Loading...
2006/03/28 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: March 28, 2006 Place: Beverly City Hall, Councilors Chamber 191 Cabot Street, Beverly, Massachusetts Board Members Present: Full Members: Chairman Scott Houseman, and Margaret O’Brien. Alternate Members: Jane Brusca, Patricia Murphy, and Joel Margolis. Absent: Full Member: Scott Ferguson. Arrived @ 8:00 p.m. and left @ 11:00 p.m. Others Present: Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer – Robert Nelson, and Clerk of the Board – Diane Rogers. Chairman Houseman opened the meeting to the public at 7:00 p.m. He informed the public that Board member Scott Ferguson was not present and that we did not know if he was running late or not attending the meeting. He added that Mr. Ferguson was a voting member on the continuance of Mr. Todd Waller of 59-61 Park Street and also Mr. Grein of 22 Hobart Street, which was schedule to be heard at the beginning of this meeting. He gave Mr. Alexander and Mr. Grein the opportunity to wait and see if Mr. Ferguson arrives or to go forward with their applications with four members voting on the outcome. Both Mr. Alexander and Mr. Grein stated they would wait and see if Mr. Ferguson attends Chairman Houseman stated that Bev Cam would be taping this evenings meeting. 40 Heather Street – RMD Zone – Montserrat Condominiums, LLC Dimensional Variance Request Chairman Houseman stated that Attorney Thomas Alexander had requested the case be continued to the April 25, 2006 meeting. A waiver of time was signed. Ferguson: Motion to allow Attorney Alexander to continue the case to the next scheduled meeting on April 25, 2006. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion carries unanimously. (Houseman, O’Brien, Ferguson, Brusca, Margolis, and Murphy) Minutes of the meeting: Attorney Thomas Alexander spoke on behalf of the petitioner. He stated the building was purchased on February 6, 2006. He added that the building was formerly a nursing home for 34 years and that the structure had been granted several variances. The property is located in an RMD Zone, which allows for residential use. Mr. Alexander stated that the property is bound on one side by the Beverly Housing Authority and the other side by the Beverly Hospital. He added that there are a few residential abutters. He stated that there is 79,618 square feet of land, which is approximately 2 acres. The building contains 68,000 square feet and this project would not change the height of the building or the footprint. There will be 93 parking spaces on site. The zoning requires 2 parking spaces per 2 bedroom units. There are 28 (2) bedroom units, which would require 86 parking spaces and 15 (1) bedroom units that would require 15 parking spaces. That would leave 11 parking spaces for guests or some occupants might have multiple vehicles. Mr. Alexander stated some balconies would be constructed and the roof might be constructed slanted in some areas. He added that the HVAC units would be installed in the interior of the building not upon the roof. The roof would be clear of fans or condensers. Mr. Alexander introduced Mr. Potter, the builder of the project. Mr. Potter stated the units would have hardwood floors and granite countertops. He commented that the property is near the Montserrat Train Station and the access to Rte 128. He stated the trash bin would be located at the rear of the property. He added that the existing trees on the side of the building would be maintained and will buffer the area substantially. A fence will be erected for privacy. Mr. Potter stated there was a meeting at the Senior Center to discuss the project. A traffic analysis was done on the property and the results were read into the record. Mr. Alexander stated that both the Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 40A Section 10 provided that you can find economic hardship for a building. Allowed by right, would be 20 units containing 3,600 square feet in area and that would not make economic sense. He added this is a condominiums project not rentals. Houseman asked if the owners of the units would be prevented from renting. Mr. Alexander responded that the owners of the units would be discouraged from renting the property. He added that if a unit were rented, a year lease would be required. Mr. Jeff Quin of Metropolitan Development stated he has an agreement with Montserrat College to provide artwork for the interior walls of the building. He added that there was a neighborhood meeting in which his company “Condo Pro” explained that they will be managing the property for 2 – 5 years. Ferguson asked if there was a provision for affordable housing. Mr. Alexander responded that affordable housing was discussed. He added that 10% of the units could be affordable but that neighborhood concerns would be kept in mind. Chairman Houseman asked if any member of the public would like to comment on this petition. Mr. Antonelli, representative of the Electrical Workers in the City of Beverly stated developers come in and don’t pay decent wages to their workers. He added that there are several Beverly electrical contractors that would like to work on this project. Mr. Alexander stated that Mr. Potter, the builder on the project had a brother that had an electrical business that was being hired to do the work. Mr. Potter said he would keep the Beverly electrical contractors in mind. A representative of Montserrat College stated he was pleased to be decorating the walls of the building with their artwork. Rosemary Magleo of 30 Pleasant Street stated this project does not meet the requirements in Section 29-13H-8. Mr. Alexander responded that this project did meet that requirement because of an additional courtyard being constructed. He added the project will go to the Planning Board for review of this courtyard. Ms. Magleo stated the hardship of the project does not meet the Section 29-27-D a. – b – c – & 2 requirements. Mr. Alexander responded that there are special circumstances of this building, which are unique. He added there is no market for nursing homes. He stated that the proposal would retain this large building on the lot but the parking would actually be decreased. Ms. Magleo stated that 20 units would be allowed by right, not 43 units which is being requested. She was concerned with the density of the project. Mr. Alexander responded that 20 units would not be a reasonable use of the property because there is no market for condominiums that contain 3,500 square feet of area. Building Commissioner, Robert Nelson, stated the possibility of an office building being constructed would be problematic because you would be going from one non-conforming use to another. Mr. Alexander commented that open space on the lot would be maintained. He added that the existing spruce trees would remain and that 8 feet tall arborvitaes would be planted. Chairman Houseman asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Margolis asked what the anticipated sale price range of the proposed units would be. Mr. Alexander responded that the price range would be the low $200’s up to mid $300’s. Margolis asked if the project would be economically useful if there were a decrease in the number of units. Mr. Alexander responded that the builder could have proposed more units because there was no opposition from the neighbors that we spoke to. O’Brien asked what the square footage of a one and two bedroom unit would be. Mr. Potter responded that a one-bedroom unit would be between 750-950 square feet and a two- bedroom unit would be between 1200 and 1400 square feet. He added that if he was allowed only 20 units, they would be 3600 square feet, with 4 to 5 bedrooms and would probably have to go to Section 8 units. Houseman asked what constitutes the peak a.m. hours? He questioned if it was 7:30 a.m. – 8:30 a.m. Mr. Alexander responded that on the traffic survey presented, 1/3 of the unit owners would be leaving at the peak hours. He added that 2/3 of the people would not be leaving at that time. Houseman stated that more traffic information was needed. O’Brien concurred. Houseman asked the Board members if they were ready to vote on this project. Ferguson asked for a comprehensive study, regarding traffic from Rte 22 toward East Beverly and West Rte 128, and the Brimbal Avenue access onto Rte 128. Houseman asked if this project should go before the Design Review Board. O’Brien responded that she would feel better if they did go before the Design Review Board. Margolis stated he would like more information on the affordable housing units. Houseman asked Mr. Alexander to provide hardship cases for the Board to review. He added that Section 29-27-2-D, add “Finding of Fact”. Ferguson: Motion to continue the variance until the next scheduled meeting. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion carries 5 – 0. (Houseman, Ferguson Margolis, O’Brien and Murphy? in favor). 36 Hale Street – R-6 Zone - Ann and Mark Flagg Special Permit Request Mrs. Flagg spoke on her own behalf. She stated she was requesting to remove the existing sunroom and erect a proposed (13’-9 5/8” by 15’- 1 ¼) one-story sunroom that encroaches 5.50 feet upon the required 10 feet side yard setback. Mrs. Flagg stated the best illustration of her proposal is located on the Bay State survey, on page two that was submitted to the Board for review. She added the illustration shows the existing sunroom and the proposed plan. Chairman Houseman asked if she had notified her neighbors of the proposal. Mrs. Flagg responded that she obtained the following two letters in support of this proposal from her direct abutters: Barbara Garry of 42 Hale Street and Gerald LaBrecque of 34 Hale Street. Chairman Houseman asked Building Commissioner, Robert Nelson if this application would require a Section Six finding. Mr. Nelson responded this application is a non- conforming structure, which would require a Section Six finding. Chairman Houseman asked if anyone from the public would like to comment of this petition, there being no one present he asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Brusca stated she observed reviewing the illustration that the proposed sunroom would be located in the same location but would be extending further into the rear yard setback and encroach 5.50 feet upon the side yard setback. Mrs. Flagg responded the proposed sunroom will be flush with the existing dwelling. O’Brien: Motion: I move that the Board finds: (1) that the reconstruction of the sunroom extension to this single family residential structure does not increase the non-conforming nature of said structure and (2) that the that the proposed extension or alteration will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure to the neighborhood (3) that having considered the special permit criteria set out in the Beverly Zoning Ordinance at Section 29-27-C (2) (a – f), the Board finds those criteria are satisfied as follows: I move that the Board grant the proposed application of Ann and Mark Flagg, of 36 Hale Street, subject to the following conditions: (1) that the plans submitted with the application are strictly complied with, are identified in, and incorporated into, the Board’s decision, and the elevation drawings, to the extent feasible, and are recorded with the decision. Seconded by Murphy. Motion carries 5 – 0. (Houseman, O’Brien, Murphy, Brusca, and Margolis in favor). 4 Everett Street – R-15 Zone – Michael Cronin Special Permit Request Michael Cronin spoke in his own behalf. He stated he was requesting to replace an existing non-conforming detached one-car garage with a two-car garage, (21’ by 21’) which will encroach 5 feet from the rear yard setback and 6.5 feet from the side yard setback. He introduced Stephen C. Watt, the Architect for the project. Mr. Watt discussed the proposed plan and indicated on the illustrations the proposed work to be done. Chairman Houseman asked if any work was to be done on the footprint in the front of the dwelling. Mr. Watt responded that the front footprint would remain the same. Chairman Houseman stated this is an alteration, which requires a Section Six finding. He asked what specifically is being done to the dwelling besides the request for a special permit to construct a two-car garage. Mr. Watt responded that a two-story addition would be built to the rear of the existing structure, which would contain anew master bedroom, and one full bath upon the second floor. Mr. Cronin submitted a petition that was signed by 16 residents, including both next-door abutters that were in favor of this proposal. Chairman Houseman asked if anyone from the public would like to comment of this petition, there being no one present he asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Margolis asked what trees would be removed because of this project. Mr. Cronin responded that one tree by the garage would be removed. Houseman stated he had made a site visit and his observations were that there would be no impact upon the neighborhood because of the addition and the new location of the new two-car garage. He added this will make the property more conforming not less and commented that the overall scale of the structure is not out of character for the neighborhood. Houseman stated that in his opinion this application for Section Six finding did meet the required criteria. O’Brien commented that this was an appropriate proposal and nice design. Brusca: Motion: I move that the Board finds (1) that the proposed alteration/ reconstruction / extension / or structural change to this single- family residential structure does not increase the non-conforming nature of said structure; (actually makes it less non-conforming. (2) that the proposed extension or alteration will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure to the neighborhood; (2) that having considered the special permit criteria set out in the Beverly Ordinance at Section 29-27-C (2) (a – f), the Boards finds those criteria are satisfied as follows: no neighbors were in objection to the proposal. 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, 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 O’Brien. Motion carries 5 – 0. All members in favor.( Houseman, O’Brien, Brusca, Margolis, and Murphy). 25 Forty-Five West Street – R-45 Zone – Randy & Cynthia Nelson Temporary Conditional Permit/Special Permit Request Mr. Robert MacNeille, of Carpenter & MacNeille Architects and Builders spoke on behalf of the petitioners. He introduced the owner of the property, Cynthia Nelson. He stated Mrs. Nelson had purchased the property on March 1, of this year and would like to have her mother Louise reside with them. He added that the existing family room would be converted into a 490 square foot studio apartment containing one large room with a bathroom, kitchenette, living and sleeping area upon the first floor. He commented that a new family room would be added elsewhere. Chairman Houseman asked if Mr. MacNeille was aware of the zoning provisions relative to accessory apartments and the need to renew the application every four years and understand that the kitchen built as a result of the Temporary Conditional Permit shall be removed by the owner ninety days after the designated occupant leaves and the dwelling will then revert to a single-family residence. Mr. MacNeille responded that he was aware of the provisions. Chairman Houseman asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on the petition, there being no one present, he asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Houseman asked if there were any letters from neighbors commenting or indicating support for this proposal. Mr. MacNeille responded that he did not have any letters from neighbors. Houseman stated he made a site visit and that he observed that the lot was very large on all sides of this residence. He commented that this application did not require a Section Six finding. O’Brien concurred with Houseman. She then complemented the design of this project. Brusca: Motion: I move that (1) the dwelling is not a non-conforming structure; (2) that having considered the special permit criteria set out in the Beverly Zoning Ordinance at Section 29-27-C (2) (a) – (f), and Section 29-23-C – 1-11 for provision for accessory apartments; I move that the Board finds those criteria’s are satisfied as follows: no neighbors objected to the proposal. I move that the Board grant the Special Permit, subject to the following conditions: (1) that the plans submitted with the application are strictly complied with, are identified in, and incorporated into, the Board’s decision, and the elevation drawings, to the extent feasible, are recorded with the decision; (2) that the applicant register the (mother) Louise Carotenuto as the in-law who will live in proximity to but with independence from a relative and also renew the permit every four years at the City Clerks office. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion carries 5 – 0. (Houseman, O’Brien, Brusca, Ferguson, and Murphy in favor) 145 Conant Street – IR Zoning District – Cherry Hill Corporate Center, LLC C/O National Development – Variance Request Mr. Andy Clark of Expose Signs & Graphics, Inc., spoke on behalf of the petitioner. He stated he was requesting to remove a 112 square feet free-standing sign and replace with a 98 square feet free-standing sign where 35 square feet is allowed by right. He added this application was for a change to the existing variance – Park Directory, of 145 Conant Street. Mr. Clark stated that Cherry Hill Corporate Center, LLC seeks a change to an existing variance granted (June 1, 1984, a copy submitted to the Board) to permit a 98 square foot Park Directory where a 112 square foot exiting is now allowed. He stated that under Section 29-26E, the alteration of this sign is allowable because it does not increase its size or create a more detrimental non-conforming use. The proposed sign reduces the total size of the directory and updates it visually to a more appealing deign, reduces total height from 18 feet to 9 feet and provides a more effective way to inform people entering the park. Mr. Clark stated the sign is not internally illuminated. He added the sign would be ground lit. He added that the location and proximity to the road would not change. The exiting hardship determined by the original variance still exists and an extension of this allowance does not harm or cause detriment to the public or the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. He added that the office park, due to its long and narrow access road, does not allow for a directory to be placed at the entrance and a directory is required to inform the public entering the park. He stated the lot affected is contiguous with other parcels held in common ownership. Mr. Clark commented that the sign located in the Danvers area went before their Board last Monday. Chairman Houseman asked if any member of the public had any questions or comments. Mr. Edward Sullivan of 13 Garfield Avenue in Danvers stated it was hard to view where traffic is coming from while driving out of the park. He added there are joggers running in the park. He indicated his concern for safety because of the poor visibility. Mr. Clark responded that the sign located in the Beverly area was being discussed, not the sign in Danvers that did not require a variance. Mr. Sullivan was unaware of which sign was being discussed tonight. Chairman Houseman asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Mr. Houseman stated he made a site visit. He added that this proposal would make the sign more conforming. He stated that the conditions have not changed from the previous variance. He commented that this Board had no control over the sign located in Danvers. Mr. Houseman stated the sign is quite a distance from the street. He believes it would be appropriate for the Board to grant this application. He added he thought that the hardship would be the size of the overall office park. He commented that there were no objections to bring the sign into conformity. Brusca asked if the Danvers area sign went to their Design Review Board. Mr. Clark responded yes, the Danvers sign was brought before their Design Review Board. Houseman stated that the existing conditions on the prior variance should remain on this amended decision. He added that the lighting is at ground level and on timers, which shut off at 11:00 p.m. He commented that there are no residential properties near this proposed sign. Mr. Ferguson stated the approximate lighting would be two fixtures located very low on one side and about 500 watts. He added this proposal is a modification of the existing variance. After further discussion regarding this proposal, the Board then made the following addition findings related to granting the variance: (1) that there are special circumstances relating to the situation of the building upon the Parcel, that are peculiar to the Parcel but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located; (2) that the request is the minimum one that could be granted and still allow the petitioner a reasonable use; and (3) that based upon the above mentioned factors, allowing the project would not result in a material, detrimental impact in the neighborhood or be inconsistent with the intent of the bylaw. Ferguson: Motion to amend the existing sign variance that was granted to Thomas Flatley, located at 145 Conant Street, on June 1, 1984. The prior condition “sign shall be lighted no sooner than dusk and lights out no later than 11:00 p.m.” shall remain. Lighting would be two fixtures located very low on one side and about 500 watts. Seconded by O’Brien. All members in favor. Motion carries 5 – 0. (Houseman, O’Brien, Ferguson, Margolis, and Brusca) 28 Lothrop Street – R-10 Zone – Gregory P. Russell Special Permit Request Full Member Scott Ferguson left the meeting Mr. Russell spoke on his own behalf. He introduced his wife Karen to the Board. He stated he was requesting to raze the existing single-family structure and rebuild a structure that encroaches 11.8 feet plus or minus upon the required 20 feet side yard setback, also to encroach 9 feet plus or minus upon the required 15 feet side yard setback, and to encroach 2.7 feet plus or minus upon the required 15 feet left side yard with a proposed (25’ – 0” by 51’ – 2”) single-family dwelling, maximum height of 35 feet. Chairman Houseman stated he made a site visit and while taking photographs of the dwelling the immediate abutter to the right of the property came outside to speak to him. She stated she had submitted a letter to the Building Department to be forwarded to the Board because she could not attend the March 28, 2006 hearing. She added that she had signed Mr. Russell’s petition because she thought it was approved and that he had obtained his building permit. David Jaquith, Architect for the project, stated the variance was withdrawn without prejudice in 2004 and that the Russell’s modified the plans and obtained a building permit to renovate the existing saltbox structure to a 2 ½ Victorian residence with the same footprint and would keep the building intact while in construction. This permit has been renewed each year at the Building Department. Mr. Jaquith stated the request tonight is now for a special permit to raze the existing building. He added that this is a difficult piece of land. Mr. and Mrs. Russell spoke on their own behalf. Mr. Russell stated that they have owned the property for 23 years. He added that they had made visits to the neighbors showing their plans and also wrote letters to all the abutters on the Assessor’s List. Mrs. Russell submitted a petition containing 26 signatures of neighbors in favor of their project, for the Board to review. She also submitted the petition with 22 original signatures of neighbors from the variance hearing that was withdrawn without prejudice in May of 2004. She commented that some of the neighbors had since moved, however, others still remained. An Assessor’s map was submitted with supporting neighbors lots colored in. Chairman Houseman read a letter into the record from Elizabeth Boomer of 32 Lothrop Street, indicating her concern that the substantial increase in height of the new dwelling would result in a significant loss of light into her dwelling. She stated she understood that the city approved the required permits to build the new dwelling and a special permit to tear down the existing building was all that was needed. She added that she had signed the petition in support of the razing of the dwelling but has learned since that the project is not necessarily approved. Chairman Houseman stated that this proposal would require a Section Six finding. Chairman Houseman asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this petition. Todd Main of 23 McKinley Avenue stated he would be the builder on this project. He added that he would like to make this project safer by razing the dwelling. He stated that the building could either be shored up slowly or razed and constructed with a clean start, safely. Chairman Houseman asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Murphy asked how the demolition would be done if the dwelling was not razed. Mr. Russell responded the demolition would be done by hand. He added the dwelling was close to the neighbors and the street. O’Brien asked how much higher is the proposed dwelling than the existing structure. Mr. Russell responded that the existing roof was approximately 26 to 28 feet and that the proposed new dwelling would be 34 to 35 feet in height. O’Brien asked how close Elizabeth Boomers residence was fro Mr. Russell’s dwelling. Mr. Russell responded that Mrs. Boomers dwelling was approximately 31 feet from his dwelling. He commented there was 6 feet from his dwelling to the lot line and then another 25 feet to her dwelling. O’Brien then viewed from a photograph, which was provided to the Board, the height of different dwellings in the neighborhood. Houseman stated he did not feel comfortable with the scale of the proposed new dwelling on the site. He added that the proposed new garages would be located in the front of the dwelling, on the first level, and he had concerns relative to that design. David Jaquith then reviewed the plans with Houseman. Houseman stated he believed that Ms. Boomers dwelling, located to the right, was closer to the Russell property than stated. Brusca reiterated that the Russell’s had obtained a building permit. She viewed the height of several neighbor’s residences from a photograph and stated she does not have a problem with the size of the proposed dwelling on this site. O’Brien discussed the footprint of the existing and the proposed dwelling. Mr. Jaquith stated he had reduced the setback on the front by one foot and placed the new garages out in front because of the topography of the rear yard. Margolis stated he would rather see the project done safety by razing the existing dwelling. O’Brien commented that the design of the dwelling is more of a carriage house look with the garage doors placed in the front of the dwelling. Houseman asked what safety precautions would be taken if the dwelling were to be demolished. He added that he had concerns for the neighbor’s families. Mr. Main responded that the area would be fenced off and there would be restricted access. He added that he would also clean up the site each day. Houseman stated he had concerns with the typical orange construction fencing that had holes in the plastic netting. He was concerned with nails being thrown onto neighbor’s properties. Mr. Main stated that if the 6 feet fencing was installed properly there should not be a problem. Murphy asked the Building Commissioner, Robert Nelson, what way he thought would be best. Mr. Nelson responded he would raze the dwelling because the foundation is old and problematic. Houseman asked if the Historic Society requested the existing building be relocated. Mr. Russell responded that relocating the exiting dwelling was not feasible. O’Brien: I move that the Board find that (1) the proposed reconstruction of the single-family dwelling located at 28 Lothrop Street, does not increase the non-conforming nature of said structure; (2) that the proposed extension/ alteration will not be substantially more detrimental than the exiting non- conforming structure to the neighborhood; (3) that having considered the special permit criteria set out in the Beverly Zoning Ordinance at Section 29-27-C (2) (a) – (f), the Boards finds those criteria are satisfied. 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, 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 Margolis. Motion carries 4 – 1. (O’Brien, Margolis, Murphy, & Brusca voted in favor) (Houseman voted in the negative) 22 Hobart Avenue – R-10 Zone – Mr. Joseph Grein Special Permit Request This proposal was first heard on February 28, 2006 and was continued to this meeting. David Jaquith, Architect for the project stated that he revised the plans for the new dwelling. He submitted the drawing to the Board members to review. He added that he reduced the size of the dwelling by approximately 14 feet. Mr. Grein stated he met with the O’Conner’s, the abutters, residing at 56 Winthrop Avenue and explained the changes in the plan but that the O’Conner’s never got back to him. He added that he had faxed a plan to the Kidneys, also an abutter, but they did not respond. Mr. Jaquith stated that they tried to make everyone understand that by right, a dwelling can be 35 feet in height. He submitted a drawing indicating what was buildable by right (the shaded red area) for everyone to review. Chairman Houseman asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this petition. Mr. and Mrs. Alan O’Conner of 56 Winthrop Avenue stated that they had met with Mr. Grein. Mr. O’Conner stated he had some questions regarding the revision of the plans that he would like to discuss. He asked what the square footage was of the present dwelling and that of the proposed dwelling. He stated the revised plan consisted of a scale back of approximately 10% in which they removed only a gable dormer. He added that he believed there would be a 100% increase in the new dwelling. Mr. O’Conner submitted information to the Board to review regarding the analysis of relative homes compared to lot size in their neighborhood. He also submitted his letter dated March 28, 2006, giving facts about the proposed site and dwelling at 22 Hobart Avenue. He questioned how many vehicles would be parked at the site and how many would have to be parked in the street. Mr. O’Conner stated if the dwelling was razed and rebuilt on the existing footprint he would be in favor of the request. He then asked the Board to vote “No” on the request for this special permit application. Mr. Jaquith stated there are two lots, a paper street, two deeds, two tax bills, and one owner of the land at 22 Hobart Avenue. Mr. O’Conner responded that most of the second lot is covered with water, the tide goes in 6 hours and the tide goes out 6 hours. Chairman Houseman asked the Board members for their comments and questions. Houseman asked Mr. O’Conner what was the source of his data information. Mr. O’Conner responded his data was received from “0.com” which was featured in the Boston Globe. He added they go into property values, market value, lot size etc. on web sites. He stated information is also acquired from public records from cities records. Margolis questioned if Mr. O’Conner’s opposition is because of the loss of view from his property. Mr. O’Conner responded he was in objection of this project because of the loss of value from his property and for privacy reasons. Houseman stated he attended a meeting with the Planning Director, City Solicitor, and the Building Commissioner, relative to the authority this Board has regarding a Section Six finding to raze a single family dwelling. He added that the Board has jurisdiction for its review defining whether the applicant can raze the structure. He added that the Board now has the authority to indicate how high the structure may be per Criteria of Section 29 26 D, Item 1, “above” or “outside of”. O’Brien stated the information that was just submitted from Mr. O’Conner she believes is relevant concerning light and air which are factors in the zoning ordinance to protect abutters. Houseman concurred. He added he thought a compromise between Mr. Grein and Mr. O’Conner would be a better way to go. Mr. Jaquith stated the height limit is 35 feet in the R-10 Zoning District. Mr. Nelson, Building Commissioner, stated when an applicant goes before the Board and asks for a Section Six finding to raze the dwelling, the Board then has the authority to lower the height of such th building. Ferguson stated he made a site visit on March 10 and 13, 2006. He was able to gain access to the dwelling with Mrs. O’Conner and her two daughters. He stated he believed that Mr. O’Conner was within 1 or 2% factually correct stating that the property values would be affected and a letter was submitted from a Realtor stating that. He added that he could not comment on traffic because no study was conducted. He commented that a petition was submitted containing 10 neighbor’s signatures objecting to this proposal. Mr. Ferguson stated he did find from the site visit that the proposal will result in a material, detrimental impact to the neighborhood. He requested the letter of March 28, 2006 from Mr. O’Conner be attached to the decision. Houseman asked Mr. Grein if he wanted a vote from the Board of if he chose to withdraw without prejudice his petition. Mr. Grein responded he would like to withdraw without prejudice his application. Ferguson: Motion to allow Mr. Grein of 22 Hobart Avenue, to withdraw-without prejudice his application for a Special Permit. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion carries 5 – 0. (Houseman, Ferguson, O’Brien, Margolis, and Brusca in favor) Discussion: Brusca: If the applicant decides to build the structure without razing it completely, could you build that structure. Houseman stated they could apply at the Building Commissioners office for a permit. 59-61 Park Street – CC & IG Zones – Todd Waller and Robert Shannon Variance Request This petition was first heard on October 25, 2005 and continued at the November 22, 2005, January 24, 2006, February 28, 2006, to the present hearing March 28, 2006. Attorney Thomas Alexander spoke on behalf of the petitioners. He is requesting to allow for the construction of (13) residential units on the second, third, fourth, and loft floor of the existing building; with existing use to remain on the first floor. He stated that 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. Chairman Houseman stated he received an e-mail from Mr. Zampell. Mr. Zampell discussed this proposal with the Trustee of THD 51-58 Park Street (his mother) who has Attorney Sean Boulger tonight to represent her interests. Houseman also spoke to Mr. Penni who owns the property located at 71-73 Park Street and 123-125 New Balch Street and with Attorney Alexander who made their opinions made. Houseman stated that these comments have been already been discussed with the Board members. Attorney Thomas Alexander stated that since last months meeting two things have occurred, he met with two individuals that had spoken in opposition of this plan, Mr. Rene Gagnon Jr. owner of McNeil’s Auto Body & Radiators at 236 Rantoul Street and Mr. Zampell, owner of 51-58 Park Street. He also spoke to Mr. Desmond who owns the building located to the rear of the project. Mr. Alexander stated that Mr. Penni believes the Industrial use should be continued in this area. Mr. Alexander stated this was a large Industrial area and change has occurred. He stated he met with Mr. Zampell and he made some suggestions regarding lighting, fencing, and parking. Mr. Gagnon of McNeil’s Radiator had concerns with the impact of noise, fumes and previous damage to his property. After a discussion these concerns were resolved. Mr. Alexander stated that snow removal was a concern and that the applicant will be responsible for the removal of the snow, which will be taken off the lot. He added there were concerns with the transformer on site. After a discussion with Mass Electric regarding the 600 amp transformer, it was disclosed that 400 amps was adequate to serve the proposed residential units. Mr. Alexander stated the petitioner would agree to a condition that 10% of the condominiums would be affordable units for low or moderate incomes. He added that if the bottom floor of the building were converted to residential, the proposal would be in compliance with zoning because 68% of the lot is in the CC district. One parking space would be required per a one-bedroom unit and 2 parking spaces would be required for a two-bedroom unit. Mr. Alexander stated there are already several residential homes in this district. He added that the hardship is that the building is old and the expense to renovate is great. Estimates to bring the building into shape were discussed. The removal of the asphalt siding and a residing of the building with a new roof, replacement of windows, and a new passenger elevator would be improvements. The cost would be over $400,000. Mr. Alexander stated there was a letter in the file from the City Engineer indicating that city services are adequate. He added that the Design Review Board also approved the project. He stated that the HVAC units would be internal and that no compressors or fans would be located on the roof. Architect David Jaquith submitted two new drawings indicating the added lighting along the side of the building on the right with 3 lights. He stated each parking space would be labeled. He added that piggyback parking is allowed and they would be designated on unit 9 and 13, the two-bedroom units. A vinyl fence would also be installed on each side of the building. On the second drawing was a proposed layout of the first floor containing residential units. There would be two entries into the units. Mr. Alexander stated that this is an old mill building and the master plan made a recommendation to allow this type of reconstruction. He added the property is near the train station, within 500 feet of seven restaurants, a dry cleaner’s, Gloria Market, coffee shops, Odell Park and a pet store. Murphy asked how the fumes and odors that were a concern to Mr. Gagnon would be resolved. Mr. Alexander responded that a financial contribution would be given to Mr. Gagnon to pass the fumes along. Mr. Gagnon stated the fumes will be carried above through a pipe which will carry the odors. He added that the damage that was done to his property previously will also be paid by the applicant. Mr. Gagnon stated that he looks at this project better now because his concerns have been met. Ferguson stated he had spoken with Mr. Gagnon on Friday, around 4:30 p.m. They discussed the issues, which Mr. Gagnon had regarding this project. Mr. Ferguson questioned if Mr. Gagnon was satisfied with the project. Mr. Gagnon responded that he was now in support of this project. Chairman Houseman asked if there was anyone present in favor of this proposal, there being no one present he asked for anyone present, opposed to this project. Attorney Carl Goodman spoke on behalf of the Zampell family who are immediate abutters. He submitted copies of information for the Board to review. He stated there are laws and regulations, which set up the criteria that must be followed. He added that this is a profitable building, which has a valuable use, which is not crumbling before you eyes. He stated that residential units would impact his client. He specified that there is no hardship, it would be detrimental to the existing industrial use and requested that the Board deny the petitioner. Chairman Houseman read a letter dated March 28, 2006 from Daniel P. Shatford, owner of Alco Fabrications, located at 51 Park Street, into the record. Mr. Shatford stated the hours of his operations would not be compatible next to a residential area. He added that his doors are open in the summer and that his machinery can be heard from the outside. He was also concerned with a danger of any children playing on the street with large trucks leaving shipments on a daily basis Mr. Joseph Penni stated that in his opinion, the electrical load numbers of 400 amps. going in, will not cover the electrical needs for 13 units. He added that the proposed site does not have ample parking for the intended residential use. Mr. Penni stated Mr. Waller’s profit for a year was $74,000. He questioned what happened to that money through the years. He had a concern of residents trying to back out of the lot onto Park Street. Rosemary Magleo of 30 Pleasant Street asked if the units would be rented or bought. She questioned how many units would be present if the first floor were converted to residential. Mr. Alexander responded there would then be 15 units. She asked what the square foot area was of the lot. Mr. Alexander responded the square area of the lot is 10,850 square feet. Ms. Magleo asked if there would be landscaping upon the lot. Mr. Alexander stated there was not any room for landscaping. Ms. Magleo commented that she was of the opinion the site was not for residential use. Chairman Houseman stated to Mr. Alexander that if the new plan is to have 15 units instead of the 13 units, he would have to reapply and re-advertise the project. Mr. Alexander responded that he just put that in as an option. O’Brien asked if the parking was grandfathered. Mr. Alexander responded that the parking was grandfathered. He added that the parking is legal at the building since 1939 and back to the 1800’s. Margolis questioned if a resident would have to back out on to Park Street. Mr. Jaquith responded there would be 18 feet for a vehicle to leave the lot. Murphy stated she was in support of the Master Plan, however she is of the opinion that the site is for Industrial use. She questions having residential units located on the site and believes some of the abutters are correct with their concerns. She added financial hardship has not been demonstrated to me. She stated any building must be maintained. She is of the opinion there is no basis for a variance except financial gain. Houseman stated he was concerned with the abutters. He questioned if this zone should be converted to mixed and commercial. He added that he thought this should be re-zoned by the City Council not by a decision made by the Board of Appeals. Houseman stated he was uncomfortable with the concerns raised. He complimented Attorney Alexander and Mr. Jaquith for their presentation. Chairman Houseman stated that this petition would not pass with Board member Murphy and himself voting in the negative. O’Brien concurred and recommended that Mr. Alexander withdraw the petition without prejudice and wait and see if the City Council rezones the parcel in the near future. She also complimented Mr. Alexander and Mr. Jaquith of their presentation. Ferguson offered Mr. Alexander to withdraw without prejudice his petition. Mr. Alexander requested to withdraw without prejudice his petition. Ferguson: Motion to allow Todd Waller and Robert Shannon to withdraw without prejudice their application. Seconded by O’Brien. Motion carries 5 – 0. ( Houseman, Ferguson, Murphy, Margolis, & O’Brien in favor) .