2000-07-25
CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLICMEETING MINUTES
These minutes are not a verbatim transcript of the public hearings
or public meetings of the Zoning Board of Appeal. Reviews of this
discussion or outcome of public hearings should include an examination of
the Board’s decision for that hearing.
Board: Zoning Board of Appeal
Date: July 25, 2000
Place: Beverly City Hall, Council Chamber, 191 Cabot Street
Board Members Present: Full Members: Chairman, Scott Houseman, Robert
McLemore, Day Ann Kelley. (left after 5 cases)
Alternate Members: Margaret O’Brien, Scott
Ferguson, and Andrea Fish.
Others Present: Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer – Timothy
Brennan, Clerk of the Board – Diane Rogers, and
Assistant City Planner – Debra Hurlburt
Board Members Absent: Leonard J. Bertaux, Martin Freeman
Chairman Houseman, opened the meeting by introducing the Board Members to the public and discussing
the rules for obtaining a variance.
15 Kernwood Heights, R-10 Zone, Joseph and Carol Stacey -Variance – Request
Mr. Stacey spoke on his own behalf. He is seeking to sub-divide an existing lot containing 18,622 sq. ft.
into two lots, Lot “A” containing 11,405 s. f., with the exiting dwelling and garage, and Lot “B” to contain
7,217 s. f. for a buildable lot. The frontage on Lot “B” will be 72.2 feet where 100 feet is required.
He added that his family is grown and his wife Carol would like to construct a small house on Lot “B” for
themselves. He added, that most of the lots on his street contained only 6,000 sq. feet and his proposed lot
would be 7,217 sq. feet.
Houseman asked if any member of the public had any comments on this proposal, there being none, he
asked the Board Members for their comments and questions.
Page 2 ( Stacey cont.)
Fish stated that the property has a shortage of area also along with the frontage encroachment. She asked
the petitioner if he owned any other properties on the street and Mr. Stacey responded yes, 15 and 17
Kernwood Heights. O’Brien asked if lot “A” was a bed and breakfast and Mr. Stacey, responded yes, he
had been running it for 10 years now.
McLemore stated that he saw no hardship for this petition. Houseman stated that this is a hard case. He
added that he finds no reasonable hardship. He commented that the property is beautiful, however, even
though several lots on the street are smaller than this proposed lot, the Zoning Ordinance changed.
Houseman then stated that to allow this would be for the intent of financial gain. He added that the
Stacey’s have income from the bed and breakfast they operate. Houseman explained to the petitioner that
the topography of the land is flat and square, which would not require a hardship finding.
Mrs. Stacey stated that she did not understand what Houseman stated regarding financial gain. She added
that she likes the neighborhood and does not want to move. She commented that she did not want to move
into her bed and breakfast property.
Ferguson concurred with Houseman.
Ferguson: Motion to grant the variance. Seconded by McLemore. Motion did not carry 5 – 0 Denied
( Houseman, McLemore, Ferguson, Fish and O’Brien)
9 Paradise Road, – R-15 Zone – Paul Nasser – Variance Request ( Day Ann Kelley will Chair this
case )
Mr. Nasser spoke on his own behalf. He is seeking to encroach 5’ plus or minus upon the required 30’
front yard setback and to encroach l5’ plus or minus upon the required 25’ rear yard setback, with a
22’x53’-6” two story addition that will have an attached two car garage and family room on the first level
and a master bedroom and office on the second level.
Mr. Nasser stated the hardship was the shape of his land and the way it slopes to the left-hand side. He
added that the lot is also pie -shaped. He could not build on the right hand side because that too has
limitations. He commented that he considered building a two -car garage under, however, he has a high
water level. Nasser added that he has the smallest lot in the eleven -lot sub-division and that almost every
neighbor had at least a one -car garage. He stated there would be no increase in traffic, water, or sewer. He
added he worked with an architect and would require a variance no matter where he placed the addition
because of the placement of the existing dwelling on the lot. He commented that his house is 10 feet from
the rear yard setback. Mr. Nasser stated that he spoke to his neighbors regarding this proposal.
Chairman Houseman, asked if anyone from the public would like to comment of this petition, there being
none, he asked the Board Members for their comments and questions.
O’Brien stated she had no questions, however, she commented that the lot is odd shaped. McLemore asked
how many square feet the lot contained and Nasser responded l0, 050. McLemore commented the lot was
unusual. Fish had no questions. Ferguson asked the petitioner if 12 Paradise Road was located next door
to the left and Nasser responded yes, Mr. Davis. Ferguson stated the proposed addition was 30% larger
than any house there and he was opposed to this because it would spoil the character of the neighborhood.
McLemore stated all the neighborhood houses have garages and this lot is unusual in size, which is a
hardship.
McLemore: Motion to grant the variance. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion did not carry 3 – 2 Denied
( McLemore, O’Brien, Houseman,) (Opposed was Ferguson and Fish)
Page 3 (M. Acciavati cont.)
311 Essex Street – R-15 Zone – Michael Acciavatti – Variance Request (owned by Kenneth B.
Nelson)
Mr. Acciavatti spoke on his own behalf. He is seeking to allow the sub-division of a non-conforming lot
containing 13,223 ft. located at 3ll Essex St. into two lots, A &B. Lot “A” will contain 1,495 feet and will
be sold to the abutting owner Mr. Michael Acciavatti at 309 Essex Street and Lot “B” at 311 Essex Street
will contain 11,788 ft. and the existing dwelling.
Mr. Acciavatti stated that nothing will be built upon on the proposed extra land. He added that he will now
have a 5 foot drive-way addition and will landscape the area. He commented that Essex Street is very busy
and that during the 18 years he has lived there, he has been hit three times leaving his driveway in his
vehicle.
Chairman Houseman asked if any member of the public had any comments on this proposal, there being
none, he asked the Board Members for their questions and comments.
Kelley stated that there are two non-conforming lots. She added that the petitioner has 75 feet of frontage
presently and with an additional 10 feet, they will now have 85 feet. Kelley then stated the other lot would
have 79 ft. of frontage. She believes the hardship is living on Essex Street, where there is a great deal of
traffic. Fish asked where the house was located and how far it was from the lot line. Acciavatti responded
the house was 14’ from the lot line. McLemore stated that small parcels sometimes change hands for future
development. Acciavatti responded that the only thing he has done to his property was to construct a
garage, in 1988. McLemore added that he did view the site and he agreed there is a great deal of traffic
there. O’Brien stated that she had no questions at this time. Houseman stated this is a minimal request. He
commented that the long narrow shape of the lot and the traffic, constitute a hardship. Fish asked the
petitioner if he requested an easement from the Planning Board and he responded yes, I filled out an A & R
plan but was informed that I could not do it.
Kelley: Motion to approve the variance on the lot Seconded by O’Brien. Motion passed on a vote of
5 – 0. (Kelley, O’Brien, McLemore, Fish, & Houseman) All members in favor.
391 Rear Elliott Street – R-10 Zone – William Beard – Variance Request
Mr. William Beard spoke on his own behalf. He is seeking to sub-divide the existing lot into two lots, Lot
“A” containing 16,620 sq. feet and the existing dwelling and Lot “B” will contain 41,776 sq. feet with 26’
of frontage on an unconstructed cul-de-sac off Cleveland Road.
Mr. Beard stated that he was dissatisfied with the advertisement for his petition as written by the Building
Commissioner. He went on to say that 39l Elliott Street is a conforming lot since 1943. He would like to
build a single family dwelling with an access at the end of Cleveland Road. He believes this would be the
most reasonable plan that would not require constructing the remainder of Cleveland Road or making it a
through street. Mr. Beard withdrew without prejudice his variance application, April 25, 2000 to reapply
this month with a change in his plan. Mrs. Beard stated that they live on Elliott Street, a very busy street
and would like to build a house further back on the lot to protect her children from traffic.
Houseman asked if any member of the public had any comments on this proposal. Marianne Heffernan of
12 Cleveland Road, who lives in the last house on the left, stated she was opposed to this petition. Marie
Leonard of 9 Cleveland Road, the last house on the right, is opposed. She stated the land was originally
owned by United Shoe. She added that eleven Veterans were chosen by the Shoe to build their houses on
Cleveland Road. She stated the sewer ends in the middle of Cleveland Road. She then asked how the
petitioner could be allowed to build a house with only 26 feet of frontage. Maureen Troubetaris, Ward One
Councilor, stated she was opposed to this petition. She added there is not 100 feet of frontage as is required
and that 26 feet is not sufficient. She added that she sees no hardship in this petition.
Page 4 (Beard cont.)
Houseman then asked the Board for their comments and questions. Kelley stated she could not see
building a house with only 26 feet of frontage. Beard responded that the 26feet of frontage, is access only.
McLemore stated if this road were to be extended would it be in compliance and how would it get
accepted. Brennan stated a fire hydrant would be needed. Beard stated that Captain Palmer of the Beverly
Fire Department stated that if he improved the road, a hydrant location of 500 feet would be acceptable.
Kelley asked what the difference was between this proposal and the one he withdrew in April. Brennan
stated that there is only a minimal difference changed from the last proposal recently withdrawn.
He added that Mr. Beard still needs a cul de sac.
The members of the Board were presented with a petition submitted against this proposal signed by
approximately, nine owners.
Fish asked if the property was always two lots. Beard responded that on the tax rolls the front lot with the
house was classified 101 and the rear lot was 131 and developable. Brennan stated it’s one lot in common
ownership and it could be feasible to build 100 foot road. Beard described that a public way was indicated
in 1950. Ferguson asked Mr. Beard why he couldn’t just take the existing dwelling and enlarge it. He
added that all the neighbors were against this petition and he felt 26 feet of frontage was not enough.
Houseman stated that there is allot of traffic on Elliott Street, however, he could not except the frontage of
26 feet and commented that the lot contains wetlands. He added that if the dwelling was placed on the top
of the lot he could see it. He also mentioned that this was a paper street.
Kelley made a motion to deny the variance. Seconded by Fish. Motion carries on a vote of 4 – 1.
(McLemore was in favor of this petition) (Kelley, McLemore, Fish, Ferguson, Houseman)
32 Jordan Street – R-10 Zone – Kenneth J. Pellegrino – Variance Request
Mr. Pellegrino spoke on his own behalf. He is seeking to encroach one foot plus or minus upon the 15 feet
side yard setback requirement with a (12’x14’) one- story sunroom addition, that will be erected on the
existing (12’x16’) open deck.
The petitioner stated that he has letters of acceptance from abutting neighbors and another neighbor. He
presented photographs of his property to the Board. He added that his house is located 12 feet from one
abutting neighbor and 6 feet on the alternate side of his property. He would like to utilize the land he has.
He stated there was minimal wetlands on some of his property.
Houseman asked if anyone would like to comment on this petition, there being none, he asked the Board
Members for their comments and questions
Ferguson stated he was in support of this proposal. He added that the hardship is the position of the
dwelling on the lot and he commented that the petitioner is only requesting a one- foot encroachment.
Kelley, O’Brien, and McLemore concurred. Houseman stated that only one -foot relief was requested.
Kelley: Motion to grant the variance. O’Brien seconded. Motion carries 5 – 0. All members in favor.
(Kelley, O’Brien, Houseman, Ferguson, & McLemore)
2 Prides Park Avenue – R-45 Zone – Maureen O’Brien – Variance Request
Ms. O’Brien spoke on her own behalf. She is seeking to encroach 15’ plus or minus upon the required side
yard setback of 20’, with an addition of an attached garage, (20’x26’) with a bedroom and bathroom above.
She submitted five letters from neighbors in favor of the proposal. O’Brien added that she needs another
bedroom. The addition will not impact the neighborhood.
Page 5 (O’Brien cont.)
Houseman asked if anyone would like to comment on this petition, there being none, he asked the Board
Members for their comments and questions. Ferguson inquired about an existing office space. O’Brien
responded that the office space would be incorporated into the new bedroom and bathroom addition as part
of the addition. Kelley stated that Ms. O’Brien has 10,000 sq. ft. of area in an R-45 Zoning District. See
added that the lot is narrow and undersized but is a pre-existing non-conforming lot of record. Margaret
O’Brien stated she was in favor of this petition. McLemore asked if there was a sidewalk on her side of the
street. O’Brien responded, yes. McLemore added that he has no problem with this addition but wondered
how the driveway would be laid out. Houseman read letters in favor from the Callahan’s of 3 Prides Park
Ave., the Coles/Joynt & Baldwins of 1 Prides Park Ave, the McNult’s of 583 Hale Street, Gunther Schug
of 6 Prides Park Avenue, and Sheila Kellogg. Ms. Kellogg’s house is located at 591 Hale Street and was in
favor with the following restrictions:
l. no burning of brush, minimal debris in the back yard as the property is small and close to me
some planting of trees as a screen.
Houseman stated the only relevance of hardship is the size of the lot. He added the petitioner stated they
would need a variance no matter what alteration was made.
McLemore: Motion to grant the variance with amendments: (1.) Fir trees to be planted in the back along
the building. (2.) the shed will be relocated or removed to rear lot line, near Ms. Kellogg.
Seconded by O’Brien. Motion carries 5 - 0 All members in favor. (McLemore, O’Brien,
Houseman, Ferguson, and Kelley)
(Kelley is leaving, will do all the decisions up to this point. Margaret O’Brien will do “ Stacey”, and Bob
will do Faulkner & Pomazon)
49 Corning Street – R-10 Zone – Keith Faulkner – Variance Request
Mr. Faulkner spoke on his own behalf. He is seeking to encroach 8’ plus or minus upon the required l5’
side yard setback with a 16’x30’ two story addition, containing a kitchen, family room and half bath on
first floor and master bedroom on second floor. He stated the hardship is unique because of the shape of
the lot, which is also long and narrow. He presented plans to his neighbors. He also submitted letters from
abutting neighbors located on each side of his property, which were in favor. The abutting neighbors are
the McMullins’ at 47 Corning St. and Ann Marie Rockwell at 51 Corning Street.
Houseman asked if anyone would like to comment on this petition, there being none, he asked the Board
Members for their comments and questions.
Ferguson stated he would be in favor of this petition as long as the abutters were. Fish stated she had no
questions at this time. O’Brien stated the lot is of unusual shape and this does create a hardship. She added
that the design of the addition is in line with the face of the house. Houseman stated this is a pie shaped
and unusual lot, which is narrow. He added that he is in favor of this petition. McLemore stated he had no
comments at this time.
Ferguson: Motion to grant the variance because of the narrowness and shape of the lot. Seconded by
O’Brien. Motion carries 5 – 0. All members in favor. ((Fish, Houseman, McLemore
Ferguson, and O’Brien)
Page 6
65 Sonning Road – R-l0 Zone – Jonathan B. and Amalia P. Pomazon Variance Request
Mr. Pomazon spoke on his own behalf. He is seeking to encroach 6’ plus or minus upon the required 10’
side yard setback and to encroach 2’ plus or minus upon the 10’ rear yard setback requirement with a 24’
round existing above-ground swimming pool.
Mr. Pomazon stated that his request does not encroach into the rear yard setback as advertised in the
petition. After making more careful measurements, Houseman stated the surveyor says it does encroach.
Pomazon stated Gerry Marsella’s plot plan did not have the pool location. He added the Local Inspector,
John Jennings, placed the location of the pool on the drawing. Commissioner Brennan asked from whom
did Mr. Jennings get the request to place the pool location? (Mr. Pomazon requested the location.)
Houseman asked the Board Members for their comments and questions.
Ferguson stated that on July 10, 2000 he measured the distance and it was 10’-3” to the edge of the pool
from the line of the existing fence. Fish asked if the old fence was removed and Pomazon responded, yes.
Brennan stated he had a problem with this petition, as there was no pool permit on record. Houseman
stated that it is Mr. Pomazon’s opinion that he doesn’t require a variance in the rear. Housman added that
this is his prerogative.
Houseman asked if anyone would like to comment on this petition. Neighbors indicated the pool was
erected about 25 years ago. One of the affected neighbors, Ms. Mahoney of 63 Sonning Road , who has
lived there 23 years, stated the pool has been there that long and that she is in favor of the variance. The
following wrote letters in favor of this petition: Norman Spector of 29 Sonning Road and William
Christina of 27 Sonning Road, who has lived there since 1966, stated the pool has been there since 1975.
In opposition was Mr. Joseph Brennan of 50 Longmeadow Road. He stated he was a direct abutter and that
the pool is not l0 feet away from the lot line. He indicated the new fence is on his property.
Fish asked if the age of the pool was relevant. Commissioner Brennan stated that the pool is not grand-
fathered and the violation is long standing without a permit. . O’Brien asked if a fence requires a permit
and Brennan responded, yes. Mr. Pomazon stated that he located the new fence correctly on his property.
O’Brien asked Mr. Brennan when he purchased his house on Longmeadow Rd. and he responded, two
years ago. McLemore stated this is a dispute between neighbors. He then commented that this is a non-
conforming above ground swimming pool. Houseman asked Mr. Brennan how many feet of this fence was
on his property line. Mr. Brennan responded, on one end it is one foot, at the other end it is 8’ and in the
middle it’s 20’. Fish suggested eliminating the rear variance request. She stated that she sees no hardship
here and commented that a variance is not justified. O’Brien moved to accept the encroachment of 6’ on
the side yard setback only. She stated she feels that the petitioner does not need the 2 foot variance on the
rear yard setback. She added that this is a minimal request and the petitioner did not place the pool there,
the former owner did. McLemore suggested placing an amendment that this pool will expire on December
31, 2002. Ferguson stated that he could find no hardship in this proposal. Houesman concurred with
Ferguson.
O’Brien: Motion to grant the variance. Seconded by McLemore with amendment. Motion did not carry
on a vote of 3 – 2. (O’Brien, McLemore, Ferguson( for) ( Fish and Houseman opposed)