Bresnahan - Variance
Decision on Petition for a Variance
Requested by William A. Bresnahan, Jr.
A public meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals (the “Board”) was held on Tuesday
September 24, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. at Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, Beverly, Massachusetts.
The agenda included a petition by William A. Bresnahan, Jr. for a variance to encroach 8.2 feet
upon the required 15 foot side yard with a 19.2 foot by 27 foot one-story addition that will
contain a family room addition and office, regarding the property located at 13 Bailey Avenue
(the “Parcel”). The property is located in an R-10 Zoning District.
The September 24, 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 Jane Brusca and Joel Margolis 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.
William A. Bresnahan, Jr. spoke on his own behalf. He submitted letters from neighbors
in favor of the proposal. He stated the addition would contain a small office for his wife who is a
schoolteacher. The remainder of the addition would be for a family room. He stated his lot is
half the size of the required 10,000 square feet in the R-10 Zoning District. He stated that the
topography of the Parcel has many levels. Also, he stated there is a drainage easement located
behind his dwelling. The showed the easement an assessors map that identified the Parcel as Lot
65.
The applicant indicated that the sewer easement behind his house connects to another
sewer easement located to the south side of the Parcel on the abutting property at 15 Bailey
Avenue, now owned by one Mrs. Kelly. (Mrs. Kelly's lot is shown as Lot 66 on the assessor's
map Mr. Bresnahan, Jr. submitted.) That other sewer easement runs between his house and Mrs.
Kelly's house. Mrs. Kelly's house is on the side of the Parcel where the addition is proposed.
The said that the easement on Mrs. Kelly's lot will always preclude any owner of Lot 66 from
adding an addition to the house on that lot that would be significantly closer to Mr. Bresnahan's
house than the existing house on that lot. Accordingly, he concluded, the owner of Lot 66 will
not be adversely affected by the proposed addition.
Chairman Houseman asked if any member of the public would like to comment on this
petition. There were none.
Next, he asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Houseman first
provided some background information to the Board. He stated that Mr. Bresnahan received a
variance in 1996 for a farmer’s porch and distributed copies of that variance decision to the
Board Members. Houseman stated he made a site visit and viewed the rear of the Parcel. With
the agreement of Mr. Bresnahan, Jr., Houseman stated for the record that (1) the Parcel can be
identified on the submitted assessor's plan as Lot 65 and (2) a sewer easement is shown behind
the house on the Parcel. Mr. Bresnahan stated that when built, the rear of his proposed addition
would be located 5 feet from the outer boundary of the easement and 60 feet from Ms. Kelly’s
dwelling.
Mr. Ferguson stated that he also made a site visit. He suggested that following
observations be adopted as findings of fact by the Board: that the lot is undersized; that the
abutting property, which belongs to Muriel Kelly will not be substantially impacted by Mr.
Bresnahan’s proposed addition; there are approximately 30 feet of substantial vegetation and
trees separating the Parcel from the nearest abutting neighbor to the side of the Parcel where the
addition is proposed; that the hardship is based upon the location of the sewer easement in the
rear of the Parcel that prevents the petitioner from building in that direction. Mr. Bresnahan
stated that he agrees that the proposed addition will be limited to one-story high.
Houseman asked if the existing maple tree would remain to the rear of the house. Mr.
Bresnahan stated that that tree would come down but that he would be willing to plant another
tree, further back in the yard. Houseman questioned if there would be a full basement. Mr.
Bresnahan responded the plans call for a crawl space.
The Board incorporated the stated observations as its general findings of fact and made
the following specific findings about the proposed addition: (1) that special conditions related to
the small size of the lot and a sewer easement to the rear of the dwelling exist, which are peculiar
to the parcel but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located; (2) that the
request is the minimum one that could be granted and still allow the petitioner reasonable use of
the parcel; (3) that the granting of this variance would be in harmony with the general purpose
and intent of the zoning bylaw; and (4) 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 Ferguson, based on the
findings of fact, to GRANT the variance subject to two conditions that: (1) the addition be
limited to one-story room and (2) a 3 inch to 4 inch caliper tree, of the petitioner’s choice, be
planted in the rear yard as part of the completion of the addition, 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 D. Houseman
Zoning Board Chairman