Warren - Decision
Decision on Petition for a Variance
Requested by Randall B. Warren
A public meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals (the “Board”) was held on
Tuesday June 25, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. at Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, Beverly,
Massachusetts. The agenda included a petition by Randall B. Warren in a request for a
variance from the R15 minimum sideyard setback.
The applicant seeks to create a new property line that would fall within 5 feet of
an existing garage. The existing property line is less than 5 feet from the garage on the
Northerly side. The applicant seeks to move the property line to the south side of the
existing garage at the same location to a 5-foot setback instead of the required 15 feet.
Further, the applicant seeks a variance to the R-15 frontage requirement of 125 feet.
Petitioner currently has the required frontage for both Lot 3 and Lot 4, but seeks to make
both lots more regular in shape by deeding Parcel B to Lot 3 and Parcel A to Lot 4. Lot 4
would have 110 feet of frontage instead of the required 125 feet. Lot 3 would have an
increased frontage of 87 feet instead of the current 60.40 feet. The side yard setback of
Lot 3 would increase from 1.8 feet to 5 feet without any encroachment to the side yard
setback for Lot 4. The frontage request increases the current frontage of Lot 3 by 50
percent from 59.42 feet to 87 feet, regarding the property located at 278 Essex Street (the
“Parcel”). The property is located in a R-15 Zoning District.
The June 25, 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, Andrea Fish and
Mark Schmidt. Alternate members John Colucci and Jane Brusca were 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.
Randall B. Warren spoke on his own behalf. He stated that he resides in the
dwelling at 278 Essex Street, which includes a detached garage. He has owned two lots
to the north of his property since 1982. He originally wanted to construct a dwelling at
the top of the hill behind his house and existing garage. However, he discovered that it
would be very costly to build a house there due to the expense of blasting the ledge there.
Also, his garage is an historic structure and it cannot be moved easily because it sits on a
slab. He proposes to move his existing dwelling to the reconfigured Lot 3 and have it
serviced by the existing garage. He proposes to build a new house on the reconfigured
lot 4. Mr. Warren added that he seeks relief for the two lots to make them more regular
in shape. He added that he can subdivide the lots as of right by means of an “ANR”
(approval not requuired) filing. However, he can build the houses on better shaped lots if
the relief he seeks is granted. He commented that the a new house on the reconfigured lot
4 would include the construction of a garage.
Chairman Houseman questioned if any member of the public would like to
comment on this petition. There being none, he asked the Board members for their
questions and comments.
Ms. Fish asked Mr. Warren to explain the plan he submitted with the application
labeled “Concept A Plan.” Mr. Warren explained that “Concept ‘A’ Plan of Land”
submitted with the petition defines the proposed new lot lines and setbacks set out in the
application. The existing dwelling would be relocated upon the reconfigured Lot 3. Lot
4 would be a revised lot with new frontage and area for a proposed new smaller dwelling
and attached garage.
Mr. Schmidt stated that due to the configuration of the existing lot lines, the
topography of the land, including ledge, and the location of the existing structure, a
hardship exists for the Parcel and he supports the request. Ms. O’Brien and Mr. Ferguson
concurred with Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Houseman stated that he was not in favor of the
petition. He stated, and Mr. Warren acknowledged, that Mr. Warren has been strongly
opposing nearby residential development. Mr. Houseman stated that additional
residential development at the location of the Parcel will unduly increase congestion in
along Essex Street and be detrimental to the orderly development of land in Beverly.
Also, he indicated he did not think the basis for a hardship was adequately shown. For
those reasons he opposed the application.
The Board incorporated its observations, except those of Mr. Houseman, as its
general findings of fact and made the following specific findings about the proposed
addition: (1) that there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land for
which the variance is sought, which are based on the shape and topography of Lot 3 and
the shape of Lot 4 and the location of the building on Lot 4. These circumstances and
conditions are peculiar to such land but not affecting generally the zoning district in
which the land is located and the application of the standards of the Zoning Ordinance
would deprive the applicant of a reasonable use of the property. The topography factors
include quantities of ledge and steep topography to the rear of Lot 3; (2) that this proposal
is the minimum variance that will grant reasonable relief to the owner and is necessary
for a reasonable use of land or building; (3) that the variance will not be injurious to the
neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. In addition to considering
the character and use of the nearby buildings and land, the Board found that the number
of persons residing in or upon such land and the present and probable future traffic
conditions will not be affected by granting of the variance; and (4) that there is no factual
evidence that property values will be adversely affected by such use.
Following the questioning and discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Schmidt to
GRANT the variance relief as set forth in the “Concept ‘A’ Plan” which is attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference (and must be recorded with the decision), and
based upon the representations of Mr. Warren concerning the relocation of his existing
dwelling. The motion was seconded by Ms. O’Brien. It carried 4-1 (Houseman
opposed). This decision is not an indication that the reconfigured lots comply with any or
all other zoning requirements in the City of Beverly.
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