2009-10-27 (4)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: October 27, 2009
Place: Beverly City Hall, Council Chamber, 191 Cabot Street
Board Members Present: Full Members Day Ann Kelley, Chairperson, Margaret
O'Brien, Scott Ferguson, Joel Margolis and Jane
Brusca. Alternate Member: Sally Koen.
Others Present: Building Commissioner - Director Steven Frederickson,
and Clerk for the Board — Diane Rogers.
Absent: Alternate Member: Pamela Gougian
Chairperson Day Ann Kelley opened the meeting to the public at 7:00 p.m.
446 Rantoul Street — CC Zone — Gary McCoy/Poyant Signs
Variances
Ms. Carol Bugbee of Sandwich, MA representative of Poyant Signs spoke on behalf of
CVS Pharmacy. She stated she was requesting variances for proposed wall signs
exceeding number and size allowed in the CC District and for a proposed monument sign
not allowed in the CC District. The site plan, West Elevation, Rantoul Street Elevation,
North Elevation were reviewed by the Board. Directionals C1, C2, C 3, and C 4 and the
proposed 10 -feet high internally illuminated pylon sign were submitted for the Board to
review. This property is located on the North West corner of the intersection of Elliott
and Rantoul Street. The frontage on Elliott Street is 265 -feet and on Rantoul Street the
frontage is 340 -feet plus or minus. Ms. Bugbee stated in July of 2009 she withdrew
without prejudice her application for signs when this Board requested more information.
She added C. V. S. Pharmacy changed the plan to the following:
1. Omitted the 25 sq. ft. wall sign on the Rantoul Street elevation. Took it
completely away.
2. Reduced the ground sign from 24 -ft. OAH (over all height) to 10 -feet OAH.
3. Reduced square footage of the ground sign proposed from 67.3 sq. ft. to 22.27
sq. ft.
4. reduced free standing directional sign to 2- square feet, acceptable to code.
Ms. Bugbee stated the proposal is for one set of letters to meet code on the Rantoul Street
Elevation side but the Elliott Street side does not meet code because it sets back 100 -feet.
Also, if one had to meet code on the Elliott Street side, letters would be 18 -feet in size.
She added the customers could not see the free standing sign to identify the building. Ms.
Bugbee submitted a proposed landscaping plan showing the location of shrubs and trees
for the Board to review. She added that benches were to be installed for the public to
have a nice sitting area. She is of the opinion the proposed signage would not set a
precedent because of the signs erected upon other businesses nearby.
Chairperson Kelley asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this
petition. There being no one present; she asked the Board Members for their questions
and comments.
Ms. Kelley asked if this proposal went before the Design Review Board? Ms. Bugbee
responded no. Ms. Kelley commented the Design Review Board's input regarding the
signs would have been helpful. She added she was of the opinion that the pylon sign
doesn't specify the dimensions for the variance request. Ms. Bugbee responded the
dimensions are stated in the tables in the plan provided. Ms. Kelley commented that the
By Laws state signs are for identifying the property not for advertisement. Ms. O'Brien
stated she was of the opinion the monument sign measuring 9 -feet wide and 11 -feet tall
was too large. She added the wall signs on the building were fine. She asked what the
purpose of the 2nd sign was. Ms. Bugbee responded the 2nd sign indicates to the motorist
where C.V. S. is located. Ms. Kelley stated you cannot look back at the Walgreen's sign
approval because this is another Board. Mr. Margolis asked if the monument sign could
be reduced in height. Ms. Brusca stated the signs on the building were fine but the pylon
sign was not needed to provide direction to the building. She added she did not see any
hardship. Mr. Frederickson, Building Commissioner, stated if the building were 200 -feet
back the monument sign would be allowed. Ms. Bugbee stated she was proposing 3 -feet
letters the same as Walgreen's. Ms. O'Brien stated she was of the opinion the pylon sign
would not be visible from many directions. Mr. Margolis asked if the height of the
monument sign (the peak) could be reduced by 3 -feet. Ms. Brusca concurs with Ms.
Kelley and Ms. O'Brien. The Elliott Street sign and the Rantoul Street sign will be the
same size and Board members concur. Mr. Ferguson stated the ground level sign is 2-
feet, the sign is 5 -feet. He believes the construction of the building itself says C.V. S. and
the pylon sign is not needed. Ms. Kelley stated she could not vote for the pylon sign
proposed this evening.
2
Mr. Ferguson made a motion to approve the variance for proposed wall signs exceeding
number and size allowed in the CC District.
1. The Elliott Street sign 3'x 28'x11 "wide total 84.4 -feet Rantoul Street same size.
2. West side of canopy will say EXIT 7" letters
3. Sign on canopy EAST : Full Service, Drive Through Pharmacy East" full service
13 sq. ft (one)
Motion seconded by Ms. O'Brien. Ms. Bugbee to provide the revised plans to the
Building Department. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Ferguson, O'Brien, Brusca, and
Margolis in favor)
Motion made by Mr. Ferguson to allow Ms. Bugbee to withdraw without prejudice the
proposed request for a monument sign at C.V. S. Seconded by Ms. O'Brien. Motion
carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Ferguson, O'Brien, Brusca, and Margolis in favor)
646 Hale Street — R -15 Zone — Thomas Bahr
Section 6 Finding Request
Mr. Bahr spoke on his own behalf. He stated the proposed addition is to construct a
kitchen and screened porch under an existing deck located at the rear of the
nonconforming dwelling. The proposed addition will meet all setbacks. The portion of
the existing dwelling, which is non - conforming is not involved in the addition. The
proposed addition will not change the support facility requirements in any way. No
nuisance or hazard will be created by the proposed addition. Roberts Architecture and
Design, Boston MA, submitted the Proposed First and 2nd Floor Plan; along with the
South, West, North, and East elevations for the Board to review. Photographs of the
dwelling were included in the package for the Board to review. There were no letters in
favor or opposition of this proposal.
Chairperson Kelley asked if there were any members of the public that would like to
comment on this petition. There being no one present, she asked the Board for their
questions and comments. Ms. Brusca visited the site today and stated she was in support
of the proposal. Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Margolis concurred. Ms. O'Brien stated she went
by the property and was also in support of the project.
Mr. Margolis made a motion to grant the Section 6 Finding at 646 Hale Street being the
reconstruction will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming
structure to the neighborhood. This decision is subject to plans submitted with the
application are complied with, referred to, and incorporated into, the Board's decision.
Seconded by Mr. Ferguson. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Ms. Kelley, Mr. Ferguson, Mr.
Margolis, Ms. O'Brien and Ms. Brusca in favor)
437 Essex Street - R -15 Zone — 437 Essex Street Inc.
Section 6 Finding Request
3
Mr. Edward Potvin, Executive Director of Bass River Programs stated he is requesting
to allow a full bathroom addition (13.5 -feet by 23 -feet) to an existing nonconforming
structure. The addition will comply with all setback requirements. Mr. Potvin stated
437 Essex Street presently houses the offices of Bass River Inc. a 501 c 3 nonprofit
company. It also houses the program site for contracted service from the Department
of Mental Retardation serving over 100 people on a daily basis. The entire building is
used to afford day services to adults that are mentally challenged. The hours of operation
are Monday — Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. through out the year. The back yard
(gazebo) is used primarily for lunch and defined activities. He added that the building is
also used by the Centerville Improvement Society for its Community functions.
Mr. Potvin stated no nuisance or hazard will be created to the detriment of the health
safety and /or welfare of the occupant or the citizens of the city but the small addition on
the side of the building will in fact improve the present use of the building. This small
addition will not have any impact on parking, traffic flow or any other issue, which
would be detrimental to the use of the building.
Plans of the proposal and photographs of the property were submitted to the Board to
review.
Chairperson Kelley asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this
petition. There being no one present she then asked the Board for their questions and
comments. Ms. Kelley asked if Mr. Potvin spoke to his neighbors. He responded yes, he
had spoken to his neighbors. Ms. Brusca stated she went by the property today and she
was in support of the project. Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Margolis stated they had no
questions relative to the proposal.
Ms. O'Brien made a motion to approve the Section 6 Finding to allow a full bathroom
addition (13.5 -feet by 23 -feet) to an existing nonconforming structure. The alterations
will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to
the neighborhood. The plans submitted with the application are complied with, referred
to, and incorporated into, the Board's decision. Seconded by Mr. Ferguson. Motion
carries 5 — 0 (Ms. Kelley, Ms. Brusca, Ms. O'Brien, Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Margolis is
favor)
(CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 2, 2009)
15 Bailey Avenue - R -10 Zone William and Janet Bresnahan
Variance Request
Robert H. Griffin, P.E. spoke on behalf of the Bresnahan's. He stated he was requesting
a variance to voluntarily demolish an existing nonconforming single - family residence and
construct a larger residence with a porch within the front and side yard setbacks. He
added the undersized lot has a 25 -foot wide sewer easement owned by /Southern Essex
Sewer District. An additional 10 -foot wide City of Beverly sewer easement crosses the
northerly portion of the lot. The small lot size, its irregular shape and corner lot status
further restrict the amount of buildable area. Also, the current building foundation, which
11
is to be saved, will be an integral part of the proposed structure. The dimensional
variances are for the side yard and front yard setbacks. The existing building side yard is
12.5 -feet. At its closest point, the proposed side yard setback to the building corner is
10.4 -feet and 1.7 -feet to the proposed wrap around porch. The existing front yard setback
to the nonconforming deck is 12.1 -feet. A proposed front yard setback of 9.1 -feet at its
closest point is proposed to construct a wrap- around porch. Griffin Engineering Group,
LLC of Beverly prepared the plot plan for the Board to review. The Architects are Gray
Inc. Salem, MA, and Padjen Inc. Topsfield, MA. who drew the elevation and first and
second floor plans for the proposed new dwelling. A Notice of Intent filed by William &
Janet Bresnahan was heard on October 13, 2009 by the Beverly Conservation
Commission.
Chairperson Kelley asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this
petition. There being on one present Chairperson Kelley asked the Board members for
their questions and comments. Mr. Margolis asked what the plan was along the lot lines,
perhaps a fence? Mr. Griffin responded there would be some planting along the lot lines
but no fencing. Ms. O'Brien asked to define the photographs submitted and point out
where the tree was located. Mr. Griffin responded that the tree was located on the lot
next door #17 Bailey Avenue about 3 or 4 -feet from the lot line. Ms. O'Brien asked how
wide the proposed deck would be that goes all around the dwelling. Mr. Griffin
responded the width would be 14 -feet to 6 -feet by the door and then 8 -feet 6- inches along
back to 5 -feet. Mr. Ferguson asked if there was a 3 rd floor plan he could review. There
was no plan available. He added he was surprised that all abutters signed the petition.
Mr. Ferguson discussed the elevations and drawings showing 3 stories. Mr. Bresnahan
responded that the 3 rd floor was to be for his kids. He did not know how many sq. ft. it
was. Ms. Kelley stated the design is great but the proposed dwelling is too large and does
not match the neighborhood. Mr. Griffin responded "This is only a 3- bedroom
dwelling." Ms. Brusca stated that she went by the property today and she is of the
opinion the size of the dwelling on the lot is a concern. Ms. Kelley stated the dwelling
and porch needs to be scaled down. She added that the dwelling is only 1 '/z -feet from the
lot next door. Ms. O'Brien suggested the proposal be withdrawn without prejudice. Mr.
Griffin stated he was willing to go over the plans. Ms. Kelley stated there must be a
substantial change. Mr. Ferguson suggested no dormers, use skylights or even better no
third floor. Ms. O'Brien asked what the area of the dwelling was. Mr. Griffin stated
there would be 1,450 on the first and second floor and that he would have to calculate the
third floor.
Discussion: Have the new plans delivered to the Building Department before the
November 24, 2009 hearing.
A motion was made by Mr. O'Brien to continue this proposal until the next scheduled
meeting November 24, 2009. Subject to signing a Waiver of Time. Seconded by Mr.
Ferguson. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Ferguson, O'Brien, Brusca, and Margolis in
favor)
5
2 Hull Street — R -15 Zone — Cynthia A. Bugden
Variance Request
Attorney Thomas Alexander spoke on behalf of Ms. Bugden. He stated he was re-
questing to allow Lot 2 to have 14,673 sq. ft. of area where 15,000 sq. ft. is required
and allow 15 feet rear yard setback from house and 5 foot setback from garage /shop on
Lot 1 where 25 feet is required. In May, 2009, the petitioner received approval to
subdivide the lot as shown on Exhibit A (ANR Plan) however, the variance request
would allow preservation of building older than 50 years and more rational lot line
location. (The Historic District Commission has a demolition delay ordinance for
structures older than 50 years.) The ANR plan shows that the shop and garage must be
demolished. Atty. Alexander stated the land consists of 31,887 sq. ft. of land fronting on
Hull Street and Essex Street as shown on Plan of the land of Cynthia A. Bugden, August
2009. Ms. Bugden is a single mother trying to keep the dwelling in the family. She
indicated that it would cost $20,000 for the demolition work. The dwelling was
purchased by Ms. Bugden's father in 1959. Atty. Alexander submitted photographs of
the dwelling and an Ariel photo of the property for the Board to review.
Chairperson Kelley asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this
petition. William Terry of 530 Essex Street stated he walked by the property daily
and he was of the opinion that to demolish anything would be detrimental to the property.
Elizabeth Bugden of 162 Lothrop Street Danvers stated her sister Cynthia Bugden was
trying to keep the house and she needed help.
Mr. Frank Rodgers of 1 Harwood Street stated he was in opposition to this proposal.
Robert and Sandra Brown of 8 Hull Street were also in opposition. Mr. George Earle of
14 Hull Street stated he has resided there for 37 years. He asked " Was the shop built at
the same time as the garage ?"
Chairperson Kelley then asked the Board members for their questions and comments.
Ms. Brusca asked if the shop and the barn were to be removed to make the extra lot.
Ms. O'Brien stated she was surprised of the opposition to this proposal. Ms. Kelley
asked why Ms. Bugden went to the Planning Board first. She added this is not a
historical structure. She commented that a financial hardship was not part of the criteria
of obtaining a variance. Atty. Alexander responded that financial hardship should be
considered per the zoning by laws and Ms. Bugden was trying to preserve a building and
this was the minimal variance they were requesting. Atty. Alexander stated the 2nd lot
would probably sell for $120,000. Ms. Brusca stated the petitioner was coming to this
Board to try and keep what the Planning Board stated should be demolished to make the
2nd lot. She does not want to see a precedent set here. Mr. Margolis stated no one knows
what will be built on Lot #2. The new dwelling might have the correct setbacks. The
rear yard setback from the dwelling would be 15 -feet rather than 25 -feet required and a 5-
feet setback from the garage /shop where 25 -feet is required. Mr. Ferguson stated a
hardship could be the location of the dwelling on the lot and this is a minimum request.
Ms. Kelley commented that she believes it should all be demolished as specified on the
31
ANR plan. The building could be demolished with the proceeds of the sale of Lot #2.
Mr. Brusca commented that the shop should come down because one cannot have it both
ways.
A motion was made by Ms. O'Brien to accept the variance to allow Lot 2 to have 14,673
sq. ft. of area where 15,000 sq. ft. is required and allow 15 -feet rear yard setback from
dwelling and 5 -feet setback from garage /shop on Lot 1 where 25 -feet is required. The
variance would allow preservation of building older than 50 years and a more rational lot
line location. The hardship is the shape of the lot and the placement of the dwelling on
the lot. Seconded by Mr. Margolis. The vote was 2 — 3. Motion was denied.
(O'Brien & Margolis in favor) — (Kelley, Ferguson, & Brusca voted in the negative)
7