Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure Garage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Peabody ZBA conditions garage variance: owner agrees to reduce size to 720 sq. ft.
Summary
The board approved a variance for a detached garage at 60 Procter Circle after the applicant agreed to reduce the proposed footprint from 832 to 720 square feet and to submit an as-built plan for the Building Commissioner’s approval.
The Peabody Zoning Board of Appeals on Sept. 15 approved a variance for a detached garage at 60 Procter Circle with conditions: the applicant agreed at the hearing to reduce the structure’s size from the advertised 832 square feet to 720 square feet (30 by 24 feet), and to submit an as-built plan for acceptance by the Building Commissioner.
Joseph Estes, the property owner, appeared with his contractor, Steve Cummings of Cummings Construction. The application notice said the petitioner sought relief from lot-coverage limits in an R-1B zoning district to build a larger detached garage on a roughly 12,500-square-foot lot.
At the hearing, Cummings described the garage as a 2½-car detached building, intended to remove an existing shed and deck and provide storage for two larger vehicles. He said the team held required setbacks and proposed a detached layout to avoid encroaching on neighboring property. The garage would include storage “up top” but the contractor and board discussed conditioning any loft space so it is strictly for storage and not habitable space.
Several board members expressed concern about the originally proposed size — one member noted the proposed 832-square-foot garage would be nearly as large as the existing single-story footprint of the house. The applicant responded that a 24-by-24 garage (576 square feet) would leave little room for storage once foundation dimensions are considered, and that large vehicles (a pickup and an oversized Jeep) make the larger footprint desirable.
After discussion, Estes agreed to reduce the garage to 30 by 24 feet (720 square feet). The board’s approval was conditional on that reduced footprint, submission of an as-built plan, and acceptance by the Building Commissioner. The motion to approve carried on a roll call vote: Mister O’Brien, Mister Gilbert, Mister Osborn, Mister Bakula and Miss Golugy voted yes.
The board and applicant also discussed whether an attached garage or placing storage elsewhere on the lot would be alternatives; members suggested the applicant could return if he chose to pursue a different plan. The board noted that, because the hearing notice had advertised a different size, any materially different proposal would require readvertising.
The board instructed the clerk and the building office on next steps: the decision will be filed with the city clerk and the 20-day appeal period will follow filing.
