Ball - Variance
Decision on Petition for a Variance
Requested by Foster H. Ball Jr. and Diane L. Ball
A public meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeal (the “Board”) was held on
Tuesday, March 26, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. at 191 Cabot Street, Beverly City Hall, Beverly,
Massachusetts. The agenda included a petition by Foster H. Ball and Diane L. Ball for a
Variance to encroach 4 feet plus or minus upon the 15 feet side yard setback requirement
with a one-story addition. The existing 12 feet by 12 feet den shall be replaced with an
18 feet by 20 feet family room, regarding property located at 10 Oakmont Road (the
“Parcel”). The property is located in an R-10 Zoning District.
The March 26, 2002 public meeting of the Board was called to order by the
Chairman Scott D. Houseman. The following five members of the Board were present:
full members Scott D. Houseman, Scott Ferguson, Margaret O’Brien, Mark Schmidt, and
alternate members John Colucci. Andrea Fish was absent, having left the meeting early.
The public hearing on this application started with the Zoning Clerk, Diane
Rogers, reading the application request to the public and the Board members reviewing
the application materials.
Mr. Foster Ball spoke on his own behalf. He stated that he wanted a larger family
room in the rear of the dwelling. He added that there is a 100-year-old oak tree located in
the yard that provides shade for his neighbors as well as for his family. Mr. Ball stated
that if he had to dig a foundation it would destroy the health of the tree. He added that
other neighbors do have larger additions on their property. Mr. Ball stated that his new
addition would extend 8 feet further than the existing room towards the driveway leaving
approximately 3 feet between the driveway and the addition. He added that it would
extend 6 feet further than the existing den toward the fence along the Appoloni’s
property.
Chairman Houseman asked if any member of the public wished to comment on
this petition. Tom and Barbara Bartley of 8 Oakmont Road and Oscar and Joanne
Fellows of 61 Putnam Street spoke in favor of the petition. Chairman Houseman read a
petition from residents of 18 Albany Circle, 55 Putnam Street, 8, 9 and 12 Oakmont Road
all in favor of the petition.
The Board members then questioned the petitioner. They made observations and
obtained answers regarding the criteria upon which the findings must be made in order
for the Board to grant a variance. This discussion is summarized as follows: Ms. O’Brien
commented that this was an excellent presentation and that the position of the tree caused
1
rd
a hardship. Mr. Ferguson stated that he conducted a site inspection on March 23 and
that the lot is narrow and that he is in favor of the petition. Mr. Houseman stated that he
also conducted a site inspection, that the hardship is the 100-year-old tree, and the
proposed structure in not out of scale for the neighborhood and support in the
neighborhood was good.
The Board incorporated its observations as its general findings and also made the
following specific findings: (1) that the request is the minimum one that could be granted
and still allow the petitioner reasonable use of the Parcel; (2) that the peculiar
characteristics of the Parcel that create a hardship in strictly enforcing the zoning bylaw
arise from the narrowness of the lot and the location of the 100 year old tree; (3) that
there were no objections noted from abutters or neighbors to the petition, in fact, several
spoke in favor of the petition; (4) that the granting of this variance will be in harmony
with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw; (5) that granting this variance will not
be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; and (6)
that there was no factual evidence advanced that the property values in the district will be
adversely affected by the granting of the variance.
Following the questioning and discussion, on a motion made by Mr. Ferguson and
seconded by Ms. O’Brien, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the variance.
The Board finds that the applicant carried the burden of showing (1) that owing to
conditions especially affecting the locus, but not affecting generally the Zoning District
in which it is located, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
would involve a substantial hardship to the application, and (2) that relief may be granted
without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating
from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
Appeals from the Board’s decision on this petition may be filed in accordance
with the provisions of M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 17, within twenty (20) days of this
decision with the City Clerk. This decision shall not be valid unless recorded at the
Essex County Registry of Deeds in Salem, Massachusetts after the twenty-day appeal
period has passed without an appeal being filed.
Respectfully,
Scott D. Houseman
Zoning Board Chairman
2