2004-11-23
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: November 23, 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: Joel Margolis, Jane
Brusca, and Patricia Murphy.
Others Present: Building Commissioner Robert Nelson,
Clerk of the Board – Diane Rogers
Absent: Co-Chair Andrea Fish
Co-Chair Houseman opened the meeting to the public and stated that he would discuss
some administrative material first. He stated Mrs. Standley of 13 Warren Street had
signed a waiver of time and requested the case be continued until the January 25, 2005
meeting.
Ferguson: Motion to allow the continuance until the January 2005 meeting. Seconded
by O’Brien. All members in favor. Motion carries 5 – 0. (Houseman,
Ferguson, O’Brien, Murphy, and Margolis)
Mr. and Mrs. Gorden of 15 Washington Street signed a waiver to continue their case until
the February 2005 scheduled meeting.
O’Brien: Motion to allow the continuance until the February 2005 meeting. Seconded
Page 2
by Ferguson.All members in favor. Motion carries 5 – 0. (Houseman,
O’Brien, Ferguson, Margolis, and Brusca)
Co-Chair Houseman stated the next case to be heard would be the Cummings Hotel of
181 Elliott Street, which has been continued since August 24, 2004.
Mr. Gerard Mc Sweeney, General Manager of Cummings spoke on his own behalf. He
thanked the Board for their recent site visit.
Co-Chair Houseman stated that as a matter of administration, four out of five voting
Board members are present. He added that Co-Chair Fish is not present. Co-Chair
Houseman asked Mr. Mc Sweeney as a matter of procedure, do you want to continue and
accept four members voting on your petition. Mr. Mc Sweeney responded he was
advised of that fact and he would go forward with his case.
Mr. Mc Sweeney stated the Design Review Board had endorsed the plan, relative to the
design of this project. He specified he is requesting two separate decisions, one on the
special permit under Section 29-19 ( C ) of the zoning ordinance to permit hotel, suites
hotel, restaurant(s), the other regarding the variance request under Section 29-19(D) (6)
of the zoning ordinance to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 0 feet along the
adjacent lot held under common ownership. Mr. Mc Sweeney stated that the Board had
endorsed our hardships and the following criteria has been met for the special permit
request:
a. That the specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed
use, and that the character of adjoining uses will not be adversely
affected.
b. That no factual evidence is found that property values in the district
will be adversely affected by such use.
c. That no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result.
d. That adequate and appropriate facilities are provided for the proper operation
and maintenance of the proposed use.
e. That there are no valid objections from abutting property owners based
on demonstrable fact.
f. That adequate and appropriate City services are available for the proposed use.
Mr. Mc Sweeney stated regarding the variance request, he felt that there were special
circumstances or conditions applying to the land or building for which the variance is
sought, the application of the standards of this chapter would deprive the applicant of a
reasonable use of the property, the specific variance as granted by the Board is the
minimum variance that will grant reasonable relief to the owner and is necessary for a
reasonable use of the land or building. And the granting of the variance will be in
Page 3
harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Chapter, and will not be injurious to
the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
Co-Chair 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. Brusca stated she had received the new information provided
by Mr. Mc Sweeney relative to the design, by mail. She stated the drawings reflect the
concerns she had the previous month. She added the Design Review Board had approved
the designs. Murphy stated all the issues had been discussed. Margolis was in favor of
the plan. Co-Chair Houseman stated on terms of the design aspect, I would have liked a
more advance design. He added he wanted the public to say “Wow”, what a great
building. He stated the various Boards and the City have met with the applicant and
Architect twice. He asked Mr. Mc Sweeney about the sculpture indicated in the most
recent design. Mr. Mc Sweeney stated he would speak to the Montserrat College of Art
regarding the sculpture and its description. He could not guess on how it would look.
Houseman requested some language that indicates whatever Cummings Center decides
on the sculpture regarding general parameters, magnitude, and descriptions be on the
plans. He would then encourage the Board to make sure that it approves the application
with those descriptions in the motion. Houseman asked Mr. Mc Sweeney if the entry
and exit way out of the parking structure was going to be altered because there was
concern of traffic entering onto McKay Street. Mr. Mc Sweeney stated that the Planning
Board recommended the plan be approved without change. He added that the Planning
Board would lift restrictions next February after the hotel was built. He commented that
the Planning Board could choose to close the exit way. Margolis asked if Mr. Mc
Sweeney had an outline of the restrictions from the Planning Board. Houseman asked if
Montserrat College or other artists could be asked to sponsor a design a contest to
propose an appropriate sculpture for the site. Brusca asked if in regard to the driveway
and garage going to the Planning Board later, could this Board also place a restriction?
Houseman stated the issue could be on the table for discussion. Brusca decided the
Planning Board should make the decision because they had seen all the studies from the
Traffic Division etc. Houseman concurred.
Houseman stepped down from the Chair and Joel Margolis assumes the position.
Houseman: Motion relative to the special permit request that the Board approve the
application of Cummings Center incorporating as its general findings the information and
evidence that has been already submitted to the Board relative to the site being an
appropriate location, the character of adjoining uses will not be adversely affected, there
is no factual evidence submitted that property values in the district will be adversely
affected by such use, the Board finds no undue traffic hazard will result, adequate
facilities will be provided for the proper operation and maintenance of the proposed use,
there are no valid objections from abutting property owners or citizens across the street
relative to the hotel
Page 4
at this site, and clearly there are adequate and appropriate City services available on the
site. Further, I would make the Board’s approval subject to substantial compliance by the
applicant by the plans submitted C1, 2, 3, Dated July 19, 2004, revised October 14, 2004.
Substantially with regard to the elevation details that have been provided and reviewed
by the Design Review Board with the exception that the proposed sculpture that is shown
on sheet C2 at the corner of McKay Street and Cabot be considered a symbolic indication
of the sculpture rather than a specific design with the proviso that the general scale that is
depicted on the plan is what the Board is approving. Special Permit to allow hotel, suites
hotel, restaurant (s) Seconded by Murphy. All members in favor. Motion carries 4 – 0
Houseman: Motion relative to the variance: The Board grant the variance requested by
the applicant relative to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 0 feet along the
adjacent lot held under common ownership. Mc Sweeney stated “inside the existing
parking lot.” Seconded by Murphy. All members in favor. Motion carries 4-0.
(Houseman, Brusca, Murphy, and Margolis)
Houseman wants to clarify that the design be incorporated into the decision.
32 James Street – R-10 Zone – James Donovan – Variance Request
Mr. Donovan spoke on his own behalf. He is requesting to encroach 13 feet plus or
minus upon the 25 feet rear yard setback, with a (6’ x 12’ – 1”) one-story addition to
expand the existing playroom. Mr. Donovan stated that the topography of the land slopes
from left to right. He added the rear of the property is level with stairs going down to the
driveway. The back of the property line has a 6 feet retaining wall with a hill that
extends about 9 feet. The existing structure does not allow the Donovan’s reasonable use
of their property. You have to exit the home to enter the structure. Mr. Donovan
exhibited photographs indicating the existing deck that he steps on, to enter the structure.
He commented that there would be minimal impact to the neighborhood because of the
existing hill in the rear of the property. Mr. Donovan submitted a petition with ten
neighbors in support of this request for a variance.
Co-Chair 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 she had made a site visit earlier and is of the
opinion that this is a minimal request and many of the neighbors are in favor. She stated
she is in favor of this variance request. Houseman stated he had also made a site visit
today. He added that the photographs submitted to the Board were adequate to describe
the site. He stated that the property was granted a prior variance in 1991 for a one-story
enclosed porch, when the previous owner was Mr. Heck. Margolis asked Mr. Donovan if
he had to go outside to enter the structure. Mr. Donovan responded yes.
Page 5 John Donovan, 32 James St. (cont)
He continued to explain the drawings for the proposed addition. Ferguson stated that the
direct abutter, Greg Vaness had signed in favor of the petition. He asked if when Mr.
Donovan purchased the dwelling was he aware of how he had to go outside to enter the
structure. Mr. Donovan responded he knew that fact. Ferguson asked if it was the
petitioner’s intention that the footprint of the dwelling not be expanded. He commented
that he would be in favor of this request as long as it remains a one-story addition.
Houseman stated what the petitioner intends to do is to expand the existing roofed porch
and to enclose the existing deck so what is now an exterior entranceway would become
an interior playroom. Houseman asked if the Board approves this request would they
enclose the porch. Building Commissioner, Robert Nelson, stated “this would be allowed
by right”, if Mr. Donovan had the correct setbacks. Houseman asked Mr. Donovan if the
long rectangular yellow highlighted area indicates what is allowed by right. Mr.
Donovan responded yes. Houseman added, this would allow the petitioner to add on to
the dwelling only from out one bay of the garage. Houseman stated this is a practical
matter. The proposed addition will not impact the neighbors behind them and the
revision will actually fill in a corner of the dwelling. Houseman added that he had no
problem being in favor of this project.
O’Brien: Motion to approve this variance with the following hardship : the
topography of the lot, this being a minimal request, there will be no
impact on the neighbors, and abutters are in favor of the plan. Seconded
by Ferguson.
Conditions: O’Brien suggested limiting the addition to one-story. Seconded by
Ferguson. Motion Carries 5 - 0. All members in favor. (Houseman,
O’Brien, Ferguson, Margolis, & Murphy)
53 Dodge Street – CG Zone – Courtney Nawrot (SES)Variance Request
Courtney Nawrot spoke on behalf of CVS. She is requesting to add (1) “CVS” wall sign
at 11.25 square feet on the right elevation that faces the parking lot that does not face a
public way. Ms. Nawrot stated the proposed sign will not face the public way. She
added that she had gone before the Design Review Board and had modified her sign
request at their recommendation. The proposed sign will say CVS not CVS Pharmacy.
Due to the location of this parcel from the roadway, when shoppers enter the site from
Hellard Road, which is behind the shopping center, motorists do not have visibility of the
signage located on the store’s elevations. The sign area, which is permitted to identify
the CVS/pharmacy location, needs to be greater than which currently exists. She added
the mall has two entrances, which could cause traffic issues, with drivers not knowing the
stores location when they enter the shopping center from Hellard Road. Co-Chair
Houseman asked if there were any members of the public that had questions or comments
on this petition. Mr. Bruce Caswell of 77 Dodge Street asked which way the proposed
sign would face. Ms. Nawrot responded the sign would face toward the
Page 6 C. Nawrot, 53 Dodge Street (cont.)
shopping center. Mr. Caswell stated a garage was demolished by the owner of the
shopping center and all he now views is the Dress Barn. He stated nearby trees were cut
down and he would like a buffer zone restored. He added that the existing six feet fence
was not high enough to block his view. Houseman responded and stated this proposal is
for a sign, and he suggested Mr. Caswell contact City Hall. Building Commissioner,
Robert Nelson, stated Mr. Caswell should contact the Site Plan Review Board in the
Planning Department for other concerns. Mary Albanese of 6 Longwood Avenue stated a
fence was taken down and that a buffer zone should be specified. She commented she
did not want to view a sign from her front door.
Co-Chair Houseman then asked the Board members for their questions and comments.
Brusca stated she had attended several Design Review Board meetings to discuss the
signs. She added that shopping center customers traveling onto the site from Hellard
Road would not see the CVS signs on the left or front elevations as they entered the
shopping complex. On that basis, the Design Review Board approved one additional
wall sign two feet in height to be placed on the side marked “Right Elevation”. The sign
will have red channel illuminated lettering reading “CVS” only with no background.
Houseman stated that one sign faces Rte. 128 and one faces Dodge Street. He added,
these signs are allowed by right. He commented that the words “open 24 hours” may not
be added to this proposed sign. Ferguson stated that the average person knows where
CVS is located and that the back entrance on Hellard Road is more or less for
townspeople. He is of the opinion that another sign is not necessary.
Ms. Nawrot stated that CVS has altered everything the Design Review Board had
requested in design. She added that the property location does need to be recognized.
O’Brien stated the Design Review Board did approve this proposed sign. She added,
this sign would not impact the neighbors. Houseman asked how the sides of the sign
would appear. Ms. Nawrot responded the sides of the sign are to be a dark gray metallic
color. Houseman stated he has no issue with the scale of this proposed sign because it
faces toward the parking lot. He stated he has concerns with those signs allowed by right,
which are not included in the package of drawings submitted. He added that he may not
be ready to vote on this proposal tonight.
Ms. Nawrot stated the Design Review Board approved three wall sign’s. The first sign
will measure l8 inches in height and 12 feet 11 inches in length. It will be placed on the
side of the building facing Dodge Street (labeled “Left Elevation)”. The second sign will
measure 2 feet in height and l5 feet in length. It will be placed on the side marked “Front
Elevation”. Both signs will have red channel illuminated lettering reading
“CVS/Pharmacy” with no background. The Design Review Board had approved this
proposed sign to be placed on the side marked “Right Elevation”, a sign, which is 2 feet
in height. This sign will have red channel illuminated lettering reading “CVS” only with
no background.
Page 7 C. Nawrot, 53 Dodge Street (cont.)
Co-Chair Houseman then questioned the Board regarding the neighbor’s complaints
about the site. Murphy stated the owner of the CVS property has the right to tear
down a garage on another lot they own. Robert Nelson, Building Commissioner
requested the neighbor’s telephone him in the morning and he will review their
complaints and examine the Site Plan Review matters.
Ferguson: Motion to approve the variance for the proposed sign because it is a
minimal request of the owner. Assuming that the sign facing the
neighbor’s is opaque, on the building’s North side. Seconded by O’Brien.
She stated the illustrations given indicate that there is aluminum channel
siding that is not allowed to shadow on the sign face. All members in
favor. Motion carries 5 – 0. ( Houseman, O’Brien, Ferguson, Brusca,
and Margolis.
37 Ober Street – R-10 Zone – R.G. Trust u/d/t dated 9/20/96
Variances requested
Attorney Kevin Dalton spoke on behalf of the petitioner. He was requesting variances
from the lot area and lot frontage requirements so that two (2) buildable lots may be
created in addition to the existing lot containing a single-family dwelling.
Attorney Dalton requested the Board allow him to withdraw without prejudice his
petition.
Ferguson: Motion to allow the applicant to withdraw without prejudice his petition.
Seconded by Murphy. All members in favor. Motion carries 5 – 0.
(Houseman, O’Brien, Ferguson, Murphy, & Brusca)
Meeting adjourned 9:00 p.m.