Loading...
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.