2015-05-26•
City of Beverly
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 26, 2015 at 7pm
These minutes are not a verbatim transcript of the public hearing of the Board of Appeals.
Reviews of the Board's Decision or outcome of the public hearing should include an
examination of the Board's decision for that hearing.
MEETING MINUTES
Members Present: Joel Margolis, Chairperson, Pamela Gougian, David Battistelli,
Margaret O'Brien, Jim Levasseur, Victoria Burke Caldwell
Others Present: Steve Frederickson, Building Commissioner
Leanna Harris, Administrative Assistant
Location: 191 Cabot Street, 3rd Floor, Room B
Mr. Margolis called the meeting to order at 7:02pm.
L PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Continued Hearings
Project Adventure, Inc
In a petition for a request for a variance from minimum footage requirement contained in
Section 38 -8. D2, to allow the creation of a single - family building lot in an R -45 zoning
district with no legal frontage where 175 -feet is required. The proposed lot will be served
by an existing common driveway. The property is located at 719 Cabot Street in an R -45
district.
Ms. Caldwell read the letter dated May 26, 2015 submitted to the Board by Miranda Gooding,
Esq. requesting a continuance. Mr. Margolis stated Attorney Gooding would be arriving around
9:30pm to formally request a continuance.
Miranda Gooding, Esq. respectfully requested this hearing be continued to the next meeting
scheduled for June 23, 2015.
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 26, 2015
Page 1 of 13
MOTION: Ms. Gougian moved to grant the request to continue the Project Adventure
hearing to the scheduled June 23, 2015 meeting subject to signing the Waiver Agreement.
Second by Ms. Caldwell.
Votes: 5 -0
Motion carries.
B. Continued Administrative Appeal
Todd Main/William Heney, Esq
In a petition for a request of an appeal from an Administrative Decision for the issuance of
Building Permit No. B -14 -1599 for the construction of a new single - family dwelling [60' by
42' (4) bedrooms, (4) bathrooms, (2) car garage under] at 12 Beaver Pond Road, Map 83
Lot: 1D, on October 8, 2014 and seeks revocation of said Building Permit on the ground
that subject property is non - buildable having merged with adjoining, nonconforming
and /or noncomplying property located at 14 Beaver Pond Road, which completely lacks
frontage where 175' is required in R -45 zoning district.
Mr. Margolis stated this is a continuance of an administrative appeal. This Board is in receipt of
a Supplemental Memorandum from Attorney Alexander dated May 20, 2015 and a response from
Attorney Heney dated May 22, 2015.
Mr. Margolis stated the Board can either disregard the Supplemental Memorandum received and
vote on the matter tonight or grant Attorney Heney a continuance to the June 23 d meeting.
Mr. Battistelli stated he reviewed both the Supplemental Memorandum and the letter from
Attorney Heney and he would not have an issue with continuing the matter to the June meeting.
Ms. Caldwell stated if the matter is continued she wants to make sure that is it. She would like to
see Attorney Heney respond to the items raised in the Memorandum and then she would like to
see this matter closed.
Attorney Alexander stated he understands the Board's concern and explained he was preparing
for the hearing and reviewing what came up in the previous hearing and rather than go about it
brand new at the hearing, that he provided the Board with the Memorandum beforehand.
Attorney Alexander stated this has gone on for some time and would like some closure and they
would like to proceed this evening if possible.
Attorney Heney stated their position is pretty clear and actually thought they closed their
evidence and testimony at the last hearing. They had granted the continuance not expecting any
other information to come before the Board and so he was surprised when they received the
Supplemental Memorandum. Attorney Heney requested a ten day rebuttal period to address the
issues raised by Attorney Alexander's and also a continuance to the June 23 d meeting.
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 26, 2015
Page 2 of 13
David Tessier, 18 Beaver Road Mr. Tessier stated if they are going to continue the hearing he
would like to provide video to both parties so that everyone can see the Lot and the size.
Mr. Margolis stated the continuance is only going to pertain to the notes in the Memorandum.
MOTION: Ms. Caldwell moved to grant the request to continue the matter to the June
23 d meeting to allow Attorney Heney the opportunity to provide a written response
withing ten days to Mr. Alexander's Supplemental Memorandum dated May 20 and that
response is restricted to the issues raised in that Memorandum subject to signing the
Waiver Agreement. Second by Ms. Gougian.
Votes: 5 -0
Motion carries.
C. New Public Hearings
Judith Gnoza
In a petition for a request for a Special Permit to add a second floor addition on a
nonconforming structure with a side setback of 6 -8' instead of the required 10'. The
property is located at 14 Cliff Street in R -6 zoning district.
Ms. Caldwell read the application into record.
On behalf of the applicants, Tim Brennan addressed the Board. Mr. Brennan stated they are
looking to add a second level to the house which would only go up 10'. There is no change in
use, they are just looking to dormer both sides of the cape style house. The other alternative is
rubber roofing and Mr. Brennan doesn't feel comfortable with rubber roofing along the water.
All the utilities are already there. They met with the neighbors on May 9 and everyone seemed
to be in favor. The proposed plans are not out of character for the neighborhood, it would be a
minimal change. There is a three family house on the right side of this property.
Allison Broughton, 13 Cliff Street Ms. Broughton is concerned about losing her water view
with the increased height of the dormers. She would like to know how the height is determined.
Scott Boldan, 15 Cliff Street Mr. Boldan is here on behalf of his sister, Joann Bolden, who is
out of the country and has the same concern of losing her water view due to the height increase.
Mr. Brennan stated it shouldn't change Ms. Boldan's view.
Board Discussion
Ms. O'Brien asked Mr. Brennan why he would have to increase the roof if it's another dormer.
Mr. Brennan stated in that area, with the weather it is a safer option. He is seeking a five pitch
instead of a four pitch. Ms. O'Brien stated the picture provided shows the profile well but would
like the applicant to provide a different picture showing the front view. Mr. Margolis showed
Ms. O'Brien an enclosed drawing.
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 26, 2015
Page 3 of 13
Ms. Gougian stated it is a small house compared to others on the street and once the width is
added, it will still be smaller than the houses on either side.
Mr. Brennan responded that the house is a Cape style house with little head room on the second
floor. The owners just purchased the house last year.
Ms. Caldwell stated she drove by and also can appreciate that it is a very small house and she
doesn't see how the proposed addition would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Margolis
agreed.
MOTION: Ms. Gougian moved to grant the Special Permit at 14 Cliff Street to add a
second floor addition on the nonconforming structure with a side set back of 6'— 8'
instead of the required 10' and that the proposed addition is appropriate for the location,
the character of the neighborhood is not adversely affected, it will not be substantially
detriment to the community and there is no evidence property values will be adversely
effected, no undue traffic or nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result, etc. subject to
the plans submitted. Second by Ms. Caldwell.
Vote 5 -0
Motion carries.
Joseph Boudreau
In a petition for a request for a Variance to reduce the side setback by 5' and the rear yard
set back by 15' to allow the construction of a 24' x 24' x 15' detached two car garage. The
property is located at 10 Gage Street in RMD zoning district.
Gage Street in RMD zoning district.
Ms. Caldwell read the application into record.
On behalf of the applicant, Mr. Brennan addressed the Board. They are proposing to put a
detached garage in. The setback requirements have changed. Mr. Brennan stated in the Board's
packet is an illustration of what would be permitted without the setback requirement. The owner
is looking to put a garage on the back corner of the property. On May 9t' there was a meeting
with the neighbors and only two neighbors showed up, one of which would be affected by it and
he signed a petition in favor. The proposed garage would be under 15' in height. Years ago, this
was allowed by permit as a right. The only hardship would be that the Lot is only 40' wide and
has the sharp angle to the back. The garage may help dull the noise of trains going by. It's a very
simple garage, one main door and one side door. As far as utilities, there will only be one outlet
and one light.
Board discussion
Mr. Battistelli asked Mr. Brennan which side the garage would be accessed from and Mr.
Brennan responded the left hand side. The paved driveway on the right doesn't belong to them.
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 26, 2015
Page 4 of 13
Mr. Margolis stated the garage is quite large, would a variance still be needed it if was smaller
and Mr. Brennan stated if it's larger than 10'x 10' (100') a variance is required.
Ms. Caldwell asked for confirmation that Mr. Dennis signed the petition in favor and Mr.
Brennan confirmed. The MBTA and the City of Beverly didn't show up to the May 9t' meeting
with the neighbors.
Mr. Margolis asked Mr. Brennan for clarification of the two drawings provided with the
application.
Mr. Battistelli asked Mr. Brennan for clarification on how far the City property is and Mr.
Brennan stated the property is 3 '/z feet away but the paved driveway is on City property.
Ms. Caldwell asked what the Lot size is and Mr. Brennan responded 3,589 sq. feet.
Ms. Gougian stated the house backs up to the MBTA and a playground so there aren't any
abutters that would be adversely affected and if anything the garage would provide a noise
buffer.
Mr. Battistelli stated he would like to stipulate that the tree is not removed.
MOTION: Mr. Battistelli moved to grant the variance for 10 Gage street to build a 24' x
24' detached two car garage that does not meet the rear setback conditions with a
topography hardship due to the width of the Lot making it impossible to put the garage on
either side of the house, as well as the need to have a garage in our hard northeast
environment, the garage wouldn't be detrimental to the neighborhood, it won't negatively
impact property values and it won't require any additional utilities other than a couple of
electrical outlets, subject to the plans submitted. Second by Mr. Levasseur.
Votes 5 -0
Motion carries.
Jonathan Currier
In a petition for a request for a Special Permit to construct addition at front of
nonconforming house. Addition to be no closer to right side line than existing house and
will comply with all other setbacks. The property is located at 62 Bisson Street in an R -10
Zoning District.
Ms. Caldwell read the application into record.
Jonathan Currier, addressed the Board. Mr. Currier and his mother Roseanne Currier are
requesting a Special Permit to reconstruct the existing porch. It is currently rotted and cannot be
safely used and so there is no useable front entrance. Mr. Currier is looking to tear down the
porch and rebuild with an additional 8' out into the front yard and 15' long. It will be a very
small open style porch, which would include a mudroom. There is currently no adequate place
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 26, 2015
Page 5 of 13
to put wet coats and shoes when entering the house. Mr. Currier stated the addition would add
adequate living space to a very small old house. The house needs to be renovated and this is
where they would like to start.
Brian Pearson, 64 Bisson Street Mr. Pearson stated he is an abutter who would be most affected
by this project. Mr. Pearson stated his house is right at the street and the houses on either side of
him are set back, which gives the illusion of more space. Mr. Pearson stated his biggest
complaint is the size of the proposed addition. This proposed addition would overlap the corner
of his house and block his view into the cemetery. The application is listed as a three season
porch and this addition is more likely a complete living space.
Brian and Sophia Flynn, 60 Bisson Street The Flynn's own the property to the left of 62 Bisson
Street and they agree that the alternating set backs give a perception of space. The proposed
addition would be right outside their kitchen window and they would be looking into a potential
bedroom.
Mr. Currier approached the Board and showed them a picture on his phone showing there is
adequate space per the guidelines.
The Currier's Contractor stated that the current structure is the only other access point into the
house other than the side entrance. It can't be used, its unsafe.
Board Discussion
Ms. O'Brien stated that by right Mr. Currier is meeting the set back requirement on the left hand
side.
Ms. Gougian asked Mr. Currier if the rotting porch would be torn down and Mr. Currier
confirmed and stated that it is a four season porch built about twenty years ago. Ms. Gougian
asked what the current size is and Mr. Currier responded it is 7.5' x 18' and they would be
rebuilding it to 15'x 18' with the additional footage within in the front yard. Ms. Gougian stated
the plans show an 8' increase out towards the street and Mr. Currier confirmed.
Mr. Pearson stated if Mr. Currier builds out the 8' it will change the character of the street with
the alternating setbacks.
Mr. Margolis asked Mr. Currier if he would consider building it smaller and Mr. Currier
responded that they are trying to gain back living space. The existing house is very small.
Ms. Caldwell asked what the existing distance from the house to the street is and Mr. Currier
responded 50'. Ms. Caldwell stated the addition would only decrease that from 50' to 42' feet
from the street.
Ms. O'Brien asked if the addition will be one story and Mr. Currier confirmed.
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 26, 2015
Page 6 of 13
Ms. Gougian stated if she was a neighbor she doesn't think she would find the proposed addition
attractive and that it would be better if it tied in with the house more. The way it looks now is
that they are just adding a box to the front of the house. Mr. Margolis stated that if they did pitch
the roof it would invade upon the neighbors more.
Ms. Currier stated years ago the front yard was a garden with a trellis and so when they built the
houses it was done so they could have a garden in the front and the back.
Ms. Gougian stated by right they can do the addition.
Mr. Battistelli is requesting the owner resubmit plans with more of a pitch on the roof so that it is
more aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood. Mr. Margolis agreed with Mr. Battistelli and
suggested the applicant come back to the Board with different design plans. Mr. Currier stated
they can resubmit with a different pitch but the original plans had two drawings showing one
option with a low pitch and one with a mimic pitch of the existing pitch. Mr. Currier's contractor
approached the Board with the drawings and showed where they could mimic the roof line.
Ms. Gougian stated mimicking the roof line can be done, it's just more expensive and more
complicated but taking the extra step could make the house more cohesive with the
neighborhood.
Mr. Margolis stated the applicant's option is to let the members vote or resubmit with different
plans. Mr. Currier stated they will submit new proposed plans and continue to the June 23 d
meeting.
MOTION: Mr. Battistelli moved to grant the continuance and let the Applicant continue
to the June 23 d meeting subject to signing the waiver. Second by Ms. Gougian.
Votes 5 -0
Motion carries.
RFR Development, Inc. /Thomas Alexander, Esq,
In a petition for a request for a Variance to allow the subdivision of 13 Swan Street into 2
Lots, one to contain the existing single family house and the other to have a new single
family house conforming to all required setbacks, each Lot having 50' of frontage where 60'
is required and the remaining Lot with the existing single family house on it, having 5,384
s.f, of area, and the Lot with the new single family house having 5,597 s.f, of area where
8,000 s.f. is required. If attached housing the Lot could by right accommodate 3 dwelling
units. The property is located at 13 Swan Street in an RMD zoning district.
Ms. Caldwell read the application into record.
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 26, 2015
Page 7 of 13
Thomas Alexander, Alexander & Femino, One School Street in Beverly addressed the Board.
Attorney Alexander stated, by right, the Lot could accommodate two attached dwellings. It's a
house that was built on a very old Lot as shown in the provided materials. There is a copy of the
Plan recorded in the early 1900s. Most of the houses on that street have been built with 50' of
frontage and are approximately 5,000 sq. feet. This particular neighborhood even though its in
RMD district, the assessor's records show out of 25 houses, 24 are single family houses. There
is only one 3- family house. The zoning doesn't really fit the neighborhood. Attorney Alexander
provided the Board with the Assessor's field cards to review. Attorney Alexander stated the
hardship is the building out of this dwelling because if the unit was attached it would not really
make economic sense. It's an economic hardship. It currently looks like a vacant lot, the house
was foreclosed. The current owner has been doing work on the existing house. It would be an
upgrade to the neighborhood to have another conforming house. The variance they are seeking is
to have two detached units instead of two attached units, which makes more sense for this
neighborhood since 24 of the 25 houses are single families. This project would be in harmony
with the neighborhood and the zoning ordinance. The Special Permit test, which is required, is
whether the specific use is appropriate and the answer is yes. There is no evidence that property
values would be adversely affected. It would increase the value with a new house conforming to
the setbacks. There will be plenty of parking on site for each individual unit and there are
adequate and appropriate utilities and city services. Attorney Alexander provided to the Board a
copy of the Assessor's Plan where he highlighted the property in green and in yellow the various
abutters who have signed off on a petition in favor of this proposal.
Sean O'Neil, 12 Swan Street Mr. O'Neil asked the Board for confirmation that the zoning
ordinance allows two houses on the Lot. Attorney Alexander addressed Mr. O'Neil's concerns
and confirmed that two houses are permitted.
Jude Pytlak, 31 Swan Street Ms. Pytlak stated that it would be a shame if the dynamics of the
neighborhood are changed as it is the nicest street in the neighborhood. Two dwellings would
mean four cars going up and down the street. The three family house looks just like a two family
house. The dynamics of that street cannot accommodate a multi - family. Attorney Alexander
stated that there will only be one additional house and showed Ms. Pytlak on the Plan what the
proposed plans are and confirmed that it is just one house.
Board Discussion
Mr. Battistelli asked when was the last time someone lived in that house.
Mr. Rogers, the owner of the property addressed the Board and stated that the house was in poor
condition but he has renovated it and nearly everything in the house has been replaced.
Mr. Battistelli asked about the house that will only be about 3' /z feet from where the new house
will be built and if that owner signed the petition and Attorney Alexander confirmed. Mr.
Battistelli is concerned about setting precedents for other Lot owners to do the same thing. Mr.
Margolis stated each decision stands on its own, they are not setting precedents.
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 26, 2015
Page 8 of 13
Ms. Caldwell asked Mr. Battistelli which Lots he is concerned about and he specified 30 -126,
30 -146 and 30 -147. Ms. O'Brien stated 30 -146 couldn't because they wouldn't have enough
footage but Lot 30 -147 possibly.
Ms. O'Brien asked Mr. O'Neil now that he heard it is only going to be one house, how does he
feel about this proposal and Mr. O'Neil responded that he is ok with it as long as the houses
aren't going to be crammed in together.
Ms. Gougian stated if her calculations are correct, it would be one of the smaller Lots and
Attorney Alexander showed her on the Map several Lots that are smaller. Ms. Gougian asked
how many square feet the house will be and Mr. Rogers responded 1,650 square feet. Ms.
Gougian asked if the height will be comparable to the existing house and Mr. Rogers confirmed.
MOTION: Ms. O'Brien moved to grant the request for the variance at 13 Swan Street
and that it will be in harmony with the existing neighborhood and the land can
accommodate the two units and seems to be a better use than a duplex and there are
special conditions peculiar to this specific site, the standard zoning rules would deprive
the reasonable use of the property, the variance granted will be the minimum, the
variance is in harmony with the general purpose and it will not cause negative traffic,
subject to the plans submitted. Second by Ms. Caldwell.
Votes 5 -0
Motion carries.
Dorothy Day
In a petition for a request for a Variance and Findin to construct a 24' x 24' garage built at
rear of nonconforming house. Garage will encroach 8' into the required 25' rear setback.
The property is located at 27 Giles Avenue in R -10 zoning district.
In a petition for a request for a Variance and Finding to construct a 24' x 24' garage built
at rear of nonconforming house. Garage will encroach 8' into the required 25' rear setback.
The property is located at 27 Giles Avenue in R -10 zoning district.
Ms. Caldwell read the application into record.
Eugene and Dorothy Day addressed the Board. They would like to build a garage where they
currently park their cars. Ms. Day provided a signed petition by their neighbors in favor of the
proposed garage. The placement of the house is due to ledge. The reason for the garage is
because of the snow and having to get the snow blower out of the shed. They are trying to be
proactive.
Mr. Margolis asked them to address their hardship and Ms. Day stated the way her house sits on
the Lot there isn't anywhere else to place the garage, the ledge makes things unbuildable.
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 26, 2015
Page 9 of 13
Board Discussion
Mr. Battistelli asked the Day's to clarify why this garage couldn't be closer to their house on the
same side and Ms. Day responded they have a bulkhead on that side. Mr. Battistelli asked how
many stairs there are up to their side door and Mr. Margolis stated its six stairs.
Ms. Gougian asked for clarification that they own the Lot next to them and that they would be
able to take the fence down on that side and Ms. Day confirmed.
Ms. O'Brien agreed that the location of the proposed garage makes sense.
Ms. Caldwell complimented the plans for the garage and asked about the direct abutters and Ms.
Day responded that they are all for it.
Mr. Battistelli asked about the shed and Ms. Day responded that it is being removed.
MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to grant a variance at 27 Giles Ave to build a 24' x 24'
garage at the rear of the house that will encroach 8' into the rear set back. The
neighborhood will not see any adverse affects, any impact on property value or utilities,
the hardship is the topography and the building of the garage is subject to the plans
submitted and the shed removal. Second by Ms. Gougian.
Votes 5 -0
Motion carries.
Benjamin and Francesca Blanchette
In a petition for a request for a Variance to construct a 6'x8' mudroom addition on left side
of house. Addition to have a left side setback of 10.6' instead of the required 15'. The
property is located at 31 Jordan Street in R -10 zoning district.
Ms. Caldwell read the application into record. Two letters from Antoinette Iafrate of 29 Jordan
Street were read into the record. The letter received by a Board member is considered public
record and could not be kept confidential as requested.
Jesse Blanchette, engineer out of Essex. Mr. Blanchette stated it was his suggestion to the
Applicants that they talk to their abutters before starting this process. The Lot is 6,500 sq. feet.
The Applicants propose to remove the existing stairs and deck on the left side and construct a
6'x 8' mudroom addition. The construction will be on sonar tubes over existing driveway. The
variance is 10.6' in a 15' requirement. The hardship is the narrow size and shape of the Lot,
They are merely looking for a place to take off their coats and shoes before entering into their
kitchen.
The immediate abutters were presented with the Plans and signed a petition in support. The only
direct abutter they were unable to reach were the owners of 21 Winter Road.
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 26, 2015
Page 10 of 13
Board Discussion
Ms. O'Brien stated it's a very minimal request and she didn't think the letter from Ms. Iafrate
was really against it but just wanted to make sure it was a legitimate variance.
Ms. Caldwell stated she drove down the street and most of the house have these mudrooms and
thinks that it wouldn't look out of place.
MOTION: Ms. Gougian moved to approve the request for a variance at 31 Jordan Street
for the addition that will have a left side set back of 10.6' side set back instead of
required 15'. The hardship is the narrow shape and size of the Lot, subject to the plans
submitted. Second by Ms. Caldwell.
Vote 5 -0
Motion carries.
James Archibald
In a petition for a request for a Special Permit to rebuild a nonconforming house that has
been damaged by fire to the extent of more than 50% of its replacement cost. The new
house will be no closer to the property line and will increase in volume by less than 50 %.
The property is located at 26 Gardner Street in R -10 zoning district.
n a petition for a request for a Special Permit to rebuild a nonconforming house that has
been damaged by fire to the extent of more than 50% of its replacement cost. The new
house will be no closer to the property line and will increase in volume by less than 50 %.
The property is located at 26 Gardner Street in R -10 zoning district.
Ms. Caldwell read the application into record.
James and Maryann Archibald, owners stated they are looking to rebuild their home after a house
fire on February 3, 2015. The damages were more than 50% of the value of their home. They are
looking to demo the house and build a new foundation and replace with a modular home. A
modular home is the most cost effective and time efficient way of rebuilding their homes. They
are staying within their original footprint. They are also removing the existing garage that
currently cuts their yard in half and since they do have kids with special needs removing the
garage would open up the area.
Allen Flannery, 30 Homes Street, Unit 3 . Mr. Flannery stated he supports the proposed plan.
John and Judith Doherty, 8 Pearl Street Mr. Doherty stated he would just like to see the
proposed plans.
Ms. Archibald stated they spoke with direct abutters and they are all in favor. They don't have
anything in writing though. They are looking to put up a colonial style modular house.
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 26, 2015
Page 11 of 13
Ms. Doherty stated they aren't objecting to the rebuild they just wanted to see the plans. Ms.
Doherty asked if since the new house will face the other street if that change the address and Ms.
Archibald stated that it does, they will now have a Pearl Street address. Ms. Doherty asked Ms.
Archibald for the size of the house and confirmation that the footprint will be the same as the
existing one and Ms. Archibald confirmed.
The contractor Bill Loudon, Jr. stated the new house will be just over 1,900 square feet and the
original house is just under 1800 square feet.
[five minute recess]
Board Discussion
Mr. Battistelli would like to know what the current set backs are and Mr. Loudon responded they
provided a current plot plan and a proposed plot plan. The Board reviewed.
Mr. Margolis asked where the driveway will be and the Ms. Archibald responded in the current
spot in Pearl Street.
Mr. Battistelli asked if the bulkhead or deck count as a set back and Mr. Frederickson stated not
as long as it doesn't come out 10' or have a roof.
MOTION: Mr. Battistelli moved to grant the Special Permit to rebuild a house where a
non conforming house that was more than 50% destroyed by fire, utilizing the same
footprint with no further encroachments on the side, front or rear setbacks and it will be
good for the neighborhood and help increase the neighborhood property values, subject to
plans submitted. Second by Ms. Caldwell.
Votes 5 -0
Motion carries.
III. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
MOTION: Mr. Battistelli moved to approve the meeting minutes from the April 13,
2015 meeting. Second Mr. Margolis.
Votes 5 -0
Motion carries.
Mr. Margolis stated he spoke with the City Solicitor today regarding how it has not commonly
practiced by the Board to 'close' a public hearing. It's highly recommended going forward that
they do that so there is no further discussion or evidence submitted unless a specific question is
asked by a Board member. The Board members discussed procedural issues going forward and
agreed to start 'closing' public hearings. Mr. Battistelli stated he was uncomfortable with the
amount of people standing approaching the Board at one time. Mr. Margolis agreed.
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 26, 2015
Page 12 of 13
Mr. Margolis stated everyone should have gotten his email re the Solicitor's response regarding
site visits.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Margolis moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 pm. Second by Mr. Levasseur. All in favor.
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 26, 2015
Page 13 of 13