Loading...
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