Loading...
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