ZBA Minutes 11 29 2016�l
City of Beverly
Zoning Board of Appeals
November 29, 2016 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; Jim Levasseur; Pamela Gougian;
Victoria Burke- Caldwell David Battistelli; Margaret O'Brien
Others Present: Steve Frederickson, Building Commissioner
Leanna Harris, Zoning Board Administrative Assistant
Location: 191 Cabot Street, 3` Floor, Councilor's Chambers
Mr. Margolis called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. and introduced the members of the Board.
I. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. _ Glovsky & Glovsky on behalf of Vitality Senior Living, LLC
In a petition for a request for a Special Permit and a Variance to authorize a subsidized elderly
housing facility in the IR district, in accordance with Section 300- 42.C(1)(a) of the Zoning
Ordinance, where the affordable unit requirement will be satisfied by payment of a fee in lieu of
on -site units. The assisted living facility will include 118 residential suites, together with
associated common dining, learning and recreational facilities and a parking garage. The
property is located at 50 Dunham Road in the IR zoning district.
*Note: Updated legal ad
Miranda Gooding, Esq., of Glovsky & Glovsky addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant
and provided a brief overview of the application request and also addressed the additional
Variance being requested.
The Planning Board has begun site plan review, the Design Review Board provided
recommendations, they met with the Conservation Commission and with Engineering.
There were changes made to the design of the fagade based on feedback received from the
Design Review Board. Attorney Gooding provided the members with the copies of the revised
plans.
The Applicant is also seeking a Special Permit from the Planning Department to address the
reduced parking. They are required to have reserved spaces should the need arise to provide
additional spaces.
Page 1 of 11
Attorney Gooding stated there appears to be no opposition by any of the neighbors and so they
feel it is a good use for this space. It offers a less intense use than other options allowed by right
at the location. As outlined in the Variance request they have proposed a payment to the City in
lieu of meeting the affordable housing requirement. The applicant, has reached an agreement
with the Mayor and the Planning Board. All have agreed on the aggregate number of
$692,254.00 payable to the City's affordable housing trust which would be available for the City
to use in other affordable housing projects.
Mr. Battistelli asked Attorney Gooding if there was any thought in asking for a reduction in the
number of units that would be subsidized. Attorney Gooding stated they did discuss this
possibility amongst themselves and it just doesn't work. They feel that the payment would have
more of a positive impact for the City. Mr. Battistelli asked what the building height is and the
Architect stated the overall height is 57 feet. There is no variance required for that height in the
IR district.
Mr. Margolis asked Attorney Gooding to elaborate on how the payment would be
used. Attorney Gooding stated the City has just established an affordable housing trust and Mr.
Clausen, Planning Director is working on the details. The City can use the monies for a variety
of affordable housing needs in the City. The funds can be used to offset an affordable housing
project, renovate an existing affordable housing unit or the City could use the funds to construct
their own affordable housing units.
Ms. Gougian asked if they have 5 -7 years to pay the $692k and Attorney Gooding confirmed and
stated this is a rental project, they aren't receiving a purchase price up front. Ms. Gougian asked
how that number was reached and Attorney Gooding clarified and provided the breakdown.
Ms. Gougian asked what the monthly rental amount including the meal plan will be and Attorney
Gooding stated approximately $7,000 month. There is no upfront fee.
No one spoke in favor or in opposition.
MOTION: Ms. Caldwell moved to close the public hearing. Second by Mr. Battistelli.
Votes 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur)
Motion carries.
MOTION: Mr. Battistelli moved to GRANT the Special Permit to allow the Use as an
assisted senior living facility as it is a good use for the property and will not be
substantially detrimental to the neighborhood, subject to the plans submitted.
Second by Ms. Caldwell.
Votes 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur)
Motion carries.
MOTION: Ms. Caldwell moved to GRANT the Variance for relief from Section 300 -
42(C)(1)(a) of the Zoning Ordinance and to authorize the payment as outlined in the
Planning Director's letter as payment in lieu of the affordable housing requirement.
Second by Mr. Levasseur.
Votes 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur)
Motion carries.
Page 2 of 11
B. 586 Hale Street LLC
In a petition for a Variance to allow the addition of 2 townhouses style residential units to the
rear of the existing post office at 64 Thissell Street and the demolition and replacement of an
existing two family at 582 Hale Street with 3 townhouse style residential units. The buildings at
582 Hale Street will be set back 8 feet from the front line, 6.9 feet from one side line and 4.3 feet
from the other side line. The properties are located at 582 Hale Street and 64 Thissell Street in
the CN zoning district.
Attorney Alexander addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant and requested a continuance
to the January 26, 2017 meeting. The applicant expects to meet with neighbors in the next
couple of weeks to review the redesign plans and obtain feedback. Letters were sent out to the
abutters by Attorney Alexander.
MOTION Ms. Gougian moved to approve the request to continue the hearing to the
January 26, 2017 meeting, subject to signing the Waiver Agreement.
Second by Mr. Battistelli.
Votes 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur).
Motion carries.
II. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Gary Palardy
In a petition for a request for a Variance to allow the construction of an attached one car garage
and a second floor above with a right side set back of 10.5', where 15' is required. The property
is located at 15 Winthrop Avenue in the R10 zoning district.
Mr. Palardy addressed the Board and stated he is a long time resident of Beverly. It is an FHA
property and will be owner occupied. Mr. Rosario will be moving into the property with his wife
and children. They are requesting a Variance to allow the construction of a two story addition
that will replace and expand an existing deck with a right side setback of 10.57: The property is
long and narrow and has less than the required frontage. All the lots in the neighborhood have a
similar configuration but this particular lot has a smaller dwelling and is the smallest house in the
neighborhood. The land also has soil conditions that support the wooded vegetation behind the
house. They would like to keep the substantially wooded backyard in an otherwise developed
neighborhood as removal of the trees would devalue the property. The proposed addition would
make the existing dwelling more consistent with other dwellings in the neighborhood.
Mr. Palardy has a petition signed by all the abutters in favor of the addition including the abutters
across the street and next to the property.
The proposed addition will make it more habitable for single family use as it is considerably
smaller than other dwellings in the neighborhood. They would like to preserve the existing open
space and natural screen between the properties.
Ms. Gougian asked if the only reason they are choosing not to build behind the house is the trees
and Mr. Palardy confirmed and stated it's really the only property in the neighborhood that has
trees.
Page 3 of 11
Mr. Battistelli asked what they will do with the current paved driveway and Mr. Palardy stated
the existing driveway will be used for additional parking and it will be repaved.
No one spoke in favor or in opposition.
MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to close the public hearing. Second by Ms. Caldwell.
Votes 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur)
Motion carries.
MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to GRANT the Variance at 15 Winthrop Street to
construct a two story addition with the hardship being the shape of the lot, subject to the
plans submitted. Second by Mr. Battistelli.
Votes 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur)
Motion carries.
B. Ed Juralewicz on behalf of Cherry Hill Development LLC
In a petition for a request for a Special Permit to install two wall signs larger and higher than
allowed by the zoning ordinance and to install one freestanding sign larger than allowed by the
zoning ordinance for a building that does not meet the required setback. The property is located
at 102 Cherry Hill Drive in the IR zoning district.
Mr. Juralewicz addressed the Board and stated he is here on behalf of HighRes Biosolutions.
The company is moving to Beverly from Woburn and the new space will be 80,000 sq. ft. It is
an $11 M investment in Beverly. The applicant is requesting a Special Permit for two wall signs
and a free standing sign. They are requesting 76' sq. ft of signage. Regulations require the signs
be below second floor windows and they requesting they be permitted to place the signs above
the second floor windows. The front of the building will not have a sign on it. These signs are
internally illuminated (face and halo). The colors are mostly dark blue but there is a white light
on them.
The freestanding sign is not permitted due to the 30' set back. The proposed double -sided sign is
72" x 54 ". The applicant feels the sign is vital due to the entrance being on the backside of the
building and not being able to see the parking from the road and so vehicles entering from the
Danvers entrance will not know which way to turn in. The sign will be placed as vehicles are
coming towards the building. The loading docks are also on that side and it will help to direct
the trucks. The building next door is a private academy and they want to ensure vehicles enter
into the right driveway.
The Design Review Board has approved the signs.
Mr. Juralewicz stated the signs are primary identification and do not contain any additional
advertising, no additional traffic would be created, they will identify the building and help to
direct vehicles, the signs are located within the industrial park, all the signs are illuminated by
energy efficient modules and no light will be cast on any adjacent properties.
No one spoke in favor or in opposition.
Page 4 of 11
MOTION: Mr. Battistelli moved to close the public hearing. Second by Mr. Levasseur.
Votes 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur)
Motion carries.
MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to GRANT the Special Permit at 102 Cherry Hill
Drive to install two wall signs and one free standing sign based on the recommendation
of the Design Review board, subject to the plans submitted. Second by Ms. Caldwell.
Votes 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur)
Motion carries.
C. ACME Sign Corporation on behalf of Fairweather
In a petition for a request for a Special Permit to replace an existing sign with a smaller double
sided 5' 2"x4'1 V free standing sign. The property is located at 245 Elliott Street in
the R10 zoning district.
Brian Brinkers, ACME Sign Corporation addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant and
stated they are requesting to replace the existing free standing sign. The applicant has done a
national rollout of several hundred locations throughout the United States. The Design Review
Board has approved the sign. The proposed sign is 3'8 "x 4'11 ". The existing sign is old and
larger than the proposed new sign.
Ms. O'Brien asked if the sign will block view of cars coming and going and Mr. Brinlcers stated
the sign will be set back 10'.
No one spoke in favor or in opposition.
MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to close the public hearing. Second by Ms. Caldwell.
Votes 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur)
Motion carries.
MOTION: Ms. Caldwell moved to GRANT the Special Permit to approve the
replacement of the free standing sign, subject to the plans submitted as approved by the
Design Review Board. Second by Mr. Levasseur.
Votes 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur)
Motion carries..
D. Rebecca Douglas
In a petition for a request for a Special Permit to establish a three bedroom bed & breakfast
within a single family home. The property is located at 275 Hale Street in the R45 zoning
district.
Rebecca Douglas addressed the Board and stated she is requesting a Special Permit to have her
family share their home as a small 3 bedroom bed n' breakfast. They've done extensive repairs
and updates to maintain the unique character and structure of the home and there is ample
parking and a courtyard. The house has a history of providing entertainment and was designed
Page 5 of 11
for guests. This proposal will ensure the house is maintained as a single family home and will
not interfere with the character of the neighborhood.
George Lodge, 239 Hale Street Mr. Lodge addressed the Board and stated as an abutter he
strongly disagrees with this proposal. He has a letter requesting the Board to deny this
application for a Special Permit signed by several abutters who were present at the meeting. Mr.
Lodge stated they are asking the Board to deny this request for a commercial enterprise due to
the configuration of the Lot having a small driveway that runs through several other properties.
It is not possible for two vehicles to pass without going off the edges of the driveway. If this
business were successful, traffic on that path would increase 300 %. It is a historic house and it
could attract people from all over. The last thing they want, as neighbors is people going in and
out of that driveway. There is no frontage on that Lot and so there is no place for a sign. The
mailman, who has been there for decades and still delivers mail to the wrong house as more than
one house is recognized as 275 Elliott Street. Counsel has advised them that the deed prohibits
any commercial use of the property and that it is restricted to a single family use. This would be
a business, with customers in and out and so they are respectfully asking the Board to deny the
request.
Marshall Handly, Handly & Cox Mr. Handly stated he has been asked to speak on behalf of
Henry and George Lodge. An operational commercial use in this zone is not permitted. This
Lot has no frontage, it is a nonconforming Lot that is serviced by a half mile long meandering
driveway over and through other properties. This use would require attention from the Board of
Health. They are proposing a 3- bedroom use so that would potentially be three couples coming
and going. The ownership of the beach at the end of Brackenbury Lane is accessible only by the
public for fishing, it is not open for public recreation and to invite otherwise, is to inject
controversy, conflict and disruption into what is a quietly developed neighborhood. Attorney
Handly's stated it is his understanding that Ms. Douglas lives in Gloucester and the ordinance
states that a bed n' breakfast has to be owner occupied.
Joe Purtell 277 Hale Str eet. Mr. Purtell stated he is a neighbor and an abutter and it doesn't
make sense to have transient people coming and going through the neighborhood. Also there is a
bed n' breakfast right next door at Endicott College which is perfect for servicing folks who want
to enjoy this City's character.
William, 275 Hale Street William stated he is resident but not a family member and he is in
favor of this request. This house was built, designed and renovated to entertain guests. The
paved driveway is lit up by lights controlled by the house. The Douglas's have taken care of the
home and maintained its historical integrity. When they tried to sell it two years ago they denied
the first offer that came in because they didn't want someone else to come in and change it or
bulldoze it. Even when Ms. Douglas isn't at the property she makes sure it's maintained and
looks nice.
Lyndon Holmes, 34 Brackenbury Lane Mr. Holmes stated he is a recent arrival in the
neighborhood and he directly abuts Ms. Douglas's property. Part of the Lot layout has the
driveway to Ms. Douglas's house traverse his property in a short segment. Mr. Holmes does not
Page 6 of 11
recall what the easement provision in the Deed is and what the liability of 3`d parties crossing
over that easement is.
Ms. Douglas stated she does understand her neighbor's concerns. The property, however, has
been subdivided many times, so the character of the property has changed. The 10 acres behind
the property has 4 new homes built on it. Ms. Douglas stated she has exclusive deeded rights to
use the private driveway. In terms of the houses having the same address, the other property
address is 279 Hale Street as shown on the bills, the owners have chosen to maintain the
275 Hale Street address. There is also a business owned by Mr. Lodge at 277 Hale Street. The
private and quiet aspect of the beach has already been comprised due to Endicott College
opening a B &B and conference center. Some of the abutters do not use the driveway, nor have
the right to. Although it has been used in the past for various activities. Ms. Douglas is trying to
maintain the property and keep it in the family. She has spoken with the Mayor and the
Chamber of Commerce and there is a need for this type of service in Beverly. Ms. Douglas
stated it will be owner occupied because she will be there to supervise as she has always
supervised her property. It's not a commercial endeavor, it will remain a single family home and
she would be supervising the guests that come and go.
David Lodge, 277 Hale Street Mr. Lodge stated he has a home office at 277 Hale Street but his
business involves him traveling all over the U.S. No one comes to his home office. Every car
that comes up the driveway shines lights into the windows in his house. Recently there have
been unfamiliar cars coming through at 1:30 am and so he is unsure if this has already started.
Mr. Margolis stated he is concerned about the commercial use of this property with transient
people coming and going.
Ms. Caldwell stated there are regulations for Bed & Breakfast's and the Health Department
comes in and inspects the place. Ms. Caldwell stated its trouble seeing all the objections to this
application but she does not have an objection to this request. Ms. Caldwell stated she has seen
B &B's in other communities work just fine and the Health Department would be there to
regulate things. It's a way to keep a larger property from being used differently. Ms. O'Brien
agreed with Ms. Caldwell and stated from what she understands the driveway is deeded to Ms.
Douglas's property. She went down the driveway and had no problem turning around.
Mr. Levasseur agreed and stated he does not have any issue with the proposed use of the
property but the road does bother him because although Ms. Douglas has deeded rights to the
driveway, cars do have cross over other properties.
Mr. Margolis asked if Ms. Douglas would be renting out a bathroom with each bedroom and Ms.
Douglas stated each bedroom has a bathroom. Mr. Margolis asked how long she would anticipate
each customer staying, and Ms. Douglas stated there is a legal limit. Ms. Caldwell read the
guidelines and confirmed it is 8 days.
Ms. Gougian asked who is responsible for plowing the driveway and Ms. Douglas stated she
hires someone at her own cost. Ms. Gougian stated, according to her list, Ms. Douglas meets 6
out of the 8 requirements for a Special Permit.
Page 7 of 11
A neighbor asked, if after 6 months, if the neighbors find that this Use creates a nuisance what is
their recourse. Ms. Caldwell stated that would be zoning enforcement through the Building
Department.
MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to close the public hearing. Second by Ms. Caldwell.
Votes 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur)
Motion carries.
MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to GRANT the Special Permit at 275 Hale Street to
establish a B &B, as it meets the requirements of the Special permit, is not more
detrimental to the neighborhood, property values will not be adversely affected and
Special Permit must be renewed in two years, subject to the plans submitted. Second by
Ms. Caldwell.
Votes 3 -2 (Caldwell, Gougian, Levasseur; Opposed: Margolis, Battistelli)
Motion Denied.
E. Glovsky & Glovsky on behalf of L. Jeff Haemeier and Mark Phillips
In a petition for a request for a Variance and a Finding that the proposed alterations to the pre-
existing nonconforming single family residence and the construction of an accessory garage will
not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming home
and a variance to build an accessory structure in the front yard and to exceed the maximum
accessory structure height. The property is located at 121 Valley Street in the R45 zoning
district.
Attorney Miranda Gooding of Glovsky & Glovsky addressed the Board on behalf of
the applicants. Arthur Dioli, Architect stated the applicant's goal is to keep the character and
simplicity of the farmhouse but to give it the modern amenities people are now looking
for. They are proposing a kitchen renovation and a master suite. Mr. Dioli reviewed the
proposed exterior renovations and other renovations.
The rationale of the height of the garage is to allow for a residential lift so that the applicants,
who are car enthusiasts, would be able to work on their vehicles. Dormers have been added to
give some light to the second floor. They are planning a half bath on that second floor with the
intention of making a workout room up there.
Attorney Gooding outlined the zoning relief.
Both the house and the lot are nonconforming. It is an undersized lot and the rear and side set
backs of the house are reduced. None of the proposed additions will increase any of the existing
nonconformities and so they are seeking a Finding. The owners have approached a good number
of their neighbors with the proposed plans and have received a good amount of support.
Attorney Gooding stated they are requesting a Variance for the barn/garage. The property is an
irregularly shaped lot, with an extremely large front yard. There is another pocket of land (pork
chop) to the rear of the house which is a possibility for the accessory structure but it would be
challenging to access it in that location. Based on the fact that historically, the home did have a
Page 8 of 11
barn in the proposed location, they thought that it made sense. It is worth pointing out, that if
this structure was attached, it would be allowed as matter of right as it would comply with the
setbacks. Adding a breezeway is a possibility the applicant's don't think it would serve much
purpose.
Dr. Robert Rokowsi, 808 Hale Street Dr. Rokowski bought their property in 2008 and
renovated in 2009 with an attached garage that followed the guidelines. Dr. Rokowksi is
strongly against this proposed accessory structure as it would obstruct the clear view he has now.
The applicants have not spoken to him, as they said they did. The height they are proposing for
the garage is a commercial height. Garages that have recently been built in that area are much
lower.
Mr. Margolis asked what the proposed use of the pork- chop area of the property would be and
Mr. Dioli stated it was planned to be used for a yard. Mr. Margolis suggested giving some
consideration to reducing the overall height of the garage. As of now the plans show 32' high.
Mr. Battistelli agreed that the height is excessive.
Attorney Gooding requested to continue the hearing with respect to the Variance on the garage
but for the Board to vote on the Finding.
MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to close the public hearing relating to the Special
Permit. Second by Caldwell.
Votes 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur)
Motion carries.
MOTION: Ms. Caldwell moved the Board to make a Finding that the addition on the
nonconforming house is not detrimental to the neighborhood. Second by Ms. Gougian.
Votes 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur)
Motion carries.
MOTION: Ms. Caldwell moved to allow request to continue the Variance requests to
the January 26, 2017 meeting. Second by Mr. Levasseur.
Votes 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur)
Motion carries.
F. Patrick & Amy O'Hare
In a petition for a request for a Special Permit to replace a carport with attached garage and
family room above and to construct a front entry, no closer to property lines than existing
nonconforming structure. The property is located at 13 East Sheet in the R10 zoning district.
Amy and Patrick O'Hare addressed the Board and stated the location of the existing carport is
nonconforming and the proposed garage would be slightly deeper in depth but would be
conforming. The enclosure of the existing entry way would allow for them to have a coat closet.
They have four letters of support from abutters.
Page 9 of 11
No one spoke in favor or in opposition.
Mr. Battistelli asked if they are keeping both driveways and Ms. O'Hare confirmed.
MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to close the public hearing. Second by Ms. Gougian.
Votes 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur)
Motion carries.
MOTION: Ms. Caldwell moved to GRANT the Special Permit at 13 East Street as it is
not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood, subject to the plans submitted.
Second by Mr. Battistelli.
Votes 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur)
Motion carries.
G. Attorney Alexander on behalf of Brian & Elaine Boches
In a petition for a request for a Finding to allow a third unit to be added to a pre- existing legally
nonconforming two family building on an existing lot of 4,900 square feet in the pre- existing
32'x20' outbuilding. The area of the third unit is within the existing footprint and envelope of
the building. The property is located at 12 Grant Street in the RMD zoning district.
Mr. Battistelli recused himself from this hearing.
Attorney Alexander stated as soon as he realized the error made in the legal notice he notified all
of the abutters. Mr. Boches also went door to door to each abutter and explained the situation
and has received a lot of support in the neighborhood. The Boches bought the property 25 years
ago with the understanding that it was a 4 -unit building. Recently the building inspector came
out and stated records don't show they have approval for the fourth unit. The applicants are
seeking a Finding that it would not be more detrimental to the neighborhood as it has been in
existence for at least 25 years. It is a nonconforming lot. There are many properties in the area
that have more than four units. The property is zoned RMD, which is a multi - family district and
so this Finding would be in keeping with the neighborhood. Mr. Boches is also investing in the
property with new windows, roof and siding.
Mr. Margolis asked what the parking situation is and Attorney Alexander stated it is tight but it
isn't going to change. The neighbors currently don't have a problem with the current parking.
Ms. Gougian asked if there is any change to their taxes whether it's a 3 or 4 family
and Attorney Alexander confirmed. The tax bill does not specify whether it is a 3 or 4 family
house. Mr. Margolis stated it becomes a commercial rate.
No one spoke in favor or in opposition.
MOTION: Ms. O'Brien moved to close the public hearing. Second by Mr. Levasseur.
Votes 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, O'Brien, Levasseur)
Motion carries.
Page 10 of 11
MOTION: Ms. O'Brien moved for the request at 12 Grant Street be allowed with the
Finding that it's a preexisting nonconforming that will not be substantially detrimental
and will not create a new nonconformity, subject to plans as is. Second by Mr.
Levasseur,
Votes 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, O'Brien, Levasseur)
Motion carries.
III. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Minutes
MOTION: Mr. Battistelli moved to approve the Minutes from the October 25, 2016
meeting. Second by Ms. O'Brien.
Votes 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur).
Motion carries.
The next meeting will be Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 7pm at
City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, Beverly.
Leanna Harris, Administrative Assistant
Board of Appeals of the Zoning Ordinance
Page 11 of 11