Loading...
2000-10-24 CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES These minutes are not a verbatim transcript of the public hearings or public meetings of the Zoning Board of Appeal. Reviews of the discussion or outcome of public hearings should include an examination of the Board’s Decision for that hearing. Board: Zoning Board of Appeal Date: October 24, 2000 Place: Beverly City Hall, Council Chamber, 191 Cabot Street Board Members Present: Full Members: Chairman, Scott D. Houseman, Day Ann Kelley, (left at 11:30 p.m.) Leonard J. Bertaux, (left at 9:00 p.m.) Martin Freeman. Alternate Members: Scott Ferguson, (arrived at 9:00 p.m.), Margaret O’Brien, and Andrea Fish, (arrived at 9:15 p.m.) Members Absent: Robert McLemore Others Present: Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer – Tim Brennan, and Clerk of the Board – Diane Rogers. Scott Houseman, opened the meeting by introducing the Board Members to the public and discussing the rules for obtaining a variance and special permit. Houseman stated that there were three holdovers from the previous month and six new cases to be heard. He commented that Board Members Andrea Fish would not be present tonight until approximately 8:30 p.m. and that Scott Ferguson might not attend the meeting. 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 schedule meeting of the Board of Appeal on November 28, 2000. He stated the petitioner would like more time to discuss the project with the neighbors. Attorney Mark Glovsky, representing William Finch who is opposed to this case, stated he believed that if some changes were made to the proposal, the neighbors might be in favor. Bertaux: Motion to grant the continuance. Seconded by Kelley. All members in favor. 5 – 0 (Bertaux, Kelley, Houseman, Margaret O’Brien, and Martin Freeman) Page 2 35 Pond Street – RMD Zone – David Keenan – Variance Requet Attorney Anthony Gargano spoke on behalf of the petitioner, David Keenan. He is requesting to remove five lineal feet of curbing, spaced between two driveway entrances to an existing lot. Attorney Gargano stated the issue is, if the curbing is removed then the two driveways will merge as one enlarged access. He circulated documents which contained a copy of the building permit for the removal of a free standing light/sign and footings on April 24, 1999; letter from Frank Killilea, Director of Engineering, stating he concurred with Keenan’s request to remove the existing short section of curb in the middle of the business located at 35 Pond Street; another letter from Frank Killilea stating once again, that he concurred with Keenan’s request to remove the existing short section of curb, dated June 12, 2000; a letter from Traffic Sergeant Safety Officer, Dennis O. Tarsook, dated June 13, 2000 stating that he examined the curbing and indicated that he has issued numerous traffic tickets for parking adjacent to the curb because there was not sufficient room to park a vehicle there legally. He also indicated that he thought the curbing was the base for a lamp- post at one time. He commented that the removal of the curbing would negate the need to issue parking tickets if the curbing was removed. Included also was a letter from Timothy Brennan, Building Commissioner, stating that he had consulted with the City Solicitor, Marshall Handly and although he could not give the Keenan’s the right to enlarge the non-conformity, the City Council, Engineering, Police or DPW could order this removed without having to follow the Zoning Ordinance. Attorney Gargano stated that the property was formerly occupied by the Patti Construction Co., as a pre-existing non- conforming use in the residential zone, before being utilized by other contractors. He added that the section in question was not a curbing but rather a concrete footing. He showed document’s which indicated that in 1910 there was but one driveway accessing the property. Petitioner, David Keenan stated that there was a hardship imposed by the location of the curb as it caused a difficulty in entering and exiting the property with his vehicles. He commented that often when he responds to business needs at night, he often finds his driveway blocked by a vehicle parked adjacent to the curb. He added, that in this regard the Police Department issued 121 parking tickets for people illegally parked adjacent to this curb. To provide more parking, Sergeant Tarsook created another parking space to replace the space adjacent to the curb. David Keenan stated that he and his brother have spent considerable money on improvements to the property and erected a $20,000 stone wall to alleviate the water problem that existed. He indicated that when requested by the neighbors, he would permit parking on the newly paved areas when not in use. Chairman Houseman asked if any member of the public was in favor of this proposal. Gino Asci of 4l Pond Street and Christine Forriso of 33 Pond Street spoke in favor of the petition. Timothy Smith, Ward III Councilor, exhibited photographs of the property indicating the curbing, parking arrangement and building area. He asked the length of curb and its location. Timothy Brennan responded approximately 5-8 feet in length and that the curbing (a base for a lamp pole) existed between the driveways accessing the property. Chairman Housman then asked if any member of the public was in opposition of this proposal. John Burke, who spoke on behalf of his mother, Sheila Burke of 36 Pond Street, stated that the family has lived there for 60 years and that he always parked in front of the property at the curbing. He felt that since he must pay an excise tax that he should be allowed this right. Norman Sciamanna of 37 Pond Street stated that the curb was always located in front of the property. He added that Sgt. Tarsook told the Keenan’s that the curb was always located in front of the property. He stated that Sgt. Tarsook told the Keenan’s that the driveway could not be over 15 ft. and to reinstall the curb which has already been removed. He commented also that the Mayor concurred with Sgt. Tarsook on this matter. Brian McLean of 34 Pond Street stated the Keenan’s were parking at least six vehicles on the property on many occasions. He indicated that when the vehicles backed out they disturbed the neighbors because of the sound of beepers on the trucks when placed in reverse. Two letters were submitted with the following names who were opposed of this petition: Diane McCarren of 34 Pond Street, Joan and John Fellows of 61 Putnam Street, in behalf of her mother, Mrs. Sciamanna of 37 Pond Street, and Louise Menesale of 34 Pond Street. Also signing the letter was Ellen Krenzel, and Donald Kenzland. Page 3 ( Keenan cont.) Chairman Houseman then asked for the Board’s questions and comments. Kelley commented that the purpose of the hearing tonight is to decide whether to allow the removal of five lineal feet of curbing between the two driveways. She stated she had reviewed the previous Special Permit granted that Houseman circulated and that she had examined the conditions and found the petitioner had not fulfilled the requirements. She added that she is concerned that these conditions were not fulfilled and that consequently, the neighbors are upset. She stated that in her belief the residents should have a fifty-foot side- walk not interrupted by driveways. O’Brien concurred with Kelley. She asked why the Director of Engineering, Frank Killilea wrote two letters of approval for removing the curb to Mr. Keenan. The response was that there were three work orders issued to the DPW by Mr. Killilea. The work orders were not initiated and Mr. Killilea then wrote a second letter to the petitioner Mr. Keenan to remove the curb at his expense. The respondent indicated that to his knowledge the City Solicitor Marshall Handly and Mayor Scanlon were apprised. Houseman stated he received a call from Frank Killilea confirming that he did write the three work orders for the curb removal. He indicated to Mr. Houseman that the Director of Public Services, Michael Papamachial, revoked the orders because of the zoning ordinance provisions regarding curb cuts. Killilea stated that he was not aware of the zoning provisions concerning curb cuts when he wrote the work orders. He said he did not intend his letters to imply that a variance would not be needed. Killilea stated also that he knew th that his letter of June 12 would come before the Appeals Board. Brennan stated that in his letter of rd August 3, directed to Keenan that he was informed that Mr. Killilea has the authority to deal with the curb without having to follow the Zoning Ordinance. Houseman asked Brennan what was the width of the driveways. Brennan responded twenty- five feet. Kelley stated that the Board must define the hardship in this case and then commented that city officials could make mistakes. Freeman asked if an official could legally request the curb removal. Brennan responded yes, indicating that Sgt. Tarsook permitted the removal in his letter to Mr. Keenan. Ferguson stated that a condition of the previous Special Permit allowed the parking of two bucket trucks. It is his understanding that several other vehicles are parked on the property. He asked Mr. Keenan how many trucks are parked on the site during the day and retained overnight. Mr. Keenan responded none during the day and three, overnight. Ferguson also indicated that another condition of the Special Permit was not fulfilled in that the vegetation stipulated was not planted. Keenan responded that because of the wall that was erected and the fence placed upon it, no planting was installed. Ferguson asked Keenan if he would provide one parking space on his lot for the neighbors. Keenan responded no, because of his insurance liability. Ferguson indicated that if the curb was removed this would produce essentially a fifty foot wide driveway. Houseman asked Brennan if a certificate of occupancy was issued to Mr. Keenan. Brennan responded none was needed since there was no change in the type of occupancy. Houseman stated that conditions of the previous Special Permit were not followed relative to the lack of vegetation on both sides of the lot. Houseman indicated that relative to the removal of the curb there had been miscommunications between the city officials. His concern however, is that conditions of the previous Special Permit granted to Mr. Keenan were not met. Kelley stated that the curbing should be reinstated and lengthened to more than five feet to accommodate a parking space. Houseman stated he could not find a hardship in this case and that he does not support the petition. Houseman asked Brennan how this work could be done with the approval of the DPW and Police Department. Brennan responded that they are city entities that have legitimate legal responsibilities. Kelley: Motion to deny the variance. Houseman requested that she revise her motion and state a request to grant the motion. She concurred and made the new motion to grant the variance. Freeman seconded. Motion did not carry on a vote of 0 - 5. (All member in favor of denying) (Kelley, Houseman, Ferguson, O’Brien, & Bertaux) 7 Kernwood Avenue – R-10 Zone – Paul Simard and Paula Contilli – Variance Request Paul Simard spoke on his own behalf. He is seeking to encroach 11 ½’ plus or minus upon the required 15’ side yard setback with a 28’x20’ two story addition, to contain a carpet cleaning truck van, to the attached existing garage on a foundation that is already in place. The purpose of the extended garage is to allow Page 4 ( Paul Simard cont.) the housing of his carpet cleaning truck, which he uses in his business. He implied that the cleaning fluids stored in his truck could freeze if the vehicle was left to the weather. He stated that he has two family cars and the truck but only one parking space on the lot. The garage would accept two vehicles. He indicated the garage extension to the rear would not encroach any further than the current garage alignment with the side line. Gary Palardy, a contractor stated that other garages in the neighborhood are located in close proximities to lot lines and that the garage would conform to others in the neighborhood. Simard submitted two letters in favor one from abutter Steven Brown of 62 Livingstone Avenue and another from George Finn of 52 Bridge Street. Chairman Houseman asked if any member of the public had any comments on this proposal. Mrs. Beals of 9 Kernwood Avenue spoke in support of this variance. Sheila Gray of 60 Livingstone Avenue also spoke in favor. Chairman Houseman then asked the Board Members for their questions and comments. Kelley stated that she voted on this petition previously when it was denied. She stated that this is a narrow lot on a busy street and since the neighbors have no objection she is in favor. O’Brien concurred with Kelley. Freeman stated that because of the location of the garage on the abutting lot there would be a narrow space separating the two garages when the twenty- foot new extension of the proposed garage is erected. He did not feel this was a reasonable separation because the two garage walls are too close together. Ferguson had no questions. Houseman stated in his opinion this application should have been filed as a Special Permit, however, he will proceed with the application as a Variance. He added the impact on the neighborhood would be nil, although the structures are close somewhere at 8 feet apart at some point. He does have concern about the hardship. He added that the garage appeared to be stories. Gary Palardy stated the garage plan was drawn that way to conform to the lines of the existing garage. O’Brien asked if the garage could be shortened to a 19 foot extension rather than 20 feet. Palardy responded, no, as the van required at least a 19 feet length for parking. Ferguson stated that the two garages will be very close. Kelley: Motion to grant the variance because of the narrowness of the lot. Seconded by Ferguson. He stated that he wanted a condition placed in the variance that a two hour separation fire wall be constructed on the wall adjacent to the abutting garage. Motion did not carry. Denied on a vote of 2 - 3. (Houseman, O’Brien, & Freeman oppoed) (Kelley and Ferguson for) 17 Hayes Avenue – R-10 Zone – Donald Brann – Special Permit Request Donald Brann spoke on his own behalf. He is seeking to demolish the existing one story porch, (16’x8’) and reconstruct the porch (22’x8’), encroaching 5’ plus or minus upon the required front yard setback of 20’ and 5’ plus or minus upon the required side yard setback of 15’. Natalie Rothblatt, an abutter located at 11 Sunnycrest Avenue stated she was opposed to this proposal because she owns an adjacent parcel of land where there will be a proposed road in the future. Mr. Brann showed Ms. Rothblatt his plans and indicated that the new porch would not project beyond the side faces of the existing dwelling and that her proposal would be unaffected. Chairman Houseman asked the Board Members for their comments and questions. Houseman asked Brann the distance from the side yard lot lines to the existing main dwelling. Brann responded that his property is twelve feet from the property line but under the new zoning requirement fifteen feet is now required. He added that the house conformed to the previous zoning but is now non-conforming. Houseman stated the job of the Board would determine if the relief requested is too large. O’Brien asked if the open space would remain the same. Brann responded, yes. Bertaux stated this is a non-conforming structure you will Page 5 (D. Brann cont.) not be encroaching any further than the exiting structure by widening the porch laterally two feet. Freeman had no questions. O’Brien stated she had no problem with the proposal. Kelley asked if this would be a room and Brann stated yes, with an open entrance porch of the size adjoining. Kelley stated that this is an undersized lot and the added construction is within the perimeter of the dwelling. She added that she would be concerned if the addition were carried up two stories. Houseman stated we must make a finding that this proposal is not detrimental to the neighborhood in order for the relief to be granted. Kelley: Motion to grant the Special Permit because it is an undersized lot and the proposal it is not detrimental to the neighborhood. Seconded by Freeman. Motion carries 5 – 0. All members in favor. (Kelley, Freeman, O’Brien, Bertaux, and Houseman) 718 Rear Cabot Street – R-45 Zone – David Mitchell – Variance Request David Mitchell spoke on his own behalf. He is seeking to subdivide Lot 5 containing 18,990 sq. ft. plus or minus into two Lots, A & B. Lot A will contain 13,990 sq. ft. plus or minus and Lot B will contain 5,000 sq. ft. plus or minus. Also, to subdivide Lot 22 containing 24,196 sq. ft. plus or minus into Lots C & D. Lot C will contain 9,996 sq. ft. plus or minus and Lot D will contain 14,200 sq. ft. plus or minus. Lots D & B will be conveyed to the abutting Lot 8, which contains 10,000 sq. ft. plus or minus. The combined Lots D, B, & 8 will contain 29,000 sq. ft. plus or minus. Mr. Mitchell submitted a Mortgage Plan dated May 17, 2000 drawn by Bradford Engineering Co. He stated years ago, the lots were subdivided as shown on that plan. He indicated that a zoning change was later made creating an R-45 zone for this district. Mr. Ken Cotreau, an abutter asked the petitioner if he could acquire a piece of Mr. Mitchell’s property that he had maintained and utilized for a number of years. Mr. Mitchell stated that this proposal of separation would have a minimal affect on the neighborhood. The sub-division of land would make it possible to convey land to Mr. Cotreau. He stated that if approved by the Appeals Board he would continue the process of approval through the Planning Board. 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. Fish, Freeman, Kelley, and Ferguson had no questions. Houseman asked if Mr. Cotreau would be requiring a variance in the future on any proposal regarding the new land acquisition. Mr. Mitchell responded no unless he required one for the installation of a swimming pool. He added that there are presently three dwellings upon the properties and this is to remain unchanged. Houseman asked if Mr. Mitchell could show the right-of-way on the property. Mr. Mitchell responded that the right-of-way extends 180 feet along the property and that there is a stream nearby. Houseman stated that he visited the property and spoke to a neighbor. He observed that one of the houses on the properties does not have a driveway. Kelley asked if lots D & B were going to be combined. Mitchell responded, yes that they would be combined on part of Lot 8. Lot C & A are separate lots. Kelley: Motion to grant the variance subject to the condition that in the plan as designated lots C&A which have been created be combined under common ownership. Seconded by Ferguson. Motion Carries 5 –0. All members in favor. ( Kelley, Houseman, Ferguson, Freeman, and Fish)