Loading...
2001-01-23 CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING These minutes are not a verbatim transcript of the public hearings or public meetings of the Zoning Board of Appeal. Reviews of the discussion or outcome of public hearings should include an examination of the Board’s decision for that hearing. Board: Zoning Board of Appeal Date: January 23, 2001 Place: Beverly City Hall, Council Chamber, 191 Cabot Street Board Members Present: Full Members: Chairman, Scott D. Houseman, Robert McLemore, and Margaret O’Brien. Alternate Members Scott Ferguson, Andrea Fish, and Mark Schmidt. Members Absent: Martin Freeman and Leonard J. Bertaux Others Present: Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer – Timothy Brennan, Clerk of the Board – Diane Rogers – and Assistant City Planner – Debra Hurlburt Chairman Scott Houseman opened the meeting by introducing the Board Members to the public at 7:00 p.m. Houseman stated that there was one holdover from the previous month and seven new cases to be heard. He commented that Board Members Leonard J. Bertaux and Martin Freeman would be absent. The next discussion was electing a chairman for the Board’s upcoming year. Bob McLemore nominated Scott Houseman as chairman and Margaret O’Brien seconded. Motion carried 5 – 0. Congratulations Scott! Regarding the October 2000 appeal of David Keenan, at 35 Pond Street, Houseman stated the standard paragraph on “findings” relative to a special permit, was omitted from the decision. He added that he would like to correct this error into the decision and send the new copy to the petitioner and his lawyer. Brennan commented that the appeal was denied. O’Brien: Motion to correct the error. Seconded by Ferguson. Motion carries 5 – 0. All Members in favor. 377 Cabot Street – CN Zone – Maxi Drug, Inc. d/b/a Brooks Pharmacy- Variances Attorney Mark Glovsky represented Maxi Drug, Inc. He is requesting variances to permit erection of three wall signs in excess of number and dimensions permitted under Sec. 29-25 (b) (2) (a) and to permit erection of free-standing pylon sign in excess of dimensions permitted under Sec. 29-25 (b) (2) (b). Glovsky stated he would like five members of the board to vote on his proposal. He added that there have been some changes and asked if another member could vote where Martin Freeman has been absent for two months. Houseman agreed with his request. He stated that Robert McLemore, a full member of the Board was present and would be the fifth member. Glovsky introduced Mr. Zack Mullen the designer and Richard Poyant, from Poyant Sign Company. Glovsky stated the property was formerly utilized as a grocery store for A & P which was a CG use located now in a CN Zone. The building is 22,000 sq. foot in area. He commented that Brooks originally Page 2 (Maxi Drug, (Brooks) cont.) requested larger signs and that he suggested Brooks speak to Debra Hurlburt of the Design Review Board for information regarding the allowed signage permitted on the site. Following the discussion, Brooks agreed to do a reduction in the size of the signs initially proposed. The following changes have occurred since October 24, 2000: The 24 hour photo sign is now gone. The Brooks and Pharmacy signs are treated as two signs, not the four requested earlier. The Brooks sign would measure 40.80 square feet, the Pharmacy sign would measure l4.6 square feet and the drive -thru sign would measure 16.25 square feet, a total cumulative area of 71.65 square feet where 20 feet is allowed. He added that Brooks had spent $600,000 renovating the property. Glovsky stated the building frontage on Cabot Street is 400 feet but lacks visibility because of the 90 feet setback from the road. He stated it was essential to have a sign to draw attention to the location of the new drive through, as it was not relatively visible from the street. Glovsky added that the pylon sign would now have 56 square feet ( was 64) and would be changed from 15 feet in height to 14 feet. Houseman asked if anyone would like to comment on this petition, there being none he asked the Board for their comments. McLemore asked for a copy, 8 ½ by 11, where he could see the dimensions. Ferguson stated he preferred smaller signs. He indicated he would compromise if Brooks gave up the pylon sign, otherwise he was not in favor of the request. O’Brien asked if the Brooks Pharmacy sign would be considered two signs and Glovsky responded yes. She then asked how large the Videosmith sign was whereas, it measured 24 square inches in the October presentation. O’Brien stated she would like to see the Brooks Pharmacy sign reduced in size. Fish asked what had been changed since the October 24,2000 plan. Glovsky responded the drive- thru sign was eliminated and they would call the Brooks Pharmacy, one sign. McLemore stated he could not compromise on the free- standing sign, 14 feet was still too high. Glovsky responded the pylon sign could be lowered. Houseman stated to Glovsky that the Board had spent one hour on this case already and there were another seven cases to be heard. He commented he would like to come back to this petition later on in the evening and give Glovsky time to review his plans. Houseman added that there were 10 temporary window signs that could not been seen from the street and that some should be taken down and that he would like to see something written in the variance regarding this issue. Glovsky stated he had taken an hour to review the application. The following modifications will be made: The Brooks sign would go from 30” to 28”; the drive-thru sign would be eliminated, the total cumulative area of 76.50 square feet would be reduced to 61 square feet, and the pylon free-standing sign of 15 feet high would be reduced to 11 feet which would be a 27% reduction. He then commented that the window signs would not cover more than 30% of the window. Fish stated she had no questions at this time. O’Brien asked if the pylon sign was 8 feet wide and Glovsky responded yes. She then commented that the size of the Brooks sign was too large and should be reduced. Ferguson stated he understood the square footage would be the same, the width would be 8 feet and the sign would be dropped down to 11 feet in height. O’Brien stated she would like to see the sign 6 feet wide with 1 ½” letters. Ferguson commented that he would like to see the Brooks Pharmacy sign two feet high with a width of 6 feet. He suggested 6 feet width for all signs and give them a height of 12 feet, with a minimum of 5 feet on the bottom for the planter which would have growing vegetation that would be maintained and eliminate the drive-thru sign. McLemore questioned the color of the signs. O’Brien stated that Brooks would go before the Design Review, therefore, the Board didn’t have to worry about that. Glovsky stated that there would be one façade sign containing the word Brooks and Pharmacy, the letters on the Brooks sign will be changed from 30” to 28” high, the letters on the word Pharmacy will remain the same size (18”) and the total square foot area of that sign will be 6l feet. He added that the drive-thru sign would be eliminated. Page 3 (Maxi Drug (Brooks)cont.) Ferguson: Motion: The letters on the Brooks sign to be 28” high, the Pharmacy sign will be 18” high, and the area of sign to be 61 feet, and the drive-thru sign to be eliminated. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion carries 5 –0 All members in favor. (O’Brien, Houseman, Ferguson. McLemore and Fish) 8 Robinson Road – R-15 Zone – Elliott Blatchford, Jr. – Variances Request Mr. Blatchford spoke on his own behalf. He is seeking to encroach 12 feet upon the side yard setback requirement of 15 feet to erect a one-story, two-car detached garage, (20’x24’) and to allow the accessory building to occupy more than 25% of area of such yard. He stated that he had talked to his neighbors regarding his proposal and presented letters in favor from Biagio Forte of 6 Robinson Road, David Walsh of 9 Robinson Road, Sylvia Treantos, the direct abutter, of 10 Robinson Road and Vail O’Connor of 12 Robinson Road. Blatchford stated that the addition shall be a one-story garage which will be located three feet from the lot line. The distance to the neighbors dwelling would be approximately 17-20 feet. He added that he needs this two-car garage to house his vehicles out of the stormy weather. Chairman Houseman asked if any member of the public had any comments on this proposal, there being none he then asked the Board Members for their comments and questions. O’Brien stated she had visited the site. She commented that the plans submitted probably would be accepted by the neighbors, however, she would prefer an attached one- car garage. She commented that the proposal as presented would fill up the land too much. She added that other homes in the neighborhood either had one- car garages on none. McLemore stated he had one issue, which was that the extended building would be a total of 60 feet. He commented that the lot is large enough to place the garage in the rear yard. This would delete the need for a variance. Fish concurred with McLemore. She stated that this was not a unique situation and there are alternatives. Ferguson asked what the hardship on the property was. He then asked Mr. Blatchford to listen to what has been said by all the Board members and to consider a one- car garage. Houseman stated there was nothing unique regarding the property and there were several choices: build a one-car garage, postpone this proposal until the next scheduled meeting in February, vote on the proposal tonight as is, or withdraw without prejudice and start all over again. Mr. Blatchford stated he would like to continue his proposal until the February 27, 2001 meeting. McLemore stated he did not want to continue this proposal. He preferred to vote on the matter tonight. Houseman stated that even if Mr. Blatchford decided to construct a one- car garage, he would still have to apply for a variance. O’Brien stated she would vote to continue the proposal. McLemore: Motion to deny the request to continue the proposal. Fish seconded. Houseman stated this should be stated in reverse. McLemore: Motion to grant the proposal as presented. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion denied on a vote of 0 – 5. 6 Fosters Point – R-10 Zone – Robert and Janet Gallagher – Special Permit Request Mr. Gallagher spoke on his own behalf. He is seeking to raze an existing two-story dwelling structure and rebuild a larger two-story structure on the existing footprint. Also, to construct an addition, 10’x20’, two- story, on the front (street side) of the building that will encroach 13’ plus or minus upon the required 15’ left and right side yard setbacks. Houseman distributed information relative to granting a Section 6 finding in a special permit. Mr. Gallagher stated he wanted to raze his house, which was originally a camp and build a new one. He added the foundation was pretty rough and the structure needs serious rehab. He was told the best way to do this was to start over. Page 4 (Gallagher cont.) Houseman asked if anyone would like to comment on this petition. Marion Anderson of 9 Sargent Avenue asked if the building was in the flood plan. Mr. Gallagher responded yes. She then asked if the building had a basement and Mr. Gallagher responded no, just a foundation. Anderson asked if the height of the building would be and Gallagher responded 32 - 35 feet. He added that an engineer would be designing the project. Houseman then asked the Board Members for their comments and questions. O’Brien asked if the addition would be toward the street and Gallagher responded yes. She asked if the addition would be no wider than the existing footprint and Gallagher responded correct. Fish stated the increase of the volume is over 100% and that the dwelling would be going from one and a half stories to three. She added that this was too much of an enlargement for the size of the lot. She commented that this was over 25% of the non-conforming structure being enlarged. She stated the third floor does not show on his plans. Gallagher responded the third floor of the dwelling would be storage because they had no basement. O’Brien asked how far from the property line is this proposal on each side. Gallagher responded on the west -side, it’s equal to the distance now (1.9’) and on the east- side of the property it will be two feet less. Also, we will be extending the addition l0 feet toward the front. McLemore stated that he felt that in a non -conforming use, the 25% does not apply. He added that the lots are narrow in the neighborhood. He commented he would like some clarification on the parking requirements. He asked if there was 18 ½’ to the street, which is required for parking and Gallagher responded yes, the lot is pie shape and they now park side by side. Brennan commented that there was enough room for two vehicles to park. Schmidt stated the property was the smallest lot on the street, next to the largest house on the street. He commented that this proposal would be keeping with the neighborhood and the neighbors are in favor. Houseman stated the size of the addition is large, however, Fosters Point is all in transgression. He added the change would not be detrimental to the neighborhood and the neighbors are in favor. O’Brien stated she needed more convincing because the lot was small and the addition takes up most of the land. Houseman asked if the project could be scaled down. Gallagher responded if they did they would loose what they wanted. McLemore stated the addition would be 49’x22’ wide and approximately 1,800 sq. ft. of living space, not counting the third floor storage space. He commented that this is reasonable use of the land in this neighborhood. Fish stated the lot is too small for such a large house. McLemore: Motion: There are sufficient facts to support a Section 6 finding in that this proposed structure is not more detrimental than the existing structure or use in the neighborhood and the proposal will not exceed the 35’ height requirement To grant as per plans submitted, copy of plan to be included with decision. Seconded by Schmidt. Motion carries 4 – l (Houseman, McLemore, Schmidt, & O’Brien) (Fish opposed) 488 Essex Street – R-15 Zone – Robert S. Carr – Special Permit Request Mr. Carr spoke on his own behalf. He is seeking to erect a 16’long by 12’ wide, open deck, to the rear of the existing structure, which will encroach 9’ upon the required 15’ side yard setback. Mr. Carr stated there is six feet between the property line. He requires a special permit because he is going out more than ten feet from his foundation. He presented a letter from John and Jean Fontaine of 492 Essex Street, the direct abutter, who is in favor of this proposal. Houseman asked if anyone would like to comment on this petition, there being none he asked the Board for their comments. Houseman stated this is a special permit and the Board must make a Section 6 finding that what is being requested and once built would not be substantially more detrimental to the existing non-conforming structure. Page 5 ( Robert S. Carr cont.) O’Brien stated she did not think this proposal would be substantially more detrimental. She added that the house is located to the side of the lot. She commented that she approves of this proposal. Ferguson concurs. McLemore stated he also agreed. O’Brien: Motion to accept the proposal on the basis of the Section Six finding. Seconded by Ferguson. Motion carries 5 – 0. All members in favor. (Houseman, O’Brien, McLemore, Ferguson, & Fish) 81 Rantoul Street – CC Zone – Donald Reed/Carol Bugbee Special Permit Request George Michaud, Agent, spoke on his own behalf. He is seeking to change the faces of an existing non- conforming All Seasons sign, containing forty square feet, to read Enterprise – 1- 800 – rent a – car. There will be no change in the existing size, shape, height or location of the freestanding sign. Houseman stated this is a special permit and the Board must make a Section 6 finding that what is being requested and once built would not be substantially more detrimental to the existing non-conforming structure. Mr Michaud presented photographs of the proposed sign, which reflected the new tenant of the building. He commented that the sign is attractive and would not adversely affect the neighborhood. Houseman asked if anyone would like to comment on this petition. Linda Lundberg of 60 Rantoul Street spoke in favor of the proposal. Houseman then asked the Board members for their comments and questions. O’Brien asked if this was a non-conforming sign and Houseman responded yes. She then asked if All Season’s business was still located at that address. She questioned if the existing sign has to remain there. Schmidt stated the pictures are not to scale. He asked the petitioner if the sign hangs over the sidewalk. Michaud responded no, we are just replacing the face of the sign. Ferguson stated no one was opposed in the neighborhood. He asked if the sign already had been made. Michaud responded yes. Ferguson asked how many leased vehicles were picked up and dropped off per week. Michaud responded he did no know. McLemore asked if All Season’s had another business in town. No one could answer that question. McLemore stated that if we grant this proposal now and All Seasons leaves the premises then we are stuck with this sign. Houseman stated he was not in favor of this proposal. He did not think the telephone number should be located on the sign. He commented a sign is for identifying use, not for advertising. Michaud responded that the 1-800 rent a car is their logo but that the company will drop it if they have to. Schmidt stated he thinks they should be allowed to keep the 1-800 number. Housemen stated he would support this special permit without the 1-800 number. O’Brien stated she was against the proposal, she feels it is too large a sign. However, she commented if the Board has to allow it she will go along with it. Ferguson stated the telephone number must go. Ferguson: Motion to grant the special permit with the following conditions: They must apply to the Design Review Board and the telephone number will be eliminated from the sign. O’Brien seconded. Motion carries 4 – 1. (Houseman, Ferguson, O’Brien, & Schmidt) (McLemore opposed.) Page 6 62-64 Water Street – CN Zone – Gary R. Corsetti, Trustee of Atlantic Realty Trust Attorney Thomas Alexander spoke on behalf of the petitioner. He is seeking to allow (3) residential units on the three upper floors in an existing building and commercial space on the first level, where (2) units are allowed and to allow (2) parking spaces within ten feet of the street line.(Water Street) Alexander stated the lot was 9,716 square feet in area. He added that the existing structure was built in 1790 by Captain Hill. He commented that the structure was once a candle shop factory. He then stated, that the property, was now owned by Donald J. Clarke. He explained that the structure had four levels to it, one located on Water Street. Alexander stated the original plan was changed from five residential units to three with one commercial unit on the Water Street level. He added that Corsetti proposed to redesign the existing foot print and would remove the cement part of the building and use that for a ten space parking lot area. He commented that there would be no addition to the rear of the building except for the small dormers to the front side of the building. The patio area would be 20 feet and within there would be 30’ storage allotted. He added that a retaining wall would be placed along the patios and that rhododendrons would be planted. Alexander submitted a list of conditions to the Board, which are as follows: 1. The property usage will be (3) residential units on levels, 2, 3 and 4, and the street level on Water Street will be commercial space only as allowed within the CN Zone of approximately 1,000 square feet, all as indicated on plans filed with the variance request, and shall be confined th within the existing footprint and building envelope of the existing late 18 century brick building as defined in Item #5 below. 2. The area between Front Street and the Northeasterly (i.e.rear) side of the building shall be constructed and maintained as a fully landscaped area with the following limitation on its usage and design: A. There shall be no parking or storage of any vehicles for any purpose. All parking for the building residents, guests, and commercial users shall be located on the Water Street side of the building as designated on the Site Plan filed with the variance request. Patios and any limited storage areas for personal property of residents shall only be located within (20) feet of the Northeasterly side (i.e. the Front Street side) of the Building. Storage areas shall be limited to thirty square feet in area per residential unit, shall be screened by plantings from view by adjacent properties, as shown on the landscape plan filed with the Board of Appeals. The patios on Front Street side of the building shall be screened approximately as shown on the landscape plan filed with the Board of Appeals. The landscaping shall be predominantly plant materials. It may include stone walls and or terraced slopes to facilitate the grade change between Front Street and the first level of the residential units. th 3. The existing 20 century cement block additions on the easterly and southerly side of the building shall be completely removed. 4. All external HVAC equipment shall be located between the westerly side of the building and the westerly lot line at the grade of Water Street, and shall be screened from view by shrubbery. A masonry wall a minimum of 2’ higher than the equipment shall also be provided on the north side of the equipment to deflect sound from the equipment away from adjacent residential properties 5. All building construction shall be within the existing footprint and building envelope of the existing th existing footprint and the building envelope of the existing late 18 century brick building with the following exceptions and limitations: th A. The top floor and gable roof of the original late 18 century building that was removed in approximately 1938 shall be restored and reconstructed to their prior configuration Page 7 (Corsetti cont.) matching the roof line and reasonable matching external masonry detailing of the exist- ing westerly portion of the building as generally indicated on the plans filed B. The northerly roof pitch (i.e. the rear of Front Street roof pitch) shall be maintained and restored as a single plan pitched gable roof at the plane of the existing roof dormers, shed dormers, skylights, roof cuts, HVAC equipment and other substantial roof structures shall not be constructed on or within this roof pitch. Normal penetrations for residential plumbing vents are exempt from this limitation. C. The southwesterly roof pitch (i.e. the front of Water Street roof pitch) shall be subject to the same limitations as the northeasterly pitch except that the six single dormers indicated on t plans filed with the variance request may be constructed. Alexander stated that because the project was located in the Historic District, it would need their review and approval. He added that this was a very expensive project. He commented that the hardship is that the building was peculiar and unique. He stated the following : that the proposal was the minimum use of the property, it was in harmony with the zoning ordinance, property values would be enhanced, there would be no undue traffic on Water Street, there were adequate facilities for the intended use of residential and commercial, and adequate city services and utilities. Chairman Houseman asked if any member of the public had any comments on this proposal. William Finch, of 50 Front Street, Chairman of the Historical District Commission, stated that a list of conditions was drawn up with his lawyer Mr. Glovsky and Attorney Alexander. He added that he concurred with those conditions. Ms. Ushakoff, of 42 Lovett Street, concurred. Michael Gaudette of 3 South Street stated he was not in favor of this proposal. He then submitted a letter in opposition from the Corbett’s of 36 Front Street, who are vacationing in Florida. Gaudette stated he especially opposed heat pumps, which were located all over his neighborhood. He commented that you cannot leave the windows open in the summer because of all the noise they make. He suggested a conventional heating system be installed. Alexander stated that the property won’t be serviced by heat pumps. The heating system will be located in the basement and the air-conditioning will be externally on site. He indicated that the power source will be located off of Water Street or underground on the existing property. (Front Street side) Houseman asked the Board Members for their comments and questions. McLemore asked if the heat would be oil fired or gas. Alexander responded he wasn’t sure but it would be forced hot water. McLemore asked if the commercial space could be limited to one tenant, not two. Alexander responded that the owner would not consider that because commercial use is delineated by the square footage of the building. McLemore asked about the signage on the commercial space and Alexander stated that the signage would be subject to the regulations of the CN Zone and that it would be subject to review and approval of the Historic Commission. Schmidt asked what the fair market value of the property was. Alexander responded that Corsetti had a purchase and sales agreement and the hardship is that the property for the past half -century has not been in the best condition. He added that the property needs zoning relief to make it part of the community. He commented that the rehab of this property would cost more because it is located in the Historic District. Houseman asked the Board Members for their comments and questions. O’Brien asked how many tenants there are presently. Alexander responded two individual units and a commercial tenant that uses the space for storage, which will now be three residential units and two businesses. O’Brien asked if there were storage space for the tenants. Alexander responded that the patio in the rear is limited to 20 feet off the building. The ground floor is at the Water Street level and the 5’x6’ patios are on the next level. Fish asked if everyone was included in the neighborhood meeting regarding this proposal. Alexander stated there was a meeting at the Jubilee Yacht Club and that he also provided William Finch of the Historic Commission, a copy of the plans for the proposal. Fish asked how the parking arrangement was determined. Alexander responded there would be two spaces per resident and (4) eight-foot wide spaces for the 1,000 square feet of the commercial space. Fish asked if the vehicles could back out without going Page 8 (Corsetti cont.) over the curbing and how wide the parking spaces are. Alexander stated a parking space is nine feet wide, as required by zoning and the project can have piggy -back parking with one unit. Fish stated she did not believe ten parking spaces could be provided because the area allotted was very small. Alexander responded that there is eighteen feet which is the required depth of the spaces. Houseman asked if the elevation and floor plans indicate that the residential units will have floor space on the second level. He asked Alexander if the fence drawn on the plan would actually be erected. Corsetti responded that the fence is not a condition in the agreement. Houseman indicated that air conditioning fans do make noise, however, he does not know how to address this problem. He commented that to say no air conditioning could be used in the units was not realistic. Alexander responded that trees could be planted to absorb some of the noise upon the westerly property line. Houseman stated that he believed all the criteria had been met for this proposal. McLemore: Motion to grant the variances subject to the terms of conditions, with exhibit “A” landscaping, and reference to the site plan. Seconded by Schmidt. Motion carries 5 – 0. All members in favor. (Houseman, McLemore, Fish, O’Brien, and Schmidt) 181 Elliott Street – IG Zone – Gateway, 900 Cummings Center – Variance Request Attorney Thomas Alexander spoke on behalf of the petitioner. He is seeking to amend the existing sign variance to allow for green and black rather than white, lettered signs. Alexander stated that Mr. Gerard McSweeney, the general manager of Cummings, sent a letter to the Board explaining that Gateway is a tenant presently occupying over 40,000 square feet of office space and employs over two hundred people. He added that Gateway is one of the leading computer sales suppliers in the world. Attorney Alexander stated the sign variance granted in 1998 approved 14 locations, two of which have been installed. This is one of the approved locations. Gateway would like to have green and black lettered signs not the white originally approved. He added they are not looking for a larger sign. He commented that the sign would be subject to the approval of the Design Review Board. He submitted a photograph of the location of the sign. He commented the hardship was discussed in the previous decision. Houseman asked if any member of the public had comments on this proposal, there being none he asked the Board Members for their questions and comments. Houseman stated Ms. O’Brien would excuse herself on this petition. He commented that he had mixed feelings on this proposal. He did not want to set a precedent here. He added that the Board worked very hard reviewing the design and color of signs in the variance of 1998. In the past he limited in the decisions the sign size. However, he does not find this proposal offensive. Fish asked if there would be a white background. Alexander responded no. Fish asked if that was Gateway’s logo. Alexander responded yes. Houseman stated that if Gateway left the complex, the variance would be eliminated. Schmidt asked if this was a significant tenant and Alexander responded yes. Ferguson stated a company’s logo is an advertisement and he is not in favor of this proposal. He added that other tenants would indeed apply to the Board for the same proposal. McLemore stated in 1998 the Board made an agreement, no logos, just signs and letters. He added that he would like to abide by that decision. He felt that one week the colors would be yellow, the next week green. Houseman asked if Gateway would eliminate the logo. Alexander responded he did not know. He stated that several businesses along Cabot Street had logos on their signs and asked the Board to give that some thought. He added that the logo box was 15 inches. McLemore: Motion to approve the variance as it stands. Seconded by Schmidt. Discussion: Houseman: stated Cummings has impacted this city. If the Logo is taken off the sign a variance of color could be middle ground. Schmidt retracted his motion. Schmidt: Motion to continue the case until the next scheduled meeting in February. Seconded by Fish. McLemore stated the motion stands. Schmidt moved to reconsider the motion. Motion was not seconded, it was withdrawn. Page 9 (Corsetti cont.) Schmidt: Motion to continue this proposal to the February 27, 2001 meeting. Seconded by Fish. Motion carries 4 – 1. (Houseman, Schmidt, Fish, Ferguson) (McLemore opposed) 238 Conant Street – IR Zone – Cornerstone Corp.- Variance Request Attorney Nancy Attaya-McCann spoke on behalf of the petitioner. She is requesting a use variance to allow the small portion of the property located in Beverly to be used for an access drive and parking for a residential development on the remainder of the property located in Danvers. Chairman Houseman stated that because it was 12:0l a.m. he would like to continue this proposal until the next scheduled meeting February 27, 2001. Attorney McCann concurred and signed a waiver of time. Ferguson: Motion to continue this proposal at the February 27, 2001meeting. Seconded by O’Brien. All members in favor. Motion carries 5 – 0. Meeting adjourned at 12:05 a.m.