Loading...
2006/05/23 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 pubic hearing should include an examination of the Board’s Decision for that hearing. Board: Zoning Board of Appeal Date: May 23, 2006 Place: Beverly City Hall, Council Chamber, 191 Cabot Street Board Members Present: Full Members: Chairman Scott Houseman, Scott Ferguson, and Margaret O’Brien. Alternate Members: Jane Brusca and Joel Margolis. Others Present: Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer, Robert Nelson, Clerk of the Board Diane Rogers. Absent: Alternate Member: Patricia Murphy Chairman Houseman opened the meeting to the public at 7:00 p.m. He stated there were no holdover cases from the April 25, 2006 meeting. 49 Livingstone Avenue – R-10 Zone – David and Luane Tamilio Special Permit Request Mr. Tamilio spoke on his own behalf. He stated he was requesting to encroach 7 feet upon the required 20 feet front yard setback and to encroach 21 feet upon the required 25 feet rear yard setback with a (22’ by 12’) one-story four-season room. He submitted three new photographs of the property indicating where the other dwellings sit for the Board to review. Mr. Tamilio stated he had an existing 8 feet by 10 feet small sun-room adjacent to an open deck, which is 12 feet by 14 feet in size. He is proposing to demolish the sun-room and deck and rebuild within the same footprint. He added that he would tie in the rooflines to make the addition appear nicer. Two letters from the following neighbors indicated their support for this proposal: Carolyn L. and Richard F. Rawson of 47 Livingstone Avenue and Augustus J. Gomes owner of 63 Bridge Street. Chairman Houseman asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this petition, there being no one present, he asked the Board for their questions and comments. O’Brien stated she had made a site visit and had no problem with this proposal. She added that two neighbors were in favor and she believed the design of the project was suitable. Chairman Houseman stated that he believed this proposal would require a Section Six finding in accordance with MGL Ch.40A & 6. Margolis concurred with Houseman and added that two neighbors were in favor of the project. Ferguson stated he had no problem with this proposal. O’Brien: Moved that Board find that the reconstruction of the single-family dwelling located at 49 Livingstone Avenue, does not increase the non-conforming nature of said structure and that the proposed extension/alteration will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure to the neighborhood. In addition I move that the Board grant the proposed application, subject to the following conditions: (1) that the plans submitted with the application are strictly complied with, and are identified in, and incorporated into the Board’s decision, and the elevation drawings, to the extent feasible, are recorded with the decision. Seconded by Brusca. Motion carries 5 – 0. (Houseman, O’Brien, Ferguson, Margolis, and Brusca voted in favor. 44 Sonning Road – R-10 Zone – Ralph J. Schiavone Variance Request David Jaquith, Architect, represented the petitioner. He stated he was requesting to encroach 9 feet plus or minus upon the required 15 feet side yard setback and to encroach 6.5 feet upon the required 25 feet rear yard setback with a two-story addition (30’ by 50’) which will contain an attached two-car garage on the first floor and three bedrooms, master bedroom, craft room and family room above. Mr. Jaquith stated most of Mr. Schiavone’s family was present tonight. He added that nine people reside within the dwelling, some of whom go to college but return home. He commented that the lot was pie shaped. A large photograph, illustrated a chart of 16 abutters lots that were in favor of the proposal. A petition was submitted to the Board for review that contained 24 signatures of neighbors that had no objection to the proposed plans. Mr. Jaquith stated the water runoff would be directed to dry wells, and not to the rear yard directed toward the neighbor’s property. Mr. Schiavone has a vehicle on a trailer and a business truck that he is requesting be sheltered from the weather inside the proposed garage, rather than being put in storage elsewhere every year. Mr. Jaquith stated that presently there is no garage located upon the lot. A letter dated May 21, 2006 was submitted to the Board from Mary Rees and Richard Silva of 30 Sonning Road. They had concerns with the overall footprint of the project being double the size of the existing dwelling and believe the project will decrease the value of their property. In addition, during the recent storms, the rising water neared their foundation and they had concerns with the water drainage from the proposed project. Chairman Houseman asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this petition. Mary Rees and Richard Silva of 30 Sonning Road stated they had submitted a letter to the Board voicing their concerns. They added that they spoke to the Architect of the project tonight and he tried to assure them that the water drainage would not run into their property. Ms. Rees commented that even if the flow of water drained in the front of Mr. Schiavone’s property she still has concerns with this project. Chairman Houseman then asked the Board members for their questions and comments. O’Brien stated she observed from her site visit that this lot is large and not that irregular. She added that she has concerns because the hardship criteria, does not apply to this application. Mr. Schiavone stated because of the high water level in his back yard, he designed the addition with the bedrooms on the second level. He added that he has a large family and they are in need of more bedrooms. He commented that he tried to downsize the addition as much as he could. Margolis asked how many bedrooms are in the existing dwelling. Mr. Schiavone responded that there are three bedrooms on the second level in the existing dwelling. Margolis asked if there would be any repairing of vehicles in the proposed garage. Mr. Schiavone responded that he would not be working on vehicles inside the proposed the garage. Margolis stated he had concerns with the lack of a hardship being proven. Houseman asked Mr. Schiavone if Mr. Jaquith had explained that the State Statute requires a variance must carry a hardship such as the topography of the land, soil conditions, or uniqueness of the lot. Mr. Schiavone responded that Mr. Jaquith had informed him of the hardship requirements. Houseman stated this lot is flat and reasonably square and does not contain ledge. He added he has concerns with the hardship criteria not being met. Brusca asked the size of the proposed bedrooms. She asked if this was an existing split-level dwelling. Mr. Schiavone responded that his dwelling was a split-level. She asked if the proposed workshop and garage was on the ground level. Mr. Schiavone responded yes. Brusca stated that she had concerns with the hardship requirements. She added that perhaps the design of this proposed addition could be downsized to meet the zoning setback requirements and a variance would not be required. Houseman stated that on the right hand side of the dwelling there is a proposal for a two-story garage and in the rear the encroachment is for a workshop and garage. He commented that there is also a long bay for a truck and a trailer with a vehicle upon it. He stated he felt that a 50 feet long garage was too big and that the bedrooms that Mr. Schiavone needs could be built on the ground level instead of the workshop. Houseman stated the client could build as a mater of right within the setbacks. He added that the Board has no say in that case. Houseman asked Mr. Jaquith if he would prefer to withdraw without prejudice or have the Board make a motion to approve or deny the request. Mr. Jaquith then stated he would like to withdraw without prejudice his application. O’Brien stated she could not see the car storage as a hardship and would prefer to have the application withdrawn without prejudice. Margolis and Ferguson concurred with O’Brien. Brusca stated she believes Mr. Jaquith and his client can design another addition that will be within the zoning setback requirements. Ferguson: Motion to allow Mr. Jaquith to withdraw without prejudice his clients proposal at 44 Sonning Road. Seconded by O’Brien. All members in in favor. Motion carries 5 – 0. (Houseman, O’Brien, Ferguson, Margolis, and Brusca) Administrative Business: Ferguson stated he had reviewed the minutes for the month of February 2006. Ferguson: Motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of the Beverly Board of Appeals, month of February 2006. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion carried 5 – 0. All members voted in favor. (Houseman, O’Brien, Ferguson, Brusca, and Margolis) Brusca stated she did not finish reviewing the minutes of the Board of Appeal for the month of March, 2006. Therefore the review will be continued until the July hearing. Murphy stated she would review the minutes of the Board of Appeal for the moth of April, 2006 and report her findings at the next scheduled meeting in July, 2006. Margolis stated he would read the minutes of the Board of Appeal for the month of April, 2006 and report his finding at the next scheduled meeting in July, 2006. Houseman motioned to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 p.m.