Loading...
2000-09-26 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: September 26, 2000 Place: Beverly City Hall, Council Chamber, 191 Cabot Street Board Members Present: Full Members: Chairman, Scott D. Houseman, Robert McLemore, Day Ann Kelley, (arrived @ 8:30 p.m., left @ 11:30 p.m.) Leonarad J. Bertaux, and Martin Freeman. ( left @ 7:30) Alternate Members: Scott Ferguson, ( left @ 10:45) Margaret O’Brien, and Andrea Fish. 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 by introducing the Board Members to the public and discussing the rules for obtaining a variance and special permit. Houseman commented that there were five holdovers from the previous months and six new cases to be heard tonight. The William LeBlanc holdover, regarding Ocean View /Simsbury Assoc., located at 3 Essex Street will be heard later on in the evening because Board Member Day Ann Kelley would not be present until approximately 8:30 p.m. 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 is requesting a continuance of the public hearing on the variance petition, to the next scheduled meeting of the Board of appeal on October 24, 2000. O’Brien: Motion to grant the continuance. Seconded by Freeman. All members in favor. (O’Brien, Freeman, McLemore, Houseman, and Bertaux) 6 Arlington Avenue – R-l0 Zone – Jill K. Davidson – Variance Request Attorney Thomas Alexander spoke on behalf of Jill K. Davidson. He is requesting to withdraw without prejudice her petition for a variance, which was continued from the July 25, 2000 meeting. Alexander commented that the Davidson’s purchased another home. Page 2 Freeman: Motion to allow the petition of Jill Davidson to be withdrawn. Seconded by McLemore. All Members in favor. Motion Carries 5 – 0. (Freeman, McLemore, Ferguson, Houseman, and Bertaux) 6 Eagle Lane – R-15 Zone – Roland Caron – Variance Request Mr. Caron’s case was held over from the August 22, 2000 Board of Appeals Meeting. He is seeking to encroach 16 feet plus or minus upon the required 25 feet rear yard setback with an 18’x20’ one story addition, which will contain a den/study. He stated that he and his neighbors Laurie J. Hartmen and Theodore P. Leigh had settled their differences. Diane Rogers read a letter from Laurie J. Hartmen stating that they were now in support of this variance, conditioned upon a change in the Caron’s proposal. The plans will now position the one-story addition at least 15 feet from the Hartmen/Leigh property line. Mr. Caron submitted new revised plans. Houseman asked if any member of the public had any comments on this proposal. There being none, he asked the Board for their questions and comments. Freeman stated that he had no questions. McLemore stated that the revised plans did not show the elevations. O’Brien and Ferguson stated they had no questions. However, they did comment that all the neighbors were now in favor of this proposal. Houseman stated that the nine feet encroachment will now be 15 feet from the neighbors lot line, by locating the addition further back in the rear. Ferguson: Motion to grant the variance because of the shape of the lot, and the positioning of the house on the land. Also, the structure will not come any closer than 15 feet to the Hartman/Leigh property line. Seconded by McLemore. All members in favor. Motion Carries 5 – 0 (Ferguson, McLemore, Freeman, Houseman, and O’Brien) 38 Front Street - RMD Zone – Dennis Corbett Appeal From An Administrative Decision Attorney Jacqueline Voss Lees of l7 Front Street in Salem, spoke on behalf of Mr. Corbett. She stated that this is An Appeal from an Administrative Decision of the Building Commissioner’s regarding letters dated May 17, 2000 and June 6,2000, relative to erecting a fence. This case was continued from the July 25, 2000 Board of Appeal meeting. Attorney Lees distributed information packets to the Board which were not submitted with the application. She then stated, that the basis of her appeal is that the Building Inspectors’ two letters of May 17 and June 6, making a determination to remove the fence is arbitrary, capricious and outside his scope of authority. She commented that there are several facts to prove this. Last year the Corbett’s were going to erect a fence along the side boundary line from Front Street back to Cottage Lane. They discussed their plan with Mr. and Mrs. Devlin, the abutting neighbors. However, the Devlin’s told them that they were removing part of their house, which would leave an open gap. The Corbett’s then decided to expand the fence all the way. Mr. Corbett went to the Building Department and Mr. Nelson told him no permit was needed. Mr. Corbett hired Budget Fence Company to erect the fence. They also stated that a building permit would not be needed. She commented that the Devlin’s did not complain when the fence was being erected. In April, Mr. Jennings called the Corbett’s and stated that he had sent a letter in October relative to the fence installation. The Corbett’s thought it was a strange call because they had never received the October 6th letter. A few days following, Mrs. Corbett found a man taking measurement of her fence. She asked the man if he represented the City of Beverly and he responded no, your neighbor doesn’t like your fence. Attorney Lee’s then added that the Local Inspector John Jennings of the Building Department informed her client by letter, dated May l7, 2000, that this letter was a follow up on the notice Mr. Corbett received from the Building Department Inspector’s office on October 6, 2000 Page 3 (Corbett cont.) th which stated there was a problem with the fence her client had erected. On May 18 Mrs. Corbett went to the Building Department to obtain a building permit application. A few days later Attorney Lee’s went to the Building Department to take out the fence permit. She commented that she would like to see the survey that was done. The Inspector stated that it was confidential. Another letter was received on June 6, 2000 that stated their application for a permit to erect a fence was denied because sufficient information has been presented to the Building Department that the boundaryline between 36 and 38 Front Street was in question. She added that Mr. Jennings added that when the boundary line in question has been clearly staked and a plan certified by a Massachusetts land surveyor has been presented to the Building Department by the applicant, the afore mentioned application will then be approved for a fence permit. Lee’s added that if there were an encroachment, it would be a small amount. Lee’s stated that they later learned that Inspector Nelson uses a garage owned by the Devlin’s, as a work shop and is friends with Mr. Devlin. She added that this was a concern to them because there might be some impure motivation because of their connection. Lee’s stated that enforcement action has not been taken on other fences that have been erected without a building permit. Attorney Lee’s also stated that she had spoken with Marshall Handly, the City of Beverly’s Solicitor. He informed her that Commissioner Brennan has spoken briefly to him regarding this matter. Lee’s added that she would like to have the Board revoke the Building Commissioner’s determination on this matter. Houseman asked if any member of the public had any comment of this proposal. There being none, he asked the Board Members for their questions and comments. Bertaux asked whom this hearing concerned. Houseman responded, The Building Department office, the Corbett’s and the Devlin’s, if the Board so chooses. Brennan stated the original letter of October 6, 2000 was sent out by regular mail. Someone called the office asking about a permit at 38 Front Street. Brennan found the iron bands on the street line and it looked as though the fence was encroaching. An instrument survey was done which showed it did encroach and that the Building Office was correct in ordering the Corbett’s to move the fence back to their property line. Bertaux asked if the Corbett’s erected a fence without a building permit. Brennan responded yes. Bertaux then asked if a letter was sent to the Corbett’s asking them to take out a fence permit. Brennan responded yes. Then in May the Building Department sent out another letter directing the Corbett’s to remove the fence? Brennan responded, yes. Then in June you asked the Corbett’s to come in to obtain a permit. However, the Corbett’s had no survey done, therefore a building permit could not be taken out, am I correct? Brennan responded, yes. Bertaux then added that in June a survey was prepared by Michael Bovio, showing the fence was encroaching. Bertaux then stated we ought to dispense with this matter and uphold the Building Commissioners decision. Houseman stated he wanted to see the survey. Ferguson stated he measured it himself, along Front Street from the exiting iron pin on the corner of South and Front Street and found it to be 92.4 feet and the plan shows 92.6 feet. He commented that would attest that the measurement along the front is correct. Therefore, the same plan and scale would lead him to believe the 88.35 feet where the encroachment is, in fact is also accurate. McLemore asked Brennan if he could build a fence right on the property line and Brennan replied yes. O’Brien stated she did not see the survey and asked how much it was in error. Brennan responded, by 7/10 of a foot. Bertaux asked what the date of the survey was and Houseman responded August 28, 2000. McLemore asked if the Historic Commission has any governing in this matter and Brennan responded no. McLemore added the Corbett’s erected a fence without a building permit or survey, which is their obligation. O’Brien asked who did the survey and Brennan responded, the Devlin’s. O’Brien then asked the Corbett’s why they didn’t have a survey done and Attorney Lees responded that they wanted to share the cost with the Devlin’s and Mrs. Corbett stated they never got back to them. Attorney Lees stated that on September Page 4 ( Corbett’s cont.) th 19 she received a plot plan sent to her office from Inspector Jennings. Since that time she called Meridian Survey in Danvers and another company in Cambridge. McLemore asked if Attorney Lee’s was questioning Mr. Bovio’s survey. Houseman stated he consulted with a professional surveyor and determined that the plan before the Board was a full instrument survey. Therefore, the Board is bound by the survey, which in this case shows an encroachment. Houseman stated he feels that the portion of the fence that is encroaching must be taken down. He added that the Corbett’s should get a survey done or talk to Michael Bovio to see if he could pay him a fee to use his survey. Bertaux commented that if the Corbett’s hired a surveyor before it came to this it would have saved a lot of time, trouble and expense in this matter. Attorney Lee’s commented thank you for you advice. Bertaux responded that your clients could use some good advice, frankly councilor. He added that he didn’t think they are getting it from her. Houseman stated that that comment was out of order and all persons before the Board and on the Board must be civil with each other. Bertaux: Motion to Uphold the Building Commissioners Decision. Seconded by Ferguson. Motion carries 5 –0 All members in favor. ( Bertaux, Ferguson, McLemore, Houseman, And O’Brien) 14 Farms Lane – R-45 Zone – Donald B. Thompson Mr. and Mrs. Thompson spoke on their own behalf. They are seeking to encroach 7 feet plus or minus upon the required 20 feet side yard setback with a (23’-8” by 25’) two story addition with a farmers porch; for the purpose of a family room on the first floor and a study on the second floor. Mrs. Thompson stated the existing building already encroaches on the required side yard setback. She added that the new two-story addition will align on the existing side of the building where the encroachment already occurred. A further encroachment of 7 feet plus or minus upon the required 20 feet side yard setback will occur where the farmers porch abuts the two story addition. Mr. Thompson submitted two letters to the Board in favor of this petition. Diane Rogers read these letters into the record from Evelyn A. Sjoberg of 16 Farms Lane and Carol and Bill Maciel of 10 Farms Lane. Chairman Houseman asked if any member of the public had any comments on this proposal. There being none, he asked the Board for their questions and comments. Bertaux stated he thought the petitioner’s had ample land to do this addition without a variance. Mr. Thompson responded not the way the house layed out. Mrs. Thompson stated that the living room is off the kitchen and the kitchen is on the right side of the dwelling and they would also have to move the driveway. Fish asked if the porch was in the back and the owner responded yes. Fish asked if the design could be different so as not to encroach and the owner responded yes. Fish commented why does it have to project to the side three feet? Mrs. Thompson stated that the access into the mud -room occurs at the three feet side extension. McLemore stated the house is non-conforming in a couple of portions but the three feet jog encroachment should not be there. He added the main body of the addition is ok but the entry door should be taken out and put at the rear. He then stated that the steps and entrance should be relocated accordingly. O’Brien concurred with McLemore. She stated she would be in favor of this petition if they eliminated the three- foot jog. She added that the house is placed at the end of the lot, which creates a hardship. Houseman stated the house is in the corner of this lot, which creates a hardship for them. However, he agrees, that the three- foot section could be eliminated. That way this would reduce the encroachment four feet out of the twenty feet setback required. This would grant the least relief. McLemore: Motion that the application be granted based upon the hardship of an unusual placing of the structure on the lot and that the new construction not extend any further than the westerly side of the house. ( the encroachment will not exceed 4 feet) Seconded by O’Brien. Bertaux stated a change should be made in the motion. It should say the addition on the side yard encroachment not encroach any further than the existing structure. Motion carries 5 – 0 All members in favor. (Bertaux, McLemore, O’Brien, Houseman, and Fish) Page 5 (Wm. Leblanc) Re: 3 Essex Street – CC Zone – William Leblanc An Appeal of an Administrative Decision Attorney Peter Gilmore spoke on behalf on Mr. William LeBlanc. This is an Appeal of an Administrative Decision of the Building Commissioner not to enforce a variance obtained by Simsbury Assoiates, of 3 Essex Street, / Oceanview Assisted Living Facility. Gilmore stated a condition relating to the construction of the roof line and the conclusion of a façade to conceal and to provide some sound proofing for the mechanicals. Gilmore commented that he had not seen any plans of the building. However, he submitted some photographs that show the view of the building as constructed, to compare to the plan that was submitted. He added the roof line on the west side is identical, the roof line on the right side does not include the facade. He then stated there was a photograph of the roof as it exists today, with the illegal non permanent box structure. Gilmore also showed a picture of the Beverly Public Library which showed the mechanicals are hidden. He commented that that was how this building should look. Attorney Gilmore’s final statement was that the relief Mr. Leblanc is seeking, is for the Zoning Board to instruct the Building Commissioner to order the owners of the property of 3 Essex Street to construct the roof line in accordance with the plan that was submitted in support of the variance application. Houseman stated the Building Commissioner was ordered to ask the City Solicitor to comment on this matter or appear. Mr. Brennan replied that office declined the invitation of the Board to appear or comment . Likewise the Attorney and Architect of Simsbury have declined to produce plans or discuss this. Houseman feels they don’t want to comment to this Board. Houseman stated that the Board must make a finding if the plan in front of them, submitted by Attorney Gilmore, is the plan submitted at the hearing and to the neighbors on the decision hearing dated February 27, 1996 referencing “as shown on plans” or “special permit as requested”. Therefore, he is voting for Mr. LeBlanc’s Appeal to be Upheld. Kelley stated that there was a height variance granted on the building for a penthouse, when she was present. She saw the plans at that time and will base her vote on that recollection. McLemore had no questions at this time. Fish stated she was not on the Board at that time however, she feels there was a switch in this case and Simsbury Assoc. did not act honestly. Fish: Motion that Mr. LeBlanc’s Appeal be upheld. Seconded by Kelley. Motion carries 4 – 0 Brennan suggested the Board direct him to put forward an order to enforce this. (Kelley, Houseman, McLemore, and Fish) 37 Hathaway Avenue – R-15 Zone – David Keenan – Special Permit & Variance David Keenan spoke on his own behalf. He is seeking a special permit to construct an attached two -car garage (22’x26’) with bedrooms above, encroaching six feet plus or minus upon the front yard setback of 30 feet. Also, a variance to encroach 6’ plus or minus upon the required front yard setback of 30’ with the construction of an attached two-car garage with bedrooms above. Mr. Keenan stated that his house contained 1100 square feet in area, which is a very small dwelling. He has one child and would like to increase his family’s size. However, he would need two more bedrooms and baths. Chairman Houseman asked if any member of the public had any comments on this proposal. Mr. George Tingley, an abutter, of 3 Robinson Road, asked if the Board could guarantee that Mr. Keenan would not park his commercial trucks in the proposed new garage. He commented that he did not know why the proposed garage doors would be over seven feet in height. Mr. Tingley stated that he would not be opposed to this petition, provided that only residential vehicles were parked in the garage. Page 6 (Keenan cont.) Houseman stated to the Board that this case requires a Section 6 finding, a special permit. He submitted to the Board copies of the state zoning law and city bylaw, relative to pre-existing non-conforming uses, structures and lots. He commented that zoning ordinances or bylaws shall not apply to alteration, reconstruction, extension, or structural change to a single- family residential structure that does not increase the nonconforming nature of said structure. He added a “Section 6 finding” is a determination that the proposed change, extension or alteration is not substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure or use to the neighborhood. Houseman then asked the Board Members for their questions and comments. Fish stated that she believed the side yard setback would also be encroaching upon the 15 feet setback. Brennan responded, no, and offered Ms. Fish a slide ruler. Brennan stated Mr. Keenan would need a special permit and Houseman concurred. McLemore stated that this will be a two- story addition and he feels this is too large for the lot and the neighborhood. Kelley stated that the plans don’t show her what this will look like or the impact to the neighborhood. O’Brien asked Mr. Keenan where he would be parking his commercial trucks. He responded, at his garage on Pond Street. He added that previously he did come home sometimes at 4:00 a.m. and parked his vehicle in his driveway. He explained that he does work for the City of Beverly and gets called out at various hours. Houseman stated commercial trucks should not be parked in a residential neighborhood. He asked Keenan where his bucket trucks would be parked and Keenan responded, at his Pond Street location. He commented that he recently purchased a four- door truck and would now park that in his new garage. Fish asked what the square footage of the lot was. Brennan responded 120’x75’, approximately 8,800 in area. Fish stated the size of this addition was too large for the lot. She added that this was detrimental to the neighborhood. Keenan stated there was a $500,000 house located in back of his property. Brennan stated that he agrees with Houseman that this petition does not require a variance. O’Brien: Motion to withdraw without prejudice the variance portion of this petition. Seconded by Kelley. Motion carried 5 – 0. All members in favor. Houseman stated he would like a motion on the special permit portion of this petition. Kelley stated she had no questions. Fish stated that she had no questions on the special permit portion of the petition. Houseman stated that there are single story houses in the neighborhood, however, there is a large house behind Mr. Keenan’s lot. O’Brien stated she did not see the large house behind Mr. Keenan’s on her site visit, however, if it is there, this petition now applies to the Section 6 Finding on a special permit. The requirements are the following: that the specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use, that the character of adjoining uses will not be adversely affected, that no factual evidence is found that property values in the district will be adversely affected by such use, that no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result, that adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation and maintenance of the proposed use, that there are no valid objections from abutting property owners based on demonstrable fact and that adequate and appropriate City services are or will be available for the proposed use. Kelley: Motion to allow the special permit. Seconded by Fish. Motion carries 5 – 0 All members in favor. (Kelley, Fish, Houseman, O’Brien & McLemore) Lot 2 Carleton Avenue – R-l0/CN Zone - Thomas Carnevale – Variances Requested Attorney Thomas Alexander spoke on behalf of the petitioner, Thomas Carnevale. He is seeking to construct a minimum width house 24 feet, which will encroach 4 ½ feet upon the front yard setback and 4 ½ feet upon the rear yard setback requirement of 25’. Alexander stated that the lot was conforming dimensionally to the requirements of the R-10 zone relative to area and frontage. He indicated that the lot was located in two zones specifically the R-10 and CN Zone. He further stated that the CN Zone line could be shifted 50 feet toward Bridge Street to enlarge and allow the lot to be utilized adequately for the R-10 use proposed. He indicated further that the lot was not subject to wetland considerations because it was in excess of 120 feet from such vegetation, as surveyed by L.E.C. Environmental Systems. Alexander stated that the petitioner is seeking to construct a 1 ½ story house, Page 7 (Carnevale cont.) 24’x36’ with a two car garage beneath with a deck located in the rear. He added that the building would be sited on the lot as shown on the site plan presented. Alexander stated that due to the size and depth of the lot and its shape, that he is requesting only a minimum relief. He commented that since the property is also zoned CN, it could be utilized for commercial office use as opposed to the residential use requested. Chairman Houseman asked if any member of the public had any comments on this proposal. Marjorie E. Prechia of 9 Roderick Avenue stated the dwelling would be to close to her back yard and she had concerns with the wetlands on the site. Anthony DeLorenzo of 14 Doane Avenue stated he was opposed to this petition. Maureen Troubetaris, Councilor, Ward One, spoke against the granting of the petition. She stated that Carleton Avenue is only paved 24 feet wide where 40 feet is required. She added that the home would be too close to Roderick Avenue. Also, the sewer line would have to require pumping to reach the main and there is no water line that she knows of. She stated that this request is for financial gain only as the petitioner is not the owner of the land. She commented that the City is now protecting the rights of the contractor rather than the citizens. John Stilwell of 3 Carleton Avenue stated that he built his house two years ago and at that time he was informed by the City of Beverly that Carleton Avenue was a paper street and a private way. He consequently paved the street 24 feet wide to his property, which was allowed by the city, as his house was the only house on the proposed street. He indicated that he explored the potential of acquiring additional property to reduce the cost of paving the road. It was determined that these lots were unbuildable and he opted to proceed and the house would be the only one on the dead end private street. He also sent a letter to the Board delineating the circumstances involving the construction on Carleton Avenue. Chairman Houseman then asked the Board Members for their comments and questions. Bertaux asked why there was so much opposition to this proposal and if the petitioner spoke to the neighbors. Alexander responded that Mr. Carnevale did go to the neighbors and he then adjusted the location of the house toward Bridge Street in the CN Zone. Fish asked what the square footage of the remaining parcel of land would be after Mr. Doane subdivided it ten years ago and sold a lot to Mr. John Frates. She concurred with Councilor Troubetaris that this proposal is of financial gain to Mr. Doane and that there is no hardship on the property. Kelley asked who owned the street. Brennan responded that it was a private street, not maintained by the city. Kelley then asked how wide the street was. Alexander responded it’s a 40’ layout, pavement width is less. Kelley then stated that the lot is oddly shaped and in excess of the required l0,000 square feet area and a person has a right to use the lot and she is in favor. She commented that she is concerned with all the neighborhood opposition. Ferguson asked Alexander if any offer was made to Mr. Stilwell to defer the cost of his road. Alexander responded that the petitioner only stated that he would not tear up the road. Ferguson added that he would like to protect the abutter’s property with some kind of a screening adjoining their property. Houseman believes the lot has a hardship because of the character of its shape and location. He stated, however, that he likewise is concerned about the neighborhood opposition. John Stilwell of 3 Carleton Avenue stated that he wished that when he built the road that he could have shared the expense of $15,000 with another user. Attorney Alexander then resolved with John Stilwell that his client, Thomas Carnevale and the owner, Mr. Doane, would be willing to compensate him for half of his cost. Ferguson asked Stilwell if this alleviates his concerns on this project. Stilwell responded he couldn’t really say. He stated he would have to talk with his wife. Ferguson stated that the proposed deck would encroach 3 ½ feet on the rear lot line. Kelley concurred. It was then resolved by Alexander to reduce the deck to 10 feet and relocate it to the side of the dwelling as proposed by Kelley and Houseman. Kelley stated that a 3 to 4 foot stoop on the rear of the house could replace the deck for egress purposes. Kelley: Motion to grant the variance with the following conditions: 1. That except as modified by this decision, the building construction shall substantially and materially comply with and be no larger than shown on plans submitted to the Board. The plans are dated 9-14-95 and revised 7-ll-00 and prepared by Guy Page 8 (Carnevale cont.) Messier-Residential Design. 2. That no deck be constructed on the front or rear of the house. Any deck shall be constructed on the side of the house and shall not extend beyond the front or rear line of the house. 3. That the rear stoop shall measure no more than 3-4 feet 4. That the land on the south side of the property shall be undisturbed and left in its natural vegetation for a distance of 40 feet from the southern property line. 5. That no cutting of trees larger than 6 inches in diameter shall be permitted beyond the distance of 25 feet north of the house. 6. That prior to construction the applicant shall provide Mr. John Stillwell of 3 Carleton Avenue, one half of his cost of the roadway construction ($7,500). 7. A continuous evergreen screening shall be planted and maintained along the rear property of the house. The trees must be at least 6 feet high when planted. Ferguson seconded the motion with amendments. He stated: that at least six of the existing trees remain and to the rear, the space between the trees be a screen of arborvitae’s. Houseman stated a 6 feet high screening of evergreens shall be installed and maintained with a trunk diameter of 6” calipers. Bertaux stated he did not want a restriction on the decision regarding the type of pavement for the driveway. Attorney Alexander then stated that a catch basin would be installed to collect runoff from the driveway. Variances granted. 4 –1. (Kelley, Houseman, Bertaux, & Ferguson)(Fish opposed) 2 Thomas Road – R-22 Zone – David E. Overberg – Variance Request Mr. Overberg spoke on his own behalf. He is seeking to encroach 4’-6” plus or minus upon the required side yard setback of 15’ with the construction of a 9’-6” by 30’ covered porch, one story high. He submitted plans of his proposal to the Board Members. He stated that his lot is narrow and that it abuts City property, along Cole Street. He added that he proposed to buy some of the city land but Councilor Murray indicated it was a complex thing to do. Overberg stated there was a strip of land allocated for a future sidewalk. Also, there is a cemetery on the opposite side on Cole Street. He then stated that the hardship is the placement of the dwelling on the lot. He added that there is limited space on the side abutting the city property on Cole Street. He hired Architect, David Jaquith, to review his plans. Jaquith indicated he had no other suggestions. Chairman Houseman asked if any member of the public had any comments on this proposal. There being none, Diane Rogers read into the record 17 names of neighbors who sent in post cards stating that they were in favor of this petition. Houseman then asked the Board for their questions and comments. Bertaux stated the property was very nice. However, there is plenty of land available, why is a variance necessary? Overberg responded, they want to extend the existing porch because it only fits two or three people. The expansion for this proposal would not be practical if directed to the rear. Kelley stated there would be no impact on the neighborhood. She added that the hardship would be the location of the building of the site. She commented that she was in favor of this proposal. McLemore stated he would like to grant the variance. The hardship is the location of the house on the lot and it’s a reasonable use of the property. O’Brien and Houseman concurred with McLemore. McLemore: Motion to grant the variance. Seconded by Kelley. All members in favor. Motion carries 5-0. (McLemore, Kelley, Houseman, O’Brien,& Bertaux) Page 9 718 Rear Cabot Street – R-45 Zone – David Mitchell – Variance Request Chairman Houseman stated that the hour was late (ll:30 p.m.) and he suggested that this case be Continued until the next schedule meeting October 24, 2000. Mr. Mitchell commented that he would sign a waiver of time and continue his case next month. McLemore: Motion to continue this case until the October 24, 2000 meeting. Provided that Mr. Mitchell sign a waiver of time document. Seconded by Fish. Motion carries 5 – 0 18l Elliott Street – IG Zone – Locate Plus, Com. Inc. – Variance Request Attorney Thomas Alexander requested this case be continued until the next meeting October 24, 2000 because of the late hour. He commented he would sign the waiver of time document. McLemore: Motion to continue this case until the October 24, 2000 meeting. Attorney Alexander Signed a waiver of time. Seconded by Bertaux. All members in favor. Motion carries 5 – 0 (Bertaux, Houseman, McLemore, Fish, and O’Brien) Meeting Adjourned 11:45 p.m. . .