Norton - Decision
Decision on Petition for a Special Permit
Requested by Lyle Norton
A public meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeal (the “Board”) was held on
Tuesday, April 23, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. at Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, Beverly,
Massachusetts. The agenda included a petition by Lyle Norton for a Special Permit to
encroach 5 feet plus or minus upon the required 15 feet side yard setback with a 20 ½ feet
by 20 feet two-story addition containing a family room on the first floor and a master
bedroom on the second floor, regarding property located at 124 Hale Street (the
“Parcel”). The Parcel is located in an R-10 Zoning District.
The April 23, 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, Margaret O’Brien, Andrea Fish, Mark Schmidt and
alternate member John Colucci. Members Scott Ferguson and Joel Margolis were absent
and alternate member Jane Brusca was in attendance but not voting.
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 material.
Mr. Lyle Norton spoke on his own behalf. He stated that he and his wife Amy
need more room with another child on the way. He added that his children attend the
Cove School and that they do not wish to leave the neighborhood.
When asked, no member of the public present at the hearing wished to comment
on this petition. Later in the hearing, Mr. Ahearn of 126 Hale street did speak in favor of
it.
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:
Mr. Colucci asked if the addition was lower than the existing dwelling. Mr. Norton
responded it was by 8 inches. Ms. O’Brien commented that the house with this addition
added would not be more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-
conforming structure, and that this appears to be the only location for the addition due to
the shape of the lot. Mr. Houseman stated that he conducted a site inspection and that
even with this addition the house would be similar in scale to other homes in the
1
neighborhood. Mr. Houseman then asked if Mr. Norton had any letters from abutters.
Mr. Norton responded no. Mr. Ahearn of 126 Hale Street stated that he was in favor of
this petition, that the existing side porch was being demolished, and the addition would
result in the Norton’s house being further away from Mr. Ahearn’s house than it is
presently. Mr. Houseman commented that the request was minimal considering the size
and shape of the lot and nature of the neighborhood. Ms. Fish stated that the front porch
should remain a one-story addition. Mr. Lyle responded that the porch would be
supported by sono tubes not on a foundation, and so it would not support a two-story
addition. The board accepted his representation that a two-story addition would not be
added where the porch is proposed to be constructed.
The Board incorporated its observations, especially that the house with the
proposed addition added would not be more detrimental to the neighborhood than the
existing non-conforming structure, and Mr. Norton’s answers to its questions, as the
Board’s specific findings. It also made the following general findings about the proposed
addition: (1) that the specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed addition, and
that the character of the adjoining uses will not be adversely affected; (2) that no factual
evidence is found that property values in the district will be adversely affected by this
addition; (3) that no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result; (4)
that adequate and appropriate facilities will be proved for the proper operation and
maintenance of the proposed addition; (5) that there are no valid objections from abutting
property owners based on demonstrable fact: and (6) that adequate and appropriate City
services are available for the proposed addition.
Following the questioning and discussion, Ms. O’Brien made a motion, seconded
by Ms. Fish, to adopt the Board’s findings and allow the application. The Board voted 5-
0 to GRANT the motion and the Section 6 special permit.
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