Loading...
2009-03-24CITY 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: March 24, 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, and Joel Margolis. Alternate Members Pamela Gougian and Sally Koen. Others Present: Director of Municipal Inspections- Zoning Officer Steven Frederickson and Clerk of the Board Diane Rogers. Late: Scott Ferguson- did not vote on Remand Chairperson Day Ann Kelley opened the meeting to the public at 7:00 p.m. She stated the first case to be heard would be Todd F. and Deborah Michaud by Remand Order of Land Court for specific modification of the variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on October 28, 2008 as follows: Replace the existing condition of the variance with the following agreed upon conditions: 1. No trucks; busses; construction or landscaping vehicles; equipment or machinery shall be parked or stored within the "Restricted Area" shown cross hatched on the attached Site Plan. 2. There shall be no repairs performed within the "Restricted Area ". 3. At no time shall more than six (6) non - commercial passenger vehicles be parked or stored within said "Restricted Area ". The property is located at 29 Rear West Street in the CN Zoning District. Attorney Thomas Alexander spoke on behalf of the Michaud's. He introduced Attorney King, representative of the residents from the abutting condominiums. Mr. Alexander stated he had discussed the Remand Order with Mr. King prior to this meeting. They discussed tweaking to make clear what was going on in the restricted areas. Unfortunately they were not able to do that prior to the decision being filed. Therefore, the decision was appealed in Land Court. Mr. Alexander and Mr. King agreed to some minor changes such as "where the no repairs" were going on and further defined the types of vehicles that could not be parked in the "restricted area" as shown on the plan filed with the Board. The area along the side where flowers were to be planted was done away with because it was discovered that the Condominium Association owned that plot of land and they did not want plantings located there. Mr. King stated "I agree with everything Mr. Alexander said." Chairperson Kelley responded "That's wonderful ". Ms. Kelley stated Pam Gougian would replace Mr. Ferguson on this vote. She added the new specifications are more detailed and an improvement. She stated the Board would include the new plan that was not there in the original decision. Mr. King suggested that the Board issue a revised decision that shall supercede the original decision in the motion. He added once that is filed with the City Clerk and the appeal period has expired the appeal will be stuck out. Ms. O'Brien moved that the application of Todd and Deborah Michaud of 29 R. West Street by Remand Order of Land Court that the decision be superceded and by replacing the existing conditions with the new conditions proposed and the Modification of the Variance presented in a letter of February 19, 2009. Seconded by Ms. Kelley. Motion carried unanimously. (Kelley, O'Brien, Brusca, Margolis, and Gougian in favor) 181 Elliott Street — IR Zoning District — Beverly Commerce Park, Inc. 100 Cummings Center, Suite 107 -L Modify a Variance granted June 15, 1998 Mr. Edward Juralewicz of United Sign Company spoke on behalf of the petitioner. He stated he was requesting to modify a variance granted June 15, 1998, and modified on August 24, 2004 and on November 27, 2007, by increasing the number of upper level signs from nine to eleven and increasing the number of upper level sign locations from fourteen to sixteen. Mr. Juralewicz stated there were two tenants present, Linda Quarterone of Waters Corporation, which is located at the 100 Building and John Colucci from Colucci and Norman located at the 900 Building. Mr. Stephen Drohosky, Manager of the Cummings Properties was also present for any questions the Board might have. Mr. Juralewicz stated that Waters Corporation manufactures scientific instruments and took over and purchased the business in 2000. He added that Lance Nicolaysen, Manager of Waters Corp. could not be present tonight. John Colucci and Jay Norman are Attorneys from Metaxas, Norman and Pidgeon, which is located on the second floor of 2 the 900 Building. Mr. Colucci and Mr. Norman who have strong ties in Beverly decided to open an office together, which will be for legal services. Mr. Juralewicz stated the request tonight is to allow 11 signs in 16 locations above the first floor. He submitted a new revised plan dated March 24, 2009. He commented that he had made an error and would discuss the sign locations and how the proposed signs appear. He stated that the Colucci sign logo colors were red, white, and grey and he was requesting the Board grant relief to please allow the grey color. Currently the colors allowed are red, white, and blue. Mr. Drohosky stated that the Cummings Center has grown since 1998 when the original variance was granted. He commented that Cummings has to keep up with this growth to fill the needs of the tenants. He added there are over 500 businesses within the seven buildings. He stated the distance from the road and the size of the complex was a hardship. Mr. Drohosky is of the opinion this proposal would not affect the areas outside the parcel and would not be detrimental to the public. He stated the Master Plan included the 100 Building, which is the longest, Building 800, which is behind Building 900 and the 900 Building. Mr. Colucci stated he would like the sign because it is difficult to identify and locate his new office and entrance. Chairperson Kelley asked if any members of the public had any questions or comments. There being no one present she asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Joel Margolis stated the request is for 9 signs to be increased to 11 signs and 14 Upper level locations to be increased to 16? Mr. Juralewicz responded that was correct. Mr. Margolis asked about the Master Plan. Mr. Drohosky commented that he does not see many more signs coming in for variances at the three buildings. Ms. Brusca asked what the original plan was. She thought Cummings had to return to the Board for any new sign. Ms. Kelly asked how much space the Waters Corporation had. Mr. Juralewicz responded that there was 40,000 square feet of space in the Waters Corporation and 12,800 square feet in Mr. Colucci's second floor area. Ms. Kelley asked if other possibilities were researched. Mr. Drohosky responded yes. Ms. Kelley feels that the Waters sign is located on a large building and they occupy space in the 3 rd and 4th floors, which make sense. She added she was not happy with the proposed Colucci - Norman sign because she felt the overall size of 33" x 22'- 9" with 13 1 /z letters was too large. Pam Gougian had no questions at this time. Mr. Juralewicz stated several tenants request their logos and colors be on their signs. Mr. Ferguson stated if the sign was for identification only he would approve but he believes this is an advertising sign. He commented "You only have 2 choices in this ". He added he would need more information to change his mind. Mr. Drohosky stated there is a comprehensive plan in place. He added that it has been eleven years since the 1998 decision. Cummings Properties have more clients. He stated 80 first floor signs were allowed and they only have 40. Mr. Drohosky stated this North Shore Law Firm is requesting a sign for their clients to locate their business. He added that Waters has 3,500 employees half probably from Beverly. Ms. Kelley stated that Cummings has done a nice job the past eleven years. She added that she is looking at the size and location of the sign. She commented that she is more interested in the esthetics to look good. She asked if the petitioner was willing to separate this variance request. Mr. Colucci stated it was fine with him. Ms. Kelley asked Mr. Colucci if he couldn't place his sign on the first floor. He replied there was no more space for signs in that location. He stated that he didn't personally care if 3 the logo was on the sign. He added that was not an issue with him. He wanted his clients to be able to locate his new office space. Ed Juralewicz stated if the logo were taken off the sign would be roughly 21 square feet. Ms. Brusca stated if Mr. Colucci is willing to take the logo off the sign she would be in favor of his request on the 900 Building. She added that the Waters proposed sign is ok because she feels it's directing people to it. She stated she does not have any problems with this proposal. Mr. Margolis stated that looking at the Waters sign he believes the words "The Science of What's Possible" in black is advertising. He asked if it could be written in white. Brusca asked if the Board could make a condition "no more signs along the first floor ". Ms. Kelley stated she is of the opinion the Waters sign appears to balances with the other side of the building. On the 900 Building, the first floor band has two empty spaces. Are you allowed to put signs in those two spots? Mr. Juralewicz answered yes. Brusca made a motion to approve the variance request from Beverly Commerce Park regarding the modification of a variance granted June 15, 1998, and modified on August 24, 2004 and on November 27, 2007 by increasing the number of upper level signs allowed from 9 to 11 and increasing the number of upper level locations from 14 to 16, as shown on revised plan dated March 23, 2009 submitted March 24, 2009. If the Colucci & Norman sign is installed on the 900 Building, the logo will not be included on it as it appears with the condition that no further signs will be added to either the left or right of the Acapulcos Mexican Restaurant Sign. The Waters sign on the facade of Building 100 to be granted as it appears on the plan. Ferguson Seconded. Motion carried 5 — 0. (Kelley, Ferguson, Margolis, Gougian, and Brusca in favor) 21 Fillmore Street — R -10 Zone — Loretta and Jay Craveiro Section 6 Finding Request Mr. Craveiro spoke on his own behalf. He stated he was requesting to raze an existing 10 -feet by 25 -feet one -story addition and to erect a proposed 12 -feet by 25 -feet two -story addition that does not encroach closer than the existing addition into the front yard. The first floor will contain a study and full bath; the second floor will contain a new bedroom and full bath. He added that the existing one -story addition was poorly constructed. Mr. Craveiro stated his request is to add a new addition from the ground up. He added that the first floor will have a half bathroom with laundry facilities. Mr. Craveiro stated the addition will not encroach on the front yard but will extend 2 -feet further. He commented that presently he has 1,450 square -feet and the proposed addition will add 340 square -feet making a total of 1,759 square -feet of living space. He submitted photographs of the property for the Board to review. Ms. Kelley asked if he had spoken to his neighbors. He stated he had obtained a letter in support of his proposal from Stacy LeBlanc who resides across the street at #22 Fillmore Street. The Board stated that Mr. Craveiro could bring the letter to the Building Department when he realized that he had left it at home. Ms. Kelley stated that the neighbors were notified by mail. Mr. Craveiro stated he had also spoken to Harry Clark Jr. of 19A Fillmore Street and the Minogues across the street at 16 Fillmore Street who were present and stated they were in favor of his proposed two -story addition. Margaret O'Brien stated she had made a site visit to the property and she was in support of the added change. Mr. Margolis stated on the 0 application a variance was checked off rather than a Section 6 Finding. Mr. Ferguson stated Section 6 Finding was read into the record. He added that the present foundation is in need of repairs and a new foundation would be built for the proposed addition. Mr. Ferguson stated Mr. Craveiro would have 21 -feet rather than the 25 -feet required in the rear yard setback. He commented that two of his neighbors were present and in favor of the two -story addition. He added that per Section 29- 28 -C2- the Board shall consider if the following conditions are met: a. That the specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use, and that the character of adjoining uses will not be adversely affected. b. That no factual evidence is found that property values in the district will be adversely affected by such use. c. That no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result. d. That adequate and appropriate facilities will be provide for the proper operation and maintenance of the proposed use. e. That there are no valid objections from abutting property owners based on demonstrative fact. f. That adequate and appropriate City services are or will be available for the proposed use. He commented that the proposed addition will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood. Jane Brusca: Motion that the Board finds that the proposed alteration/reconstruction to this single - family residential structure does not increase the nonconforming nature of said structure, and that the proposed alteration will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood, and that Section 29 -28 C (2) (a) — (f) have been satisfied having a letter in support of this proposal and two neighbors in favor, and in addition the Board grant the proposed application, subject to the following conditions: (1) that the plans submitted with the application are strictly complied with, are identified in, and incorporated into, the Board's decision and the elevation drawings to the extent feasible, are recorded with the decision. Seconded by Mrs. O'Brien. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, O'Brien, Brusca, Ferguson, and Margolis in favor). Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.