Capodilupo - Decision
Decision on Petition for a Special Permit
Requested by Ronald Capodilupo
A public meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals (the “Board”) was held on
Tuesday July 23, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. at Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, Beverly,
Massachusetts. The agenda included a petition by Ronald Capodilupo for a special permit
to raze the existing two-car garage and rebuild a (22’x 24’x 15’ high) two-car garage that
encroaches 2 feet plus or minus upon the 5 foot rear yard setback for a detached garage.
Also a request to raze an existing deck and sunroom and rebuild a (20’x 23’) one-story
family room addition that will encroach 9 feet upon the required 15 foot side yard setback,
regarding the property located at 40 Bertram Street (the “Parcel”). The property is located
in a R-10 Zoning District.
The July 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, Scott Ferguson and Margaret O’Brien. Alternate
member John Colucci recused himself. Alternate members Jane Brusca and Joel Margolis
assumed voting positions.
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.
Ronald Capodilupo spoke on his own behalf. He explained that he would raze the
old garage and replace it with a two-car garage. He also wants to remove the old family
room and deck and replace it with a larger one-story family room.
Chairman Houseman asked if any member of the public would like to comment on
this petition. There were none.
He asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Mr. Margolis
asked how the garage would be oriented in relation to the driveway. Mr. Capodilupo
stated that the doors of the proposed garage would be in front of the driveway. The doors
of the current garage are at a right angle to the driveway. Ms. O’Brien asked about why
the Parcel was so big and Mr. Capodilupo told her that he owns two abutting lots.
Mr. Houseman commented that the property is immaculate. He commented that
the oak tree toward the rear of the Parcel contributes to its attractiveness. Mr. Capodilupo
stated he also values the tree and that he would not take it down. Mr. Houseman
commented that he is in support of the application but he is concerned that the new
foundation of the basement will damage the root structure of the tree. He and the applicant
discussed the relative importance to Mr. Capodilupo of having a larger basement or
keeping the tree. Mr. Houseman suggested that a professional arborist could assess the
layout of the proposed basement for its impact on the root structure. He suggested that if
the tree is found to be in danger by a professional arborist, Mr. Capodilupo could address
this by decreasing the length of the basement. The applicant said he would be happy to do
that. Mr. Ferguson commented that he supports the applicant getting an opinion from an
arborist. He asked Mr. Capodilupo if this proposal meets the criteria for which a special
permit is granted in the Zoning Ordinance. Capodilupo replied that it did.
The Board incorporated its observations as its specific findings of fact, adopted and
incorporated the plans filed with the application (undated and without attribution,
consisting of 8 sheets, two of which are attached to this decision: Sheets 1 and 5,
collectively the “Plans”) and made the following general findings about the proposed
structure: (1) that the specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed addition and
garage, and that the character of the adjoining uses will not be adversely affected; (2) that
no factual evidence is found that the property values in the district will be adversely
affected by such use; (3) that no undue traffic, nuisance, or unreasonable hazard will result
from the addition and garage; (4) that adequate and appropriate facilities such as electricity
and city water and sewer currently exist on the parcel; and (5) that there are no valid
objections from abutting property owners based on demonstrable fact. The Board also
made a Section 6 finding that the non-conforming structure with the proposed addition and
garage will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing
non-conforming structure.
Following the questioning and discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Ferguson to
GRANT the special permit, on the following condition: that prior to issuance of a building
permit, a written opinion from a licensed arborist must be obtained, attesting to the effect
of the foundation of the proposed rear addition on the root structure of the oak tree, which
opinion shall be filed with the City’s Building Commissioner If the opinion indicates that
the proposed size or design of the basement foundation will adversely affect the tree’s root
structure, the applicant shall decrease the size (in depth and/or dimensions) or design to a
degree where the tree is no longer adversely affected, seconded by Mr. O’Brien. The
motion carried 5-0. (The motion did not address the garage slab foundation, but the
arborist’s opinion could address it as well.)
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 Houseman
Zoning Board Chairman