Loading...
ZBA 8-28-24 CITY of BEVERLY Zoning Board of Appeals August 28, 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: Will Cosmas,Acting Chairperson, Cory Farinella, Kellie Rivera, Laura Meisenhelter and alternate member Michael Barone, Jr. Member Absent: Kevin Andrews, Chairperson Others Present: Jim Butler, Building Commissioner Leanna Harris,Administrative Assistant Location: Council Chambers City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, Beverly Will Cosmas began the meeting at 7:04pm and introduced the Board members present. I. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Eric and Laurie Skaza request a Variance and a Special Permit under Sections 300-15D(5) and 300-33D (5) of the Zoning Ordinance to construct an 8'x24'rear addition and to rebuild a nonconforming deck on the same footprint. The property is located at 5 Eagle Lane in the R15 zoning district. The Building Commissioner determined the section the applicant is seeking relief from should be: 300-341)(5). Brian Stein(Architect) apologized to the Board for not attending the last meeting. Mr. Stein stated that the house was originally built into the rear setback and later received a Variance. The existing deck was built prior to the current owners and so the applicants are asking for a subsequent Variance for that deck to be rebuilt as it is in poor condition. The applicant is requesting a Special Permit to construct an 8'x24'rear addition to the existing nonconforming structure and a Variance to rebuild and expand the existing nonconforming deck within the rear setback. In June 2024 the applicants received approval from the Conservation Commission. No member of the public spoke in favor or against. Ms. Rivera asked if he had spoke with their neighbors and Mr. Skaza confirmed. MOTION: Ms. Meisenhelter moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Farinella seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Cosmas, Rivera, Farinella, Meisenhelter, Barone) Motion carries. Mr. Cosmas asked why the deck cannot be rebuilt as it is and Mr. Stein explained that with the rear addition, the applicants will lose deck space. Ms. Rivera asked for confirmation that the deck was built by the prior owner without permits and Mr. Stein confirmed. Ms. Rivera stated it is a reasonable request. Mr. Barone stated that on the plans provided,part of the deck is labeled as TBR and asked if that stands for To Be Rebuilt and Mr. Stein confirmed. Mr. Cosmas asked for confirmation that the Variance that runs with the land is for 21 from the set back and Mr. Butler confirmed. MOTION: Mr. Barone moved to GRANT a Variance at 5 Eagle Lane in accordance with 300-341)(5) to permit the reconstruction and expansion of an existing nonconforming deck encroaching into the rear setback due to the shape of the lot and the location of the existing structure creating a hardship, subject to the plans submitted. Ms. Meisenhelter seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Cosmas, Rivera, Farinella, Meisenhelter, Barone). Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Barone moved to GRANT a Special Permit at 5 Eagle Lane to allow an 8'x24'rear addition to the existing nonconforming structure, subject to the plans submitted. Mr. Farinella seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Cosmas, Rivera, Farinella,Meisenhelter, Barone) Motion carries. II. EXTENSION REQUEST .Alexander&Femino o/b/o Francesca Little requests a Variance to divide her parents'lot of 62,634 square feet into two (2) lots, one(1) of which will be 11,487 sq. ft in area and 25.68 feet of frontage, will have 1,800 sq. ft house built on it which complies with building area requirements and all required setbacks. The parents' remaining house lot has 51,147 sq. ft of area and 46.67 feet of frontage,where current zoning requires 100 feet. The property is located at 93 Hale Street in the R10 zoning district. Original Request: 10/25/2023 Tom Alexander, Esq. (Alexander& Femino) addressed the Board and stated that the Variance was granted on 10/25/2023. Since the property is bordered by a stream, the applicant needed to Page 2 of 9 go before the Conservation Commission and plans were delayed. The applicant is requesting a 6-month extension to 4/25/2025. No member of the public spoke in favor or against. MOTION: Ms. Rivera moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Farinella seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Cosmas,Rivera, Farinella, Meisenhelter, Barone) Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Farinella moved to approve the request for the 6-month extension of the Variance to April 25, 2025, subject to the previously submitted and approved plans. Mr. Barone seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Cosmas, Rivera, Farinella, Mcisenhelter, Barone) Motion carries, III. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS Alexander &Femino o/b/o Jesse Jalbert request a Special Permit/Finding under Sections 300-76B and 300-85A.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to change the present use allowed by special permit on the premises to 560 square feet of commercial space on the first floor and five(5) one-bedroom units and one (1) two-bedroom residential unit to be located on the first and second floors. The use, as modified, will be accomplished within the existing building footprint and envelope. The property is located at 371 Cabot Street in the CN zoning district. Tom Alexander, Esq. (Alexander& Femino) addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant and stated that Mr. Jalbert has the property under agreement with the present owners, he has a valid P&S. Bootstraps was in this location for quite some time and required a Special Permit. There was another occupant after Bootstraps which also acquired a Special Permit. Atty.Alexander stated that the applicant plans to renovate the property within the existing footprint and envelope. The applicant will tear down the garage in the back to create more parking. Zoning requires two (2)parking spaces per unit, requiring the proposed residential units to have 12 spaces which would be satisfied by tearing down the garage. Zoning allows parking spaces available in municipal parking lots within 500'to count towards required spaces for non- residential uses. There is a lot right next door that does have nine (9)parking spaces that are rarely used. The proposed use will be significantly less intense as prior uses because there won't be the amount of people coming and going. The area is very much residential with multi-family homes. Atty.Alexander provided to the Board a summary and illustration of the multi-family and Page 3 of 9 commercial uses currently in the immediate area. There will be no increase to the building footprint or building volume. It provides available housing in close proximity to the downtown and also to two (2)railroad stations. Mr. Cosmas asked if there will be affordable housing units. Atty.Alexander stated the applicant is not labeling them as affordable units but the units will be a more affordable market rate. Mr. Farinella asked for confirmation that the applicant is proposing to tear down the garage and use the building for six(6) residential dwellings and one (1) commercial space. Atty.Alexander confirmed. Carol Rein, 27 Pratt Avenue asked if any of the units will be affordable units. Atty.Alexander stated that since the applicant is proposing six (6)units, there will be one (1) affordable unit and so the applicant will also need to go before the Planning Board. MOTION: Mr. Farinella moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Meisenhelter seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Cosmas, Rivera, Farinella, Meisenhelter,Barone) Motion carries. Mr. Barone asked Mr. Butler why a Special Permit is required and stated it almost sounds like a by right use in the CN district(one or more dwellings in a permitted commercial building). Atty. Alexander stated in the past other Building Commissioners have determined that dimensional requirements needed to be in accordance with adjacent uses. Mr. Cosmas stated if it doesn't match the RMD space requirements why wouldn't the applicant need a Variance and Atty.Alexander explained that the provision states the property can go from one nonconforming use to another. This is going from a food pantry to a multi-family use which are both nonconforming. MOTION: Ms. Meisenhelter moved to GRANT a Special Permit at 371 Cabot Street under Sections 300-76B and 300-85A.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to change the present use allowed by special permit on the premises to 560 square feet of commercial space on the first floor and five (5) one-bedroom units and one(1)two-bedroom residential unit to be located on the first and second floors. The use, as modified,will be accomplished within the existing building footprint and envelope, subject to the plans submitted. Ms. Rivera seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Cosmas, Rivera, Farinella, Meisenhelter,Barone) Motion carries. Page 4 of 9 Alexander& Femino olb/o David Carnevale requests a Variance under Section 300-43D (1) (2) (4) (5) to allow a single-family residence to be built on a vacant lot within.an 83 lot subdivision created in 1906. Like many of the existing houses in this subdivision it will have less area, frontage and setbacks than required by current zoning. The lot is 3,708 sq.ft., has 45' of frontage and the proposed house would be located 8.4' from the side lot line and 20.3'from the rear lot line,while current zoning calls for 10,000 sq. ft. area, 100' frontage, 15 foot side yard setback and 25 foot rear yard setback. The property is located at 23 James Street in the R10 zoning district. Tom Alexander, Esq. (Alexander&Femino) addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant and stated that this parcel is located in a single-family district. This subdivision was created in 1906 with at least 83 lots. Most of the houses were built out with the subdivision plan and then subsequently the City of Beverly upzoned the area and required 10,000 sq. ft. lots with 100'of frontage. There are some lots that do comply with zoning, but not many. Atty. Alexander provided to the Board a map of the area showing 15 of the built-on lots that have similar lot dimensions as to what the applicant is seeking tonight. Atty.Alexander stated that there are two (2) lots in that subdivision that have houses built on them that are smaller than what the applicant is seeking zoning relief for.Atty.Alexander stated that the houses built were mostly done in 1920-1960. Many of the houses do not comply with the setbacks. This lot is narrow, it is 45' wide and the applicant is seeking a Variance. Atty.Alexander stated the proposal is keeping with the neighborhood and it is also keeping with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. David Jaquith(Architect) provided an overview of the proposed plans for the 3-bedroom house. Ms. Rivera asked Mr. Jaquith if, in his professional judgment, this the smallest this house could he for this lot. Mr. Barone stated that in the site plan there appears to be an existing wall or fence that is about 20-30' of the front yard and asked if this property has been held in common with any of the adjacent properties since 1976.Atty.Alexander stated it has not. Arthur Rasmussen 29 James Street stated that he has lived there since 2016 and he is opposed to the plans. The proposed house is 2,200 sq ft which is double the largest existing house. Mr. Rasmussen stated that there is, in fact, other interest to purchase that property and leave it as is. Steve Kramish 30 Pratt Avenue stated that he bought his house in 1984 and at that time asked if there were any plans to develop the nearby woods. There have since been six(6)houses built in that wooded area and so they have done this type of meeting before. Mr. Kramish suggested that the lot would best serve the neighborhood as a whole if it could become a park. Wayne Godbout, 55 Butman Street stated that there are two (2) condominium units at his house and that he lives on the first floor with this family. Mr. Godbout stated he is concerned about putting such a large house right against the property line. There is a deck along the back of the house that doesn't tie in to the setback requirements so the deck would basically be looking into his backyard and it will adversely affect his property value and privacy. Page 5 of 9 Elizabeth Ryan, 55 Butman Street stated that the house that sits behind the applicant's lot is only 1,026 sq. ft, it will dwarf that lot. There is a 15' drop from the back of the house and she has spent significant money addressing drainage issues. The plans show a deck and a balcony which will cause them to lose all privacy. The owner of 59 Butman Street has offered to buy this lot in the past and the owner has refused. If this is approved, the Board is setting a precedent for the whole neighborhood. Mitchell Surowiec,_42_Pratt Avenue stated that, topographically, he lives downhill from the proposed location and Pratt Avenue is lacking in storm drains. Every time there is a rainstorm he runs the risk of his basement being flooded and removing the wooded lot and putting a house there would just make that worse. Carol Rein, 27 Pratt Avenue stated that she is on the street that backs up to James Street. She is against this proposal for all of the reasons that have been stated. Jason Tie_mM 36 James Street stated that he is concerned that there are some people who didn't feel like they were notified of the meeting. Jeff Britton, 32 James Street stated that he is opposed to the proposal. Patrick Kennedy, 35 James Street stated that he lives one (1) house away and his only wish is that the Board could drive by and see how ridiculously small this piece of land is. David McCoy, 56 Butman Street stated that he thinks the proposed house is too big for the lot. Mary McCoy, 56 Butman Street stated that she lives on the corner of Butman St. and James St. and she is opposed to this project. Guy Bouchard, 32 Pratt Avenue stated that he is located diagonally one (1) house over from the property and the house is too big for the lot and he is opposed. Melissa.Gog_gin, 22 James Street stated that she is across from the lot and enjoys seeing the trees and the animals. All of those trees absorb a lot of the rainwater. Allie McCarthy DeMello, 26 James Street stated that she is opposed to the project and shares the same concerns about the drainage and any blasting. Atty.Alexander stated that the applicant and Atty.Alexander have heard the neighbor's comments loud and clear as far the proposed plans being too large, as well as drainage and privacy concerns. The applicant thinks it can redesign the project to be smaller with stormwater drainage in place as well as address the privacy issues. The applicant would like an opportunity to meet with the neighbors. Atty.Alexander requested to continue to the October 2024 meeting. Page 6 of 9 MOTION: Mr. Barone moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Rivera seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Cosmas, Rivera, Farinella, Meisenhelter,Barone) Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Cosmas moved to GRANT a continuance for 23 James Street to the October 30, 2024 meeting, subject to signing the Waiver and Agreement and that the applicant provide proof of a meeting with the neighbors. Ms. Rivera seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Cosmas, Rivera, Farinella, Meisenhelter, Barone) Motion carries. Alexander&Femino olblo BPDC Realty Investments LLC requests a Variance under Section 300-36D (1) (5) (6) (10) to allow the construction of a new 2-family residence on a vacant lot having 75' of frontage and 4,084 sq.ft. of area. The proposed new residence would have 12.55'front yard setback, 0.7'side yard setback and 20'rear yard setback where present zoning sets out lot size of 8,000 sq.ft., 20' front yard, 10' side yard, and.20 foot rear yard setbacks. This lot is part of a 1911 subdivision of 33 lots having similar area, dimensions and setbacks as what is proposed. The property is located on Beaver Street(Map 31, Lot 36) in the RMD zoning district. Tom Alexander, Esq. (Alexander &Femino) addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant and stated that according to City records this lot was originally called 0 Beaver Street but he thinks it is now 6 Beaver Street. This lot is located in the RMD district which is to provide multifamily housing. The lot is triangular which makes it difficult to develop. It has 77' of frontage which is more than what is required by zoning. This was part of a 33-lot subdivision built in 1911 and it does not conform with present zoning which requires substantially bigger lots. Atty.Alexander provided a survey and map to the Board of the area houses. In the immediate area there are several 2-family houses. Beverly Housing is also located nearby with multi family dwellings. David Jaquith(Architect) addressed the Board and provided an overview of the proposed plans. Atty.Alexander stated that the shape of this lot creates a hardship, it is an unusual triangular shape which prevents it from being used as its intended purpose. The literal enforcement of zoning would deprive the lot of economic value. Atty.Alexander stated that there are a lot of 2-family homes in the area. Mr. Cosmas stated that the building seems rather large and asked if is the minimal amount of relief that could be requested. Atty.Alexander stated that the applicant could consider a smaller building. The Board determined the applicant is seeking relief from Section 300-36D (1) (5) (6) (8),not Section (10). Page 7 of 9 Ivan Boadanovic, 45 Sohier Road,Unit 1 stated that he has lived there for 20 years and he is opposed to the project specifically the 0.7' setback from his property. He also has concerns about drainage, water pressure and the amount of relief the applicant is requesting for the Variance. Dalton Young_, 7 Beaver Street stated that he is directly across the street from the property the applicant wants to build on. It's a small street with very little traffic from both cars and people. Mr. Young is opposed to the proposed project and stated that he is going to get light pollution and lose some of his privacy. One of the reasons he bought his house was because of the seclusion. There are three(3) 100 year-old trees on that property that will have to be removed which will affect air flow and drainage. Stacey Rogers, 45 Sohier Road,Unit 2 stated that she just purchased this condo two weeks ago. One of the reasons she bought the property was the seclusion that it has. Ms. Rogers is very concerned about the 0.7' setback and brought photos of a measuring tape showing how far 8" is from the lot line. Ms. Rogers is opposed to the project. Robert McCue, 8 Beaver Street stated that he abuts the property and that he agrees with everything that has been mentioned.All the houses on Beaver Street are single family, there are no multi-families on Beaver Street. The trees on that lot provide shade to his backyard and if there is a house built there, he would have people looking over into his yard and he would lose all privacy. Ashley Sartell, 9 Beaver Street stated that she is opposed to this project and agrees with everything that has been said. MOTION: Mr. Farinella moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Barone seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Cosmas, Rivera, Farinella, Meisenhelter, Barone) Motion carries. Mr. Cosmas stated that an 8" set back is comically small, there has to be a better way. The lot is roughly half of the required amount and all of the setbacks are off. It is a weird shaped lot, but it's the lot and it looks like the applicant is taking up all the space on the lot. There may be a better way to develop it. Ms. Meisenhelter asked what the square footage of the footprint will be and Mr. Jaquith stated that the footprint of the house is 1,550 sq. ft. Ms. Rivera stated that the size of the lot is different on the GIS map from the deed. Mr. Butler stated to go by the deed. Mr. Barone stated that he is concerned about the ownership of this lot and the adjoining lot. These two (2) lots were co-owned by the same individual as recently as 1989 and are considered Page 8 of 9 merged for zoning purposes rendering this is an undevelopable lot. Mr. Barone stated when you have two (2)nonconforming lots in common ownership after a period of time, the lots are considered merged for zoning purposes. Atty.Alexander stated that the applicant would like to withdraw without prejudice. The applicant and Atty.Alexander are going to look into the merged lot and possibly propose a smaller house. MOTION: Mr. Barone moved to GRANT the request for 0 Beaver Street to withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Farinella seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Cosmas, Rivera, Farinella, Meisenhelter, Barone) Motion carries. OTHER BUSINESS A. Approval of July 31, 2024 Meeting Minutes (Andrews) [HOLD] MOTION: Ms. Meisenhelter moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:24pm. Mr. Barone seconded the Motion. All in favor. Motion carries. Leanna Harris, Administrative Assistant Board of Appeals of the Zoning Ordinance Page 9 of 9