Loading...
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.