Peabody ZBA denies two‑lot subdivision at 0 Station Road after neighbors raise easement, ledge and privacy concerns

The Peabody Zoning Board of Appeals on June 10 denied an application from 0 Station LLC to split a roughly 90,316‑square‑foot parcel on Station Road into two lots, rejecting requests for reduced frontage and lot‑width standards.

Neighbors and the board’s discussion centered on an undefined “pass and repass” easement recorded with the Southern Essex Registry, driveway access and curb configuration, steep ledge and potential excavation or blasting, and privacy and runoff impacts to properties below the proposed lots. The applicant’s attorney said the owner had negotiated an easement agreement with adjacent property owners to preserve their access but neighbors said the existing easement language leaves their rights undefined.

The applicant, represented by attorney John Kelty, asked the board for variances to create two conforming backyard lots while allowing 52 feet and 51 feet of frontage for the two parcels instead of the 125 feet required, and narrower lot widths near the frontage. Kelty said the site has a narrow frontage area and buildable space toward the rear, and that his client had exchanged draft easement documents with the owners of 4 Station Road (the Silverias) to preserve their driveway access.

Multiple nearby residents opposed the subdivision during public comment. David Solara of Forestacia Road said his property would be most affected and argued the property was purchased and used with an undefined easement that should be resolved before any subdivision. He read aloud language he said was recorded at the Southern Essex Registry (book 41315, page 387) noting a pass‑and‑repass easement “to be determined and evidenced by a plan to be recorded subsequent to this conveyance.” Cheryl Pascal and Patricia Powers said the lot historically was conveyed and marketed as a single lot and expressed concerns about fences, traffic and stormwater runoff. Several residents, including Lorena D’Souza, raised safety and privacy concerns related to grading, tree removal, the steep slope and the prospect of excavation or blasting affecting foundations downhill. One commenter said she is pregnant and cited worry about prolonged construction noise.

The applicant and co‑owner (identified in the record as Elle Damatos) responded that they intend no blasting for the driveway, that one proposed house would be built on a slab where ledge prevents a basement, and that the team planned to stabilize and relocate some large boulders toward the top of the hill. Kelty described plans to grant an exclusive easement over a portion of the frontage so the Silverias could continue to access their garage and walkway as today.

After closing public comment, the board moved to a vote. A roll‑call vote recorded by the chair showed five negative votes and the motion to approve failed. The chair stated, “Motion has been denied.”

Why it matters: the denial preserves the lot’s current single‑lot status and keeps the easement and access questions unresolved; neighbors cited potential impacts on foundations, privacy and stormwater that could affect multiple properties below the site.

Details and next steps: the record shows the applicant had continued the matter twice previously to negotiate easement language. The board did not adopt conditions or direct staff to return with modifications during the meeting; the applicant may return with a revised plan or address outstanding easement and survey matters before refiling.