Powers - Decision
Decision on Petition for a Special Permit
Requested by Beth Powers
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 Beth Powers for a special permit to
encroach 12.5 feet plus or minus upon the required 15 foot side yard setback with a two-
story addition containing a half bath/pantry on the first floor with a master bedroom/master
bath above, regarding the property located at 11 Neptune 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.
Architect David Jaquith spoke on behalf of Beth Powers. Jaquith stated that
Powers had spoken to her neighbors and that they had no objections to the proposal. He
stated that the lot was narrow, the house is situated 2 ½ feet from the property line and
encroachment would be a problem with any addition to the house. He stated that this
house was built in 1896 and Powers had resided there for 6 years. This is the first major
renovation to the house. Many of the dwellings on Neptune Street are placed on the lots in
a similar manner.
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. Mr. Houseman asked if Powers had any letters or petitions from
abutters in favor of this request. Ms. Powers replied that she did not, although she
discussed the project with them and they are in favor.
Ms. O’Brien asked where the house to the left of the property was in relation to the
proposed addition. Ms. Powers and Mr. Jaquith represented to the Board that the proposed
addition was short enough that the back of it would be closer to the street than the front of
the house next door. Ms. O’Brien noted that the proposed addition is very close to the
property line and comes very close to the next door house. She stated it is an awkward
layout in relation to the land.
Mr. Margolis asked for the dimensions of the deck. Mr. Jaquith stated that the deck
would stand 2 feet from the ground and would extend 18 feet to the rear and 21 feet across.
He added that it juts out 3 to 3 ½ feet toward the left-hand property. Ms. O’Brien clarified
that the proposed deck overlaps beyond the front of the house next door.
Mr. Ferguson asked if any additional vehicles would be added and Powers
responded “no.” Mr. Ferguson asked if city services were available and Powers responded
that there were.
Houseman commented that the absence of neighbors at the meeting can be taken to
indicate that they are not opposed to the project. However, he pointed out to Mr. Jaqueth
and Ms. Powers that although it is not required, affirmative evidence in the form of letters
or petitions from neighbors are very useful for the Board to ensure that there are no
objections from neighbors. Also, drawings illustrating the relationship between, or impact
of, the proposed addition and deck to the house next door would be helpful for the Board
to make an informed decision.
The Board incorporated its observations as its specific findings of fact, adopted and
incorporated the architectural and site plans (dated June 19, 2002, by Mr. Jaqueth) filed
with the application (the “Plans”) into its findings (a copy of the site plan from the Plans is
attached to this decision), and made the following general findings about the proposed
structure: (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 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; (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 added to it 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, provided the proposed structure substantially conforms to the
Plans, seconded by Mr. Colucci. The motion carried 5-0.
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