Loading...
2000-05-23 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 Subcommittee: Date: May 23, 2000 Place: Beverly City Hall, Council Chamber, 191 Cabot Street Board Members Present: Full Members: Chairman, Scott D. Houseman, Robert McLemore, (left at 9:00 p.m.) Day Ann Kelley (arrived at 8:05 p.m. Alternate Members: Margaret O’Brien, Andrea Fish and Scott Ferguson(arrived at 8:45 p.m.) Board Members Absent: Leonard J. Bertaux and Martin Freeman Others Present: Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer – Timothy Brennan, Clerk of the Board – Diane Rogers Chairman Scott Houseman announced to the public that one of the Board Members has not arrived. He did not have information if the board member would be attending, later this evening. He explained, however, that there was a quorum of four members but the vote on their petition must be unanimous. Houseman stated that there was a continuation of the April 25, 2000 public hearing for Lynn D. Ellison’s petition. Ms. Ellison stated she preferred to have five Board Members vote on her case, therefore, she would wait and be heard later in the evening if the absent member arrived. 39 Amherst Road – R-10 Zone - Lynn D. Ellison- Variance Request Because the fifth Board Member was not present, Ms. Ellison requested to continue this hearing, which was held over from April 23, 2000, until the next scheduled meeting, June 27, 2000. She submitted a new plan of her project to the Board. O’Brien: Motion to allow the continuance of this proposal until the June 27, 2000 hearing, subject to signing a waiver of time. Seconded by McLemore. All members in favor. Motion carries 4-0. (Houseman, McLemore, Fish, and O’Brien) 63 West Street – R-45 – John Rattigan, Jr. – An Appeal from an Administrative Decision Chairman Scott Houseman stated that Board Member Leonard J. Bertaux who was one of the members discussing this petition, was unable to attend this meeting. Therefore, the petition can not be acted upon tonight. Page 2 (Rattigan, cont.) Attorney John Connolly representing Mr. Rattigan and Attorney Robert McCann representing Mr. Wile, provided the Board with written waivers of time. Corner of Linden and Porter Street – R-6 Zone – William LaMarre – An Appeal from an Administrative Decision Chairman Houseman stated that he had received a letter from Mr. LaMarre’s lawyer, Mark W.Griffin, stating that he was withdrawing with prejudice. Therefore, the Board does not have to take any action on this petition. 10 Cox Court – RMDZone – Joseph Boudreau – Variance Request Attorney Oliver T. Cook, spoke on behalf of the petitioner. He stated the surveyor of his client’s property had found some discrepancies in the lot lines and therefore, he is requesting to continue the hearing until the next scheduled meeting on June 27, 2000. McLemore: Motion to allow the continuance of this proposal until the June 27, 2000 meeting, subject to signing a waiver of time. Seconded by Margaret O’Brien. All members in favor. Motion Carries 4 – 0. (Houseman, McLemore, O’Brien, and Fish) 3 Essex Street – CC Zone – William P. LeBlanc – Appeal from an Administrative Decision Chairman Scott Houseman stated to Mr. LeBlanc that there was a procedural defect in his appeal. He stated that he may reapply for the June 27, 2000 hearing. The Board discussed ordering Timothy Brennan, Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer to write a written answer to Mr. LeBlanc’s letter regarding Simsbury Associates of 3 Essex Street. O’Brien: Motion to dismiss this case and order Mr. Brennan to reply in writing to Mr. LeBlanc’s rd Letter. The reply letter is to be timestamped by Wednesday, May 23 at the City Clerk’s office. Seconded by McLemore. All members in favor. Motion carries 4 -0 (Houseman, O’Brien, McLemore, & Fish) 2 Goodwin Road – R-15 Zone – Day Ann and Richard S Kelley, Jr. – Variances Mr. Kelley spoke in his own behalf. He is seeking to encroach 12 feet plus or minus upon the rear yard setback requirement of 25 feet and 12 feet plus or minus upon the side yard setback requirement of 15 feet and to encroach 14 feet plus or minus upon the front yard setback requirement of 30 feet, to construct a two story addition (28’-6” x 24’) containing family room and half bath on the first floor and second floor to contain master bedroom and bath. Also to replace existing one car garage with an attached one car garage. Kelley stated that his property is located in an R-15 Zone. He indicated that all the lots in the neighborhood are under 15,000 square feet in area. He added that his dwelling was built in 1930 and was on a pre- existing lot, which is now non-conforming, under the current zoning. He then stated that he had been before the Board previously for a variance petition regarding his addition on the lot. The variance had lapsed after a year and his builder was unable to obtain a building permit. Consequently, he stated that he is now again before the Board to request a new approval of the same petition. Chairman Houseman asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this petition. There being none, he asked members for their comments or questions. Houseman asked the petitioner if all the dimensions were the same as the previous proposal. Mr. Kelley responded, yes. O’Brien stated she had no questions at this time. Fish asked if Mr. Kelley would be any Page 2 ( Richard Kelley cont.) closer to the property line than his prior proposal. Kelley responded that there is a two- inch difference on the side yard setback because the property line angles away from the land. McLemore had no questions. McLemore: Motion to grant the variance based on the previous one granted. Seconded by Fish. All Members in favor. Motion Carries 4 – 0. (Houseman, McLemore, O’Brien, and Fish) 13 Evergreen Drive – R-10 Zone – Robert W. Kelley – Variance Request Mr. Kelley spoke on his own behalf. He is seeking to encroach 6.5 feet plus or minus upon the required 15 feet side yard setback with a (22’x23’) single story, attached two car garage with an (8’x10’) shed attaching to the rear of the garage. Kelley stated that his parents built the dwelling in 1950. In 1970 he purchased the property from them. He added that his 94 year- old mother also resides with him. He stated that an attached garage would be desirable. Mr. Kelley went to the Building Department to obtain a permit and he was informed that a variance would be necessary because he would not have the 15 foot side yard setback requirement, after the completion of the attached two car garage. Mr. Kelley presented the Board with a list of thirteen neighbors that were in favor of the proposal. He added that his lot is 9,000 square feet in area and he could not place the addition anywhere on the lot without requiring a variance of some sort. Chairman Houseman, asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this petition. Thomas Alexander, of 11 Evergreen Drive, a direct abutter, stated he was in favor of this petition. Chairman Houseman, then asked the Board for their comments and questions. Day Ann Kelley stated she approved of the plans. Fish asked why the petitioner was requesting a two- car garage. Mr. Kelley responded by stating that his elderly mother would like to have one. Fish then asked if there were other two-car attached garages in the neighborhood. Mr. Kelley responded, yes. McLemore had no questions at this time. O’Brien asked if the tree in the front yard would have to come down and Mr. Kelley responded, yes. Houseman stated that to obtain a variance you had to show a hardship and the proposal must be the minimal requirement the Board can grant. Therefore, he suggested that Mr. Kelley cut back on the side yard setback by two feet, making the encroachment approximately four feet rather than 6.50 feet. Fish stated she does not see a hardship in this proposal. She added that the garage could be placed closer to the back yard by the existing deck. Fish felt that the criteria for obtaining a variance, has not been met. Day Ann Kelley stated the lot was undersized and if the garage were placed in the rear, the petitioner would lose a good portion of his back yard. She added that the proposal was not overpowering. O’Brien asked Mr. Kelley if he would consider constructing a one- car garage and he responded, yes. McLemore, stated the lot is undersized and if the neighbors don’t object then he is in favor of the proposal. Kelley: Motion to grant the variance. Seconded by McLemore. Motion carries 4 – 1. (McLemore, Kelley, Houseman, O’Brien) (Fish in the negative) 920 Hale Street – R-45 Zone – Alison Kuller – Variances Mr. Jeff Kuller spoke on behalf of his wife Alison. He is seeking to encroach 22 feet plus or minus upon the rear yard setback of 25 feet, to erect a two story (32’x40’) attached garage with family room above and storage and to encroach 11 feet plus or minus upon the side yard setback requirement of 20 feet and encroaching 30 feet plus or minus upon the front yard setback of 30 feet. Mr. Kuller stated that after a survey he discovered that his existing garage was not located fully upon his property. He stated he was proposing to remove the existing garage and construct a new two story attached garage (32’x40’) to the existing dwelling. The new attached garage would contain a family room and storage space above. The existing dwelling would be provided with a new front entrance. He added the Page 3 (Alison Kuller cont) driveway would have a new access from the state highway. He indicated that he had obtained permission from the Massachusetts Highway Department for the change. He presented a document authorization to the Board verifying the approval. He stated that the options for relocating the garage were limited, that the only other choice presented a hardship as it would entail building upon the septic field, which is not allowed. Mr. Kuller stated that the dwelling is located at the base of a rise in the topography of the lot and the water drains to the foundation. He added that the basement is not useable under the existing house and storage would be above the proposed attached garage. Mr. Kuller then presented a list of nine neighbors and abutters who were in favor of the project. Chairman Houseman asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this petition. There being none, he asked members for their comment or question. O’Brien, stated there was a hardship on the property due to the position of the dwelling on the lot. Fish, stated there was no other alternative for relocation of the garage because of the septic field and topography of the land and therefore, there was an existing hardship. Houseman, stated the owner would be at risk because a portion of the frontage, speculated to be used, is owned by the City of Beverly, upon which the State was granted an easement. Kelley indicated that she was in favor of the proposal and acknowledged that the City of Beverly owns the land in the front yard but noted the hardship caused by the topography of the lot. Ferguson indicated he concurred with Kelley. Mr. Kuller stated that he had hired an architect to prepare plans for the addition and alterations. Kelley: Motion to grant the variance. Seconded by O’Brien. All members in favor. Motion carries 5 – 0. (Kelley, O’Brien, Houseman, Ferguson, & Fish) 32 Nelson Road – R-10 Zone – Stephen Cecchini – Variance Request Mr. Cecchini spoke on his own behalf. He is seeking to encroach 8 feet plus or minus upon the side yard setback of 15 feet with a one story attached two car garage (24’x24’). Mr. Cecchini stated that he was making renovation to his house with a conforming addition to the rear and the side of the existing dwelling. He added the variance request is for a proposed addition of an attached two- car garage adjacent to the existing kitchen. He indicated that the garage would also provide additional storage space in the attic above. Chairman Houseman, asked the public if they had any comments or questions. There being none, he asked the Board for their comments and questions. O’Brien, stated she had no questions, as yet. Fish, commented that since the petition is adding a conforming addition to the right side, the garage obviously could not be placed there. Kelley, asked Building Commissioner, Timothy Brennan, if there was any standard dimension for a two-car garage. The response generally, was that the dimensions were adequate but possibly could be reduced. Ferguson, stated he did not see any hardship on this request. Houseman stated that in his opinion the hardship exists because of the location of the existing dwelling on the lot. There is inadequate space remaining for a two- car garage on the side yard. Kelley agreed, stating there is not sufficient room for expansion on the lot without a variance. Fish, commented that the garage was a larger addition. She felt that there was no hardship and asked if the petitioner would consider building a one- car garage. Houseman, indicated that if a one-story attached garage were erected, he would support the petition. Fish, asked if the garage could be moved undetached to the rear of the lot near the deck. Cecchini, responded, that this would make his driveway 85 feet long and that the garage would take up a lot of his rear yard. O’Brien, asked if there could be a compromise, by reducing the width of the garage to 22 feet from 24 feet. Mr. Cecchini, stated, he would agree to this reduction. Ferguson, stated he would prefer a 20 feet wide garage which in his opinion, would be large enough for two cars. Fish: Motion to deny the variance. Ferguson seconded. Motion did not pass. Page 5 (Cecchini cont.) Discussion: Kelley, stated that if the motion were made with the condition that the garage is reduced to 20 feet in width, that she might be in favor. O’Brien concurred. She then stated that the motion should be rephrased to allow the variance. Ferguson stated that he wanted to amend the previous motion and now state the garage shall be reduced to 20 feet in width. He indicated that he might find a hardship, because the house sits in the middle of the lot and the petitioner needs a garage. O’Brien, stated that the garage height should be stipulated and that the garage be only one story. Houseman, suggested that all the prior motions be withdrawn. The Board voted 5-0 to withdraw the previous motions. Fish , stated that she realizes the addition is simply for a garage, however, she feels there is no hardship in this proposal. Upon listening to Fish, Ferguson and Kelley concurred. O’Brien: Motion to grant the variance for a one- story garage, 20 feet wide with attic space above. Seconded by Kelley. Motion was denied on a vote of 3 – 2. (Fish, Kelley, Ferguson opposed) (Houseman and O’Brien in favor) 2 Holding Street – R-10 Zone – John Fraizer – Variances Mr. John Fraizer spoke on his own behalf. He is seeking to encroach 18 feet plus or minus upon the rear yard setback requirement of 25 feet, with a two story family room/bedroom addition (8-1/2’ x 13-1/2’ x 35’ high) and to encroach 7 feet plus or minus upon the front yard setback requirement of 20 feet, with a (20’- 6” x 4’ x 10’ high) farmers porch. Chairman Houseman, informed the petitioner that a quorum of five members of the Board were not present and informed the petitioner that he could refrain from being heard if he chose, or he could have the four member board hear his petition. However, a 4 – 0 vote would be required for approval. Fraizer stated that he would choose to be heard by the four- member board. Fraiser stated that he bought the one story house, which contained four rooms, before he was married. He is now married and has one seven- year old son and his wife is expecting another child. He indicated his mother-in-law would be coming to help his wife and may possibly live with them in the future. The existing house would be raised to two stories and contain a new two story addition, 8 ½ feet deep by 13 ½ feet wide for a family room extension of the first floor and a new bedroom extension of the second floor. He also would be constructing a one- story farmer’s porch, approximately four feet wide on the front and side of the dwelling, as shown o the site plan. He stated the hardship was because the rear of the dwelling was located seven feet from the rear lot line. The addition would line up with the existing rear face of the dwelling front and side of the dwelling, as shown on the site plan. He added that the hardship was because the rear of the dwelling was located seven feet from the rear lot line. There is no backyard in which to expand. There are also trees located in front of the dwelling, which they do not wish to remove. He indicated they enjoy the neighborhood and do not want to move and relocate. He presented a petition of approval from four families located in the neighborhood. Chairman Houseman, asked if any of the public wanted to comment on the proposal. There being none, he asked the Board members for their comments or questions. Kelley, asked if Mr. Fraizer had photographs of the dwelling and he responded, yes. O’Brien, stated she could not find the dwelling since she could not locate Holding Street. Kelley asked if an architect prepared Fraizer’s plans and he responded, no. She inquired who the contractor would be and the owner indicated that he would do the work. Kelley then stated that there was a hardship because of the placement of the existing dwelling on the lot but in her opinion the degree of hardship requested was large. Fish asked if the neighbor to the rear of the dwelling signed the petition in favor. Fraizer, responded she was notified by mail of his proposal but that since she was just moving in to her house, he was unable to contact her. Fish, stated that she was concerned about the addition affecting the abutter to the rear. Fraizer replied, that he house was located to the left of her lot and the only affect of his addition, would be upon her garage. O’Brien asked if there would be lattice- work under the farmer’s porch. Fraizer, responded, yes and indicated there would be a foundation under the main addition. Houseman, stated the scale of the addition Page 6 (Fraizer cont.) would not have an adverse affect upon the neighborhood. He added that he had concerns, however, for the opinion of the neighbor at the rear. Consequently, he suggested that Fraizer carry the petition to the next hearing and have the neighbor abutting in the rear, sign the petition. Fish asked Fraizer, if he was going to hire an engineer to assist him and he responded, no. Houseman asked Building Commissioner, Tim Brennan, to review for the Board, the plans presented and for his comments. Brennan responded that more adequate plans would be required showing the dimensions, the layout, and the elevations for a building permit. Kelley stated, she would like to see more definitive plans, adding that Fraizer does have a hardship but that she is concerned for the opinion of the rear abutter. Houseman and O’Brien, concurred with Kelley. th Kelley: Motion to postpone the hearing until the scheduled June 27 meeting providing Fraizer agreed to speak with the rear abutter and bring more definitive plans to the Board. She also indicated that if he agreed he must sign a waiver of time. Fish seconded. All members in favor. Motion carried 4 - 0