Loading...
ZBA 1-24-24 CITY of BEVERLY Zoning Board of Appeals January 24, 2024 at 7:00 pm These minutes are not a verbatim transcript of the public hearing of the Board of Appeals. Reviews of these Minutes or outcome of the public hearing should include an examination of the Board's decision for that hearing. Members Present: Kevin Andrews, Chairperson, Will Cosmas, Cory Farinella, Kellie Rivera, Laura Meisenhelter and alternate member Mike Barone. Others Present: Jim Butler, Building Commissioner Leanna Harris, Administrative Assistant Location: Council Chambers City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, Beverly Kevin Andrews began the meeting at 7:05 pm and introduced the Board members present. I. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS Gibraltar Pools Cori) o/b/o Peter Haii requests a Variance to assemble a 12'x24' above ground pool in the backyard, and 6' of distance from the rear yard setback where 10' is required. The property is located at 16 Brimbal Hills Drive in the R10 zoning district. Peter de Bernardo (Gibraltar Pools) addressed the Board and stated the applicants have a narrow backyard and they are seeking permission to encroach on the rear yard setback by 4' in order to install an above ground pool. No one spoke in favor or against. Mr. Farinella asked if there was a pool there previously and Mr. de Bernardo stated it was a temporary pool that predates the applicant. Mr. de Bernardo stated the new pool will occupy some of that same area. There will be at least 6' of room to walk around the pool. There is an inground pool behind this property that is closer to the property line, Mr. Cosmas asked Mr. de Bernardo to elaborate on the alternate areas that are shown in the application that wouldn't work. Mr. Andrews asked if the trees were a consideration and Mr. de Bernardo stated a side yard location was considered but there is a tree in that corner. Mr. Farinella asked for more information on the structure of the pool. Mr. de Bernardo stated the pool has a 2' deck around it with a fence/railing along the top. It's a self-contained unit, but the yard is also completely fenced in. Mr, Barone asked if it is a semipermanent pool and Mr, de Bernardo confirmed and stated that it is technically a temporary pool but it is not the type of pool that is taken down and put back up. Mr. Andrews asked what the height of the deck railing is and Mr. de Bernardo stated it is essentially a 7' barrier around the pool. Mr. Andrews asked how high the decking is and Mr. de Bernardo stated it is 4'. The existing perimeter fence will stay. Mr. Farinella stated it looks like there isn't a fence along one side and Mr. de Bernardo stated there is a wooden stockade fence. Ms. Rivera asked if the neighbors are in support of the pool and Mr. de Bernardo stated he hasn't heard either way but everyone was notified. Mr. Andrews stated he is comfortable with the request. Ms. Rivera agreed. MOTION: Mr. Farinella moved to close the public hearing. Mr, Barone seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Andrews, Cosmas, Barone, Farinella, Rivera) Motion carries. Mr. Andrews asked what the hardship is and Mr. de Bernardo stated the yard is uniquely shaped, it is long and narrow. MOTION: Ms. Rivera moved to GRANT a Variance at 16 Brimbal Hills Drive to assemble a 12'x24' above ground pool in the backyard,4' from the rear yard setback where 10' is required. The long, narrow shape of the lot is creating a hardship. The construction is subject to the plans submitted. Mr. Cosmas seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Andrews, Cosmas, Barone, Farinella, Rivera) Motion carries. PionArch Architecture and Interiors requests a Special Permit/Finding to replace a second story roof within the existing footprint. The property is located at 91 Hale Street in the RIO zoning district. Lidia Szydlowska(PionArch Architecture and Interiors) addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant and stated that the project is located in the RIO district. They worked with a land surveyor to establish where the setbacks are. The project scope is to work within the first floor footprint. They are looking to add two bedrooms. The existing rear first story is close to the property line. There will be two shed dormers with a new roof on top. The square footage will be increasing 13.2%. Mr. Andrews asked what the new height will be and Ms. Szydlowska stated it is the same height as the existing home which is 22.5' high. Mr. Andrews asked how close the neighbors are and Ms. Szydlowska stated the right side is .9' Page 2 of 8 and they are maintaining the same distance. Mr. Andrews asked if they will be matching the style of the house and Ms. Szydlowska confirmed. Mr. Barone asked if they are just building out a second story and Ms. Szydlowska confirmed. The applicant stated they are looking to utilize the attic as two bedrooms. No one spoke in favor or against. Mr. Cosmas stated it seems straight forward, it's a pork chop lot and it doesn't increase the size of the house. It doesn't seem like it will adversely affect the neighborhood. Ms. Rivera agreed and stated she doesn't have any concerns. MOTION: Mr. Cosmas moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Farinella seconded the Motion. Votes in_favor: 5-0 (Andrews, Cosmas, Meisenhelter, Farinella, Rivera) Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Cosmas moved to GRANT a Special Permit at 91 Hale Street to replace the second story roof within the existing footprint as it meets the criteria of a Special Permit, subject to the plans submitted and also Finding it is not more substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. Ms. Rivera seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Andrews, Cosmas, Meisenhelter, Farinella, Rivera) Motion carries. Glovsky & Glovsky o/b/o Robert and Sarah Heil requests a Special Permit/Finding to authorize the construction of an approximately 1,189 square foot addition to an existing nonconforming single family home, which will comply with dimensional requirements and will create no new dimensional nonconformities, but will result in an increase of building volume and footprint of more than 25%. The property is located at 16 East Street in the R10 zoning district. Conor Walsh, Esq. (Glovsky & Glovsky) addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant and stated they are looking to construct a 1,189 sq. ft. addition and increase the home more than 25%. It is nonconforming due to lacking frontage. It will be a modest single-story addition to the right side consisting of a mudroom and family room in the rear. Atty. Walsh stated many homes in this neighborhood have constructed similar additions over the years. The applicants bought the house in 2019 and are seeking to add to the home due to their growing family and need for a home office. Atty. Walsh stated that the applicants have contacted their neighbors and there are 3 letters in support in addition to the list of abutters who have signed a petition in favor. Mr. Andrews stated they will still have a yard with the addition. Ms. Rivera stated the request is reasonable and consistent with :neighboring properties. Page 3 of 8 Mr. Cosmas stated one of the reasons the lot is so long is that there is wetland in the back and asked if they have been before the Conservation Commission. Atty. Walsh confirmed and stated there are no concerns, Mr. Andrews asked if the applicant has considered installing any surfaces that would better drain water than the grass. The applicant stated they will be installing a cultus drain water system. Neil Connors., 14 East Street stated he is the abutting property and he fully supports the applicant's addition. They are wonderful neighbors. Mr. Barone stated he appreciates that the applicant plans to stay within the side setback. Mr. Cosmas stated he appreciates their outreach to the neighbors. Mr. Andrews stated it is well designed and he appreciates their transparency. MOTION: Ms. Meisenhelter moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Farinella seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Andrews, Cosmas,Meisenhelter, Farinella, Rivera) Motion carries. MOTION: Ms. Meisenhelter moved to GRANT a Special Permit at 16 East Street, as it meets the criteria of a Special Permit, to authorize the construction of an approximately 1,189 square foot addition to an existing nonconforming single family home, which will comply with dimensional requirements and will create no new dimensional nonconformities,but will result in an increase of building volume and footprint of more than 25%, subject to the plans submitted and Finding it is not more substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Cosmas seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Andrews, Cosmas, Meisenhelter, Farinella, Rivera) Motion carries. Mea2han Rafter requests a Special Permit/Finding to expand the second floor of an existing house within 6.2' away from the side yard property line where a 15' side setback is required. The addition will come no closer to the property line than the existing structure. The property is located at 12 Sunset Drive in the R10 zoning district. John Crowell (Deer Hill Architects) addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant and stated the house is currently a cape with a full rear shed dormer. it is nonconforming because it is 6.2' from the side setback, where 15' is required. They are looking to enlarge the second floor to add a 3Cd bedroom and to make it a full colonial. They are planning to expand out to the front of the property but it will be within the setback. The house will come no closer to the property line than it currently does. The volume is increasing by 16%. There are ten letters from abutters in support of the application. Page 4 of 8 Mr. Barone stated the fact that the side yard setback isn't going to be further encroached upon is a determining factor for him. It is a nice design and a nice use of space without overbuilding the lot. No one spoke in favor or against. MOTION: Ms. Rivera moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Cosmas seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Barone, Cosmas, Meisenhelter, Farinella, Rivera) Motion carries. Mr. Andrews stated it is a nice design and Mr, Cosmas agreed. MOTION: Mr. Farinella moved to GRANT a Special Permit at 12 Sunset Drive, as it meets the criteria of a Special Permit, to expand the second floor of an existing house within 6.2' away from the side yard property line where a 15' side setback is required. The addition will come no closer to the property line than the existing structure, subject to the plans submitted and a Finding that it is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Barone seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Barone, Cosmas, Meisenhelter, Farinella, Rivera) Motion carries. Alexander &Femino olblo RoLyer and Cheryl Halle requests a Variance to subdivide the lot so as to have 2 single family lots, one with the existing 75.85 ft of frontage on Heather Street, the other with the existing 75 ft of frontage on Gove Avenue. The result would be 2 single family detached houses, each complying with all front setback and height requirements but having 5,189 sq. ft. and 4,726 sq. ft. of area where the zoning ordinance calls for 8,000 sq. ft. Since the existing lot has the required area and frontage, the lot could, by right, have an attached 2 family dwelling built on site. The practical effect of the requested Variance would be to have 2 single family detached dwellings, in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood as opposed to one building with 2 attached dwelling units as allowed by right. The property is located at 26 Heather Street in the RMD zoning district. Tom Alexander, Esq. (Alexander&Femino) addressed the Board and stated the project is being done by Scout Associates, a family business located in Beverly. This was originally a subdivision with 42 lots having 4,000-5,000 sq. ft. as well as a few other double lots. This property has frontage on both Gove Ave and Heather Street. Both streets have an excess of frontage. They are looking to re-subdivide this property as originally set out in 1938. It is located in the RMD district providing for multi family residences. None of the other houses are multi families or two families. The requirement for frontage is 6,500' and these lots have 7,500 sq. ft. This a fully conforming lot and could by right build a 2-family home. The applicants are requesting to divide the lots and build two single family homes. Atty. Alexander stated there has been opposition from the neighborhood. Page 5 of 8 Atty. Alexander provided an analysis handout to the Board members showing existing homes and their square footage. There is one house in the neighborhood that has more than what is required but there are also 8 houses that are within 20% of the size of this house. There are 9 lots that are smaller in area than the proposed Lot B. Atty. Alexander stated this proposal is very much in keeping with the neighborhood. Atty. Alexander stated lots that have frontage on two streets is fairly unique. The hardship is that this was designed to be two lots for two houses and many of the houses in the subdivision have been built out to the same size as what is proposed. Atty. Alexander stated this will not be a detriment to the neighborhood, it would be good to have two additional single family homes in this neighborhood versus a 2-family home. This also keeps with the City's policy of building housing within walking distance to public transportation. Mr. Cosmas asked for clarification that the applicant is looking to revert back to two nonconforming lots. Atty. Alexander confirmed. Mr. Barone asked what the applicant is asking a Variance for. Atty. Alexander stated it is in the ZBA's purview to grant variances allowing less than the required square footage. Atty. Alexander stated the applicant has gone door to door and they do know that the neighbors have concerns. Adam Byrd, 28 Heather Street stated as a neighborhood they reject the proposal and they submitted a letter in opposition. Mr. Cosmas asked how he would feel about a two family and Mr. Byrd stated he would prefer it. JP Chuy, 30 Heather Street stated the applicant speaks a lot about preserving the neighborhood but if that was the case, they would do what other developers have done and renovate an existing house. There are also 6 other lots after this one that if this one is permitted, they will be opening the door for these others. Mr. Cosmas asked how he would feel about a 2-family and Mr. Chuy stated if they are within their zoning rights, he is ok with it. MOTION: Ms. Rivera moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Cosmas seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Barone, Cosmas, Meisenhelter, Andrews, Rivera) Motion carries. Ms. Meisenhelter asked for clarification on what they are approving. Mr. Andrews stated they would be approving a variance to build on these two lots. Mr. Cosmas stated he has an issue with dividing a conforming lot to create two nonconforming lots. The neighbors have an issue with this proposal and seem to be more in favor of a 2-family. Ms. Meisenhelter stated she visited the neighborhood today and it is all capes. Page 6 of 8 Mr. Barone stated his concern is that they are creating two severely nonconforming lots. They are taking a conforming lot and carving it into two nonconforming lots. Mr. Barone stated he doesn't see a hardship other than one that is self created. Ms. Rivera stated the intent of this Board is to only grant if they are in harmony with the neighborhood. Mr. Farinella stated he can't get past that they are creating two nonconformities. Mr. Andrews stated the lot was designed and then they formed the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cosmas stated the lots merged and so now it is one lot. Mr. Andrews stated it is a long piece of property with roads on either side and although it has been merged, he thinks they should be able to make full use of their property. Mr. Cosmas stated they could make full use of the property and build a 2-family house. Atty. Alexander stated given the feedback here they would like to withdraw the application without prejudice. MOTION: Mr. Barone moved to permit the applicant to withdraw the application for a Variance at 26 Heather Street without prejudice. Mr. Cosmas seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Barone, Cosmas, Meisenhelter,Andrews, Rivera) Motion carries. Nicholas and Carly Langone requests a Special Permit to construct a 20' x 26' addition onto a nonconforming dwelling increasing overall square footage by 25%. The property is located at 15 Goldsmith Avenue in the R10 zoning district. Carly Langone addressed the Board and stated they currently have a cape and they also have three small children. They are looking to expand the home and have another family room and another bedroom upstairs. Ms. Langone stated they love Ryal Side and want to stay there and make this their forever home. Ms. Rivera stated it's a reasonable request and Mr. Barone agreed and stated it complies with the front and side setback. No one spoke in favor or against. Mr. Andrews stated he agrees with his colleagues that it is well designed and a reasonable request. MOTION: Mr. Farinella moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Cosmas seconded the Motion. Votes__in favor: 5-0 (Andrews, Cosmas, Meisenhelter, Farinella, Rivera) Motion carries. Page 7 of 8 Mr. Andrews stated it sounds like the 25% increase is what triggered the application to come before the Board and Mr. Butler confirmed. MOTION: Mr. Farinella moved to GRANT a Special Permit at 15 Goldsmith Avenue, as it meets the criteria for a Special Permit, to construct a 20' x 26' addition onto a nonconforming dwelling increasing overall square footage by 25%, subject to the plans submitted. Ms. Meisenhelter seconded the Motion. Votea in f : 5-0 (Andrews, Cosmas, Meisenhelter, Farinella, Rivera) Motion carries. II. OTHER BUSINESS A. Approval of November 29, 2023 Meeting Minutes (Andrews) MOTION: Mr. Andrews moved to approve the November 29, 2023 meeting minutes as written. Mr. Farinella seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Andrews, Cosmas, Meisenhelter, Farinella, Rivera) Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Andrews moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:28pm. Mr. Cosmas seconded the Motion. All in favor. Motion carries. Leanna Harris, Administrative Assistant Board of Appeals of the Zoning Ordinance Page 8 of 8