Loading...
Taygeta Corp. - Decision Decision on Petition for a Special Permit and a Variance Requested by Taygeta Corp. A public meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals (the “Board”) was held on Tuesday January 28, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. at Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, Beverly, Massachusetts. The agenda included a petition by Taygeta Corp. for a special permit to expand a nonconforming use by the addition of a single-story building containing 13,440 square feet for indoor commercial recreation purposes and for a variance to allow the rear setback of 15 feet where 25 feet is required, regarding the property located at 31 Tozer Road (the “Parcel”). The property is located in a IR Zoning District. The January 28, 2003 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, Scott Ferguson, Margaret O’Brien and Mark Schmidt. Alternate member Jane Brusca assumed a voting position. Alternate member Joel Margolis was in attendance but not voting. 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. Steven Connolly, owner of the Bass River Tennis Club at 31 Tozer Road, explained the evolution of the club from when it opened in 1971 with 5 indoor tennis courts. He noted that in 1972, three additional indoor courts were added and in the mid- 1970s, two outdoor courts were constructed. He explained that the outdoor courts do not experience as much use as the indoor courts. The demand for indoor courts is increasing and to accommodate, they propose two new indoor courts in the approximate location of the existing outdoor courts. Attorney Mark Glovsky was also present and spoke on behalf of Mr. Connolly. He stated a special permit was required to modify a non-conforming use. The existing building was constructed in 1971 and the zoning at that time did not require a special permit, therefore it is a legal nonconforming use. He stated that a variance is needed to allow the rear setback of 15’ where 25 feet is required. He stated the property fronts on Tozer Road. He added that the proposed building would be 15 feet from the MBTA railroad tracks in the rear. On the other side of the tracks are the playing fields of the North Shore Country Day School. He explained that the site contains three existing buildings and two existing outdoor courts. Photographs were submitted to the Board. A letter was read into record by Chairman Houseman from Arro Engineering, a direct abutter, in support of the petition. Mr. Glovsky also stated that Mr. John Drislane, owner of Appleseeds was also in favor of the petition. Mr. Glovsky stated this project will not generate additional noise and that there will be no exterior lighting because the tennis courts will now be inside. They will also create 15 new parking spaces that will be located between the buildings and will not be visible from the street. This is the minimum relief necessary for a variance. Tennis courts are of a specific regulation size; therefore, a variance is required. Chairman Houseman asked if any member of the public would like to comment on this petition. Joan Murphy of 36 Longmeadow Road questioned if this petition would go before the Conservation Commission due to its proximity to the Varian property. Mr. Connolly responded that they would not need to obtain Conservation Commission approval. He added that no excavation would be needed and that the tennis courts would be constructed over a concrete slab. Chairman Houseman then asked the Board Members for their questions and comments. Ferguson stated he made a site visit on Sunday, January 26, 2003. He stated he initially had concerns about spilled solvents related to Varian. He stated he has concluded that this use would not further impact the underground problem in this area. He commented that the appearance of Mr. Connolly’s property is commendable. Houseman stated he made a site visit on Sunday, January 26, 2003 and noted that the construction of the foundation would be upon a slab. He stated he was aware of the pollutants from Varian Corp., however, tennis courts do not need foundations. He added the construction would not affect residential areas. Schmidt asked if the project would exceed 25% of the existing footprint. Mr. Glovsky provided calculations that the percentage of the addition was 22.9%. Schmidt stated this project will not increase traffic or make noise and that it would enhance property values. He felt there was no “down side” to this petition. The Board incorporated its observations as its general findings of fact and made the following specific findings about the proposed use of the addition: (1) that the specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed addition, and that the character of the adjoining uses will not be adversely affected; (2) that no factual evidence is found that the property values in the district will be adversely affected by the addition; (3) that no undue traffic, nuisance, or unreasonable hazard will result from the addition; (4) that adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation and maintenance of the proposed use; (5) that there are no valid objections from abutting property owners based on demonstrable fact ; and (6) that adequate and appropriate City services are available for the proposed use. The Board also made a Section 6 finding that the expanded non-conforming use will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming use and that such use will not increase the building area by more than 25 percent. Following the questioning and discussion, a motion was made by O’Brien to GRANT the special permit, seconded by Ferguson. The motion carried 5-0 (O’Brien, Houseman, Schmidt, Ferguson and Brusca in favor). The Board then made the following specific findings about the variance: (1) that special conditions exist, which are peculiar to the parcel but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located; (2) that the request is the minimum one that could be granted and still allow the petitioner reasonable use of the parcel, as tennis courts have standardized dimensions; (3) that the granting of this variance would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning bylaw; and (4) that this proposal is not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Following the questioning and discussion, a motion was made by O’Brien to GRANT the variance, seconded by Ferguson. The motion carried 5-0 (Houseman, O’Brien, Ferguson, Schmidt and Brusca in favor). 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, Jane Brusca Zoning Board Member JB/lz