Loading...
2000-11-28 CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING These minutes are not a verbatim transcript of the public hearings or public meertings 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: November 28, 2000 Place: Beverly City Hall, Council Chamber, 191 Cabot Street Board Members Present: Full Members: Chairman, Scott D. Houseman, Day Ann Kelley, (arrived @ 7:20 p.m.) Leonard J. Bertaux, Robert McLemore, (arrived at 7:40 p.m.) Alternate Members: Scott Ferguson, Margaret O’Brien, and Andrea Fish. (arrived at 7:30 p.m.) Member Absent: Martin Freeman Others Present: Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer – Tim 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 7:15 p.m. He discussed the rules for obtaining a variance and special permit. Houseman then stated that there were four holdovers from the previous month and three new cases to be heard. He commented that Board Members Day Ann Kelley and Robert McLemore would not be attending the meeting until approximately 8:00 p.m. and that Martin Freeman would be absent. 62-64 Water Street – CN Zone – Gary R. Corsetti, Trustee of the Atlantic Realty Trust-Variance Attorney Thomas Alexander spoke on behalf of Gary R Corsetti. He requested to withdraw without prejudice, the variance petition. He stated the petitioner would redesign the project and reapply in December for the January 2001 meeting. Bertaux: Motion to allow the variance to be withdrawn without prejudice. Seconded by Scott Ferguson. Motion Carries 5 – 0. All members in favor. (Bertaux, Houseman, Ferguson, O’Brien & Fish) 181 Elliott Street – IG Zone – Locate Plus . Com, Inc. Variance Request Attorney Thomas Alexander spoke on behalf of the petitioner. He requested to withdraw without prejudice, the variance petition. He stated that Locate Plus would redesign the project and resubmit. Board Member Margaret O’Brien stated that Day Ann Kelley, who was not yet present, was a member on that case previously. Chairman Houseman stated he had spoken to Attorney Alexander regarding this circumstance. O’Brien: Motion to allow the variance to be withdrawn without prejudice. Seconded by Bertaux. Motion Carries 5 – 0. All members in favor. (O’Brien, Bertaux, Houseman, Ferguson, & Fish) Page 2 377 Cabot Street – CN & R-10 Zone – Maxi Drug, Inc. (Brooks) – Variance Request Attorney Mark Glovsky spoke on behalf of the petitioner Maxi Drug, Inc. He requested to postpone the variance petition, until the January 2001 meeting. Board Member Martin Freeman was not present at the hering and Maxi Drug, Inc. would prefer to have five Board Members voting on the petition. Ferguson: Motion to continue this variance request until the January 2001 Board of Appeals meeting. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion Carries 4 –0. All members in favor. (Ferguson, O’Brien, Fish, Houseman, Chairman Houseman stated he now wanted to take a few minutes to discuss some administrative matters. He stated the Board will now discuss the Zoning Board minutes prepared for the months of May, July, September, and October of 2000. Bertaux: Motion to adopt the above minutes. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion Carries 5 – 0 All members in favor. (Bertaux, O’Brien, Houseman, Kelley, and Ferguson) 9 Riverview Street – R-10 Zone – Heather Davison – Variance Request Heather Davison spoke on her own behalf. She requested to encroach l0’-6” upon the required 15’ side yard setback and to encroach 9’ plus or minus upon the required front yard setback requirement of 20’ with an addition of a one story attached garage, (16’x22’). She stated she currently has no parking at all due to the shape and topography of the lot. With a 50 foot wide frontage and the 24 foot dwelling across the lot, there is left approximately 6 feet to the right side property line. She has two stories in front and three stories in back located on very steep grade. Houseman asked if she had any letters from the neighbors. She responded no, however, she did discuss this project with the neighbors and there were no objections. Chairman Houseman asked if any member of the public had any comments on this proposal. Maureen Troubetaris, Ward One Councilor, spoke in favor of this petition. She stated the land is very narrow and has a slope to it. She added that the street is also narrow and there is not much relief for parking. Houseman then asked the Board Members for their comments and questions. Fish stated that she sees a difference between the garage and the illustration of the garage that was sketched on the photograph regarding the four- foot doorway. Davison responded the reason for the doorway was that in the corner of the house is where their services are located. Her contractor told her she needed access to the meters. O’Brien asked the petitioner if the neighbor at 11 Riverview Street had any objections and she responded, no. Bertaux stated the hardship was the narrowness of the lot and the steepness of the grade. Ferguson concurred with Bertaux. Houseman asked Brennan if the four-foot doorway was required by code to be there. Brennan responded, no. Davison stated the main electrical meters and phone line enter here on the outside of the house. Houseman then asked Davison if her neighbor, the Salucci’s, saw the elevation drawings and she responded yes. She added that the Salucci’s also have a garage with a drop off on their lot. Bertaux: Motion to grant the variance due to the narrowness of the lot, and the steep grade in the rear of the lot. Seconded by O’Brien. Discussion: Houseman to Brennan: this is an addition to a non- conforming structure on a non –conforming lot, could there be any need for a special permit. Brennan responded he didn’t believe so. He added that the variance would carry all if there were sufficient hardship it would over rule both. Motion carries 5 –0. All members in favor. (Ferguson, Houseman, Bertaux, O’Brien & Fish) Page 3 Board Member Margaret O’Brien made a motion that the Board adopt a resolution concerning Day Ann Kelley, to be read by the Chairman. Seconded by Fish. Houseman stated he had a resolution concerning Day Ann Kelley that he would like to read into the record: Whereas l6 years of service on this Board is long enough for anyone; Whereas a member of our Board – Day Ann Kelley – has done just that; Whereas the City of Beverly is greatly indebted to her for her outstanding dedication and civic spirit; Whereas Ms. Kelley is present tonight for her last meeting as a member of this Board; and Whereas her colleagues will miss her leadership but wish to celebrate and honor her volunteer service; Therefore be it resolved that an award would be presented to Day Ann Kelley for her services. Houseman presented the award which read: To Day Ann Kelley for outstanding leadership and dedication, the City of Beverly presents this award in appreciation for l6 years of service on the Zoning Board of Appeal as a member from 1985 to the year 2000 and as Chairperson from 1995 to 1997. Day Ann Kelley thanked everyone. 7 Warren Street – R-10 Zone – Suzanne M. Underwood - Variance Request Mr. Underwood spoke on behalf of his wife Suzanne. He stated this was a hold over from the previous month. He added that the Board requested that letters from neighbors be presented and the size of the addition be reduced for this hearing. He then submitted a new plan, which reduced the size of the addition from 28’x20’ to 26’x18’. Moving it in from the left front of the house an additional 2 feet, which would now be 9 feet away from the property line, l0 ½ feet away from the garage, which was the object of concern last month. Houseman read a letter into the record the following names and addresses of neighbors in favor of the proposal: Henry Thibault of 11 Warren Street Barbara Healy of 10 Warren Street Patricia Newsome of 9 Warren Street William Hamor of 16 Warren Street Carol Rathbun of 9 Gardner Street Suzanne Standley of 13 Warren Street Resident at 141 Essex Street Jeff Glew of 139 Essex Street. Houseman asked if any member of the public had any comments on this proposal. There being none, he asked the Board Members for their comments and questions. O’Brien asked if he was reducing the addition 2 feet in width and is it coming out on the side or what. Underwood responded it’s originally one foot and we are going two more feet in. Bertaux stated he was supportive of this proposal at the previous hearing. He added the petitioner scaled down the addition and the hardship is the unusual shape of the lot. Kelley concurred with Bertaux. Houseman asked her to clarify what side the 2 feet in width would be subtracted from. Underwood responded that the two feet in width would be coming off the left side and the encroachment would be 7 feet instead of nine feet. Houseman added that he would like the revised plans submitted and explained to the Board. Kelley: Motion to grant the variance with the following changes: To encroach 7 feet plus or minus as proposed originally to the 9 feet upon the side yard setback requirement of 15 feet, with a ( 26’x18’) one Page 4 (Underwood cont.) story addition containing a bedroom and bath. She stated, based on the findings it’s an irregular triangular shaped lot and new plans should be submitted. Houseman asked for a second on the vote. Brennan stated the size was incorrect. Then he corrected himself. O’Brien asked the encroachment figures again. Underwood responded, the encroachment should be 6 feet instead of 7. Kelley stated she would amend the motion to read to encroach 6 feet plus or minus upon the required 15 feet side yard setback. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion Carries 4 – 0 (Kelley, O’Brien, Houseman, Bertaux) (Freeman absent from meeting) 6 Marsh Avenue – R-10 Zone – Roy Ferreira – Temporary Condition Permit & Variance Request Attorney George Atkins of Salem, Massachusetts spoke on behalf of the Ferreira’s. They are seeking a Temporary Conditional Permit (special permit) to allow an accessory apartment to accommodate a person (Marion Salley) to live in proximity to, but with independence from, a relative and a variance to allow the petitioner’s father, (Paul Salley) to also reside in the accessory apartment. Attorney Atkins stated the plan shows a foundation, which was a garage, they tore down. He commented that the Ferreira’s would be re- constructing the garage. He added that the in-law apartment would be located on the first floor of the Dwelling and that the Ferreira’s would live on the new two story addition above. He added the structure is nonconforming and that the first floor contained 1100 square feet. He stated there would be only one common front entrance and one bedroom on the first floor and a master bedroom on the newly proposed third floor. He added that there was enough parking on the lot for the Salley’s who have one vehicle and the Ferreira’s have two. He indicated that the hardship is not being able to care for the parents. He stated that this would not have any impact upon the neighborhood. Attorney Atkins submitted six letters in favor of the proposal with the following residents: John and Nina DeRosa of 4 Marsh Ave., Augustus Gomes Sr. and Idalia Gomes of 10 Marsh Ave., Dennis and Shirley Duggan of 7 Marsh Ave., James and Dina Gomes of 9 Marsh Ave., Cyndia Beck of 1 Marsh Ave., and Joan and Fred Binford of 4 Shore Ave. Mrs. Ferreira then introduced her father to the Board. She stated that he father has diabetes and her mother has Parkinson disease. She commented that she would like to be able to care for them in her home. She added that her husband’s father has lived in the neighborhood since the late fifty’s and that her cousins and aunt and uncle are neighbors. She added that the grandparents live four houses away. Chairman Houseman asked if any member of the public had any comments on this proposal. Maureen Troubetaris, Councilor, Ward One, spoke in favor of this proposal. She stated it would not have an adverse effect upon the area. She commented that the Ferreira’s would abide by all the city regulations pertaining to this proposal and that it would be an asset to the neighborhood. The following residents spoke in favor: Augustus Gomes, Dennis Duggan, and James Gomes. Speaking in opposition of this proposal was Linda Pellegrino of 5 Marsh Avenue, which is located directly across the street from the Ferreira’s. She stated this proposal would effect her property values and block her river views. She commented that she had just purchased the dwelling on July l, from Ferreira’s cousin Gus for the sum of $240,000, the asking price. The advertisement they put out stated breath- taking views of the river, which influenced her decision to purchase the property. The Ferreira’s presented a plan to her of their proposal, which was having the apartment above the detached garage. She commented that she was in favor of that. Then the plans changed because that was not allowed by the Zoning of Beverly. The new plan was to add one and a half stories to the existing dwelling and have the in-law apartment on the first floor. This would make the existing dwelling three stories or 11 feet higher. She commented that she spoke to two real estate brokers and they informed her that this project would greatly impact her property. She indicated that she had letters indicating this. She added that per Section 29-23 2 C3 states the alterations shall be limited to only one building, which shall be the main building on the property and any major changes shall be within the existing structure. Also, C1 states an accessory apartment may be permitted to accommodate a person to live in proximity to but with independence from a relative. She stated that the Ferreira’s own another summer home along the waterfront down the street, which they could modify for the in-laws. Ms. Pellegrino stated that the new foundation for the proposed garage is now two feet higher than the pavement. Page 5 (Ferreira cont.) Chairman Houseman then asked the Board for their questions and comments. Kelley asked if the footprint of the building would remain exactly the same and Attorney Atkins replied yes. Kelley asked Brennan if building straight up on a dwelling was allowed without a variance and Brennan responded yes. He added they were squaring off the second floor, which is also allowed because the roof constitutes a structure. The first floor will be an open porch. Kelley added that an issue that has to be resolved is #3 alterations within an existing dwelling. Bertaux stated that the Zoning Ordinance states only one relative in an in-law apartment. If they wanted to allow couples they would have written it in the ordinance. I do not support this proposal. Ferguson concurred with Bertaux. He stated three separate references to both appropriate location and character of the neighborhood, that they not to adversely affect, or be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. O’Brien stated she had nothing else to add. Houseman asked Ms. Pellegrino if the addition affected both first and second floors of her dwelling. She responded that it will inhibit the view from both floors. Houseman asked Pellegrino if the Ferreira’s did not build the garage but simply parked their vehicles on the platform foundation and not build the extension of the deck on the second floor, how would that impact the nature of her objections. She responded that would ease her concerns. However, she felt a few years later they could do something else. Houseman explained a restriction could be added to the decision. Houseman indicated he had concerns with the issue of Section 29-23-3C. He commented that the addition was large for the neighborhood and Ms. Pellegrino’s property values would be affected. Attorney Atkins stated to the Board that he would like to withdraw without prejudice. Bertaux stated he could not support a withdrawal. He added the issue is a multifamily dwelling in the R-l0 Zone is not allowed. He then stated the City Council could change this, if they wished. Kelley stated “construct the addition without the apartment and come back”. She had no problem with allowing the withdrawal. Ferguson and O’Brien concurred with Kelley. Kelley: Motion to allow the petitioner to with draw without prejudice. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion Carries 4 – l . (Bertaux in the negative.) (Kelley, O’Brien, Houseman, and Ferguson) 81 Rantoul Street – CC Zone – George Michaud/Carol Bugbee/Agents Appeal from an Administrative Decision and Variance Request Mr. Donald Reed spoke on behalf of George Michaud. He is a representative of Barlo Signs. He requested an Appeal from an Administrative Decision of the Building Commissioner in a letter dated October 10, 2000, which he determined that once a business has been removed or closed, the sign must conform to present by-laws. Also, a variance to erect (replace faces) in a freestanding sign, 40sq. ft. where 20 sq. ft. is allowed and to allow a freestanding sign where one is not allowed in a CC zone. He stated they had installed a new face on an existing free- standing sign without going through proper channels. Regarding the Administrative Decision Appeal of this petition: Mr. Reed stated that All Season’s operates their business in the building. He added that the sign was not abandoned. He commented that the owner of All Season’s is present at the hearing. Houseman stated he would like clarification for the record regarding the necessity for a variance request in this case. Houseman then read a letter from Robert Nelson, Local Inspector, directed to Jennifer, of Barlo Signs. The letter indicated that if one business replaces another, then any existing nonconforming signs may not be used by the new business. Houseman asked Mr. Reed why he was challenging the direction from Mr. Nelson as stipulated in his letter. Reed responded, I don’t know how Mr. Nelson determined All Season’s was no longer there, the building was occupied. He stated that All Season’s later leased part of the building space to Enterprise Rent A Car. John Nichols, the property owner stated he did not know the Sign Company, installed a new face on the free standing sign. He added that Enterprise Rent a Car has been leasing the space since May of 2000 and the new face on the sign was installed in August. Mr. Reed stated that they Page 6 (Michaud/Bugbee cont.) want to cooperate and adhere to the laws and the city ordinances. He indicated that the existing sign had been located there for over ten years. He added that Mr. Nichols offered to let Enterprise use the signlocation. Brennan stated that a change of business had occurred. He commented that even though Enterprise moved in, they are not allowed a freestanding sign. He added that signs for any new business moving in would have to be conforming. Once All Season’s moves, the existing sign would have to come down and no sign could remain there unless the Board grants the variance, which is the second part of the proposed petition. He added that the building does not sit 40 feet off a public way, and is not visually blocked by trees or topographical problems and therefore, this would not constitute the need for a freestanding sign. Houseman stated there is no guidance for the Board relative to whether abutters can speak in Administrative Decisions cases. He then asked the Board what they wished. Bertaux stated the hour is moving on. All Season’s is in fact an occupant and I feel there is no more issue here. Kelley stated this does impact the neighborhood. After a discussion, Houseman stated that the abutters would not be heard. Housman then asked Mr. Brennan if he was withdrawing the statement in the letter from Mr. Nelson. Brennan responded yes. He commented that the business and sign was there for many years. Regarding the Variance part of this proposal: Mr. Reed stated Enterprise Rent A Car wanted to change the face of the sign, they were not going to raise or lower it. A picture was submitted of the proposed sign, which reflected the new tenant of the building. He added that Mr. Nichol’s still owns the sign and that he’s allowing them to change the face as per Section 26 – non-conforming uses. Reed then stated that he did not know if a variance or special permit were need in this proposal. Houseman responded it was a matter of procedure as depending upon what has been advertised was needed. Therefore, a special permit could not be discussed with the Board. Houseman asked Brennan if a special permit were appropriate in this matter. Brennan responded, in general, a variance would be required because Enterprise is not allowed a freestanding sign. Kelley concurred with Brennan. Fish asked if limitations on time could be placed on a variance and Houseman responded yes. Chairman Houseman asked if any member of the public had any comments on this proposal. Diane Rogers read a letter from Gateway Condominium Association of 50-60 Rantoul Street, which stated opposition to the proposal. Paul Fitzgerald, Trustee of Gateway, then spoke. He stated Gateway was no longer opposed to this petition whereas there was a mistake in the size of the sign on the advertisement. Margaret Blotcher of 60 Rantoul Street, Unit 305 stated she had resided there for ten years and that the petitioner’s have been a good neighbor and she is in favor. Rosemary Maglio of 35 Pleasant Street spoke in opposition. She stated the sign should conform to the zoning ordinance. She added there was no hardship and if granted, others would make the same request. Margaret O’Brien speaking as a member of the public of the Design Review Board, she felt the Board would not be in favor of this proposal. Mr. Reed stated that basically he had two choices, the sign stays as it is or the sign can be changed. The hardship is the uniqueness of the sign, the fact that the sign is grand-fathered, the age of the sign, and the fact we just want to make it look nicer and provide the identy of our tenant. Fish stated to Brennan there are two businesses in this building, are there any provisions that allowed two signs. Brennan responded a sign is allowed on the building facade. He added, if they fit the criteria for a freestanding sign there could be two names on the sign. Fish responded since they don’t fit the criteria why didn’t they leave the wall sign on the building. John Nichol’s, the owner of the building, stated he did not like the wall sign and would not let Enterprise install it. Bertaux stated one purpose of the sign ordinance is to ultimately remove non-conforming signs therefore, he would not grant this variance. McLemore stated the intent of the ordinance is that All Season’s use their existing free standing sign and when they vacate the location, the non-conforming sign must come down. He added that he was not in favor of the variance. Kelley concurred with McLemore. She then stated they might propose something on a smaller scale. Houseman stated it is obvious to him that the Design Review Board would not find this appropriate. He informed Mr. Reed that there were not sufficient votes here to grant the variance. Page 7 ( Bugbee cont.) McLemore: Motion to grant the variance. Seconded by Kelley. Motion does not carry 0 -5 (Houseman, Bertaux, Fish, McLemore, & Kelley) Discussion: Fish stated a special permit would not be as permanent as a variance and it would die if Enterprise ever moved. Houseman stated he would certainly not want the phone number on the sign. Motion to adjourn by McLemore 10:00 p.m.