Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Accessory Structure topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Peabody ZBA pauses 450-square-foot pool pavilion request, asks applicants to reduce size and resubmit

3029163 · April 17, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Applicants for a pool pavilion at 13 Eisenhower Road requested multiple variances for setbacks and accessory-structure size; the zoning board expressed concern about the pavilion’s size and continued the application to allow revised plans.

The Peabody Zoning Board of Appeals continued an application for a pool pavilion at 13 Eisenhower Road after board members said the proposed pavilion and accessory structure exceed typical size allowances and set a precedent the board was unwilling to accept as presented.

Applicants Eric Constantino and Stefano Mullen asked the board for relief to place a pool pavilion 6 feet from the lot lines where 10 feet is required and for an accessory pool structure of about 450 square feet where the code allows 120 square feet. Constantino described a roughly 15-by-30-foot open pavilion with an enclosed area for a bathroom and storage; board members and the chair repeatedly questioned the square footage and suggested the pavilion be substantially reduced.

The board noted the enclosed bathroom/storage portion (applicants variously described it as 16-by-15 or as a smaller area) appeared acceptable, but the open pavilion area was three to four times the maximum accessory‑structure size the zoning ordinance contemplates. Members said approval of a structure that large would set an undesirable precedent. The board urged the applicants to return with a new set of plans that reduce the pavilion size, and the applicants asked for a continuance to the next meeting.

The board moved to continue the item to the next month so applicants could revise plans; the chair warned that if the applicants requested a vote and the board denied it, they might be prevented from reapplying for two years for a similar proposal. No formal variance was granted at the hearing.