ZBA Minutes - February 24, 2021 - remote City of Beverly—Public Meeting Ground Rules
This Open Meeting is being conducted remotely, consistent with Governor Baker's Executive
Order of March 12, 2020, in response to the outbreak of COVID-19, which allows public bodies
to meet entirely remotely so long as adequate alternative public access is afforded.
• Other participants or viewers may be able to see and hear you. You have the option to turn off
your video if you are participating via computer.
• Mute microphones or phones unless recognized by the Chair to reduce background noise and
feedback. Mute yourself by clicking the microphone mute/unmute icon at the bottom of the
screen, pressing the mute button on your telephone, or by pressing *6 on your telephone keypad.
The host may mute you.
• Use the Chat function for technical difficulties and to indicate you'd speak and not for public
comment.
• Wait until the person speaking has finished before speaking so we can clearly hear all
participants.
• State your name and address or affiliation before speaking.
• Speak clearly, loudly, and in a way that helps generate accurate minutes.
• Regarding public comment:
•After speakers conclude, the Chair will invite Board members to provide comment,
questions, or motions.
•After members have spoken, the Chair may afford public comment as follows:
• The Chair will first ask members of the public who wish to speak to identify their names
and addresses only; you may also write "me" in the chat function.
• Once the Chair has a list of all public commenters, she will call on each by name.
• Public comment is at the Chair's discretion unless required by law (such as a public
hearing).
City of Beverly
Zoning Board of Appeals
February 24, 2021 at 7:00 pm
These minutes are not a verbatim transcript of the public hearing of the Board of Appeals.
Reviews of the Board's Decision or outcome of the public hearing should include an examination
of the Board's decision for that hearing.
Members Present: Joel Margolis, Chairperson, Victoria Caldwell, Pamela Gougian,
David Battistelli, Jim Levasseur, Kevin Andrews, alt.
Members Absent: Margaret O'Brien, alt., Stefano Basso, alt.
Others Present: Steve Frederickson, Building Commissioner
Leanna Harris, Zoning Board Administrative Assistant
Location: Remote
Mr. Margolis began the meeting at 7:05 pm. and as a preliminary matter, stated the following:
Before beginning the meeting, I am confirming that all members and persons anticipated on the
agenda are present and can hear me.
• Members, when I call your name, please respond in the affirmative.
• Staff, when I call your name,please respond in the affirmative.
• Anticipated speakers
L NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Alice Beltran
In a petition for a request for a Special Permit to operate a kennel and a dog daycare as an
accessory use to the kennel. The property is located at 54 West Dane Street in the IG zoning
district.
Alice Beltran addressed the Board and stated due to Covid she is moving her dog daycare from
Danvers to Beverly. They have a lot less clientele and the area where they are renting now is not
sustainable. Many of their clients are from Beverly and so moving to Beverly near the pet
friendly condos and the commuter rail is the right move for them. The rent is significantly lower
at this new location.
Richard Vincent, the commercial broker representing the landlord stated there are no issues or
concerns having Northshore Dog as a tenant.
Page 2 of 9
Mr. Battistelli stated James Lovatt at 348 Rantoul Street wrote a letter opposing this application
based upon another dog daycare at Park Street where there is excessive barking. Mr. Battistelli
asked Ms. Beltran how this daycare will prevent that. Ms. Beltran stated Northshore Dog is
staffed overnight and they also operate with different rooms with walls versus the fencing Loyal
Canine uses. Ms. Beltran explained how dogs being able to see other dogs through a fence but
not be able to get to them can promote barking. Ms. Beltran stated she does not know if Loyal
Canine has staff overnight.
Ms. Caldwell stated there were also two letters in support of the application from Michael and
Andrea Barone and Breanna Lucci. Ms. Caldwell stated this location seems further away from
residential properties and she doesn't have an issue with it.
MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to close the public hearing.
Mr. Battistelli seconded the Motion.
Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur)
Motion carries.
MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to GRANT a Special Permit at 54 West Dane to
operate a dog kennel daycare. Mr. Battistelli seconded the Motion.
Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur)
Motion carries.
B. Andrew Breton and Leah Knight
In a petition for a request for a Special Permit to replace a nonconforming detached garage with
a detached accessory structure, with no change in setbacks. Garage has a rear setback of 0.3'
where 25' is required and a right side setback of 1.9'where 10' is required. The property is
located at 31 High Street in the R6 zoning district.
Ryan McShera(Red Barn Architecture) addressed the Board on behalf of the applicants and
stated they had a structural engineer come out and view the garage and submit a report. The
applicants are seeking to build a new garage on the same footprint. The existing garage is
nonconforming.
Several abutters submitted letters expressing concerns.
Meredith Johnson and Al Lavoie, 29 High Street stated they are the closest abutters to the garage
and they would prefer it remain a garage and not become an accessory structure.
Kent Sinclair, 18 High Street, stated he is concerned about the parking and creating living space.
Mr. Margolis asked Mr. Frederickson if this house is a legal two family and if it's possible to add
an additional unit to create a third family. Mr. Frederickson stated the application states it's a
single family and this is the first he is hearing that it's a two family.
Page 3 of 9
Mr. McShera stated the existing building is an existing two family. There is no intention to
convert the accessory structure into a third unit. They are just looking for a little more room for
their family. Mr. McShera stated as far as the parking they are not looking to add another unit
and the existing parking is enough to satisfy the existing two family. The existing garage is not
large enough to accommodate a car.
Mr. Battistelli stated he can appreciate the applicant is willing to make concessions but a garage
that is four inches from the property line is much different than living quarters where people
would use a living room and a bedroom loft. Mr. Battistelli stated he is not in favor of this and
they do not have abutter support.
Mr. McShera stated the garage loft is only about 84 sq. ft and not more than 21/z feet tall. It was
their attempt to gain more natural light, it not habitable space.
Suzanne Lanzikos, 35 High Street submitted a letter in opposition and stated they have lived
there for 36 years and she has several concerns regarding the accessory structure. Ms. Lanzikos
asked what the height of the proposed structure will be.
Mr. McShera asked the Board for a continuance and stated they are going to go back to the
drawing board and meet with some neighbors.
MOTION: Ms. Caldwell moved to continue the hearing on the petition at 31 High Street
subject to signing the Waiver and Agreement. Mr. Battistelli seconded the Motion.
Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur)
Motion carried.
Kevin and Jennifer Stacey
In a petition for a request for a Special Permit to replace a non-conforming detached garage
with an attached garage with a left side setback of approximately 7'where 20' is required. The
new garage will be no closer to side lot line than the existing garage. The property is located at
11 Rezza Road in the R45 zoning district.
Jennifer Stacey addressed the Board and stated they would like to reconstruct their garage. It is a
hazardous structure that has sunk two feet in the back and they can longer shut the door and there
are many cracks. It was built with many cinder blocks in the 1950s. They would like to
demolish and build a new garage and attach it to the house with the 4ft of space available. It
would have a small space above for an office or a gym.
No one spoke in favor or against.
Mr. Battistelli stated this will add value to their house and the surrounding houses and he is in
favor. Mr. Battistelli stated it will look great when it is done.
Page 4 of 9
MOTION: Mr. Battistelli moved to close the public hearing.
Mr. Andrews seconded the Motion:
Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur)
Motion carries.
MOTION: Ms. Caldwell moved to GRANT the Special Permit at 11 Rezza Road to
build a new attached garage with access to the space above, subject to the plans
submitted. Ms. Gougian seconded the Motion.
Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur)
Motion carries.
C. Mark and Sarah Patrie
In a petition for a request for a Variance to construct an attached two-car garage to right side of
nonconforming dwelling. Garage will have a right setback of 8'where 15' is required. The
property is located at 16 Auburn Road in the R10 zoning district.
Mark Patrie stated they are seeking to add a 2-car garage where they can store their vehicles,
snow blowers, etc. and tie it into the additional plans which include building a second story with
a large family room above the proposed garage. There is no abutting neighbor on the side of the
opposed changes. The bus depot is the closest structure.
Mr. Margolis asked Mr. Patrie to address the hardship and Mr. Patrie stated they have limited
space to store vehicles. It's a narrow street with parking issues due to nearby funeral home. Mr.
Patrie stated they would like to utilize the garage for their vehicles and then anyone visiting them
could utilize their driveway. The current garage functions largely as a shed, its not properly
utilized. Due to the shape of the lot there is no where else to put it.
Ms. Gougian asked if the stone wall is their lot line and Mr. Patrie stated it is about right.
Ms. Caldwell stated it doesn't look like it will interfere with any direct abutters. Ms. Caldwell
agreed it would be helpful to get cars off the street.
No one spoke in favor or against.
MOTION: Mr. Andrews moved to close the public hearing.
Mr. Battistelli seconded the Motion.
Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli,Andrews)
Motion carries.
Page 5 of 9
MOTION: Mr. Battistelli moved to GRANT a Variance at 16 Auburn Road to construct
an attached 2-car garage to the right side of the nonconforming dwelling with a right side
setback of 8', where 15' is required, subject to the plans submitted. Mr. Andrews
seconded the Motion.
Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli,Andrews)
Motion carries.
D. Alexander & Femino o/b/o Donald and Lyne McAuliffe
In a petition for a request for a Special Permit to allow a 900 sq. ft. in-law apartment for the
parents of owner Lyne McAuliffe, namely Robert and Marie Fitzgerald. The property is located
at 18 Landers Drive in the R22 zoning district.
Tom Alexander, Esq. (Alexander & Femino) addressed the Board and stated the applicants have
lived at this location since 1994. They are seeking to build an in-law apartment for Ms.
McAuliffe's parents, Robert and Marie Fitzgerald and an affidavit has been provided. The
addition would be one story to the rear of the property and complies with all zoning setbacks.
The 900 sq. ft. in-law proposal is 27.4% of the lot area. The addition is limited to the principle
dwelling. This Special Permit would create two units. The unit is self contained and will share a
common wall with the existing dwelling with an opening door between the two units. The will
be at the rear of the property. They have complied with all zoning requirements for the accessory
apartment.
Craig Perkins stated he has lived next door since 1999 and they are great neighbors and a
fantastic family. Mr. Perkins would like more information as to what the plans are and what the
City setbacks are.
Donald McAuliffe stated he spoke with the neighbor that this addition is closest to.
Ms. Gougian asked if this will be on a foundation or will it be on a slab and Mr. McAuliffe stated
it will have a foundation. Ms. Gougian asked if they anticipate any blasting. Ms. Gougian stated
her parents lived into their 100s, if this is an in-law apartment it will have to be transferred back
into the house when it is no longer used as an in-law apartment.
Ms. Caldwell stated they are able to build this addition by right and they are before the Board
because they are looking to use it as an in-law.
MOTION: Ms. Gougian moved to close the public hearing.
Ms. Caldwell seconded the Motion.
Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur)
Motion carries.
Mr. Battistelli stated he can appreciate needing space in-laws and stated he is concerned about
the abutters at 72 Middlebury Lane even though they aren't here. They are going to be looking at
76 feet of wall.
Page 6 of 9
MOTION: Ms. Caldwell moved to GRANT the Special Permit at 18 Landers Drive to
add a 900 sq. ft. one story addition to serve as an in-law apartment for Robert and Marie
Fitzgerald the parents of Lyne McAuliffe, the in law may exist as long as the Fitzgeralds
are occupying the unit, subject to the plans submitted.
Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion.
Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur)
Motion carries.
E. Douglas and Sarah Turnbull
In a petition for a request for a Variance to raise and extend existing shed dormer and raise ridge
and sidewalls of gabled extension to match existing wall and ridge heights on second floor. The
existing structure has a right side setback of 1.3' where 15' is required and a front setback of 4.5'
where 20' is required." The property is located at 174 Hale Street in the R10 zoning district.
Sarah Turnbull addressed the Board and stated they are proposing to change the roofline in the
back of the house to gain 300 sq. ft. so they can add a second bathroom. They have 3 young
children and access to existing rooms does not flow correctly. This change would connect all
bedrooms to a central stair case and add a bathroom. They love the area and they have roots in
the community. They have letters in support from neighbors. There will be no change to the
footprint of the home.
Ms. Caldwell asked for clarification as to why they need a Variance and Mr. Frederickson stated
the ordinance specifically says you have to have at least half the required setback or you need a
Variance.
No one spoke in favor or against.
MOTION: Ms. Caldwell moved to close the public hearing.
Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion.
Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur)
Motion carries.
MOTION: Ms. Caldwell moved to GRANT the Variance at 174 Hale Street seeking
relief from 300-83 to alter the roof line at the rear at the house, due to a hardship caused
by the position of the house on the lot, subject to the plans submitted.
Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion.
Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur)
Motion carries.
[ 5 minute recess ]
Page 7 of 9
II. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
A. Carol Horvitz, Trustee of the Edgewater House Trust and Jeffrey Horvitz
In a petition for a request for an Appeal to Building Permit B-20-184, issued by the Building
Commissioner on April 10, 2020. The property is located at 63 West Street in the R45 zoning
district.
Heather Gamache, Esq. (Rackemann, Sawyer& Brewster) addressed the Board and stated she
represents Carol and Jeffrey Horvitz, who are Beverly residents living at 65 West Street. The
Horvitz are opposing the issuance of a Building Permit to erect a single family home at 63 West
Street. Ms. Gamache provided a brief history of the building permits issued and appeals.
In 2020 Judge Long issued a decision that the Building Commissioner was not to consider
frontage but could consider any other issues that exist.
On February 13, 2020 Mr. Wile submitted a request for a building permit to erect a single family
home on 63 West Street. The Building Commissioner reconsidered the 1999 application and
reissued BP 60658. Inquiries to the building permit were made and information obtained was
that it was being considered in conjunction with a 2006 plan. They received a copy of the 1999
building permit application and a 2006 plan, they did not receive a 2020 building permit
application.
Jeffrey Horvitz addressed the Board and stated the Wile's divorce decree orders Mr. Wile to be
responsible for nonpayment of real estate taxes. Mr. Horvitz stated Mr. Wile has ignored that
order and stopped paying. The accumulating unpaid tax is now in its second decade approaching
$300,000. For 3 years Mr. Wile has stored a boat and trailer on the property without a permit.
Mr. Horvitz stated the ZBA has the authority to deny based on unpaid real estate taxes and
unpaid fines. The Wiles are not Beverly residents but yet they have the highest unpaid real estate
fines.
Sander Rikleen, Esq. (Sherin & Lodgen) stated he has represented Mr. Wile for many years and
he has previously been in front of this Board. This is a Building Permit appeal not a tax collector
or a probate court trying to figure out what Mr. Wile didn't do under his divorce decree. Atty.
Rikleen stated in 2007 when they sought a building permit the issue was whether the property
had adequate frontage and at the time the building inspector and ZBA didn't think they did. The
Land Court recently ruled that the property does have legal frontage and denying the building
permit in 2007 was invalid and it should come back before the Building Department again. At
that time Mr. Wile applied for a new building permit. The building permit is dated 2/12/2020.
There is no reference to anything submitted in 1999, it stands on its own. All plans submitted are
dated 2006, they are the same plans used in 2007 when they sought a building permit, they have
nothing to do with 1999.
Page 8 of 9
Kevin Corridan stated it is his understanding the building inspector treated this as a new permit
and linked it to a previous permit to since the fee had already been paid. It is not in the purview
of the ZBA to withhold a permit.
Mr. Frederickson stated Mr. Wile did apply for a new permit with a new application and
submitted a new set of plans for review. Mr. Frederickson stated the only reason he put the word
reissuance on the permit with a new number was for the purpose if they are ever audited it would
flag the auditor as to why a fee wasn't charged. It was new application, new plans, new permit
number and it was routed to other departments for review. Mr. Frederickson stated he doesn't
understand why the word reissuance is being questioned.
Carol Horvitz stated for the record they had nothing to do with their divorce as Atty. Rikleen
previously stated.
MOTION: Ms. Caldwell moved to close the public hearing.
Mr. Battistelli seconded the Motion.
Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur)
Motion carried.
Mr. Battistelli stated as soon as the property is sold the City will get their taxes.
MOTION: Ms. Caldwell moved to overturn the Building Inspector's decision to issue a
building permit for 63 West Street. Mr. Battistelli seconded the Motion.
Votes in favor: 0-5 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur)
Motion Denied.
OTHER BUSINESS
Approval of January 27, 2021 ZBA Minutes (Levasseur)
MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to approve the minutes from the January 27, 2021
meeting. Mr. Battistelli seconded the Motion.
Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur)
Motion carries.
MOTION: Ms. Caldwell moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:34pm.
Mr. Andrews seconded the Motion.
All in favor
Motion carries.
Leanna Harris,Administrative Assistant
Board of Appeals of the Zoning Ordinance
Page 9 of 9