Sullivan - Decision
Decision on Petition for a Special Permit and a Variance
Requested by Heidi Jalbert Sullivan
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 Heidi Jalbert Sullivan, for a special
permit to encroach 2.5 feet plus or minus upon the required side yard setback of 10 feet
with a 10 feet by 14 feet, two-story addition containing a living room/kitchen on the first
floor and a bedroom above. Also a request for a variance to allow a two-family dwelling
structure on a lot containing 5,775 square feet plus or minus where 7,000 square feet is
required, regarding the property located at 18 Franklin Place (the “Parcel”). The property
is located in a R-6 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. Ferguson
recused himself. Alternate members John Colucci, Joel Margolis and Jane Brusca
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 Heidi Sullivan. He stated that Ms.
Sullivan has lived in the house since 1996 and would like to expand the house to include
a second unit. He explained that there are many multi-unit dwellings in proximity to the
house. He noted the improvements that Ms. Sullivan had made to the property including
the removal of an in ground pool, a pool house, a garage and a shed. The design of the
new construction would reflect the architectural character of the existing house. Juanita
and George Gordon of 15 Washington Street, which abuts the rear of the parcel,
submitted a letter in support of the proposal.
Chairman Houseman questioned if any member of the public would like to
comment on this petition. Theodore and Diane Collatos of 19 Washington Street stated
they support this petition.
Chairman Houseman asked the Board members for their questions and comments.
Colucci asked about the nature of multi-families in the area. Jaquith described the types
and locations of multi-families in the area, which include 6-unit dwellings to the right and
left of Jalbert Sullivan’s house. There is also an 8-unit across the street, a 4-unit on
nearby Central Street, and a 3-unit and a one-unit nearby.
Margolis asked about access and Jaquith replied that Ms. Sullivan would use the
front door and a new entry to the right of the front door. Margolis asked about ownership
of the tree sitting near the property line. Ms. Sullivan responded that the tree sits on the
property line and there is common ownership. She intends to keep the tree. She would
contact the neighbor if the tree needed to be taken down. Margolis asked about parking.
Jaquith replied that there was sufficient area for parking on either side of the lot. There
are currently two cars “piggy-backed” on the right and the same would be added to the
left.
Brusca asked if there are any objections from abutters. Jaquith replied that they
had worked mostly with the single-family neighbors and that they do not object. O’Brien
asked if “piggy-back” parking situations were legal and Jaquith replied that they were
legal. O’Brien stated that this seems to be a reasonable request if there are no objections
from neighbors.
Houseman explained that the application has two requests and described the
difference in criteria that the Board must consider in granting special permits and
variances. He asked Jaquith to speak to how the application meets the criteria for a
variance. Jaquith stated that Ms. Sullivan is a single parent and adding necessary space
for her four children would create a financial hardship. Building Commissioner Tim
Brennan stated that the age of the house causes need for extensive renovation and the
additional income generated by a second unit would help to offset the costs of renovation.
Mr. Jaquith agreed this contributed to the hardship.
Houseman commented that he believed the criteria for a special permit had been
shown and that the idea that the added unit would be not detrimental to the neighborhood
is reflected in the support of the neighbors. Multi-family structures surround the house so
the proposed change would not be adverse to the neighborhood. He noted a slight
concern over the parking configuration. He noted that the Board could choose to accept
that the arguments made by the applicant to show financial hardship are adequate for a
variance.
The Board incorporated its observations as its specific findings of fact, adopted
and incorporated the architectural and site plans (undated, by Mr. Jaqueth) filed with the
application (the “Plans”) into its findings, and made the following general findings
related to the request for a special permit: (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 Colucci to
GRANT the special permit, provided the proposed structure substantially conforms to the
Plans, seconded by O’Brien. The motion carried 5-0.
The Board then made the following general findings related to the request for a
variance: (1) that there are special conditions applying to the land including the
narrowness of the lot and the location of the house on it which are peculiar to the Parcel
but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located; (2) that the age the
structure and the extent of renovations that will be required constitute a financial hardship
and the request therefore is the minimum relief that could be granted and still allow the
petitioner reasonable use of the parcel; (2) that the granting of this variance would be in
harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning bylaw; and (3) that this
proposal is not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public
welfare.
Following the questioning and discussion, a motion was made by Colucci to
GRANT the variance, provided the proposed structure substantially conforms to the
Plans, seconded by O’Brien. 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