Loading...
Manzi - Variance Decision on Petition for a Variance Requested by Alaine Manzi A public meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals (the “Board”) was held on Tuesday May 28, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. at Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, Beverly, Massachusetts. The agenda included a petition by Alaine Manzi for a variance regarding property located at 10 Beckford Street (the “Parcel”). The petition is a request of a dimensional variance to allow the existing one-family dwelling structure sited on a 5,910 square foot lot to be converted into a three-unit dwelling structure, where 12,000 square feet is required. The Parcel is located in an RMD Zoning District. The Public Hearing on this petition opened on April 23, 2002 and was continued to May 28, 2002. On both dates, the hearing was called to order by the Chairman, Scott D. Houseman and the following five members of the Board were present: full members Scott D. Houseman, Margaret O’Brien, Andrea Fish and Mark Schmidt and alternate member John Colucci. Full member Scott Ferguson did not attend the April hearing and did not vote on this applicationl. Alternate member Jane Brusca was present on both dates, alternate member Joel Margolis was present in May; neither of them voting on this decision. The public hearing on this application started with the Zoning Clerk, Diane Rogers, reading the application request to the public and the Board members reviewing the application material. At the April meeting, Ms. Manzi spoke on her own behalf with Richard Cunningham appearing with her. At the May meeting, Attorney Jerald Parisella of the Law Office of Alexander and Femino spoke on behalf of Ms. Manzi with Richard Cunningham appearing with him. At the April meeting a petition was submitted to the Board signed by neighbors located at 16 and 29 Beckford Street and 15 Gage Street who had no opposition to the approval of this project. Mr. Cunningham stated that Deborah Mager, owner of 19 Beckford and 137 Elliott Street and neighbors located at 6 and 12 Beckford Street were also in favor of the petition, although they had not signed a petition. He added that the abutter at 8 Beckford Street could not be reached. The Board questioned Ms. Manzi about her plans and several members expressed concern about the scale of the project in context with the rest of the neighborhood. Ms. O'Brien stated that the design is out of character with the neighborhood which has other one-family dwellings. Ms. Fish found that the claim to hardship, which is necessary for a variance, was lacking. Mr. Houseman stated that he would like more information pertaining to the cost of the renovations. Mr. Houseman noted that there are several issues for the Board to consider with this application, including: (1) whether the criteria for a variance are satisfied; (2) whether the submitted plan is acceptable to the Board; and (3) the issue of appropriateness of a single-family versus a multi-family in the neighborhood. Mr. Houseman suggested that the owner provide documentation to prove that hardship exists along with the mortgage and appraisal documents and that better plans be presented. Ms. O’Brien also asked for more signatures from neighbors. At the May meeting, a revised plan was submitted and additional signatures from neighbors were provided. No other new information was submitted. Attorney Parisella said that Ms. Manzi had revised the plan from a three-unit dwelling to two-units. The façade would remain the same and the existing dormer would be lengthened. He added that the front porch would remain with new windows installed. More yard space would be provided because parking was reduced from six (6) spaces to four (4) spaces. He noted that the revised plan would be a nice addition to the neighborhood and that the direct abutters were two- and three-units each. He added that there are no objections from neighbors although he could not locate one of the abutters. When asked, no member of the public present at the hearing wished to comment on this petition. The members then questioned the petitioner. They made the following observations about the plans. Ms. O’Brien stated the revised plan was better. Ms. Fish stated that the plans appeared better although she did not feel that that Mr. Cunningham had substantiated a hardship because no written documents had been submitted. Mr. Cunningham stated he estimated that the renovation would amount to about 1,700 square feet at a cost of $120 per square foot. Mr. Collucci stated that the hardship could be the narrowness of the building and its placement on the lot. Mr. Houseman found that the drawings were an improvement from the previous ones. He found that a variance could be found based on the position of the house as it is situated on the lot and the fact that the lot is narrow. However, he noted that this was an application related to the minimum square footage. He added that it is difficult to establish a connection between, on one hand the hardship created by the condition of the structure and its position on the lot and on the other hand a variance for a lot that is too small for the proposed use. Mr. Schmidt stated that there is financial hardship because the repair costs needed to fix-up the structure as a one-family dwelling would exceed the fair market value for the structure after the renovation was complete, and that the applicant has been responsive to the Board’s concerns by reducing the requested relief as now only a two-family, not a three- family, is requested. The Board incorporated Mr. Schmidt’s, Mr. Houseman’s, and Mr. Collucci’s observations as its general findings of fact and made the following specific findings about the proposal: (1) that the request is the minimum one that could be granted and still allow the petitioner reasonable use of the Parcel; (2) that the granting of this variance would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning bylaw; and (3) that this proposal is not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Following the question and discussion, Mr. Schmidt made a motion, seconded by Ms. O’Brien, to GRANT a variance for the revised application for a two-family dwelling, based upon and incorporating by reference the revised plans (to be recorded as part of the decision) attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Motion carried 4-1 (Ms. Fish opposed). Appeals from the Board’s decision on this petition may be filed in accordance with the provisions of M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 17, within twenty (20) days of filing of this decision with the City Clerk. This decision shall not be valid unless recorded at the Essex County Registry of Deeds in Salem, Massachusetts after the twenty-day appeal period has passed without an appeal being filed. Respectfully, Scott D. Houseman Zoning Board Chairman