2012-03-27CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
These minutes are not a verbatim transcript of the public hearing or public meeting
of the Board of Appeals. Reviews of the decision outcome of the public
hearing should include an examination of the Board's Decision for that hearing.
Board: Zoning Board of Appeals
Date: March 27, 2012
Place: Beverly City Hall, Council Chamber, 191 Cabot Street
Board Members Present: Chairperson Day Ann Kelley
Regular Members: Margaret O'Brien, Scott Ferguson
and Joel Margolis
Alternate Members: Pamela Gougian and Sally Koen
Others Present: Building Commissioner — Director Steve Frederickson
Clerk for the Board — Diane M. Rogers
Absent: Jane Brusca and John Harden
Chairperson Day Ann Kelley opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. She announced there were
(3) new cases and (1) continuance from last months meeting that would be heard first.
548 Cabot Street, LLC
Modification of Variance and Special Permit Request
Ms. Koen will be voting on this Decision
Attorney Thomas Alexander represented the petitioner. He explained the request to
allow a 3,207 square foot addition to an existing 6,456 square foot office building on the
site, which conforms to all setback, parking, and height requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. The site is an appropriate location for the use because the use for business and
professional offices is already on site, the abutting property to the North has a similar use
(medical offices) and the properties immediately across the street are used for
institutional and business purposes. The business occupying the property, Capital Hotel
Management, LLC is a privately held hotel investment and asset management company
with clients all over the world. As such, clients rarely visit the premises. The hours of
operation will be regular business hours. No nuisance or hazard will be created since
there is adequate parking on site for the expanded use. There are 18 unmarked parking
spaces currently on site and 13 more will be added. It has been estimated that there will
be a 49.74% increase in the building footprint. The s. f. used for Professional Offices is
presently 4,553 and will expand 2,603 making a total of 7,156 s. f. Currently there are 16
employees and this new addition would provide more adequate space to work and
approximately 9 new employees. This business has been at this location since 2004.
Atty. Alexander stated this project was brought to the Board of Appeals last year
however because of the zoning requirements it was withdrawn without prejudice. In July
of 2011 the zoning changed. (See Section 29 -27 -2) the Board of Appeals can find that
the proposed increase in volume, footprint or area improves the exterior architectural
appearance of the structure, in which event building volume, footprint or area may be
increased up to fifty percent.
Drawings were provided by Siemasko & Verbridge Architecture. Photographs were
submitted for the Board to review. Mr. Thad Siemasko described the first, second, third
and lower floor plans and elevations.
Atty. Alexander introduced Mr. Chad Crandall a resident of Beverly and Mr. Kenneth
Wilson who resides in Hamilton as the owners of this property. He stated his clients met
with their neighbors on Wednesday, March 7, 2012 to discuss the proposed addition and
commented that the meeting went well.
Chairperson Day Ann Kelley asked if any person from the public had any questions or
comments regarding this proposal. Mr. Jon Tattersall of 9 Columbia Road stated he was
not opposed to business but there are three levels on that building and he is concerned
with the water table level which could displace water into several neighbors basements.
Another issue is he has not seen any engineering drawings and is uncertain where the
water will go after the foundation is dug and poured. He commented this site is located
in an R -10 Zoning District and if the property is sold what prevents the new owner from
conducting work on the week -ends causing more traffic in the area. The use on this site
would be unpredictable and that is a large issue to him.
Ms. Joan Murphy of 36 Longmeadow Road stated she has concerns with the water table,
having more traffic in the area, and the fact that this site has already obtained a special
permit. She added the parking spaces were not marked and she could not visualize 31
spaces on the lot. Atty. Alexander showed Ms. Murphy the plans for this project and
pointed out the 31 marked parking spaces. He stated this project is within the 100 feet
buffer zone and would be going to the Conservation Commission for an order of
conditions after the Zoning Board. He added the engineers would be present at that
meeting.
2
Ms. Kelley asked the Board members for their input regarding this proposal. Mr.
Ferguson asked how many offices were located in the structure presently and how many
more will be added. Atty. Alexander stated there are 16 offices with doors presently and
there would be 8/9 more after the addition. Mr. Ferguson stated he saw the catch basin
on the plan and realizes the water table issues will be addressed. He asked if there would
be any mechanicals on top of the roof. Atty. Alexander responded nothing would be on
the roof. Thad Siemasko stated the siding upon the building would be restored and the
historical appearance of the black shutters would continue to match the white siding.
There would be an ADA ramp constructed out in front of the building. Mr. Ferguson
asked if there were any letters from the abutters in favor of this proposal. Atty.
Alexander responded that he did not ask for letters at the neighborhood meeting. Ms.
O'Brien commented that the zoning states that only Professional Offices would be
allowed on this site. She added that the owners stated they were not thinking of retiring!
Mr. Tattersall asked the Board that if in the future the property was sold, would the new
owner be compelled to return to this Board to explain specifics of the business. Ms.
Kelley responded a condition could be placed into the Decision, where this is a low
traffic area. Mr. Margolis asked if there were any neighbors that have been affected by
the water run off He asked that the lighting on the property be addressed. Mr. Siemasko
stated the site would use regular residential lighting, no spotlights. Ms. Koen stated she
visited the site and was in support of the new proposal. Ms. Gougian asked how many
current employees there were and how many were to be added. Mr. Crandall responded
there were 16 employees and he predicted 4 to 9 more to be hired. He added that
sometimes the staff worked until 7:00 pm in the evenings and other times the employees
were traveling to meet with their clients. He stated there is ample parking for everyone.
Ms. Kelley asked Mr. Siemakso to describe the Columbia Road side of the proposed
addition. He responded that there are two windows on that side and the addition would
be 8 -feet to the rear and goes back 10 -feet. The indent is approximately 6 '/z feet. Ms.
Kelley asked the names of the neighbors most affected by this proposal. The owners are
Christopher Hammon of 1 Columbia Road, Todd Rushton of 5 Columbia Road and
Steven Crowley of 532 Cabot Street. Atty. Alexander stated these three neighbors
attended the meeting and were very positive of the proposal. Ms. Kelley asked if there
were any other alternatives other than having the lower level construction. Atty.
Alexander responded that the Engineer would calculate the existing levels and what will
be required on the new proposal site. There are several trees in the area that will help
seep up water run off and there is a berm that runs along the parking area.
Ms. Kelley stated this project is in the R -10 Residential Zone and believes it would be
reasonable to have a condition written into the decision that if there is a change in this
business, the new owner would have to come before this Board. Atty. Alexander stated
the words "Professional Offices" is all one would need. Mr. Ferguson suggested
"Substantially for Professional office use, limited to 35 employees. Atty. Alexander
stated that in the zoning "Medical Offices" is a separate Use requiring them to return to
the Board. Ms. Kelley stated the proposed addition is nicely done. She added it
maintains the Architectural integrity of the building and there is no more parking than
needed. She commented that the landscaping and maintenance on the trees would
continue. Ms. O'Brien suggested there shall be lighting, turned downward, located on
3
12 -foot high poles in the parking lot. Floodlights would not be used. Mr. Margolis
asked if there would be any change in the signage. Mr. Crandall replied no.
A motion was made by Ms. O'Brien to grant the Modification of Special Permit /Variance
to allow a 3,207 square foot addition to an existing 6,456 square foot office building on
the site, which conforms to all setback, parking, and height requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance at 548 Cabot Street in the R -10 Zoning District with the following conditions:
1. There will be residential lighting by the walkway of the building area and
minimal lighting in the parking lot, turned downward. No Flood lights to be used.
2. The Engineering solutions will be discussed at the Conservation Commission
meeting regarding drainage and water issues on site.
3. The "Professional Office" space will be limited to 35 staff employees.
4. Medical Office Space Use must return to this Board for approval.
5. Subject to plans submitted.
6. The existing lawn, trees and shrubs will be maintained or replaced as needed in
order to provide a natural buffer for the surrounding residential neighborhood.
Seconded by Mr. Ferguson. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, O'Brien, Ferguson, Margolis,
and Koen in favor)
26 Dartmouth Street — R -10 Zone
Siemasko & Verbridge, Inc./Earnest Gabriel
Variance Request
Ms. Koen will be voting on this Decision
Mr. Paul Muldoon of Siemasko & Verbridge, Inc. Architecture represented the petitioner.
He explained the request to construct a 6.5 -feet by 24.83 -feet covered porch and
uncovered stair along a portion of the primary facade of the existing single - family
residence. His description of the request is as follows:
The porch would reduce the existing non - conforming front yard setback of 19 -feet to
12.5 -feet. The uncovered stair extends an additional 2.5 -feet from the edge of the
porch resulting in a stair setback of 10 -feet. The ridge of the porch would rise 15.81 -
feet above the average finish grade. The existing lot of 7,600 s. f. contains a 1' /z story
single - family residence of approximately 1,207 s. f. There is an existing deck to the
southeast side of the residence approximately 214 s. f. There are existing brick front
steps extending 6 -feet off the primary facade toward Dartmouth Street which would
be removed. There are two accessory shed structures totaling approximately 144 s. f.
There is a paved driveway with parking for two cars which measures approximately
485 s. f.
The existing location of the home relative to the R -10 front yard setback of 20 -feet
restricts the ability to make improvements to the front entry of the home. The
proposed improvement of a covered porch would serve to shelter the front entry from
adverse weather and provide a small sitting area. The existing non - conforming
location of the home prohibits the ability to make improvements to the front entry of
the home, which would substantially increase the function and usability of the main
entry.
11
Mrs. Gabriel explained that she and her family have resided in this dwelling for 16 years.
She added there has been water damage, ice, and mold, because of the roof drainage. The
roof was replaced a few months ago. Her request for the pitched roof and porch is to
make sure the problems do not reoccur. She added the front steps are in disarray and
should not be walked upon. She believes the whole entrance needs to be repaired and
this is the best design to stop the water and ice from running off the roof.
Plans and photographs of the dwelling were submitted for the Board to review.
A petition in favor of this proposal was submitted to the Board from the following
addresses: 23, 24, 25, 27, and 28 Dartmouth Street and 22 Nursery Street.
Chairperson Kelley asked if anyone in the public had any questions or comments
regarding this proposal. There being no one present she asked the Board members for
their questions and comments. The Board then proceeded to address the issue of
establishing the specific criteria for granting a variance such as the shape of the lot, soil,
ledge, and topography of the land and the uniqueness of the property within that specific
neighborhood. Mr. Margolis asked Mr. Muldoon what the nature of the hardship was in
this proposal. The architect pointed to snow, ice and water damage that had occurred in
that corner of the building. Ms. Kelley stated her opinion that changing the front of the
dwelling can be a detriment to the neighborhood and the streetscape. Mr. Ferguson
restated the criteria for obtaining a variance. One board member commented that there
are no front porches on Dartmouth Street. Ms. O'Brien stated the property is already
non - conforming and the dwelling is pushed over to a corner of the lot and her opinion is
that this could be considered sufficient reason for granting the variance. Ms. Koen and
Mr. Margolis were of the same opinion. Mr. Ferguson suggested the gable be placed
over the front door and that would have less impact upon the neighborhood, however, the
petitioner and the architect did not believe that this would address the issue of potential
water damage to this corner of the dwelling.
A motion was made by Ms. O'Brien to grant the requested Variance to the Gabriel's of
26 Dartmouth Street in the R -10 Zoning District to construct a covered front porch
addition on an existing single - family residence which would alter the already non -
confirming structure setback from 19 -feet to 12.5 -feet instead of the required 20 -feet with
the hardship being the location of the dwelling on the lot which lies within the area as
needed to protect the dwelling from water damage that has been occurring. Subject to the
plans submitted with this proposal. Seconded by Mr. Ferguson. Motion carries 4 — 1.
(O'Brien, Margolis, Ferguson, and Koen in favor) (Ms. Kelley voted in the negative)
7 -9 Congress Street — R -6 Zone
Thomas Alexander, Esg./Mr. Boches
Variance Request
Ms. Pamela Gougian will be voting on this Decision
Attorney Thomas Alexander spoke on behalf of Mr. Scott Boches, Trustee of Seven and
Nine Congress Street Realty Trust. He explained the request was to allow the existing
5
dwelling to be .5 -feet from the location of an access easement on the westerly side of the
subject property, where 10 -feet is required. The dwelling is 10.5 -feet from the side
property line, however there is a private easement on the Petitioner's land that runs along
the westerly side of the building and is located .5 -feet from the dwelling and the Zoning
Ordinance requires setbacks to be measured from the edge of the easement rather than the
property line, therefore the Petitioner seeks a 9.5 -foot variance from the easterly side yard
setback. Currently there is a two - family side by side duplex on the premises. The plan
on record showed there is a "utility easement" on the side. An occupancy permit was
issued by the Building Department and the townhouse was in the process to be sold. The
buyer's bank found there was also a driveway easement. After reading the zoning criteria
regarding easements, it was determined that the petitioner would have to give up 10 -feet
on the side yard.
Atty. Alexander stated the shape of the lot, its narrowness, the soils, slope and
topography make it difficult or impossible to site the allowed use, two - family dwelling to
be located on the lot without zoning relief. A substantial hardship would be not to allow
the use of the land for what it is allowed and would result in the tearing down of part of a
duplex that fits well in the neighborhood.
A plan of the land for 7 -9 Congress Street Condominiums and photographs of the
property were submitted for the Board to review.
Chairperson Day Ann Kelley asked if anyone from the public had any questions or
comments relative to this proposal. Wesley Slate of 26 Lothrop Street, Ward Two
Counselor spoke in favor of this proposal. Mrs. Falloni of 9 Porter Street asked if a
dwelling would be built in the future on Moulton Ct. Clarification was provided by Mr.
Michael O'Brien, Trustee who owns 11 Congress Street and the easement on Lot 4,
which could provide access to Moulton Court. He added he was in favor of this proposal.
Attorney Alexander confirmed that Mr. O'Brien owns the easement and pays taxes on it
but has to let other people pass over it. He confirmed that the driveway easement was for
11 Congress St. and for Lot 4 and so there is potential for Lot 4 to be developed without
an entrance on Moulton Court.
Ms. Kelley stated that unfortunately something was overlooked when the plans were
approved. She added the site has been improved and should be a benefit to the
neighborhood and the hardship is the shape of the lot. She added the fact is that the
building was built before the discovery on the deed was found. She did not believe there
would be any negative impact to the community.
A motion was made by Mr. Margolis to grant the requested Variance to allow the existing
dwelling to be .5 -feet from the location of an access easement on the westerly side of the
subject property, where 10 -feet is required. The dwelling is 10.5 -feet from the side
property line. The property is located at 7 -9 Congress Street in an R -6 Zoning District.
The hardship being the shape of the lot and the fact the building was already built before
the easement problems were detected. Seconded by Ms. O'Brien. Motion carries 5 — 0.
(Kelley, O'Brien, Margolis, Gougian, and Ferguson in favor)
31
5 Lakeshore Drive — R -10 Zone — Jason Beal
Variance Request
Pamela Gougian voting on this Decision
Mr. Beal spoke on his own behalf. He explained his request to remove the existing
enclosed porch and construct a two -story addition which will encroach 2.9 -feet plus or
minus upon the side yard setback requirement of 15 -feet. There will be a crawlspace
foundation, a mudroom and dining room on the first floor and a bedroom on the second
story. This is a single - family cape cod styled home with a shed located to the rear of the
dwelling. This structure sits on a small lot in width and in depth relative to many other
neighboring properties. The petitioner would have a hardship not being able to alter the
dwelling to accommodate their growing family. They feel this is the minimum relief
necessary to accomplish this proposal. The proposed footprint of the added space will
also not encroach further to the property line than the nearest abutting dwelling, thereby
maintaining appropriate spacing between dwellings.
Plans were drawn by CJC Design of Melrose and photographs of the dwelling were
submitted to the Board for review.
A petition was submitted in favor of this proposal from the following addresses: 3, 7, & 9
Lakeshore Drive, 18, & 22 Parramatta Road, and 50 Lakeshore Avenue.
Chairperson Day Ann Kelley asked if anyone from the public had any questions or
comments relative to this proposal. There being no one present she asked the Board
Members for their questions and comments. Ms. Kelley stated this specific variance as
granted by the Board is the minimum variance that will grant reasonable relief to the
owner and is necessary for a reasonable use of the land or building. She added there
wasn't much the petitioners could do on this property without a variance. Mr. Margolis
stated there was a slope in the rear of the yard, which is a hardship. Mr. Ferguson stated
he believed this was a minimal request and the existing porch is rotting out.
A motion was made by Mr. Ferguson to grant this Variance to Jason Beal to remove
existing enclosed porch and construct a two -story addition which will encroach 2.9 -feet
plus or minus upon the side yard setback requirement of 15 -feet, located at 5 Lakeshore
Drive in an R -10 Zoning District. Subject to plans submitted. All conditions per Section
29 -28 -C A -F have been met, excluding B. Owing to hardship also being preventing this
couple just and righteous use of their property. Seconded by Ms. O'Brien Motion carries
5 — 0. (Kelley, Ferguson, Margolis, O'Brien, and Gougian in favor)
Business:
A motion was made by Mr. Ferguson to accept the February 2012 minutes. Seconded by
Ms. O'Brien. Motion carries 5 —0.
7
A motion was made by Mr. Ferguson to accept the January 2012 minutes. Seconded by
Ms. O'Brien.
Ms. Kelley stated the final copy of the new "access apartments" (In -law) definition had
been sent to the City Council for approval.
Ms. Kelley will not be available to Chair the meetings in May or June therefore, Ms.
Brusca or Ms. O'Brien will act as chairperson.