2005-02-22
CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
These minutes are not a verbatim transcript of the public hearing or public meeting
of the Zoning Board of Appeal. Reviews of the discussion or outcome of the public
hearing should include an examination of the Board’s Decision for that hearing.
Board: Zoning Board of Appeal
Date: February 22, 2005
Place: Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street
Board Members Present: Full Members: Co-Chair Scott D. Houseman
Co-Chair Andrea Fish, Scott Ferguson, and
Margaret O’Brien. Alternate Member: Jane
Brusca.
Absent: Joel Margolis and Patricia Murphy
Co-Chair Houseman opened the meeting to the public. He spoke of two new cases on the
agenda plus the holdovers.
12 Parkview Avenue – R-10 Zone – Francis A. & Cathleen E. Kavanagh, III
Variance and Special Permit Request
Co-Chair Houseman stated that he would first like to speak to Attorney Peter J.
Feuerbach representing the Kavanaghs of 12 Parkview Avenue. He asked if the proposed
new dwelling would be upon the same footprint as the dwelling that would be
demolished. Co-Chair Houseman stated that the City Solicitor, |Roy Gelineau, had
written a letter stating that a structure cannot be reconstructed with a special permit or
variance request until the Ordinance is amended to include provisions for Expansion of
Non-Conforming Structures. Co-Chair Houseman suggested that Attorney Feuerbach
request to continue the application for one month pending whether the City Solicitor
reconsiders his opinion or stays with it.
Page 2
Attorney Feuerbach responded that the applicants were present and it was his request to
proceed with the application. He commented that he had spoken to the City Solicitor and
he agreed that the request should not be a special permit. Mr. Gelineau had informed him
that the request should be a variance. Attorney Feuerbach requested a recess so he could
read Mr. Gelineau’s letter. He commented that the owners should be able to repair their
dwelling. Co-Chair Houseman had the Building Commissioner Robert Nelson make a
copy of Mr. Gelineau’s letter and present it to Attorney Feuerbach. At 7:50 p .m. the
meeting was re-opened. Attorney Feuerbach reiterated that he would like to go forward
tonight for a variance request. He stated that Roy Gelineaus’ letter was written nine
months ago. He added that he did not agree with the conclusion of the letter. If a special
permit cannot be used, then a variance must be the way.
Co-Chair Houseman stated you may proceed with the request, however, the Board might
not vote upon this tonight. Fish concurred. O’Brien stated she was ready for them to
present their case.
Attorney Feuerbach introduced the Kavanagh’s, owners who are requesting to replace
their existing non-conforming single-family dwelling located on the Danvers River at 12
Park View Avenue. He introduced David Porter of Childs Engineering Corporation. He
stated he had submitted two letters dated January 12 and January 17 from Childs
Engineering to Ken Fields of BSC Group in Boston, stating that the condition of the
existing piles which support the current structure are no longer satisfactory and should
not be used in the reconstruction of the residence. Mr. Porter also wrote that he had
performed a review of the water level elevations, which can be anticipated at the project
site. He also reviewed FEMA’s FIRM maps accepted by the Beverly community, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Tidal Flood Profiles for the New England Coastline, and a
review of the historic high water levels in Beverly. Based on our review of the
information, he recommended a minimum finished first floor elevation of 13 feet above
NGVD 1929. This reflects an increase in the current the first floor elevation of
approximately two feet. The variance would allow a front yard setback of 0.0 feet
where 20 feet is required; a side yard setback of 1.4 feet where 15 feet is required; 90 feet
of frontage where 100 feet is required; no off street parking where two spaces are
required; and any other dimensional or other relief that may be required. Attorney
Feuerbach stated the dwelling was constructed in about 1900 on wooden piles that
elevate the structure above the Danvers River. The piles are in various stages of rot, and
disrepair. These piles need to be removed and replaced with a modern, marine-
engineered pile system, which the Kavanaghs presently propose.
Mr. and Mrs. Kavanagh spoke to their neighbors and exhibited their proposed plans. The
abutting neighbor Ron Gillis of 25 Marsh Avenue signed a petition supporting this
proposal along with 12 other neighbors.
Page 3 12 Parkview Avenue (cont.)
A representative of the applicant stated the floors of the existing dwelling were sagging
and that the piles are moving. He added that the proposed new dwelling would be for a
full time residence. He commented that the surrounding porch would be enclosed for
living space. He submitted a new elevation plan dated February 22, 2005 which
indicated that the roof elevation would be one-foot shorter because of the rules of Chapter
91.
Attorney Feuerbach stated the criteria of the variance is that the parcel is below the high
water line of the Danvers River and subject to tidal action. The topography is low lying
and the dwelling drops off about 10 feet into the coastal mud. The hardship is that the
State Regulations maintain he has to stay on the same footprint. He added that this is the
minimum variance request and it would not be detrimental to the ordinance or impact
views.
Joan Murphy of 36 Long Meadow Road asked if only 1/3 of the original porch would be
enclosed. O’Brien asked if Chapter 91 allows the footprint of the building to be smaller.
Fish stated she was of the opinion that this was a very large increase in living space.
Brusca asked how many bedrooms were present. Mr. Kavanagh responded there were
four bedrooms in the existing dwelling. Brusca stated this proposal had a huge increase
in living space. Ferguson stated he made a site visit today and he felt there would be a
30% increase in the proposed plan for the dwelling. Houseman stated the neighbors had
signed in favor of the project and that the size of the dwelling was not a concern to him.
He did however, feel that the visual impact would make a huge difference. He
questioned if the overall scale was large or minimal. Attorney Feuerbach responded that
this is a high cost project. He added this will be a modest new dwelling with less than
2,464 square feet of living space. O’Brien stated she was not happy with the design and
5 bedrooms proposed. Fish stated this was not the minimum relief and added that the
existing structure is non-conforming. She questioned if this was one lot or two. The
owner stated both lots represent 22,000 sq. feet and that they pay taxes on one lot.
Houseman asked if there could be another design submitted on a smaller scale.
Ferguson: Motion to allow the petitioner to continue until the next scheduled
meeting on March 22, 2005. Subject to a waiver of time being signed.
Seconded by O’Brien. Motion carries 5 – 0. All members in favor
(Houseman, Fish, O’Brien, Ferguson, & Brusca)
Discussion: Fish and Brusca stated they might not be in attendance next month.
6 Arlington Avenue – R-10 Zone – Daniel R. and Diana K. Ribreau
Variance Request
Mr. Ribreau spoke on his own behalf. He stated he was requesting to encroach 15 feet
plus or minus upon the 25 feet rear yard setback, with a (12’ x 24’) two-story addition
Page 4 Ribreau, 6 Arlington Avenue (cont.)
hat has a family room on the first floor and to expand existing bedrooms on the second
floor. He added that he would like to demolish the rear of the dwelling including the
small porch. He stated the dwelling is a Dutch Colonial design and the only option
would be to build an addition in the rear. Mr. Ribreau stated his neighbor’s were in favor
of his plan.
Co-Chairperson Fish asked if any member of the public had any comments or questions
on this proposal. There being none she asked the Board for their questions and
comments. O’Brien asked what the hardship was. Mr. Ribreau stated they only wanted
to enlarge a small amount. Fish stated the lot contains 6,700 square feet and is in the R-
10 Zone. She questioned the net gain of the addition. Ferguson stated he calculated the
addition would be 12-13% more. He added he had made a site visit that day. He felt
that the dwelling was located in the middle of the small lot and there was no ledge. He
added that the Lauranzano’s of 6 Goodyear Street had given their approval along with
four other neighbors. He continued that the project is scaling up two floors, which does
increase the footprint of the structure. Houseman asked when the dwelling was
purchased. Mr. Ribreau responded the dwelling was purchased in 2001 and they moved
in, in 2002. Fish stated this is a small lot, therefore, the dwelling has to remain small.
Houseman stated one application does not set a precedent for another case. He feels it is
a reasonable request but the lack of a hardship is a concern. O’Brien stated the addition
could not be placed elsewhere because it would ruin the curb appeal of the dwelling. She
added that this was a minimum relief request and questioned if this project would pass if
it were a Section 6 Finding rather than a variance. Fish questioned if the project would
be under 25% which is a requirement of a Section Six Finding. Ferguson responded the
project would be under 25%. Ferguson stated that if the applicants went forward they
could loose the case. He suggested they withdraw without prejudice and re-file in the
future as a Special Permit request.
Houseman: Motion to allow the applicant to withdraw without prejudice this
application. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion carries 5 – 0. (Houseman,
Ferguson, O’Brien, Fish & Brusca)
Discussion of Development on Cailin Road
Co-Chair Houseman stated that Attorney Phillip Lake of Glovsky and Glovsky had
requested the Board hear some information regarding a proposed Subsidized Elderly
Housing project near the airport on Cailin Road. He added that the Board must decide
whether to allow this where the abutters have not been notified. He stated the Board does
not have to respond to their questions. Houseman added he would allow the discussion
for 15 minutes. A concept site plan was submitted to the Board. Mr. Peter Kelleher
stated he would be requesting a special permit from the Board of Appeals and the
Planning Board in the future. He was requesting this Board’s input before filing any
plans or applications. He stated this project would be for residential and commercial use.
Page 5 Phillip Lake (cont.)
There would be approximately 300 units and there would be 150 to 200 employees. This
project abuts the Wenham Lake and would be surrounded by existing residential
dwellings. Houseman stated the airport would consider office use better than industrial.
This property is also in a Watershed Protection Overlay District, which also needs to be
addressed. Traffic would definitely be affected. Houseman added that the Board might
want an impact study done from an independent company. Fish stated traffic is a concern
with only one way in. Attorney Lake stated there is a second option being considered.
He has spoken with Frank Killilea the City Engineer and some representatives of the
Planning Board. Houseman asked if the building would be built in phases. Mr. Lake
responded yes. Houseman stated the residents behind the proposed project would be
concerned with the lighting. He added that conservation must be considered and he noted
the general impact on the wetlands. Attorney Lake stated the project might be designed
with separate buildings. Fish stated that would be more negative to her. Houseman
stated the development would be located near the Vitale site. He questioned how this
applies to the fly ash, which is at that site.
The time was nearing 10:30 p.m. and Co-Chair Houseman ended the discussion.
Discussion of broadcasting Zoning Board of Appeal meetings
Co-Chair Houseman stated that Mr. Rob Mc Causland, the Executive Director of Bev
Cam was present to now explore whether meetings of various city boards might be filmed
and broadcast in the same manner as the City Council and School Committee meetings.
This Board will have to decide if they want to be broadcast. A tape filmed last month of
the Board of Appeal meeting was given to the Board members to review. After much
discussion, Houseman, Fish, O’Brien, Ferguson, and Brusca stated they were in favor of
the Board of Appeal meetings being broadcast in the future.
Minutes
Co-Chair Houseman stated that the Board was one year behind in approving the minutes
of the meeting. He added that Co-Chair Fish had said she would take on the project of
reading all the minutes Mrs. Rogers had sent for approval. Co-Chair Fish stated she had
read one month and hoped to read until finished before the March 22 meeting.
Co-Chair Houseman stated Mrs. Standley of 13 Warren Street had signed a waiver of
time and requested the case be continued until the March 2005 meeting.
Ferguson: Motion to allow Mrs. Standley’s continuance until the March 2005 meeting
Seconded by O’Brien. All members in favor. Motion carries unanimously.
Co-Chair Houseman stated Attorney Glovsky, representing the Waitts of 4 Foster’s Point
was requesting a continuance, subject to a waiver of time being signed.
Ferguson: Motion to allow Attorney Glovsky a continuance until the March 2005
meeting. A waiver of time to be signed. Seconded by O’Brien.
All members in favor. Motion carries unanimously.
Co-Chair Houseman stated Attorney Thomas Alexander, representing Beverly Farms
Auto Service, of 29 R. West Street, requested a continuance until the April 2005 meeting.
Ferguson: Motion to allow Attorney Alexander a continuance until the April 2005
meeting. A waiver of time to be signed. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion
carries unanimously. (Houseman, Ferguson, O’Brien, Brusca, & Fish)
Meeting adjourned 11:15 p.m.