Meeting report · Zoning Board of Appeals
Creating this report cost real money.
Help fund coverage →
Zoning Board of Appeals — April 13, 2026
The meeting was professional and procedural, characterized by the Chair setting clear legal expectations and the board engaging in standard due diligence.
Public impact
Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
01
Zoning setbacks and residential density
Modification of side and rear yard setbacks for specific residential structures. Affected: Residents in the immediate vicinity of Margaret Road and Lynn Street.
zoning change
Decisions logged
Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Withdrawal of application for 11 Bristol Road without prejudice.
Motion made by a speaker and seconded; all in favor.
Approved
07:05
Approval of variance for 10 Margaret Road.
Roll call vote: Peter (Yes), Chris (Yes), Barry (Yes), Julie (Yes), Fran (Yes).
Approved
11:58
Topics discussed
Click a topic to expand quotes and full context.
00:24 Procedural Opening and Variance Standards
The Chair outlined the meeting rules, the process for public testimony, and emphasized that variances must be based on land topography/hardship rather than a desire for more living space.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
06:25 Withdrawal of Application: 11 Bristol Road
The board reviewed a request from attorney John R. Kelty to withdraw a variance application for the owners of 11 Bristol Road without prejudice.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
07:39 Variance Application: 10 Margaret Road
Brad and Maria Delisle requested a variance to build a kitchen addition within the right side yard (8 feet instead of the required 15 feet) on an existing footprint of a carport/three-season room.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
12:23 Variance Application: 23 Lynn Street
De La Rosa Signature Homes, LLC requested relief from rear and right side yard requirements to construct a two-car garage with living space above.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
Controversy & dissent
Where the board, the community, or the agenda diverged.
Potentially controversial issues
01
Variance for 10 Margaret Road (Kitchen/Office Addition)
The petitioner sought to reduce the required side yard setback from 15 feet to 8 feet. While the petitioner argued the project was a replacement of an existing footprint, the board had to weigh the legal standard of 'hardship' against the desire for more living space, which the Chair explicitly noted is not a valid legal reason for a variance.
Board position: Approved the variance after verifying the project details and hardship claims.
low concern
02
Variance for 23 Lynn Street (Garage with Living Space)
This application involves multiple relief requests for rear and side yard setbacks to build a two-car garage with living space above. The proximity to neighboring properties and an adjacent cemetery creates potential for community pushback regarding density and property impact.
Board position: Under deliberation; the board was actively questioning the physical layout and driveway relocation.
medium concern
Community vs. board tension
Ready to share? AI-written accountability posts about this meeting's controversies.
View posts →
Action items
Who owes what, by when.
Type and file the approved decisions with the City Clerk.
Assigned: Grace (Clerk) · Due: After the vote
Notable statements
To get a variance, it's really, really supposed to have everything to do with the topography of the land... 'we need more living space' is a reason, but it's not a reason for a variance. — Unidentified speaker · Explaining the legal standard for granting dimensional relief during the opening remarks. 02:04
You're better off 100% going to your neighbors and telling them what you're doing... If you didn't like particularly what they said, you could come back up and explain yourself. — Unidentified speaker · Advising petitioners on community engagement and the public hearing process. 06:00
Public comment
What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
4
Total speakers
2
Addressed
1
Partial
1
Not addressed
Unidentified speaker
07:39
Addressed
a speaker provides the formal notice for the public hearing regarding the application of Brad and Maria Delisle for a variance at 10 Margaret Road. They detail the specific zoning relief requested for the right side yard.
Key concern
Providing legal notice and formal introduction of the agenda item.
Board responseThe board moved to the next item after the hearing for this application concluded.
The speaker's role was to present the notice, which the board acknowledged by proceeding with the hearing and subsequent vote.
Brad DeLisle
08:32
Addressed
The petitioner explains that they are seeking to replace an existing carport/three-season room with a kitchen/office addition using the same footprint. He notes that the project was previously approved four years ago but was delayed due to financial reasons.
Key concern
To obtain a variance for a right side yard reduction to build an addition that replaces an existing structure without encroaching further on the property line.
Board responseThe board questioned him regarding his stated 'hardship' and confirmed the project details. After the discussion, the board voted to approve the variance.
The board engaged in a dialogue regarding the hardship and the specifics of the build, and ultimately granted the requested variance.
Unidentified speaker
09:43
Addressed
a speaker (acting as a board member) asks clarifying questions about the previous approval and the definition of hardship provided in the application. They also check for any public opposition or support.
Key concern
Clarifying the validity of the hardship claim and ensuring public participation.
Board responsea speaker is part of the board, so their questions constitute the board's engagement with the petitioner.
As a board member, their inquiries were part of the deliberation process used to reach a decision.
John Keltie
14:13
Partial
An attorney representing De La Rosa Signature Homes LLC, requesting variances for an addition at 23 Lynn Street. He explains the project involves adding a two-car garage with living space above and discusses the impact on neighboring properties and the adjacent cemetery.
Key concern
To obtain variances for rear yard and right side yard setbacks for a new addition.
Board responseThe board (a speaker) asked follow-up questions regarding the relocation of the driveway and the placement of the garage opening.
The board engaged with the attorney to clarify the physical layout of the proposal (driveway and garage), but the transcript ends before a formal decision or full conclusion of the discussion.
Support coverage
Creating this report cost real money.
MeetingWatch attended, transcribed, and analyzed this meeting on its own dime. If this work is valuable to you, chip in to keep covering Peabody.
Follow Peabody
One email when a new report is published from the Zoning Board of Appeals — or one weekly digest.
Report composed by
grok-4.3, gemma-4-26b, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning · analyzed 2026-05-30.