Loading...
2006-01-24 CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES These minutes are not a verbatim transcript of the public hearing or public meeting of the Board of Appeals. Reviews of the decision 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 24, 2006 Place: Beverly City Hall, Councilors Chamber 191 Cabot Street Board Members Present: Full Members: Co-Chair Scott Houseman, Margaret O’Brien, Scott Ferguson. Alternate Members: Jane Brusca and Patricia Murphy Others Present: Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer – Robert Nelson, Clerk of the Board – Diane Rogers Absent: Joel Margolis Chairman Houseman opened the meeting to the public at 7:00 p.m. He stated that the zoning provisions permitting the Board to make Section 6 findings was passed by the City Council in December of 2005. He read the following into record: D. “Changes to Non-conforming one – and Two-Family Structures or Uses” Pre-existing non-conforming one- and two-family structures or uses may be extended or altered, provided, that no such extension or alteration shall be permitted unless there is a finding by the Zoning Board of Appeals that such change, extension or alteration shall not be substantially more detrimental than the exiting non-conforming structure or use to the neighborhood and shall not create a new non-conformity. E. “Changes to Non- Conforming Structures or Uses Other Than One-or Two-family Structures or Uses” Pre-existing non-conforming structures or uses other than one-or two family structures or uses provided for in Section 29-26.D. may be extended or altered, provided, that no such extension or alterations shall be permitted unless there is a finding by the Zoning Board of Appeals that such change, extension, or alteration shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure or use to the neighborhood and provided, that there is a finding by the Zoning Board of Appeals that the structure or use as changed, altered, or extended will not depart further from the intent of the Chapter Page 2 than the prior use or degrees of use; that such structure or use is neither increased in building volume or area by more than twenty-five percent (25%); and that any substituted use is not prohibited in the most restricted district in which such existing non-conforming use is permitted.” Chairman Houseman then stated he had made site visits to all the case locations today. 15 Washington Street – R-10 Zone – George & Juanita Gordon Special Permit and Variance Request Attorney Theordore Collatos spoke on behalf of the petitioners. He stated the request was for a Special Permit to encroach 3 feet plus or minus upon the required 5 feet right side yard with an 18 feet by 19 feet carport and to encroach 4 feet plus or minus upon the rear yard of 5 feet with a 40 feet by 22 feet carport attached to the existing detached garage, and to exceed the height requirement of a detached garage of 15 feet by 9 feet 6 inches, regarding the property located at 15 Washington Street. The property is located in an R-6 Zoning District. At this meeting a Variance is also being requested to cover 57 percent of the rear yard with an accessory structure, when you can cover up to 25 percent by right, regarding same such property at 15 Washington Street. Attorney Collatos stated the existing garage/barn was built as a horse and carriage barn in the mid 1800’s. An antique barn in a city setting was one of the main attractions of the property when the owners purchased it. He added that however, this barn has only one garage by which is not very practical these days. Mr. Collatos stated the lot is quite large overall. He added the dwelling is long and narrow and is close to the right hand property line. The dwelling covers a large portion of one side of the property leaving a small rear yard and a large side yard. The large existing barn takes up a good portion of the small backyard area, making this a unique situation. Mr. Collatos stated that if the requested proposal were not granted, it would not allow the owners to build a carport/patio to protect their motor home and other vehicles from the elements. He stated the mobile home was parked, when not in use, by the garage. He added that the tires and the paint on the vehicle have had to be replenished because of the outside storage. Mr. Collatos stated the petitioners have an office in the exiting garage and would like to build the carport for the mobile home and pass freely into the dwelling from this space. The Gordon’s have designed the carport/patio so that it will fit into the architectural style of the exiting structures. Mr. Collatos stated the carport/patio will not change the overall character of the neighborhood. He added the granting of this variance would allow the owner to cover an additional area of the backyard to make more reasonable use of the property and not be a detriment to the neighborhood. The following neighbors wrote letters of support for the Gordon’s proposal: Sarah Wadhams of 12 Franklin Place, Unit One, Dennis Shibert of 12 Franklin Place, Unit Two, Diane Collatos and T.S. Collatos of 19 Washington Street, Heidi Gallo of 18 Franklin Place, Daniel Chansky of 151-167 Cabot Street and 6 Washington Street, John Archer of 16 Washington Street, Paul Page 3 Marciano who owns 16 Franklin Street, Cheri and Joseph Cosentino of 11 Thorndike Street #2, Geoffrey H. Cogger of 11 Thorndike Street #1, Charles and Kimberly Kersten of 9 Thorndike Street, and Andrea and Jay Clark of 12 Washington Street. Co-Chair Houseman asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this petition. Attorney Mark Glovsky, with offices located at 8 Washington Street, stated this proposal would be beneficial to the neighborhood and the mobile home would be out of site. Co-Chair Houseman then asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Ferguson asked the size of the motor home. Mr. Collatos responded that the approximate size of the motor home was 34 to 36 feet long and probably 12 feet wide. Ferguson then asked why the proposed plan measured 40 feet. Mr. Collatos responded that the Gordon’s also had a van that would be sheltered by the proposed carport. Houseman stated a carport does not have walls and therefore, the vehicles could be seen. He asked if there were two carports proposed and Mr. Collatos responded, yes. O’Brien asked if the most affected abutters were in favor. Murphy asked what the hardship was on the variance request. She commented that owning a mobile home and proposing a carport for shelter was not a hardship of the land. Attorney Collatos responded that the hardship of the variance was that the lot was narrow and this creates special circumstances. He added the lot contains 10,000 square feet but the Gordon’s cannot do much with it because of the dwelling location upon the lot. Houseman commented that this is about vehicles, not about the condition of the and, which is as a stumbling block to him. Ferguson stated there would be a 12% increase in area if this proposal were granted. He commented that that was substantial. He added that the neighbors however, were in favor of this proposal. Ferguson stated to Mr. Collatos that what’s being asked of me is to allow a commercial vehicle in a residential neighborhood. Houseman asked Building Commissioner, Robert Nelson, if in the future could a new owner enclose the carports without returning to the Board. Mr. Nelson responded that a new owner could enclose the carports. Ferguson: Motion: to grant the Variance subject to the following conditions: the free standing carport to the left side of the garage, approximately 130 square feet, is subject to the condition that the relief granted specifically excludes the living space and the right to enclose the first floor with walls. Seconded by Brusca. Motion carried 4 – 1. ( O’Brien, Ferguson, Murphy, and Brusca in favor) (Houseman opposed) Ferguson: Motion: to grant the Special Permit to the Gordon residence at 15 Washington Street for the proposed free standing carport to the right side of the property approximately 342 square feet, located between the existing garage and the residence be granted, per Section 29 27 C2 , A, C, D, E, & F. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion carried unanimously 5 – 0. (Houseman, Ferguson, O’Brien, Brusca, and Murphy) 4 Foster’s Point – R-10 Zone – John F. C. Waitt Jr. & Toby M. Waitt Special Permit Request Page 4 Attorney Mark Glovsky spoke on behalf of the petitioner’s. He is requesting to replace an existing non-conforming one-family dwelling on a non-conforming lot with a new dwelling on the same “footprint” except that the front of the dwelling will include an additional 135 square foot area which will be no closer to the side lot lines than the existing dwelling and will be more than 20 feet from Foster’s Point. Mr. Glovsky stated he first filed this application on December 28, 2004 and went to the Planning Board on January 25, 2005. He added that he filed the application under Section 29 26 C and he would like to amend that to the new Section 29-26-D. Mr. Glovsky stated he was proposing to raze and rebuild a cottage owned since the 1960’s by the petitioner’s father. He added that the lot was non-conforming and contained 5,000 square feet of land where 10,000 square feet is now required. This lot is 50 feet wide and the required frontage is 100 feet. Mr. Glovsky stated the Waitts property was larger than their neighbors the Gallagher’s, which contained 2,800 square feet of land with 50 feet of frontage when they rebuilt. Mr. Glovsky stated the elevations of the proposed structure on the plans were slightly amended. The shed dormer was eliminated on the drawings and replaced with a gable roof. The only other change was that the garage doors would be that of an attractive design which, was not shown on the elevation drawing in the packet provided for the Board. Mr. Glovsky stated the petitioner’s were not creating any new non- conformity. He commented that this meets the Section 6 finding criteria. A petition in support of this proposal was signed by 17 residents, including both next- door abutters. Chairman Houseman asked if there were any members of the public that would like to comment of this petition, there being none he asked the Board for their questions and comments. Houseman stated he made a site visit today and spoke to Mr. Lang, the abutter to the left of the Waitts property. They discussed a tree on the property between the dwellings. Mr. Lang stated that Mr. Waitt would only trim two large branches off the tree. Houseman asked Mr. Waitt to specify on a photograph what branches were to be cut off. Houseman added that the downspouts should be directed toward the street and river not toward the neighbors’ yards. Mr. Waitt stated the project went before the Conservation Commission and that they have an order of conditions with those issues discussed. Ferguson asked for a new set of plans indicating the absence of the shed dormers. Mr. Glovsky responded that he would provide the new drawings before the decision was written. Houseman stated his observations at the site visit were that there are several small summer cottages that had been upgraded over time all along the river. He asked Mr. Glovsky if he had any court cases to substantiate the razing of the existing building. Mr. Glovsky responded he had the Bransford case v Edgartown. Houseman stated the finding of the Board would not be more detrimental than the non-conforming structure and is appropriate. Page 5 O’Brien: Motion to grant a special permit at 4 Foster’s Point with the finding that the provisions of Section 29-27C a, c, d, e, & f are satisfied and that the Section 6 finding be made by the Zoning Board that the proposed new structure will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure or use to the neighborhood and shall not create a new non-conformity and to incorporate the plans submitted and any additional architecture drawings be submitted to the Building Department. Also the abutters of either side have submitted letters, which are in agreement with this proposal. Seconded by Murphy. Houseman: amend: Add that an additional condition be added stating that the tree in the photograph have two branches removed by a certified arborist as agreed by the petitioners. (Diane, strike the language that stated in the Section 6 finding “shall not create a new non-conformity”.) Motion carried unanimously 5 – 0. ( Houseman, Ferguson, O’Brien, Murphy, & Brusca.) 12 Parkview Avenue – R-10 Zone – Francis A. and Cathleen E. Kavanagh, III Special Permit Request Mr. Kavanagh spoke on his own behalf. He stated he was requesting to replace a non- conforming structure within the same footprint which will encroach 11.67 feet upon the 15 feet left side yard and to encroach 19.12 feet upon the required 20 feet front yard with a (44.5’ x 35’) two-story single-family dwelling with an attached (24’ x 20’) pier. The first floor is to contain (1) bedroom, master bath, ½ bath, kitchen, dining room, living room, and utility room. The second floor is to contain a study, (4) bedrooms and (2) baths regarding the property located at 12 Parkview Avenue in an R-10 Zoning District. Mr. Kavanagh stated the existing dwelling is built on pilings and he is requesting to raze that structure because it is out of code (electrical and plumbing) and the piling system needs to be rebuilt. He presented a letter from David Porter of Childs Engineering, dated January 12, 2005 stating that the condition of the existing pilings which support the current structure are no longer satisfactory and should not be used in the reconstruction of the residence. Mr. Kavanagh stated a marine engineer would come in and drill new pilings. This new dwelling would not change the footprint of the existing structure, only the design. Mr. Kavanagh stated there are only three other dwellings in Beverly like his property. He added the first floor elevation must be raised approximately two feet to protect against FEMA’S estimated 100-year storm event plus the possibility of up to two feet of local wave action, as determined by the professional engineers. A petition with 13 residents’ signatures in support of this proposal were submitted to the Board. Chairman Houseman asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this petition, there being none he asked the Board member for their questions and comments. O’Brien asked how high the new dwelling would be from street level. Mr. Kavanagh responded the proposed dwelling would be approximately 28.5 feet high, which is under the 35 feet allowed in the R-10 Zone. Murphy stated she had no questions at this time. Brusca commented the new concept is more attractive. Ferguson asked if there would be any skylights installed and Mr. Kavanagh responded there would not be any skylights. Page 6 Ferguson asked if the porches on the existing dwelling were part of the footprint. Mr. Kavanagh responded yes the porches were part of the footprint and he would not be increasing that footprint. Ferguson asked if there were any provision for parking in this proposal. Mr. Kavanagh responded he owned the land to the right of the dwelling. Houseman stated Mr. Kavanagh has space beside his dwelling which is unique. O’Brien asked what other permits were essential for this project. Mr. Kavanagh responded he must go before the Conservation Commission. Murphy was questioning the porch as part of the footprint. Mr. Kavanagh stated that there is no cellar in the dwelling and it is very cold in the winter months. Ferguson: Motion to grant the special permit at 12 Parkview Avenue with a finding by the Zoning Board of Appeals that such change, extension or alteration shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure or use to the neighborhood and shall not create a new non-conformity. In addition, that the Board make a finding that the conditions of Section 29 27 C2 a., c., e, & f. are satisfied and the written list of residents’ in favor of this proposal to be submitted in evidence and the plans submitted to be strictly followed. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion carries unanimously. 5 – 0. (Houseman, O’Brien, Ferguson, Brusca, and Murphy in favor) 100 West Street – R-45 Zone – Francine Cecieta & Ralph Cerundolo Variance Request Attorney Pierre C. Rumpf spoke on behalf of the petitioners. He stated the request was to sub-divide a lot containing 15,226 s. f. where 45,000 s. f. is required; into two lots: Lot “A” and Parcel 1. Lot “A” will contain 14,065 s. f. and Parcel 1 will contain 1,162 s. f. of area. Parcel 1 will be conveyed to Ralph Cerundolo. The property is located at 100 West Street in an R-45 Zoning District. Mr. Rumpf stated the encroachment on Mr. Cerundolos property has been like this for ten years because the first transaction was never finalized. Ferguson asked if this was a “friendly” thing. Mr. Rumpf responded, yes this transaction is agreeable to both parties. He added that the hardship is the existing encroachment. Houseman asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this petition, there being none he asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Ferguson asked when the overhang was built on Mr. Cerundolos dwelling. Mr. Rumpf stated the overhang was built approximately ten years ago. Ferguson asked why the information never got recorded with a book and page number. Attorney Rumpf responded he did not know why it was not finalized. Houseman stated that both lots are non-conforming. Houseman: Motion to grant the Variance requested with the creation of Parcel #1, as indicated on the plan submitted with the application, dated April 5, 1991 and revised on August 29, 2005, scale 1”=20’; based upon an inadvertent hardship to the existing lot B and creating Parcel I from Lot A added to Lot B. Ferguson asked if there were a purchase and sales agreement contingent on this. Mr. Rumpf indicated that there was a Page 7 purchase and sales agreement. Robert Nelson, Building Commissioner stated he has spoken to the City Solicitor regarding this matter. A building permit was issued and the hardship relates to the location of the structure on Lot B in relationship to the property line. Houseman asked Mr. Cerundolo if he had to go before the Planning Board for sub-division approval for the property. Mr. Cerundolo responded he did not think so. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion carried unanimously 5 – 0. (Houseman, Ferguson, O’Brien, Murphy, and Brusca in favor) 13 Warren Street – R-10 Zone – Susan J. & John A. Standley Special Permit Request Mrs. Susan Standley spoke on her own behalf. She stated she was requesting to encroach 11’ plus or minus upon the required 15’ side yard setback with a (13’ x 30’) two-story addition, containing a kitchen/family room, and mud room on the first floor and to create a bedroom, laundry room, and bathroom on the second floor. Also, a (7’ x 24’) roofed porch is to be added to the above (13’ x 30’) addition. Mrs. Standley stated she first filed this application in April of 2004 and has been signing waivers each month until the present to go forward with this special permit request. She submitted the following for the Board: photographs of the property, the plot plan, and (4) letters submitted in favor of this proposal from Henry and Joyce Thibault of 11 Warren Street, Gary and Jolene Lane of 25 Pearl Street, Georgia Maihos of 27 Pearl Street, and Scott and Kristen Galbreath of 23 Pearl Street. On September 28, 2004 Mrs. Standley went before this Board to request a Variance for the above request and she was denied. She signed a waiver to continue the request as a Special Permit per the proposed Section 29 27 D revision. 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. Ferguson stated the square footage is 1700 square feet and the addition is 13’ x 30’ which would be a 22% increase of the building. He added that the 7’x 24’ proposed porch would be an 11% increase. Ferguson stated he did not believe this proposal would impact the neighborhood. He added that the petitioner is just extending the line of their dwelling. He did question why the roofline was drawn so high on the plan. Mrs. Standley responded that the roofline was drawn like that because she wanted the members to realize the walls on that level would be straight vertical. Ferguson commented that the neighbors were in favor of this project. Houseman stated he made a site visit today and the character of the neighborhood is consistent with this proposed design. He added that the next-door neighbors had constructed additions to their dwellings. Brusca: Motion to grant the Special Permit, based on a finding that the conditions of Section 29 27 C2, a, c., d., e., & f. are satisfied and based on a Section 6 the finding by Page 8 the Zoning Board of Appeals that such change, extension or alteration shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure or use to the neighborhood and shall not create a new non-conformity. Seconded by Ferguson. Motion carries unanimously 5 – 0. (Houseman, Ferguson, O‘Brien, Brusca, and Murphy in favor) 59-61 Park Street – CC & IG Zones – Todd Waller and Robert Shannon Variance Request Attorney Thomas Alexander spoke on behalf of the applicants. He stated he first filed this application on September 28, 2005. Waivers of time on the hearing for the variance were granted to the Board’s November 22, 2005, January 24, and February 28, 2006 meetings. He added he was proposing the construction of 13 residential units on the second, third, fourth, and loft floor of the existing building; with the existing use to remain on the first floor. He stated approximately 68% of the premises is in the CC zone and therefore the use proposed would be of right. The remaining 32% of the premises is in the IG zone and would require a variance for the proposed use. Attorney Alexander stated to restore this building would be an expensive investment to bring back a historic building such as this. He added that Mr. David Jaquith, Architect of the project, is present to discuss window configurations, lighting, and designs. Mr. Alexander stated a letter was written on November 4, 2005, from the City of Beverly Engineering Department, signed by Assistant City Engineer Gerald R. Marsella stating he confirmed the adequacy of the sewer and water mains for a potential increase of 13 residential units and first floor commercial space at 59-61 Park Street. He added that the area of Park Street is served by a 10” sewer and a 12” watermain. He also stated that developers might have to update connections to those utilities. Attorney Alexander stated the petitioners went before the Design Review Board on November 17, 2005 and December 1, 2005. The Board encouraged the petitioner to restore as much of the original historic fabric as possible using historic photographs as a guide. The Board did not have enough information on the design of the front entrance of the building to make a recommendation. The petitioner agreed that upon further evaluation of the building’s original architectural detail, material and component size based on the removal of existing siding and cover, that this information will be incorporated into future design development plans. The Design Review Board then voted to make a positive recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on the plans submitted. Mr. Alexander stated that snow removal would not be a problem. He added that the HVAC exterior units would not be located on the roof. These units would be placed in each apartment. Mr. Alexander stated there was opposition to this proposal. He commented that this parcel is located in a mixed-use neighborhood. He added that the Master Plan encourages use of older buildings especially for residential uses, which are near the train station. Page 9 Mr. David Jaquith, Architect of the project, stated that William Finch had found a few photographs of this building and they were submitted to the Board for review. He stated the proposal was for (13) units that would consist of mostly one-bedroom condominiums in the price range of low $200,000 to high $100,000’s. He added that two of the units would be two-bedroom. He commented that there was parking for 16 vehicles on the left side of the building and 6 piggyback spaces on the other side. Chairman Houseman asked if there were any members of the public that would like to comment on this petition. Mr. Rene Gagnon of McNeil’s Auto Body, located at 230-236 Rantoul Street, stated that his business began in 1923. He commented that there are paint odors coming from his shops. He added that his property was 50 feet away from the proposed site. Mr. Jonathan Penni, who has owned the property for four years at 71-73 Park Street (Electrical Supply House) and 123-125 New Balch Street stated his concerns are the following: there will be undue traffic, parking is a problem, no sidewalks, snow and trash removal. Mr. Penni also questioned the handicap parking requirements. Mr. James Zampell, owner of 51-58 Park Street and property across from Jacquelyn Towers, stated parking in that neighborhood has been a problem for years. He added that his place of business begins work at 6:00 a.m. on Saturdays and would probably wake up the new residents of the proposed units. Mr. Alexander stated the parking areas would not be changed. He added that 5 parking spaces would be needed by the medical facility on the first floor, 4 spaces would be for the (2) 2 bedroom units, and that 13 spaces would remain. Chairman Houseman asked the Board members for their questions and comments. O’Brien commented that a condominium in Beverly Farms was mixed use with business (an auto body shop) and the project was not working out especially the parking. Houseman stated the top two levels of the building would be townhouses and the first floor would be medical use, wholesale. He questioned if any of the condominiums would be affordable units. Attorney Alexander responded that 10% of the condominiums would be affordable units. He add added the one bedroom units would have approximately 720 square feet of area and the two bedroom units would have 920 square feet of area. Mr. Jaquith stated the walls of the units would be thickly insulated and the windows would be thermo pain therefore, the noise level would be lower. Houseman commented that the applicant had provided several good things and concepts by our request but he was concerned with the abutters concerns. He stated he did not know what else he would need to vote except one more month to review this proposal. O’Brien concurred. She asked if the applicants could get together with the abutters and discuss their differences. Murphy stated there was good faith in this proposal but she was of the opinion this parcel is for Industrial use and therefore would not vote in favor at this time. Brusca stated she believed this was a great plan and reuse of the building. She commented that she did have concerns with the abutter’s questions. Ferguson suggested continuing the meeting until next month so that the abutters and the petitioners could make an effort in good faith to resolve the differences Page 10 Ferguson: Motion to continue the meeting until the February 28, 2006 hearing. A waiver of time to be signed. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion carries unanimously. (Houseman, O’Brien, Ferguson, Murphy and Brusca) Meeting adjourned 11:15 p.m.