Loading...
2009-05-26 (5)CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS 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 or outcome of the public hearing should include an examination of the Board's Decision for that hearing. Board: Zoning Board of Appeal Date: May 26,2009 Place: Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, Councilors Chamber, Y floor, 7:00 p.m. Board Members Present: Full Members: Day Ann Kelley, Chairperson, Margaret O'Brien, Jane Brusca, Scott Ferguson, and Joel Margolis. Alternate Members Pam Gougian and Sally Koen. Others Present: Director of Municipal Inspections - Zoning Officer Steven Frederickson and Clerk of the Board — Diane Rogers Chairperson Day Ann Kelley opened the meeting to the public at 7:00 p.m. She stated there were two holdovers from last month, 564 Cabot Street and 3 Connolly Place. Attorney Thomas Alexander stated he represented Mr. Kaminski the petitioner of 564 Cabot Street. He requested that the Application for Finding be withdrawn without prejudice. He stated in its place will be filed a Request for Modification of Variance in accordance with the Building Commissioner's suggestion contained in email of May 6,2009. Mr. Alexander responded that the appeal of an administrative decision would be continued and heard as well. Ms. O'Brien made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Margolis to allow the Section 6 Finding at 564 Cabot Street to be withdrawn without prejudice and allow the appeal of the administration decision to be continued and heard simultaneously with the new re -file Modification of Variance at the July 28,2009 scheduled hearing. (Kelley, O'Brien, Margolis, Gougian, and Brusca in favor) Attorney Marshall Handly spoke on behalf of Hansbury Court, LLC, located at Lot 3, Congress Street at Wellman Street in the R -6 Zone. Atty. Handley requested to postpone the variance until the next scheduled meeting, subject to a waiver of time being signed. Mr. Ferguson, Ms. Brusca and Ms. Kelley all commented on the lack of information provided in regard to the request. Ms. O'Brien and Mr. Margolis indicated that they had not received the information in regard to this petition. Mr. Ferguson made a motion to allow the continuance of the variance at Lot 3, Congress Street at Wellman Street subject to signing a waiver of time. Seconded by Ms. O'Brien. The new plans are to be brought to the Building Commissioners office and be forwarded to each Board member prior to the June meeting. Motion granted 5 — 0. (Kelley, Ferguson, Brusca, Margolis, and O'Brien in favor) Attorney Stewart Gardner spoke on behalf of his clients Mr. and Mrs. Edward Manion. He stated Mr. Manion was advised to work with his abutters to resolve the issues at 3 Connolly Place, in an R -6 Zone. Atty. Gardner spoke to Jennifer Luttrell the neighbor at 5 Connolly Place and heard her concerns. He stated that he was informed that last month some people did not think a firefighter could get through the 5 -feet side yard setback with all his gear on. After receiving an email it was determined that 4 -feet was the calculated size allowed. Ms. Kelley asked if the new structure was the same size. Ms. Luttrell spoke at length in regard to the plans, but in general agreed with the change in the structure. She requested that no changes be allowed to the one -story addition in the future. Mr. Ferguson responded that the Board could set a condition that there be no second floor added. Atty Gardner stated he would agree to a condition that the new structure remain 96" long, 72" wide. Mr. Ferguson stated the addition would be 6 -feet by 8 -feet on a slab. This will result in a 5 -feet side yard setback from the neighbor at 5 Connolly Place. Ms. Brusca asked if the roofline would run the same way. Atty. Gardner responded the roofline will be identical. Ms. O'Brien commented that a building permit must be obtained. Ms. Kelley asked what other information would be required to obtain a permit. Building Commissioner Steven Frederickson responded a foundation and elevation plans were required. Mr. Ferguson made a motion to 1) grant the variance to allow the shed /entranceway to have a five -feet side yard setback instead of the required 10 -feet. The hardship is the position of the building on the lot and the owner should be able to use the property. 2) To allow the Section 6 Finding to have 16.7 -feet of frontage instead of the 20 -feet required. The Board finds the alteration will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood. The criteria per Section 29 27 C2 A -E have been met and found to be true. A condition be placed on decision that the footprint will not increase nor will structure increase in height from what was approved this evening. Seconded by Ms. O'Brien. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Brusca, O'Brien, Koen, and Ferguson in favor) 2 60 Lakeshore Avenue — R -10 Zone — Enrico Cafaro Section 6 Finding Request Mr. Enrico Cafaro spoke on his own behalf. He stated he was requesting to construct a proposed 18 -feet —6 -inch by 22 -feet family room addition with a side yard setback of 14.1 -feet instead of the required 15 -feet. The addition will be no closer to lot line than existing entryway. Mr. Cafaro introduced his wife to the Board members. He stated the proposed addition was one - story. Photographs and plans were presented to the Board for review. A petition was also submitted with the following abutters in favor of the project: Mary and William Walker of 1 Bonad Road, Joshua C. Roberts of 58 Lake Shore Avenue, Kathleen Foley of 64 Lake Shore Avenue, and Jeffrey Melei of 79 Lake Shore Avenue. Chairperson Kelley asked if anyone from the public had questions or comments regarding this proposal. There being no one present she asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Ms. O'Brien stated she made a site visit an added she was in favor. Mr. Ferguson asked the petitioner to highlight the abutters in favor on the submitted map. Mr. Margolis stated he was in favor of the proposal. Ms. Brusca stated the abutters on both sides and across the street from the proposed property had signed in favor of this project. Ms. Kelley stated this project does not encroach any further on the side yard and she believes the neighbors will not be impacted in a negative way. She added the proposed addition ties into the existing dwelling. Mr. Ferguson state he had made a site visit and agreed with his colleagues on their findings. He added that he spoke to a neighbor, Penelope Roberts of 58 Lake Shore Avenue who was in favor of the project. Mr. Margolis made a motion to grant the Section 6 Finding at 60 Lake Shore Avenue. Mr. Ferguson stated he would like a condition placed upon the decision that no second floor be constructed. He added the footprint shall not increase nor the height, nor the volume of the structure as of the granting of the finding this evening. Ms. Kelley stated the plans for the project shall be complied with and incorporated into the Board's decision. Seconded by O'Brien. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, O'Brien, Ferguson, Brusca, and Margolis in favor) 11 Longview Drive — R -10 Zone — Lillian N. & Howard I Farley Section 6 Finding Curtis Jones, Contractor for the project spoke on behalf of the petitioner's. He stated he was requesting to add a proposed 2nd floor to the exiting nonconforming dwelling, which will contain a master bedroom and full bath. The addition will be no closer to the property lines than the existing dwelling. Ms. Kelley asked if the foundation would be extended. Mr. Curtis responded the foundation would be extended 6 -feet to be added to the dining room space below. The size of the addition would be 19 -feet by 13 -feet. The reason for the addition is to allow Lori and Mark Lacy to move into the dwelling in order to take care of their parents due to there failing health. Photographs and plans were submitted to the Board for review. Mr. Curtis submitted the following petition signed by abutters in favor of the plan: Kathryn Wayne of 9 Longview Drive, John P. Higgins of 10 Longview Drive, Patrick Connell of 13 Longview Drive, Ida N. Beaver of 14 Longview Drive, Edna M. Eriksen of 8 Lexington Drive, and Martin Robledo Guzman of 13 Lexington Drive. Chairperson Kelley asked if anyone from the public had questions or comments regarding this proposal. There being no one present the Board members were asked for their questions and comments. Mr. Margolis stated he was in favor of the project. Ms. O'Brien stated the proposal was reasonable. Ms Kelley stated the project seemed fine. She asked the petitioner if they ever got the other neighbor to sign in favor of the petition. Lillian Farley responded no, the occupants would not open the door. Ms. Kelley commented that the abutter's were notified by the building department office. Ms. O'Brien made a motion to grant the Section 6 Finding at 11 Longview Drive. The Board finds that the alteration - reconstruction will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood. The Board finds that there is support from neighbors based on a petition submitted. The Board grants the application, subject to the plans submitted with the application are complied with, referred to, and incorporated into, the Board's decision. Seconded by Mr. Ferguson. (Kelley, Ferguson, O'Brien, Margolis, and Brusca in favor) 5 Connolly Place — R -6 Zone — Jennifer M. Luttrell Section 6 Finding Request Jennifer Luttrell spoke on her own behalf. She stated she was requesting to construct a 28 -feet 6 -inch by 6 -feet addition with an 8 -feet entry at the rear of the existing nonconforming dwelling. The proposed addition will be no closer to the side yard setback than the existing dwelling with a setback of 6 -feet instead of the required 10 -feet. The proposed plan will expand the kitchen and den and create a mudroom. Ms. Luttrell stated the proposed plans conform to other neighborhood dwellings. She submitted a petition of abutters in favor of her project to the Board to review. (Mr. Edward Manion of 3 Connolly Place, Phoebe Ho Po Sai of 7 Connolly Place and one neighbor across the street were in favor.) Chairperson Kelley asked if anyone from 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. Ms. Brusca stated the proposal was ok. Ms. Kelley asked if the addition came out to the same level. Mr. Ferguson stated he would like a condition placed in the decision that no further expansion above this be allowed. Ms. Brusca stated the proposal was fine and that she concurs with Mr. Ferguson's request for a condition placed in the decision that there be no more expansion on this property. Mr. Ferguson made a motion to grant the Section 6 Finding at 5 Connolly Place. The Board finds the alteration will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood. That the criteria for a Section 6 finding 0 per Section 29 27 C2, A -F has been met. The addition was to be in general conformity with the drawings submitted to the Board. Seconded by Brusca. Motion carries 5 — 0. 820 Hale Street — R -10 Zone — Darrell Crate Section 6 Finding Request Thad Siemasko, Architect spoke on behalf of Mr. Crate. He stated he was requesting to allow the proposed connection of an existing conforming structure (a 2 -story (3) car garage) to a nonconforming (existing 2'/2 story wood frame dwelling). The enclosed connector will meet all setback requirements. Mr. Siemasko stated the conforming lot contained 33,403 square feet of area. He reviewed the elevations, first floor, and site plans with the Board. Photographs of the dwelling were submitted for the Board to review. There were no letters from abutting neighbors in favor of the proposal. Chairperson Kelley asked if anyone from the public had questions or comments regarding this proposal. Cathrine LeClerc of 139 Valley Street stated she had issues with this proposal because of several contractors parking their vehicles next to her driveway during construction of the garage. Chairperson Kelley then asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Mr. Ferguson stated the neighbors concerns relative were noted and that the architect should address this with the contractors. Mr. Margolis requested Mr. Siemasko discuss the glass enclosures in the connector. Ms. Gougian questioned the need for a Section 6 Finding. Mr. Siemasko responded that the garage was allowed by right. A change in the zoning by -laws in regard to Section 6 Findings had been expected and they were waiting for the change to happen. Since the change in the by -laws has not occurred, the owner decided to proceed with the request for a Section 6 Finding. He added that the construction of this proposal should be completed by fall if approved by the Board. Ms. O'Brien stated she had no problems with this project. Ms. Kelley stated the existing dwelling is nonconforming to zoning. She added she believes the connection to the garage would have no impact on the neighbors. Mr. Brusca stated she was familiar with this property and did not find any problems concerning the project. Mr. Ferguson concurred with his colleagues. Ms. O'Brien made a motion to grant the application for a Section 6 Finding on the nonconforming dwelling located at 820 Hale Street. The alteration - extension will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood. The Board to grant the application subject to the plans submitted are complied with, referred to, and incorporated into, the Board's decision. Seconded by Mr. Ferguson. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Ferguson, O'Brien, Brusca, and Margolis in favor). 8 Northern Avenue — R -10 Zone — Gretchen K. & John Hartigan, Jr. Request for a Section 6 Finding 5 Gretchen and John Hartigan spoke on their own behalf. They stated they were requesting to construct a proposed one -story farmer's porch on the side of the existing dwelling. The porch will have a 10 -feet front yard setback instead of the required 20 -feet. The porch will be no closer to the street than the existing dwelling. Mrs. Hartigan submitted a letter in favor of the proposal from a neighbor. Chairperson Kelley asked if anyone from the public had questions or comments regarding this proposal. There being no one present she then asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Ms. O'Brien stated the proposed porch will add to the appearance of the dwelling. Ms. Brusca concurs and added that there is ample room between the area on the dwelling where the open porch will be located and the nearest neighbor. Mr. Ferguson stated he had no questions relative to this proposal. He added that #4 Northern Avenue, Donald and Alice Colbert were in favor of the project. Ms. Kelley stated this project will not impact the neighborhood. She added the porch proposal be subject to the plans submitted. Ms. Brusca commented that the submitted plans were not too specific. Mrs. Hartigan responded that the porch will come out 7 -feet by 24 -feet long. Ms Kelley responded she felt that plans for a porch do not need to be too specific. Mr. Ferguson requested the porch shall not be enclosed. He asked if the request was for an open porch. Mr. Hartigan responded yes. Ms. Brusca made a motion to grant the Section 6 Finding for 8 Northern Avenue, finding that the proposed alteration to this single - family residential structure does not increase the non - conforming nature of said structure and the alteration will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood. That the criteria for a Section 6 Finding per Section 29.27. -2, A/F have been satisfied. Grant the proposal subject to plans submitted with the application are complied with, referred to, and incorporated in the, the Board's decision. Amendment: Mr. Ferguson stated the Board had not voted yet. He requested the open farmer's porch never be enclosed. Mrs. Hartigan stated she would like to install screens during the summer months. Mr. Frederickson stated that would be ok, any other work would have to come back before the Board. Ferguson seconded. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, O'Brien, Ferguson, Brusca, and Margolis in favor) 21 Lothrop Street — R -6 Zone — Webster & Kathleen Bull To Modify a Variance granted April 25, 1995 Attorney Thomas Alexander spoke on behalf of the petitioners. He stated he was requesting to modify a variance granted April 25, 1995 by adding a first floor (sunroom) and second floor (extended bedroom) above the study area for which the variance was granted. The footprint of the building will remain the same. The rear boundary of the building will remain at 12 -feet plus or minus from the rear lot line at its closest point, where the zoning ordinance requires 25 -feet. Attorney Alexander stated the land consists of 8,600 sq. ft., has 116 -feet of frontage on Lothrop Street and has been owned by the petitioners for 31 years. The petitioners would like to extend one bedroom and build an access to the rear bedroom that has to be entered through another bedroom. Attorney Alexander commented that the property was previously owned by a Ship Captain and one 31 must actually climb a ladder to get upstairs. He added this is the reason for the update of the code on the stairway. Attorney Alexander stated the shape of the lot and the placement of the dwelling on the lot is a hardship. He added the granting of the modified variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Chapter and will not be injurious to the neighborhood. Photographs of the dwelling, first floor sunroom and second floor bedroom expansion plans and elevations of the proposal were submitted to the Board for review. The following addresses were in favor of this petition: 17, 20, and 23 Lothrop Street, 2, 4, 6, and 8 Silver Court, and 4 Rear Quincy Park. Attorney Alexander stated the project would keep the architectural design of the neighborhood. The property values could go up due to the tasteful addition, there would be no additional traffic, no objections from neighbors, adequate and appropriate City services are available for the proposed use, and the specific site is appropriate location. Chairperson Kelley asked if anyone from the public had questions or comments regarding the proposal. There being no one present she then asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Ms. Kelley stated because of the previous modification of a variance in 1995, under today's laws this petition must file as a variance. She added the hardship is the shape of the lot, placement of the dwelling on the lot, and access to bedroom not up to code using a ships ladder. Robert Nelson stated there would be 150 sq. ft. added which would be a 12 -feet by 22 -feet addition. Ms. Brusca stated she had no questions at this time. Mr. Ferguson asked what stairs were fixed in the decision of 1995. Mr. Bull responded "not the ones I want to fix now "! Mr. Ferguson stated he made a site inspection and found this was a dense neighborhood but that he did not have any objection to the proposal. Ms. O'Brien agreed with Mr. Ferguson. Ms. Kelley commented that she was concerned with the height of this proposal, however it did not appear that there would be a negative impact to the abutting properties. Mr. Ferguson made a motion to grant the Modification of the variance of April 25, 1995 located at 21 Lothrop Street, for the 2 '/2 story first floor sunroom and second floor extended bedroom. The hardship is the shape of the lot and the position of the dwelling upon it. The plans submitted with the application are to be complied with, referred to, and incorporated into, the Board's decision. Seconded by O'Brien Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Ferguson, O'Brien, Margolis and Brusca in favor) 129 Brimbal Avenue Realty Trust - IR Zone Section 6 Finding Request Attorney Thomas Alexander represented the petitioner. He stated he was requesting to extend the existing nonconforming use as a gasoline service station, auto repair and truck rental (U -Haul) business by adding the sale of up to five (5) secondhand motor vehicles within the existing premises. After a discussion with the Board Attorney Alexander requested the proposal be continued at the June 23, 2009 hearing. The Board requested that the owner provide a 7 plan for planting vegetation that would soften the look of the property and lessen the impact on the residential neighborhood on Brimbal Avenue. Ms. O'Brien made a motion to allow the Section -6 Finding at 129 Brimbal Avenue to be continued until the next scheduled meeting on June 23, 2009. Seconded by Ms. Brusca. Motion carries unanimously. Discussion at the May 26, 2009 Hearing: Attorney Alexander stated the immediate neighborhood was an automotive area, which contained another gas station and Cycles 128. He submitted a parking analysis indicating 14 parking spaces provided on this site, for the Board members to review. He added that the land consists of 11,875.5 sq. ft. of area and 175 -feet of frontage on Brimbal Avenue. The owner, Mr. Alakfdz of 4 Duck Pond Road stated these are not easy times and being allowed to sell (5) used motor vehicles on the premises would help. Atty. Alexander stated Tim Flaherty, President of the City Council and Don Martin, Ward 5 Councilor told him they were in favor of this proposal. Ms. Kelley asked for their letters. Atty. Alexander responded there was not enough time to put their thoughts into writing. Chairperson Kelley asked if anyone from the public had questions or comments regarding this proposal. Ms. Rose Maglio, of 30 Pleasant Street stated a gas station was not allowed in that zone and that there were enough uses and advertisements there now. She added she thought there are too many used car places in Beverly now. Joan Murphy of 36 Longmeadow Road concurred. They both felt this area is an entranceway into Beverly and the existing gas station's appearance is poor. Chairperson Kelley then asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Ms. O'Brien stated she drove by there recently and wondered where the proposed (5) used cars would be parked. Atty. Alexander responded that the vehicles to be sold would be parked as indicated on the drawing he had submitted. He added at night a vehicle might be moved but would return to the space provided the next day. Ms. O'Brien stated she was concerned with the parking area. Mr. Margolis reviewed the parking plan and stated he saw 12 vehicle parking spaces and two for truck rental. He asked if flags were to be used or any other advertising on the "for sale" used vehicles. Mr. Alakfds stated a yellow tag would be on the vehicle with the year of the car. He added there would be no banners. Mr. Margolis stated he had concerns with this proposal. Mr. Ferguson stated Brimbal Avenue was being used more and more. He recused himself and Pam Gougian will take his place. Mr. Alexander stated the owner of the gas station is willing to eliminate the U -Haul vehicles. Ms. Kelly stated a concern over the impact on the residential area. The Brimbal Avenue neighborhood will already be impacted by the new commercial development planned for the other side of Brimbal Avenue. She questioned if there is a way to improve the appearance of this property. Atty. Alexander responded that a 6 -foot fence and some kind of planting could be installed. Ms. O'Brian questioned if it would make a difference if the used vehicles were parked in the rear of the lot. Ms. Kelley stated there are residential dwellings along Rte. 128. She questioned Mr. Alexander as to what visual improvements could be done, with restrictions, to this property. Attorney Alexander responded he would like to submit to the Board next month a landscaping plan. He asked the Board to continue his proposal until the next scheduled meeting on June 23, 2009. Ms. O'Brien made a motion to allow 129 Brimbal Avenue Trust to continue their case until the June 23, 2009 hearing. Subject to the signing of a waiver. Seconded by Brusca. Motion carries 5 — 0. ( Kelley, O'Brien, Margolis, Brusca, and Gougian in favor) Meeting Notes: Margaret O'Brien will be on vacation and Sally Koen will replace her on the June 23, 2009 meeting. Day Ann and Pam will read the minutes of May 26, 2009 and vote to approve them next month. 9