ZBA Minutes 5.22.2019r
I
City of Beverly
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 22, 2019
These Minutes are not a verbatim transcript of the public hearing of the Board of Appeals.
Review of the Board's Decision or outcome of the public hearing should include an examination
of the Board's written Decision for that hearing.
Meeting Minutes
Members Present: Joel Margolis, Chairperson, David Battistelli, Jim Levasseur,
Peggy O'Brien, alt., Kevin Andrews, alt., Stefano Basso, alt.
Member Absent: Victoria Caldwell
Others Present: Steve Frederickson, Building Commissioner
Leanna Harris, Administrative Assistant
Location: 191 Cabot Street, 3` Floor, Council Chamber
Mr. Margolis began the meeting at 7pm and introduced the Board Members present.
I. EXTENSION REQUEST
A. Glovsky & Glovsky on behalf of Vitality Senior Living, LLC
Original November 29, 2016
In a petition for a request for a Special Permit and a Variance to authorize a subsidized elderly
housing facility in the IR district, in accordance with Section 300- 42.C(1)(a) of the Zoning
Ordinance, where the affordable unit requirement will be satisfied by payment of a fee in lieu of
on -site units. The assisted living facility will include 118 residential suites, together with
associated common dining, learning and recreational facilities and a parking garage. The
property is located at 50 Dunham Road in the IR zoning district.
Miranda Gooding Esq. (Glovsky & Glovsky) addressed the Board and stated she is requesting to
further extend the Special Permit and Variance granted for this property for Vitality Senior
Living. The application required a Special Permit to allow subsidized elderly housing. This was
a beginning endeavor for this group and they had hoped to start the facility in both Massachusetts
and Texas but due to hurricanes in Texas they were put on hold. They have since decided to not
build at this site. However, they are requesting another 6mth extension so they can market it as
an assisted living facility and find a buyer. This site designated as a residential Use makes sense
for the owner and for the City.
Mr. Battistelli asked if someone buys this property and wants to have the assisted living facility
but they can't build for a year they will have to come back before the Board. Atty. Gooding
confirmed. Mr. Battistelli stated the term of a Board member is 3 years and at that point three
years will have lapsed since the first request. Mr. Battistelli stated at that time Board members
Page 1 of 13
J
present should have the opportunity to vote on the Use. Atty. Gooding stated it is a valid concern
but the only abutters to this lot are industrial.
Mr. Margolis stated he doesn't think it hurts to give them one more extension.
Ms. O'Brien asked who the abutters are. Atty. Gooding stated it's an industrial condominium
building and Cummings Properties is leasing a couple of units and actively marketing the others.
MOTION: Mr. Battistelli moved to GRANT the extension for the Variance and the
Special Permit for Vitality Senior Living at 50 Dunham Road for six months through
December 9, 2019. Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion.
Votes in favor 5 -0 (Margolis, Battistelli, Gougian, Levasseur, O'Brien)
Motion carries.
II. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Nicola Ferzacca and Jennifer Van Dine
In a petition for a request for a Special Permit to add a rear addition to a nonconforming
structure. Addition to have a left side setback of 12.1' and a right side setback of 13.1', where
15' is required. Addition is to be no closer to the side lot lines than existing structure. The
property is located at 23 Porter Terrace in the R10 zoning district.
Andrew Crocker, Architect addressed the Board and stated they are looking to build a single
story addition on the rear of a nonconforming residence. The house was built in the 1930s and
pre dates zoning with deficiencies in the side yard and front setbacks. The left side setback
would be 12.1' and the right side setback would be 13.1', where 15' is required.
No one spoke in favor or in opposition.
Mr. Battistelli stated this is a modest addition and he is in favor of the request. Mr. Margolis
agreed that it is fairly straight forward.
MOTION: Mr. Andrews moved to close the public hearing.
Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion.
Votes in favor 5 -0 (Margolis, Gougian, Levasseur, Battistelli, Andrews)
Motion carries.
MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to GRANT the Special Permit at 23 Porter Terrace to
build an addition to the rear of the house that does not further encroach on existing
nonconformities, based on the plans submitted. Mn Battistelli seconded the Motion.
Votes in favor 5 -0 (Margolis, Gougian, Levasseur, Battistelli, Andrews)
Motion carries.
Page 2 of 13
"N
B. Salem Plumbing Supply Co., Inc.
In a petition for a Special Permit to hang an oversized temporary banner from facade. The
property is located at 97 River Street in the IG zoning district.
Ralph Servino addressed the Board and stated they were awarded Best of Boston and the banner
represents that.
Mr. Margolis stated the banner is already up, the Design Review Board granted it after the fact
and gave them until December 31, 2019.
Mr. Andrews stated he finds the banner very distracting even though he has seen it several times.
In that location, it has the effect of a billboard. It's at an entry point into Beverly. Mr. Servino
asked if it's the size of the banner or its location and Mr. Andrews stated it's both. Mr. Andrews
stated you cannot miss this sign, it is very distracting and it could be dangerous. It looks like a
free billboard, it's not pretty.
Ms. Gougian stated she agrees and questioned why it needs to be up until the end of December.
Ms. Gougian stated the sign is excessive.
No one spoke in favor or in opposition.
Mr. Servino stated in this day and age, when selling decorative plumbing supplies, you are able
to win an award it's a great opportunity to have that banner. It's something they work hard for.
Ms. Gougian asked if they needed approval for the prior sign. Mr. Frederickson stated the prior
sign predates him, it had been up for years. Mr. Andrews stated it's probably because no one
ever questioned it.
Mr. Margolis stated, since the sign is already up, they could shorten the timeframe to the end of
October. Ms. Gougian stated she would feel better about that.
MOTION: Mr, Levasseur moved to close the public hearing.
Mr. Battistelli seconded the Motion.
Votes in favor 5 -0 (Margolis, Gougian, Levasseur, Battistelli, Basso)
Motion carries.
MOTION: Mr. Battistelli moved to GRANT the Special Permit for the oversized banner
at its current location to remain until October 31, 2019, subject to the approval by the
Design Review Board. Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion.
Votes in favor 5 -0 (Margolis, Gougian, Levasseur, Battistelli, Basso)
Motion carries.
Page 3 of 13
C. Griffin Engineering o/b /o Jeffrey & Sheryl Silva
In a petition for a request for a Variance to construct a 20.5'x 25' attached garage and 6'x12'
elevated deck, 3.3' from the side lot line where 15' is required and 20.8' from the rear lot line
where 25' is required. The property is located at 95 Hale Street in the R10 zoning district.
Bob Griffin (Griffin Engineering) addressed the Board on behalf of Jeffrey and Sheryl Silva and
stated they were here almost two years ago with the same application. The project was
complicated and there was work required by Conservation that needed to be completed along the
brook prior to building. When they went to build the garage, they discovered the Variance had
expired.
Due to the difficult topography, there isn't anywhere else on the lot, the garage could be built.
Mr. Margolis asked for more information on the living space above the garage. Ms. Gougian
stated the last time they were here they didn't advertise there was living space above the garage
either. Mr. Griffin stated the prior ZBA decision is attached to the application, and mentions the
living space. Ms. O'Brien referred to the prior Decision and stated it is noted in the Motion.
No one spoke in favor or in opposition.
Mr. Levasseur stated they can't not grant the Variance, they approved it before, nothing is new,
the neighbors are the same. Ms. O'Brien agreed and stated they went through the Conservatiop
Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to close the public hearing.
Mr. Battistelli seconded the Motion.
Votes in favor 5 -0 (Margolis, Gougian, Levasseur, Battistelli, O'Brien)
Motion carries.
MOTION: Ms. O'Brien moved to GRANT the Variance at 95 Hale Street to construct
an attached 2 -story garage with a master bedroom on the second floor and elevated deck,
the hardship being the topography of the land that drops off steeply, subject to the plans
submitted. Mr. Battistelli seconded the Motion
Votes in favor 5 -0 (Margolis, Gougian, Levasseur, Battistelli, O'Brien)
Motion carries.
D. Glovsky & Glovsky o/b /o Harts Hill LLC
In a petition for a Amendment to Variance to amend the terms of an existing use Variance
granted in 1967 to allow change in use from a commercial office building to a multi - family
project including a restored historic home and three new duplex buildings, for a total of 7 units,
and to allow a new Variance from Section 300- 76B(3) to allow an expansion in the area and
volume of the existing structures by more than 100 %. The property is located at 107 Dodge
Street in the R10 zoning district.
Page 4 of 13
1
Stefano Basso recused himself.
Miranda Gooding, Esq. (Glovsky & Glovsky) addressed the Board and stated Harts Hill LLC is
requesting to amend an existing Use variance that was granted in 1967. The property is an
existing small, 2,500 sq. ft. professional office building located in the R10 zoning district. The
property is unique. It's a historic home built in 1727 and has been determined to be historically
significant by the Beverly Historic Commission. The existing home was converted to
commercial use and moved to its current location in the 1940s. The historic nature of the home
was the basis for the Use variance granted in 1967. The owners asked the Board to convert it
from single family use. The Use was expanded in 1985 when the commercial use when a
breezeway and garage were converted to residential use. Most recently it was an insurance
agency. It has a long history of being used as a commercial space.
The original concept was to renovate and use it as a bank along the lines of an Institution for
Savings Bank. The one recently renovated in Hamilton has a very residential look.
Atty. Gooding stated they met with abutters in late March at the property where they reviewed
the plans and they found neighbors were reluctant to see a bank in that location. At that meeting
it was discussed whether or not this property wouldn't be better used residentially. This proposal
allows them to preserve the historic nature of the house and add six residential units. They are
aware this will increase the density and they are willing to discuss this with the Board. This
proposal will allow the historic home to be saved.
Atty. Gooding stated the team has made a concentrative effort to make neighbors aware of the
proposal and of the change prior to tonight's meeting. This Use, if approved by the Board, will
also be reviewed by the Conservation Commission and it will also require Site Plan review by
the Planning Board.
Thad Siemasko, ( Siemasko & Verbridge) addressed the Board and reviewed the plans for the
proposed project.
Wa n� e Garry 97 Dodge Street addressed the Board and stated not many people attended the
meeting and there are a dozen of people who didn't receive notice of this hearing. Mr. Garry
stated the applicant is trying to stuff 7 condos in a small area and they are going to be so high
that when he looks out his window all he is going to see is building, which is unfair. Mr. Garry
stated he believes they should not have as many units and not be built as high. There are
wetlands in the back and there is constant flooding. Mr. Garry stated there's going to be 14 cars
for 7 units, all with one car garages, where is everyone going to park, this is a highway.
Jason Garry 103 Dodge Street addressed the Board and stated they did meet with the neighbors
and go over the plans about the bank and then they heard there were plans for condos. Mr. Garry
stated his concern is the scale and how many units and if it was reduced, he would be in favor.
Right now when he looks outside he sees trees but that will change. Mr. Garry stated it doesn't
Page 5 of 13
a
Mr. Battistelli asked Mr. Garry if he thinks it should be continued so more neighbors can be
present and Mr. Garry stated it wouldn't be a bad idea.
Don Martin, 27 BeI r ood Lane stated over all he is in support of the project, his only concern
is the size of the proposed development. It has a lot of benefits over what has been there in prior
years. Switching it back to residential use is a good thing for the neighborhood.
Ms. O'Brien read a letter into record dated 5/21/2019 from Tom Collins, 100 Dodge Street, in
opposition of the application.
Atty. Gooding stated she spoke with the Building Department today and confirmed that legal
notice was sent to all abutters. Atty. Gooding explained why Mr. Garry is not officially an
abutter and lack of noticing should not be a basis for continuance.
Atty. Gooding did request a continuance based on feedback heard tonight.
Wayne Garry stated this is the second time living on Dodge Street that he didn't get notice from
the City based on not meeting the requirements for an abutter even though he feels he is within
the 300'.
Mr. Margolis stated this home has historic significance and he doesn't agree with picking it up
and moving it around and adding a cluster of units around it. The proposed units are too big and
there are too many. Mr. Margolis stated he is not prepared to vote on this until he hears from the
Historic Commission regarding moving the home and building around it.
Mr. Andrews agreed that the density is too high for this location.
Ms. Gougian asked how much of the historic integrity inside the house is retained. Mr.
Siemasko stated the frame itself is there but they did rebuild two chimneys. There does need to
be structural reinforcement. Mr. Battistelli stated the structure of the house is worth saving.
Ms. Gougian asked if there will be more asphalt going onto the site and Mr. Siemasko stated they
are reducing it. The wetlands are not on the property, the 100' wetlands buffer is about 35' into
the property.
Mr. Margolis stated he absolutely wants to hear from the Conservation Commission.
Atty. Gooding stated, for clarification, what they are asking from the Zoning Board is for relief
for the Use. They have to start here before they can go before the Conservation Commission and
Planning. Mr. Margolis stated they need to see what they are voting on. Atty. Gooding agreed
and stated they are requesting a continuance.
Page 6 of 13
MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to GRANT the request to continue to the June 26, 2019
meeting. Mr. Andrews seconded the Motion.
Votes in favor 5 -0 (Margolis, Gougian, Levasseur, Battistelli, Andrews)
Motion carries.
III. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Alexander & Femino o /b /o John P. Frates, Jr. and Nancy E. Frates, Individually and as
Trustees of Frates Realty Trust
In a petition for a request for a Variance to allow a side setback of 8 feet, where 15 feet is
required (existing building is 7.2 feet from the side property line) and a rear yard setback of 15
feet, where 25 feet is required (existing garage, to be removed, is 8 feet from the rear lot line)
and a Finding to reconfigure the 2 existing nonconforming lots such that 108 Bridge Street (Lot
A) is increased from 4,314 square feet to 6,153 square feet (Lot A -1) and 106 Bridge Street (Lot
B) is decreased from 6,386 square feet to 4,548 square feet (Lot B -1) to allow for an addition to
the existing building at 108 Bridge Street to accommodate 4 residential townhouse units, all
having 2 parking spaces each, and a Use Variance to allow all of the building to be residential
use, without attachment to a commercial building. The property is located at 106 and 108 Bridge
Street in the CN zoning district.
Mr. Margolis recused himself, Ms. Gougian is the Chair.
Tom Alexander, Esq. (Alexander & Femino) addressed the Board on behalf of the applicants and
stated they listened to the feedback and they have lowered the height of the building.
Atty. Alexander provided 3 additional signatures that are in support of the project and also
provided a site map. The abutter in the rear has drainage issues and they will work with them
and accept a condition from the Board that they work out adequate drainage for this property.
Atty. Alexander stated this is a residential area and this is an underperforming property. Ryal
Side is densely settled, commercial uses are not appropriate for this area. It's a neighborhood,
it's not an area where people go to shop.
Atty. Alexander stated they are looking to invest and improve the property. The design will
improve the area, it will return the neighborhood to completely residential. There is a need for
investment, this property is not attractive and it is underperforming. The Frates have tried to
make it more attractive but they need zoning relief. The need for housing in Beverly has been
repeatedly brought up, the proposed units are affordable to most people.
John Frates addressed the Board and stated they are long time owners of the property. When
they first bought it, the prior owner had six large trucks, many had refrigeration that ran all night
long. The garage on the property was used to repair them along with motorcycles. Mr. Frates
stated they listened to their abutters and reduced the structure. They have also added some
attractive structures to the rear of the building. It's a pivotal time in this neighborhood, down the
Page 7 of 13
street the printing shop became a nail salon with fourteen chairs and they are wildly successful.
With fourteen chairs, and fourteen employees and people on either side of those appointments
coming to the area, Mr. Frates feels this development would be an incredible addition and their
legacy in that neighborhood.
Lyle Folkestad, Architect addressed the Board and reviewed the plans.
No one spoke in favor or in opposition.
Atty. Alexander stated they believe the proposed project is in line with the character of the
neighborhood. There are two designated parking spaces for each unit, it is a very attractive
design. Atty. Alexander stated often times zoning relief creates the momentum in a
neighborhood to turn around.
Mr. Battistelli asked Atty. Alexander to review the hardship. Atty. Alexander stated the profile of
the lot goes down into a gully, the existing structure on site is substandard, the commercial use
does not work in this location. The whole property is not functioning as it should, this is a
residential neighborhood.
Mr. Basso stated the design changes are really nice and the feedback was taken into
consideration.
Ms. Gougian asked where trash will be kept and Mr. Folkestad stated it could be kept in the
garage. Ms. Gougian stated she sees so many of these designs and trash space is always left out.
MOTION: Mr. Andrews moved to close the public hearing.
Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion.
Votes in favor 5 -0 (Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur, Basso, Andrews)
Motion carries.
Mr. Battistelli stated the proposed residential use fits in better with the neighborhood and would
not be detrimental.
MOTION: Mr. Basso moved to GRANT the Variance to construct the addition to the
existing commercial building with a side setback of 8', where 15' is required and a rear
yard setback of 15', where 25' is required due to the hardship being the existing
commercial use of the property and the demographical change away from Bridge Street,
subject to the plans submitted. Mr. Battistelli seconded the Motion
Votes in favor 5 -0 (Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur, Basso, Andrews)
Motion carries.
Page 8 of 13
MOTION: Mr. Battistelli moved to GRANT the Use Variance at 106 and 108 Bridge
Street to allow the building to be used as residential without attachment to a commercial
building. Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion.
Votes in favor 5 -0 (Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur, Basso, Andrews)
Motion carries.
MOTION: Mr. Andrews moved to make a Finding to reconfigure the 2 existing
nonconforming lots such that 108 Bridge Street (Lot A) is increased from 4,314 square
feet to 6,153 square feet (Lot A -1) and 106 Bridge Street (Lot B) is decreased from 6,386
square feet to 4,548 square feet (Lot B -1) to allow for an addition to the existing building
at 108 Bridge Street to accommodate 4 residential townhouse units, all having 2 parking
spaces each subject to the plans submitted. Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion.
Votes in favor 5 -0 (Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur, Basso, Andrews)
Motion carries.
A. Alexander & Femino o /b /o Vincent Orlando
In a petition for a request for a Special Permit and Finding to enlarge an existing legally
nonconforming 5 unit residential by adding an addition to the side and rear of the building an by
replacing the existing legally nonconforming garage with residential space in approximately the
same location as the existing garage resulting in 3 additional dwelling units on the entire site.
Also a Special Permit to provide 4 of the required parking spaces at the municipal lot within
500 feet of the property (the municipal lot is 260 feet away). This property is located at 23
Washington Street in the R6 zoning district.
Tom Alexander, Esq. (Alexander & Femino) addressed the Board and requested to withdraw
without prejudice the Special Permit to park at a nearby municipal lot.
MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to GRANT the request to Withdraw Without Prejudice
the Special Permit requested for approval to park at a nearby municipal lot.
Mr. Battistelli seconded the Motion.
Votes in favor 5 -0 (Margolis, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur, Basso.)
Motion carries.
Atty. Alexander stated this property is under agreement by Vincent Orlando. The owners have
had this property for 42 years and they are retired and looking to move on. There are currently
five units on the 12,000 sq. ft. lot. It is nonconforming, the underlying zone is R6. Two of the
direct abutting properties have multi units. The proposed design will keep the magnificent beech
tree. It's a very attractive landscaping plan. The current parking in the back is not organized,
there are no lines. At best you can get five cars back there but there are usually only 2 or 3.
They are looking to add 1 unit to the existing 5 units. They will be able to significantly invest in
this property and provide 13 off street parking spaces. The parking situation will be improved
significantly.
Page 9 of 13
The original proposed plan received negative feedback from the neighbors and they took that to
heart and reconfigured the design. There is no longer a garage in the back and they will just be
adding one unit.
The requirements for a Special Permit are met. It will be in harmony with the zoning ordinance.
It allows dramatic improvement of the existing building, it will be in character with the
neighborhood, it's an appropriate location for the use. The use will not adversely affect the
neighborhood, it's the same use. They are going from five units to six units but they are creating
off street parking, which is a great improvement. There will be no nuisance or hazard created by
this development, cars being parked on the street will now have off street spaces. From a safety
perspective, this building has old unsafe systems and this will allow for all new electric and
plumbing. The site has adequate private and municipal support facilities. The proposal is not
more substantially detrimental than the existing use.
Atty. Alexander stated he did research within 500' to see what properties are multifamily. There
are 23 multifamily dwellings in the neighborhood even though the zoning is R6.
David Jaquith, Architect addressed the Board and reviewed the revised plans.
Mr. Battistelli asked for clarification on what the square footage is being increased to and how
many bedrooms are proposed for each of the six units. Mr. Jaquith stated all six units will likely
have three bedrooms. Mr. Margolis asked what the green space looks like on that property.
Ms. Gougian stated if her calculations are right they are going from a 7 bedroom complex to 18
bedrooms.
Ms. O'Brien asked if all units are the same size and Mr. Griffin stated they are not, they are
1,500 -1,800 sq. ft per unit.
Jay Levy stated him and his brother have an office at 145 Cabot Street and they also own 2 non
conforming buildings on Cabot. Mr. Levy stated he isn't a resident and he is sure residents have
a different view. Mr. Levy stated the applicant has done a great job taking neighbor's concerns
into consideration. Mr. Levy stated the building is in bad condition, it hasn't been maintained.
They have addressed the parking issue. There are a lot of single family homes on this street as
well as multi - families. At the end of the day the applicant has done a good job listening and
coming up with something workable. While he does not want to see an increase in density, he is
not opposed to this request, it will have a positive effect on this street.
Thomas Ducibella, 27 Washington Street stated him and his wife have lived there since the mid -
80s. Mr. Ducibella distributed historic materials to the Board. Mr. Ducibella stated Washington
Street is one of the more historic streets in the City. Mr. Ducibella stated their focus is the
historic buildings even though the buildings have been added on to and modified. This particular
house has a long history. The house is also on the national register of history for Beverly. Mr.
Ducibella stated it is their opinion that the proposal has many changes to the building.
Page 10 of 13
Is
There is almost a doubling of street frontage and the building size has also been doubled.
Angela Nannini, 27 Washington Street submitted an updated letter and stated the number of
bedrooms and bathrooms will dramatically increase.
Terri Ann Giverson, 37 Washington stated she has several issues with this proposal one involving
the beech tree. She has consulted with arborists who have said the tree will not survive. She
lives next door to a seven unit building and every year there are snow wars with where they are
going to put the snow. When she moved into her four family house she converted it back to a
single family. Multi family homes are creeping down the street and that is why she is motivated
to be here.
Estelle Rand, Ward 2 Councilor, 3 Abate Street stated it seems as the though the project has been
revised. Washington Street has some of the City's more beautiful homes. This neighborhood is
feeling the tension of being downtown and having the density increase. She was under the
assumption that this was just adding one more unit but after listening tonight she feels as though
a lot more square footage is being added. She is also less in favor of them being condos because
when you put condos in a downtown area you diminish the night life.
Tom Ducibella stated the beech tree is almost completely surrounded by asphalt. Mr. Griffin
stated that is not true and illustrated on the plans.
Ms. O'Brien read a letter in opposition from Cameron McLean Wicker 39 Washington Street
dated April 22, 2019.
J. L. Foster, 33 Washington Street stated they moved here in 2001 and asked for clarification that
the code requires two parking spaces per unit. Ms. Foster asked about where other cars will be
parked if those occupying the 3 bedrooms are all driving age.
Sam Foster, 33 Washington Street stated historically, that street is one of the first streets built by
the industrialists in Beverly 200 years ago. When him and his wife bought their house they
renovated it and hoped that other houses on the street would have been renovated back to what
they used to be in that neighborhood. Mr. Foster would like to see the street maintain its
originality.
Atty. Alexander stated this is not in a historic zoning district so work can be done to this
property. As long as it remains five units they would not need approval from this zoning board
and they can go to the building department and renovate the inside and keep the parking the way
it is. Atty. Alexander stated sometimes it would be nice to keep some things the way they are
forever, but other times things decline.
Ms. Gougian stated with regard to multi families on the street, they weren't originally
multifamily, and she doesn't necessarily think it's a good thing that houses are converting. Atty.
Alexander stated this property is already a five unit building.
Page 11 of 13.
Mr. Margolis stated if a five unit building is enhanced and fixed up the neighborhood will
improve without increasing the density. Mr. Margolis stated the units are too big.
Mr. Battistelli stated six 3 bedrooms units is a lot more than what is there. Mr. Levasseur agreed
that compared to what is there now it's a huge increase. Mr. Basso stated its doubling the
volume of what is there.
Ms. Gougian stated she feels they are being faced with this more often where there is a building
in need of repair and a developer comes in and they can get a large lot associated with it but the
only way the developer feels they can make money is to squeeze in a lot of units. They are
frequently having them go back to reduce the size.
Mr. Margolis stated this Board is not anti - development and building in this City. This Board is
mindful of keeping things in scale with the neighborhoods and this proposal has reached out
beyond what is necessary.
Mr. Margolis asked Atty. Alexander how he would like to proceed. Atty. Alexander stated they
would be willing to scale it down to two bedroom units and shrink the size of the building
accordingly. It would be a 20% reduction. Mr. Basso asked if the height would also be reduced
and Mr. Griffin stated that would be attic space.
George Johnson, 30 Washington Street stated he lives in a single family, it's a neighborhood
where there are kids and so green space is important.
Mr. Ducibella asked where they will put the snow. Atty. Alexander stated they would agree to a
condition that they owner is responsible for removing snow from the lot.
MOTION: Mr. Andrews moved to close the public hearing.
Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion.
Votes in favor 5 -0 (Margolis, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur, Basso)
Motion carries.
Atty. Alexander asked if the Board wants them to redesign and reduce the volume and the
amount of bedrooms. Mr. Levasseur and Ms. Gougian agreed.
Mr. Levasseur stated it is hard for the Board when there is so much opposition in the
neighborhood. Mr. Margolis agreed.
MOTION: Ms. Gougian moved to GRANT the request to Withdraw without Prejudice.
Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion.
Votes in favor 5 -0 (Margolis, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur, Basso)
Motion carries.
Page 12 of 13
� p � pug:,
eg�"d' -`�` E
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
Approval of March 27, 2019 Minutes ( Gougian)
MOTION: Ms. Gougian moved to approve the Minutes from the March 27, 2019
meeting. Mr. Battistelli seconded the Motion.
Votes in favor 5 -0 (Margolis, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur, Basso)
Motion carries.
Approval of April 24, 2019 Minutes (Levasseur)
MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to approve the Minutes from the April 24, 2019
meeting. Mr. Basso seconded the Motion.
Votes in favor 5 -0 (Margolis, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur, Basso)
Motion carries.
MOTION: Mr. Margolis moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:31pm.
Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion.
All in favor.
Motion carries.
Leanna Harris, Administrative Assistant
Board of Appeals of the Zoning Ordinance
Page 13 of 13