Nadeau - Variance
Decision on Petition for a Variance
Requested by James P. Nadeau
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 James P. Nadeau for a Variance to
encroach 5 feet upon the required 15 feet side yard setback and to encroach 5 feet upon
the required 25 feet rear yard setback with a 18 feet by 20 feet by 14 feet high detached
garage, regarding property located at 41 Millbrook Road (the “Parcel”). The property is
located in an R-15 Zoning District.
The March 26, 2002 public meeting was called to order by the Chairman Scott D.
Houseman. The following five members of the Board were present: full members Scott
D. Houseman, Mark Schmidt, Scott Ferguson, Margaret O’Brien, and alternate member
John Colucci. Member Andrea Fish was absent.
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. James Nadeau spoke on his own behalf. He stated that he had entrances to
the dwelling that prevented the garage from being constructed within the setback
requirements and that he was constructing the garage with minimal impact on the
neighborhood. He added that he has spoken with his neighbors and submitted a letter
with six signatures in favor of the petition. Mr. Nadeau provided photographs for the
Board.
When asked, no member of the public present, wished to comment on this
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: Mr.
rd
Ferguson commented that he conducted a site inspection on March 23 and spoke with
Mrs. Foster, an abutter in favor of the petition. He added that the lot is narrow and that
there were not many garages in the neighborhood. Ms. O’Brien commented that the
position of the dwelling on the Parcel created a hardship and did not believe that the
petition would be detrimental to the neighborhood.
1
The Board incorporated its observations and conclusions 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 characteristic of the Parcel that creates a hardship in strictly enforcing the
zoning bylaw arises from the narrowness of the Parcel and the placement of the dwelling
on it; (3) that there were no objections noted from abutters or neighbors to 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; (6) that there was no factual
evidence advanced that the property values in the district will be adversely affected by
the granting of this variance; and (7) that based on the above mentioned factors, allowing
the application would not result in a material, detrimental impact on the neighborhood or
be inconsistent with the intent of the bylaw.
Following the questioning and discussion, on a motion made by Mr. Schmidt and
seconded by Mr. Colucci, the Board voted 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 applicant, 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