Loading...
Scouras - Special Permit (3) Decision on Petition for a Special Permit Request by Peter Scouras A public meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeal 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 Peter Scouras which was first heard at its February 26, 2002 meeting and continued to the March meeting. The petition asked for a Special Permit to remove an existing detached two-car garage and add to the residence an (30 feet by 32 feet) attached garage with master bedroom suite on the second level. The addition will encroach 20 feet upon the rear yard setback of 25 feet, regarding property located at 527 Essex Street (the “Parcel”). The property is located in an R-15 Zoning District. The March 26, 2002 public meeting 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, Andrea Fish, Margaret O’Brien, Mark Schmidt and Scott Ferguson. Alternate member John Colucci was present but not voting. Architect David Jaquith appeared on behalf of Mr. Scouras. He stated that the plans submitted last month, dated November 18, 2001 (the “Original Plans”), have been revised. The new plans bear a revision date of March 22, 2002 (the “Revised Plans”). He added that the proposed structure was altered in height and location. It was moved five feet further from the side yard abutter, resulting in a side yard setback of 10 feet rather than five feet. Mr. Jaquith stated that they have dropped the size of the garage door in height from nine feet to eight feet and commented that the height of the whole proposed structure was lowered by two feet. He added that the proposed structure is a three-car garage and the footprint is the same, 30 feet by 32 feet. The existing dwelling is a bungalow-style with a rear yard on Harwood Avenue, where the proposed garage would go, and a front yard on Essex Street. Mr. Jaquith stated that the “courtyard” was also reduced. When asked, no members of the public present, wished to comment on this petition. The members then questioned the petitioner. They made observations and obtained answers regarding the criteria upon which findings must be made in order for the Board to grant a Section 6 Special Permit. This discussion is summarized as follows: Ms. Fish commented that this revised plan is a better plan than what was presented at the last meeting. Mr. Houseman commented that the scaled back plan would be better for the 1 neighborhood. He reminded Board members that he spoke last month with the several neighbors most directly impacted. They had no objections to the original proposed plans that encroached the Parcel’s property lines even more than the revised plans. Also, he reminded members that this was a Section 6 application. The Board incorporated its observations as its general findings of fact and made the following specific findings about the proposed structure: (1) that the existing house is just barely non-conforming on the Parcel; the proposed site is an appropriate location for the proposed garage and residence, and the character of the adjoining residences would not be adversely affected; (2) that no factual evidence is found that property values in the district would be adversely affected by this structure; (3) that no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result; (4) that adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the this structure; (5) that there were no valid objections from abutting property owners based on demonstrable fact; (6) that adequate and appropriate City services are available on site, and (7) the proposed non-conforming structure would not be substantially more detrimental than the existing one to the area. Following the questioning and discussion, a motion was made by Ms. Fish and seconded by Ms. O’Brien to adopt the findings and grant the application based on the Revised Plans (with a 10 foot distance from the proposed garage to the rearyard line (not the “sideyard line” as Mr. Jacquith inadvertently mis-stated); 8 foot high garage doors, and a overall height reduced by 2 feet from the Original Plans. The Revised Plans were incorporated by reference and portions of same (not to scale) are attached hereto as Exhibit A (two sheets). The Board voted 5-0 in favor of the motion and GRANTED the revised application. 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 filing 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