Loading...
Jones - Decision Decision on Petition for a Special Permit Requested by Robert T. Jones A public meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeal was held on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. at Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, Beverly, Massachusetts. The agenda included a petition by Robert T. Jones for a Special Permit to allow an existing non-conforming business use to be changed to retail sale of flower boxes and to allow a 5 feet square wall sign for the new business, regarding property located at 641 Hale Street (the “Parcel”). The property is located in an R-15 Zoning District. The February 26, 2002 public meeting of the Board was called to order by the Chairman Scott D. Houseman. The following five members of the Board were present: full members Scott D. Houseman, Margaret O’Brien, Scott Ferguson, Mark Schmidt and alternate member and John Colluci. Member Andrea Fish left early and was not present. 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 materials. Attorney Marc N. Sandler spoke on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Sandler stated that the lot frontage is 55 feet the lot depth approximately 225 feet. He added that there is one duplex dwelling located on the lot and a separate single story dwelling for a total of three dwelling units. Attorney Sandler stated that there is also a rectangular building on the lot which has never been residential but contains the non-conforming business use. Mr. Sandler stated that the duplex dwelling contains four parking spaces, single dwelling contains two spaces, and there are three additional spaces for the business uses. He added that the business building contains 700 square feet of floor area. Attorney Sandler commented that the former business in the building was Prides Crossing Confections. It has moved to another location. The prospective tenant, William Maguire, commented that the retail use will be for the sale of flower boxes and flowers. He added that the boxes will be constructed by a subcontractor off the site and he will use the building to display the various boxes. Mr. Maguire stated that he would be going to various homes and install and maintain the flower boxes during the growing season. He added that he lives in Ipswich and that he has had this business for three years. Photographs were submitted to the Board for review. Chairman Houseman asked if any member of the public wished to comment on this petition. Stella Mae Seamans of 840 Hale Street asked why the sign was proposed at 5 feet high. Mr. Maguire responded that the sign will be 5 square feet and located on the front of the building. Rosemary Maglio of 30 Pleasant Street stated that she was concerned with the hours of operation, lighting, dumpsters, screening, etc. Mr. Maguire 1 stated that the hours of operation would be 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and that there would not be a dumpster on site. The members then questioned the petitioner. They made observations and obtained answers regarding the criteria upon which findings must be made in order for the Board to grant a special permit. This discussion is summarized as follows: Mr. Schmidt asked if manufacturing would be going on in the building. Mr. Maguire responded no. Ms. O’Brien commented that the sign would need Design Review Board approval if it is to be granted by this Board; however, she feels this proposal is acceptable. Mr. Colucci questioned if fertilizers or chemicals would be stored on the premises. Mr. Maguire responded no. Mr. Schmidt asked how long the property has been non-conforming. Attorney Sandler responded that on the title, this property shows up in the 1930’s as a garage and filling station, and that the business will remain as retail use and not manufacturing. Mr. Houseman asked what the level of traffic was. Mr. Maguire responded that “he would be happy to have three customers a day.” As his business sells high-end materials, three customers a day is a typical day and a good one. Mr. Houseman asked Building Commissioner Timothy Brennan what the parking requirements were for this business. Mr. Brennan responded that the requirement for retail business is one space for every 275 square feet of floor area. He added that the floor area of this building was 700 square feet and that three 9 feet parking spaces would be sufficient. Ms. O’Brien asked if the front part of the lot could be paved. Attorney Sandler responded that he preferred gravel which allows the site to drain. He added that the plot plan indicates two parking spaces in the front with room for another, and that the third space is located on the side. Mr. Houseman asked Mr. Brennan if he was satisfied that the requirements of Section 29-24 “Design Requirements,” are met. Mr. Brennan responded that he was. The Board incorporated the answers to its questions as its specific findings of fact and made the following general findings about the proposed business use: (1) that the Parcel is an appropriate location for the proposed use and that the character of the adjoining uses will not be adversely affected; (2) that no factual evidence is found that property values in the district will be adversely affected by such use; (3) that no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result; (4) that adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation and maintenance of the proposed use; (5) that there were no valid objections from abutting property owners based on demonstrable fact; and (6) that adequate and appropriate City services are or will be available for the proposed use. Following the questioning and discussion, on a motion made by Ms. O’Brien and seconded by Mr. Colucci to adopt the findings and grant the application. The Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the special permit. 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 2 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 3