Loading...
2005-01-25 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: January 25, 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 Members: Joel Margolis, Jane Brusca, and Patricia Murphy. Co-Chair Fish opened the meetingto the public and stated that some administrative material would be discussed first. Co-Chair Houseman stated Mrs. Standley of 13 Warren Street had signed a waiver of time and requested the case be continued until the February 2005 meeting. Ferguson: Motion to allow Mrs. Standley’s continuance until the February 2005 meeting. Seconded by O’Brien. All members in favor. Motion carries unanimously Mr. and Mrs. Gordon of 15 Washington Street signed a waiver to continue their case until the March 2005 scheduled meeting. O’Brien: Motion to allow the Gordon’s continuance until the March 2005 meeting. Seconded by Brusca. All members in favor. Motion carries unanimously. Page 2 After some discussion, Attorney Thomas Alexander, representing Beverly Farms Auto Service, of 29 R. West Street, requested to continue the case until the next scheduled meeting in February. Ferguson: Motion to allow Mr. Alexander to continue the case until the next scheduled meeting in February. Seconded by O’Brien. All members in favor. Motion carries unanimously. A waiver of time was signed by Mr. Alexander. Co-Chair Houseman submitted a waiver of time signed by Attorney Mark Glovsky. He stated that Mr. Glovsky, representative of John F. C. Waitt, Jr. and Toby M. Waitt regarding property located at 4 Foster’s Point requested a continuance until the next scheduled meeting in February because the Section 6 Finding provision has not been added to the zoning ordinance. Co-Chair Houseman stated he therefore,could not vote on Attorney Glovsky’s application. O’Brien: Motion to allow Mr. Glovsky to continue the case until the next scheduled meeting in February. Seconded by Margolis. All members in favor. Motion carries unanimously. 20 Cox Court – RMD Zone – John F. & Marguerite A. Condon – Variance Request Attorney Thomas Alexander spoke on behalf of the Condon’s. He stated he was requesting to construct (4) residential units in one building on a parcel of land having 6,748 plus or minus square feet. Section 29-13 D.1. of the Zoning Ordinance requires 4,000 square feet of land area per dwelling unit. Mr. Alexander stated the Condon’s have owned the property for 34 years. He added that they had obtained a variance in 1970 to build a (4) unit project. Because of the proposed different designs for the new Beverly Bridge, the project did not go forward. One of the designs would call for their land to be taken by the state. Mr. Alexander stated this design would meet the front, side and rear yard setbacks. He added that the area is in a difficult area because of ledge and the fact that the property is bound by three streets. Mr. Alexander submitted an assessor’s map of the area indicating the property highlighted in the color of green. The Condon’s live in the same area ( 19 Wellman Street) and would be close neighbors to this project. Mr. Alexander stated the neighborhood is densely populated and contains multi-family dwellings, some with 3, 4, 10, and 23 units. He added that there was also a commercial business in the neighborhood. Mrs. Condon grew up on School Street and has lived here since 1958. Mr. Alexander stated that a property nearby received a variance four years ago, for four units and the hardship was the topography and soil conditions of the land, which had ledge. Page 3 20 Cox Court (cont.) The Architect for this project, Thad Siemasko, drew an attractive style of the proposed wood frame building, indicating side and front elevations. There would be (8) parking spaces provided which would conform to zoning requirements. The first floor would contain two one-bedroom apartments each containing 620 square feet of area. The second and third floors would contain two townhouse style two-bedrooms apartments with 1200 square feet. Mr. Alexander stated the building height would be 32 feet. Mr. Alexander stated the special circumstances and conditions are the shape of the area and the soil, containing ledge. He added this is the minimum reasonable relief requested so that the petitioners can develop their property. He stated he submitted a petition containing 37 neighbors’ signatures in favor of the project. He added that this project would not be injurious to the neighborhood but rather be an enhancement, the property values would not be affected, city services would be available, and there would be no undue traffic in the area. Co-Chair Fish asked if there were any members of the public that would like to comment on this petition. Mr. and Mrs. Condon’s daughter Suzanne, of Quincy Mass. stated what a wonderful life she had growing up and how dedicated to the City of Beverly her parents were. She added that her parents had become guardians for her deceased brother’s three young children and that this project would help them with economic needs immensely. David and Michele Hannable requested to review the plans. Attorney Alexander requested a five-minute recess to review the plans with the Hannables. Also in favor of this project, Nancy Marino of 9 Wellman Street, Euplio Marciano of 88 Rantoul Street, and Duane Anderson of 41 Front Street. Co-Chair Fish asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Houseman stated that the zoning ordinance states that (4) units would require 16,000 square feet of area to build and the petitioner’s land has only 6,748 feet less than 10,000 s. f. short. He added that the Condon’s had obtained a variance in 1970 for this project. The time however, lapsed on the variance because then plans for a new Beverly bridge were in effect and the property could have been taken by the state. Houseman stated that in 1970 decision there were no findings and that Chapter 40A has been amended. He continued that the proposed structure is attractive and the lot has adequate parking but the lot is small. He added that making money itself is not criteria for a hardship. Attorney Alexander responded that the topography contained ledge and the property was surrounded by three streets, which make it difficult to design. He stated to build the project would be costly because of the blasting for the foundation that would be required. He stated the neighbors are in favor of the project and that there is no opposition. Co- Chair Fish asked what could be built upon the lot by right. Mr. Alexander responded this is a lot of record and a one or two-family dwelling could be built. Ferguson stated that the neighbor’s are in favor. He added that he felt the architect’s plan was inadequate. He wanted to know about roof material, if fireplaces would be built, decks, exterior lighting, and where the snow would be put in a storm like this week. Mr. Alexander responded Page 4 the roof materials would be asphalt, there would be no decks built, but he did not know about building fireplaces. He stated the exterior lighting would be standard and would not affect the neighbors. He added that the parking lot snow could be stockpiled on the side of the lot. Ferguson stated he was in favor of the project. Houseman stated that he had concerns with the curb cuts. Mr. Alexander stated there were no curb cuts presently. Building Commissioner, Robert Nelson stated curb cuts are usually 25 feet wide. Fish read into record the definition of curb cuts from the Zoning Ordinance. Houseman stated a hardship could be that the petitioner could not build what was allowed by right, in an RMD Zone. Houseman stated it was more consistent with the neighborhood to build a multi-family dwelling. Houseman: Motion this Board grant the variance requested to John and Marguerite Condon and find that the special conditions relating to this property concerns the amount of ledge on this lot that creates conditions where-by in order to receive a reasonable economic return for building on this property, it would require (4) units be built to become cost effective. Further it is the minimal amount of units to satisfy that requirement. Also, the Board finds that a petition signed by (Scott said 47, Alexander had said 37) neighbor’s and the absence of any comments by the public in opposition to this matter as it relates to the harmony of the neighborhood that this proposal would not be injurious to the neighborhood. It there-by satisfies the requirements for a variance. In addition the requirements for a special permit relating to services and utilities are satisfied. There are no traffic problems, no objections from neighbors and this proposal would not be adversely affective to the property valves in the neighborhood. Also, in addition to that finding, no multi-family could be built on this lot as a matter of right because of the area square footage of the lot. Also, the granting of this application should be subject to strict compliance to the plans submitted to the Board dated April 15, 2004 by Siemasko & Verbridge Inc. Seconded by Ferguson. All members in favor. Motion carries 5 – 0. (Houseman Fish, O’Brien, Ferguson, and Margolis) 614 Cabot Street – R-10 Zone – Colonial Manor Associates, Inc. Special Permit Request Attorney Thomas Alexander spoke on behalf of the petitioner. He stated he is requesting to expand the existing non-conforming multi-family use by adding six (6) residential units to the existing 24 residential units on the site. He exhibited a drawing of the 24 existing units with the proposed new two buildings. He stated the property abuts Cabot Street. He added this is a pre-existing non-conforming use that was granted by variance in January of 1970. He is requesting to expand the property by 25%. One proposed building 28’ x 48’ would contain 4 townhouse units that would contain two bedrooms and approximately 12/13 hundred square feet each. The other proposed building would contain two units. The height of the building would be 26 feet. Page 5 Colonial Manor 614 Cabot Street (cont.) Mr. Alexander stated that the property has been owned by the Trager’s since 1970. He commented that they have always maintained the property. He added that this project would provide for affordable housing at a moderate price. Mr. Alexander stated that City services are available and there would not be undue traffic. He added that an 8 to 10 foot landscape of evergreens would be planted for a buffer zone. Co-Chair Fish asked if there were any members of the public that would like to comment on this petition. Mrs. Natalie Fiore of 7 Tremont Street asked what the hardship was on this project. Co-Chair Fish responded that this request was for a special permit and hardship is not a criterion. Mrs. Fiore stated there are currently drainage problems in the area and she was concerned with this proposed plan. Mr. Thomas Zarella of 40 Ellsworth Avenue stated that in the decision dated January 6, 1970 a condition was that no additional buildings beyond the two apartment structures would be constructed on the site. Mr. Alexander responded to Mrs. Fiore that Hancock Survey would provide drawings on site and illustrate the drainage plans. Co-Chair Fish asked the Board members for their comments and questions. Houseman asked if a full basement would be constructed. Mr. Alexander responded a full basement would be constructed. Houseman asked Mr. Alexander if he had a copy of the recommendations 1 through 12 contained in the letter of the Planning Board of January 22, 1970. Mr. Alexander responded he did not have a copy. Brusca requested a discussion regarding the fact that on the decision of 1970 it stated no additional buildings beyond the two apartment structures could be built. Mr. Alexander responded that the owner had purchased more property since the decision of 1970. Houseman requested a copy of the Planning Boards recommendations of 1970. Mr. Alexander stated he could continue the hearing until a copy was found. Margolis asked what was now there and what would be added. Fish stated this project is detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Alexander stated there was a zoning change and use variances were no longer allowed in the R-10 Zone. Christine Mezza of 42 Ellsworth Avenue stated she is always pumping water out of her property. She added that this project does not conform to the neighborhood. She commented that the plans for this project were never shown to her. Houseman stated he would request a drainage plan from Hancock Engineering. He added he is not in favor of this project but would keep an open mind. Margolis stated he was very concerned with abutters and the effect this project would have on them. Mr. Trager stated he did have a petition with neighbor’s signatures in favor but he had left it at home. Mrs. Fiore spoke again commenting that this project has water issues and a tower of townhouses would affect the value of their properties. Fish commented that this project is right in the abutter’s faces. Brusca asked if the (6) units would be for rent or sale. Mr. Alexander stated the units would be for rent. Ferguson stated the petitioner has a right to present his plan. He added that he was however, against it. Ferguson: Motion: To grant the special permit as presented by Colonial Manor. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion did not carry. 0-5 (All members against) (Houseman, Fish, O’Brien, Ferguson, and Margolis) Page 6 15 Madison Avenue – R-10 – Scott Perkins – Variance Request Scott Perkins spoke on his own behalf. He stated he is requesting to encroach 14.1 feet upon the 20 feet required front yard setback and to encroach 6.9 feet upon the 15 feet required left yard setback with a (26’ x 38’) two-story addition. There will be a two-car garage, basement level. There will be a kitchen-dining room and living room on the first level. The second floor will enlarge three existing bedrooms and adding a full bathroom. Mr. Perkins stated he had purchased the non-conforming dwelling from his mother three years ago. The dwelling has been in the family since 1951. Mr. Perkins stated dwellings in a large part of the general neighborhood are set on very small lots, which does not allow much room for additions. He added he could not build in the rear of his property. He provided letters from abutting neighbors in favor of this project: Bill Collins and Karen Dzendolet of 17 Madison Avenue, Richard and Ilene Goldberg of 19 Madison Avenue, and William Charette owners of 13 Madison Avenue. Mr. Perkins stated he needed more room in the first floor living space to accommodate his mother and a brother who is confined to a wheelchair due to cerebral palsy. He added the proposed two-car garage would eliminate two vehicles from parking on the street. He stated on the left side of the dwelling he abuts a public right-of-way. Co-Chair Houseman read into record a letter from Donna, Jerry & Ty Vitale of 8 Appleton Avenue that objected to this variance proposal. Co-Chair Fish asked the Board for their questions and comments. Houseman asked who owns the right-of-way. Mr. Perkins responded that the City of Beverly owns the right-of- way. Fish stated this proposal appears to be a two family dwelling, which is a problem. Robert Nelson, Building Commissioner responded an owner may have as many kitchens as he wants provided there is no separation. Ferguson asked Mr. Perkins to define his hardship. He added it could be the land outline itself, which makes our only choice being to the left side, position of the dwelling upon the lot. Fish stated the shape of the lot is not a hardship. O’Brien stated the dwelling is located on a hill. Ferguson calculated the increase in living area would be 23%. Murphy asked what the square footage would be. Mr. Perkins replied the square footage would be approximately 1,800 square feet. Houseman stated the addition could not be placed in the front or rear of the yard. Houseman asked how far is the existing deck to the right-of-way. Mr. Perkins responded the existing deck is about 12/14 feet from the right-of-way. The proposed addition would be 8/9 feet. Brusca asked if there was ledge upon the property. Mr. Perkins responded yes, there is ledge in my basement. O’Brien asked how level is the lot. Mr. Perkins responded that the lot is relatively flat but it does drop off from street level. Fish stated the access to the proposed garage would be at street level. Houseman: Motion for the Board to grant the variance application of Scott Perkins subject to the conditions that the plan submitted to the Board are substantially complied with and may only be modified to the degrees which then result in a smaller encroachment that is otherwise indicated on the plan. The Board finds the basis of the Page 7 Scott Perkins, 15 Madison Avenue (cont) hardship is that there are special conditions related to the location of the dwelling on the Parcel, in particular, the extreme proximity of the dwelling to the front and right sides of the Parcel, which require the applicant to build only in the direction he proposes, and further that the encroachment on the front yard setback created by the addition will not be greater than the encroachment on the front yard setback created by the existing building, and further these are special circumstances related to the location of the dwelling upon the Parcel, which are peculiar to the Parcel but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located. Also that the left side yard setback encroachment created by the addition is acceptable as there is no other location for the proposed addition and the addition itself is reasonable and minimal and that based upon the above mentioned factors, allowing the project would not result in a material, detrimental impact in the neighborhood or be inconsistent with the intent of the bylaw. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion carried 5 – 0. (Houseman, Fish, O’Brien, Ferguson and Murphy) 29 R. West Street – CN Zone – Beverly Auto Service – Variance Request Attorney Thomas Alexander spoke on behalf of the petitioner. He stated he was requesting to encroach 15 feet upon the 15 feet side yard requirement and to encroach 24 feet upon the 25 feet rear yard setback requirement with a (28’ x 63’) one-story addition that will expand the auto repair shop by more than 25 %. Mr. Alexander stated that Todd Michaud had purchased the property four years ago from the Boston & Maine Railroad. He tore down the illegal buildings upon the lot. Mr. Alexander stated several of Mr. Michaud’s the repair vehicles had to be serviced outside because they could not fit in the garage. This proposal will alleviate that situation. Mr. Alexander continued that this property is unique because it is shared with residential use, condominiums. The property is a business but it does not have any frontage, which is peculiar. Presently the autos and small trucks are parked in the front of the repair shop or on the side in public parking spaces. This project will minimize the number of autos facing the front doors of the adjacent residences. In bad weather, more vehicles can be stored inside, freeing up spaces in the front and on the public parking areas. The small truck repair bays will be located in the rear, which will have a special high bay ceiling and diagnostic equipment. Mr. Alexander stated this would not be detrimental to the public welfare but rather improve it. A petition was submitted to the Board with 32 neighbor’s signatures in favor of this project. A letter was mailed to the Board by John P. Margolis AIA, of 719 Hale Street stating he supported Mr. Michaud’s petition. Mr. Alexander stated that Mr. Douglas Haring, Architect for the project, was present for questions. Mr. Alexander stated the site was an appropriate location for the proposed use because it had been a repair shop for 40 years. He added that the property values would be improved, there would be no undue traffic and that adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation and maintenance of the proposed use and that the project will improve the building. Dr. Robert Blake, of 50 West Street, stated he was in favor of this proposal. Joan Murphy, who does not reside in the area, (36 Longmeadow Road) asked about the noise factor when the doors of the shop are open. Page 8 Beverly Auto Service Co-Chair Fish asked if there were any members of the public that were opposed to this proposal. Jeffrey Thibeault and his wife Frances of 27 West Street Unit 3 stated the owner was repairing buses and they feel that use decreases the value of their dwelling. Michael Pescatore of 27R West Street Unit 4, stated customers park in his condo space. He added that Mr. Michaud also does repairing on cherry pickers as well as buses. He mentioned that one time a tow truck would not move and the resident could not leave. Mr. Alexander stated the right-of-way is small. Neighbor’s submitted photographs of vehicles parked in their yard. Mr. Alexander stated that there is public parking in the rear, which is not just for the condominium owners. Douglas Haring, Architect for the project stated the school buses would fit under the new proposed building’s overhead doors. He added that Mr. Michaud removes snow even from the condo property trying to be a good neighbor. Mr. Michaud stated that he stockpiles all the snow on his own property. Donna Carlson of 27 West Street, Unit 11, stated she was opposed to this petition. She added “this has gone on long enough, Mr. Michaud’s business has gone from repairing cars to now repairing large equipment.” Another concern was that delivery trucks to the auto service appear three or four days a week during peak hours. Fish asked how many vehicles Mr. Michaud repairs in a day. Mr. Michaud responded that this week he repaired three cars. He commented that he has a license to sell vehicles but does not use it. Ferguson stated he would like to review the prior variance. Brusca stated she would like to discuss the fact that the proposed building is right up to the lot line. O’Brien suggested the case be continued so that more information can be provided to the Board. Ferguson stated if the neighbors have a complaint regarding the parking of trucks they should document the information weekly. He added that most of the complaints against the proposal were from the residents of the condominium. He suggested the residents write down the basic complaints and mail them to Attorney Alexander two weeks before the next scheduled hearing in February. He stated he hoped that the residents would then meet with Attorney Alexander to solve their concerns. Houseman stated he would like to have a letter from the Boston and Maine Railroad indicating their support for this project. Fish stated that Mr. Michaud must show this proposal will be a win, win, situation. Ferguson: Motion to allow Mr. Alexander to continue the petition of 29R West St. until the next scheduled meeting in February, provided a waiver of time be signed. The following conditions to be met: Sign waiver. Railroad access from the railroad be established in writing of their support. A complete copy of the January 1977 variance decision be provided. Establish what the percent increase is in the number of vehicles and what the gross vehicle weight is. Provide evidence that each side met and made good faith efforts to be neighborly. Seconded by O’Brien. All members in favor. Motion carries 5 – 0. (Fish, O’Brien, Ferguson, Brusca, and Murphy) Page 9 Administrative Business Discussed: Zoning Board of Appeals Rules & Regulations Houseman stated that two years ago we created a Co-Chair policy. One Co-Chair shall be primarily responsible for calling and presiding at each meeting. The other Co-Chair shall be primarily responsible for long-range planning to strengthen the functioning of the Board and to propose the address changes to the zoning ordinance. This policy must be amended or expired. th Ferguson: Motion, to move that the Board amend the last sentence, 4 paragraph, to read “the provision of this paragraph shall automatically expire at the conclusion of the Board’s regular January 2005 public meeting, be changed to 2006, unless the Board votes not to extend them.” Seconded by O’Brien. Motion carries unanimously. Ferguson: motion to continue for one year the arrangement for the Board to have a Co- Chair. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion carries unanimously. Discussion: Structure of Chairs to the Board Houseman: Two years ago we created a Co-Chair policy. Who will the Co-Chairs be for the next year? O’Brien: Motion to nominate Scott D. Houseman and Andrea Fish. Seconded by Ferguson. Motion carries unanimously. Chapter 91 License: 2 Foster’s Point A copy of an application requesting construction of a dock located at 2 Foster’s Point was mailed in by Mr. David Lang. Co-Chair Houseman stated that it is a potential requirement to send a copy to the Board of Appeals. Board members stated they read the information and had no problem with it. No vote was taken. Minutes Co-Chair Houseman asked Mrs. Rogers for the last date for approval of the minutes of the Board. The findings will be discussed at the next scheduled meeting in February. (Diane researched the minutes and found that the January and February 2004 minutes were approved, subject to edits.) Page 10 Non-conforming Uses & Structures Discussion Planning Director, Tina Cassidy submitted a document regarding non-conforming uses and structures. A discussion followed between the Board members. A new section “E” was inserted in the Zoning definitions entitled “Expansion of Non-conforming Structures”. The proposed wording was that the Board of Appeals may authorize the issuance of a Special Permit for the alteration or enlargement of an existing non- conforming structure or for the alteration or enlargement of a structure on an undersized lot of record. Tina Cassidy states that in granting such Special Permits, the Board of Appeals must find the following that such alteration or enlargement: 1. Is to a structure that lawfully existed (or on which construction began with a valid building permit) prior to the first publication of this Ordinance or any subsequent amendment that would have created a non-conformity; 2. Includes adequate provision for off street parking as required by the Zoning Ordinance; 3. Does not further violate the dimensional requirements of the existing ordinance or any amendment thereto; 4. Is similar in character, intensity of use, size of structure and effect on adjacent property as to not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood that the existing non-conforming structure; and 5. Meets the criteria outlined in Section 29-27.C. of this Ordinance. In permitting such a change, the Board of appeals may require appropriate conditions on time and use. Violations of any conditions so imposed shall be deemed a violation of this ordinance. Ms. Cassidy stated she was hopeful that the Board would vote on the above, proposed Section Six Findings and then the procedure for adopting the language could commence. After a discussion the Board agreed with Co-Chair Houseman that more time was needed to prepare the new Section Six Finding language so that everything would be covered. Adjourned 11:15 p.m.