2000-08-22
CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
These minutes are not a verbatim transcript of the public
hearings or public meetings of the Zoning Board of Appeal.
Reviews of the discussion or outcome of public hearings should include
an examination of the Board’s decision for that hearing
Board: Zoning Board of Appeal
Subcommittee:
Date: August 22, 2000
Place Beverly City Hall, Council Chamber, 191 Cabot Street
Board Members Present: Full Members: Chairman, Scott Houseman, Robert
McLemore, Martin Freeman. Alternate Members:
Margaret O’Brien, Andrea Fish, and Scott Ferguson.
Board Members Absent: Day Ann Kelley and Leonard J. Bertaux
Others Present: Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer – Timothy
Brennan, Clerk of the Board – Diane Rogers, and
Assistant City Planner – Debra Hurlburt
Chairman Houseman, opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. by introducing the Board Members to the public and
discussed the rules for obtaining a variance.
Houseman commented that there was a holdover from the July 27,2000 meeting with six new cases
scheduled to be heard tonight. The holdover case was William Leblanc regarding OceanView/Simsbury
Assoc., located at 3 Essex Street. Houseman stated that the Board did not have a quorum on this case
tonight (Kelley and Bertaux were absent) and that Peter Gilmore, the Attorney representing Mr. Leblanc,
was sent a waiver of time to sign. The meeting will be re-scheduled for September 26, 2000.
Chairman Houseman also stated that Nancy Attaya-McCann, Esq., representing Gibbs Oil Co., has asked
that her case be held at the end of the hearing as she is attending a Board of Appeal meeting in Hamilton at
7:00 tonight also.
Page 2
33 Berrywood Lane – R-10 Zone – Ann Horrigan – Variance Request
Mr. John Horrigan appeared on behalf of his mother. He is seeking to allow the sub-division of an existing
lot into two Lots, A & B. Lot “A” will contain 10,000 square feet and the existing dwelling structure and
will have 104.62 feet of frontage. Lot “B” will contain 9,504 square feet where 10,000 square feet is
required and will have 22 feet of frontage, where 100 feet is required.
Mr. Horrigan stated that by the right of way, adjoining the paved road, is a culvert and therefore, he could
not extend the frontage. He added that the City of Beverly owned land at the rear of his property. He
stated that he did not want to block water drainage from the culvert. To divert the culvert would be too
expensive.
Houseman asked Mr. Horrigan if there was a deed restriction on the property. Horrigan responded yes
the restriction of 1972, that stated the lot was not buildable was lifted last year by the City Council.
A letter in favor of this petition was submitted from John R. Putney and Joan M. Putney of 29 Berrywood
Lane.
Houseman asked if any member of the public had any comments on this proposal. Judith Norwood, of 26
Michael Road is in favor. Also, Timothy Flaherty of 1 Michael Road, Don Martin of 27 Berrywood Lane,
Barbara and Paul Silver of 30 Berrywood Lane, and Gerald Dalfonso of 18 Michael Road are in favor.
Houseman then asked the Board for their comments and questions. Freeman stated the proposal was “ok,”
however he had difficulty finding a legal justification. Fish concurred with Freeman. Fish questioned the
hardship. Horrigan responded that he felt the hardship was the location of the lot, wetlands, and the
existing drainage culvert located at the end of the street. He repeated that he could not extend the road and
that the lot probably would not get conservation approval. McLemore stated the plot plan did not show
where the 22 feet frontage was. He questioned why there was a deed restriction put on the lot in 1972 and
then taken off last year. He added that he could not rationalize the square footage and currently saw no
definitive hardship. Ferguson stated the hardship was the shape of the land, topography, ledge, and the fact
that the drop-off prohibits the lot to be the useful area required. Houseman stated the Board has been strict
on frontage requirements. However, he favored this petition because it would have no detrimental affect on
the neighbors, the lot area of 500 feet short is a minimal relief, the ledge on the back of the lot by the right
away and the presence of the culvert and wetlands, all create a hardship. Houseman added that the 22 feet
of frontage is the hurdle to get over. He stated also, that Berrywood Lane has a paved access now, that
could be used as a driveway and extended. Ferguson stated that on the deed in 1972 it stated that the right-
of-way goes with the property. Freeman asked how far down from the 22 foot frontage was the culvert and
Horrigan responded, 52 feet. Debra Hurlburt stated the petitioner could be granted frontage exceeding 22
feet. She added that this proposal would have to go before the Planning Board.
Ferguson: Motion to approve the variance based on the location of the culvert with the frontage of 22 feet
plus the extra 30 feet, equals 55 feet of frontage. Freeman seconded. Discussion: Houseman
stated the 22 feet of proposed frontage is short, however, we can grant relief by reducing the
amount of relief requested by Ms. Horrigan concerning the frontage.
Ferguson amended the motion to state there would be 51 feet of frontage. Freeman
seconded. McLemore stated he would be in favor at 51 feet.
Motion Carries 5 – 0 as amended. All members in favor (Houseman, Freeman, Ferguson,
McLemore and Fish)
Page 3
449 Elliott Street – R-10 Zone – John Koza – Temporary Conditional Permit
Beverly Persson, mother-in law of John Koza, spoke on her own behalf. She is seeking an accessory
apartment to accommodate her to live in proximity to, but with independence from the owner.
Ms. Persson stated an addition was constructed without separation so that she could live next to her
children. She added that she was a diabetic and this arrangement helped her.
Houseman asked if anyone would like to comment on this petition, there being none, he asked the Board
Members for their comments and questions.
Freeman stated he had no questions. Houseman stated that there are limitations on an in-law apartment
such as the Temporary Conditional Permit shall run for a period of four years and it must be renewed every
four years thereafter by the City Clerk. He added that the kitchen built as a result of the Temporary
Conditional Permit shall be removed by the owner after the designated occupant leaves and that the house
will then revert to a single-family residence. Ms. Persson stated she was aware of the restrictions. Fish
asked if the dwelling was a one family and Persson responded yes. Fish asked why the addition was built
first. Tim Brennan, the Building Commissioner, responded the Temporary Conditional Permit states the in-
law apartment must be built within the existing dwelling. He added that the rooms were created without
separation and now the petitioner is coming in to add the doors. Houseman stated he had no issues with the
site.
Freeman: Motion to grant the Temporary Condition Permit. Seconded by Margaret O’Brien. Motion
Carries 5 – 0. All members in favor (Freeman, O’Brien, Houseman, McLemore, and Fish)
103 Cross Lane – R-22 Zone – Dina Davidyan – Variance Request
Eli Davidyan spoke on behalf of his wife. He is seeking to encroach 10’ plus or minus upon the side yard
setback requirement of 15 feet with an addition ( 16’x24’) two story, attached, one and a half car garage,
with a bedroom and bath above.
Mr. Davidyan stated that he would like to have a garage. He added that his family has grown and they need
more living space. He commented that he could not build in the back yard because of his septic system and
the wetlands on his property.
Diane Rogers read into the record a letter from P. Blake Appleton and Joanne E. Appleton, who stated they
had reviewed the Davidyan’s plans for the addition and had no objections.
Houseman asked if anyone in the public wanted to comment on this petition, there being none he asked the
Board Members for their comments and questions.
Ferguson stated he had visited the site. He then asked the petitioner how many feet would remain between
his proposed 16 feet wide addition and the garage next door? Davidyan responded that there would be five
feet between the garages. Houseman stated that 5 feet next to the lot line was very close. O’Brien asked
the petitioner how many feet the garage at 107 Cross Lane was from the property line. Davidyan
responded, the garage was seven or eight feet from the line. McLemore asked if the evergreens would have
to come down and Davidyan responded, yes, maybe five of them. McLemore commented that the dwelling
was 40 feet back from the road and the lot was narrow. Freeman asked if the petitioner planned to replace
the vegetation. Davidyan responded, no. Freeman commented that the Board could require them to place
Page 4 (Davidyan cont.)
trees on the property lines that do not grow over six feet high. Ferguson stated after reviewing the plan he
believes the garage would be seven feet from the line, not five. He added that the petitioner could
scale down the size of the addition to (24’x14’). Houseman suggested that the Davidyan’s maintain and
plant a long line of hemlocks to provide screening of the two lots. He added that this lot was long and
narrow and the garage could not be placed on the other side. He suggested that the proposed addition be
only 14 feet wide. Freeman asked the petitioners if they would accept the cut back on the size of their
proposed addition. After a discussion it was determined that they would accept the change.
McLemore: Motion to grant the variance with two conditions:
l. the encroachment to the garage from the lot line will not exceed 8 feet.
2. Six-Eight feet high bushes be place between the property lines and this addition.
Seconded by Freeman. All members in favor. Motion carries 5 – 0. (McLemore, Freeman,
O’Brien, Houseman, and Ferguson)
594 Essex Street – R-22 Zone – Michael J. Abate – Variance Request
Mr. Abate appeared on his own behalf. He is seeking to encroach 4’ plus or minus upon the side yard
setback requirement of 15’ with a one story attached garage, 24’x22’.
Mr. Abate stated that Route 22 is a nasty road. He has to back out of his driveway on to a blind curve. He
added that he would like to fill in his underground garage and use the land for this proposed addition. He
suggested the hardship was the lot is long and narrow and the dwelling is positioned at an angle.
Diane Rogers read a letter into the record from Leo Magliozzi of 596 Essex Street who reviewed the details
and indicated that he was not opposed to the plan.
Houseman asked if any member of the public had any comments on this proposal, there being none he
asked the Board for their questions and comments.
Freeman asked if the rear window on the dwelling would be blocked off with this plan. Abate responded,
yes. Freeman suggested moving the addition towards the front of the house and perhaps a variance would
not be needed. Abate stated that he did not want to remove an electrical box located on the side of the
dwelling and if he moved the addition forward, he would not have the space needed for the turnaround he
proposed. Fish concurred with Freeman. She stated there was parking on the left side of the lot and she
felt there was not a hardship. She commented that there were other options that would not require as much
relief. McLemore stated that if the proposed garage were moved forward, the encroachment would only
gain one foot. He added that a variance would be needed on either side. He also commented that this lot
had only 125 feet of frontage, not the 150’ that is required. O’Brien stated she concurred with McLemore.
She added that by setting the addition further back, made it appear not as massive. Houseman stated that he
had visited the site and did not have good visibility trying to leave the property. He added this request is
minimal, there would be no impact on the neighborhood, the lot was long and pie shaped, which is a basis
for a hardship. He commented that he was in favor of this petition and whoever lived on this property
would have the same problem with the lot. He also believes this proposal would improve traffic and
distance.
McLemore: Motion to grant the variance because the lot is very narrow and the property line is parallel to
the street. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion carries 4 – 1. Discussion: Fish stated that the
encroachment is minimal, however, there is an existing one car garage and there are other
options he could choose. (McLemore, O’Brien, Houseman, and Freeman) (Fish opposed)
Page 5
6 Eagle Lane – R-15 Zone – Roland F. Caron – Variance Request
Mr. Roland F. Caron appeared on his own behalf. He is seeking to encroach 16’ plus or minus upon the
required 25’ rear yard setback with an 18’x20’ one story addition, which will contain a den/study.
Mr. Caron stated he wanted to increase the size of his home. He added the hardship is there is only one
area upon the site where the addition can be placed. He added that he had called all of his neighbors to
discuss his plans. Letters were received from the following: Janet and Raymond Boshco of 4 Eagle Lane,
Kristine and Gregory Girard, of 2 Eagle Lane, Mary Short of 5 Eagle Lane, Lisa Allen of 3 Eagle Lane,
Douglas A. Nelson of 212 Standley Street, and Frank and Mary Murphy of 5 Eagle Lane.
Diane Rogers read a letter into the record from Laurie J. Hartmen and Theodore P. Leigh. Regrettably they
could not attend the meeting tonight. Their property directly abuts the Caron’s and they feel this
encroachment would have a negative impact on the value of their property, which is located at 123
Standley Street.
Houseman asked if any members of the public had any comments on this proposal, there being none he
asked the Board for their questions and comments.
McLemore asked what the square footage of the existing dwelling was. Mr. Caron responded the house has
2,700 square feet and is 60 feet long. Ferguson stated he visited the site and he believes this is a reasonable
use of the land. However, now that a fax was delivered stating a direct abutter is in opposition, his mind is
changing. Freeman concurred with Ferguson. Houseman stated the hardship was the lots peculiar shape
and placement of the house on the lot. He added that six neighbors have written letters in favor of this
proposal. Freeman stated he felt the Hartmen’s had a valid claim in the fax letter. McLemore stated that an
80 feet long structure is very large. He added that he is not in favor of this proposal. He suggested scaling
down the encroachment and placing the sun- room on the north side of the dwelling. A change in the plan
might help him to satisfy the Hartmen’s concerns. McLemore suggested that the petitioner withdraw
without prejudice. Houseman suggested continuing this case until the September 26, 2000 hearing.
McLemore: Motion to continue this hearing until September 26, 2000. Seconded by Ferguson. All
members in favor. Motion Carries 5 –0 (Houseman, McLemore, Ferguson, Freeman
O’Brien)
293 Cabot Street – CC Zone – Gibbs Oil Company
Attorney Nancy Attaya-McCann, spoke on behalf of Gibbs Oil Company. They are seeking to allow a
drive-thru window for beverage and food service at their station.
Attorney McCann stated the building site consists of four gasoline service pumps and a convenience store.
This variance request is for approval of the design of a window for a drive-thru. Mr. John Flynn exhibited
and explained the plans. McCann stated the drive- thru will be for four vehicles and a sign would be
erected so vehicles could not enter from the back of the lot. She added that vehicles could enter on Cabot
or Dane Street. McCann stated that over two years ago Gibbs came before the Board and they were denied
for a drive thru window. However, now there is a drive-thru allowed in the CC Zone (Walgreens). The
Building Commissioner, Timothy Brennan, stated that Wallgreen’s drive-thru is for retail sales. McCann
then stated that Gibbs has a drive-thru on Enon Street and there have been no problems. She added that
there would be no impact on the neighborhood and would also promote one stop shopping. McCann
submitted a traffic study dated August 22, 2000 from Atlantic Traffic and Design Engineers, Inc.
A letter was read into the record by the Chairman, from William Goldberg , stating he was not in favor of
this proposal.
Page 6 ( Gibbs cont.)
Houseman asked if any member of the public had any comments on this proposal, there being none, he
asked the Board Members for their comments and questions.
Freeman stated he was surprised that there was no opposition present. He added a drive-thru was a sign of
the times and he sees nothing wrong with this proposal. Fish stated she could see no hardship. Houseman
stated he did not favor this proposal, there was no hardship, and the area has too much traffic. O’Brien
stated she had voted on the Gibbs’ last proposal. She added the proposed design is too large for down
town. She commented that there is a lot of pedestrian traffic at this intersection. She sees no difference in
the proposal than that was offered two years ago. McLemore stated that he is familiar with the property.
He commented a truck tanker blocks the entire side when filling gasoline, which creates difficulty for
access on that side. He added people drive right up to the front door and run into the store. On the right, by
the planters, people are also parking. McLemore feels that during peak times there are problems backing
out on to Cabot Street.
McCann stated the store sells coffee now and Honey- Dew Donuts will soon occupy a space in the store.
She added that Gibbs has a financial competitive disadvantage. The site has been there for years and they
should have the right to offer the customers this convenience. She also said contaminated soil was present
when Gibbs bought the parcel, so the parcel could only be used as a gas station. She said this was also a
hardship.
Houseman stated that he did not agree that a “lack of competitive advantage” constituted a hardship.
Neither was contaminated soil a hardship. Not only did Gibbs “buy into” the problem, they could clean up
the property or use it for other uses. Houseman stated to Mr. Andy Beland, that the signs up on Enon
Street are in violation. He added that Gibbs has not been a good corporate neighbor.
Attorney McCann stated she wished to withdraw her application.
McLemore: Motion to deny the request to withdraw. Seconded by O’Brien. 5-0
McLemore: Motion to grant the request. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion did not carry. 5 –0 deny.
(McLemore, O’Brien, Houseman, Freeman, and Fish)
Meeting adjourned at l0:30 p.m.