Loading...
12 MESSERVY STREET - BUILDING INSPECTION ]2 MESSERVY STREET 1 1� r� ESs �-may 5 � 12/10/98 THU 16:21 FAX 9786912082 GEIS GROUP 0 001 12/10/1998 13:21 15087443447 HERITAGE coop PAGE 82 ►'MQR—TGAGE INSPECT"IN vBAY STATE SURVEYING ASSOCIATE3 INC. 101)CUMMIlIGINC. S CENTER,SUITE#37aj. BEVERL 01915 LOCATION :..S/}LE(N M >a flT .11»......r...............�:�.... N ha SCALE r 1" ls/ In lo��tn�ellon 0,.y and not an ZO AATE 9g i Itr w wo eteyq,th M M*tram Plot wan le for REFERENCE:.4 BK�`/Z7-V4 / •, s n� onvv.Y0010111 'mlatylt.nrerhera ' / )0*"Ve,Brt bm6 bttpeartd tre11 hiMe do not ndicted Nt"�teMVW*n Caning aa1. x l.ee.on Inp+anem TO!J ..QrZ _ (�AA)x �.tq to d.twtnlnn Woo"" 46_ R�471� nms.td The 10"Von of the tna - of 011e.0 IttQ°'1Cten•ol IMP"ed wflt the lnul n f~ °�et Y lee Nie d��att.and o.to be eonetrMam . I. eaempt at v toes of h oaed to establish propMrty��ntng,Hvt to unser Map,e,L TIOe VII Cho w^e"an 7 nest oegon Ptar'to+1 6eetdo'i y ptOt m"O Mt Opinion the"tongls are not Ioean d I"the IpeaW flood hutird sono,eo aneedhyx-U.&MAPS ZSO/OZ 8/slgs ski 41 AM,""0a of 1 � 4Q.zq ' nor >a v (A-90' 3.410 d� v Al 0 B rNtRIAUcr Z X4 STOOZY w000 #IZ 5i a A}9,Z53�x �I S mmil, AVE, a MES,SERVEK ST, City of balm ftlaoarbuattg Public Propertp 3hpartment � g �3uilbing Department One 9patrm green 745-9595 ext. 380 William H. Munroe Director of Public Property Inspector of Buildings Zoning Enforcement Officer April 24 , 1989 Mr. Michael Levinson 9 Mechanic Street Marblehead, MA. 01945 (RE 1=2-Messezvy-SSt-,Sale-m MA-.---3 Dear Mr. Levinson, Work on a pbrch at above referenced property was done without obtaining a building permit , which puts you in violation of the Mass State Building Code Sect. 113 (failure to obtain a permit) and Sect. 121 violations. Violation penalties: anyone who shall violate a provision of this code shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($ 11000. ) or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both for each violation. Each day during which any portion of a violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. To correct this violation you should apply for a building permit at this office within forty eight hours from receipt of this letter. Sincerely, I . James B. Santo Assistant Building Inspector JDS/eaf c.c. City Solicitor Ward councillor F V r a I October 3,2003 1 � tl i i'. Atm:Thomas St.Pierre 1 Dear Tom, t 12 Messervy Sheet. I am requesting Thank you for speaking with me last night regarding the issue a to move my fence back to the property line which is divided by a I8"maple and identified by the to move the fence back to court as tree"A"and is clearly directly on the lot line between lots owned by myself and the lannuzzis who reside at 21 Willow Avenue. I am seeking permission today the tree and use the tree as Part of the fence. Please see attached picture of what I would like to do. My understanding is that I do not need a permit to move the fence but am seeking permission from d to do so as to avoid any issues that may arise. Thanks in advance for your help. the inning boar a I � Sincerely;' Sarah 1.Caltland (xJ 12 Messervy Street Salem,NIA 01970 978-741-2838-Home 978-989-9535-Fax J F .Y FYA M to 3 03 II r I SIP xl- ( f 1 I Y - yY!W: 4•< - I anoxs wao —` Xd3 65 60 eoozisoiol Tooln i I i COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Essex ss Trial Court of the Commonwealth District Court Department Salem Division Docket No.: 0236 CV 919 Sarah Galland, Plaintiff: I vs. Michael Iannuzz►and Sandra Iannuzzi, Defendants ; Findings of Fact,Rulings of Law a and Entry of Order: The plaintiffs in flus matter appearingpro se, entered this action on August 5,2002' Jurisdiction this court Pursuant to St.2000,c. 142. is conferred uponranted to the i 2002 atter parse bearing, a temporary restrain°g order was g On August 5, air action with regarding to trees located plaintiffs prohibiting the defendants from taking Y Street in the City of August 5,2002, the plaintiffs Provided to the court a between residential lots situated at 21 Willow Avenue and 12 Messervy the parties' Salem. As part of thea presentati°non Augu series of photographs said to show the trees in issue directly on the lot line separating properties. August 9, ?002 On that day, on the court's temporary order was scheduled for Augn resented the court with The return day ent.Both parties p the parties appeared and were heard upon oral argon resented to the court a Plan additional photographs of the trees in question and defense ,and entitled' „Exlnbit Plan of Land I of the locus drawn and certified by a registered land sui0'dated August 8,2002 by Hancock in Salem,MA,Michael& Sandra Iannuzzi, scat Survey Associates,Inc." (hereinafter referred to as the`plan'). 1. ordered that a view m res' oral presentations,the court(Cornettslots,the trees in Upon consideration of the part Said view of the site,including both parties' of the location be taken on that day.d pies, parcels was conducted with the assistance of the District Court question and the lot line betty marked for assistant clerk magistrate,the civil session clerk, s r subm sso to the court have been and the Salem Police Departrnent.The p j identification by the court and ar.made part of the csse file in this matter. the following he court's having viewed the site in questio Atter evidentiary hearing and tn . findings,rulings and order are entered at this time: daOH9 WHO XVd OO:OT UOURO/01 ZOO¢J I I1 -two- Initially finding is made,based upon the plaintiff WWood is ordeerood's own presentation made to the court, G that said plaintiff,Wood lacks standing to maintain this action based upon his lack ntitle interest in the premises at 12 MesservY Street.Upon that finding, the plaintiff ed dismissed from the instant action, his having no cognizable claim against the defendants. The plan introduced into evidence by the defendants depicts two trees located at or and ide near the b the common lot line of the parties. One depicted u on said plan as an IS" map R court upon said plan as tree b red mark is clean direct) on the!ot line beween lots owned co a and and the Iamiuzzis. As to that tree,the defendants lannuzzi have represented to l the court through their attorney that they do not intend to remove, trim, alter or harm in any way that tree. Because findin is now made that the ownership of that tree is shared jointly_ by the titleholders of 12 Messerw Street and 21 Willow venue, a court s order of August 5, 2002,as to that tree y be taken only shall be and is hereby extended as a preepesenary injunction..em to ees or ason signs which shall r unilaterally by the defendants,their agents, representatives ,employees Y place in jeopardy, injure or damage said tree. This order remains in effect until further order o—� this court. Said plan depicts a second tree located near the westerly of the 18"es, common imaple That according to said pq upon said plan as a 22" twin maple. It is located 1 plan and it is identified by the court upon said n located in the ground as tree'B' by red amarki g the lot lines 2 plan and the view taken by the court(observing a p inches+/-in the field according to the registered land surveyor on site at the time of the view, and I finding is made that this tree n located upon land of the defendants exclusively and is owned an and maintained by them.Roots from the tree have grown onto the plaintiff However,a lot clearly property 1 significant branches from tcheetree urt the treeng said ed plaintiff a Iannuzu's loft maintainediissrlby them evidence presented to the upon that lot and is owned solely by them. ! As to this tree,the court's August 5, 2002 temporary order is hereby dissolved. In dissolving said {d! complyingwith applicable order, and as part of the parties' on going action,order is however entered that should the defendants seek to iter rued ordinances governing the same,this tree in the future, in dsaid altremoveedition rations and or removal shall i state and municipal contractor,taking proper only be undertaken by a duly licensed and insured third party precautions on site. This condition is found necessary for purposes of public safety due rt the height and girth of the tree in question and its close proximity to the dwellings of the parties and but those of the plaintiffs and defendants as well as for other third parties' properties which a safety considerations of children found in the neighborhood. prelim A as depicted up said plan as inarily injunction, on i The temporary restraining of August 5, 2002 is therefore modified by enjoining the defendants from further action concerning tree dtioaf) W39 XVd 0 0---0 T£00Z/£0/0T £00 tA �I r rD F I vY i'.... % ?S4t5,n r ` F D j� a 1 nr 10/07/2003 09:23 FAX GEM GROUP Q001/003 Cnrp,,rn.rOMMEe1 TH OF MASSACHUSETTS Essex, ss. ut of the Commo twealth listrict Court Dep:trtment Salem' )ivision docket No.: 0236 . V 919 Sarah Calland, Plaintiffs vs. 1� � Michael Iannuzzi and Sandra Iannuzzi, Defendants Findings of Fact,Kulings of Law and Entry of Order: ' The plaintiffs in this matter appearing prose,entered this action on August 5, 2002. Juris fiction is conferred upon this court pursuant to St. 2000, C. 142. On August 5,2002 after ex parte hearing, a temporary restraining order was granted to th' plaintiffs prohibiting the defendants from taking any action with regarding to t ien the locaie ,f between residential lots situated at 21 Willow Avenue and 12 Messervy Ili Salem. As part of their presentation on August 5, 2002, the plaintiffs provided to the cow t a series of photographs said to show the trees in issue directly on the lot line separating the 11arties' hproperties. The return day on the court's temporary order was scheduled for August 9, 2002. On that day, the parties appeared and were heard upon oral argument.Both parties presented the court with additional photographs of the trees in question and defense counsel presented to the court a plan of the locus drawn and certified by a registered land surveyor and entitled: "Exhibit Plan c'Land in Salem MA Michael& Sandra Iannuzzi, scale V = 101, dated August 8,2002 by Hanec ck Survey Associates,Inc. "(hereinafter referred to as the`plan'). _`---- Upon consideration of the parties' oral presentations, the court(Cornetts J.) ordered that: a view i' of the location be taken on that day. Said view of the site, including both parties' lots, the trees in question and the lot line between said parties' parcels was conducted.with the assistance cI'the assistant clerk magistrate, the civil sessions clerk, a court officer from the Salem District( ourt and the Salem Police Department. The parties' submissions to the court have been market for identification by the court and ar;made part of the case file in this matter. After evidentiary hearing and the court's having viewed the site in question, the following �p findings, rulings and order are entered at this time: 10/07/2003 09:23 FAX GEM GROUP Q002/003 -two- initially, finding is made, based upon the plaintiff Wood's own presentation made to the col rt, that said plaintiff,Wood lacks standing to maintain this action based upon his lack of title it Ierest in the premises at 12 Messervy Street. Upon that finding, the plaintiff Wood is ordered disc Missed from the instant action, his having no cognizable claim against the defendants. The plan introduced into evidence by the defendants depicts two trees located at or near the common lot line of the parties. One, depicted upon said plan as an 18" maple and identified :�y the court upon said plan as tree 'A' by red mark, is clearly directly on the!ot line beween lots o .vned by Sarah Callard and the lannuzzis. As to that tree, the defendants Iannuzzi have represent(1 to the court through their attorney that they do not intend to remove, trim, alter or harm in an:. way that tree. Because finding is now made that the ownership of that tree is shared jointly by the title hot I ers of 12 Messervy Street and 21 Willow Avenue, the court's order of August 5, 2002, as to that 'ree only shall be and is hereby extended as a preliminary injunction. No action may be taken ' is, representatives , employees or assigns which shall unilaterally by the defendants, their agen c place in jeopardy, injure or damage said tree. This order remains in effect until further ordeo of F, this court. Said plan depicts a second tree located near the parties' common lot line. That tree is depicr d upon said plan as a 22" twin maple. It is located westerly of the 18" maple tree according to said plan and it is identified by the court upon said plan as tree 'B' by red mark. Based upon said plan and the view taken by the court (observing a pin located in the ground marking the lot line inches+/- in the field according to the registered land surveyor on site at the time of the vie-,,, s finding is made that this tree is located upon land of the defendants exclusively and is owne< and maintained by them. Roots from the tree have grown onto the plaintiff Calland's property ai d significant branches from the tree overhang said plaintiff s lot.However, clearly based upon evidence presented to the court, the tree is located upon the Iannuzzi's lot, is maintained by Lhem upon that lot and is owned solely by them. L As to this tree, the court's August 5, 2002 temporary order is hereby dissolved. In dissolving?; said order, and as part of the parties' on going action, order is however entered that should the li defendants seek to alter or remove this tree in the future, in addition to complying with appl cable state and municipal laws and ordinances governing the same, said alterations and/or removal shall only be undertaken by a duly licensed and insured third party contractor, taking proper precautions on site. This condition is found necessary for purposes of public safety due to t1 i e height and girth of the tree in question and its close proximity to the dwellings of the parties and other third parties' properties which abut those of the plaintiffs and defendants as well as for safety considerations of children found in the neighborhood. The temporary restraining of August 5, 2002 is therefore modified by preliminarily injunctio i, enjoining the defendants from further action concerning tree 'A' as depicted upon said plan .s I a 003/003 10/07/2003 09:24 FAX GEM GROUP -three- above-noted and by dissolving the same(with conditions as noted)as to tree `B' as depicte:l upon said plan. i All until further order of the Court and by ORDER of said Court: August 10, 2002 / onorable Robert Cornet ustice a A 'f. o- r l y t i �g f COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS District Court Department of the Trial Court Salem Division 65 Washington Street Salem,Massachusetts 01970 Phone:(978)7444681 FAX:(978)744-3211 TTY:(978)744-2056 Samuel E.Zoll Robert F.Arena First Justice Clerk Magistrate Robert A.Cornelia Judith M.Collins Justice Chief Probation Officer Michael C.Lauranzano Justice October 8, 2003 Mr. Thomas St. Pierre Acting Building Inspector City of Salem Public Property Department 120 Washington Street- Third Floor Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. St. Pierre: Reference is made to your correspondence dated October 7, 2003. The Clerk Magistrate's Office has located a copy of the August 10, 2003 court order regarding the case of Wood& Calland v. lannuzzi, et al (docket no. 0236 CV 919, see copy enclosed). The order references tree `A' on the plan of land* cited in the order and contained within the court's case file. As to tree `A', there remains in effect an injunction from either party disturbing the tree in any manner without further order of court based upon finding that both parties share ownership of that tree. (*Please note that the plan may be examined in the court clerk's office). Otherwise,the order does not expressly prohibit work being done on the properties by either owner, assuming of course, 1)the proposed work is done on the particular party's property and not on someone else's property, 2)the proposed work meets applicable local, state and federal codes and 3)the proposed work is approved and properly permitted by your office. I trust this information responds to your recent inquiry. Si cerely, cc: Ms. Sarah Calland M/M Michael Iannuzzi Ge ` case file Hon. Robert . Cometta, Justice COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 3 � Essex, ss. r.- Trial Trial Court of the Commonwealth District Court Department Salem Division DOt ald Wood and % ,I S 0'r FICE Docket No.: 0236 CV 919 Sarah Calland, Plaintiffs A 7Yte Oqpy, Attest: vs. -&Q Michael Iannuzzi and CLMUUMAGISTRATE i%l3 Sandra Iannuzzi, `A�m11111u#1111 .. ', Defendants �ptpMONW 4, Findings of Fact, Rulings of Law =� and Entry of Order: 11 D The plaintiffs in this matter appearing pro se, entered this action on August 02' fti�isd�ion is conferred upon this court pursuant to St. 2000, c. 142. '"'� �����"`%N On August 5, 2002 after ex parte hearing, a temporary restraining order was granted to the plaintiffs prohibiting the defendants from taking any action with regarding to trees located between residential lots situated at 21 Willow Avenue and 12 Messervy Street in the City of Salem. As part of their presentation on August 5, 2002, the plaintiffs provided to the court a series of photographs said to show the trees in issue directly on the lot line separating the parties' properties. The return day on the court's temporary order was scheduled for August 9, 2002. On that day, the parties appeared and were heard upon oral argument. Both parties presented the court with additional photographs of the trees in question and defense counsel presented to the court a plan of the locus drawn and certified by a registered land surveyor and entitled: "Exhibit Plan of Land in Salem, MA, Michael & Sandra Iannuzzi, scale V = 10% dated August 8, 2002 by Hancock Survey Associates, Inc. " (hereinafter referred to as the `plan'). Upon consideration of the parties' oral presentations, the court (Cornetta, J.) ordered that a view of the location be taken on that day. Said view of the site, including both parties' lots, the trees in question and the lot line between said parties' parcels was conducted with the assistance of the assistant clerk magistrate, the civil sessions clerk, a court officer from the Salem District Court and the Salem Police Department. The parties' submissions to the court have been marked for identification by the court and are made part of the case file in this matter. After evidentiary hearing and the court's having viewed the site in question, the following findings, rulings and order are entered at this time: J i -two- Initially, finding is made, based upon the plaintiff Wood's own presentation made to the court, that said plaintiff, Wood lacks standing to maintain this action based upon his lack of title interest in the Premises at 12 Messervy Street. Upon that finding, the plaintiff Wood is ordered dismissed from the instant action, his having no cognizable claim against the defendants. The plan introduced into evidence by the defendants depicts two trees located at or near the common lot line of the parties. One, depicted upon said plan as an 18" maple and identified by the court upon said plan as tree `A' by red mark, is clearly directly on the lot line beween lots owned by Sarah Callard and the Iannuzzis. As to that tree, the defendants lannuzzi have represented to the court through their attorney that they do not intend to remove, trim, alter or harm in any way that tree. Because finding is now made that the ownership of that tree is shared jointly by the title holders of 12 Messervy Street and 21 Willow Avenue, the court's order of August 5, 2002, ns to that tree oily shall be and is hereby extended as a preliminary injunction. No action may be taken unilaterally by the defendants, their agents, representatives , employees or assigns which shall place in jeopardy, injure or damage said tree. This order remains in effect until further order of this court. Said plan depicts a second tree located near the parties' common lot line. That tree is depicted upon said plan as a 22" twin maple. It is located westerly of the 18" maple tree according to said plan and it is identified by the court upon said plan as tree `B' by red mark. Based upon said plan and the view taken by the court (observing a pin located in the ground marking the lot line 2 inches +/- in the field according to the registered land surveyor on site at the time of the view, finding is made that this tree is located upon land of the defendants exclusively and is owned and maintained by them. Roots from the tree have grown onto the plaintiff Calland's property and significant branches from the tree overhang said plaintiffs lot. However, clearly based upon evidence presented to the court, the tree is located upon the Iannuzzi's lot, is maintained by them upon that lot and is owned solely by thern. As to this tree, the court's August 5, 2002 temporary order is hereby dissolved. In dissolving said order, and as part of the parties' on going action, order is however entered that should the defendants seek to alter or remove this tree in the future, in addition to complying with applicable state and municipal laws and ordinances governing the same, said alterations and/or removal shall only be undertaken by a duly licensed and insured third party contractor, taking proper precautions on site. This condition is found necessary for purposes of public safety due to the height and girth of the tree in question and its close proximity to the dwellings of the parties and other third parties' properties which abut those of the plaintiffs and defendants as well as for safety considerations of children found in the neighborhood. The temporary restraining of August 5, 2002 is therefore modified by preliminarily injunction, enjoining the defendants from further action concerning tree 'A' as depicted upon said plan as -three- above-noted and by dissolving the same (with conditions as noted) as to tree `B' as depicted upon said plan. All until further order of the Court and by ORDER of said Court: August 10, 2002 onorable Robert A. Cornetta, ustice �oZ �"1es5erPjN COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Essex, ss. Trial Court of the Commonwealth ,'District Court Department Salem Division Docket No: 200236 CV 919 Sarah Calland, Plaintiff vs. Michael Ianuzzi & Sandra lanuzzi, Defendants Amended Order: On August 10, 2003 after evidentiary hearing and the Court's conducting a view of the premises, an order was issued in this matter which inter alfa afforded an 18" maple tree, located on the lot line between the parties' property, protection from any harm and requiring a further review by this Court should one of the parties seek to engage in work on either premises which might impact upon said tree. Another tree (22" twin maple) which was also the subject of the Court's August 10, 2003 order has since been removed from the premises. The plaintiff has now petitioned seeking permission to relocate and install a fence on the lot line between the parties' two residential lots. After hearing wherein all parties were present along with the City of Salem's Building Inspector, the following is ordered: 1. The plaintiff at her own expense and liability may remove the existing fence that is in disrepair and located between the parties' properties but wholly upon the plaintiff's lot. 2. The plaintiff at her own expense and liability may construct a new cedar stockade type fence on the lot line between the parties' properties and is allowed reasonable temporary easement onto the defendants' property to do so. 3. Said fence shall be scalloped at the top and essentially of a design and construction as depicted upon exhibit `A' (photo `E') attached hereto and made a part hereof. 4. In seeking to construct said fence and design it around the 18" maple tree which the parties share ownership of, the plaintiff shall first consult with an arborist who shall provide a brief recommendation and report to the City of Salem's building inspector regarding how the fence is to be installed next to the jointly owned tree as depicted in exhibit `A' so as not adversely impact or unreasonably harm the tree or its root system. Again, reasonable temporary easement is afforded over the defendants' property in order to permit the arborist to perform his/her function -two- as contemplated hereunder. 5. Upon receipt of the arborist's report, the building inspector may issue a permit for the construction and maintenance of said fence provided the same as proposed is no higher than six (6) feet from ground to top, is of material and design which is not in violation of existing law, as proposed is otherwise in compliance with this amended order and is located upon the property's lot line as either agreed to by the parties or staked in the field by a Massachusetts Registered Land Surveyor. All until further order of the Court. /s/Hon: Robert A. Cometta, Justice October 29, 2003 ."".-` pi. � , I �'' T<`h I�jt'3•^�"Ai K y4,'• �„Y� �t of * F r r y < `� ,� g d -- ----------------I '' � '__ `,�' _'.- z (je�I � Vii`v�;'�s�� i� ` ' ♦' 4,—t y s / � / ♦ � k ♦ 7 � � s � I _ 1• _ t t 1 . A � tN�'Y,••` �'L d a COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS District Court Department of the Trial Court Salem Division 65 Washington Street Salem,Massachusetts 01970 Phone:(978)744-0681 FAX:(978)744.7211 7TV:(978)744-2056 ,.i 6gtpmel E.Toll Robert F.Arens First Justice Clerk Magistrate Robert A.Cornetts, Judith M.Collins Justice Chief Probation Officer Michael C.Lauraosano Justice October 8, 2003 Mr. Thomas St. Pierre Acting Building Inspector City of Salem Public Property Department 120 Washington Street - Third Floor Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. St. Pierre: Reference is made to your correspondence dated October 7, 2003. The Clerk Magistrate's Office has located a copy of the August 10, 2003 court order regarding the case of Wood & Calland v. lannuzzi, et al (docket no. 0236 CV 919, see copy enclosed). The order references tree 'A' on the plan of land* cited in the order and contained within the court's case file. As to tree `A',there remains in effect an injunction from either party disturbing the tree in any manner without further order of court based upon finding that both parties share ownership of that tree. (*Please.note that the plan may be examined in the court clerk's office). Otherwise, the order does not expressly prohibit work being done on the properties by either owner, assuming of course, 1)the proposed work is done on the particular party's property and not on someone else's property, 2) the proposed work meets applicable local,state and federal codes and 3)the proposed work is approved and properly permitted by your office. I trust this information responds to your recent inquiry. Sincerely, cc: 'BMs. Sarah Calland M/M Michael Iannuzzi case file Hon. Robert A. Cornetta, Justice CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 5P DEPARTMENT OF OPEN SPACE 9 Inmso° Cemetery - Shade Tree - Open Space 57 ORNE STREET STANLEY J. USOVICZ,JR. SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 RICHARD N. RENNARD,JR. M.C.A. MAYOR TELEPHONE: 978-745-0195 SUPERINTENDENT OF OPEN SPACE FAx: 978-741-7041 Mr.Thomas St.Pierre City of Salem Building Department Salem MA 01970 November 3,2003 Dear Mr. St.Pierre: On Thursday,October 30,2003 at approximately 8:30 a. In. I met with Sarah Calland at 12 Messervy Street, Salem regarding a large Norway maple tree at the rear of her property. This tree is on the property line shared by her next- door neighbor. It is her desire to erect a fence without damaging the health of the Norway maple. I set guidelines,which include: Absolutely do not impede the bark with nails, screws or any object. Must not set posts within 2 '/2 to 3 feet from the trunk of the tree. This will allow minimal root damage. Also in the spring,deep root fertilization of this tree should be done. If you have any questions,please call me. ncere . Richard N. Rennard,Jr. Massachusetts Certified Arborist City of Salem MA 01970 vg. CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS n DEPARTMENT OF OPEN SPACE z Cemetery - Shade Tree- Open Space 57 ORNE STREET STANLEY J. USOVICZ,JR. SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 RrCHARD N. RENNARD,JR. M.C.A. MAYOR TELEPHONE: 978-745-0195 SUPERINTENDENT OF OPEN SPACE FAx: 978-741-7041 Mr.Thomas St.Pierre City of Salem Building Department Salem MA 01970 November 3,2003 Dear Mr. St.Pierre: On Thursday,October 30,2003 at approximately 8:30 a.m. I met with Sarah Calland at 12 Messervy Street,Salem regarding a large Norway maple tree at the rear of her property. This tree is on the property line shared by her next- door neighbor. It is her desire to erect a fence without damaging the health of the Norway maple. I set guidelines,which include: Absolutely do not impede the bark with nails,screws or any object. Must not set posts within 2 '/3 to 3 feet from the trunk of the tree. This will allow minimal root damage. Also in the spring,deep root fertilization of this tree should be done. If you have any questions,please call me. �ncere VVV Richard N.Renard, Jr. Massachusetts Certified Arborist City of Salem MA 01970