street 21,500 Sq Ft Edward Ferris
18 Franklin Street 2,512 Sq Ft Edward Ferris
20 Rear Franklin Street 49,200 +/- Sq Ft Edward Ferris ti
The lot at 70A North Street was acquired by Burnham Associates on July 19, 1995 from the
estate of Benjamin Myers for consideration of$30,000. The deed was recorded on October
30, 1995 in the Southern Essex District Book 13256 Page 279. Benjamin Myers inherited
the property from his father, Simon Myers, who died in 1951 (Probate #234,043). This
landlocked parcel of land is all that remains of a much larger parcel which was taken by
eminent domain by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the construction of the North
Street overpass in the early 1950's. The property is currently being used for the storage of
some materials of the owner (a marine contractor) and to anchor barges offshore.
The lot at 14 Franklin Street was acquired by Franklin Street Realty Trust (Craig C.
Burnham trustee) on September 9, 1992 from William Linsky for consideration of $150,000.
The deed was recorded on September 10, 1992 in the Southern Essex District Registry of
Deeds Book 11472 Page 66. William Linsky acquired the property from the Naumkeag
Trust Company on August 16, 1979 and subsequently utilized the property as a
contractor's storage yard. Previous to this the property was used for boat hauling and
storage. The property is currently being used as a marine contractor's storage yard and to
anchor barges offshore.
The lots at 16, 18 and 20 Rear Franklin Street were acquired by Edward Ferris on
November 30, 1985 from Charles and Elizabeth Ferris for nominal consideration. The
deeds were recorded on December 16, 1985 in the Southern Essex District Book 8042
Pages 229, 235 and 237. Both prior and subsequent to this conveyance the properties
have been utilized as an automobile salvage yard (junkyard).
A copy of all the deeds are included in the addendum for your inspection.
INTRODUCTION Page 15
DATE OF INSPECTION AND VALUE
Both the interior and the exterior of the property located at 14 Franklin Street as well
as the unimproved land at 70A North Street were inspected by John V. Phelan ill on May
31, 1996. On this date the owner of 16, 18 and 20 Rear Franklin Street declined to
participate in the field inspection of his property or to allow the appraiser on site.
Subsequent to this date several inspections / observations were made of the subject
properties from public access points. The last observation of all of the properties from
public access means and ways was made on June 10, 1996 which is also the date of value.
PURPOSE AND INTENDED USE OF THE APPRAISAL
The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the "as is" fee simple market value of the
subject properties. The intended use of this appraisal is to provide information to the City of
Salem's Planning Department with respect to the subjects' market value and to assist in
forming management decisions regarding the potential purchase of the properties.
All real property associated with the property rights appraised are included in this
valuation. In the case of the subject properties, this specifically involves a valuation of the
fee simple estate.
L NTRODUCTION Page lb
ESTIMATED MARKETING TIME
A condition implicit in the definition of value is that the property is exposed to the
open market for a reasonable amount of time. It is believed that the sale of the subject
properties within a 12 month period is reasonable. This opinion is based on the following
observations and conclusions.
ti
• Despite the laconic economy, real property exposed to the open market at a
reasonable asking price will attract interest and prospective buyers.
• Assumptions made in my analysis, adjustments, and reconciliation of data are
based on an estimated value which would attract a typical buyer within a one year
marketing period.
• The subject properties are fairly well positioned in their market and in an average
commercial / retail location just off of a primary artery (Route#114) in the region.
DEFINITIONS
Property Rights Appraised
Property rights appraised herein include all benefits to which fee simple ownership is
entitled as of the appraisal date. Fee simple is defined as:
Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the
limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power
and escheat.'
' American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, The Dictionay of Real Estate Arnraisal, Third Edition,
Page 140.
INT'RODliCTION Pate 17
MARKET VALUE
The following definition of market value is provided by Title X1 of the Federal
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989:
Market Value means the most probable price which a property should bring in a
competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and
seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by
undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified
date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:
(1) Buyer and seller are typically motivated;
(2) Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider
their own best interests;
(3) A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
(4) Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial
arrangements comparable thereto; and
(5) The price represents the normal consideration for the property, sold unaffected
by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone
associated with the sale.
AREA ANALYSIS Pase 18
SECTION II
AREA ANALYSIS
REGIONAL AND MUNICIPAL OVERVIEW
The city of Salem is located in southeastern Essex County in northeastern Massachusetts,
roughly midway between Boston and Portsmouth New Hampshire. It is bordered by
Peabody on the west, Swampscott and Lynn on the south, the Atlantic Ocean and
Marblehead on the east and Danvers and Beverly on the north. Salem is 12 miles north of
Boston and covers 8.2 square miles with 16 miles of coastline. The larger regional area,
north of Boston to New Hampshire and Cape Ann, is known as the North Shore.
Salem benefits considerably from its proximity to Interstate 95 and Route 128. Route 128 is
the circumferential highway around the greater Boston Metropolitan area. Interstate 95
splits from Route 128 in the nearby city of Peabody and is the major north south route for
the North Shore region to New Hampshire. In addition to the major interstate routes, are
Routes 1 A, 107 and 114, which all provide access through Salem to other neighboring
cities and townships along the north shore area of Massachusetts. This regional area is
closely tied economically to the city of Boston and the greater Boston Metropolitan area.
Boston is the largest city in New England with a population of approximately 575,000. The
following has been excerpted from a monograph on Boston prepared by the Massachusetts
Department of Commerce:
...Boston is the center of the commercial, financial, wholesale and retail trade and
service activity, not only for the metropolitan area, but for all of New England. It is the
major market and distribution point for raw materials and manufactured products for
this highly industrialized area, and one of the major seaports on the Atlantic Coast.
AREA ANALYSIS Page 19
Economically, the region was marked by a decade of rapid expansion during most of the
1980s. Demand exceeded supply for most types of real estate. This was brought about
largely by undervalued real estate in the region early in the last decade together with an
expanding economic base in the areas of financial services, manufacturing (computer
hardware and software, defense industries, etc.) and construction.
A slowdown in the regional economy was evident, however, by 1989. By 1989, layoffs
which had earlier affected only isolated industries now had begun to influence a broader
R
section of the region. Property values for most types of commercial and residential uses
began to stabilize or decline in many areas in 1989 as a result of over building in the middle
part of the decade. New job formations began to decline, bankruptcies increased, as did
real estate foreclosures. Those communities which were closer to Boston and had the
advantage of superior base economies and transportation systems appear to have been
protected to a greater degree until 1989 from the downward economic pressures.
The regional economic base, for the most part, appears to have recovered from the past
recession and be in various stages of stability / modest growth. This is evidenced by the
new job formations, increases in employment and a slow recovery in the real estate market.
The regional economic base is still restructuring with most of the new growth being driven
by smaller business. Regional unemployment appears to have stabilized and is now
declining overall. Business growth is increasing and consumer confidence is at an
acceptable (albeit modest) level. The overall area real estate market has undergone a
restructuring with many properties sold in the last few years as the result of foreclosure
action. This backlog of foreclosed properties has declined and the overall market appears
to be in a period of stability and modest growth that will at a minimum, equal inflation.
AREA AI ALYSIS Page 20
Economic Base Considerations -- A review of the economic base of Massachusetts is
helpful in understanding the dynamics of the area's economy. The latest figures released
by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston in early 1996, indicate that although the
Massachusetts economy experienced declines in every employment sector between 1990
and 1992, a revival of most sectors between 1992 and 1994 also took place. Employment
by industry sector for Massachusetts is presented here.
R
MASSACHUSETTS ECONOMIC BASE (Seasonally Adjusted, in Thousands)
SECTOR, thousands employed)
1992 19931 1994' 1995 i 1992-93 ;1993-94 j 1994-95
Construction 73.6, 80.2 87.3 90.2! 8.97%1 8.85%1 3.32%
Total Manufacturin 465.71 455.2 448.9 445.5: -2.25%1 -1.38%1 -0.76%
Transportation/Public Utilities 121.41 124.0 126.9 128.1 2.14% 2.34% 3.19%
Wholesale & Retail Trade 640.4� 647.51 668.3, 689.6 i 1.11%i 3.21%1 . %
Finance/Insurance/Real Estate 196.7' 199.8 208.7' 204.3 1.58%1 4.45% -2.11%
Services 913.4 945.9 975.8 1024.2 3.56%" 3.16%; 4.96%
Government 382.51 387.4 391.E 394.Q! 1.28%1 1.08%i 0.61%
Source: New England Economic Indicators, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 1996
Employment trends reflect a significant slowdown in the regional economy as employment
declines occurred in every industry sector between 1990 and 1992, with a recovery in 1993
that is continuing. Percentage wise construction had experienced the largest declines in
this period, but are now posting the largest percentage increases, second only to services.
The latest figures for 1996 show continued increases in most sectors.
AREA ANALYSIS Page 21
Comparative annual unemployment rate figures compiled by the Federal Reserve Bank of
Boston and the Massachusetts Department of Employment and Training are shown in the
table below. As indicated in both 1989 and 1990, the Boston Labor Market unemployment
rate was below the national average. However, the state's unemployment rate increased in
1991 to exceed the national average. This trend continued through 1992 but has now
appeared to have reversed. As of April 1996 the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate
for Salem was 4.9%. This data suggest a moderation in the unemployment rate,
particularly in the Boston metropolitan area.
Comparative Unemployment Survey
Percentage by Area
Nrmnt UnerrJoyed 1989 1990 1991' . 1992 1993 1994 1995
.Salem
3.70/ 5.8% 8.9% 9.5% 6.7o/6 5.5% 5.3°/
Boston(RVFAA 3.4% 5.10/4 7.7% 7.5% 6.00/6 5.20% 4.7%
Mamadis�s 4.0% 6.0%I 8.9%/0l 8.5% 6.8o/a 6.00/a 5.40/
United States 11.6°/d 5.50% 6.7%I 7.4%' 6.80/6 6.1%, 5.60/
An overview of the demographics for Salem is presented below. This is an overview
of the city and a projection based on past demographic trends. As can be seen from the
data below, Salem is increasing in per capita income and household wealth at a rate equal
to, or slightly more than inflation. Average household income was over $45,000 in 1992
and projected to increase to over $60,000 by 1997.
AREA ANALYSIS Page 22
Demographic Profile - Salem
% CHANGE % CHANGE
1980 1990 1992 1997 80-90 92-97
Salem cite I _
'Population I 38,179 38,091 37,715 36,733 1.0% -2.6%
Families 9,6161 9,417' 9,236 8,852. -1.9% -4.2%
Households 15,863 15,806: _ 15,678' 16,593 -0_8% 5.8%
Income 1979 1989 1992 1997
Aggregate Inc. $269 1 $615 $721 $933 17.2% 29.4%
Per Capita $7,042 $16,133 $19,113 $25,401 18.5% 32.9%
-- Avg Household $17,754 $38,595 $45,623 $60,019 18.20/6 31.6%
Med Househid ! $15,158 $32,709 ` $37,510 $47,696 14.7% 27.2%
Avg Family $20,901 $46,530 $55,239 $72,123 18.7% _ ; 30.6%°
Median Family $19,118 $41,503 $46,108 ' $57,154 11 .1% 24.0%
Avg House Wealth $109,066 $135,758 _ 1 24.5%
Med House Wealth $34 034 $44,278 30.1 %
Regional Residential Demand -- It has been my observation, almost universally confirmed
by brokers and other real estate professionals in the region, that the more physically and
functionally up to date residential buildings are experiencing broader market demand. A
"flight to quality" appears to be underway in the residential market (although this
phenomenon is likely in all market segments) as homeowners are able to take advantage of
lower mortgage rates, brought on by a soft economy and excess supply, and trade-up to
superior quality and condition housing. The logical outcome is that the lower quality
housing and locations (i.e. inferior to the subject) will suffer decreased demand and the
better locations with higher quality space (recently constructed, well designed, or adjacent
to major highways) will experience the highest demand. it stands to reason that these
physically, functionally, and locationaily superior properties have been the first to
experience improved sales as well. This is simply an example of the economic principle of
substitution at work in the market.
AREA ANALYSIS Page 23
Regional Market Outlook -- The regional economic base has ceased to erode and appears
to be in a modest recovery. Regional unemployment appears to have stabilized and seems
to be experiencing a sustained decline.
Retail sales and selected consumer goods appear to indicate renewed strength and
confidence in the regional economy, as the increases appear to be more pronounced in the
R
most recent filings.
On the negative side, lack of near-term business growth will result in limited demand for
commercial space in the region. While commercial vacancies have declined considerably
over the past year, this trend is not likely to continue unless real economic growth occurs.
Specifically, expansion of the base economies must take place in order for demand for
commercial space for all classes to be sustained. I believe the present short term economic
outlook is positive for continued recovery in the region's economic base. Employment
figures indicate slow recovery of base industries in the region.
Most experts believe the Massachusetts recession bottomed out in the third or fourth
quarter of 1992. A quick turnaround to past prosperity is not expected, however. Rather,
the economy is projected to gradually recover over a period of years. The real estate
market, particularly the smaller retail, hotel and certain office and industrial sectors, should
take longer to recovery given the amount of excess supply to be absorbed.
In conclusion, based on an analysis of the region economy, it appears that the economy is
in a modest recovery with declines in unemployment and an positive absorption in both the
residential and commercial markets. Many observers agree. The state's diverse economic
base, lead by continued growth in wholesale and retail trade and services, should positively
AREA ANALYSIS Page 24
impact the economy and set the stage for renewed, albeit modest, expansion. This appears
to be now underway.
CITY DATA
Originally settled in 1626, and given a name that means peace, Salem is probably best
known for the famous witch trials in 1692 which resulted in the hanging of 19 people and was
since earned Salem the nickname "The Witch City". Today, Salem is located 16 miles
northeast of Boston. The city has a current population of approximately 37,000 anti, is
situated within 8.2 square miles. The abutting cities and towns are Beverly to the north;
Peabody to the west; Lynn and Swampscott to the south; and Marblehead and the Atlantic
Ocean to the east. Routes 107 and 1 A lead south to Boston. Route 114, which intersects
with Routes 107 and 1 A, leads westward with easy access to Route 128.
Salem maintains a mayor/council form of city government. As the Essex County Seat, Salem
is the hub of county governmental activity. Salem is also the location of 4 courts, including
the District and Superior Court. Salem maintains a progressive program in its school system -
with 17 public schools. There are 15 elementary and 1 high school. Salem State College,
the largest four-year public college on the North Shore of Boston is located on 62 acres in
Salem. Other amenities include Salem Hospital, a large acute care general hospital and
YMCA center. Additional recreational attractions include well maintained city parks and
amusement center.
Salem is serviced by the Boston and Main Railroad, offering both freight and commuter
service. Bus service is provided by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority,
servicing Greater Salem and the entire Eastern Massachusetts area. Salem's attractive
coastal location and its well-known historical heritage attract nearly a million tourists a year.
The city depends a great deal on tourism to boost revenue. Some of the major attractions
include the oldest continually operated museum in the United States (Peabody Museum),
the House of Seven Gables, Pickering Wharf and the Witch Museum.
AREA UNALYSIS Pace 25
Market trends currently appear to indicate that minimal growth is anticipated in the near
future for the local market. It is anticipated, though, that the greater Salem area should fare
better than some of the other local commercial/industrial markets due to the fact it is the
Essex County seat; has the District, Superior, and Probate Courts; Registry of Deeds; and its
good tourist base.
SALEM
COMMUNITY DATA SUMMARY
DISTANCE FROM BOSTON: 16 miles
DRIVING TIME TO BOSTON: 30 to 40 minutes
FORM OF GOVERNMENT: Mayor and City Council
PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM: Six elementary schools (K-6); 2 Junior High
Schools; and 1 Senior High School. Good
facilities for handicapped students and good
programs for exceptional students. Adult
education courses.
MEDICAL FACILITIES: Salem Hospital, Shaughnessy Hospital and
North Shore Children's Hospital.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION: Hourly rail and bus service to Boston. Good
bus service to surrounding communities.
UTILITIES AND SERVICES: Gas, water and electricity to whole town.
Trash and garbage pick-up weekly. Sewer
system to most of town. Full-time police
force and fire department. Main library.
RECREATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL: Eighteen playgrounds, tennis courts,
baseball diamonds, several public beaches
and good harbor for boating.
AREA ANI ALYSIS Page 26
DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SALEM'S LABOR FORCE
ACCORDING TO 1985, 1990 AND 1994 STATE STATISTICS
EMPLOYMENT FIELD NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
1985 1990 1994
Agriculture (1) 53 74 103
Mining (2) 0 0 0
Construction 518 512 454
Manufacturing 3,952 3,341 1 ,995
Transportation/Utilities 825 970 800
Wholesale and Retail Trade 4,888 4,470 3,900
F.I.R.E. (3) 1,032 1,020 1,040
Services 5,784 6,966 6,985
Government 2,511 2,838 2.475
TOTAL EMPLOYED PEOPLE. 19,636 20,191 17,752
(16 YEARS AND OLDER)
(1) Agriculture includes fishery and forestry
(2) Mining includes certain construction industries
(3) Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
.AREA ANALYSIS Pate 27
NEIGHBORHOOD
The subject neighborhood includes the business zoned areas along the southern
portion of North Street, also known as Route 114, as well as the residentially zoned area to
the east of North Street over to the North River. The overall boundaries of the area are
generally considered to be the North River to the south and east, North Street to the west
and Greenlawn Cemetery to the north.
Neighborhood Overview -- The subject's immediate neighborhood is a mixed use
area on the northwest fringe of the downtown urban center of Salem abutting the banks of
the North River and North Street (Route 114). North Street is an older primary commercial
and residential artery in the older portion of the city. The subject neighborhood is anchored
on the south by the junction of North and Bridge Street at the North Street overpass. These
are two main streets that traverse the northern portion of Salem and are main access routes
for the city. They in turn supply the immediate area (where the subject is located) with an
copious supply of automobile traffic. Occupancies along North Street are mostly small older
commercial uses with some residential uses above, as well as single family and multi family
housing. The beginning of Franklin Street, by North Street, has a Merit gasoline station on
one corner and a HMA car wash on the other. As one progresses up Franklin Street to the
subjects there are several small older masonry and wood frame buildings which appear to
be occupied with various commercial / industrial businesses on both sides of the street.
Once past the immediate area of the subjects Franklin Street becomes exclusively
residential.
One of the major amenities of the neighborhood is a waterfront park that abuts the
properties to the northeast along Franklin Street. This park (AKA Furlong Park)
encompasses approximately 5.5 acres of open level grassy land which is partially enclosed
with a chain link fence. For the most part it appears to be a passive recreational area with
the exception of a children's play area with swings etc.
AREA AfNALY SIS Pi�t�e 28
Much of the retail and mixed use properties in the subject neighborhood appear to be
well maintained with little physical and functional obsolescence due to a lack of
maintenance and age. Vacancy rates appear modest with rental rates that are apparently
sufficient enough to support renovation or investment. The residential portion of the
neighborhood contains no apparent abandoned and vacant multi-tenant residential
properties. For the most part these residential properties appear to be well maintained.
Within the last 20 years there has been limited redevelopment in the immediate area.
In conclusion, the subject properties have good access from Route 128 by means of
Route 114 (North Street) and are located in an area of reasonably compatible land uses.
The neighborhood has a few buildings available but with no strongly motivated buyers. The
subject neighborhood exhibits modest characteristics for commercial or retail use.
Neighborhood characteristics are not expected to improve or decline significantly in the
near term.
AREA ANALYSIS Page 29
Franklin Street Looking east from North Street
Subjects are on the right
Nor
Franklin Street Looking west from the subjects
Subjects are on the left
AREA ANALYSIS Pa2e 30
North Street Looking south from Franklin Street
Subjects are on the left
North Street Looking north toward Franklin Street
m fi '
V }^
� .. �n _. tea}j R �."; _:.. rnr 2':y7�. 'faee �='•
' i��'t•• f � ,=ice^ -
Subjects are on - right
AREA ANALYSIS Paa;e 31
NEIGHBORHOOD SYNOPSIS
Good Average Fair Poor
Employment stability.................... X X
Convenience to highways................. X
Convenience to schools.................. X
Adequacy of public transportation....... X
Recreational facilities................. X
Adequacy of public utilities............ X
Neighborhood compatibility.............. X
Protection from detrimental conditions.. X
Protection from adverse influences...... X
Police and fire protection.............. X
General appearance of properties........ X
Appeal to market........................ X
Overall stability of immediate location........ X
Attractiveness of immediate location.......... X
Adequacy of shopping facilities............. X
AREA ANALYSIS Pave 32
Location............ Urban Suburban Rural
X
Built up............ Over 75% 25% to 75% Under 25%
X
Present land use.... % Condo % 1 Family % 2-4 Family
(Approximately) 10% 40% 30%
%Apartments % Comm % Other
5% 10% 5%
Property Values..... Increasing Stable Declining
X
Housing
demand/supply....... In balance Shortage Oversupply
X
Predominate
occupancy........... Owner Tenant % Vacant
X 5% - 10%
Overall
vacancy rate........ Increasing Stable Declining
X
Overall
Rent levels......... Increasing Stable Declining
X
Land Use Change.*.... Not Likely Likely In Process
X
* Unless the subject properties are purchased by the City of Salem
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 33
SECTION III
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The subject properties are comprised of five separate and distinct parcels of land. Four of
the properties abut one another along Franklin Street and the North River. The fifth lot is a
landlocked parcel located off of North Street, but with frontage along the North River.
SITE DESCRIPTION
GENERAL SITE DATA
Location -- The subjects' street address are 14, 16, 18 and 20 Rear Franklin Street
and 70A North Street Salem, Massachusetts. The Salem assessors refer to them as Map 26
Lots 403, 402, 401,400 and 423 respectively. The properties on Franklin Street are in a
business zone (135), while the lot off of North Street is zoned industrial. The neighborhood
has good access to Route 128 by means of Route 114 (North Street
Topoarq by and Drainage -- The topography of the subject sites on Franklin Street
is basically level and at street grade. The site off of North Street is basically level but
approximately 15 feet below street grade. No standing water was observed on the sites.
Soil and Subsoil -- Soils tests and analysis are beyond the scope of this valuation
analysis. It is assumed that the soil bearing capacity of the sites is such that they are
capable of supporting most types of commercial structures without requiring special
engineering or soil preparation. No other information was available at the time of appraisal.
Utilities -- The sites on Franklin Street have access to gas, electricity, telephone, city
sewer and city water. The site off of North Street does not have access to any utilities.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Pin-ze 34
Environmental Hazards The subject properties were not found on the List of
Confirmed Disposal Sites and Locations to be Investigated. as of the date of the appraisal,
published by the State Department of Environmental Protection. Specifically, they were not
identified as a "Location To Be Investigated" (LTBI). The valuation assumes that the
properties are in compliance with MGL Chapter 21 E with respect to hazardous waste.
Easements Encroachments Etc. -- No significant easements or encroachments were
identified in the legal description contained in the deeds. No extensive deed research or
analysis has been done and the subjects are assumed to have no easements or
encroachments that would adversely affect their marketability.
Site Improvements -- The property at 14 Franklin Street contains a 1 story metal pre-
engineered building shell. The property at 18 Franklin Street contains an old small masonry
service shop type building. The improvements are discussed in further detail in the Property
Improvement Description section of this report. The remaining lots are unimproved.
Flood Hazard -- The subject sites are located in a flood hazard zone as designated
by FIRM Map#250102 0001 B dated March 15, 1977. Specifically the lots are located in an
area designated as "Zone A2" (I.e. Area within a 100 year flood zone, base flood elevation
and flood hazard factors determined). A copy of the map showing the subject sites and
neighborhood is included within the following pages.
General Descri tp ion --Reference is made to the attached plans, map and the
aforementioned deeds for a better description and the exact dimensions of the land at
present. No responsibility for the accuracy or the legality of the legal descriptions is
assumed, and legal verification of the descriptions should be made prior to using them in any
business decision.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Page 35
GENERAL SITE ATTRIBUTES
Secondary street access No
Corner lot No
Zoning conformity Yes (some grandfathered industrial use)
Access problem one parcel is landlocked (70A North Street) Ift
Another parcel is potentially landlocked (20 Rear`
Franklin Street) unless it is combined with one of
the abutting parcels of land held in common ownership
Close to public transportation Yes
Highway convenience Good
Close to services and shops Average
Off street parking Yes - except 70A North Street
Railroad siding No
Nuisance influences None
Traffic volume Medium
Paper street No
Improved street Yes - except 70A North Street
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Peg�,,e 36
14 Franklin Street
SITE SUMMARY
Dimensions/Lot Size: 21,500 square feet Reference deed
and plot plan for dimensions
Corner Lot: No
Zoning Classification: Central Development (135) District
(Grandfathered industrial use)
Existing Use of the subject property is as a Marine Contractor's Yard and the docking of
barges along the shoreline
Electricity- Boston Edison
Gas: Boston Gas
Water: City
Sanitary Sewer: City
The subject is located in a Flood Hazard Area.
There are aboveground Electric and Telephone lines.
Easements: None noted in the deed
Access: Paved Asphalt Parking: on-site
Topo: At street level Size: .49 acres
Shape: Irregular View: Neighborhood and North River
Drainage: Appears Adequate Landscaping: Minimal
OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Street Access: Public
Surface: Bituminous concrete
Comments: This appraiser assumes no other easements or encroachments affect the
property except as noted. If any are found to exist, the appraiser will render an
opinion regarding their affect, if any, on the final value of the subject.
LAND OF
JAMES J. ANKETELL
FRANKLIN ST. SALEM,MASS.
SCALE 1IN.40,PT., JAN. 19 9
G13fERE05 UWl��R
ti
Soo
G
� p U
I R
4 � i uC
i h-
IC
a I sa.00 k 20
iu IL
�IJ i I i'i ✓fit�:�i� `:. �'V�E i` r
!I 1
it � 1
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Page 38
14 Franklin Street as Viewed from the North River
r
EI
14 Franklin Street as viewed from Franklin Street
.�, -tip:._ t.• .�� Y.
�T
P
PROPERTY
Interior view of the interior of the pre-engineered metal building
Note the crane raceway on each side of the building
I �S.
Unfinished
mezzanine space within building
5
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION P�we 40
70A North Street
SITE SUMMARY
Dimensions/Lot Size: 8,000 +/- square feet (Note: there is no plot]
plan of record and the deed has no dimensions!)
Corner Lot: No
Zoning Classification: Industrial
Existing Use of the subject property is as a Marine Contractor's storage area and for the
docking of barges along the shoreline ti
Electricity: None
Gas: None
Water: None
Sanitary Sewer: None
The subject is located in a Flood Hazard Area.
There are aboveground Electric and Telephone lines in the area.
Easements: None noted in the deed
Access: None by land Parking: None on-site
Topo: Below street level Size: .18 acres
Shape: Irregular View: Neighborhood and North River
Drainage: Appears Adequate Landscaping: Minimal
OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Street Access: None
Surface: N /A
Comments: This appraiser assumes no other easements or encroachments affect the
property except as noted. If any are found to exist, the appraiser will render an
opinion regarding their affect, if any, on the final value of the subject.
Massachusetts State Highway Eminent Domain Taking Plan
rz �8 an Indicating Property is Landlocked
OAfi
A •/ /4r 3S, N J.'j, n,' r
° A
r 3S0
S
SE i
fD ` �.t3se
/ �9' ti
a ' , IVg AU ` 6�4 32�0
N 8
3� �0 4 �A R�T:o O O
A p r ' 3s ?` • v -.s-ti 9 f't Ar
y o t e
h ' N
a9. /N
At
Z , O ,
's
D
4*0
(A ® u r
L�%.sa -
�`a�
IV ..uPra
a
zn
a�Me ° t
' o p
nAs
N
4b �9
4f'��1yF 96'$O
r 4 • 3 s.40 u�
rq r� z n
r N •4 iL
LU
�>>f1QA O
s r
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Page 42
Tidal water frontage of the site
North Street, the site islocated on • of •
where the pipes are stored. Note the railroad tracks and the embankment
of Route 114 deny accessfor - site
r
a
u � s
+s.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Paae 43
16, 18 and 20 Rear Franklin Street
SITE SUMMARY
Dimensions/Lot Size: 21,500, 2,521 and 49,200 +I- square feet
Reference deeds and plot plans for dimensions
SEE COMMENTS BELOWI
Corner Lot: No
Zoning Classification: Central Development (135) District
(Grandfathered industrial use)
Existing Use of the subject property is as an automobile salvage yard
R
Electricity: Boston Edison
Gas: Boston Gas
Water: City
Sanitary Sewer: City
The subject is located in a Flood Hazard Area.
There are aboveground Electric and Telephone lines.
Easements: None noted in the deed
Access: Paved Asphalt Parking: on-site
Topo: At street level Size: 1.68 acres (TOTAL)
Shape: Irregular View: Neighborhood and North River
Drainage: Appears Adequate Landscaping: Minimal
OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Street Access: Public
Surface: Bituminous concrete
Comments: It should be noted that the deed and plot plan of record state that the lot at
20 Rear Franklin Street is only 26,000 square feet. According to the lot
dimensions this is a mathematical impossibility. and appears to be a scriveners
error Utilizing the dimensions supplied by the deed the lot calculates to be
approximately 49,200 square feet. In addition the assessor taxes the property
as 1.13 acres or 49,223 square feet +1-. This appraiser assumes no other
easements or encroachments affect the property except as noted. If any are
found to exist, the appraiser will render an opinion regarding their affect, if any,
on the final value of the subject.
L'
Q h LAND OF
a•- CITY OF SALEM
Y1.
FRANKLIN ST. SALEM, MASS,
SCALE IIN-40F 1952 `
t pCGI Cp[O AVCYOp
�� r
TOP Of BANK
I43 B5
iG•+ F
y.
AREA 26.000 SCITT. Y.
Z jr O 'i
J
w0
dr M1r v r•
0
41
�Q�) 4, BEGISIRY OF CUM.97.DIST.SSA.
P�pw � R.�.:.d $.�1--i-l�fZ-
4. 4_ �
OF = 3Ylo P ` it •4•
A&4oLs . Aj, .S..
Alllr
f
=ZS
e r
•a e
ST. `:
REDUCEOD. FOR
0.P V 1.LlF ,:Iti: S-E 0MGI1AL ON FILE. ~
F
�5 •1
1.-
'h-
.ii
1: 4
:: __..-:•Llt/F4r4fFi�ilii7al...r."!� ..._-. .,.: ..
i .
LAND OF
DAMES J. ANKETEI.I.
FRANKLIN ST. SALEM,MASS.
+' ~ SCALE 1�N.40�-T., , JAN�9 9
_ - i �ra�aTEn6o a y�wi
V
:
Lot i9 Lof B
1%
C
U 9. Ye b
V ti
qj ~ h
� I I N s 1�IZ
,I II � I SO•AO
11 6
StreetPage 46
PROPERTY DESCRIEPTION
as - - • from the North
W
Street
_ viewed from _
et
l'
•� f �45 � � Y f 'N t`SE tV"' L�F
d• <
iE '-���Y .__:;,.••��:�..JC:s x� -1-+.:'•'mow::..—^•.-.,;
l• .A 4 L'�' 1�w1..!► ,.�• :fF 't" ���•� T�i.ff.. _ t. .+:-:.�'-{�.''!J�
..'.,ny rl��:^' -a+A +'a �..7..e� P�r�. Y�.Af.•-J:._'!.'.•.�J•.- Z6.V,y yy _ .adar-Fse T- .
y� fz Y'� .• ..:_`�r:';i• fir.�l»=•._. mow, 'r.:
It � } ?tT ��:�-. �i��:. ��-'��trvy '�%41j �F }� r •� F.:i;-ji.�iS•TJ
�' 4� ..- _,.•,. ?444 ty. E •ter.
•• `4c77 f SF tie� w 1 F.ti.L`�•!{.4rJ�i`,'�'•�.r T: �.:afr r !
�v�y� -I.•. rrpp fir'♦ tl"['��+1rT��,�•n�r ti7�
�e.*��, �•� r „•_., �ice,.� . s��•.II+',x�„i�,ti
+f.0 ?c•a •ii.
• �11,E r��"•�`•y
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Page 48
IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIPTION
Improvements Overview
The current owner of 14 Franklin Street obtained a building permit to "erect building
for merchandise storage and office as per plans submitted". According to building permit
#609-95 issued on 11/14/95 by the city of Salem the estimated cost to construct the shell of
the building by the owner was $24,000. As of the effective date of appraisal there is a one
story pre-engineered metal building shell on site. The building inspector stated that he.will
issue no further permits to finish this building or to hook up any utilities until he receives
building plans showing the "office" layout and finishes of the building, as an industrial
building is now not allowed here under zoning. Even though the land here is grandfathered
an industrial use any new structures on the site must conform with current zoning
requirements. The shell building which currently exists measures 30 feet wide by 130 feet
long and has a height of 23' 6" to the eaves according to the building plans, along with a 30
foot wide by 50 foot long mezzanine. This calculates to a 3,900 square foot footprint along
with a 1,500 square foot mezzanine. Upon inspection it was noted that the metal building is
insulated but there is no finished floor at grade (slab) or stairway to the mezzanine area. In
addition there is no plumbing, electrical or heat in the building, and overhead doors in the
front and the rear of the building have not been installed so that the building is open to the
weather. For all practical purposes this is an open unfinished storage shed at this time.
The building at 18 Franklin Street is a small older irregularly shaped 1,028 square foot
service shop type building. It is a one story cinder block building reportedly with steam heat
by gas and a flat tar and gravel roof. The interior layout is reportedly a small "office " area
with a restroom and an attached "garage" area with an overhead door. No interior inspection
of the building was conducted as the owner denied access to the property. This building
appears to be in average condition with nominal value at best from what could be observed
from the street.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Pate 49
ASSESSMENTS AND TAXES
The current assessments for the subject properties are presented below.
The fiscal 1996 Commercial Tax Rate for the city of Salem is currently$34.23 per $1,000 of
assessed valuation.
Address Land Area Owner of Record
70 A North Street 8,000 +/- Sq Ft Burnham Associates
Tax Reference: Map 26 Lot 423
Assessed Value Land $67,500
Building $ 0
Total $67,500
Taxes Payable (FY 1996): $2,310.53
The property here appears to be significantly over assessed and not near market value for
the most part. One reason for this may be attributable to the fact the assessors list the
property as containing 11,00 square feet while the deed states 8,000 +/- square feet. For
the record the owner of the property is currently having this parcel surveyed as there is no
plot plan of record or lot dimensions contained within the deed of record.
Address Land Area Owner of Record
14 Franklin Street 21,500 Sq Ft Franklin Street Realty Trust
Tax Reference: Map 26 Lot 403
Assessed Value Land $150,900
Building 1,500
Total $152,400
Taxes Payable (FY 1996): $5,216.65
The property here appears to be assessed near market value for the most part.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Page 50
Address Land Area Owner of Record
16 Franklin Street 21,500 Sq Ft Edward Ferris
Tax Reference: Map 26 Lot 402
Assessed Value Land $103,600
Building $ 0
Total $103,600
Taxes Payable (FY 1996): $3,546.23
R
The property here appears to be significantly under assessed and not near market value for
the most part.
Address Land Area Owner of Record
18 Franklin Street 2,512 Sq Ft Edward Ferris
Tax Reference: Map 26 Lot 401
Assessed Value Land $15,200
Building $40.100
Total $55,300
Taxes Payable (FY 1996): $1,892.92
The property here appears to be over assessed and not near market value for the most part.
Address Land Area Owner of Record
20 Rear Franklin Street 49,200 +/- Sq Ft Edward Ferris
Tax Reference: Map 26 Lot 400
Assessed Value Land $212,700
Building $ 0
Total $212,700
Taxes Payable (FY 1996): $7,280.72
The property here appears to be under assessed not near market value for the most part.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Pave 51
ZONING AND RESTRICTIONS
According to the current Zoning by-laws of the City of Salem four of the properties are now
located in an area zoned Central Development (135) District. The property located at 70A
North Street is zoned industrial. This property is also located within the "Entrance Corridor
Overlay District". The primary purpose of the entrance corridor overlay district is to augment
underlying zoning regulations in designated areas to protect and enhance the major
entranceways into the city and to ensure that such areas are improved in a manner which is
in the best interest of the city. The major points of this district are to address such criteiton
as allowed fences, curb cuts, parking areas and ancillary landscaping, mechanical
equipment and refuse storage areas, signage and site plan review for all new construction
over two thousand (2,000) square feet in non-residential use.
Referenced and Incorporated herein are the zoning "Use Regulations" pertaining to the B5
and industrial Districts. This table specifically lists each and every legally allowed use for the
sites. In addition a copy of the Industrial and Commercial Dimensional Requirements for
Salem has been included. This table pertains to lot size, setbacks, etc. for properties located
within the I and B5 Districts respectively.
At present the City of Salem is not contemplating any type of significant zoning change for
the Central Development District, Industrial District or the subject's neighborhood. The
Zoning Regulations were last revised in 1991. This revision, though, only consisted of minor
wording changes. The zoning regulations have not been completely revised since the
ordinance was implemented in 1965. According to the Salem Building Inspector there is
"nothing in the works to revamp the zoning regulations at this time."
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Page 52
It should be noted that the four properties located on Franklin Street are all grandfathered as
non-conforming industrial use properties. Where use of land exists that is made no longer
permissible under the terms of the Salem zoning ordnance such use may continue so long
as it remains otherwise lawful but subject to three conditions.
1. Such non-conforming use shall not be enlarged, increased or extended to occupy a
greater area of land than was occupied at the effective date of adoption of the ordinance or
R
amendment
2. No such non-conforming use shall be moved in whole or in part to any other portion
of the lot or parcel occupied by such use
3. If any such non-conforming use of land is discontinued for any reason for a period
of twelve (12) consecutive months, any subsequent use of such land shall conform to the
regulations specified by the ordnance for the district in which the land is located.
The current owner of 14 Franklin Street obtained a building permit to "erect building for
merchandise storage and office as per plans submitted". As of the effective date of appraisal
there is a one story pre-engineered metal building shell on site. The building inspector
stated that he will issue no further permits to finish this building or to hook up any utilities
until he receives building plans showing the "office" layout and finishes of the building, as an
industrial building is now not allowed here under zoning. Even though the land here is
grandfathered an industrial use any new structures on the site must conform with current
zoning requirements. Consequently, if this building is to be legally occupied it must be
utilized as a "business" building and not as an "industrial" building.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION P,,i2e 53
PERMITTED USES IN THE CENTRAL DEVELOPMENT (135) DISTRICT
Detached single family dwellings; Multi family dwellings, Municipal Buildings; Historic
Buildings open to the public: Museums: Nursery, elementary and secondary schools, public
parks and playgrounds, and public libraries; Churches and similar places of worship; Parish
houses, convents and monasteries; Institutions of higher education; Public and private golf
courses; Private garages and other accessory uses and buildings, provided that such uses
are clearly incidental to the principal use; Grocery, fruit, vegetable and meat stores, and
delicatessens; Bakeries, provided that all baked goods are sold at retail on the premises only;
Drugstores; Stores selling liquor, beer and wine for consumption off the premises;
Newsstands and variety stores; Dry goods and notions stores; Book, stationery, and gift
stores; Florist shop, but excluding greenhouses; Hardware Stores; Banks and savings And
loan institutions; Barber shops and beauty parlors; Laundry, dry cleaning, and pressing
establishments, provided that not more than five (5) persons are engaged in providing such
services; Self-service laundries; Tailor and custom dressmaking shops; Shoe repair shops;
Radio, television, and appliance repair shops, provided that not more than three (3) persons
are engaged in performing such services; Places of commercial recreation and
entertainment, such as theaters and bowling alleys; Restaurants and other eating and
drinking places; Non-profit clubs, lodges, and fraternal associations; Philanthropic and
charitable institutions; Music and dancing studios; Trade and business schools; Hotels,
motels, and inns; Business and professional offices; Off-street parking and loading facilities;
Building and facilities for housing projects built under the jurisdiction of the Salem Housing
Authority and financially aided by either the U.S. Public Housing Administration and/or the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Commerce - Division of Public Housing;
Retail - wholesale contractors supply establishments providing, however, that the wholesale
does not consist of over 50% of the business; Studios, workrooms and shops of artists,
artisans and craftsmen provided that all products of the artistic endeavor or craft activity are
primarily for sale on the premises or by specific off-premises commission from a sponsor or
client; Publishing and printing establishments; One, two, and multi-family residential uses as
primary uses in townhouse, row house, flats or multi-story arrangements, including high
rises, and as secondary uses In upper floors of structures primarily used for retail, personal
services or office purposes; and Accessory uses generally in support of the above permitted
uses.
PERMITTED USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL (1) DISTRICT
Automobile service stations; Automobile, trailer, and boat sales and service; Plumbing,
carpentry and sheet metal shops; Printing establishments; Sales and storage of building
supplies; Warehousing; Wholesale merchandise brokers and wholesale storage; major
service establishments; Churches and similar places of worship, public and private nursery,
schools, and all uses permitted in B1 (Neighborhood Business) Districts subject to all
provisions specified for such uses, EXCEPT that all residential uses are prohibited.
Note: Some other more intense industrial and manufacturing operations are allowed with a
Special Permit.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Page 54
Develocment Controls
1. Master Plan.............. Yes (completed in the 1970's)
2. Rent Control............. No
3. Condo Control............ No
4. Groundwater Protection... No (no local by-law)
5. Other Growth limits...... Yes (site plan review)
B-5 Density Re. inns
Non-Residential Use
Existing building New construction
Minimum Lot Area (sq. ft.) 2,000 2,000
Minimum Lot Width (lin. ft.) 30 30
Maximum Lot Coverage (%) 100 50
Minimum Width Side Yard 5
(lin. ft.)
Maximum Height of Building 70 70
(ft.)
Maximum Number of Stories 6 6
Floor Area Ratio 6:1 3:1
Industrial Densily Regulations
Non-Residential Use
Minimum Lot Area (sq. ft.) 40,000
Minimum Lot Width (lin. ft.) 150
Maximum Lot Coverage (%) 45%
Minimum Width Front Yard 30
Minimum Width Side Yard 30
Minimum Width Rear Yard 30
(lin. ft.)
Maximum Height of Building 45
(ft.)
Maximum height of fences / boundary walls 6
71
10
bi
41
rh i •�� • � ��® ((+/ � / ' `,•� �/` is •"a J]:` —'----- ------
•- al.rl. ,�-fiIN
r
oz
aak
lJ :
yLLL
Y
F
,,.: � . : ` ,; - �'fir.4 zr- " ' 3 _ � l• .;ter. � .,
— _-fal .... `r..c•.r '-+`� y`. Y•�_ yTrYa�l .-S �-a,�a� �
--�A' a_ :°'t• r.. — `t ��:F: .. -- =a....�-_ _w" _. �ate.
HIGHEST RIND BEST USE Page 56
SECTION IV
HIGHEST AND BEST USE
Highest and best use is defined as:
"The reasonable and probable use of vacant land or an improved property, which is
physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in
the highest value. The four criteria the highest and best use must meet are legal
permissibility, physical possibility, financial feasibility and maximum profitability.'
Implicit within this definition is that the determination of highest and best use takes
into account the contribution of a specified use to the community and community
development goals, as well as the benefits of that use to individual property owners. An
additional implication is that the determination of highest and best use results from the
appraisers judgment and analytical skill, that is, the use determined from analysis
represents an opinion, not a fact to be found.
The definition of highest and best use encompasses two concepts of highest and best
use. The first is highest and best use of land or site as though vacant. The second is
highest and best use of property as improved. Each premise requires a separate analysis.
Moreover, in each case, the existing use may or may not be different from the site's highest
and best use. To facilitate the determination of highest and best use, the subject properties
will be analyzed either as simply unimproved land or as though both vacant and as
improved land depending on the circumstances.
Address Land Area Improvements
70 A North Street 8,000 +/- Sq Ft None
14 Franklin Street 21,500 Sq Ft Metal Shell Structure
16 Franklin Street 21,500 Sq Ft None
18 Franklin Street 2,512 Sq Ft Small Masonry Structure
20 Rear Franklin Street 49,200 +/- Sq Ft None
2 The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal,3rd edition,page 171.
HIGHEST AND BEST USE Page 57
Highest and Best Use of Land or Site as Though Vacant
Analysis of highest and best use as though vacant assumes that the subject parcels
of land are vacant or can be made vacant by demolishing any improvements, and identifies
a program of potential land use which is physically possible, legally permissible, market
supported, and maximally productive. The question raised in this analysis is: "If the land
R
were vacant, what use should be made of it?" In other words, what type of building or
improvements should be constructed on the land and when?
Physically Possible -- In the case of the subject sites, property shape, topography
and dimensions pose special constraints to development. Soil stability is not believed to be
an issue. This valuation assumes that the subject sites have not been contaminated and
are in compliance with applicable laws. It is further assumed that the sites are physically
capable of supporting most commercial structures with typical floor loads without requiring
special site preparation or engineering. The size and the shape of only two of the five sites
(14, and 16 Franklin Street) would allow for the independent development of most small
retail and commercial uses. 70A North Street is landlocked, 18 Franklin Street is much to
small and 20 Rear Franklin Street is a,landlocked parcel unless it is utilized with either 16 or
18 Franklin Street all of which are under common ownership.
Le,gally Permissible -- Legal and political issues are a major constraint to the
development of the site. Zoning controls both the location and intensity as well as the type
of uses permitted on the subject property. As discussed, four of the subjects are located in
a B-5 district (Business). A list of allowable "by right" uses in the district are included in the
zoning section of this report. No private covenants which might constrain the subject land
are known of. In addition all of the lots are allowed industrial uses (some under the
grandfather clause), but which can not be expanded or moved.
HIGHEST AND BEST USE Pie 58
Market Supported -- The test for market feasibility is more problematic. For a use to
be economically viable, there must be a demand for the use at a level sufficient to warrant
investment. With respect to the commercially zoned land, this is clearly not the case in the
office, retail or residential market in Salem. Earlier discussions with respect to the current
excess of supply in these uses and real estate market would confirm this conclusion. In
addition, there are more economically viable commercial sites available than the subject
R
sites
Maximally Productive -- The final test is whether the contemplated use is maximally
productive in a financial sense. In most cases this represents the use that provides the
greatest return on the owner's investment. This means that costs are minimized and
benefits maximized over the investment term. Thus, a building that captures the greatest
portion of the effective demand while recognizing legal, physical and financial constraints
would be the highest and best use as vacant.
With respect to the subject land, the maximally productive long germ use were they
vacant would probably be retail or small office improvements with sufficient on-site parking
to meet local zoning requirements as well as industry standards. This scenario would be
achieved by combining 16, 18 and 20 Rear Franklin Street as they are held in common
ownership or by combining all of the lots on Franklin Street. Neither 18 Franklin Street or
20 Rear Franklin Street are viable developmental lots by themselves, as the first is to small
and the second is landlocked without one of the other lots held in common ownership.
Based on the near downtown location and proximity to city and county offices, it
would appear that either small office or retail use offers the best long term prospects for the
subject sites, assuming them to be vacant. Due to the impaired nature of the local real
estate market, however, this plan could not be realized immediately.
IIIGIIEST AND BEST USE Page 59
Lacking major tenant commitments or expansion in demand for commercial land, in
fact, it is doubtful that such development would be possible within the short term future.
Interim use would probably indicate continuation of an unimproved lot capitalizing on the
grandfathered industrial uses. This is confirmed by the fact that several sites in the subject
neighborhood are currently being utilized for grandfathered industrial uses or just sitting
ti
empty. No new development is occurring in the subject neighborhood.
The lot at 70A North Street offers / represents a whole different set of circumstances.
This is a landlocked parcel with no chance of incorporating it with an abutting parcel of
privately owned land and no utilities are available to the site. Therefore the highest and
best use of this site would be for passive recreational use or as an addition by a nearby
landlord as an "assemblage". In fact this is exactly what happened recently to this land. It
was purchased by a nearby property owner to expand his local operation. In circumstances
such as this it is not uncommon for the purchaser to pay somewhat of a premium.
Highest and Best Use of Proppoy As Improved
Highest and best use of a property as improved pertains to the use that should be
made of the property as it presently exists. The critical issues involved relate to the ability of
the current improvements to produce an income stream versus the costs of renovation,
expansion or of demolishing the existing improvements and redeveloping the site with an
entirely new, more productive program of improvements.
HIGHEST AND BEST USE Page 60
Only two of the subject properties contain any type of improvements. The current
owner of 14 Franklin Street obtained a building permit to "erect building for merchandise
storage and office as per plans submitted". As of the effective date of appraisal there is a one
story pre-engineered metal building shell on site. Even though the land here is
grandfathered an. industrial use any new structures on the site must conform with current
zoning requirements. The shell building which currently exists contains a 3,900 square foot
footprint along with a 1,500 square foot mezzanine. Upon inspection it was noted that the
metal building is insulated but there is no finished floor at grade (slab) or stairway to the
mezzanine area. In addition there is no plumbing, electrical or heat in the building, and
overhead doors in the front and the rear of the building have not been installed so that the
building is open to the weather. For all practical purposes this is an open unfinished storage
shed at this time.
The building at 18 Franklin Street is a small older irregularly shaped 1,028 square foot
service shop type building. It is a one story cinder block building reportedly with steam heat
by gas an a flat tar and gravel roof. The interior layout is reportedly a small "office " area with
a restoom and an attached "garage" area with an overhead door. This building appears to be
in average condition at best from what could be observed from the street.
Physically Possible -- Given the size, configuration and condition of the building
improvements in relation to the underlying zoning and physical attributes of the sites, the
existing buildings could not be enlarged or modified to any significant degree. To increase
the size of the current improvement at 18 Franklin Street would go against it's
grandfathered use. The building at 14 Franklin Street was just recently constructed so the
physical attributes are self evident.
HIGHEST AND BEST USE Page 61
Legally Permissible -- The existing improvements to the subject property at 18
Franklin Street are grandfathered as they pertains to density and allowed use under current
zoning regulations. According to the zoning bylaw, the improvements could not be
significantly expanded due to the fact it is a grandfathered use as the zoning here has
changed. Expansion of the building through a variance of the zoning ordinance is also not
likely.
R
The building inspector stated that he will issue no further permits to finish the building
located at 14 Franklin Street or to hook up any utilities until he receives building plans
showing the "office" layout and finishes of the building, as an industrial building is now not
allowed here under zoning. Even though the land here is grandfathered an industrial use
any new structures on the site must conform with current zoning requirements.
Consequently, if this building is to be legally occupied it must be utilized as a "business"
building and not as an "industrial" building.
Market Supp rted --. There is no financial incentive in the current market for removal
and reconstruction of the subject improvements located at 14 and 18 Franklin Street.
Market conditions appear to have as much if not more of a constraint on the use of the
subjects than legal or physical constraints, notwithstanding the proposed new owner
occupancy of the subject building at 14 Franklin Street. For the most part these buildings
do not sell and are owner occupied built to suite structures. The owner occupant then
attains a "Value in Use" scenario verses the market value which the general public would
experience. Historically properties such as this are not operated with the idea in mind to
make a significant profit.
HIGHEST AND BEST USE Pa.Re 62
Maximally Productive -- Of the uses that fit the above criteria, the highest and best
use as improved will be that program which provides the highest value to the property
owner. Given the practical considerations discussed, the most productive use of the
properties at 14 and 18 Franklin Street appear to be an owner occupied continued use of
the improved sites. 18 Franklin Street derives additional support from the two abutting lots
that are held in common ownership. There are no financial incentives for any further
structural improvements which would increase the net value over an anticipated holding
period, and any physical changes would not conform to the grandfathered zoning. For 14
Franklin Street it would appear prudent to complete it to a weather tight level and then
attempt to utilize it under an allowed used under zoning.
METHODOLOGY Pate 63
METHODOLOGY
The three standard approaches to estimate value are the cost approach, the sales
comparison (market data) approach, and the income capitalization approach. Each
approach is briefly explained with comments regarding the application of each approach to
the subject properties and interests appraised.
R
Sales Comparison Approach
The sales comparison approach provides an estimate of market value by comparing
the subject property with recent sales of similar properties. The major premise of this
approach is that the market value of a property can be directly related to the prices of
comparable, competitive properties. This approach is applicable as there are sales of
comparable properties in the area to compare the subject to. It has been utilized here to
determine the aggregate value of the properties at 16, 18 and 20 Rear Franklin Street as
well as the value of the sites at 14 Franklin Street and 70A North Street.
Cost Approach
The cost approach is based upon the economic theory of substitution which affirms
that no prudent investor would pay more for a property than the cost to acquire the site and
construct improvements of equal desirability and utility. In essence, the cost to develop a
property is compared to the value of the existing developed property. No cost approach
was conducted on the improvements at 18 Franklin Street as they were not inspected but
more importantly appear to be of minimal size and value to the overall conglomerate of
properties here. The approach is applicable when the individual land and building
components are independently measurable and when the sum is believed to reflect market
value. The reliability of the approach is dependent on the availability of information
regarding land values, replacement costs, and improvement depreciation. The cost
approach has been developed due to the fact that the subject property at 14 Franklin Street
is new construction with no physical or functional obsolescence.
METHODOLOGY Pate 64
Income Capitalization Approach
The Income Capitalization Approach may be described as the investor's approach to
value, that is, what an investor would be prepared to pay for a property having similar
income- producing possibilities. This approach has the greatest application in areas where
there is a substantial rental market.
The Income Capitalization Approach is basically concerned with the present worth of
the future potential benefits of a property. An investor who purchases income producing
real estate is essentially trading present dollars for the right to receive future dollars.
Three of the five properties are unimproved land. One of the properties has only a
pre-engineered metal shell structure on site while the fifth site has only a small old one story
masonry service building of nominal value. Investors do not purchase properties similar to
these for the cash flows because they are either non-existent or excessively erratic
Consequently, at this time, a prudent, reliable and market orientated income
capitalization approach cannot be applied to the subject properties as it is not germane to
this appraisal.
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH Page 65
SECTION V
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
The sales comparison approach provides an estimate of market value by comparing
the subject property with recent sales of similar properties. The major premise of this
approach is that the market value of a property can be directly related to the prices of
comparable, competitive properties. The five steps generally involved in this process are
outlined on the following page:
1. Identify recent sales of similar properties for which transaction data are known.
2. Verify the information regarding the arms-length nature of the comparable
transactions and terms.
3. Compare the attributes of the subject property with those of the comparable
properties and adjust for any differences that may have impacted sales price.
Specific consideration should be given to. issues of time, location, physical
characteristics, conditions of sale and current yield data.
4. Identify a unit of comparison between the subject and comparable properties that
allows inferences to made regarding the probable sales price of the subject
property.
5. Reconcile the various value indications produced from the analysis of
comparable properties to a single value or value range.
The reliability of the sales comparison approach to valuation is dependent upon both
the quality and quantity of recent sales data for comparable properties. When adequate
recent market sales information is present, the sales comparison approach can provide a
valid indication of what a probable buyer would pay for the subject property. This approach
has been fully developed because sufficient market data exist to provide a reliable indication
of market value for the subjects.
Based on conclusions reached in the highest and best use analysis, recent sales of
properties which are consider most similar to the subjects and most relevant for analysis and
comparison are herein presented.
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH Page 66
SITE VALUE ESTIMATE:
In order to estimate the market value of the subjects, ten sales transactions have
been analyzed. These sales are all similar to the subject properties in various ways.
The value of the land can be estimated by either the sales comparison approach or
through an extraction method. The sales approach is used since there are sufficient sales
of generally comparable properties. In addition, an extraction of improved properties would
likely be less reliable due to potential physical, functional or external obsolescence in the
marketplace.
The following sales were considered most relevant of the sales and offerings that
have occurred in the subject market over the few last years. Each sale presented will be
analyzed and adjusted for differences with the subjects
All sales included here are zoned for similar use or have a grandfathered use under
zoning. All of the presented sales represent conventional financing or are all cash buyers
for owner user applications.
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH Pa=,e 67
Comparable Property Sale#1
38 Marginal Street Chelsea, Ma
:Rfr
vy
f•
Grantor: Bradford Auto Company
Grantee: Seagulls Auto Salvage, Inc.
Title Reference: Suffolk Registry Certificate#107825
Document#506311
Date of Sale: November 15, 1993
Land Area: 47,665 square feet
Sale Price: $340,000
Map and Lot: Map 12 Parcel 010
Unit Price $7.13 per square foot
Zoning: Residential (R-2) grandfathered industrial use
Utilities: All Public
Sales History: No other arms length sale in the last five years
Financing: None indicated
Comments: This is a parcel of land located on the northerly side of
Marginal Street across the street from the Chelsea Creek. The site is level and at street
grad along Marginal Street and slopes up gently to the back. At the time of sale there was
an older wood frame (approximately 560 square foot with a full basement) junkyard "office
building" on site. Marginal Street has mostly commercial / industrial uses along the street
while behind and around this property are residential uses. This site though is a
grandfathered industrial (junkyard) use. The property is now fenced in and utilized as an
auto salvage and storage yard
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH Page 68
Comparable Property Sale#2
115 - 139 Cummings Street Roxbury, Boston, Ma
Y _
l�• _ _
Grantor: Louis Canter
Grantee: A. P. South Bay Corp.
Title Reference: Suffolk Registry Book 17692 Page 216
Date of Sale: September 2, 1992
Land Area: 118,750 square feet
Sale Price: $1,010,000
Map and Lot: Ward 8 Parcel 1032
Unit Price $8.51 per square foot
Zoning: Industrial
Utilities: All Public
Sales History: No other arms length sale in the last five years
Financing: None indicated
Comments: This is a parcel of land located on the southerly side of
the Southeast expressway across the street from the old defunct City incinerator. The site
is level and at street grade along Cummings Street. At the time of sale there was an older
wood frame junkyard "office and parts storage building" on site. The area has mostly
commercial / industrial uses. Prior to the sale the property was operating as a auto salvage
yard known as Ace auto Parts. The new owners purchased- the site in order to attempt to
construct an asphalt batching plant at a reported cost of approximately $3,500,000. They
have though encountered very strong opposition from both the City and local residents and
the viability of the project is now questionable.
SALES CONIPARISON APPROACH Page 69
Comparable Property Sale #3
903 Albany Street Roxbury, Boston, Ma
Grantor: Albany- Webber Realty Trust
Grantee: Palo Realty Trust.
Title Reference: Suffolk Registry Book 18794 Page 11
Date of Sale: January 7, 1994
Land Area: 29,420 square feet
Sale Price: $125,000 plus $100,000 Clean up
Unit Price $7.65 per square foot
Zoning: Industrial
Utilities: All Public
Sales History: No other arms length sale in the last five years
Financing: None indicated
Comments: This is a parcel of land located at the intersection of
Albany and Webber Street just off of Massachusetts Avenue in Boston. The site is semi-
level and at street grade along Albany Street and slopes up gently to the back by Webber
Street At the time of sale there were several old decrepit masonry buildings on site. The
grantee stated he placed no value on these buildings because of their condition and initially
considered demolishing them. At the time of sale the property was occupied by Elliot Iron
Wrecking who had the lot littered with old materials, debris and dead animals. The site was
purchased by a metal recycling company who had their old yard, which was located just up
the street, taken by Eminent Domain by the City. The grantee stated it cost approximately
$100,000 to clean up the site so he could continue to operate his junkyard here.
SALES COINIPARISON APPROACH Page 70
Comparable Land Sale #1
14 Franklin Street Salem, Ma
Grantor: William Linsky
Grantee: Franklin Street Realty Trust
Title Reference: Essex Registry Book 14472 Page 66
Date of Sale: September 10, 1992
Land Area: 21,500 square feet
Sale Price: $150,000
Map and Lot: Map 26 Parcel 403
Unit Price $6.98 per square foot
Zoning: Business (B5) grandfathered industrial use
Utilities: All Public
Sales History: No other arms length sale in the last five years
Financing: None indicated
Comments: This is one of the subject parcels of land. At the time of
sale a land based general contractor was utilizing this site as a storage yard for his
materials and equipment. The frontage along the North River here is tidal and at low tide
the majority of the riverbed is exposed with the exception of a small shallow federal channel.
The grantee (a marine contractor) acquired the property so that they could tie up their
working barges in front of the site and load / unload materials and equipment year round.
He further stated that the tidal frontage at the site was simply an inconvenience that they
have to work around.
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH Page 71
Comparable Land Sale#2
59 Marginal Street Chelsea. Ma
,•r.-.
Grantor: Quinoil Industries
Grantee: Shepagen Inc..
Title Reference: Suffolk Registry Book 17828 Pages 82 & 84
Date of Sale: November 6, 1992
Land Area: 67,000 square feet (Industrial)
Sale Price: $405,000 and $60,000
Map and Lot: Map 12 Parcel 3A& 18
Unit Price $6.49 per square foot Reference Comments
Zoning: Waterfront grandfathered industrial use
Utilities: All Public
Sales History: No other arms length sale in the last five years
Financing: None indicated
Comments: This sale included two non-contiguous parcels of land, a
67,000 square foot site on the Chelsea River and a 6,000 square foot site across Marginal
Street. The recorded sale prices were $405,000 and $60,000 respectively. The smaller
parcel is zoned residential, has rough topography and was considered to have only nominal
value by the grantee. The grantee acquired both parcels as the grantor was unwilling to sell
the industrial parcel separately. The grantee stated that he would "be happy to dispose of
the residential site for $30,000 and be rid of the liability and taxes associated with this land.
I do not want that land. It is of no use to me. This would calculate to $435,000 for the
industrial land or$6.49 per square foot. This was a former oil terminal whose storage tanks
were removed prior to the sale but the soil was never tested for contamination. The grantee
stated that this fact was reflected in the sale price. He purchased the site to expand a bulk
storage (salt) business he operated on an abutting parcel. The Chelsea River here has a
deep water channel of approximately 30 feet.
8 �
v
o �
9
J
ME-nrD � '`}�
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH Page 72
Comparable Land Sale #3
33 River Avenue Fairhaven, Ma
K
-h
Grantor: Fairhaven Landing Trust
Grantee: Pirate's Cove Realty Trust
Title Reference: South Bristol Book 2941 Page 58
Date of Sale: November 16, 1992
Land Area: 61,369 square feet
Sale Price: $200,000
Unit Price $3.26 per square foot
Zoning: Industrial
Utilities: All Public
Sales History: No other arms length sale in the last five years
Financing: Assumed prior$100,000 mortgage c@ 10% 3 years
Comments: This is a waterfront parcel of land that abuts Route 195
so it's visibility is good. It's land access is very difficult by means of a tunnel under Route
195 the other two sides of the site are landlocked by a cemetery. The property was
purchased for the development of a boat storage yard and marina. Subsequent to the sale
the grantee had a large metal butler building constructed for the storage of boats.. At the
time of sale the water depth here was only approximately three feet at mean low tide. It was
the responsibility of the grantee to obtain a special permit for the marine use and to secure a
Chapter 91 license for dredging etc. The nautical access is considered average at best as
the site is located further up the Acushnet River past the Route 6 bridge. The channel here
though is still approximately 15 feet deep.
-m4m,■
2 yaw
\ J
\ �
lie
it
%
,. ||■■ -�
! °�| �■ �
| �
� |
m
tit
�
| � �■
_ f ■ �| ��-
| §§
& �
3 �
� !
$ §`
� ��K�H|2
_ §
� 5�§■
�
�
�
_ �■$ s
i/s.; k
■
� �■�$ $,!§
SALES COMTARISON APPROACH Page 73
Comparable Land Sale #4
1000 Broadway Chelsea, Ma
-`ti•;t 1�
Grantor: Norman Lazuras & City of Chelsea
Grantee: Beth Israel Hospital.
Title Reference: Suffolk Registry Book 19604 Page 62
Date of Sale: February 14, 1995
Land Area: 104,621 square feet
Sale Price: $85,600
Unit Price $8.18 per square foot
Zoning: Retail Business (BH)
Utilities: All Public
Sales History: No other arms length sale in the last five years
Financing: None indicated
Comments: This was a parcel of land located on the northerly end of
Broadway not far from the Revere city line and Route 16. The site is level and at street
grade along Broadway and slopes down gently to the back which fronts on Mill Creak. Mill
Creak is a tidal estuary which discharges into the Chelsea River. Consequently it is very
similar to the subjects' locus. Broadway has mostly commercial / industrial / retail uses
along the street while the side streets off of it are mostly residential uses. The property is
now improved with a new multi story building and utilized as a health care center.
SALES CONIPARISON APPROACH Page 74
Comparable Land Sale #5
7 Franklin Street Salem, Ma
R
Grantor: National Grand Bank
Grantee: Contract Engineering Inc.
Title Reference: Essex District Book 12792 Page 267
Date of Sale: October 21, 1994
Land Area: 17,097 square feet
Sale Price: $120,000
Map and Lot: Map 26 Parcel 374
Unit Price $7.02 per square foot
Zoning: Business (135)
Utilities: All Public
Sales History: Prior sale was a foreclosure by the grantor
Financing: $115,000 from seller
Comments: This is a parcel of land located on the other side of
Franklin Street from the subject lots The site is level and at street grade along Franklin
Street. This site contain an easement for surface water from an abutting site to drain over a
portion of it. This is not considered to be adverse. At the time of sale this was a vacant lot
of land as an industrial building on the site had been previously been demolished.
c d
Jam..
#Ǥ
4«
-
� . q� ■ � '2 �
■ , �
| � E
\§ |
■
{� '
04,19_ .
B
IA ® ' � �O
| §
(2
- !�_§ O § ■ I §
33rZ4.®'
||| % 11.41D [ k}kEn
■| q ° , r_z
. 2 -
�� - ;
a` N
� .
13.
STRm��
FRA
a ¥ �
>(
■ � ■ � �§k�§�� I � �
§
�
SALES C01IPARISON APPROACH Page 75
Comparable Land Sale #6
1 Peabody Street Salem, Ma
� I
r �
Grantor: G P Ventures
Grantee: Waterfront Reaity Trust.
Title Reference: Essex District Book 12786 Page 337
Date of Sale: October 17, 1994
Land Area: 32,859 square feet
Sale Price: $275,000
Map and Lot: Map 34 Parcel 434
Unit Price $8.37 per square foot
Zoning: Business (65)
Utilities: All Public
Sales History: No other arms length sale in the last five years
Financing: $300,000 private mortgage
Comments: This is a parcel of land located by, but no directly on, the
South River in Salem.. The site is level and at street grade along both Lafayette Street and
Peabody Street. At the time of sale there was an older two story masonry building that the
grantee demolished at a reported cost of $65,000. In conjunction with this sale G P
Ventures conveyed an abutting 10,158 square foot parcel of land to the grantee 'for nominal
consideration paid". The reason for this was the fact that it was a known contaminated site
with hazardous materials that the grantee agreed to clean up. The cost of the clean up is
said to have negated a sale price here. on May 7, 1996 the owner of the 32,859 square
foot parcel to Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers of New York for $500,000 ($15.22 per
square foot) as recorded in Book 13549 Page 310. This is not considered to be a true
market reflective transaction as fast food chains are notorious for paying above market for
certain specific demographic locations based upon projected business volume.
o Q
V �.I
Qj
a I �
mZ
� Q o
x �
m
m
Ni
� n
M h
VV N
LeQ
GI
o�►o Q4
�V n
tZtt OC o "V q p
� � u
z4Lu
tiZ
h.,
Q
W v 0 W�-
h
Q I r Q-
W o � 3-
E
E
� W G
V -
—�„00,00,60N p�
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH Page 76
Comparable Land Sale #7
70A North Street Salem, Ma
•� �y--4.'YL
Grantor: Estate of Benjamin Myers
Grantee: Burnham Associates.
Title Reference: Essex District Book 13256 Page 279
Date of Sale: July 19, 1995
Land Area: 8,000 square feet +/- per the deed
Sale Price: $30,000
Map and Lot: Map 26 Parcel 423
Unit Price $3.75 per square foot
Zoning: Industrial
Utilities: None
Sales History: No other arms length sale in the last five years
Financing: None indicated
Comments: This is one of the subject parcels of land. At the time of
sale this was a vacant parcel of land that had not been utilized for any use in decades. The
frontage along the North River here is tidal and at low tide the majority of the riverbed is
exposed with the exception of a small shallow federal channel. The grantee (a marine
contractor) acquired the property so that they could tie up their working barges in front of
the site and load / unload materials and equipment year round. This is a landlocked piece
of property with the only access being from the North River.
alM,navn. �. ;p6)
NEWBURYPORT \
HAVE ILL WEST
97 �`
NEWBURV ��
Salim 1 + �� ,n�1 � ;!A)
NEWBURY -
• u '.i GROVELAND, -
1 . '
luo � Hudaan , Pelham METHUEN GEORGETOWN ROWLEY�- -� �
�� • 1 LAWRIE CE 1135
3A 38 1111 1
1 �~
—.113 `\ DRACUT I !_ `\BO%FORD `
IPSWICH
ABLE 1NORTH
n i i ¢OJG ,"! ," - I + cr1k 1 ANDOVER - O 12T ROCI KPO
Gg00 1 ` \ ANDOVER 3
!,�\ �' I p�
r' TOPSFIELD,' GLOUCESTER
1 J
LOWELL 28 / \ HAMILTTON 12
40. 1 ,� r � {_--` ,' MIDDLETON ESSEX
� IA 72 i 1
Mc`M`fO fl ` TEWKSBURY \ _1 NonTll` WENHAM ) -'
WESTFOHDBEADING `\\ i ,/J,� ,•` MANCHESTER /
DANVER. , .�
BEVERLY
1 WILMINGTON _
` CARLISLE DOLLERICA , - READING I
�� 1 LYNNFIELD
TLETON `\ ' 1 i 1
1 ."- EABOCY
l
IACTON �_- - ''�BEDFOR P`\NG�ON,i WAKEFICL of ARBLEHEAD SALEM
H r C WOBURN + s i i -
2 ' CONCORD \ \SAUGUS LYNN
Tyr ' s Ep. o
NG I �iA SWAM
Hcs' y MELR JL�C
2A ' LEXIHGTON
1 � ,' MALO ' NAHANT
MAYNARD `` ' 1� LINCOLH _ `4q��NCTOMEDFO DI` "11* EVERE
E �i; CHEL �
z ti i I WALTHAM NT �,q .` y,� - - .�,
20
WATERTOWN RHO I WINT OP
� � CF R
,WAYLANDI WESTON
I ��\I �• NEWTON ` � �?�' � r 3
FRAMINGHAM �•+'" ,�Y
8 Harbor
9 ¢O BOSTON
9 WELLESLEY, 0
i � r
t \04 i '3 t ">r HULL
.T^ NATICK , L NEEOHAM r� \ - 3A
I DOVER j -0EDHAMF �� '� COMASSET
1121 1\ SHERBORN,� i z MILTON - 1
! I rWESTWOOD lr��` - , 51 WEYMOUfH 22f)
f- . 3a
MOLLISTON _ r BRAINTREE I
ME
OFIELDr ,1 '�NORWOOO ` \ ,`�, (! HINDMAM _-_ SCITUATE
MILLIS _; I \' CANTON RANDOLPH 11 /'/ \\
'MEWAY\\ 1 '-� _ I NORWELL
D 1W i 1 i 1 13e . i J �7 I i
11' 123
26 _
3 i\ I HOLBROOK Ji
\ -�•�-�_� 1! `\ �" r>I ROCKLAND _
WALPOLE STOUGHTON, 1 I
AVON I I� HANOVER" , MARSHFIELD
1 ABINGTON >
FRANKLIN \\ NORF`K 1\ , \ SHARON \' 1 1--I \ 1 a
= r ,� \ ,� , BROCKTON
= I 140' r j �1 'WHITMAN L- PEMBR KE ' 1
WRENTHAM \ ', 1 1 58 39 '
i
m 11A I FO%BOROUGH �\ �! 14
i 1• HANSON 14
EASTON 11 a 7�r I i DUXBURY
28 1 EAST ! , `
12 1 WEST '1 BRIDGEWATER 81 ` .53 \
I PLAINVILLE , M IELD
,. \ � ! B IDGEWATER
i. JE _ --
NORTH ,06
HALIFAX KINGSTON
ATTLE80R0 �\. NORTON �' 13B 1 BRIDGEWATER
YMPTON i.So r'
140 28 \`'J
? \ RAYNHAM
N ATTLEHORO \ TAUNTON .
MIDDLEBOR H \ i
.44 `` PLYMOUTH
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH Page 78
Sales Analysis:
Ten comparable land sales are presented. The sales are compared on the basis of
price per square foot since this is the most common unit of comparison used in the local
real estate marketplace. No time adjustments are made to the sales as these sales took
place within the past few years and prices appear to be stable during this time. These sales
and offerings show a fairly narrow range of values and are all considered to be good
indicators for the subject sites.
The subject is the standard by which all the sales comparables are adjusted.
Each sale is adjusted for significant differences in comparison to the subject property. When
the comparable sale is considered superior to the subject, the comparable is adjusted
downward to more closely resemble the subject. Conversely, when the comparables inferior
to the subject, the comparable is adjusted upward to reflect its inferior characteristic. The
sales have been adjusted in the following convention or sequence:
Property rights conveyed
Financing
Conditions of sale
Market conditions
Location
Physical characteristics
Economic characteristics
Use
Non-realty components of value
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH Page 79
The first four generally accepted adjustment categories, real property rights
conveyed: financing: conditions of sale: and market conditions, are cumulative adjustments.
Each adjustment is applied to the comparable before the next adjustment is applied. The
remaining adjustments for physical, location or utility factors are additive. Additive
adjustments are netted out or summed together and the resulting adjustment is applied to
the comparable after the cumulative adjustments have been made.
R
Property Ri-ghts - All of the sales were sales of properties with no leases in
place and had the potential to be owner occupied properties. No adjustment has been made
for this characteristic.
Financing - Where all are believed to have involved all cash to the seller, no
adjustment for this characteristic is warranted.
Conditions of Sale - All of the sales were confirmed to be true arm's length
transactions. No adjustment was applied to any of the sales for the motivation of the grantor
to sell the property or the buyer to purchase the property.
Market Conditions - As discussed in earlier sections of this report, market
conditions are currently rebounding. While property values had declined considerably over
the previous four to five year period, market conditions indicate that prices have stabilized
since the beginning of 1992. Market evidence suggests that prices had declined
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH Page 80
approximately one percent per month from 1989 to the end of 1991. Since all of the
comparable sales were consummated subsequent to this time frame no market condition
adjustment has been applied.
Location - The locational characteristics of some of the sales varied.
Specific adjustments for superior or inferior locations in comparison to the subjects have
been addressed and discussed in the following pages.
Physical Characteristics - This element of comparison includes physical condition
and idiosyncrasies. All sales are in reasonably similar condition; some had older buildings
with significant accrued physical depreciation present. The quality of each property is
reasonably similar, but with some adjustments for this category necessary in recognition of
the difference between, condition and quality of construction. A final category under physical
characteristics is functional utility. All of the utilized sales are of comparable functional utility.
Economic Characteristics - - "Economic characteristics include all the attributes of
a property that affect its net operating income."3 None of the sales were producing income
at the time of sale, and all were purchased by owner/users. Consequently, no adjustment is
warranted.
3
Appraisal Institute,Ike Appraisal of Real Estate T itiory(Chicago,1992)p.383.
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH Paf7e 81
Use - The first three comparable sales utilized in the analysis were being operated
either as an automobile salvage yards (junkyards) or a related metal salvage use at the time
of sale. The other seven sales all had the ability to be utilized as either commercial or
industrial sites. Consequently no adjustment for this element of comparison is necessary to
address this adjustment.
Non-Realtor Components of Value - Properties similar to the subject properties
typically do not involve the analysis of personality, goodwill, or furniture, fixtures, and
equipment. No such property or inventory was considered in the analysis.
Analysis of Sales Data and Adjustments:
At the time of sale comparable property sales#1 and #2 were operational automobile
salvage yards (junk yards) while sale #3 was a metal fabrication and recycling yard. All
were located in nearby cities and towns. These three sales are the most comparable to the
properties located at 16, 18 and 20 Rear Franklin Street. Comparable land sales #1
through #7 were all commercial or industrial properties, in or near downtown Salem (with
the exception of one) and all with attributes somewhat similar to the various subject
properties located at 14 Franklin Street and 70A North Street.
Comparable property sale #1 is located on a well traveled street in southern Chelsea.
Overall this property is considered very similar to the group of properties at 16, 18 and 20
Rear Franklin Street as it was a similar grandfathered use, size and location. It also had an
old small building on site, No adjustments were required to this sale and it indicated a
value of approximately$7.15 per square foot.
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH Page 82
Comparable property sale #2 was operating as an auto salvage yard prior to the sale.
There was an older wood frame office and parts storage building on site that was in fair
condition and contributed nominal value. The location / visibility is considered superior to
the properties at 16, 18 and 20 Rear Franklin Street as this properly fronts on the Southeast
Expressway right by the Massachusetts Avenue exit. Consequently a 20% downward
adjustment was made and the property indicated a value of approximately $6.80 per square
foot.
Comparable property sale #3 was a smaller lot of land that was purchased to
continue a junkyard / metal recycling business that was displaced from just up the street.
This property has several small masonry buildings on site that were in poor condition and to
which the grantee assigned no value in the overall scope of the sale. The location is
considered slightly superior as this is a high traffic area just off of Massachusetts Avenue.
Consequently, a 10% downward adjustment was made and the property indicated a value
of approximately$6.90 per square foot..
Comparable land sale #1 is actually one of the subject parcels of land (14 Franklin
Street). It was purchased in late 1992 so that no time adjustment is required. This
indicated a value of approximately $7.00 per square foot for the properties located at 14
and 16 Franklin Street (Le. identical size and amenities).
Comparable land sale#2 is a waterfront parcel of land with deep water access on the
Chelsea River in Chelsea so the location is superior. This was a former oil storage terminal
whose tanks were removed prior to the sale but the soil was never tested for contamination.
The grantee stated that this fact was reflected in the sale price and an overall 10% upward
adjustment was made for it. This sale indicated an approximate value of $7.15 per square
foot for the larger waterfront properties.
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH Page 83
Comparable land sale #3 was the most similar waterfront land sale found in eastern
Massachusetts in the previous four years to compare to 70A North Street. This is a
waterfront parcel of land that abuts Route 195 so it's visibility is good. It's land access is
very difficult by means of a tunnel under Route 195 and the other two sides of the site are
landlocked by a cemetery. There is 24 hour water access here which is superior. Both the
superior land and water access here required a small downward adjustment and this
property indicated a value of approximately $3.00 per square foot for 70 A North Street.
R
Comparable land sale #4 is a larger parcel of land with frontage on the Mill Creek'in
Chelsea. Mill creek is a tidal estuary which discharges into the Chelsea River so it is similar
to the subjects' tidal locus. The land locus is superior as it has visibility from Route 16 on
the Chelsea / Revere border. It was purchased by the Beth Israel Hospital to construct a
neighborhood health care center and admittedly a small premium was paid for the lot size at
this location. A small downward adjustment is made for this and this property indicates a
value of a little over $7.00 per square foot for all of the properties on Franklin Street as a
group or an assemblage (for which a premium is sometimes paid).
Comparable land sale #5 is a parcel of land located on the other side of Franklin Street from
the subject lots. The size, shape, location and topography are very similar to the two lots at
14 and 16 Franklin Street. No adjustments were made to this sale. This sale indicated a
value of approximately $7.00 per square foot for the properties at 14 and 16 Franklin Street.
Comparable land sale #6 is a parcel of commercial land located by, but not directly on, the
South River in Salem. This was somewhat of a convoluted sale as it included another
abutting parcel of known contaminated land for a nominal fee and the grantee demolished a
building on site at a cost reportedly to be $65,000. Of all of the sales utilized this one was
given the least weight and used more as a benchmark in the final analysis.
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH Page 84
Comparable land sale#7 is actually one of the subject parcels of land (70A North Street). It
was purchased in mid 1995 so that no time adjustment is required. This indicated a value
of approximately $3.75 per square foot for the property located at 70A North Street (i.e. it is
the propertl). One cravat must be addressed here though. This property was purchased
by a nearby landlord as an "assemblage" to expand his local marine contracting operation.
In circumstances such as this it is not uncommon for the purchaser to pay somewhat of a
premium for a property. The exact amount of this premium though cannot be market
derived as each transaction has certain specific idiosyncrasies for the specific purchaser's
needs. Suffice it to say though if a negative 20% adjustment were made the sale would
indicate a value of approximately $3.00 per square foot and if a negative 30% adjustment
were made the sale would indicate a value of approximately $2.60 per square foot..
The following table summarizes the ten comparable sales with unadjusted(actual)
and adjusted sale prices per square foot of land area.
COMPARABLE PROPERTY SALES Unadjusted Adjusted
33 Marginal Chelsea ; $7.13 i $7.15
115 Cummings Roxbury $8.51 i $6.80
903 Albany Roxbury $7.65 $6.90
1
Mean (Average) Value $7.76 I $6.95
Median (Midpoint) Value 1 1 $7.65 $6.90
I
COMPARABLE LAND SALES Unadjusted I %d'usted
14 Franklin Salem I $6.98 $7.00
59 Mar inalChelsea $6.49 $7.15
1000 Broadway Chelsea I $8.18 $7.00
7 Franklin Salem i $7.02 _ $7.00
1 Peabody Salem $8.37 N ! A
Mean (Average) Value I $7.41 $7.04
Median (Midpoint) Value I I $7.02 $7.00
I
33 River Fairhaven i $3.26 $3.00
70A North Salem ; $3.75 $2.60 to $3. 0-
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH PaS7e 85
The range of unadjusted comparable sale prices for the group of properties at 16, 18
and 20 Rear Franklin Street is from $7.13 to $8.51 per square foot and the adjusted sale
prices are from $6.80 to $7.15 per square foot of land area. The most comparable of these
sales is the junkyard sale at 33 Marginal Street Chelsea for approximately $7.15 per square
foot.
The range of unadjusted comparable sale for the properties at 14 and 16 Franklin
Street is from $6.4 to $8.18 per square foot and the adjusted sale prices are from $7.00 to
$7.15 per square foot of land area. The most comparable of these sales are the two sale`t
on Franklin Street in Salem, one of which is the sale of one of the subject properties within
the past few years in an arms length transaction.
The range of unadjusted comparable sales for the single property at 70A North
Street is from $3.26 to $3.75 per square foot and the adjusted sale prices are from $2.60 to
$3.00 per square foot of land area. Equal weight was given to the impeded access sale of
waterfront property in Fairhaven and the prior sale of the property at 70A North Street (one
of the subject properties).
The reconciliation process normally involves consideration of the number and size of
adjustments required to make the comparables "resemble" the subject property. In addition,
consideration is given to the net adjustment needed for each sale. Based upon this analysis,
and after the aforementioned adjustments were made, it is concluded that the comparable
sales indicate a value for the properties located along Franklin Street to be approximately
$7.00 per square foot of land area. In addition, the landlocked property located off of North
Street to have a value of approximately $3.00 per square foot of land area.
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH Page 86
Arithmetically this becomes:
Address
70 A North Street
Land Area 8,000 +l- Sq Ft
ValuelSq FT $3.00
VALUE $24,000
14 Franklin Street
Land Area 21,500 Sq Ft
Value/S FT $7.00
VALUE $150,500
16, 18 and 20 Rear Franklin Street
Land Area 21,500, 2,512 and 49,200 +l- Sq Ft
Value/Spr FT $7.00
VALUE $512,484
Therefore, the value of the subjects' land indicated by the sales comparison approach can
now be rounded and called:
70A North Street
Twenty Five Thousand Dollars
$25,000
14 Franklin Street
One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars
$150,000
16, 18 and 20 Rear Franklin Street
Five Hundred and Ten Thousand Dollars
$510,000
COST APPROACH Page 87
COST APPROACH:
The cost approach is defined as the "Approach through which an appraiser derives a
value indication of the fee simple interest in a property by estimating the current cost to
construct a reproduction or replacement of the existing structure, deducting for all evidence
of accrued depreciation from the cost new of the reproduction or replacement structure, and
adding the estimated land value plus an entrepreneurial profit. Adjustment may be made to
the indicated fee simple value of the subject property to reflect the value indication of tie
property interest being appraised."4
The principle of substitution is the basic principal on which the cost approach is
based. This principle states, " that states when several similar or commensurate
commodities, good, or services are available, the one with the lowest price will attract the
greatest demand and widest distribution".5 Other principles applicable to the cost approach
are supply and demand, balance and externalities. These principles all have influence
upon the subject properties, as discussed in the previous sections of this report.
The following steps are followed to derive a value indication by the cost approach.
1. Estimate the value of the land as though vacant and available to be developed to its
highest and best use. This is done in the Site Valuation section of this report.
2. Estimate the reproduction or replacement cost of the improvements on the effective
date of the appraisal. This includes direct (hard) and indirect (soft) costs.
3. Estimate other costs (indirect costs) incurred after construction to bring the new,
vacant building up to market conditions and occupancy levels.
4. Estimate an appropriate entrepreneurial profit (if any) from an analysis of the market.
4The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 2nd edition, Page 72
5'The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal,2nd edition,Page 293
COST APPROACH Page 88
5. Add estimated replacement or reproduction cost, indirect costs, and entrepreneurial
profit, often expressed as a percentage of total direct and indirect costs and sometimes land
value, to arrive at the total replacement or reproduction cost of the primary structure(s).
6. Estimate the amount of accrued depreciation in the structure, which is divided into
three major categories: physical deterioration, functional obsolescence, and external
obsolescence.
7. Deduct the estimated depreciation in the structure, which is divided into three major
categories: Physical deterioration, functional obsolescence, and external obsolescence.
8. Estimate reproduction or replacement costs and depreciation for any accessory
buildings and site improvements, and then deduct estimated depreciation from the
reproduction or replacement costs of these improvements. Site improvements and minor
buildings are often appraised at their net value-i.e., directly on a depreciated cost basis.
9. Add the depreciated reproduction or replacement costs of the structure, the
accessory buildings, and the site improvements to obtain the estimated total depreciated
replacement or replacement cost of all improvements.
10. Add the land value to the total depreciated replacement or replacement cost of all
improvements to arrive at the indicated value of the fee simple interest in the property.
11. Adjust the indicated fee simple value to reflect the property interest being appraised,
if necessary, to arrive at the indicated value for the interest in the subject property being
appraised.6
The initial part of the cost approach is to estimate the market value of the subject site.
Market value is estimated by analyzing sales and listing of similar recently sold or available
property, in order to derive the most probable sales price of the site of the property being
appraised. This has been done in the Land Valuation section of this report.
6The Appraisal Of Real Estate, 10th Edition,page 318.
COST APPROACH Page 89
IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATE.
The next step in the cost approach is to estimate the construction cost of the
improvements.
The current owner of 14 Franklin Street obtained a building permit to "erect building
for merchandise storage and office as per plans submitted". According to building permit
#609-95 issued on 11/14/95 by the city of Salem the estimated cost to construct the shell of
the building by the owner was $24,000. As of the effective date of appraisal there is a one
story pre-engineered metal building shell on site. The shell building which currently exists
measures 30 feet wide by 130 feet long and has a height of 23' 6" to the eaves according to
the building plans, along with a 30 foot wide by 50 foot long mezzanine. This calculates to a
3,900 square foot footprint along with a 1 ,500 square foot mezzanine. Upon inspection it
was noted that the metal building is insulated but there is no finished floor at grade (slab) or
stairway to the mezzanine area. In addition there is no plumbing, electrical or heat in the
building, and overhead doors in the front and the rear of the building have not been installed
so that the building is open to the weather. For all practical purposes this is an open
unfinished storage shed at this time.
The building at 18 Franklin Street is a small older irregularly shaped 1,028 square foot
service shop type building. It is a one story cinder block building reportedly with steam heat
by gas an a flat tar and gravel roof. The interior layout is reportedly a small "office " area with
a restoom and an attached "garage" area with an overhead door. No interior inspection of the
building was conducted as the owner denied access to the property. This building appears
to be in average condition at best from what could be observed from the street. Because no
inspection was made of the building it is impossible to estimate the construction costs of the
building or it's accrued depreciation. In addition, this building is considered to add only
nominal value to the aggregatevalue of the three lots at 161 18, ad 20 Rear Franklin.
Consequently, no cost approach has been conducted on it.
COST APPROACH Page 90
A replacement cost estimate has been undertaken as a check on the costs estimate
provided by the building permit for 14 Franklin Street. The construction cost estimate is
provided by Marshall & Swift Valuation Service.
The Marshall & Swift estimate is based on the Calculator Cost method outlined in the
Marshall & Swift Cost Manual. Costs included in the Marshall Valuation Calculator Costs
are contractors overhead and profit, permit fees, architectural and engineering fees, sales
taxes, insurance costs, and interest on construction financing. The costs have also been
adjusted for current and local cost conditions.
Specifically, costs were taken from Section 14 of the manual and adjusted for local
and current costs as found in Section 99, adjusted to April 1996. The subject is being
constructed by an owner/user, is an average quality Class S pre-engineered metal building,
Entrepreneurial Profit:
In addition to the costs for the improvements there are soft costs and entrepreneurial
profit that must be considered. Entrepreneurial profit can be defined as the difference
between market value and total cost. No speculative building is currently going on in the
subject market area. In addition, all of the new construction in Greater Salem, including the
subject, is for owner occupancy and special purpose applications.
The subject market is mostly to owner/users looking and for special purpose use. In
the current marketplace in Greater Salem there is minimal new building and since an owner
user of this style property is the most likely purchaser of the subject, no entrepreneurial
profit is added. This cost is usually associated with multiple occupancy and multi-user
facilities and not with properties and uses such as the subject.
COST APPROACH Pay;e 91
Accrued Depreciation:
The basic types of depreciation in real estate are physical deterioration, curable and
incurable (long and short-lived); functional obsolescence, curable and incurable; and
economic obsolescence. Each of these is further broken down into subcategorizes.
Physical deterioration is identified as either curable or incurable. For an item to be
curable, the cost of the remedy must be less than the amount of increase in value as a
result of the deficient item. For an item to be incurable, the cost of the remedy is
economically impractical to correct. The subject is new and there is no Physical
deterioration present. Incurable physical deterioration has both short-lived and long-lived
elements. Short-lived elements are those which have a remaining life less than the
structure as a whole; long-lived are those which have a life consistent with the total physical
or economic life of the structure.
Functional obsolescence is caused by internal property characteristics. This
includes poor floor plans, outdated fixtures, inadequate mechanical equipment or a defect in
design, structure or materials. Functional obsolescence attempts to measure obsolete
components of the building. The obsolescence may also take the form of an over
improvement to the structure. Deficiencies often result from changes in market preferences.
The subject does not suffer from functional obsolescence or physical short lived
depreciation. The improvements are new and in average condition.
External obsolescence is the diminished utility of a structure due to negative
influences emanating from outside of the property. This would include changes in market
demand for a particular type of property, neighborhood decline and local market conditions.
The subject does not suffer from discernible or measurable external obsolescence at this
time.
COST APPROACH Pale 92
The cost approach analysis for the building at 14 Franklin Street is charted herein.
Occupancy_ - - -Pre-engineered Metal Building
---------------- - - ----------------------------------------------------
Buifding Class: S
--- - - - --- ------------------------------------------------=---------------•------------ --------- --
Buildin Quality- - ------- - --------------- ----Average / Low ?
- - - - -------- -
Extenor Wali: Metal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7-------------
No.--of-Sto-e--s:
- - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Height ----- - - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HeightPer Story (to eaves): 23- 6"
---- ------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
Ground Floor Area (s.f) 3,900
-------- ---- --- -------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
wii-g-e---Perim- e-t-er---: 320
---61 --Age:
-- --------------;----------------------------- 0--------------------------=------------------------
Effe -e Age:
--- -------- - ------------------------------------;-------------------------------------;-------------------------
A�erage Useful Life: 25
-- - ---- ----------------------- ----------------------=---------------------=----------------------------------------
Condition:
etiv ;
Base Sq. Ft. Cost: $11.86
No. ofStories-Multiplier X€ 1.000€
............................................
.....
........------------------
:......................
:.............................
Height per Sto Mufti tier X 1.157
.........g.............................................p............ ......:........................................................................:...........-----.....------.............---......... ............................
Floor Area-Perimeter-Multiplier X€ 1.147
.......................................I.. .....<.............................................................................................................................................................
Refined Square Foot Cost: ! $15.74
...........................................................:............................::..............................................................................................................................
Current Cost Multiplier: X 1.03
.............. .... ..........................
............................<................................ ........................ - ........., :, . .
Local Multipiier. X€ 1.14
..................................... ................................................................::..-....................................................---------.---,....................................................
Final Square Foot Cost: $18.48
.................................................--...............;. -..................................;...................................................------------.----------:..-----....._.........<................_............
Gro .................................._. .._.............. _ _. . ... ........ --
BASE REPLACEMENT COST $99,797
_ ._..............................:...._....._...................................................................................:............................
OTHER $0
........................................................................................................:..........................................................
TOTAL REPLACEMENT COST ................... . . ............... ........................................................................
Depreciation
......................_._......... ..... .................. _. ....... ..... . .. .......__._... . .....__..... .._ ...... ......................
.. .........- - ..............
Physical Curable
...............h......................................................,.... ...:..........................................................................::................._........ ..,........... -......:............. .............
Physical incurable $0 : 0%
....:.........:..........................................................................:...............
......................................................................
Functional ' 0%
...........................Externs............................. --..................................:............................................................... ............................................................
096
-----------..........................................................................::.............................. ................ ......................
TOTAL DEPRECIATION $0
DEPRECIATED BUILDING COST $99,797
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- --------------
ESS DEFICIENT WORK ! 70 000 _______________
--- - ---- ----- - - - - - -- - - - - - ------ ---------
REPLACEMENT BUILDING COST 529,79- _____________
-------- ------------ ------------ -=-----'- --- -------- ----------------------=--------------------------------------- -
LESS DEFICIENT WORK ` i = Total
------- ----------------------------'- ii -------------------------------------`.--------------------------=--------------
Less Electrical SF 3,900 $6,000
---- --- - ------- - ----------------------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------------------- --
Less Plumbing SF 3,900 $9,000
---- --- ----------------- - ---- --------=- - - --------=- --- ---------- - =----- -------- ----------=-$- --- - -
Less Concrete Slab SF: 3,900 16,000
Eii-------- - -- - -- - -------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------`-- - ------ -
Less Finish Work & Doors; 3,900 10,000
- ---------=--------------------=----------------------=--------------=-----------=--$10,-00
-a-- 30 000
Less Mezzrnne Office SF 1,500 _
---- ------ - ----------; $70,000
TOTAL DEFICIENT WORK
COST APPROACH Page 93
COST APPROACH SUMMARY
14 Franklin Street
DEPRECIATED BUILDING_ COST i $99,797
LESS DEFICIENT WORK 70 000
REPLACEMENT BUILDING COST $29,797
Land Value $150,000
I
VALUATION, COST APPROACH $179,797 ti
j I
The indicated value for the subject property located at 14 Franklin Street by the cost
approach is $179,797, which can now be rounded to $180,000
RECONCILIATION Page 94
Final Reconciliation
Reconciliation is the analysis of alternative conclusions to arrive at a final value
estimate. Preparation of the reconciliation requires a review of the appraisal to ensure that
the analytical techniques and logic followed are valid, realistic and consistent.
Reconciliation is the process of coordinating and integrating related facts to form a
unified conclusion. An orderly connection of interdependent elements is a prerequisite of
proper reconciliation. This requires a re-examination of specified data, procedures, and
techniques within the framework of approaches and to derive preliminary estimates. Each
approach included in the preceding sections of this report is considered a recognized
appraisal technique. The estimates derived are primarily based on available market data
and the prevailing economic climate and strengthened by refinement through the applicable
approaches.
The rationale underlying each of these approaches and the manner in which these
value indicators were arrived at, have been covered in detail in the body of the report. It is
not necessary to reiterate here particular details which have already been analyzed in
depth, but it is proper to re-examine the quantity and quality of the data upon which each of
the above value estimates is based. This procedure is necessary in order to formulate a
logical and accurate estimate of the market value.
Propertv Identification
The subject properties are comprised of five separate and distinct parcels of land.
Four of the properties abut one another along Franklin Street and the North River. The fifth
lot is a landlocked parcel located off of North Street, but with frontage along the North River.
The subjects' street addresses are 14, 16, 18 and 20 Rear Franklin Street and 70A North
Street Salem, Massachusetts. The Salem assessors refer to them as Map 26 Lots 403, 402,
401 ,400 and 423 respectively. The properties on Franklin Street are in a business zone
(135), while the lot off of North Street is zoned industrial. The neighborhood has good access
to Route 128 by means of Route 114 (North Street).
RECONCILIATION Page 95
Description of Assi nment
The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the "as is" fee simple market value of the
subject properties. The intended use of this appraisal is to provide information to the City of
Salem's Planning Department with respect to the subjects' market value and to assist in
forming management decisions regarding the potential purchase of the properties.
All real property associated with the property rights appraised are included in this
valuation. In the case of the subject properties, this specifically involves a valuation of tNe
fee simple estate.
Market Summa
Based on an analysis of the region economy, it appears that the economy is in a
modest recovery with declines in unemployment and a positive absorption in both the
residential and commercial markets. Many observers agree. The state's diverse economic
base, lead by continued growth in wholesale and retail trade and services, should positively
impact the economy and set the stage for renewed, albeit modest, expansion. This appears
to be now underway.
The subject properties have good access from Route 128 by means of Route 114
(North Street) and are located in an area of reasonably compatible land uses. The
neighborhood has a few buildings available but with no strongly motivated buyers. The
subject neighborhood exhibits modest characteristics for commercial or retail use.
Neighborhood characteristics are not expected to improve or decline significantly in the
near term.
RECONCILIATION Pa,ye 96
Highest and Best Use
With respect to the subject land, the maximally productive long term use were they
vacant would probably be retail or small office improvements with sufficient on-site parking
to meet local zoning requirements as well as industry standards. This scenario would be
achieved by combining 16, 18 and 20 Rear Franklin Street as they are held in common
ownership or by combining all of the lots on Franklin Street. Neither 18 Franklin Street or
20 Rear Franklin Street are viable developmental lots by themselves, as the first is to small
and the second is landlocked -without one of the other lots held in common ownership.
Based on the near downtown location and proximity to city and county offices, it
would appear that either small office or retail use offers the best long term prospects for the
subject sites, assuming them to be vacant. Due to the impaired nature of the local real
estate market, however, this plan could not be realized immediately.
Lacking major tenant commitments or expansion in demand for commercial land, in
fact, it is doubtful that such development would be possible within the short term future.
Interim use would probably indicate continuation of an unimproved lot capitalizing on the
grandfathered industrial uses. This is confirmed by the fact that several sites in the subject
neighborhood are currently being utilized for grandfathered industrial uses or just sitting
empty. No new development is occurring in the subject neighborhood.
The lot at 70A North Street offers / represents a whole different set of circumstances.
This is a landlocked parcel with no chance of incorporating it with an abutting parcel of
privately owned land and no utilities are available to the site. Therefore the highest and
best use of this site would be for passive recreational use or as an addition by a nearby
landlord as an "assemblage". In fact this is exactly what happened recently to this land. It
was purchased by a nearby property owner to expand his local operation. In circumstances
such as this it is not uncommon for the purchaser to pay somewhat of a premium.
RECONCILIATION Pale 97
Valuation Analvsis
Based on the stated purpose of this report, the property rights appraised, and the
characteristics of the subject properties the cost approach and sales comparison approach
were utilized to estimate the market value of the subject properties. These approaches have
provided the following value indications:
The sales comparison approach was based upon sales of similar properties in the
region. This approach is a direct measure of the buying and selling activities of the loc"'al
real estate market. This approach to value also reflects the recent market trends of
motivated, prudent and knowledgeable buyers in this specific real estate market. The
comparable sales selected and utilized were considered the best available in this particular
market. No sale was knowingly omitted that would have an affect on the final value.
The values indicated here were based on a comparison of ten (10) comparable
properties within an economically similar area. Given the number of comparable sales
utilized this approach is considered to have produced a judicial indication of the value of the
subject properties land.
The Cost Approach is as market oriented as the other two approaches. It uses local
market data for the land value estimate in terms of comparable vacant land sales and
building cost data estimated by a recognized national cost service. The approach is
generally applicable only when the improvements are fairly new and there is not a
significant amount of accrued obsolescence to address.
RECONCILIATION Page 98
The Income Capitalization Approach is generally the preferred technique for
appraising income-producing properties because it most closely reflects the investment
rationale and strategies of typical investor buyers. The Income Approach is a valuation
technique which takes into consideration both the income potential for the property and a
typical rate of return on the owner's investment in the development.
The inherent disadvantage of the income capitalization approach, in this appraisal, is
the lack of applicability. Based upon the actual buyers / sellers of comparable sales it is
apparent that the market for comparable properties is fueled by owner users as opposed"o
investors. The motivation of the owner occupant, unlike the investor, is not necessarily
affected by income and return requirements. The owner occupant purchaser foregoes some
of the immediate financial benefits for a location for his or her business.
The aforementioned individual value conclusions were derived through the
application of acceptable appraisal principles and concepts. The differences in these
estimates were created by variations in the quality and quantity of data available for analysis
and are not indicative of basic conflicts. These indicators are considered to fall within a
reasonable range of each other considering what values they are representing.
RECONCILIATION Page 99
Conclusion
Based on the analyses described in the accompanying report, it is my opinion that
the market value of the fee simple interest in the properties, "as is" as of June 10, 1996,
were as follows:
70A North Street
Twenty Five Thousand Dollars
$25,000
14 Franklin Street
One Hundred and Eighty Thousand Dollars
$180,000
16, 18 and 20 Rear Franklin Street
Five Hundred and Ten Thousand Dollars
$510,000
The value estimate presented is subject to the assumptions and limiting conditions
included in the introduction of this report.
ADDENDA Page 100
CERTIFICATION
&
I, John V. Phelan III, hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief:
-The statements of fact, opinions, and conclusions contained in this report are true and correct.
-The reported analysis, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting
conditions, and are my personal unbiased professional analysis, opinions and conclusions. I have complied
with the Appraisal Standards of the Appraisal Institute in conducting the research, analysis and in
formulating the value conclusion contained in this report.
-1 have made a personal inspection of the majority of the property that is the subject of this report.
R
-No one other than the undersigned. John V. Phelan III, prepared the analysis, opinions, and conclusions
concerning the real estate that are set fourth in this appraisal report, and / or provided significant
professional assistance.
-1 have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no
personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved.
-My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that
favors the cause of the client, the amount of value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result or the
occurrence of a subsequent event.
-My analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity
with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice of the Appraisal Institute. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal
Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives.
-Based upon the inspections of the property, and the analysis and investigation undertaken, it is the
appraiser's expressed opinion that the market value of the fee simple interest in the properties representative
of market conditions on June 10, 1996, to be:
70A North Street
Twenty Five Thousand Dollars
$25,000
14 Franklin Street
One Hundred and Eighty Thousand Dollars
$180,000
16, 18 and 20 Rear Franklin Street
Five Hundred and Ten Thousand Dollars
$510,000
John V. Phelan III ' Datt
Phelan Realty Advisors Massachusetts Certified General Real Estate Appraiser#729
JOHN V. PHELAN III
PHELAN REALTY ADVISORS
10 First Avenue Suite 31 Centennial Industrial Park Peabody, MA. 01960
(508) 977-7899
Mamscott,
X) 977-7890
75 Banks Road, MA 01 907 - 2029
(617) 599-7899
EDUCATION-GENERAL
- St. John's Preparatory School; Danvers, MA. 1970
- Holy Cross College; Worcester, MA.- 1974 - BA Philosophy/Biology
- Columbia University; New York, NY- 1975 - Graduate Science Work
EDUCATION-REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL
Courses completed through nationally recognized organizations include:
Applied Residential Property Valuation
Appraising Contaminated Properties
Appraising the Single Family Residence
Assessment Administration, Law Procedures, and Valuation
Basic Valuation Procedures
Capitalization Theory and Techniques, Part A and Part B
Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation
FHLBB Memorandum R-41 C
Income Property Appraisal
Real Estate Appraisal Principles
Real Estate Appraisal Report Writing-A Case Study
Report Writing and Valuation Analysis
Small Income Property Appraising
Standards of Professional Practice, Part A and Part B
The Appraisal of Land and Land Restrictions
The Appraiser's Complete Review
Understanding Limited Appraisals - General
Computer literate in several Spreadsheet and Word Processing Programs,
Discounted Cash Flow Analysis and Replacement Cost/Valuation Analysis.
TEACHING EXPERIENCE:
- Lynn School System - Lynn, Ma. 1976 - Permanent Substitute Teacher
- North Shore Regional Vocational - Beverly, MA, 1977 - Trades Related
-Commonwealth of Mass. - Certified teacher for Real Estate Appraisal
CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE:
- Condominium Construction, Vail, Colorado, 1978
- Journeyman Member of Carpenters Local #595, 1979-1981
- Building Development and Rehabilitation, 1979 to present
REAL ESTATE EXPERIENCE:
- Licensed Massachusetts Real Estate Broker, 1979 to present
- Developed, owned, and managed rental property, 1980 to present
- Registered U.S.A. Housing and Urban Development Broker, 1981 to present
- Independent Fee Appraiser, 1980 to 1982
- Owned and operated Phelan Real Estate &Appraisal, 1982-1983
- Carlson Appraisal Services lnc.,Salem, Ma. Senior Fee Appraiser, 1983 to 1992
- Phelan Certified Appraisal Services, Danvers, Ma. Chief Appraiser, 1992 to 1996
- Phelan Realty Advisors, Peabody, Ma. Senior Advisor, 1996 to present
LICENSES & CERTIFICATION:
- Commonwealth of Mass. - Certified General Real Estate Appraiser#729
- Commonwealth of Mass. - Licensed Real Estate Broker
- Commonwealth of Mass. - Certified teacher for Real Estate Appraisal
- American Society of Building and Construction Inspectors
Certified Building Inspector (C.B.I.)
- Massachusetts State Building Code Commission- Class "A" Field Concrete
Inspection Technician
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS:
-Appraisal Institute (M.A.I. Candidate)
-American Society of Building and Construction Inspectors
-Vice Chairman of the Town of Swampscott's Planning Board
- Member of the Town of Swampscott's Design Selection Committee
- Member of the Town of Swampscott's Building Code Board of Appeals
- Previously Zoning Board of Appeals Member for the Town of Swampscott
Partial List of Banking and Institutional Clients:
-Andover Bank - Great Atlantic Mortgage Co.
- Baybank/ Harvard Trust - Heritage Co.-operative Bank
- Beverly National Bank - John Hancock Home Mtg. Co.
- Boston Five - Lawrence Savings Bank
- Boston Gas Company - Massachusetts Probate Court
- Cambridge Savings Bank - Northeastern Mortgage Co.
-Century North Shore Bank - Olympic Bank& Trust
-Commercial Union Insurance Co. - Provident Financial Services
- Commonwealth Mortgage Co. - RECOLL Management Corporation
- Danvers Savings Bank - Salem Five Cents Savings
- Eastern Bank - Shawmut Bank N.A.
- Family Mutual Bank - Shore Bank and Trust Co.
- Farragut Mortgage Co. - Spectrum Financial Services
- Fleet/Northstar - U.S. Small Business Administration
- Georgetown Savings Bank -Warren Five Cents Savings
Fee appraising utilizing both FNMA/FHLMC forms and the narrative format
for private individuals, government agencies, corporations, banks, insurance
companies and lawyers. Appraisals for the purpose of mortgage loans, Eminent
Domain, estates, market analysis, tax abatement, income tax, divorce, fire loss,
employment transfers, bank foreclosures, and government grants; on
restricted/unrestricted and developable/undevelopable land; residential,
commercial, industrial and investment real estate; as well as waterfront
properties with Chapter 91 licenses
Qualified to render expert court testimony by
Massachusetts' Probate and Superior Courts
E-K 11474 PIG ao
DEED 0�10/92 1i:05 Inst 1M
Jl
WILLIAM M. I,INSKEy of 16 Honeysuckle Road, Hamilton, Essex
County, Massachusetts for consideration paid and in full con-
sideration of ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND AND 00/100
($150,000) DOLLARS grants to CRAIG G. BURNHAM, TRUSTEE OF THE
FRANKLIN STREET REALTY TRUST UNDER DECLARATION OF TRUST DATED
SEPTEMBER 9, 1992 recorded herewith of 26 Dearborn Street, Salem,
Essex County, Massachusetts with quitclaim covenants the land in
Salem situated on the Easterly side of Franklin Street, and
bounded and described as follows:
WESTERLY: by Franklin Street seventy-eight and twenty-eight
hundredths (78.28) feet;
NORTHEASTERLY: by Lot B on plan hereinafter referred to on two
Courses, forty-five (45) feet and two hundred
fifty-three and nineteen hundredths (263.19) feet
respectively;
SOUTHEASTERLY: by the North River, fifty (60) feet; and
SOUTHWESTERLY: by land now or formerly of George H. Griswold,
Inc., two hundred sixty-six and forty-six
hundredths (266.46) feet.
Containing 21,500 square feet and being shown as Lot "A" on plan
of "Land of James J. Anketell. Franklin Street, Salem, Jan.
w 1959", recorded with Essex South District Registry of Deeds, Book
4637, Page 244.
For Grantor's title see deed from Nsumkeag Trust Company dated
w August 16, 1979 recorded in the Essex South District Registry of
z Deeds at Book 6622. Page 683.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have set their hands and
seals this 9th day of September. 1992.
a
WS liaa M. Linskey
y
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
a
ESSEX, so September 9, 1992
Then personally appeared the above.-named William M. Linskey
and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be his free act and
w deed, before me,
o r N Notary u lic
My Co ssion expires:—./ A /+�9
MICHAEL J. ESCHELSACHER
O NOTARY PUBLIC
rago idY pp:m isWn ExWes July 9611"7,
t
s s,
10/w/95 12910 Inst 356
_ Ek 13256 PG 279
' RELEASE DEED
!? �� The undersigned PHYLLIS M. XURLIIND, formerly known ae PUYLLIS S.
v MyESB , Ancillary Administratrix and Executrix of the Will of
i Benjamin H. Myers dated August 9, 1972, 9 Inland Avenue, 1508,
Miami Beach, Florida, under ticense to sell, Essex Probate No. 95P-
f Pm CONSIDERATION of Thirty Thousand and no/100 ($20,000.00)
Dollars
i ? PAID, RELEASES TO, BURNHAM ASSOCIATES, INC.,
26 Dearborn Street, Salem, MA
1f= RELEASE COVEMANT8 .
} The land With any buildings thereon and further described on
MMZBIT A attached hereto and expressly made a part hereof and h
incorporated herein by reference.
ADDREss OF URANTED PREMISESt
70A North Street, Salem, Massachusetts
WITNESS our hands and seals this 19th day of July, 1995
:1
Witngaa to a P y a .xnrland
/ f/k/a Phyllis S. Myers
STATE OF FLMDA 7
DADE, 60. July 1 9M, 1995
Then personally appeared the above-named Phyllis M. Kurland i
formerly known as Phyllis S. Myers, Executrix, and acknowledged
the foregoing instrument to be her free act nd deed, before me
i
(� otary,$ub o .�
C�C9c/gfat lesion axpirea
x o. 00'!Nw- eANOweKVMR '.
Y,e.�000tl1e�
J
e „
{
i}
S
i;
}
rr[ y L +y �y LoeaNO.774492
6K 13256 Fly 280 ADVANTAGE MORTW
EMBIT A. from MICHAELK.COL
The following description is part of an instrument
alienatinq land in which the grantor is Phyllis X. Kurland, io�ADVANTAOE MOM
formerly known as Phyllis S. Myers, Ancillary Administratrix and
Ezecutrlx, and the grantee is Burnham Asatwiates, Inc. dated OCTORER2&U
The land in Sales bounded and described as lollowmt reooededwlth ESBEX
QOOK ISI.=
North 50e 30' 31- last by State Highway (bridge/tunnel) of the Keteeil6 PA66 3`
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 47.52 feet, thancet Beew
Southeastarly by the North River about 150 feet, thencet whki
Loth
Southventerly by land now or formerly of the Boston Maine
Railroad Corp. 6o rest, thencat
North 35e 33' 24- West by North Street and the land taken by the Ptsper4Addrsse SSW
of Massachusetts 142 feet to the point of beginning.
Be all measurements more or less and containing 8,000 square feet EXECLUED AND
sore or less, meaning and intending to convey all the land which
may be owned by the grantors under the North River adjacent ADVANTAGE HORTGA
thereto. See, Essex County Registry of Deeds (South) Book 3775, �•
page 127, for Massachusetts Department of Public Works, North _
atreat Land Taking.
S
Additional title referencest h�e�
1. Deed of David P. Sharpe to Amelia Myers dated December 23, Ptddent&Treaava
1927, recorded with Essex South Registry of Deeds, Book
2752, Page 64.
2. Essex Probate No. 226726, Estate of Amelia Myers.
3. Neoax Probate No. 234043, Estate of Simon Xyers.
I
I
4. See plan recorded with Essex South Registry of Deeds, Plan
Book $2, Plan 20B entitled -Land of David P. Sharpe, Salsa,Xmas.-, Barnstable I a
dated December 1927, Thomas A. Appleton, C.E.
Said conveyance is made without warranty or any covenant as tot r
A. Any compliance with or absence of condition on the
property which could give rise to a lien under General
Lawm Chapter 21Et seelgado4
B. Compliance with or fitness for any particular use under
the Sales Zoning ordinance or any State, Federal,
County or Municipal code, regulation, statute or by-law
C. Existence of any right of way or other legal access to
said land.
i
i
e'
r
ti.,
P�-cE 229
DEED
I, CHARLES K. FERRIS, a tenant in common,
of Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts
for nominal consideration paid,
n
grant to EDWARD FERRIS of 21 Naples Road, Salem, Essex County,
0) Massachusetts
on
With quitclaim covenants my undivided one-half interest in and to
0
a certain parcel of land situated off Franklin Street in said
EE2 City of Salem which is more particularly bounded and described as
follows:
y E _
�Q Beginning at a point at land of City of Salem, Park Department, C-1
4jra and land of Ferris thence running Southerly by land of said land
y y of Ferris thirty-four and 73/100 (34.73) feet; thence turning and
y o running Easterly by land of George H. Griswold seventeen and D
0 0 15/100 (17.15) feet; thence running Northeasterly one and 62/100
c0: (1.62) feet by said land of Griswold; thence running Southeaster-
ly by said land of Griswold thirty-seven and 65/100 feet (37.65)
e feet; thence turning more Southeasterly by said land of Griswold
m y two hundred thirty-five and 17/100 (235.17) feet; thence running
2 Northeasterly by the North River fifty-eight and 84/100 (58.84)
feet; thence running Northwesterly on the top of banking of the
North River one hundred forty-three and 85/100 (143.85) feet;
thence running more Northwesterly by the North River about one
�•• hundred (100) feet; thence turning and running Southwesterly by e
y y land of the City of Salem, Park Department, about two hundred co c
seventy-seven (277) feet to the point of beginning. The above r
described parcel being shown on a plan entitled "Land of City of
$4W Salem, Franklin Street, Salem, Mass. Scale 1 in - 40 ft. June,
0.0 1952, Edwin T. Brudzynski, Registered Surveyor." Said lot con-
o O tains 26,000 square feet of land more or less all as shown on a
plan above referred to.
0 10
woo
4)V For my title see deed from Charles K. Ferris and Elizabeth F.
1010 Ferris, husband and wife, to Charles K. Ferris and Elizabeth F.
¢4 Ferris, in equal shares as tenants in common dated
ti G v- 30 1985 to be recorded herewith.
No Massachusetts Deed Excise Stamps are affixed to this deed
because none are required by law.
WITNESS my hand and seal this 30 day of ti G y 1985.
K � z
C arles K. Ferris
E00lan�,� ?ACE 228
WITNESS my hand and seal this -70 day of A/d v
1985.
. ��7�'�PitiLcoJ
TizabTF. Ferris
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SS. &0f/. 30, 1985
Then personally appeared the above-named Elizabeth F. Ferris
and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be her free act and
deed, before me,
Notary Public c� ;
My commission expires: 3 ? r +s -
�o'fit
` BouSN',2 PAGE 215
DEED
I, ELIZABETH F. FERRIS, a tenant in common,
of Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts
for nominal consideration paid,
o grant to EDWARD FERRIS of 21 Naples Road, Salem, Essex County,
o Massachusetts , as he is Trustee of Ferris Trust dated
c 3 O . 1985 to be recorded herewith
rn
c with quitclaim covenants my undivided one-half interest in and to
e the land in said Salem situate on the Easterly side of Franklin m
v Street and bounded and described as follows: o
m
w Beginning at the Northeasterly corner thereof on Franklin Street
at other land of Charles K. Ferris et ux, thence running South- ar
m rA westerly by Franklin Street, Seventy-eight and twenty-eight D
y, hundredths (78.28) feet to a point at other land of James J.
toa Anketell, shown as Lot A on a plan of land hereinafter referred r
c 0 to; thence running Southeasterly by said Lot A Forty-five (45)
.. feet to a point; thence running Southerly by said Lot A, Two
x 0 hundred fifty-three and nineteen hundredths (253.19) feet to the
A North River; thence running Northeasterly by said North River,
Ow z Twenty-four and seventy-four hundredths (24.74) feet to a point;
thence running Southeasterly by said North River, Five and thir- qb
m A teen hundredths (5.13) feet to a point; thence running Northeast- c
erly again by said North River, Thirty-five and fifty hundredths CO
(35.50) feet to other land of Charles K. Ferris et ux; thence
y.. running Northwesterly by said land of Ferris, Two hundred
we thirty-five and seventeen hundredths (235.17) feet to a point;
E c thence running Northerly by said land of Ferris, Thirty-seven and
w w sixty-five hundredths (37.65) feet to a point; thence running
001 westerly by said land of Ferris, One and sixty-two hundredths
,w,w (1.62) feet to a point; thence running Northwesterly by said land
00 of Ferris, Sixty-two and sixty-five hundredths (62.65) feet to
La m Franklin Street and point of beginning.
w w Containing 21,500 square feet more or less and being shown as Lot
1010 B on Plan of Land of James J. Anketell, Salem, Mass. Jan. 1959,
a Edwin T. Brudzynski, Surveyor, recorded with deed to Charles K.
Ferris and Elizabeth F. Ferris, as husband and wife, as tenants
by the entirety, from James J. Anketell dated December 31, 1958
and recorded in Essex South Registry of Deeds in Book 4537, Page
245.
For my title see deed from Charles K. Ferris and Elizabeth F.
Ferris, husband and wife as tenants by the entirety to Charles K.
Ferris and Elizabeth F. Ferris, in equal shares as tenants in
common dated NOV , =0 1985 to be recorded herewith.
z
900�sn�%� PAGE 2�Fi
No Massachusetts Deed Excise Stamps are affixed to this deed
because none are required by law. l
WITNESS my hand and seal this'130 day of ?c.py
1985.
E iza a F. Ferris
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX , SS.
4/0v. ao, 1985
Then personally appeared the above—named Elizabeth F. Ferris
and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be her free act
deed, before me, * •
QQ i
1p
Notary public i
'T.
My commission expires:
n� 80at.80, PACE 237
ff
DEED
I, CHARLES K. FERRIS, a tenant in common,
Of Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts
for nominal consideration paid,
grant to EDWARD FERRIS of 21 Naples Road, Salem, Essex County,
a+ Massachusetts
�+o
O h
cwith quitclaim covenants my undivided one-half interest in and to
e the following described real estate:
m� o_
A parcel of land with the buildings thereon situated on Franklin c�
too Street in said Salem bounded and described as follows:
4J o westerly by said Franklin Street on two courses, 22 feet more or D
y
m less and 49.6 feet more or less respectively; Northeasterly by 4,�',� land of the City of Salem 69 feet more or less respectively; J ``
y m Easterly by land of the City of Salem, 34.5 feet more or less;
c a and Southerly by land now or formerly of Harmon,
-. 45.5 feet more
or less.
go
x v
0.c.r
Meaning and intending to convey hereby the premises described in
qk
u,Z deed of Elizabeth M. Gamble to A. Sidney Galper, dated May 6,
1940 and recorded in Essex South District Registry of Deeds, Book
co w 3215, Page 377 and by the deed of the City of Salem dated April Co
30, 1948 and recorded in the Essex South District Registry of o0
•• Deeds, Book 3603, Page 474. Co
G1 W
Being the same premises described in the deed of A. Sidney Galper
w ro to Charles A. Symmes and Abbie M. Symmes, dated June 16, 1948,
o.o+ and recorded in the Essex South District Regi 3539, Page 240. stry of Deeds, Book
w w - i
0 o The same premises are shown
tl000 of Boundaries b upon
the plan entitled, "Adjustment
V Y the City of Salem and A. Sidney Galper, Salem,
14 N Massachusetts, Scale 1 in. - 20 ft.,
10 October, 1941, Thomas A.
10 Appleton, C.E.•
Ca
For my title see deed from Charles K. Ferris and Elizabeth F.
Ferris, husband and wife as tenants b t
Ferris and Elizabeth F. Y the entirety s Charles iK.
common dated A,"V. Ferris, in equal shares a tenants in
3 v 1985 to be recorded herewith.
No Massachusetts Deed Excise Stamps are affixed to this deed
because none are required by law.
}