Raftery - Decision
Decision on Petition for a Special Permit
Requested by Maura Raftery by agent Chad Gadbois
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 of Maura Raftery by agent Chad Gadbois
in a request for a special permit to encroach seven (7) feet plus or minus upon the
required ten (10) foot side yard setback with a two-story sixteen (16) feet by twenty (20)
feet addition, containing a family room on the first floor with a master bedroom and bath
above, regarding property located at 60 Dane Street (“The Parcel”). The property is
located in a R-6 Zoning District.
The Public Hearing on this petition opened on May 28, 2002 and was continued
to June 25, 2002. On both dates, the hearing was called to order by the Chairman, Scott
D. Houseman and 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 on both dates,
alternate member Joel Margolis was present in May. Mr. Ferguson recused himself from
this public hearing and Mr. Colucci took his place. Neither Ms. Brusca nor Mr. Margolis
voted on this decision.
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.
At the May meeting, Mr. Chad Gadbois, spoke on behalf of Ms. Maura Raftery.
Ms. Raftery spoke for herself at the June meeting. At the May meeting, Mr. Gadbois
stated that the addition would be built upon sono tubes instead of a concrete foundation.
Chairman Houseman asked if there was anyone from the public who would like to
comment on the petition. At the May meeting, Mr. Oliver Brett of 58 Dane Street
initially stated that he was in opposition to the proposal. He reviewed the plans at the
meeting and changed his position to being in favor. No public comments were received
at the June meeting.
At the May meeting, the members had the following comments and questions
regarding the petition. Ms. Fish noted that the dwellings in the neighborhood are very
close together and that the two-story addition would be detrimental to the neighborhood.
She commented that the east side of the house was a better location for the addition. Mr.
Gadbois responded that the addition could be moved over seven (7) feet and it would
conform to zoning, although he felt the current proposal would produce a more
aesthetically pleasing building. He added that thirty (30) feet of open space would
remain after the addition.
Ms. O’Brien asked if the roof would retain the same line. Mr. Gadbois responded
that the roof would be the same on one side but raised on the other. Ms. O’Brien asked
about the visibility of this addition. Mr. Gadbois stated that the construction would not
be visible from Dane Street. Ms. Raftery stated that she wants the roof to be in line with
the dining room on the right side so that it does not protrude. Ms. O’Brien stated her
concern that the existing house is one-and-one half (1 ½) stories and the addition would
be two stories. She asked why the proposed deck would extend from the second floor
with nothing under it. Ms. Raftery responded that the house is a two-family. When
asked about the addition of a first-floor deck, Ms. Raftery stated she had not considered
it.
Chairman Houseman noted that he had conducted a site visit and neither of the
direct abutters were in opposition to the proposal. He stated that he spoke with the
Hilderbrands of 62 Dane Street and that they had no objections. He also noted that the
elevation plans show builders tubes will be used to support the proposed structure instead
of a foundation. Building Inspector Tim Brennan confirmed that is an acceptable
foundation. Ms. O’Brien asked if some type of lattice would be installed to cover the
tubes and Mr. Gadbois confirmed. Mr. Houseman also clarified that the plan before the
Board had been revised from the plan submitted with the application. The revision
resulted in the second floor deck not projecting as far as indicated on the plan. Mr.
Gadbois confirmed this. He added that the degree to which the roofline in the rear would
be visible from Dane Street would be minimal.
Ms. Fish noticed that the rear view of the house shows the ridge off center and she
expressed concern over how the rooflines would tie in together.
At the May meeting, the Board that the applicant was making several verbal
changes to the plan as she discussed it with the Board. The Board voted unanimously to
continue the public hearing until the June 25, 2002 meeting so that final plans could be
submitted.
At the June meeting, Ms. Raftery stated that the front porch had been shortened.
Regarding the proposed deck in the rear, it would not be visible from the front of the
house, it would extend no further from the side of the house where the addition was
proposed than the side of the existing house. She presented a letter in support of the plan
from abutter Heather Hilderbrand of 62 Dane Street. Ms. Fish noted that her concerns
over the roofline had not been addressed and that the plans were still somewhat
detrimental to the neighborhood. Chairman Houseman asked questions about how the
ridgeline of the roof was proposed to be constructed. With an understanding of how the
ridgeline would work, in light of both side abutters being in favor of the proposal, he said
he thought the Board could make a finding that the proposed addition would not be more
detrimental to the neighborhood that the existing structure.
The Board incorporated the various observations of the members, except those of
Ms. Fish, and made the following general findings about the proposed addition: (1) that
the specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use, and that the character of
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 such use; (3) that no undue
traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result; (4) that there are no valid
objections from abutting property owners based on demonstrable fact; and (5) that
adequate and appropriate City services are or will be available for the proposed addition.
The Board also made a Section Six finding that the non-conforming structure with the
proposed addition added to it will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing
non-conforming structure.
Following the question and discussion, Mr. Schmidt made a motion, seconded by
Mr. Colucci, to GRANT the special permit. The motion carried 4-1 (Fish opposed).
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