Loading...
2000-02-08 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 indicate an examination of the Board’s Decision for that hearing/ Board: Zoning Board of Appeal Subcommittee: Date: February 8, 2000 (January 25, 2000 cancelled) Place: Beverly City Hall, Council Chamber, 191 Cabot Street Board Members Present: Full Members: Chairman, Scott D. Houseman, Martin Freeman, (left at 9:30 p.m.) Day Ann Kelley, (Arrived at 9:00 p.m.) Robert McLemore, Alternate members: Margaret O’Brien, Andrea Fish, and Scott Ferguson Board Members Absent: Leonard J. Bertaux Others Present: Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer – Timothy Brennan, Clerk of the Board – Diane Rogers Chairman Scott Houseman called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. Houseman stated he would welcome a motion to adopt the minutes for the months of : July , September, October, and November 9 & 23 or 1999, subject to any changes which the Board may request. Robert McLemore made the motion to approve as amended and Scott Ferguson seconded. Motion passed on a vote of 5 – 0. Houseman also requested a motion to adopt the January 25, 2000 minutes that stated the meeting was th cancelled due to snow. Martin Freeman made a motion to adopt the January 25 minutes and the motion was seconded by Scott Ferguson and passed on a vote of 5 – 0. Regarding the Rattigan appeal at 63 West Street, Martin Freeman made a motion which was seconded by Scott Ferguson to continue the matter to the March 28, 2000 Board of Appeal Meeting. Attorney’s McCann and Connolly signed waivers and faxed them to the Building Department. Motion carries 5-0. The next discussion was electing a chairman for the Board’s upcoming year. Martin Freeman nominated Scott Houseman as chairman and Robert McLemore seconded, Motion carries 5 – 0. Congratulations Scott! Chairman Houseman then asked the Board to consider attending the February 22, 2000 meeting at 6:30 p.m. so the Board could discuss revisions to the Rules and Regulations prior to 7:00 p.m. 61 Kernwood Avenue – R-10 Zone – Lee Stevens/American Profiles Agent – Variance Request Mr. Jessy Statley acted as agent for the American Profiles Co. He stated that Mr. Stevens was attending another meeting. Statley appeared on behalf of Arthur and Barbara Cradall who are requesting to construct a one story 12 feet by 14 feet sunroom upon an existing open deck, encroaching 3 feet plus or minus upon the side yard setback requirement of 15 feet. Statley stated the footprint would not be any larger for the proposed sunroom. The hardship would be the placement of the dwelling on the small narrow lot and that there wasn’t enough room to build on the other side. Houseman asked if any one was present who had any comments regarding this petition, there being none he asked the board members for their comments. O’Brien visited the site and has concerns because there is so much construction on the lot. However, where the sunroom will be all glass and the lot is narrow she is inclined to look at this favorably. Freeman stated the lot is very narrow and the petitioner would need a variance on anything he wanted to do. He added the petitioner is not exceeding the overall footprint of the house, the sunroom is tucked within the corner. Bob McLemore stated he had no questions. Scott Ferguson stated that he visited the site and would like to hear from the abutting neighbor on the right side Michael and Kathy Gearan at 59 Kernwood Avenue. A letter in favor from them was in the owners’ possession. Ferguson also stated that the shed on the property makes the lot appear cluttered. Ferguson added that he has no problem with this proposal. Houseman stated that the relief requested was modest dimensionally. He added that this deck is being located on the second story and there is a substantial drop off on the lot in the back therefore, the topography of the lot constitutes hardship. Freeman: Motion to grant the variance due to the narrowness of the lot, Sloping topography at the rear, this is a small request for a dimensional hardship. Seconded by O’Brien. All members in favor ( Houseman, Freeman, McLemore, O’Brien, and Ferguson) Motion carries 5 – 0. Page 4 17 Linden Avenue – R-l0 Zone – Lee Stephens/American Profiles – Variance Request Mr. Stephens, representative from American Profiles could not attend this meeting , therefore, Mr. Jessey Statley spoke on behalf of Henri and Lou Ellen Viel who are requesting to construct an 11ft x14 ft three season sunroom upon existing open deck, encroaching one foot plus or minus upon the rear yard setback requirement of 25 feet. Statley stated that the placement of the dwelling on the lot was a hardship along with the size and shape of the lot. He added that no matter what he could propose a variance would be required. Mr. Brennan stated the petitioner needed 10 feet on the side yard setback in an R-6 Zoning District. Houseman asked if anyone would like to comment on this petition, there being none he asked the Board for their comments. O’Brien stated that this was a minimal request, she concurred with the hardship and is in favor of this proposal. Freeman stated the hardship was that the lot was small and he is in favor of the variance. He went on to state that the lot is 50 feet wide and the shortest depth dimension was 62 feet. McLemore stated he had no questions regarding this proposal. Scott Ferguson asked if the owners (the Viel’s) were present and the agent replied, no. Ferguson also asked if there were any letters from the abutters and Statley responded, no. Scott Houseman stated the house was placed in an odd location on the lot, there was a deep drop off in back, and this is a minor variance request. McLemore: Motion to grant the variance, seconded by Freeman, All members in favor. Motion carries 5 – 0 ( McLemore, Houseman, Freeman, O’Brien, & Ferguson) 8 Sylvan Road – R-10 – Kenneth W. Walden – Variance Request Mr. Walden appeared on his own behalf. He is seeking to replace a l0 foot by 22 foot -6 inch open deck with a l0 feet by 22 feet – 6 inch sun porch, encroaching 6 feet plus or minus upon the side yard setback requirement of 15 feet. Walden stated that the existing deck needs to be rebuilt. He decided to build a roofed sunroom instead because of his wife’s medical condition she needs to be able to sit out side but not in the direct sun. He presented letters in favor from Robin Rothstein of 6 Sylvan Rd., Charles Walburn of 10 Sylvan Road and Carl MacDonald of 11 Sylvan Road. Walden added that the yard has ledge running close to the dwelling and the lot drops down hill. Houseman asked if anyone would like to comment on this petition, there being none he asked the members for their comments. O’Brien stated this is similar to proposals we have been reviewing. The deck is existing and there is a lot of ledge and there is a health issue. She added that she supports this proposal. Freeman stated he did not see anything wrong with the proposal. He added there is ledge in the rear of the lot, which prevents the petitioner from construction in the rear. McLemore stated that he had no questions. Ferguson stated he did visit the site and that the existing deck did need to be replaced. He added that a sunroom would be more valuable to the owners. Ferguson also stated that he is in favor of this proposal Page 5 ( K. W. Walden cont.) for the following reasons: the back yard is sloped, there is ledge on the lot, the abutters are in favor, there is a health issue here, and the sunroom would be within the same footprint. Houseman asked if the raised deck would be enclosed to make the sun porch and Mr. Walden responded yes. McLemore Motion to grant the variance due to the exceptional topographical conditions with ledge in the rear and the relief is minimal. Seconded by Freeman. All members in favor. Motion carries 5 – 0. . 17 Parramatta Road – R-10 Zone – Timothy Nichols – Variance Request Mr. Nichols appeared on his own behalf. He is seeking to encroach 3 feet plus or minus upon the side yard setback requirement of 15 feet with a one story family room addition, 20 feet by 20 feet, extending off the rear of the existing dwelling. Mr. Nichols presented the Board Members with photographs and letters from some of his abutters. He stated that his non-conforming lot was narrow and deep. He added that his addition will not block neighbor’s views and should improve the land values of the adjoining property. Nichols stated he could not locate the addition elsewhere because of his basement bulkhead and that he also wanted to keep this proposal as a Cape Design. Houseman asked if any members of the public wanted to comment on this petition, there being none he asked the board members for their comments. O’Brien asked if the addition would follow the line of the house in the front and not extend any closer. Nichols responded, yes. O’Brien added that the lot is narrow and that the addition will not be encroaching any more than the house already is encroaching on the side yard setback, therefore, I have no problem with this proposal. Freeman stated he had no problems with this proposal and that he concurs with the other Board Members. Bob McLemore also concurs with Freeman. Fish stated she is approves the proposal. She asked Nichols if this was a double lot. Upon examining the plot plan, Nichols responded, no and pointed out the correct lot line. Ferguson stated that he visited the site and would like to hear from the abutting neighbor on the lots right side, Michael and Kathy Gearan of 59 Kernwood Avenue. A letter in favor from them was in the owners’ possession. Ferguson also stated that he had no problem with this proposal. Houseman stated that the special circumstances in this case are an extremely narrow lot and a variance of some sort would be needed for almost any addition. He added that the request is a minimal one and that it would not be detrimental to the neighborhood and the abutters are in favor of this proposal. Freeman: Motion to grant the variance, seconded by O’Brien, All members in favor. Motion Carries 5 – 0 (Houseman,Freeman, McLemore, Fish, & O’Brien) Page 6 74 Lothrop Street – R-6 Zone – Robert and Jane Powers – Variance Request Mr. Powers appeared on his own behalf. He is seeking to encroach 5 feet plus or minus upon the required rear yard setback of 25 feet and to encroach one foot plus or minus upon the required side yard setback requirement of 10 feet with a 9 feet by 12 feet one story addition which will contain and exterior staircase and mud room and will enlarge the existing kitchen. Mr. Powers stated that he has a 7,200 square foot lot and the dwelling was built in 1893. The proposed addition would adjoin the existing line of the dwelling. Powers submitted letters from the following neighbors who were in favor of his petition: .John Shaw of 72 Lothrop St. and Janet Plourd of 42 Thorndike Street. Powers stated he bought the dwelling in 1996 and he has been renovating it since. He added that the dwelling is located in the Historical District and is only one foot from the lot line. Powers stated this proposed addition would increase the area footprint of the dwelling by 15%. Powers hired an architect to preserve the historical aspect. Houseman asked if any member of the public wished to comment on this petition, there being none he asked board members for their comments. McLemore asked to look at the plans. He then stated that the porch is there but unenclosed. He then asked if the porch would become part of the kitchen. Powers responded yes. Freeman stated he had no questions regarding this proposal. However, he stated that he felt the size of the lot and the existing dwelling creates a hardship. O’Brien stated she had no questions pertaining to this proposal. She added that the addition does continue with the line of the house as is and likewise the adjoining Girdler House covers their lot also. McLemore stated that the house fronts on two streets, which is interesting, with a 25’ requirement on one side, and 10’ on the other. Fish asked if the deck encroached on the right and Powers responded yes, this area would become a covered stairway. Fish then stated that if the bulkhead wasn’t there then Powers could do something else, however, this restricts the petitioner. Houseman stated this is a minimal relief requested. He then asked to see the elevation drawings. Powers stated the Architect was present. Houseman stated this in a minimal request, no public comment in opposition and, there are letters submitted in favor of this proposal. Freeman: Motion to grant the variance, seconded by O’Brien, All members in favor. (Freeman, Houseman Fish, O’Brien, and McLemore) Motion Carries 5 – 0 72 Sohier Road - R-l0 Zone – Leonard J. Gauthier – Variance Request Mr. Douglas Trees of 557 Bay Road Hamilton spoke on behalf of Dr. Gauthier. He stated the lot contains 547 square feet and they are seeking a variance to convert the second floor apartment to professional offices and to erect a new sign with additional names. Trees submitted a letter in support from the only residential abutter on Herrick Street. There will not be any external changes. Houseman asked what the hardship and circumstances of the lot were and Mr.Trees responded that a variance was granted previously and that there would be no substantial difference. This variance is just to amend the original one. Houseman stated the variance in 1978 did find a hardship relating to conditions, Page 7 (L. J. Gauthier cont.) However, they didn’t address signage. Houseman asked Trees to respond. McLemore stated he had no problem with the use to expand but had questions about the lack of dimension relating to the sign. He then asked how does this sign compare to what is allowed. McLemore then stated, also, that the sign was not mentioned in the 1978 variance request and he did have a problem with it. Trees responded that the sign is 12 ¼ sq. ft. with lower panels 9”x42”, and a top panel 24”x42”, a total of 12 ¼ square feet. The main purpose is changing offices need to add nomenclature to the property. Houseman stated if any one in the public wanted to comment on this case and Joan Johnson of 677 Hale St. asked, if in a residential zone with an apartment up stairs and a business down stairs were to change would that change the residential district. Houseman stated that this property is near the Beverly hospital and commercial is to the left and there was only one residential abutter on Herrick Street. Freeman asked if the size of the sign could be reduced and Trees stated that Dr. Gauthier wanted to replace the sign he presently has now. Houseman commented to Brennan that he thought no signs were allowed in the R-10 zone. Brennan responded that signs that do not require Design Review Approval were allowed and suggested they read Sect. 29 25 C on page 98 #8 of the Zoning Ordinance. Freeman stated that this section did not comply with the category. Fish stated a use variance has not been allowed since 1992 in the R-10 Zone and the second story is residential and Trees is asking to change that to business. Houseman read Sect 29 27 D1 and Fish responded more commercial use would be conflicting with the Zoning Ordinance of today. O’Brien stated the new sign would be ¼ ft. larger. She asked if Mr. Trees had any photographs. Houseman stated the character of this neighborhood is very unique. This lot is not sitting near a residential zone. Commercial on the second floor would not have any affect on the residential zone. Parking and access to the road is consistent with the expansion to a commercial use. The traffic there would be minimal because it is a very busy intersection. Houseman feels there are unusual circumstances here. McLemore stated the petitioner is expanding the original commercial use and granting this variance would be allowing new business expansion. He went on to state that he would amend the use to allow for the increase of office space. A sign however is prohibited in a residential zone. O’Brien stated that she approved of this proposal because of the location and other commercial uses in the zone. Freeman agreed. O’Brien stated she agrees the sign is too big and she feels people’s vision would be blocked by the 6 ft. sign. Fish concurs and stated that she too thinks the sign is too big. Trees stated he could not speak for Dr. Gauthier, however, he was sure he would comply with whatever modification the Board requested and would like a vote tonight. Freeman stated “place a condition that the sign would be parallel to the street which won’t obstruct vision.” Also, he adds that he feels this is limited to one business and he could not support it. Houseman stated that we could give it to Design Review with a specific size. They could make the final design decision. He added that the Zoning Board of Appeal could give the maximum square feet and height and could grant the variance with regard to the extension of commercial use for the second floor. As for the sign: ( l). to allow new sign with added names with 3 different panels, also (2) sign be parallel to the street,(3) second floor be limited to professional medical practice Page 8 (Gauthier cont.) Freeman asked if it was all the same business and the reply was yes. McLemore stated he felt these were separate businesses. Freeman stated Gauthier is not expanding, he is adding new separate businesses, that’s different. Freeman added that he is in agreement with Andrea Fish. Ferguson stated the Board could grant the variance and limit it to chiropractic use on the second floor. Freeman stated that the Board is not allowed to grant this petition because this is limited to one business, adding two additional people is not the same. Massage Therapy and Acupuncture could expand and acquire the hospital! Houseman stated they would have to come back to the Board and Freeman responded no, they would already have it and he will not support this. O’Brien suggested the Board postpone this case or have the petitioner withdraw. Houseman observe to Mr. Trees that it appears he has three choices: continue, deny, or withdraw. Tree’s stated he would like to continue this proposal until the next scheduled meeting, February 22,2000. Tree’s added that he would sign a waiver of time. Freeman: Motion to continue this case until February 22, 2000. Seconded by O’Brien. All members in in favor. Motion carries 5 – 0 18 Summit Avenue – RMD Zone – Thomas Carnevale – Variance Request Attorney Thomas Alexander appeared on behalf of Mr. Carnevale. He is seeking to construct (4) townhouse units on a lot having 8,700 square feet where l6, 000 square feet is required. Mr. Carnevale has a purchase and sales agreement for the property. Alexander added that this property is bounded by the railroad and submitted a site plan to the Board. Alexander stated this is the same size proposal as the former variance that was granted in 1996. He added that the four conditions granted then would remain. Alexander stated one neighbor has asked for a barrier to be installed at 14 Summit Avenue. He added that the owner below this lot would like bushes planted and not a fence installed. Alexander went on to state that the property was formerly a warehouse and the use was Industrial in the 80’s. He added the zoning is now RMD but lacks the area requirement. The lot will house ( 4 ) units with two garages. A letter was submitted from 22 Summit Avenue an adjoining direct abutter and 22 Cox Court in support of the variance. Alexander stated this variance request would be for a residential purpose. He stated the following: the lot has ledge, relief would be a minimum variance to bring it into conformity, it would not be injurious to the neighborhood, and it would be in keeping with residential uses. He went on to state that there would be no undue traffic, property values would not be affected, adequate city services are available (sewer, water, and all utilities) and that there are no objections from neighbors. Alexander stated, Tom Carnevale the petitioner is present and will answer any questions you might have. Houseman asked what stick built construction was. (materials are brought to site and constructed right there) Houseman asked if any member of the public wanted to comment on this petition. Mr. Cook of 14 Summit Avenue responded that he thought this was a good project because the existing property was becoming a hazard to children in the neighborhood. Michelle Hannable the landlord at 14 Summit Avenue agrees and stated the building has been abandoned a long time and looks shabby. She is in support of this variance. Kelley stated she had voted on this the last time and the hardship is ledge. However, she is looking at the density and asked if Carnevale could do two units instead. She also asked if there were any sidewalks there. Page 9 (T. Carnevale cont.) Alexander responded that this was an expensive site to build on and that financial return was needed. He did not know the amount of the monetary hardship. The petitioner Tom Carnevale stated that the construction cost is about $80 a square foot. Alexander went on to say that the railroad abuts one property line and there is a lot of ledge on the other side. As far as sidewalks, the construction was too far back. Ferguson stated he had visited the site and thought it was very dense. People are living very close to each other there now and he would like to hear from other members. A (4) unit building would increase density although the property does need to be developed. The neighbors are in favor of this petition. O’Brien stated she realized that a two family in there wouldn’t be the best for the petitioner because there are a lot of larger properties located there. The hardship is lack of economic value and the presence of the railroad. Houseman stated the property hasn’t been developed in years. The increase in the density will help develop it. There were conditions granted before and the Board could have them remain. The hardship is the topography of the land and the railroad behind it. Alexander stated another abutter wanted shrubs along the stone wall, 4 to 5 foot tall evergreens, to be planted along the boundary of the stone wall at 22 Summitt Avenue. Ferguson asked what the square footage was and Carnevale responded 4,800 sq. ft., 1,200 sq. ft. for each unit. The cost would be approximately $400,000 and the building would be stick built. Ferguson asked where would they place the snow in the winter months. Alexander responded that there was 5 ft. in front of the parking spaces before the lot line available for snow storage. Kelley: Motion to grant the variance with the four former conditions plus the one Houseman added. O’Brien seconded. Carries on a vote of 5 – 0. Conditions: l. A row of 5’ evergreens be planted continuously along the boundary of 22 Summit Ave.,(2) there will be a fence placed at the rear of 14 Summit Ave. side of the property, (3) Site and Building plan be submitted to the Board of Appeals before construction, (4) lighting be placed in the back yard to illuminate the area but not the neighbors yard and (5) The maximum height of the building will be 35 feet.