2005-03-22
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: March 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: Joel Margolis
Absent: Patricia Murphy and Jane Brusca
STANDLEY, 13 WARREN STREET
Co-Chair Fish opened the meeting to the public. Co-Chair Houseman stated that some
administrative material would be discussed first.He stated that Mrs. Standley of 13
Warren Street had signed a waiver of time and requested the case be continued until the
April 26, 2005 meeting.
O’Brien: Motion to allow Mrs. Standley’s continuance until the April 26, 2005 meeting
Seconded by Margolis. All members in favor. Motion carries unanimously.
GORDON, 15 WASHINGTON STREET
Co-Chair Houseman notes that Mr. Gordon of 15 Washington Street signed a waiver at
the last meeting to continue his case until the April 26, 2005 scheduled meeting.
O’Brien: Motion to allow Mr. Gordon’s continuance until the April 26, 2005 meeting.
Seconded by Margolis. All members in favor. Motion carries unanimously.
Page 2
JOHN F.C. WAITT, JR., 4 FOSTER’S POINT
Co-Chair Houseman states that Attorney Mark Glovsky, representative of John F.C.
Waitt, Jr. and Toby M. Waitt regarding the property located at 4 Foster’s Point requested
a continuance until the next scheduled meeting in April 2005. A waiver of time must be
submitted to the Clerk of the Board from Mr. Glovsky.
O’Brien: Motion to allow Mr. Glovsky to continue the case until the next scheduled
meeting in April. Seconded by Margolis. All members in favor. Motion
carries unanimously.
Discussion with Board
Co-Chair Houseman stated to the Board that after last month’s hearing a discussion had
developed between Attorney Peter Feuerbach who represents Mr. Kavanagh of 12
Parkview Avenue and Roy Gelineau, the City Solicitor, concerning if the Board could
grant a the special permit regarding their proposal. Houseman added that he had stated
he did not think the Board could. Mr. Gelineau responded that the Board does have the
authority to grant relief on the variance request of the petitioner. He added that if the
variance gets denied then the attorney would act on that the following month. Houseman
stated that the Board does not have to accept Mr. Gelineau’s opinion but he saw no
reason not to follow his advise this evening. Co-Chair Houseman stated to Mr. Kavanagh
that he must receive all four votes from the Board tonight to grant this variance because
the fifth Board member was absent. Mr. Kavanagh responded he understood all Board
members must be in favor of his proposal.
12 Parkview Avenue – R-10 Zone – Francis A. and Cathleen E. Kavanagh, III
Request for a Variance and Special Permit
Mr. Kavanagh spoke on his own behalf. He stated he was requesting a special permit to
allow for alteration/reconstruction of a non-conforming structure. And a variance to
replace an existing non-conforming structure within the same “footprint”, which
encroaches 11.67 feet upon the 15 feet side yard setback and 19.12 feet upon the 20 feet
front yard setback and does not have off-street parking, for a (44’ x 28’) two-story single
family dwelling that will contain a dining and living room, kitchen, master bathroom and
bedroom upon the first floor and (4) bedrooms and (2) bathrooms on the second floor, a
study, and a porch. Mr. Kavanagh stated that the Board last month had stated that his
plan had too much bulk. He submitted a new proposal and plan. He stated the living
space in the existing dwelling was 2,461 square feet and the new square footage would be
2,789 square feet. He commented that the existing dwelling does not contain a cellar and
they need extra space to place the water heater and furnace. He added that there would
be a family of six residing in the residence. Mr. Kavanagh stated the neighbors and
abutters were all in favor of his proposal. Photographs were submitted to the Board of
the property and the coastline up to Foster’s Point. Houseman asked Mr. Kavanagh what
Page 3 Kavanagh (cont.)
the word pier referred to on his proposal. Mr. Kavanagh responded that on the water a
pier is a deck.
Co-Chair Houseman asked if there were any members of the public that would like to
comment on this petition, there being none he asked the Board for their questions and
comments. O’Brien stated the new design was nice. Fish asked if this was an existing
summer cottage. Mr. Kavanagh responded that the heating system does not qualify as a
primary year round home. He commented that his father did live there year round until 8
years ago when the floors got too cold for his mother. Fish asked if the proposed
dwelling was a one and one half story structure. The legal advertisement stated the
proposal was a two-story. Mr. Kavanagh stated an engineer would inform him how many
pilings would be needed for the proposed new structure. Houseman stated he had a
concern with the non-conformity of the dwelling being built three quarter over the water.
He didn’t know if it made sense to prolong the life of this structure. Fish concurred and
stated she had concerns with the variance criteria on hardship being met. Mr. Kavanagh
responded that the hardship is that the State Regulations maintain he has to stay on the
same footprint. He added he would like to bring the dwelling into compliance. Fish
responded that that State Regulations are not a zoning concern. Mr. Kavanagh stated that
he would seek a way to keep the house. He commented that the ocean water has
dissipated through the years. Fish suggested moving the dwelling and bringing in the pile
drivers to install the new pilings and then moving the dwelling back on top of the pilings.
Mr. Kavanagh stated that he has no property to place the existing dwelling after it is
lifted off the pilings. He added the existing dwelling needs to be replaced. O’Brien
stated that this is a dilemma. Ferguson acknowledged that the petitioner had submitted a
new plan. He stated that the variance request reads the dwelling would be 44’ x 28. He
measured the plans and calculates the dwelling scale would be 49’ x 38’. He estimated
that would exceed by 10 feet in width and 5 feet in length. He stated if the total living
area was 1,288 square feet, and your revised plan is 2,114 square feet, then that would be
a 90% increase in the building area. He commented that would be doubling the footprint
of the dwelling. Ferguson asked to review the signatures of the abutters in favor of this
proposal. The Clerk of the Board presented him with the information. Ferguson
questioned the petitioner’s statement that the State said the dwelling must remain on
pilings is his hardship. He stated that the purpose of zoning is not to perpetuate this non-
conformity. Fish stated the petitioner is increasing the size of the dwelling very much.
O’Brien had questions regarding Chapter 91. Houseman stated that if this variance
proposal is denied the next step for the owner would be to ask the City Solicitor if this
can be voted on as a special permit.
Ferguson: Motion to grant Mr. Kavanagh’s request for a variance. Seconded by Fish.
Motion did not carry. 0-4. Motion denied (Houseman, Ferguson, Fish,
O’Brien)
Page 4
181 Elliott Street/500 Cummings Center – IG Zone – Beverly Commerce Park, Inc.
Variance Request
Edward Juralewicz, President of United Sign Company spoke on behalf of the petitioner.
He is requesting to allow a sign to be placed above the second floor window on the North
side of the 500 building and to have a red face on the logo in addition to the white faces
on the logo. Mr. Juralewicz introduces Jay Sanphy, representative of the Agencourt
Company. He has been a tenant of Cummings for four years. He moved to his present
location last July. Mr. Juralewicz stated the overall size of the sign is 40 inches by 164
inches. The Logo is to be red faced with trim cap and returns. The letters are to be white
faces with black trim cap and returns with the raceway painted to match the building.
Mr. Juralewicz stated the hardship is the distance from Elliott Street to the 500 building,
which is located in the rear of the parcel. He added the existing trees would not be a
problem because the sign would be located on the second floor. He commented this is a
unique site and Mr. Sanphy would like to identify the company with the logo that was
created.
Co-Chair Houseman asked if there were any members of the public that would like to
comment on this petition, there being none, he asked the Board members for their
questions and comments. Ferguson asked if the red sign was a company logo. Mr.
Sanphy responded yes. Ferguson asked if there was anyone present from the Cummings
Center. Mr. Juralewicz responded that Gerard Mc Sweeney had signed the application.
Ferguson stated the location of the sign is appropriate and there would be a minimum
impact. He commented that he had concern with the logo. Fish commented that there are
dwellings located on Balch Street, which are not too far from the site. Ferguson asked
how many floors the company has. Mr. Sanphy responded he rented half of the second
floor. Margolis stated that many other tenants do not have signage above the first floor.
Mr. Juralewicz responded that is why he applied for this variance. Houseman observed
that Cummings is assuming that the sign variance of 1998 does include this new 500
building. Houseman therefore, requests an elevation plan of all four sides. O’Brien
stated this sign would not interfere because of the location of the building. Houseman
stated he would like Gerard Mc Sweeney, General Manager of Cummings to be present
at the next meeting to discuss the building and what can be allowed for signage.
Margolis stated he would like an overall plan of the building. Houseman stated that he
was not troubled by the proposed particular sign because the sign would not be located on
the window glass. Ferguson stated he concurred with his colleagues. He added that this
should be dealt with by Cummings. He commented that having correct drawings
submitted within 30 days would help get it right. He stated he did not need Mr. Mc
Sweeney present at next month’s meeting. He added that this is the first sign on the new
building and he wanted to get it right. Houseman responded that Mr. Mc Sweeney needs
to provide the elevation plans. A student at Endicott College asked who Mr. Mc Sweeney
Page 5 181 Elliott St. 500/Cummings Center cont.
was. Houseman responded that he was the General Manager of the Beverly Commerce
Park, Inc.
Mr. Juralewicz stated that he would request the drawings and elevations for all four sides
of the building. He added he would provide a blank plan, two sets, all four elevations
blank. He suggested that on the pond side of the building no signs would be erected.
Ferguson: Motion: to continue the hearing until the next scheduled meeting in April.
A waiver of time to be signed for the variance. Seconded by Margolis.
All members in favor. Motion carries 5 – 0. ( Houseman, Fish, O’Brien,
Ferguson, and Margolis)
Discussion on Danvers Zoning Ordinance
Nonconforming uses, lots & structures
The Board also discussed the Danvers Zoning Ordinance regarding nonconforming uses,
lots, and structures. Co-Chair Houseman stated that there was extensive discussion at a
recent meeting about case law and state and local provision for Section Six special
permits and findings for alteration and demolition/reconstruction of residential structures.
In attendance at that meeting were: Tina Cassidy, Bob Nelson, Roy Gelineau, Tom
Alexander, Mark Glovsky, Kevin Dalton, and myself. Attorney Tom Alexander offered
to draft a replacement section for review by this group, based on the Danvers Ordinance.
When completed his draft will be submitted to the group for review. An ordinance that
clearly distinguishes between the rules that apply to the following situations will certainly
help the ZBA use the ordinance: (1) nonconforming structures (residential vs non-
residential); (2) non-conforming use of conforming structures; (3) non-conforming use of
non-conforming structures; (4) non-conforming use of land; (5) conforming structure on
non-conforming lot. Ferguson stated he liked the way the Danvers ordinance is laid out.
He added it was very orderly and easy to understand. Houseman stated he was trying to
get this written and move forward. He commented that from start to bottom it would
probably take about two more months. Ferguson stated a proposal should be presented
next week and go before this Board at the April meeting. Houseman discusses the
procedure for a Zoning Amendment.
Discussion on minutes of the meeting
A discussion was heard relative to the 12 months of minutes that had not been adopted to
date. Co-Chair Fish stated she had not completed reading all 12 months submitted.
Houseman stated this matter will be continued until the April 2005 hearing.
Meeting adjourned 9:00 p.m.