Loading...
2000-07-25 CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS PUBLICMEETING MINUTES These minutes are not a verbatim transcript of the public hearings or public meetings of the Zoning Board of Appeal. Reviews of this discussion or outcome of public hearings should include an examination of the Board’s decision for that hearing. Board: Zoning Board of Appeal Date: July 25, 2000 Place: Beverly City Hall, Council Chamber, 191 Cabot Street Board Members Present: Full Members: Chairman, Scott Houseman, Robert McLemore, Day Ann Kelley. (left after 5 cases) Alternate Members: Margaret O’Brien, Scott Ferguson, and Andrea Fish. Others Present: Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer – Timothy Brennan, Clerk of the Board – Diane Rogers, and Assistant City Planner – Debra Hurlburt Board Members Absent: Leonard J. Bertaux, Martin Freeman Chairman Houseman, opened the meeting by introducing the Board Members to the public and discussing the rules for obtaining a variance. 15 Kernwood Heights, R-10 Zone, Joseph and Carol Stacey -Variance – Request Mr. Stacey spoke on his own behalf. He is seeking to sub-divide an existing lot containing 18,622 sq. ft. into two lots, Lot “A” containing 11,405 s. f., with the exiting dwelling and garage, and Lot “B” to contain 7,217 s. f. for a buildable lot. The frontage on Lot “B” will be 72.2 feet where 100 feet is required. He added that his family is grown and his wife Carol would like to construct a small house on Lot “B” for themselves. He added, that most of the lots on his street contained only 6,000 sq. feet and his proposed lot would be 7,217 sq. feet. 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. Page 2 ( Stacey cont.) Fish stated that the property has a shortage of area also along with the frontage encroachment. She asked the petitioner if he owned any other properties on the street and Mr. Stacey responded yes, 15 and 17 Kernwood Heights. O’Brien asked if lot “A” was a bed and breakfast and Mr. Stacey, responded yes, he had been running it for 10 years now. McLemore stated that he saw no hardship for this petition. Houseman stated that this is a hard case. He added that he finds no reasonable hardship. He commented that the property is beautiful, however, even though several lots on the street are smaller than this proposed lot, the Zoning Ordinance changed. Houseman then stated that to allow this would be for the intent of financial gain. He added that the Stacey’s have income from the bed and breakfast they operate. Houseman explained to the petitioner that the topography of the land is flat and square, which would not require a hardship finding. Mrs. Stacey stated that she did not understand what Houseman stated regarding financial gain. She added that she likes the neighborhood and does not want to move. She commented that she did not want to move into her bed and breakfast property. Ferguson concurred with Houseman. Ferguson: Motion to grant the variance. Seconded by McLemore. Motion did not carry 5 – 0 Denied ( Houseman, McLemore, Ferguson, Fish and O’Brien) 9 Paradise Road, – R-15 Zone – Paul Nasser – Variance Request ( Day Ann Kelley will Chair this case ) Mr. Nasser spoke on his own behalf. He is seeking to encroach 5’ plus or minus upon the required 30’ front yard setback and to encroach l5’ plus or minus upon the required 25’ rear yard setback, with a 22’x53’-6” two story addition that will have an attached two car garage and family room on the first level and a master bedroom and office on the second level. Mr. Nasser stated the hardship was the shape of his land and the way it slopes to the left-hand side. He added that the lot is also pie -shaped. He could not build on the right hand side because that too has limitations. He commented that he considered building a two -car garage under, however, he has a high water level. Nasser added that he has the smallest lot in the eleven -lot sub-division and that almost every neighbor had at least a one -car garage. He stated there would be no increase in traffic, water, or sewer. He added he worked with an architect and would require a variance no matter where he placed the addition because of the placement of the existing dwelling on the lot. He commented that his house is 10 feet from the rear yard setback. Mr. Nasser stated that he spoke to his neighbors regarding this proposal. Chairman Houseman, asked if anyone from the public would like to comment of this petition, there being none, he asked the Board Members for their comments and questions. O’Brien stated she had no questions, however, she commented that the lot is odd shaped. McLemore asked how many square feet the lot contained and Nasser responded l0, 050. McLemore commented the lot was unusual. Fish had no questions. Ferguson asked the petitioner if 12 Paradise Road was located next door to the left and Nasser responded yes, Mr. Davis. Ferguson stated the proposed addition was 30% larger than any house there and he was opposed to this because it would spoil the character of the neighborhood. McLemore stated all the neighborhood houses have garages and this lot is unusual in size, which is a hardship. McLemore: Motion to grant the variance. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion did not carry 3 – 2 Denied ( McLemore, O’Brien, Houseman,) (Opposed was Ferguson and Fish) Page 3 (M. Acciavati cont.) 311 Essex Street – R-15 Zone – Michael Acciavatti – Variance Request (owned by Kenneth B. Nelson) Mr. Acciavatti spoke on his own behalf. He is seeking to allow the sub-division of a non-conforming lot containing 13,223 ft. located at 3ll Essex St. into two lots, A &B. Lot “A” will contain 1,495 feet and will be sold to the abutting owner Mr. Michael Acciavatti at 309 Essex Street and Lot “B” at 311 Essex Street will contain 11,788 ft. and the existing dwelling. Mr. Acciavatti stated that nothing will be built upon on the proposed extra land. He added that he will now have a 5 foot drive-way addition and will landscape the area. He commented that Essex Street is very busy and that during the 18 years he has lived there, he has been hit three times leaving his driveway in his vehicle. Chairman Houseman asked if any member of the public had any comments on this proposal, there being none, he asked the Board Members for their questions and comments. Kelley stated that there are two non-conforming lots. She added that the petitioner has 75 feet of frontage presently and with an additional 10 feet, they will now have 85 feet. Kelley then stated the other lot would have 79 ft. of frontage. She believes the hardship is living on Essex Street, where there is a great deal of traffic. Fish asked where the house was located and how far it was from the lot line. Acciavatti responded the house was 14’ from the lot line. McLemore stated that small parcels sometimes change hands for future development. Acciavatti responded that the only thing he has done to his property was to construct a garage, in 1988. McLemore added that he did view the site and he agreed there is a great deal of traffic there. O’Brien stated that she had no questions at this time. Houseman stated this is a minimal request. He commented that the long narrow shape of the lot and the traffic, constitute a hardship. Fish asked the petitioner if he requested an easement from the Planning Board and he responded yes, I filled out an A & R plan but was informed that I could not do it. Kelley: Motion to approve the variance on the lot Seconded by O’Brien. Motion passed on a vote of 5 – 0. (Kelley, O’Brien, McLemore, Fish, & Houseman) All members in favor. 391 Rear Elliott Street – R-10 Zone – William Beard – Variance Request Mr. William Beard spoke on his own behalf. He is seeking to sub-divide the existing lot into two lots, Lot “A” containing 16,620 sq. feet and the existing dwelling and Lot “B” will contain 41,776 sq. feet with 26’ of frontage on an unconstructed cul-de-sac off Cleveland Road. Mr. Beard stated that he was dissatisfied with the advertisement for his petition as written by the Building Commissioner. He went on to say that 39l Elliott Street is a conforming lot since 1943. He would like to build a single family dwelling with an access at the end of Cleveland Road. He believes this would be the most reasonable plan that would not require constructing the remainder of Cleveland Road or making it a through street. Mr. Beard withdrew without prejudice his variance application, April 25, 2000 to reapply this month with a change in his plan. Mrs. Beard stated that they live on Elliott Street, a very busy street and would like to build a house further back on the lot to protect her children from traffic. Houseman asked if any member of the public had any comments on this proposal. Marianne Heffernan of 12 Cleveland Road, who lives in the last house on the left, stated she was opposed to this petition. Marie Leonard of 9 Cleveland Road, the last house on the right, is opposed. She stated the land was originally owned by United Shoe. She added that eleven Veterans were chosen by the Shoe to build their houses on Cleveland Road. She stated the sewer ends in the middle of Cleveland Road. She then asked how the petitioner could be allowed to build a house with only 26 feet of frontage. Maureen Troubetaris, Ward One Councilor, stated she was opposed to this petition. She added there is not 100 feet of frontage as is required and that 26 feet is not sufficient. She added that she sees no hardship in this petition. Page 4 (Beard cont.) Houseman then asked the Board for their comments and questions. Kelley stated she could not see building a house with only 26 feet of frontage. Beard responded that the 26feet of frontage, is access only. McLemore stated if this road were to be extended would it be in compliance and how would it get accepted. Brennan stated a fire hydrant would be needed. Beard stated that Captain Palmer of the Beverly Fire Department stated that if he improved the road, a hydrant location of 500 feet would be acceptable. Kelley asked what the difference was between this proposal and the one he withdrew in April. Brennan stated that there is only a minimal difference changed from the last proposal recently withdrawn. He added that Mr. Beard still needs a cul de sac. The members of the Board were presented with a petition submitted against this proposal signed by approximately, nine owners. Fish asked if the property was always two lots. Beard responded that on the tax rolls the front lot with the house was classified 101 and the rear lot was 131 and developable. Brennan stated it’s one lot in common ownership and it could be feasible to build 100 foot road. Beard described that a public way was indicated in 1950. Ferguson asked Mr. Beard why he couldn’t just take the existing dwelling and enlarge it. He added that all the neighbors were against this petition and he felt 26 feet of frontage was not enough. Houseman stated that there is allot of traffic on Elliott Street, however, he could not except the frontage of 26 feet and commented that the lot contains wetlands. He added that if the dwelling was placed on the top of the lot he could see it. He also mentioned that this was a paper street. Kelley made a motion to deny the variance. Seconded by Fish. Motion carries on a vote of 4 – 1. (McLemore was in favor of this petition) (Kelley, McLemore, Fish, Ferguson, Houseman) 32 Jordan Street – R-10 Zone – Kenneth J. Pellegrino – Variance Request Mr. Pellegrino spoke on his own behalf. He is seeking to encroach one foot plus or minus upon the 15 feet side yard setback requirement with a (12’x14’) one- story sunroom addition, that will be erected on the existing (12’x16’) open deck. The petitioner stated that he has letters of acceptance from abutting neighbors and another neighbor. He presented photographs of his property to the Board. He added that his house is located 12 feet from one abutting neighbor and 6 feet on the alternate side of his property. He would like to utilize the land he has. He stated there was minimal wetlands on some of his property. Houseman asked if anyone would like to comment on this petition, there being none, he asked the Board Members for their comments and questions Ferguson stated he was in support of this proposal. He added that the hardship is the position of the dwelling on the lot and he commented that the petitioner is only requesting a one- foot encroachment. Kelley, O’Brien, and McLemore concurred. Houseman stated that only one -foot relief was requested. Kelley: Motion to grant the variance. O’Brien seconded. Motion carries 5 – 0. All members in favor. (Kelley, O’Brien, Houseman, Ferguson, & McLemore) 2 Prides Park Avenue – R-45 Zone – Maureen O’Brien – Variance Request Ms. O’Brien spoke on her own behalf. She is seeking to encroach 15’ plus or minus upon the required side yard setback of 20’, with an addition of an attached garage, (20’x26’) with a bedroom and bathroom above. She submitted five letters from neighbors in favor of the proposal. O’Brien added that she needs another bedroom. The addition will not impact the neighborhood. Page 5 (O’Brien cont.) Houseman asked if anyone would like to comment on this petition, there being none, he asked the Board Members for their comments and questions. Ferguson inquired about an existing office space. O’Brien responded that the office space would be incorporated into the new bedroom and bathroom addition as part of the addition. Kelley stated that Ms. O’Brien has 10,000 sq. ft. of area in an R-45 Zoning District. See added that the lot is narrow and undersized but is a pre-existing non-conforming lot of record. Margaret O’Brien stated she was in favor of this petition. McLemore asked if there was a sidewalk on her side of the street. O’Brien responded, yes. McLemore added that he has no problem with this addition but wondered how the driveway would be laid out. Houseman read letters in favor from the Callahan’s of 3 Prides Park Ave., the Coles/Joynt & Baldwins of 1 Prides Park Ave, the McNult’s of 583 Hale Street, Gunther Schug of 6 Prides Park Avenue, and Sheila Kellogg. Ms. Kellogg’s house is located at 591 Hale Street and was in favor with the following restrictions: l. no burning of brush, minimal debris in the back yard as the property is small and close to me some planting of trees as a screen. Houseman stated the only relevance of hardship is the size of the lot. He added the petitioner stated they would need a variance no matter what alteration was made. McLemore: Motion to grant the variance with amendments: (1.) Fir trees to be planted in the back along the building. (2.) the shed will be relocated or removed to rear lot line, near Ms. Kellogg. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion carries 5 - 0 All members in favor. (McLemore, O’Brien, Houseman, Ferguson, and Kelley) (Kelley is leaving, will do all the decisions up to this point. Margaret O’Brien will do “ Stacey”, and Bob will do Faulkner & Pomazon) 49 Corning Street – R-10 Zone – Keith Faulkner – Variance Request Mr. Faulkner spoke on his own behalf. He is seeking to encroach 8’ plus or minus upon the required l5’ side yard setback with a 16’x30’ two story addition, containing a kitchen, family room and half bath on first floor and master bedroom on second floor. He stated the hardship is unique because of the shape of the lot, which is also long and narrow. He presented plans to his neighbors. He also submitted letters from abutting neighbors located on each side of his property, which were in favor. The abutting neighbors are the McMullins’ at 47 Corning St. and Ann Marie Rockwell at 51 Corning Street. Houseman asked if anyone would like to comment on this petition, there being none, he asked the Board Members for their comments and questions. Ferguson stated he would be in favor of this petition as long as the abutters were. Fish stated she had no questions at this time. O’Brien stated the lot is of unusual shape and this does create a hardship. She added that the design of the addition is in line with the face of the house. Houseman stated this is a pie shaped and unusual lot, which is narrow. He added that he is in favor of this petition. McLemore stated he had no comments at this time. Ferguson: Motion to grant the variance because of the narrowness and shape of the lot. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion carries 5 – 0. All members in favor. ((Fish, Houseman, McLemore Ferguson, and O’Brien) Page 6 65 Sonning Road – R-l0 Zone – Jonathan B. and Amalia P. Pomazon Variance Request Mr. Pomazon spoke on his own behalf. He is seeking to encroach 6’ plus or minus upon the required 10’ side yard setback and to encroach 2’ plus or minus upon the 10’ rear yard setback requirement with a 24’ round existing above-ground swimming pool. Mr. Pomazon stated that his request does not encroach into the rear yard setback as advertised in the petition. After making more careful measurements, Houseman stated the surveyor says it does encroach. Pomazon stated Gerry Marsella’s plot plan did not have the pool location. He added the Local Inspector, John Jennings, placed the location of the pool on the drawing. Commissioner Brennan asked from whom did Mr. Jennings get the request to place the pool location? (Mr. Pomazon requested the location.) Houseman asked the Board Members for their comments and questions. Ferguson stated that on July 10, 2000 he measured the distance and it was 10’-3” to the edge of the pool from the line of the existing fence. Fish asked if the old fence was removed and Pomazon responded, yes. Brennan stated he had a problem with this petition, as there was no pool permit on record. Houseman stated that it is Mr. Pomazon’s opinion that he doesn’t require a variance in the rear. Housman added that this is his prerogative. Houseman asked if anyone would like to comment on this petition. Neighbors indicated the pool was erected about 25 years ago. One of the affected neighbors, Ms. Mahoney of 63 Sonning Road , who has lived there 23 years, stated the pool has been there that long and that she is in favor of the variance. The following wrote letters in favor of this petition: Norman Spector of 29 Sonning Road and William Christina of 27 Sonning Road, who has lived there since 1966, stated the pool has been there since 1975. In opposition was Mr. Joseph Brennan of 50 Longmeadow Road. He stated he was a direct abutter and that the pool is not l0 feet away from the lot line. He indicated the new fence is on his property. Fish asked if the age of the pool was relevant. Commissioner Brennan stated that the pool is not grand- fathered and the violation is long standing without a permit. . O’Brien asked if a fence requires a permit and Brennan responded, yes. Mr. Pomazon stated that he located the new fence correctly on his property. O’Brien asked Mr. Brennan when he purchased his house on Longmeadow Rd. and he responded, two years ago. McLemore stated this is a dispute between neighbors. He then commented that this is a non- conforming above ground swimming pool. Houseman asked Mr. Brennan how many feet of this fence was on his property line. Mr. Brennan responded, on one end it is one foot, at the other end it is 8’ and in the middle it’s 20’. Fish suggested eliminating the rear variance request. She stated that she sees no hardship here and commented that a variance is not justified. O’Brien moved to accept the encroachment of 6’ on the side yard setback only. She stated she feels that the petitioner does not need the 2 foot variance on the rear yard setback. She added that this is a minimal request and the petitioner did not place the pool there, the former owner did. McLemore suggested placing an amendment that this pool will expire on December 31, 2002. Ferguson stated that he could find no hardship in this proposal. Houesman concurred with Ferguson. O’Brien: Motion to grant the variance. Seconded by McLemore with amendment. Motion did not carry on a vote of 3 – 2. (O’Brien, McLemore, Ferguson( for) ( Fish and Houseman opposed)