2004-10-26
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: October 26, 2004
Place: Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street
Board Members Present: Full Members: Co-Chair Scott D.
Houseman, Scott Ferguson and
Margaret O’Brien.
Alternate Members: Jane Brusca,
Joel Margolis & Patricia Murphy
Others Present: Building Commissioner/Zoning
Officer – Robert Nelson. Clerk of
the Board – Diane Rogers
Absent: Andrea Fish
Co-Chair Houseman opened the meeting to the public and stated that he would discuss
some administrative material first. He requested the following cases be continued until
the next November 23, 2004 meeting, subject to the signing of a waiver of time by Mr. &
Mrs. Gorden of 15 Washington Street and Mr. & Mrs. Standley of 13 Warren Street.
Cummings Hotel of 181 Elliott Street also requested to continue their case because Board
member Ms. Fish could not attend tonight’s meeting. A waiver of time was faxed to the
Board’s secretary.
Ferguson: Motion: to continue the cases until the next scheduled meeting
November 23, 2004. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion carries 5 – 0
All members in favor. (Houseman, O’Brien, Ferguson, Margolis, and Murphy)
Page 2
141 Essex Street – R-10 Zone – Robert C. Pieroni – Variance Request
Robert C. Pieroni spoke on his own behalf. He stated he was requesting to encroach 10
feet 6 inches upon the required 15 feet side yard setback with a (20’ x 22’) two-story
addition that will contain a mudroom, half bath, and garage (first floor) and master
bedroom and full bath above. Mr. Pieroni stated he is proposing that the existing two- car
detached garage be demolished and that a new attached two-story garage be built. He
added that there was flooding in his basement because of the slope on the existing garage
roof toward his dwelling. He stated his family was expecting twins and they are in need
of a second bathroom and bedroom. He submitted a petition signed by 10 neighbors in
favor of his proposal.
Houseman stated he made a site visit and indicated that the slope of the existing garage
toward the dwelling could be considered a hardship.
Chairman Houseman asked if there were any members of the public that had questions or
comments on this petition, there being none he asked the Board members for their
questions and comments. O’Brien stated because of the shape of the lot and due to
flooding of the basement she was in support of this proposal. Brusca asked the petitioner
if the existing tree, located near the corner of the garage would be impacted by the
demolition. Mr. Pieroni responded the existing tree would remain. Ferguson concurred
with his colleagues. Houseman stated he also concurred with his colleagues that this
proposal is not much more expansion and that the lot is irregular. He added that he
believes a hardship exists because of the way the pitch of the roof of the existing garage
causes flooding in the basement. Margolis stated he was in favor of this proposal.
Ferguson: Motion to allow the variance due to the shape of the lot, water penetration into
existing foundation and this is in fact a minimal request. Seconded by
O’Brien.
Ferguson stated he would add to the decision that the building construction would follow
the existing plans on file. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion carries 5 – 0. (Houseman,
Ferguson, O’Brien, Brusca, & Margolis)
23 Corning Street – R-10 Zone – Carla F. Celona & Robert Buzderewicz
Special Permit & Variance Requests
Attorney Mark Glovsky spoke on behalf of his clients. He stated he is requesting a
special permit and variance to allow the side yard setback of (2’) more or less, where
(15’) is required to allow the construction of a single-story addition which would connect
an existing single-story garage and two-story dwelling. The addition will conform with
all dimensional requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, but the existing garage which will
Page 3 (Carla F. Celona cont.)
then be considered part of the dwelling is presently located approximately (2’) from the
side lot line. Mr. Glovsky stated the property was purchased in 1997 and contains 10,000
square feet of land. He added the two-story dwelling was conforming, however, the
existing detached garage was not. Mr. Glovsky submitted photographs of the property
for the Board to review. He stated that this was a corner lot and the petitioners chose to
have the Pearl Street side of the dwelling designated as their front yard setback. Mr.
Glovsky stated that nothing would be built over the garage. He explained that the special
permit request was to alter a non-conforming detached garage structure. The variance
request is to attach the garage into the dwelling and is then subject to a principle use
setback of 15 feet. A petition was submitted to the Board with (9) signatures from
abutting neighbors in favor of this proposal.
Chairman Scott Houseman asked if any member of the public had any questions or
comments. Mr. Michael Lauranzano of 3 Pearl Street, a direct abutter, stated he was in
favor of this petition. He added that he had signed the petition presented to the Board.
Chairman Houseman asked Mr. Nelson, the Building Commissioner if he had discussed
the aspects of a special permit with Attorney Glovsky. Mr. Nelson responded he allows
the lawyers to file however they want. Mr. Glovsky stated that this is a non-conforming
garage, which could be expanded under Section 29-26 D special permit, however, he
commented that he wasn’t quite sure if a special permit was needed. He added the
variance will give us what we need. He stated this is an alteration of a non-conforming
structure. Brusca asked if the setback of a detached garage was 5 feet. Mr. Glovsky
stated yes the setback for a detached garage is 5 feet in an R-l0 Zone. O’Brien stated the
plan was nicely done but she had a hard time finding a hardship. Mr. Glovsky responded
the hardship is the relationship from the dwelling to the two- car detached garage. He
added this is a corner lot with exposure on each side. He added another hardship is the
location of the existing structure on the property. Houseman stated the request is
minimal and he supports the proposal.
O’Brien: Motion to allow the variance and special permit because the project meets the
criteria of Section 29 27 C2 a/f and the criteria for a variance. Seconded by
Murphy.
Houseman stated the application be subject to the following: The garage footprint is to
remain the same and that the addition & garage are both limited to being one-story.
Motion carries 5 – 0. All members in favor ( Houseman,O’Brien, Ferguson, Brusca, and
Murphy)
Administrative Discussion Re: Rules of Board of Appeal, City of Beverly
Chairman Houseman stated at the request of Diane Rogers, Clerk of the Board, a
discussion regarding the Rules of the Board would heard.
Mrs. Rogers requested that #10 on the document be amended to say “ at the expense of
the applicant”, a notice will be published. Etc.
Another request was that #17 have the following sentence deleted “ If an appeal is taken
with respect to any matter recorded, the clerk shall transcribe the tape as to the
application appealed and retain only that portion of the tape dealing with the application
under appeal”.
#3 was amended to state a one hundred and fifty dollar filing fee or check made payable
to the City of Beverly for a special permit or variance. (fee was $175)
To file for an appeal of an administrative decision was amended from ten dollars ($10) to
two-hundred dollars.
After discussion the Board voted unanimously to allow the changes.