Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Permits (2)ARDITO, SWEENEY, STUSSE, ROBERTSON & DUPUY, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW C(G[Plf MATTACHEESE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 25 MID -TECH DRIVE, SUITE C WEST YARMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS 02673 EDWARD J. SWEENEY, JR TELEPHONE (508) 775-34W RICHARD P. MORSE, JR. MICAEL B. OBERT () DON FAX 508 790-4778 RICHARD A. DALTON DONNA M.ROBERTSON RUTH A McLAUGHUN MATTHEW J. DUPUY CHARLES J. ARDITO, III CHARLES M. SABATT CHARLES J. ARDITO, P.C. PLEASE REFER TO FILE NUMBER July 31, 1997 G3931Z Forrest White, Building Commissioner Town of Yarmouth 1146 Main Street Route 28 South Yarmouth, MA 02664 Re: Amelia Booth: Park Aven�ie, West Yarmouth Assessor's Map Sheet 16,JJ Parcel S40 Dear Forrest: I hope this letter finds you in improved health. The reason for my writing is that I need your opinion as to the propriety of siting a structure on the property of Amelia Booth which is shown on the attached assessor's map. The proposed house was so sited at the request of the Conservation Commission to maintain numerous setbacks from the area defined under Town regulations as a coastal bank. Bill Stone suggested that I speak to the Board of Appeals. David Reid sent me a Land Court Decision which I have enclosed in which Justice Sullivan ruled that for zoning purposes, the sideline setback may be determined to be measured from the centerline of an unconstructed private way. Since this case is nearly the same on the facts, it would appear that the proposal is proper. Mrs. Booth does own to the centerline of Waverly Street which was laid out in 1892 but never built. As appears from the plans it never will be as it doesn't go anywhere or provide frontage to any lots. Also, it appears that the existence of the paper street has been ignored in the past as the garage on the adjoining property is hard against the line of the Waverly layout. b I + Forrest White, Building Commissioner July 31, 1997 Page Two In summary, I desire your opinion as to whether a permit can be issued without need for review by the Board of Appeals. I will be glad to meet with you to review the contents of my file should you deem such to be appropriate or necessary. With appreciation for your consideration in this matter. I remain, Very truly yours, MICHAEL B. STUSSE MBS:mel cc: Amelia G. Booth 508 362 9980 P.03 J - 9-97 T,HU 10:19 DOWN CAPE ENGINEERING 47 N Q AK �.. Otto. 6'4 ww�i n� CIO dew oP 1� It ss .�1"ece�co� 2 a, PLAN OF LOTS A -r j!�( aV6abKI-S PARK SITUATED IN YARDyllOUTH, MIASS-5. DECEMBER, 1892. poo 40 40Z7 4218 w 3 03 4 00 3O4 , 4000 + s 29o_281 282� 310 y 302 400O 301 4o0o M 4Zbl 78.3 (n cr W W g616 4309 40-19" 311 3912 " 299 300 , 294 2B3 , O 400 4000 M N 4000 4 6 Z 0 3s2 3 32N , 29B , 4000 297 400o a 85 4 n 289 313 j- m , 295 4o'O 296 400o u o a' o o; 4 3951 7911 Z W Q -I Q 314 o a 294 Z4o a 2v 4240 3 292� g32o 291 290 289 4240 4240 '.t' q, 3j5 3991 '� B A Y v I 6 w sr s.., L�a.,r N G 7 O N s. ' . 17P 218N Z19m �7z 466t 4443 f" m22 2210 . G3 sa H 4130 3660 , C4'2 z41 0 2oo a o 400 4400 n 0 8. y ?43 M� Z44 „ Ir 2g9 1400 4 00 „ m 1l 24E 245 W ,238 217 *' :40 4240 43to Z �so1Z„ 6812 a 53 r4 4o w a' 16 163 i62, 161 .� - Ir5 3862 3floA y 16n' l., 1 1$^ s, gy H G , 4os 1 :, L A N p sa 178p 179 180 18, 182 Igo lfioo_ _O_S�o^ So 460o qspS_- 45i,„ al— oo aZ . 'o 0 20 @ Z080 Z07 SOO 4500 2(1`n�l 41 M1s00 4500 4se OP (n In 22q \ 225 22e 227 ''' 517 234 Z33 23Z 23I 1' 00 i 898/ 85a5 80 3U 42 7543" 2b3 r UJI J 90 aO!r, "o Lt85''417 7p �� S T pgn3'_ qa 47 0 0 O a'eo si e° R aooae ° >° O F o- ,6 SEPT* PROFILE tAO CESS oovaR m rR'►m � of Fw. av oc o'd' ,o >> Li Y— 7b' Of C" DYER pitfC�St jjjj��� Ir or f". avm ZX SLOPE REQUMM VMR resm) t Rill %a* PIPE TOR r1RSf Y 1 ELI J (-L7L SLOPE) (l dwmw STOVE aR 1 (il► j� OE" OF FLOW - TEE SIZ Qs SLOPE) INLET DEM - _I (Lz SLOPE) OUTLET OEPTH - 11 " FOUNDATION 1— SEPTIC TANK S D. \ LEA `HIN F R f TY k'•�• ly.� iH,aT• aµOL � `� � . mot, \ � - o� 1 � , �f„_ --•--.:�� ;dam \" i ✓.a,►...�4 f-tuJ,?sue / � aW IN Ell) / n. d a �+r Po tu. v IS A., OEP' coAhfll, a1R: 046-10; Mwo (t4 M�Ir,I) H''( w6v., vslqi�t%!1JF�ISi:Jb� E.t 8.9 ..V 1'1CIO ��. • t8' n' 3i, ' Op . �, OB 4L 3e Y. s . TEST HOL lbdg WITNESS: f DATE: PERC. RATE CLASSY SOILS P# #4!�" L I�GJS qp to } 1�OHwS A 1.F, 4 to a. 1 i:YR.+1, LOCATION MAP �• • ?r�►�e' j ,ol.. v,y. 4,�,• •` •�, � •.� ASSESSORS MAP 119 PARCEL S ACHING ITY.. o etAL FLOOD ZONE 1" 6 �' t �•'" z l5 i. BUILDING ZONE: z4 a+M��wrr �•� . - net tr ' :.. ILA 1 • Sr � SETBACKS: FRONT - -*d ' I FILt.t•wil r4fim ti: (}� SIDE - %o I gor, REAR — _ PLAN REFERENCE: ?A _ 1L Pbi pd1�� •w i q �.fd 11 tis 1 � r Ij rt tpi tw t q of ova. H,-o � � fiat vwswa IdEs-,- ' M � W • o-q .�`\ •��\ � W..iH.vL P,✓1j {.0 � r.�►.,✓r ..f...d.acso v r SEPTIC DESIGN: (nwmix Ot9"E1t is Kor ..rawly ) DESIGN FLOW: 0 BEDROOMS (-It? GPD) - SSo GPD USE A IkIP GPD DESIGN FLOW SEPTIC TANK: 13O GPD (_I•-) ono GALLONS USE A 1`�ea GALLON SEPTIC TANK SIDES:: %��L9.t.4Il__1 (74) _ _!ice GPD BOTTOM., _. '��f 1,83 ('4) _ �� GPD TOTAL fir'` S.F. GPD - �►�;,��i?Cf.1b' Ir1' �1KEb r ?Y'f' s✓Nr� 6.r1 ri 'ia'►►r 'I. PSI 0 u 7� aLce�1) • 1.•t ' 15�1 3 •i. i1w f' HOAtia OF HEALTH APPROVE)LAD DATE ---� g.9 do>a►*ii cape engineering, inc. `. CIVIL ENGINItMis ..LAND $URV VOR9 PHFUN�K 50e-��841 AX 939 main st. yHrmOuth, ma 1. DATUM IS 2. MUNICIPAL WATER IS h4ll b L r- 3. MINIMUM PIPE PITCH TO BE 1/B' PER FQOT. 4. DESIGN LOADING FOR ALL PRECAST UNITS TO BE AASHO-H 5. PIPE JOINTS TO BE MADE WATERTIGHT. 6. CONSTRUCTION DETAILS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MASS. ENVIRONMENTAL CODE TITLE V. 7. TIIIS PLAN IS FOR PROPOSED WORK ONLY AND NOT TO BE USED FOR LOT LINE STAKING. 6. PIPE FOR SEPTIC SYSTEM TO SCH. 40-4' PVC. 9. COMPONENTS NOT TO BE SACKFILLED OR CONCEALED WITH( INSPECTION BY BOARD .OF HEALTH AND PERMISSION OBTAIN( FROM BOARD OF HEALTH. 4r"A ,erl SITE AND SEWAGE PLAN OF ua IHE TOWN Of. - PREPARED FOR: ,AMv1'& I e. 1 10. 0 u 40 600 Feet SCuB: . DATSt, A Aftl✓ o �i�37 9 -7 AME i� OALA sau 01° r4rv9_7 A . OJALA, S. DATE 7, 41.,36 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS LAND COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT Bristol, ss. Miscellaneous Case No. 116694 RANDY S. PARDINI, ] C04 Plaintiff yq,� ►+Eqpt vs. ] NCR y� Tti0� wgssq ] MpTpTr. � - INHABITANTS OF THE '9 Sr TOWN OF SEEKONK, ] Defendant ��06Q D E C I S I O N This action brought by the plaintiff Randy S. Pardini, pursuant to G.L. c. 240, §14A, seeks a determination of the extent to which .the Zoning By -Laws of the Town of Seekonk prohibits the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the plaintiff's recently constructed dwelling located on Hebron Avenue in the Town of Seekonk. The defendant Town claims that the plaintiff has constructed said dwelling less than the required setback distance from Carpenter Avenue, a so-called "paper street" which has never been constructed, and the Building Inspector consequently refuses to issue an occupancy permit. The parties stipulated in open court that whatever the applicable setback distance may be under the provisions of the Seekonk Zoning By -Laws (Exhibit No. 5), the dwelling is in compliance if the distance is measured from the centerline of Carpenter Avenue and violates the By -Laws provisions if the setback is measured from the sideline of Carpenter Avenue. Accordingly, the sole issue before the court is whether the required setback should be measured from the centerline or sideline of Carpenter Avenue. The dwelling has been constructed in such a way that if - 1 - s ' -the setback distance is measured from the sideline of Carpenter Avenue, as the Town contends, there exists a violation of the Seekonk Zoning By -Laws; and, conversely if the setback distance is measured between the dwelling and centerline of said paper street, as the plaintiff argues, the requirements of the Zoning By -Laws are satisfied. A reduced copy of Exhibit No. 4 is appended as Appendix A, which depicts the relationship of the existing position of plaintiff's dwelling and Carpenter Avenue. A trial was held at the Land Court on February 21, 1986 at which a stenographer was appointed to record and transcribe the testimony. Nine exhibits were introduced into evidence by the parties. The plaintiff testified on his own behalf and Anthony Strycharz, present Town of Seekonk Building Inspector, testified for the defendant Town of Seekonk. On all the evidence I find and rule as follows: 1. The plaintiff acquired title to the premises which are the subject of this litigation from Jack E. Kenyon by deed dated December 11, 1978 and recorded with the Bristol County Northern District Registry of Deeds, Book 1889, Page 18 (Exhibit No. 7). Said premises are located in Seekonk on the southeasterly side of the turnaround at the end of Hebron Avenue and are shown as Lot No. 6 on a plan entitled "'Stoney Brook Plat' Seekonk, Massachusetts for Jack E. Kenyon by Stanley Engineering, Inc.," dated August, 1973 (revised January, 1974 and December, 1977) and recorded in Plan Book 167, Page 59 (Exhibit No. 3) (the "locus"). Said plan shows Lot No. 6 as having an area of 16,463 square feet, extending to the sideline of Carpenter Avenue, which is marked thereon as "UNDEVELOPED," and without any ownership designated for Carpenter Avenue. Said Carpenter Avenue also ,Unless the context otherwise suggests, all recording references herein are to said registry district. - 2 - r appears outside of the land subdivided to form the lots which make up the "Stoney Brook Plat." 2. A prior plan entitled "Plat No. 2 of Hebron Heights Attleborough and Seekonk, Mass." surveyed and platted by Charles F. Janes, dated June, 1874 and recorded in Plan Book 4, Page 5 (Exhibit No. 2) shows Carpenter Avenue, and it appears that said way was created by this 1874 plan (the "1874 plan"). Carpenter Avenue is shown on the 1874 plan as sixty feet wide and at the time of this ancient subdivision provided frontage for Lot Nos. 361, 367, 370 and 372 thereon, now owned in whole or in part by the plaintiff who also appears to own portions of Lot Nos. 366 and 371 on said plan. Also fronting on said Carpenter Avenue across from the locus are Lot Nos. 360, 368, 369 and 373. In addition, there are other lots on the 1874 plan which lie northerly of the locus and which front on Carpenter Avenue which appears to be approximately 60 feet wide. Hebron Avenue, as shown on the 1973 plan, and Carpenter Avenue, as shown on the 1874 plan, do not intersect. 3. The description which originally. appeared in the deed to the plaintiff has been revised so that the most recent deed from Joseph Pardini to the plaintiff, dated December 19, 1984 and recorded in Book 2612, Page 329 (Exhibit No. 6), describes the property by reference to the earlier plan and follows the centerline of Carpenter Avenue as contrasted with the h original deed to the plaintiff and the plan referred to therein which show Lot No. 6 as extending only to the sideline of Carpenter Avenue (Exhibit Nos. 3 and 7). The locus, as described in the 1984 deed, contains 21,999 square feet and is shown on a "Plan of Survey in Seekonk, Mass. for Randy S. Pardini" prepared by Stanley Engineering, Inc., dated December, 1984 - 3 - 0 and recorded in Plan Book 216, Page 62 (Exhibit No. 4 - photocopy of a portion of which is attached as Appendix A). Mr. Pardini testified at trial that he executed the change of description, on advice of counsel, to comport with the land he believed he owned. 4. The plaintiff submitted a plan together with a permit application for construction of a septic system to the Seekonk Board of Health, which was subsequently approved July 25, 1979. Said plan showed a proposed dwelling to be constructed thirty-five feet from the sideline of Hebron Avenue, a paved street, and thirty-six feet from the sideline of Carpenter Avenue (Exhibit No. 8). 5. The plaintiff applied to the Seekonk Building Inspector for a building permit to construct a split level dwelling at 191 Hebron Avenue and the application was approved on July 19, 1982. Said application gives the size of the lot as 16,735 square feet and omits the distances from adjoining side and rear lot lines and street lines to the proposed dwelling (Exhibit No. 9). It is the practice of the Seekonk Building Inspector to rely on the septic system design plans submitted to the Board of Health, where applicable, to check compliance with zoning when building permit applications are submitted. 6. The plaintiff's dwelling has not been constructed in accordance with the design plan submitted to the Board of Health because, as the plaintiff testified, "ledge" was uncovered during excavation of the site forcing him to move the proposed location toward Carpenter Avenue without notification to or approval by town authorities. 7. The plaintiff has constructed a dwelling on the locus, the closest portion of which is presently thirteen feet from the sideline of Carpenter - 4 - Avenue and forty-three feet from the centerline of Carpenter Avenue (Exhibit No. 4). See Appendix A attached. 8. Carpenter Avenue is a "paper street," so called (Exhibit No. 1), and is shown on the old subdivision plan prepared in 1874 as terminating at a line which is an extension of the plaintiff's southerly property line (Exhibit No. 2). The portion of Carpenter Avenue abutting the plaintiff's land, which is the pertinent part in the present case, has never been accepted by the Town of Seekonk (Exhibit No. 1), has never been cleared, constructed or utilized as a way and is presently overgrown with trees and brush. No evidence was submitted which would indicate any expectation of further use as a public or private right of way. 9. The plaintiff's land is situated in a "R-1" Residence District and said "R-1" District requires a minimum front yard setback of thirty-five feet and a minimum rear yard setback of twenty-five feet, with exceptions not here applicable (Exhibit No. 5; Town of Seekonk Zoning By -Laws, §§6, 13.1). 10. The Zoning By -Laws also provide that "a lot having frontage on two streets that do not intersect shall have two front yards each of a depth as provided in this by-law" (Exhibit No. 5; Town of Seekonk Zoning By -Laws, §13.2). A street is defined as "[a] public way established by or maintained under public authority" (underlining added); the street line as "[t]he dividing line between a public way and an adjacent lot"; and a lot as "[a] parcel of land defined by metes, bounds, or boundary lines in a recorded deed or shown on a recorded plan or plat" (Exhibit No. 5; Town of Seekonk Zoning By -Laws, §2). Other definitions which appear in section two of the Seekonk Zoning By -Laws (Exhibit No. 5) which may be pertinent include the following: u - 5 - • YARD: A required space on a lot, open, and unoccupied and unobstructed by structures, except as otherwise provided in this by-law. YARD, FRONT: A required yard extending across the full width of the lot adjacent to the front street line. YARD, REAR: A required yard extending across the full width of the lot adjacent to the rear lot line. YARD, SIDE: A required yard extending from the rear of the required front yard, or from the street line where no front yard is required, to the front of the required rear yard, or to the rear lot line where no rear yard is required. YARD, INTERIOR SIDE: A required side yard not adjacent to a public way. YARD, CORNER SIDE: A required side yard adjacent to a public way. The setback requirements under local zoning bylaws are measured from the street line when the parcel abuts a street, as defined in the local zoning bylaws, or from the property line for those sides of a parcel which do not directly abut a designated street. Thus, a determination as to whether the setback requirement of the Seekonk Zoning By -Laws should be measured from the centerline or sideline of Carpenter Avenue depends on the present legal status and physical characteristics of Carpenter Avenue, the ownership of that portion of Carpenter Avenue claimed by the plaintiff and F the interpretation and application of the pertinent parts of the Seekonk Zoning By -Laws. It should be noted at the outset that the plaintiff should not have constructed the building in a location which varied from that shown on the application for a building permit without seeking approval of the Building - 6 - Inspector. It is true that the Building Inspector did check the house during the construction period, but it does not appear that he was apprised of the change in location. The plaintiff, therefore, does not come before this court without fault, but it seems in the best interest of the parties to this proceeding that the matter be determined without further delay. Ownership of Carpenter Avenue The question as to whether the sideline or centerline of Carpenter Avenue should be used in determining the appropriate setback largely depends on whether there are rights still existing to use Carpenter Avenue as a private way for all purposes for which streets or ways may be used in the Town of Seekonk. If in fact such rights continue to exist and have not been abandoned, then the sideline of Carpenter Avenue should be used; if, on the other hand, Carpenter Avenue for all practical purposes has ceased to exist, then the property line is at the centerline of the old avenue and rights of others to use that portion situated on land claimed by the plaintiff has ended. The Court is unable to make a definitive interpretation of rights in Carpenter Avenue since the owners of the lots on the easterly side thereof across from the locus are not before the Court. It is clear that those whose land lie without the subdivision shown on the 1874 plan (Exhibit No. 2) have no right to use Carpenter Avenue and since the way appears to terminate at a railroad right of way, the owners of lots abutting thereon would appear to have the right to proceed only northerly from the direction of the locus. Accordingly, it is only the owners of the lots across from the locus on the easterly side thereof, i.e., Lot Nos. 360, 368, 369 and 373, who appear to have any rights therein. The Court may not rule that such rights have been abandoned or - 7 - .otherwise terminated without the owners of such lots being joined as , parties to this action. However, for purposes of the zoning question now before me, the unlikelihood of Carpenter Avenue ever being constructed after the lapse of 112 years without this having been done and the physical nature of the street, leads me to the conclusion that for purposes of construing the applicable zoning by-law, the existence of Carpenter Avenue may be ignored. It is not merely a rule of construction but almost a rule of law that a conveyance by a named way carries the fee to the centerline thereof, G.L. c. 183, §58, together with an appurtenant right to use said way and subject to a like right appurtenant to other lands abutting thereon, Boland v. St. John's Schools, 163 Mass. 229, 236 (1895). This rule is subject, of course, to the caveat that the grantor has title to the land in question when such rights are first defined. Crocker v. Cotting, 166 Mass. 183, 185 (1896); G.L. c. 183, §58. There is also a strong presumption that the grantor will be presumed to have intended to pass title to the centerline of the abutting way. Erickson v. Ames, 264 Mass. 436, 443-444 (1928); Suburban Land Co. v. Billerica, 314 Mass. 184, 189 (1943); Murphy v. Mart Realty of Brockton, Inc., 348 Mass. 675, 680 (1965); G.L. c. 183, §58. The case was tried on the theory that the plaintiff is successor in title to lots abutting on Carpenter Avenue and accordingly the fee to the centerline thereof was conveyed to him subject to the rights of others therein. It would appear on this record that such rights of others have terminated, and for purposes of construing the appropriate boundary from which the required setback should be measured, the centerline of Carpenter Avenue should be used, and I so find and rule. - 8 - Status of Carpenter Avenue It is clear that Carpenter Avenue has never become a public way since an existing way is not a public way "unless it has become public in character in one of three ways: (1) a laying out by public authority in the manner prescribed by statute . . .; (2) prescription; and (3) prior to 1846, a dedication by the owner to public use, permanent and unequivocal . . . coupled with an expressed or implied acceptance by the public." Fenn v. Middleborough, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 80, 83-84 (1979) (citations omitted). There was no evidence offered at trial that would suggest that the pertinent part of Carpenter Avenue abutting the locus has ever been established as a public way. In addition, Carpenter Avenue is not a statutory private way laid out and accepted by the Town of Seekonk for the use of one or more of the inhabitants under G.L. c. 82, §§21, 23. In any event, as an aside, such statutory private ways, without more, are not to be considered public ways under the subdivision control law, Casagrande v. Town Clerk of Harvard, 377 Mass. 703, 707-708 (1979), but "these 'private ways' are private only in name . . . [and] in all other respects public," Denham v. County Comm'rs of Bristol, 108 Mass. 202, 208 (1871). Application of Local By -Laws The defendant cites Clarks Lane Garden Apts. v. Schloss, 197 Md. 4572 79 A. 2d. 538 (1951) for the proposition that the area of a proposed street cannot be used in calculating setback requirements because paper streets imply an expectation that they can be used as a street in the future. However, this reliance is unjustified since Clarks Lane may be distinguished in several important aspects from the present case. First, the zoning ordinance in Clarks Lane made provision for yards along - 9 - undeveloped streets. Id. at 539. Also there was an "Official Detailed , Plan" established by the community showing proposed streets, and finally there was evidence indicating that the subject street would certainly be opened and probably soon. Id. None of these elements are present in the instant case. In addition, the defendant's blanket assertion that even without specification in the local bylaw paper streets imply an expectation that they will be opened in the future is without authority. This certainly does not appear to be warranted in the instant case given the lack of evidence to that result; for example, it has been over 100 years since Carpenter Avenue was initially platted and presently Carpenter Avenue remains undeveloped in the vicinity of the locus. Alternatively, the plaintiff cites as authority Mayer v. Dade County, 82 So. 2d 513 (Florida 1955) where a zoning setback regulation was found to be invalid as applied, for the reason that the plaintiffs were required to increase the setback beyond the setback required by the wording of the regulation. Id. at 519. While the facts do not set on the same footing as the instant case, Mayer did involve the measurement from a way which had not been dedicated to public use. Thus, the Florida Supreme Court's holding requiring a setback to be measured from the "property [line] of the appellants and not from some imaginary street boundary which is anticipated for future development" gives support to the result in the present case. In summary, therefore, I find and rule that for purposes of defining the required setback provisions of the Seekonk Zoning By -Laws, the plaintiff's easterly boundary line may be deemed to be the centerline of Carpenter Avenue from which the required distance between the house and the property line should be measured. Judgment accordingly. - 10 - Chi f Justice Dated: July 14.9 1986 A A \ cral,oa Ard • ! ! Nlnonelrc Al c a rio,v 04 A AJ ; PARCEL CONUINS � Z/, 999 5a. AT OR Sc-7/e ,., 11/1/,5 f' i 0.505 ACRES I ' • it ; I 1; Q i ;;, ', ; I I I ,` ' I Ii I o ;, I�!' �C/ ; �• . J?Qy� wiry, / :.,!,�1 �. li• •'; '.{,. �:' • 1 ' � .� Ire ,� r . •� ' 4- I . . .4 L. a a d d l.0410s: 44' O Y IL ti c II 1 q2, s5'4o► w o I Robert H. O?smor/5 and Wheel G. A//Ard /ida/rd t Corp 1a9.4s' �, 1 Riy/,fai'k�uyFo n7ei/yCarptnfer,4ve.11— APPL /CA NT i Tlornpson A ex Company I . Randy 5. Pard/nJ /9/ Hebr-on Avenue /ere Gr/ ctr(l(y �hofj`f�ie ro/�erfy nCS.� 5howr!'..;�� Seekonk, May s . j i i;: ►: ; s plan are the ///9C5.id/✓Idlny ex/sf/ng owlier• :;;i`,a;�l 0277/ d n.,the;,/Ines ol^fhe sfr f5 7,1od wAy5 $/iawr/ Vio3e ale 51reel -5 or ways I , I ' I �. I esfab/is/ied, and' fha,� no /7eJv /ir7es, fa/' Li c, ,ex 3brig ;gWrrcrs{�� or fur r1eiv. wI?//s .! ,• :CAS , NorE• L p/ 4; / a ii d a portion of Co�pinler ,4vinue Mormel'ly) on -Assessors P/al 34 Zoned FResidenee 'R-/ PLAN OF 51-IR vE Y hV SEEfCONK, ".455. FOR RANDY 5 4RnIA11 aY I Sr,4 n/L BY EA161NteA/N6, /NC. 5C.41-E /' 40' /994 o m to 40 fJ to 110 .GRAPH/e SCALE I ' I hereby cerflo,-�hal I have ConfPrrned W/,'/i l{/c�1RC/IG5 4nd Flegl✓/a></gn5 of �e F?eglsfry p f Deeds i{n pre par/ng M15 p/aI7 R£G t6 T CT ro