Loading...
2000-04-25 CITY OF BEVERLY, MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES 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 April 25, 2000 Place Beverly City Hall, Council Chamber, 191 Cabot Street Board Members Present: Full Members: Chairman Scott D. Houseman, Leonard Bertaux (arrived at 8:00 pm.) Day Ann Kelley (arrived At 9:00 p.m.) Robert McLemore Alternate Members: Margaret O’Brien (left at 9:30 p.m.), Andrea Fish (arrived at 7:20 p.m.), Scott Ferguson Absent Members: Martin Freeman Others present: Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer – Timothy Brennan, Clerk of the Board – Diane Rogers, and Assistant City Planner - Debra Hurlburt Chairman Houseman opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. by introducing the Board Members to the public and discussing the rules for obtaining a variance. Houseman requested a motion to adopt the minutes of the Board of Appeal meetings held on November 9, 1999, February 8, 22, and March 28, 2000, subject to any changes which the Board may request. O’Brien: Motion to accept amended minutes of November 9, 1999, February 8, 22, and March 28,2000 Seconded by McLemore. All members in favor. (O’Brien, Houseman, McLemore, and Ferguson) Motion carries 4 – 0 Houseman commented that there were three holdovers from the March 28, 2000 meeting, plus eight scheduled cases to be heard tonight. 10 COX COURT – RMD ZONE – JOSEPH BOUDREAU – VARIANCE REQUEST Attorney Oliver Cook of Main Street, Peabody, Ma., appeared in behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Boudreau. He is seeking to allow four dwelling units on a lot containing 10,264 square feet where 16,000 square feet is required. Attorney Cook stated that Mrs. Boudreau is present tonight, however, her husband is not. He added that he was hired only seven days ago. The Boudreau’s bought the property next door at 6 Cox Court as Trustees of :B & D Realty Trust on April 18, 2000. They now have 4,04l square feet to add to the 10,264 square feet of area on 10 Cox Court. The requirement for four units is 16,000 square feet, therefore they are minus only l, 695 square feet of area. When 10 Cox Court was purchased not even the bank picked up the error that the basement apartment was illegal. Three units is a financial hardship for the owners to make their Page 2 Boudreau (cont.) mortgage. Attorney Cook stated that the neighborhood consists of the following multi-family dwellings: 14 Sumit Street - six units, 12 Cox Court - 12 units, 11 Cox Court - 8 units, and 9 Cox Court - 6 units. All of these units are located on less land area than the proposed property. Cook stated this proposal would not be out of character of the neighborhood. He added that Mr. and Mrs. Boudreau live over their restaurant located at 20-22 Cabot Street, which abuts Cox Court. They are proposing to allocate land from the restaurant area and are drawing up a plan by a surveyor so that 10 Cox Court area will have the 16,000 square feet needed to allow for four apartments. Houseman asked if any member of the pubic had any comments on this proposal, there being none he asked the Board for their questions and comments. O’Brien stated the petitioner may not require a variance if the added contiguous land is acquired. She asked if there was enough parking on the premises for four units. Cook responded that there was more than enough parking. McLemore stated the original application varies from the information given tonight and wondered if the application had to be re-advertised. Houseman responded the less needed is the rule of thumb and it does not have to be re-advertised. McLemore then asked if there were ten parking spaces. Cook responded that there was. Ferguson asked who the Boudreau’s bought the property from and Cook responded Gary Palardy. Fish stated that while she was on the site visit she observed work being done in the basement apartment. Houseman concurred with Fish and stated construction was being done. Houseman added that he agrees it would not impact the neighborhood, however, the Boudreau’s should have know the apartment was illegal. Attorney Cook responded that the Boudreau’s just paid $80,000 for 6 Cox Court trying to fix this matter. McLemore stated if the petitioner sub-divided the restaurant land area then there would be no issue. Fish concurred and stated then there would be no hardship on the lot. Attorney Cook stated his clients plan to apply to the Planning Board for an “ approval not required plan.” McLemore: Motion to continue this hearing to the May 23 meeting providing the Planning Board meets for the approval not required plan. Seconded by O’Brien subject to signing a waiver of time. All members in favor. (McLemore, O’Brien, Ferguson, Houseman, and Fish. Carries on a vote of 5 – 0 241 Lothrop Street – R-10 Zone – James Davies – Variance Request Mr. Davies appeared on his own behalf. He is seeking to encroach 8 feet plus or minus upon the required side yard setback of 15 feet with a one-story bathroom addition, 6 feet by 11 feet. Mr. Davies stated that his lot is 60 feet wide and that his dwelling was built before zoning. He added that he needs an extra bathroom for guests. He commented that the best location for this proposal is at the back corner of the house adjacent to the existing bedroom. Davies presented the Board with a list of 15 neighbors in favor of his petition. Houseman asked if anyone would like to comment on this petition, there being none he asked the members for their comments. O’Brien stated the hardship was the narrow lot, the location of the dwelling on the lot and the addition will be within the same line of the dwelling. McLemore, Ferguson and Fish concurred with O’Brien regarding the hardship. Houseman stated there would be no impact on the neighborhood. Ferguson: Motion to grant the variance. Seconded by McLemore. All members in favor. (Ferguson, Houseman, McLemore, Fish, and O’Brien) Carries on a vote of 5 – 0. 9 Brown Street – R-6 Zone – Albert P. Popek – Variance Request Page 3 (Popek cont.) Mr. Popek appeared on his own behalf. He is seeking to encroach 5 feet plus or minus upon the required 5 foot setback to construct a one story (with storage above) two car detached garage, 12 ft. x 30 ft. x 15 ft. in height. Mr. Popek stated his dwelling was built in 1850 and his house sits on 32 ft. of the 46’x100’ lot. He added that the dwelling sits on the property line on two sides. He commented that he had done renovations to his dwelling and also planted trees in his small back yard. Popek stated there is a parking problem in this neighborhood and he would like to construct a two- car garage to house his older son’s vehicle. He commented that his son’s car was towed during the snow- storm and he now rents a garage remotely located on Chase Street. Letters were submitted in favor from Ann & Scott Bacon of 15A Thorndike Street, Laurence VanLier of 16 Thorndike Street, the Orlandella’s of 17B Thorndike Street, and Amy Dow of 15 Thorndike Street. Houseman asked if any members of the public had any comments on this proposal, there being none he asked the Board for their questions and comments. O’Brien asked what the owner of 17 Thorndike Street requested. Popek responded the neighbor requested he remove the fence. O’Brien stated this was a very narrow lot. Ferguson asked if a garage was ever located there and Popek responded no. Ferguson stated the hardship was the position of the dwelling on the lot and the lack of parking in the neighborhood. Fish asked if the proposed garage could be relocated further in the back yard. Popek res0ponded no, because he has large fir trees and a driveway that would take up most of his back yard. Bertaux stated this was a close tight neighborhood but he believes a 30 ft. garage is quite long. Houseman stated this is a difficult application. The property is very nice but on the other hand this proposed garage has no setback and is 30’ long. Ferguson asked if the driveway could be continued out into the rear yard and recommended shortening the proposed garage. Popek responded that his porch would be in the way of that proposal and would require windows in the bedroom and bathroom to be removed. Fish asked if the garage could be placed on the Brown Street side, near the church property. Pokek responded no, because he would loose half of the small back yard. Houseman suggested Mr. Popek talk to his builder regarding changing his proposal because several members have concerns. Bertaux then stated the property should have at least two feet of setback. Fish stated she would favor a one- car garage that would have some setback. Ferguson stated a 30 feet long two- car garage should be downsized to a 24 feet single car garage, with some setback. A motion was made and seconded by Ferguson to adjourn for one hour while Mr. Popek discussed his present proposal with his builder. The meeting was reconvened and Mr. Poked then stated he would change his plans by moving the garage further back into the yard and the size would be revised to 12 feet by 28 feet. Fish stated the garage should still be smaller. O’Brien concurred with the new plan. Bertaux concurred also and stated this solution addressed his concerns. Ferguson stated the hardship was the lot is small and narrow. Bertaux: Motion to grant the variance based on the changes proposed making a two feet side yard setback The length of the garage will now be 28 feet and the structure will be shifted toward the rear lot. Ferguson seconded. Motion carries 4 – 1 (Bertaux, Houseman, Ferguson, Fish, and O’Brien) (Fish opposed) 12 Robinson Road – R-15 Zone – Vail and Cheryl O’Connor – Variance Request Mr. O’Connor appeared on his own behalf. He is seeking to encroach 10 feet plus or minus upon the required side yard setback of 15 feet with a one story family room addition, (18’x22’). Page 4 (O’Connor cont.) Mr. O’Connor stated the proposed addition location is the only way it can be built because the family room relates to the kitchen. The other adjacent rooms are bedrooms. The dwelling is located five or six feet from the lot line. A letter in favor was submitted to the Board from Sylvia Treantos of 10 Robinson Road. Appearing in favor of this petition was Jill Harvey of 14 Robinson Road. Houseman asked if anyone would like to comment on this petition, there being none he asked the members for their comments. Bertaux had no questions relative to this proposal. McLemore stated the hardship in this case is the lot is narrow, placement of the dwelling on the lot, and this addition will not further encroach on the side yard setback. Fish and Ferguson concurred with McLemore. Houseman stated the criteria for a variance has been met and the neighbors are in favor of this proposal. McLemore: Motion to grant the variance. Seconded by Ferguson. All members in favor. Motion carries 5 – 0. (McLemore, Bertaux, Ferguson, Fish, and Houseman) 295 County Way – R-10 Zone – Paul Clune – Variance Request Mr. Paul Clune appeared on his own behalf. He is seeking to encroach 6 feet plus or minus upon the required 15 feet side yard setback requirement to construct a two story addition (8’x26’) to enlarge the kitchen on the first floor and create two more bedrooms on the second floor. Mr. Clune stated the dwelling is located 9 feet from the lot line and has a deck extending off the rear. The proposed addition will be built consistent with the current sideline setbacks taking the place of part of the existing deck. He added it would not be injurious to the neighborhood or detrimental to the public. He has owned the dwelling since 1985 and the household size has increased from two to five people. This addition will allow for much needed expanded living area, with an enlarged kitchen, and two new bedrooms. Houseman asked if anyone would like to comment on this petition, there being none he asked the members for their comments. Bertaux and O’Brien had no questions regarding this petition. McLemore stated the hardship is the narrow lot, placement of the dwelling on the lot, and the addition will not encroach further on the side lot line. Ferguson had no questions. Houseman concurred with McLemore. He stated also that the lot is narrow and non-conforming and there would be no impact on the neighborhood. Ferguson: Motion to grant the variance. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion carries 5 – 0. All members in Favor. (O’Brien, Ferguson, Houseman, Bertaux and Fish) 39 Amherst Road – R-10 Zone – Lynn D. Ellison – Variance request Lynn Ellison appeared on her own behalf. She is seeking to encroach 6 feet plus or minus upon the required 20 feet front yard setback requirement with a one story attached garage addition (13’x24’). Ms. Ellison stated the existing garage was made into a family room years ago. She presented pictures of the property to the Board. She stated she was getting on in years and would like to garage her vehicle particularly in the snow and icy weather. Ellison commented that the hardship is the property slopes at the right back yard and drops off significantly. Houseman asked if anyone would like to comment on this petition, there being none he asked the members Page 5 ( Ellison cont.) for their comments. Ferguson stated he visited the site and he is not in favor of this variance. He added that she had proposed a garage and chose to make it into a family room. He commented that if a second car parked in front of the garage door, it would be sitting half way upon the sidewalk. Fish concurred with Ferguson. She suggested building the garage on the other side of the dwelling. The petitioner responded that in her slab house the furnace and the hot water tank are located on that side. O’Brien stated she thought that a parked second car would extend into the sidewalk also. McLemore stated most of these houses are alike and one car usually overhangs the sidewalk. Housman stated that he noticed all the properties have the same configuration, a right angle with a garage. He added this proposal would not change the character of the neighborhood. He stated the one concern is the decreasing of the setback in the front of the house. Ferguson asked the Building Commissioner, Timothy Brennan, to look at the plan. Ferguson then asked Brennan if you could shorten the length of the garage by four feet. Brennan responded that by shorteninganother problem would be created. Fish stated the proposed garage should be relocated perhaps by altering the front steps. O’Brien and Houseman then suggested changing the size to 21 feet by 13 feet. O’Brien added the hardship is the slope on the right side. McLemore stated the garage should be reconfigured so a variance would not be needed. He suggested postponing this case until the next schedule meeting in May. Houseman concurred with McLemore provided a waiver of time be signed. 27 High Street – R-6 Zone – Diane E.Alan – Variance Request Attorney Thomas Alexander appeared on behalf of the petitioner. He is seeking to convert an existing single family to a two family dwelling within the existing footprint of the building on a lot having 6,007 square feet where 7,000 square feet is required and having 45.50 feet of frontage where 65.00 feet is required. Alexander stated Ms. Alan purchased the house from Mr. Hackett who had owned it for over eighty years. The dwelling was built in 1920 and in 1937 a building permit was taken out for the addition of three rooms which consisted of a bedroom, living room and kitchen, for Aunt Nelly O’Brien. Alexander added that this property was recently advertised as having an in-law apartment. The dwelling has been used since 1937 as a two family, which has two zones for heat. Alexander added that there is only one access to the dwelling. The petitioner would like to delineate the second and add another bedroom and bathroom with a second means of egress to meet the present codes. The dwelling would have a new façade upon the same footprint. Alexander stated that the abutter to the left wanted a fence installed and requested the existing shed be removed. He added the hardship is the following: this is a unique property and this is a minimal request because it is within the footprint, this would be in harmony and not injurious to the neighborhood, property values would not be affected, and there would be no undue traffic. Houseman asked if anyone in the public wanted to comment on this petition, there being none he asked the Board members for their comments. Bertaux stated he was opposed to this proposal. Houseman asked if there was enough parking and stated he did not see any hardship. McLemore stated this was a non-conforming lot and also asked about the parking requirements. Aleander responded that there was a garage on site and that four parking spaces would be required. He added that piggyback parking is allowed. Fish concurred with Bertaux and stated she does not see a hardship in this proposal. Kelley stated she would not vote in favor of this petition because there is no hardship and the area is densely populated. Kelley: Motion to deny the variance. Seconded by Bertaux. Motion carries 4 – 1. Members in favor of Denial (Kelley, Bertaux, McLemore, Fish) (Houseman opposed) Page 6 4l Grover Street – R-15 Zone – Wendy Kenny – Variance Request Mr. Patrick Kenney spoke on behalf of his wife. He is seeking to allow the sub-division of a non- conforming lot containing 12,000 sq. ft. into two lots, “A” and “B”. Lot “A” will contain 10,113 sq. ft. and the exiting dwelling. Lot “B” will contain 1,843 sq. ft. and will be sold to the abutting owner at 2l Grover Street. Mr. Kenney stated that his house is the oldest on the street. He commented that he spoke to his neighbors regarding his proposal. The hardship is a portion of the land is non usuable. Houseman asked if anyone present who had any comments regarding this petition and Laurieanne Gelsomini of 21 Grover Street stated she was in favor. Houseman then asked the Board for their comments. Kelley stated that this sub-division would improve his property. She added the lot is small and irregular. The transferring of the land will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Ferguson concurred that the lot is unusually sloped and that the land transfer would allow for the land to be useful. He asked if the petitioner would later apply for any future variance regarding this property. The petitioner responded, no. Bertaux stated there was no hardship involved and that the lot was already non-conforming. Brennan stated the seller is at 21 Grover and the applicant is at 41 Grover Street, representing the seller with his undersized lot. McLemore asked if Kenney is receiving the property and applying for the variance. Kenney responded yes, and also number 21 Grover Street is applying. Houseman stated you have to be careful relating to hardship because the hardship items that have been discussed so far relate to the lot which is not the subject property of the application. Kelley: Motion to grant the variance. McLemore seconded. Motion carries 4 – 1. Members in favor (Kelley, McLemore, Houseman, and Ferguson) (Bertaux – opposed) 6 Milton Street – Mr. Shaw – Special Permit During the March 28, 2000 Board of Appeal meeting, the Board inadvertently forgot to make a motion to grant the special permit portion of the petition. Bertaux – Motion to grant the special permit. Seconded by Kelley. All four members in favor. Motion Carries 4 – 0 (Bertaux, Kelley, Ferguson, and Houseman) Page 9 ( This shall be added to the April 2000 decisions) 391 Rear Elliott Street – R-10 Zone – William Beard – Variance Request Mr. Beard appeared on his own behalf. He is seeking to create a legal lot, with zero frontage, on a public way where 100 feet is required. This lot contains 41,766 square feet and the access will be by the end of Cleveland Road. Mr. Beard presented a plan to the Board indicating that property at 391 Rear Elliott Street contained an existing dwelling and 41,776 square feet of land. The land was shown on an Assessors map in 1940 as two separate lots. He indicated that he was requesting to re-subdivide the 41,776 square feet of property into two separate lots. One lot would contain the existing dwelling with frontage upon Elliott Street. The new lot would be accessed on Cleveland Road. This new way would be extended from the existing cul-de-sac. This way was previously indicated upon a plan existing in 1940 as Cleveland Road. The road however, was never completed or extended to Elliott Street as shown on the proposed plan, because of the topographical change in grade at the level of the current cul-de-sac and existing ledge. Chairman Houseman asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this petition. David Heffernam of 12 Cleveland Road stated he was concerned about the loss of privacy if the cul-de-sac wa cut to extend the access. He wanted to know the location of the proposed house on the cul-de-sac and the extended way. Ms. Leonard of 9 Cleveland Road was concerned about the existing wetlands which were defined on Mr. Beards plan and wanted to know how he would build a house on a lot without proper frontage. Chairman Houseman then asked the Board for there questions and comments. Kelley asked if Mr. Beard resided at the dwelling located at 391 Rear Elliott Street. Mr. Beard responded, yes. She then asked when Mr. Beard purchased the lots. He answered, saying that he purchased one of the lots in 1957 containing the house and the other lot in 1961. The lots were then merged into one lot in his possession. Kelley then asked if the new frontage requirement for the proposed lot could be on Elliott Street. Beard responded that because the extensive ledge, there would be difficulty. Ferguson stated that he had no questions at this time. McLemore stated that this is not an undersized lot of record and that Section 29-5 previously mentioned by Mr. Beard, relative to frontage was not relevant but was related to requirements for “pork chop lots”. He added that in his opinion there was no section in the zoning that would allow this lot to be approved as contemplated in the plan presented. He asked further where would the house and garage be located and how would the access and frontage be made. Kelley stated that because of the topography of the lot with the steep slope from the cul-de-sac and because of the wetlands on the lot, she was opposed to this petition. She suggested Mr. Beard prepare a more definitive plan and reapply again to the Board. Bertaux stated this is a unique situation and that in any event, Beard must apply to conservation. He felt that if the proposal was adjusted that there might be the potential for acceptance. Houseman stated this is not an appropriate site for a building lot, indicating also, that there was no hardship and that he was not in favor of this petition. Ferguson concurred with Kelley and suggested Mr. Beard withdraw without prejudice and that he reapply to the Board with a new and more complete plan. Kelley: Motion to deny the variance as presented. Seconded by McLemore. The denial was failed on a vote of 3-2. McLemore: Motion to allow to withdraw without prejudice. Bertaux seconded. Motion Carries 4 – 1. (McLemore, Bertaux, Ferguson, Kelley) (Houseman opposed) Bertaux: Move to adjourn, Ferguson seconded, Motion carried 5-0 (11:20 p.m.)