46-52 GREENLAWN AVENUE - ZBA (2) Lots 46-52 Greenlawn Ave. H-1
Charles Brett
DATE OF HEARING
PETITIONER11;7 /LO�A��
LOCATION
MOTION: TO GRANT SECOND `)
TO DENY SECOND
TO RE-HEAR SECOND
LEAVE TO WITHDRAW SECOND
TO CONTINUE SECOND
ROLL CALL PRESENT GRANT DENY WITHDRAW RE-HEAR CONTINUE
RICHARD BENCAL
JAMES FLEMING
RBW*R=,59Z-I--NSK-L-
JOHN NUTTING
.€RST
ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
Y_9�
ARTHUR LABRECQUE
CONDITIONS:
i
3 zz
a22 e �
— —
APPEAL CASE NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CCU of Sttlem, cfflttssadjuse##s
�r. Pourb of ' p"ettl
TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS:
The Undersigned represent that he is awe the ownerh of a certain parcel of land located
atA-.; 4 ,Gree1114wr} ,4yen14e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .L*Xzet4 Zoning District.x.l. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : and said parcel is affected by Section(5)VIII .B-3,VIA. . . .
of the Massachusetts State Building Code. and/or Salem zoning ordinance.
Plans describing the work proposed, have been submitted to the Inspector of Buildings in
accordance with Section IX A. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Q, ,i Direct Appeal
a'� N
0 - R
g
CC � o
d
C3 4
ra .-A ? �
w.a
Z � Y
.ct m r
� v
The Application for Permit was denied by the Inspector of Buildings for the following
reasons:
Direct Appeal
The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to vary the terms of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance and/or the Building Code and order the Inspector of Buildings to
approve the application fee permit to build as filed, as the enforcement of said
Zoning By-Laws and Building Code would involve practical difficulty or unnecessary
hardship to the Undersigned and relief may be granted without substantially dero-
gating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code for
the following reasons:
Please see Continuation Sheet attached hereto.
"HARLES BRErT, TRUSTEE OF THE
Owner. . .AWZT. FAMVX .P>iALTX .V3VST . . . . . . . . . . .
Address.139 ,Holten street,, .44. Qjq3
Telephone. .(5.0L11). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Petitioner. . . . , same , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Date. eepruarY. 7 ,V9g9 . . . . Telep n . . . .i . . . . . . . . . .
By. . . . . . � . . . . . . . . . .
J HN G. VAL IZ S, SQ.
Three copies of the application must be filed wit a Secretary of the Board of
Appeals with a check, for advertising in the amoun of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
four weeks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Check payable to The
Evening News.
Continuation Sheet
The Petitioner has purchased the seven small vacant lots shown as
Lots 46, 47 , 48 , 49, 50, 51 , and 52 on a plan dated October , 1925,
recorded In Plan Book 55, Plan 17 , a copy of which is attached hereto,
and Intends to combine them Into four larger lots , Lots 1-4 as shown on
the new plan flied herewith being dated January 28 , 1989. All lots would
be used as single-family house lots. Petitioner ' s proposed combination
would create lots with 94 . 26 feet of frontage, each with an average area
of about 8 , 500 square feet . Because of the size and shape of
Petitioner ' s parcel , a condition especially affecting his land but not
generally affecting other lands In the same district , Petitioner ' s
proposed combination would create lots of less than 15,000 square feet .
Petitioner notes that the parcel of land Involved Is part of an old
subdivision where the great majority of existing dwelling lots are In the
5 , 000 to 7, 000 square foot range, well under the size of Petitioner ' s
proposed lots . These existing lots containing mostly single-family
houses. The Petitioner ' s plan would result In single-family homes on
four lots substantially larger than most lots existing In the area .
Therefore, Petitioner ' s proposed four lots would not substantially
derogate from the Intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance or otherwise
be detrimental to the public good . To Implement his plans and avoid the
necessary hardship, which literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance
would create, Petitioner seeks a variance of the zoning ordinance from
section VIII B . 3 as to division of land and from section VI A as to lot
area .
Petitioner refers the Board to two (2) prior variances granted by
It for this property . Copies of those variances are attached hereto and
Incorporated herein by reference. Due to the non-exercise of the rights
authorized by those variances within one year of their granting , those
rights have lapsed . Petitioner respectfully suggests that because the
current configuration of these lots and the conditions affecting these
lots have not changed since the granting of the prior variances, approval
of new variances would be consistent with the Board ' s previous decisions .
> 3
(gi#g of Salem, I ttcl}xz$e f Ener
Z 11
- z!
PuarD of 4Pu1 '82 MAR 17 A10 :49
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EDWARD MORGANI CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR LOTS 46-52 GREENLAWN AVENUE SALEM 11ASS
A hearing on this Petition was held on March 10, 1982 with the following !.
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Hacker, LaBrecque,
Piemonte and :Feeherry. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and
others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
This property is currently the subject of a prior variance dated October 14,
1981. However, the Petitioner has requested a new variance for Lots 46-52 Greenlawn
Avenue to divide the property into four lots as shown on the plan dated December 31,
1981, bubmitted to the Board. A variance is requird because the lots to
be created as shown on the plan submitted to the Board will all be non_conforming.
The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the
public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings
of fact:
1. The lots in the surrounding area are similar in size to those
which Petitioner wishes to create.
2. No substantive opposition was raised to petitioner's plan by
neighbors.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1. The property in question is unique because of its peculiar
configuration and because of the ledge at the site and the
manner in which the property slopes up from Greenlawn Avenue.
In addition, the present configuration of the lots imposes a
hardship on the petitioner by restricting his development
of these lots in a manner which is consistent with the sur-
rounding area.
2. The conditions described above especially affect the land in
question but do not generally affect the zoning district in
which the land is located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question,
but not the zoning district generally cause special financial
hardship to the Petitioner.
^ 7 t
DECISION - March 10, 1982 - ED14ARD MORGANI
Page 2 '82 MAR 17 A10 :49
4. The desired variance may be grantedwithout sbb1�Y C! IR?f ;ICE
tantial
�
1 :'_, 0=
detriment to the public good. ti , .,;
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted 4-1 in favor of
approving the grant of the requested relief (Mr. Piemonte voted
"present"). The Board grants a variance to the Petitioner on
the following terms and conditions. . !
1. Petitioner may combine Lots 46-52 Greenlawn Avenue into
four single family lots as shown on the plan submitted to
the Board.
2. This variance is conditioned upon the approval of the
Petitioner's plan by the Planning Board and any conditions
imposed upon Petitioner by the Planning Board shall
be incorporated into this decision.
3. Petitioner shall submit all plans to the City Engineer
who may then review these plans to determine whether they
adequately deal with drainage at the site. The City Engineer
shall, in his sole discretion, modify such plans as they
relate to drainage if he deems that to be necessary.
ZM. Feed r
APPEAL FA'_'i i TSi3 i:6 i:i::. .....'. SSiAu C= .':?G_ PLt7 :i,;IF T= SF'T:33 17 CF T. LiASS.
2u MIS A. IE.. '!HE O.tiE OF FILITiG
CF THi3 uG u.f., lii -..= aT'i -
P.�:!c:a,i l0 i;:.:_ •,::.; t ^> >1.•. 11. THE ...... .:':i.' __ f-F"'IT
T.
OR THAT. IF Si"'.: .,.. ,.t h''.'. iii:S t.... ::L-E. CR U"
REC,, Q M TEE '.',"'Tit L3S .. „_.::;,8i :. J : -:_:'Eo �.i..... r.l_ i ..t Lr THE C71NEm.
OF RECORD OR IS &EC'Cu0 AND Q.0 Oi: T:-.E Cti is Ei2'S CEi!iiitC TE OF TITLE. -
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
�It 1 0{ 'Sale tt, J15a56ttL 6ZtjS E r E t V E D
'p si Poxrbof tAppral 081 OCT 19 P4 :21
S
J Y
JJO1NINf��
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EDWARD MORGANI CITY CLEPK'S OFFICE
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR LOTS 46-52 GREENLAWN AVENUE SALEM H A.SS
A hearing on this Petition was held on October 14, 1981 with the
following Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Hacker,
Piemonte, Feeherry and Associate Member Lusinski. Notices of the hearing
were sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly
published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General
Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for Lots 46-52 Greenlawn Avenue
to combine the existing seven lots and then divide them into four new lots.
A variance is required because the lots to be created as shown on the plans
submitted to the Board will all be non-conforming.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented
at the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following
findings of fact:
1. The lots in the surrounding area are similar in size to
those which petitioner wishes to create.
2. No substantive opposition was raised to petitioner's plan by
neighbors.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1. The property in question is unique because of its peculiar configur-
ation and because of the ledge at the site and the manner in which the
property slopes up from Greenlawn Avenue. In addition, the
present configuration of the lots imposes a hardship on the
petitioner by restricting his development of these lots in a manner
which is consistent with the surrounding area.
2. The conditions described. above especially affect the land in question
but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the land
is located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question,
but not the zoning district generally cause special financial hardship
to the Petitioner.
4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good.
' f
DECISION - OCTOBER 14, 1981 - EDWARD MORGANI - PAGE TWO
'81 OCT 19 P 4 :21
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted ij favo>;�,,,\
of approving the grant of the requested relief. The Boar n' urFICE
a variance to the Petitioner on the following terms and con d e, fs;MP.SS
1. Petitioner may combine Lots 46-52 Greenlawn Avenue into four single
family house lots as shown on the plan submitted to the Board.
2. This variance is conditioned upon the approval of the petitioner's
plan by the Planning Board and any conditions imposed upon petitioner
by the Planning Board"I- be incorporated into this decision.
3. Petitioner shall submit all plans to the City Engineer who may then
review these plans to determine whether they adequately deal with
drainage at the site. The City Engineer shall, in his sole discretion,
modify such plans as they relate to drainage if he deems that to be
necessary.
Anth�ony�M. eeherry
APPEAL Fr,---'. ,'u
GERNAI L!; C SS.
_L : EU Cb;S ;rta
OF THIS [ L 1 Gi HE ^ _ - ^� -^TE Cr 'iLC:G
FDorn.l7 Iv -' ^ rEiF THE Cf / �.
GRANTED k il-0 S .:ACL r 1117 'n � � - � il' T r ^,1': E i .:n -
.L�, Ci :I A Z ;1:1T
FICATiO;J CF t HE Clif CUP"" i ,r s'D DAYS f' r .L i.:i'J r .r Y...
OR THAT, IF SUCH Aii APPEAL ;� Fc i .c 7! 1 li 1 "c� p
RECORDED IL i :c' S_JTH E c.
OF UW;' OR IS R3Clri nr Or DEE S !J„ C,�L o cE;; ?,c �w.
"ORDW A;,'&) MTED 08 THE OdiCER'S CERTIFIDkTE OF TITLE. �} fr'E GL'lGER
MA90 OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
AVE.
SPRINGSIDE
s 90-9
1060 'v . 121
�pSEM n 1�1
20 0 ..Z.9000 +�
0 1�$ 1949 `9os 122-
V
0 _ \\eI ..
8,84 6400 \\\ 5890
\o9 8 a 59jQ1�i `' /101
O 4
g3 ., ' SEN w�-- ----... � • ,,
000 o ao Vs
ASA 921360
a
G�.OJ • ;8991 11910
92
Oo — In9j3
501
051 \03 j0I, ,S tb�•s
w � IoO
2
jot
381 zIP. .
90 1 r . J e
'g6
s Q
09 O \16 Pc /
95
6419
� y�P I,5g5
6A
6
3 ,�9 PO atpe
I•
0
t
I ,I0
1
e
oo s e /JJ\6 90 i°°
O9
Aoao '
A
�O 29 ' •'• ��
{
al
t
.p,
'5N $° 80901 S.F.
'Alf - 0.19 Ac.
r
tp I'D
2
a�5 - 8366 S.F.
0.19 Ac.
OR
m
X595
j
3 16
ya•
8644 S.F.
0.20 Ac.
P
87184 6"O
S.F.
0.20 Ac.
3z.
I
91,7-e;
It
i (fitt7 ofttlPm, rttssttt��us::
'Boar3 of �Asr real 117
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES BRETT, TRUSTEE FOR VARIANCES
AT LOTS 46-52 GREENLAWN AVENUE (R-1)
A hearing on this petition was held May 17, 1989 with the following Board Members
present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal , Vice Chairman; John Nutting,
Secretary, and Associate Member LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem
Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, Trustee of the Brett Family Realty Trust, owners of the property, is
requesting variances to combine seven (7) lots into four (4) lots in this R-1 zone.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a findino of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings or structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning ordinance would involve
. substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner;
c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the ordinance.
The Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The lots in question have always been vacant.
2. The lots in the immediate area of the proposed plan all contain
more square footage than the proposed lots.
3. The proposed lots would not be in harmony with the surrounding area.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented,
the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject
property and not the district generally.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner;
3. Desirable relief can not be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
a�PP�f
t, I� OZ 14
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES BRETT, TR. FOR VARIANCES
AT LOTS 46-52 GREENLAWN AVENUE, SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted three (3) in favor, one (1 ) opposed
(Mr. Nutting) to the granting of the variances requested. The request is denied
due to the failure of the petitioner to obtain the required four (4) affirmative
votes.
DENIED
Achard A. Bencal , Vice Chairman
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Mass.
General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing
of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Mass. General Lays, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit
granted herein, shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certi-
fication of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and not appeal has been filed,
or that, if such an appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is
recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner
of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
V r ylfl v uw p�
0 0 co \ b
IOS-S 110
a+ c9
s'
Mgr - los -- ' _ u
-4,04 0-6 109, uo-s c / uo-
CAO oo`
v
a s t$ ✓ °
p 9 V
❑ u,
to
sZ m
IV
/ It O O u
C.
11-6 4A
\ v �
• O V
y a6o c \ .` (J fir,► 'o�
r,F 9 c N
}
r,
'4
,�\
(9ity of -jttlem, � assar4untfs-
k� 'Boarb of .Au}rettl
,.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES BRETT, TRUSTEE FOR VARIANCES
AT LOTS 46-52 GREENLAWN AVENUE (R-1)
A hearing on this petition was held May 17, 1989 with the following Board Members
present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal , Vice Chairman; John Nutting,
Secretary, and Associate Member LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem
Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, Trustee of the Brett Family Realty Trust, owners of the property, is
requesting variances to combine seven (7) lots into four (4) lots in this R-1 zone.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings or structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner:
c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the ordinance.
The Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The lots in question have always been vacant.
2. The lots in the immediate area of the proposed plan all contain
more square footage than the proposed lots.
3. The proposed lots would not be in harmony with the surrounding area.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented.
the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject
property and not the district generally.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner;
3. Desirable relief can not be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
50 OZ III
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES BRETT, TR. FOR VARIANCES
AT LOTS 46-52 GREENLAWN AVENUE. SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted three (3) in favor, one (1 ) opposed
(Mr. Nutting) to the granting of the variances requested. The request is denied
due to the failure of the petitioner to obtain the required four (4) affirmative
votes.
DENIED
Achard A. Bencal , Vice Chairman
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Mass.
General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing
of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Mass. General Laws Chapter 808 Section 11 th
ap o e Variance a lance or Special Permit
granted herein, shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certi-
fication of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and not appeal has been filed,
or that, if such an appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is
recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the nave of the owner
of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
1 '
Ctu of ttlem, ttssttt�juse##s
Pearb of Appeal
May 30, 1989
Notice is hereby given that as of May 26, 1989 the decision
of the Board of Appeal has been filed in the office of the
City Clerk to deny the petition of Charles Brett, Trustee
for Variances to divide 46-52 Greenlawn Avenue into four lots.
BOARD OF APPEAL
Brenda M. Sumrall
Clerk of the Board
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursurant to Section 17 of the Mass.
General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing
of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variances or Special Permit
granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision, bearing the certi-
fication of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed,
or that, if such an appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is
recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner
of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL
f1lit>� of ,$alrm, C4fttssar4unIfs
1. �Buttra of (�u ettl .:.c.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES BRETT, TRUSTEE FOR VARIANCES
AT LOTS 46-52 GREENLAWN AVENUE (R-1)
A hearing on this petition was held May 17, 1989 with the following Board Members
present: James Fleming, Chairman; Richard Bencal , Vice Chairman; John Nutting,
Secretary, and Associate Member LaBrecque. Notice of the hearing was sent to
abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem
Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner, Trustee of the Brett Family Realty Trust, owners of the property, is
requesting variances to combine seven (7) lots into four (4) lots in this R-1 zone.
The Variances which have been requested may be. granted upon a finding of the
Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings or structures in the same district;
b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner;
c. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the ordinance.
The Board of Appeal , after careful consideration of the evidence presented and
after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . The lots in question have always been vacant.
2. The lots in the immediate area of the proposed plan all contain
more square footage than the proposed lots.
3. The proposed lots would not be in harmony with the surrounding area.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented,
the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject
property and not the district generally.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would not involve
substantial hardship to the petitioner;
3. Desirable relief can not be granted without substantial detriment to
the public good or without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
�0 5Z Ido
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF CHARLES BRETT, TR. FOR VARIANCES
AT LOTS 46-52 GREENLAWN AVENUE, SALEM
page two
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted three (3) in favor, one (1 ) opposed
(Mr. Nutting) to the granting of the variances requested. The request is denied
due to the failure of the petitioner to obtain the required four (4) affirmative
votes.
DENIED
Tchard A. Bencal , Vice Chairman
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Mass.
General Laws, Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing
of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit
granted herein, shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certi-
fication of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and not appeal has been filed,
or that, if such an appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is
recorded in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name of the Omer
of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
----
------------
- CITY OF SALEM
t BOARD OF APPEAL
-`! c 745-9595 Eat. 381
Will hold a public hearing ibr all persons inter-
;ted in the petition submitted by Charles Brett
j Tr. for Variances to combine seven (7) lots into
i said hehearing to be held Wednesday,May 17) lots at Lots 46-52 Greenlawn Ave. , 1989
at 7:00 P.M., One Salem Green, 2nd floor. i
JAMES M. FLEMING, Chairman
- May 3,.10, 1989
r
'-— --- .. F SALEM. - -
BOARD OF APPEAL _
745-9595 Eat. 381
Will hold a public hearing for all persons inter-,
ested in the petition submitted by Charles Brett
Tr. for Variances to comlaw, Ave bine seven (7) lots into
four (4) loat Lots 46-52 Green Said hearing to be held Wednesday May 17(1989
7:00 P.M., One Salem Green
at , 2nd Fl i
JAMES M. FLEMING, Charman
May 3,10, 1989
CITY OF SALEM
BOARD OF APPEAL
- 745-9595 EAtf6 Ball persons inter-
ng Charles Brett
Will bold a public
submitted by q lots into
esled in the Pe
at Lots 46.52 Greenlawn Ave7 1989 _
Tr. for Variances to combine seven
four (4) lots . held d 2nd floor. .
at
id hearing
O�to eSMe WGFLEMINGaChairman
.JAMES M- - -
I May 3, 10, 1989 _ --
-- —
APPEAL CASE NO. . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ctv of "ittfew, 'Mttssadjusetts
TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS:
The Undersigned represent that he is ane the owner, of a certain parcel of land located
at . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lkrzet4 Zoning District.x.I . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : and said parcel is affected by Section(S)VIII B-3,VIA. . . .
of the Massachusetts State Building Code. and/or Salem Zoning Ordinance.
Plans describing the work proposed, have been submitted to the Inspector of Buildings in
accordance with Section IX A. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Direct Appeal
N
U) N
J 4
Q Ti
C. r 7 w
C
U
R
C) O
c�i r
ct 0 r
1 U
ca
The Application for Permit was denied by the Inspector of Buildings for the following
reasons:
Direct Appeal
The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to vary the terms of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance and/or the Building Code and order the Inspector of Buildings to
approve the application fee permit to build as filed, as the enforcement of said
Zoning By-Laws and Building Code would involve practical difficulty or unnecessary
hardship to the Undersigned and relief may be granted without substantially dero-
gating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code for
the following reasons:
Please see Continuation Sheet attached hereto.
CHARLES BRETT, TRUSTEE OF THE
Owner. . BP.E.T.T. F.AMjJX .0 iv4 .'> Q-9T . . . . . . . . . . .
Address.139„jjojten Street,, , ,rA„QJQ., 3
Telephone. .(soQ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Petitioner. . . . , Same . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Date. TebruarY. .21 .k9s9. . . . . TPthe
. . . pp
B ��;// . . . . . . . . . . . .
JOHN . �!'I
Three copies of the application must be filed wcretary of the Board of
Appeals with a check, for advertising in the amount of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
four weeks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Check payable to The
Evening News.
NO....................................
PETITION TO BOARD OF APPEALS
LOCATION
................................................................
PETITIONER..........................................
ADDRESS...............................................
................................................
CONDITIONS
........................... .....................................
........................ .......................................
................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
,,PETITION APPROVED.................... ❑
DENIED.........................
.................................................... 19.........
E
F'Y
m
Continuation Sheet
The Petitioner has purchased the seven small vacant lots shown as
Lots 46, 47 , 48, 49, 50, 51 , and 52 on a plan dated October , 1925,
recorded In Plan Book 55, Plan 17, a copy of which is attached hereto,
and Intends to combine them Into four larger lots, Lots 1-4 as shown on
the new plan filed herewith being dated January 28, 1989. All lots would
be used as single-family house lots . Petitioner 's proposed combination
would create lots with 94 . 26 feet of frontage, each with an average area
of about 8, 500 square feet . Because of the size and shape of
Petitioner ' s parcel , a condition especially affecting his land but not
generally affecting other lands In the same district , Petitioner ' s
proposed combination would create lots of less than 15,000 square feet .
Petitioner notes that the parcel of land Involved Is part of an old
subdivision where the great majority of existing dwelling lots are in the
5 , 000 to 7,000 square foot range, well under the size of Petitioner ' s
proposed lots. These existing lots containing mostly single-family
houses . The Petitioner ' s plan would result in single-family homes on
four lots substantially larger than most lots existing in the area .
Therefore, Petitioner ' s proposed four lots would not substantially
derogate from the Intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance or otherwise
be detrimental to the public good . To Implement his plans and avoid the
necessary hardship, which literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance
would create, Petitioner seeks a variance of the zoning ordinance from
section Vlll 8 . 3 as to division of land and from section VI A as to lot
area .
Petitioner refers the Board to two (2) prior variances granted by
It for this property. Copies of those variances are attached hereto and
Incorporated herein by reference. Due to the non-exercise of the rights
authorized by those variances within one year of their granting, those
rights have lapsed . Petitioner respectfully suggests that because the
current configuration of these lots and the conditions affecting these
lots have not changed since the granting of the prior variances, approval
of new variances would be consistent with the Board ' s previous decisions .
QjjjV of �$ttlPm, gazoarIjUg ettOR E r EN E n
: g
t puttrb. of �ppett1 '81 OCT 19 P4 :21
�J Y.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EDWARD MORGANI CITY CLERY%'S OFFICE
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR LOTS 46-52 GREENLAWN AVENUE SALEM HASS
A hearing on this Petition was held on October 14, 1981 with the
following Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Hacker,
Piemonte, Feeherry and Associate Member Lusinski. Notices of the hearing
were sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly
published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General
Laws Chapter 40A.
The Petitioner has requested a variance for Lots 46-52 Greenlawn Avenue
to combine the existing seven lots and then divide them into four new lots.
A variance is required because the lots to be created as shown on the plans
submitted to the Board will all be non-conforming.
The Board of Appeals, after consideration of the evidence presented
at the public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following
findings of fact:
1. The lots in the surrounding area are similar in size to
those which petitioner wishes to create.
2. No substantive opposition was raised to petitioner's plan by
neighbors.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented-
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1. The property in question is unique because of its peculiar configur-
ation and because of the ledge at the site and the manner in which the
property slopes up from Greenlawn Avenue. In addition, the
present configuration of the lots imposes a hardship on the
petitioner by restricting his development of these lots in a manner
which is consistent with the surrounding area.
2. The conditions described above especially affect the land in question
but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the land
is located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question,
but not the zoning district generally cause special financial hardship
to the Petitioner.
4. The desired variance may be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good.
DECISION - OCTOBER 14, 1981 - EDWARD MORGANI - PAGE TWO
'81 OCT 19 P 4 :21
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously voted it} favor ,_
of approving the grant of the requested relief. The Boar z- u-FICE
ne,
a variance to the Petitioner on the following terms and cor 1's':MASS
1. Petitioner may combine Lots 46-52 Greenlawn Avenue into four single
family house lots as shown on the plan submitted to the Board.
2. This variance is conditioned upon the approval of the petitioner's
plan by the Planning Board and any conditions imposed upon petitioner
by the Planning Board glYsll:.be incorporated into this decision.
3. Petitioner shall submit all plans to the City Engineer who may then
review these plans to determine whether they adequately deal with
drainage at the site. The City Engineer shall, in his sole discretion,
modify such plans as they relate to drainage if he deems that to be
necessary.
Antho4Mee4herrly
APPEAL FR;':' T'u1
GEHEU LF-i C L t 1 :A:.T TO SC.T',.,' t '_F 9S "F 3S.
OF THIS CCLIC.i:7 lir TI IE; ..:.y ...'..L• :U C6�S ;.F:"E.l T ^—r r
Ci: JF Tr;E CiiY -('• .•• -^'- C; FILI::1
PU.°,ANT TO
GRANTED 7; tl l S;:ALL ' II � i 11, 7 r ?.;IT
FICATi0:1 Cf i ` the CLEF i ,i. 'O DAYS
OR THAT, IF Sf' ;rr , i -.
JCH Aii A;PE4t ,i...; FE67 ' r r -:'. F. _ , ..
RECTi=j C: Ti.E S_J'H ESSEX R_GISTRi OF OCE S I!�C I
S
OF FEADRL CG l: RiIORIIFA AMI MTEJ 011 THE OiYNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. F 1r:E G47GER
B9AldQ
OF APPPAL
A COPY OF THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
'4 ('FIV
1 (1Zi# of Salem, ansa jzseq,
a r 23ottrb of appeal '82 MAR 17 A10 :49
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF EDWARD MORGANI CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR LOTS 46-52 GREENLAWN AVENUE SALEM JA +�s
A hearing on this Petition was held on March 10, 1982 with the following
Board Members present: Douglas Hopper, Chairman; Messrs. Hacker, LaBrecque,
Piemonte and Feeherry. Notices of the hearing were sent to abutters and
others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A.
This property is currently the subject of a prior variance dated October 14,
1981. However, the Petitioner has requested a new variance for Lots 46-52 Greenlawn
Avenue to divide the property into four lots as shown on the plan dated December 31,
1981, Submitted to the Board. A variance is requird because the lots 'to
be created as shown on the plan submitted to the Board will all be non-conforming.
The Board of Appeal, after consideration of the evidence presented at the .
public hearing and after viewing the property makes the following findings
of fact:
1. The lots in the surrounding area are similar in size to those
which Petitioner wishes to create.
2. No substantive opposition was raised to petitioner's plan by
neighbors.
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and the evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1. The property in question is unique because of its peculiar
configuration and because of the ledge at the site and the
manner in which the property slopes up from Greenlawn Avenue.
In addition, the present configuration of the lots imposes a
hardship on the petitioner by restricting his development
of these lots in a manner which is consistent with the sur-
rounding area.
2. The conditions described above especially affect the land in _
question but do not generally affect the zoning district in
which the land is located.
3. The conditions described above which affect the land in question,
but not the zoning district generally cause special financial
hardship to the Petitioner.
f l '
•, [[fi�r nt;`:r'i
DECISION - March 10, 1982 - EDWARD MORGANI
Page 2 '82 MAR 17 A10 :49
4. The desired variance may be grantedwithout stantial
detriment to the public good. �p1�Y CL:�" ',�'! SCE
SA.W.',
Therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeal voted 4-1 in favor of
approving the grant of the requested relief (Mr. 'Piemonte voted
"present"). The Board grants a variance to the Petitioner on
the following terms and conditions. .
1. Petitioner may combine Lots 46-52 Greenlawn Avenue into
four single family lots as shown on the plan submitted to
the Board.
2. This variance is conditioned upon the approval of the
Petitioner's plan by the Planning Board and any conditions
imposed upon Petitioner by the Planning Board shall
be incorporated into this decision.
3. Petitioner shall submit all plans to the City Engineer
who may then review these plans to determine whether they
adequately deal with drainage at the site. The City Engineer
shall, in his sole discretion, modify such plans as they
relate to drainage if he deems that to be necessary.
nthony M. Fee# r
APPEAL FRIT.1 TF;... G;_.
. ..... ...... :.`:. L .'AY_ PO .'A:.: TO it 17 CF T;i_ LIAM
GFGE.",AL L:. G9;.r(._. ... .. .... .... '� ......'.'i b: DAYS '. T--R—ME aAIE OF FILCiu
CF Th.o DEM'r': I:: 1i(k . 'ii'i Clii— -
Ci:?: .ED
OR Tii6T. iF S.r... .,.. ,:f 7i^.. iil:S t.:.. ,.._. .. Y'.. ... . ':Y.'d C. L_i:;_- 13
RECD?O.0 1?v TFiE .,_:Sii EoSe.. ,.. 'iil? ; 'E iii THE 07"NET - -
OF RECORD OR Is SE;:2f:cnO C: J wTr0 0;: T:-.: C::i._i2'S CEi:i iilC TE OF TIiLE.
BOARD OF APPEAL -
A COPY 0£ THIS DECISION AND PLANS HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Continuation Sheet
The Petitioner has purchased the seven small vacant lots shown as
Lots 46 , 47 , 48, 49, 50, 51 , and 52 on a plan dated October , 1925,
recorded In Pian Book 55, Plan 17, a copy of which is attached hereto,
and Intends to combine them Into four larger lots, Lots 1-4 as shown on
the new plan filed herewith being dated January 28, 1989. All lots would
be used as single-family house lots . Petitioner ' s proposed combination
would create lots with 94 .26 feet of frontage, each with an average area
of about 8 , 500 square feet . Because of the size and shape of
Petitioner ' s parcel , a condition especially affecting his land but not
generally affecting other lands In the same district , Petitioner ' s
proposed combination would create lots of less than 15,000 square feet .
Petitioner notes that the parcel of land Involved Is part of an old
subdivision where the great majority of existing dwelling lots are in the
5,000 to 7,000 square foot range, well under the size of .Petitioner ' s
proposed lots . These existing lots containing mostly single-family
houses . The Petitioner ' s plan would result In single-family homes on
four lots substantially larger than most lots existing In the area .
Therefore, Petitioner 's proposed four lots would not substantially
derogate from the Intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance or otherwise
be detrimental to the public good . To Implement his plans and avoid the
necessary hardship, which literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance
would create, Petitioner seeks a variance of the zoning ordinance from
section Vill B.3 as to division of land and from section VI A as to lot
area .
Petitioner refers the Board to two (2) prior variances granted by.
It for this property. Copies of those variances are attached hereto and
Incorporated herein by reference . Due to the non-exercise of the rights
authorized by those variances within one year of their granting, those
rights have lapsed . Petitioner respectfully suggests that because the
current configuration of these lots and the conditions affecting these
lots have not changed since the granting of the prior variances, approval
of new variances would be consistent with the Board ' s previous decisions .
I
G
W pySH g0�6
NIF
1
8090 S.F.
0.19 Ac.
r.
8��5
8366 S.F.. 9a y6
0.19 Ac,
rn
rn
3
20 Ac.
ih '
0 I�
P
4
8718 S.F.
0.20 Ac. 6N y8
a
gr..26
i
Bx.-�ARD OF
0:7 T�' HALL PAGE.
SALEM, MA 01?70
DATE . Of/04 /39 CERTIFIED ABUTTERS LIST
SUBJECT PROPERTY: MAP., 08 LOT: 0111 SUFF. MAP: 08 LOT: 0154 MAP: '08 LOT: 0153
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 0013 GREENLAWN AVENUE 0011 GREENLAWN AVENUE 0015 GREENLAWN AVENUE
TV T =T -----------
BRETT CHARLES TR
61 MAP 10T SUEE EROPEPTY D
ADRESS-- ASSESSED—OWMER MA IIING ADDRET.S
17
SMITH JOHN C 9 GREENLAWN AVE
08 0103 0009 GREENLAWN AVENUE Fo�-'PRa A RA? Fm m6 n 9�7n
- 18 CLOVERDALE AVE
06 0114 0018 CLOVERDALE AVENUE WALSH GEORGIA J
SALEM MA 01970
1� -- - AVENUE
ni i I-1'1^ CLWIERLSIE 6vEN' --- -----------TwIrMIAN't- ANNE
SALEM MA 01970
08 0116 0008 VERONA STREET MENEADES CHARLES J 6 VERONA ST
!Is ROMILDA V
1` L8 JOSEPH A 157 HIGH STREET
17: 08 0120 201 0234 HIGHLAND AVENUE IRENE 6 TOPSFIELD NA 01553
�k.l ANQ JOSEPH a —
Q8 0152 0020 CLOVERDALE AVENUE SALEM NA 01970
pq 14 GLENN AVENUE 27
12c -18 0101 0014 GLENN AVENUE PHEASANT HILL REALTY TRUST
L :
!211 SWINIULH RICHARD E TR SALEM MA01970 - z
12208 0162 0010 GLENN AVENUE BRETT FAMILY REALTY TRUST 139 HOLTEN ST
'23, BRETT CHARLES TR DANVERS MA 01923
3a
as
as
.38
As
029
1311
42
133
134 .4c
35 147r
CORRECTION-OF LIST SENT OUT -00
z E
RETER
'09
V-11 CA i, Xd—
CHIEF ASSESSOR
AVE. �/ \
gpRINGSIOE V
,G -8 ro 'o . 121 e�
00 ; 19000
o �5 1943 `gds 122-
A, 4 - 6440" \\\ 5890
��
\09 6 69j0 101
16106
0`L6626
000 = o pC e y
0 `+ `so'
09 gs \5135
4y.s q2
9 II� 7
5o g°
e
6g9 J o
910
v
92
O2 109"
105, \03 .10 110
913 s6
; OCNV S.
� e
' 361
gOVVV e
e° r
e
F 2
s
O2+339 9 5
64 9
1lPy \\9y0
0 \36 Del
o`m r 'WJ N90 <+
69 ie° oe°
�O AQ g
o i
�Oi9 �.'
----------
BOARD OF' ASSESSORS
• CITY HALL PAGE:
MA 0*1970
• DATE 05/02/89 CERTIFIED ABUTTERS LIST
3
............
3
.. ........
. ...... ASS Z' 4
A V,EN LEE
]3 ." ......
ESSED, NER
BRE5TT CHARLES TR 6
495 , #0
6 MAP LOT SUFF PROPERTY ADDRESS ASSESSED OWNER, --MAILING ADDRESS 8
7 ...... ...
...........
......
GREENIAWN,'
MENUE 10
<2 12
13
10 08 0-1-14 0016 CLOVERDALE AVENUE WALSH GEORGIA J Is CLOVERD-Al V AVE13
oil SALE ,19
II MA 070 :51
12 nA nqqE� nF1 I 1-1 (-)VFRDAf F OVFNUE R�')MANO ANNF 12, Q C)VERDAI E AVFMJF-, ............ 6
'SA -6 17
13 W -IT -1A,
...........
........ 180
MT
E 'S ....... 19
09.
4 " ,pp V R �E
......... . .........."CA 20
5 1 -,, + 6�"F,,f-f
.....v%. ...... -114TPTIA ,1,, ,",
16 08 01*-20 201 0234 HIGHLAND AVENUE FINOCCHIO JOSEPH A 1157 HIGH STREET 21
22
4117 .1 RENE P. 7OPSFIELD MA 0195-5 230
0152 0020 CLOVERDALE AVENUE ROMANY JOSEPH 1) 20 C.LC)VCRC,')AL,E A VE N QF'-✓ 24
260
25
N ......
27
0d 053 001 G RE E WN'%%'AVENUE,,4x ...... 1�17 91-f LT'F,
...... DAN
HE,U 1;
28
2 CHARLES,-I K,.,,
22 08 0154 0011 GREENLAWN AVENUE BRETT FAMILY REALTY TRUST 139 HOLTEN ST 29
300
023 E.RETT CHARLES TR DANVERS NA 0192 31
24 32
......
25 .... ...
33
..........340
..... ...
•2 .. 35
21
..........
28 37
029 3 390
30 40
41
42•
",.......... ......
32
33
34 45
460.35 47
36 48
37 ....... '� ...... 49
...... 50
0 38
..... ......%,
3.
40 53
0
041 54
5 Z.
42 56
43
E7
"',.........
5
0 ......
44 8
45 .....
61
46
62 0 047 53
48 54
49 65
......
. .......... .. . ...
66
05. .7•
68
52 PETER Ff. CARON 69
70
053 CHIEF ASSESSOR 71
54 72
........
55,
73
......... 1.74
�56
............. .71
71
t
a de' 0`
a - . --
-, The Variance which has been een may requested q y be granted upon a finding of the
" Board that:
a. special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, )
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
f lands, buildings or structures in the same district;
i • b. literal enforcement of the provisions of the zoning Ordinance would involve
ih - substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner;
C. desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
+ good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of
the district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and
— w after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
PL
gi-
a -
� r
On the basis of the above finding of fact, and on the evidence presen�ea;
the Board of Appeal concludes as follows.
i
1 . Special conditions do not exist which especially affect the subject
property and not1 the district generally•
-_ - �_.
2. Literal enforcement of the provision of would not involve substantial
substantial hardship to the petitioner;
3. Desirable relief can not be granted without substantial detriment to A
to the public good or without substantially derogating from the intent
of-the district of the purpose of the ordinance.
/10�
' ! 1 I ' � ,
I ( � � ,
� � I �. j j � � � � � F
� � ! � � i � � � � ; � i
1 I �
1 '
� � I � � ' ' I I A `v
t
i � f � � � ' '
I � 9 ,�
t � t � I � � I I i �
� � I
I I
� i I i I i � � -�I � i
i
I 1 �
� � � � � �� i � i , � � j
� '
' i I i
� �
1
' � �' �
I j I ,
� � i l
`f{Fri.
•�5 8090 S.F.
$p. 0.19 Ac.
lb
�h 2
ap. 8366 S.F.
0.19 Ac. ,
Eip�PNp � ��,6 •_
SIF ��g 3
$644 S.F. P
0.20 Ac. �\v
6\'
4
8718 S.F.
0.20 Ac.
5$
o '
SM��N
NIF s
9� P LAN 0 F LAN D
IN
1 -
SALEM MA . ,
1
� 1w of nPREPARED BY:
CERALD
eC14034 IQ P.J.F. & ASSOCIATES
��p 11 GLEASON ST MEDFORD MA.
-
0 10 .20 40
0 GERALD GUERRINI R.L.S. DATE:
DATE: 1\28\89 FILE NO.: 89-02
Y
A
-
i
v\
1
�5 8090 S.F. \
$�• 0.19 Ac.
CO
1� 2
ZOO• 8366 S.F.
0.19 Ac.
� ink•
�PNID CO
3 �1
8644 S.F. P
0.20 Ac.
6�'
4
t 8718 S.F. ,
0.20 Ac.
o
NIF SM\�N � Ilk
,.
6
PLAN OF LAND
1ti
IN
I ,
s
SALEM MAG
tet"
OF
p� PREPARED BY:
0.
- 3 GERALD `
AGUfRRINI P.J.F. & . ASSOCIATES
of ' 11 GLEASON ST MEDFORD MA.
0 10 . 20 40
scams: 1"= 20'
# 0 GERALD GUERRINI R.L.S. DATE:
DATE: 1\28\89 FILE NO.: 89-02
h
E .
t
i
k ,
,
c
r
aIF
f � �
Ilk
t
• 1
�5 8090 S.F. \
$� 0.19 Ac.
6
1� 2
8366 S.F.
0.19 Ac. -
8644 S.F. P
0.20 Ac.
6 �:J
4
8718 S.F. '
0.20 Ac.
5�
NI `
PLAN OF LAN D
' IN
SALEM MA .
�%N of r� PREPARED BY:
o.
a-
_ GERALD a
GUERRINI P.J.F. & ASSOCIATES
034
c,, �n ' 11 GLEASON ST. MEDFORD MA.
SCALE. 1'= 20
} 0 GERALD GUERRINI R.L.S. DATE:
DATE: 1\28\89 FILE NO.: 89-02
— c
1
/ "r6,.
I 1
.�5 8090 S.F. \
gyp. 0.19 Ac.
sr
�5 2
top. 8366 S.F.
0.19 Ac.
Rp�PNp g� gk'16
8644 S.F. P '
0.20 Ac. �\
o _
6
4
6,
8718 S.F.
0.20 Ac.
0
iM
NIF f '
6 4
PLAN OF LAN b
j IN
SALEM
MA .
" °' ,,� PREPARED BY:
0.
GERALD .
�°ERRINI P.J.F. & ASSOCIATES
14034
^! � 11 GLEASON ST MEDFORD MA. '
0 10 20 40
0 GERALD GUERRINI R.L.S. DATE:
DATE: 1\28\89 FILE NO.: 89-02
f
II �
N
15 8090 S.F.
0.19 Ac.
e,
I NIF
�6
�5 2
$° 8366 S.F.
' 0.19 Ac.
OR
P 6'
3
8644 S.F. P.
I 0.20 Ac.
P
i . 0 �\
4
61
'
8718 S.F.
0.20 Ac. '
0
NSF 1
r PLAN OF LAND
IN
SALEM MA .
ha�tw
OF r� PREPARED BY:
a 'a
GERALD
�c14�4 I� P.J.F. & ASSOCIATES
��,�p 11 GLEASON ST MEDFORD MA.
0 10 . 20 40
SCALE: i-= 20' i�
0 GERALD GUERRINI R.L.S. DATE:
DATE: 1\28\89 FILE NO.: 89-02