Loading...
2005-02-22 CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES These minutes are not a verbatim transcript of the public hearing or public meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeal. Reviews of the discussion or outcome of the public hearing should include an examination of the Board’s Decision for that hearing. Board: Zoning Board of Appeal Date: February 22, 2005 Place: Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street Board Members Present: Full Members: Co-Chair Scott D. Houseman Co-Chair Andrea Fish, Scott Ferguson, and Margaret O’Brien. Alternate Member: Jane Brusca. Absent: Joel Margolis and Patricia Murphy Co-Chair Houseman opened the meeting to the public. He spoke of two new cases on the agenda plus the holdovers. 12 Parkview Avenue – R-10 Zone – Francis A. & Cathleen E. Kavanagh, III Variance and Special Permit Request Co-Chair Houseman stated that he would first like to speak to Attorney Peter J. Feuerbach representing the Kavanaghs of 12 Parkview Avenue. He asked if the proposed new dwelling would be upon the same footprint as the dwelling that would be demolished. Co-Chair Houseman stated that the City Solicitor, |Roy Gelineau, had written a letter stating that a structure cannot be reconstructed with a special permit or variance request until the Ordinance is amended to include provisions for Expansion of Non-Conforming Structures. Co-Chair Houseman suggested that Attorney Feuerbach request to continue the application for one month pending whether the City Solicitor reconsiders his opinion or stays with it. Page 2 Attorney Feuerbach responded that the applicants were present and it was his request to proceed with the application. He commented that he had spoken to the City Solicitor and he agreed that the request should not be a special permit. Mr. Gelineau had informed him that the request should be a variance. Attorney Feuerbach requested a recess so he could read Mr. Gelineau’s letter. He commented that the owners should be able to repair their dwelling. Co-Chair Houseman had the Building Commissioner Robert Nelson make a copy of Mr. Gelineau’s letter and present it to Attorney Feuerbach. At 7:50 p .m. the meeting was re-opened. Attorney Feuerbach reiterated that he would like to go forward tonight for a variance request. He stated that Roy Gelineaus’ letter was written nine months ago. He added that he did not agree with the conclusion of the letter. If a special permit cannot be used, then a variance must be the way. Co-Chair Houseman stated you may proceed with the request, however, the Board might not vote upon this tonight. Fish concurred. O’Brien stated she was ready for them to present their case. Attorney Feuerbach introduced the Kavanagh’s, owners who are requesting to replace their existing non-conforming single-family dwelling located on the Danvers River at 12 Park View Avenue. He introduced David Porter of Childs Engineering Corporation. He stated he had submitted two letters dated January 12 and January 17 from Childs Engineering to Ken Fields of BSC Group in Boston, stating that the condition of the existing piles which support the current structure are no longer satisfactory and should not be used in the reconstruction of the residence. Mr. Porter also wrote that he had performed a review of the water level elevations, which can be anticipated at the project site. He also reviewed FEMA’s FIRM maps accepted by the Beverly community, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Tidal Flood Profiles for the New England Coastline, and a review of the historic high water levels in Beverly. Based on our review of the information, he recommended a minimum finished first floor elevation of 13 feet above NGVD 1929. This reflects an increase in the current the first floor elevation of approximately two feet. The variance would allow a front yard setback of 0.0 feet where 20 feet is required; a side yard setback of 1.4 feet where 15 feet is required; 90 feet of frontage where 100 feet is required; no off street parking where two spaces are required; and any other dimensional or other relief that may be required. Attorney Feuerbach stated the dwelling was constructed in about 1900 on wooden piles that elevate the structure above the Danvers River. The piles are in various stages of rot, and disrepair. These piles need to be removed and replaced with a modern, marine- engineered pile system, which the Kavanaghs presently propose. Mr. and Mrs. Kavanagh spoke to their neighbors and exhibited their proposed plans. The abutting neighbor Ron Gillis of 25 Marsh Avenue signed a petition supporting this proposal along with 12 other neighbors. Page 3 12 Parkview Avenue (cont.) A representative of the applicant stated the floors of the existing dwelling were sagging and that the piles are moving. He added that the proposed new dwelling would be for a full time residence. He commented that the surrounding porch would be enclosed for living space. He submitted a new elevation plan dated February 22, 2005 which indicated that the roof elevation would be one-foot shorter because of the rules of Chapter 91. Attorney Feuerbach stated the criteria of the variance is that the parcel is below the high water line of the Danvers River and subject to tidal action. The topography is low lying and the dwelling drops off about 10 feet into the coastal mud. The hardship is that the State Regulations maintain he has to stay on the same footprint. He added that this is the minimum variance request and it would not be detrimental to the ordinance or impact views. Joan Murphy of 36 Long Meadow Road asked if only 1/3 of the original porch would be enclosed. O’Brien asked if Chapter 91 allows the footprint of the building to be smaller. Fish stated she was of the opinion that this was a very large increase in living space. Brusca asked how many bedrooms were present. Mr. Kavanagh responded there were four bedrooms in the existing dwelling. Brusca stated this proposal had a huge increase in living space. Ferguson stated he made a site visit today and he felt there would be a 30% increase in the proposed plan for the dwelling. Houseman stated the neighbors had signed in favor of the project and that the size of the dwelling was not a concern to him. He did however, feel that the visual impact would make a huge difference. He questioned if the overall scale was large or minimal. Attorney Feuerbach responded that this is a high cost project. He added this will be a modest new dwelling with less than 2,464 square feet of living space. O’Brien stated she was not happy with the design and 5 bedrooms proposed. Fish stated this was not the minimum relief and added that the existing structure is non-conforming. She questioned if this was one lot or two. The owner stated both lots represent 22,000 sq. feet and that they pay taxes on one lot. Houseman asked if there could be another design submitted on a smaller scale. Ferguson: Motion to allow the petitioner to continue until the next scheduled meeting on March 22, 2005. Subject to a waiver of time being signed. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion carries 5 – 0. All members in favor (Houseman, Fish, O’Brien, Ferguson, & Brusca) Discussion: Fish and Brusca stated they might not be in attendance next month. 6 Arlington Avenue – R-10 Zone – Daniel R. and Diana K. Ribreau Variance Request Mr. Ribreau spoke on his own behalf. He stated he was requesting to encroach 15 feet plus or minus upon the 25 feet rear yard setback, with a (12’ x 24’) two-story addition Page 4 Ribreau, 6 Arlington Avenue (cont.) hat has a family room on the first floor and to expand existing bedrooms on the second floor. He added that he would like to demolish the rear of the dwelling including the small porch. He stated the dwelling is a Dutch Colonial design and the only option would be to build an addition in the rear. Mr. Ribreau stated his neighbor’s were in favor of his plan. Co-Chairperson Fish asked if any member of the public had any comments or questions on this proposal. There being none she asked the Board for their questions and comments. O’Brien asked what the hardship was. Mr. Ribreau stated they only wanted to enlarge a small amount. Fish stated the lot contains 6,700 square feet and is in the R- 10 Zone. She questioned the net gain of the addition. Ferguson stated he calculated the addition would be 12-13% more. He added he had made a site visit that day. He felt that the dwelling was located in the middle of the small lot and there was no ledge. He added that the Lauranzano’s of 6 Goodyear Street had given their approval along with four other neighbors. He continued that the project is scaling up two floors, which does increase the footprint of the structure. Houseman asked when the dwelling was purchased. Mr. Ribreau responded the dwelling was purchased in 2001 and they moved in, in 2002. Fish stated this is a small lot, therefore, the dwelling has to remain small. Houseman stated one application does not set a precedent for another case. He feels it is a reasonable request but the lack of a hardship is a concern. O’Brien stated the addition could not be placed elsewhere because it would ruin the curb appeal of the dwelling. She added that this was a minimum relief request and questioned if this project would pass if it were a Section 6 Finding rather than a variance. Fish questioned if the project would be under 25% which is a requirement of a Section Six Finding. Ferguson responded the project would be under 25%. Ferguson stated that if the applicants went forward they could loose the case. He suggested they withdraw without prejudice and re-file in the future as a Special Permit request. Houseman: Motion to allow the applicant to withdraw without prejudice this application. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion carries 5 – 0. (Houseman, Ferguson, O’Brien, Fish & Brusca) Discussion of Development on Cailin Road Co-Chair Houseman stated that Attorney Phillip Lake of Glovsky and Glovsky had requested the Board hear some information regarding a proposed Subsidized Elderly Housing project near the airport on Cailin Road. He added that the Board must decide whether to allow this where the abutters have not been notified. He stated the Board does not have to respond to their questions. Houseman added he would allow the discussion for 15 minutes. A concept site plan was submitted to the Board. Mr. Peter Kelleher stated he would be requesting a special permit from the Board of Appeals and the Planning Board in the future. He was requesting this Board’s input before filing any plans or applications. He stated this project would be for residential and commercial use. Page 5 Phillip Lake (cont.) There would be approximately 300 units and there would be 150 to 200 employees. This project abuts the Wenham Lake and would be surrounded by existing residential dwellings. Houseman stated the airport would consider office use better than industrial. This property is also in a Watershed Protection Overlay District, which also needs to be addressed. Traffic would definitely be affected. Houseman added that the Board might want an impact study done from an independent company. Fish stated traffic is a concern with only one way in. Attorney Lake stated there is a second option being considered. He has spoken with Frank Killilea the City Engineer and some representatives of the Planning Board. Houseman asked if the building would be built in phases. Mr. Lake responded yes. Houseman stated the residents behind the proposed project would be concerned with the lighting. He added that conservation must be considered and he noted the general impact on the wetlands. Attorney Lake stated the project might be designed with separate buildings. Fish stated that would be more negative to her. Houseman stated the development would be located near the Vitale site. He questioned how this applies to the fly ash, which is at that site. The time was nearing 10:30 p.m. and Co-Chair Houseman ended the discussion. Discussion of broadcasting Zoning Board of Appeal meetings Co-Chair Houseman stated that Mr. Rob Mc Causland, the Executive Director of Bev Cam was present to now explore whether meetings of various city boards might be filmed and broadcast in the same manner as the City Council and School Committee meetings. This Board will have to decide if they want to be broadcast. A tape filmed last month of the Board of Appeal meeting was given to the Board members to review. After much discussion, Houseman, Fish, O’Brien, Ferguson, and Brusca stated they were in favor of the Board of Appeal meetings being broadcast in the future. Minutes Co-Chair Houseman stated that the Board was one year behind in approving the minutes of the meeting. He added that Co-Chair Fish had said she would take on the project of reading all the minutes Mrs. Rogers had sent for approval. Co-Chair Fish stated she had read one month and hoped to read until finished before the March 22 meeting. Co-Chair Houseman stated Mrs. Standley of 13 Warren Street had signed a waiver of time and requested the case be continued until the March 2005 meeting. Ferguson: Motion to allow Mrs. Standley’s continuance until the March 2005 meeting Seconded by O’Brien. All members in favor. Motion carries unanimously. Co-Chair Houseman stated Attorney Glovsky, representing the Waitts of 4 Foster’s Point was requesting a continuance, subject to a waiver of time being signed. Ferguson: Motion to allow Attorney Glovsky a continuance until the March 2005 meeting. A waiver of time to be signed. Seconded by O’Brien. All members in favor. Motion carries unanimously. Co-Chair Houseman stated Attorney Thomas Alexander, representing Beverly Farms Auto Service, of 29 R. West Street, requested a continuance until the April 2005 meeting. Ferguson: Motion to allow Attorney Alexander a continuance until the April 2005 meeting. A waiver of time to be signed. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion carries unanimously. (Houseman, Ferguson, O’Brien, Brusca, & Fish) Meeting adjourned 11:15 p.m.