Loading...
2012-03-27CITY OF BEVERLY 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 outcome of the public hearing should include an examination of the Board's Decision for that hearing. Board: Zoning Board of Appeals Date: March 27, 2012 Place: Beverly City Hall, Council Chamber, 191 Cabot Street Board Members Present: Chairperson Day Ann Kelley Regular Members: Margaret O'Brien, Scott Ferguson and Joel Margolis Alternate Members: Pamela Gougian and Sally Koen Others Present: Building Commissioner — Director Steve Frederickson Clerk for the Board — Diane M. Rogers Absent: Jane Brusca and John Harden Chairperson Day Ann Kelley opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. She announced there were (3) new cases and (1) continuance from last months meeting that would be heard first. 548 Cabot Street, LLC Modification of Variance and Special Permit Request Ms. Koen will be voting on this Decision Attorney Thomas Alexander represented the petitioner. He explained the request to allow a 3,207 square foot addition to an existing 6,456 square foot office building on the site, which conforms to all setback, parking, and height requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The site is an appropriate location for the use because the use for business and professional offices is already on site, the abutting property to the North has a similar use (medical offices) and the properties immediately across the street are used for institutional and business purposes. The business occupying the property, Capital Hotel Management, LLC is a privately held hotel investment and asset management company with clients all over the world. As such, clients rarely visit the premises. The hours of operation will be regular business hours. No nuisance or hazard will be created since there is adequate parking on site for the expanded use. There are 18 unmarked parking spaces currently on site and 13 more will be added. It has been estimated that there will be a 49.74% increase in the building footprint. The s. f. used for Professional Offices is presently 4,553 and will expand 2,603 making a total of 7,156 s. f. Currently there are 16 employees and this new addition would provide more adequate space to work and approximately 9 new employees. This business has been at this location since 2004. Atty. Alexander stated this project was brought to the Board of Appeals last year however because of the zoning requirements it was withdrawn without prejudice. In July of 2011 the zoning changed. (See Section 29 -27 -2) the Board of Appeals can find that the proposed increase in volume, footprint or area improves the exterior architectural appearance of the structure, in which event building volume, footprint or area may be increased up to fifty percent. Drawings were provided by Siemasko & Verbridge Architecture. Photographs were submitted for the Board to review. Mr. Thad Siemasko described the first, second, third and lower floor plans and elevations. Atty. Alexander introduced Mr. Chad Crandall a resident of Beverly and Mr. Kenneth Wilson who resides in Hamilton as the owners of this property. He stated his clients met with their neighbors on Wednesday, March 7, 2012 to discuss the proposed addition and commented that the meeting went well. Chairperson Day Ann Kelley asked if any person from the public had any questions or comments regarding this proposal. Mr. Jon Tattersall of 9 Columbia Road stated he was not opposed to business but there are three levels on that building and he is concerned with the water table level which could displace water into several neighbors basements. Another issue is he has not seen any engineering drawings and is uncertain where the water will go after the foundation is dug and poured. He commented this site is located in an R -10 Zoning District and if the property is sold what prevents the new owner from conducting work on the week -ends causing more traffic in the area. The use on this site would be unpredictable and that is a large issue to him. Ms. Joan Murphy of 36 Longmeadow Road stated she has concerns with the water table, having more traffic in the area, and the fact that this site has already obtained a special permit. She added the parking spaces were not marked and she could not visualize 31 spaces on the lot. Atty. Alexander showed Ms. Murphy the plans for this project and pointed out the 31 marked parking spaces. He stated this project is within the 100 feet buffer zone and would be going to the Conservation Commission for an order of conditions after the Zoning Board. He added the engineers would be present at that meeting. 2 Ms. Kelley asked the Board members for their input regarding this proposal. Mr. Ferguson asked how many offices were located in the structure presently and how many more will be added. Atty. Alexander stated there are 16 offices with doors presently and there would be 8/9 more after the addition. Mr. Ferguson stated he saw the catch basin on the plan and realizes the water table issues will be addressed. He asked if there would be any mechanicals on top of the roof. Atty. Alexander responded nothing would be on the roof. Thad Siemasko stated the siding upon the building would be restored and the historical appearance of the black shutters would continue to match the white siding. There would be an ADA ramp constructed out in front of the building. Mr. Ferguson asked if there were any letters from the abutters in favor of this proposal. Atty. Alexander responded that he did not ask for letters at the neighborhood meeting. Ms. O'Brien commented that the zoning states that only Professional Offices would be allowed on this site. She added that the owners stated they were not thinking of retiring! Mr. Tattersall asked the Board that if in the future the property was sold, would the new owner be compelled to return to this Board to explain specifics of the business. Ms. Kelley responded a condition could be placed into the Decision, where this is a low traffic area. Mr. Margolis asked if there were any neighbors that have been affected by the water run off He asked that the lighting on the property be addressed. Mr. Siemasko stated the site would use regular residential lighting, no spotlights. Ms. Koen stated she visited the site and was in support of the new proposal. Ms. Gougian asked how many current employees there were and how many were to be added. Mr. Crandall responded there were 16 employees and he predicted 4 to 9 more to be hired. He added that sometimes the staff worked until 7:00 pm in the evenings and other times the employees were traveling to meet with their clients. He stated there is ample parking for everyone. Ms. Kelley asked Mr. Siemakso to describe the Columbia Road side of the proposed addition. He responded that there are two windows on that side and the addition would be 8 -feet to the rear and goes back 10 -feet. The indent is approximately 6 '/z feet. Ms. Kelley asked the names of the neighbors most affected by this proposal. The owners are Christopher Hammon of 1 Columbia Road, Todd Rushton of 5 Columbia Road and Steven Crowley of 532 Cabot Street. Atty. Alexander stated these three neighbors attended the meeting and were very positive of the proposal. Ms. Kelley asked if there were any other alternatives other than having the lower level construction. Atty. Alexander responded that the Engineer would calculate the existing levels and what will be required on the new proposal site. There are several trees in the area that will help seep up water run off and there is a berm that runs along the parking area. Ms. Kelley stated this project is in the R -10 Residential Zone and believes it would be reasonable to have a condition written into the decision that if there is a change in this business, the new owner would have to come before this Board. Atty. Alexander stated the words "Professional Offices" is all one would need. Mr. Ferguson suggested "Substantially for Professional office use, limited to 35 employees. Atty. Alexander stated that in the zoning "Medical Offices" is a separate Use requiring them to return to the Board. Ms. Kelley stated the proposed addition is nicely done. She added it maintains the Architectural integrity of the building and there is no more parking than needed. She commented that the landscaping and maintenance on the trees would continue. Ms. O'Brien suggested there shall be lighting, turned downward, located on 3 12 -foot high poles in the parking lot. Floodlights would not be used. Mr. Margolis asked if there would be any change in the signage. Mr. Crandall replied no. A motion was made by Ms. O'Brien to grant the Modification of Special Permit /Variance to allow a 3,207 square foot addition to an existing 6,456 square foot office building on the site, which conforms to all setback, parking, and height requirements of the Zoning Ordinance at 548 Cabot Street in the R -10 Zoning District with the following conditions: 1. There will be residential lighting by the walkway of the building area and minimal lighting in the parking lot, turned downward. No Flood lights to be used. 2. The Engineering solutions will be discussed at the Conservation Commission meeting regarding drainage and water issues on site. 3. The "Professional Office" space will be limited to 35 staff employees. 4. Medical Office Space Use must return to this Board for approval. 5. Subject to plans submitted. 6. The existing lawn, trees and shrubs will be maintained or replaced as needed in order to provide a natural buffer for the surrounding residential neighborhood. Seconded by Mr. Ferguson. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, O'Brien, Ferguson, Margolis, and Koen in favor) 26 Dartmouth Street — R -10 Zone Siemasko & Verbridge, Inc./Earnest Gabriel Variance Request Ms. Koen will be voting on this Decision Mr. Paul Muldoon of Siemasko & Verbridge, Inc. Architecture represented the petitioner. He explained the request to construct a 6.5 -feet by 24.83 -feet covered porch and uncovered stair along a portion of the primary facade of the existing single - family residence. His description of the request is as follows: The porch would reduce the existing non - conforming front yard setback of 19 -feet to 12.5 -feet. The uncovered stair extends an additional 2.5 -feet from the edge of the porch resulting in a stair setback of 10 -feet. The ridge of the porch would rise 15.81 - feet above the average finish grade. The existing lot of 7,600 s. f. contains a 1' /z story single - family residence of approximately 1,207 s. f. There is an existing deck to the southeast side of the residence approximately 214 s. f. There are existing brick front steps extending 6 -feet off the primary facade toward Dartmouth Street which would be removed. There are two accessory shed structures totaling approximately 144 s. f. There is a paved driveway with parking for two cars which measures approximately 485 s. f. The existing location of the home relative to the R -10 front yard setback of 20 -feet restricts the ability to make improvements to the front entry of the home. The proposed improvement of a covered porch would serve to shelter the front entry from adverse weather and provide a small sitting area. The existing non - conforming location of the home prohibits the ability to make improvements to the front entry of the home, which would substantially increase the function and usability of the main entry. 11 Mrs. Gabriel explained that she and her family have resided in this dwelling for 16 years. She added there has been water damage, ice, and mold, because of the roof drainage. The roof was replaced a few months ago. Her request for the pitched roof and porch is to make sure the problems do not reoccur. She added the front steps are in disarray and should not be walked upon. She believes the whole entrance needs to be repaired and this is the best design to stop the water and ice from running off the roof. Plans and photographs of the dwelling were submitted for the Board to review. A petition in favor of this proposal was submitted to the Board from the following addresses: 23, 24, 25, 27, and 28 Dartmouth Street and 22 Nursery Street. Chairperson Kelley asked if anyone in the public had any questions or comments regarding this proposal. There being no one present she asked the Board members for their questions and comments. The Board then proceeded to address the issue of establishing the specific criteria for granting a variance such as the shape of the lot, soil, ledge, and topography of the land and the uniqueness of the property within that specific neighborhood. Mr. Margolis asked Mr. Muldoon what the nature of the hardship was in this proposal. The architect pointed to snow, ice and water damage that had occurred in that corner of the building. Ms. Kelley stated her opinion that changing the front of the dwelling can be a detriment to the neighborhood and the streetscape. Mr. Ferguson restated the criteria for obtaining a variance. One board member commented that there are no front porches on Dartmouth Street. Ms. O'Brien stated the property is already non - conforming and the dwelling is pushed over to a corner of the lot and her opinion is that this could be considered sufficient reason for granting the variance. Ms. Koen and Mr. Margolis were of the same opinion. Mr. Ferguson suggested the gable be placed over the front door and that would have less impact upon the neighborhood, however, the petitioner and the architect did not believe that this would address the issue of potential water damage to this corner of the dwelling. A motion was made by Ms. O'Brien to grant the requested Variance to the Gabriel's of 26 Dartmouth Street in the R -10 Zoning District to construct a covered front porch addition on an existing single - family residence which would alter the already non - confirming structure setback from 19 -feet to 12.5 -feet instead of the required 20 -feet with the hardship being the location of the dwelling on the lot which lies within the area as needed to protect the dwelling from water damage that has been occurring. Subject to the plans submitted with this proposal. Seconded by Mr. Ferguson. Motion carries 4 — 1. (O'Brien, Margolis, Ferguson, and Koen in favor) (Ms. Kelley voted in the negative) 7 -9 Congress Street — R -6 Zone Thomas Alexander, Esg./Mr. Boches Variance Request Ms. Pamela Gougian will be voting on this Decision Attorney Thomas Alexander spoke on behalf of Mr. Scott Boches, Trustee of Seven and Nine Congress Street Realty Trust. He explained the request was to allow the existing 5 dwelling to be .5 -feet from the location of an access easement on the westerly side of the subject property, where 10 -feet is required. The dwelling is 10.5 -feet from the side property line, however there is a private easement on the Petitioner's land that runs along the westerly side of the building and is located .5 -feet from the dwelling and the Zoning Ordinance requires setbacks to be measured from the edge of the easement rather than the property line, therefore the Petitioner seeks a 9.5 -foot variance from the easterly side yard setback. Currently there is a two - family side by side duplex on the premises. The plan on record showed there is a "utility easement" on the side. An occupancy permit was issued by the Building Department and the townhouse was in the process to be sold. The buyer's bank found there was also a driveway easement. After reading the zoning criteria regarding easements, it was determined that the petitioner would have to give up 10 -feet on the side yard. Atty. Alexander stated the shape of the lot, its narrowness, the soils, slope and topography make it difficult or impossible to site the allowed use, two - family dwelling to be located on the lot without zoning relief. A substantial hardship would be not to allow the use of the land for what it is allowed and would result in the tearing down of part of a duplex that fits well in the neighborhood. A plan of the land for 7 -9 Congress Street Condominiums and photographs of the property were submitted for the Board to review. Chairperson Day Ann Kelley asked if anyone from the public had any questions or comments relative to this proposal. Wesley Slate of 26 Lothrop Street, Ward Two Counselor spoke in favor of this proposal. Mrs. Falloni of 9 Porter Street asked if a dwelling would be built in the future on Moulton Ct. Clarification was provided by Mr. Michael O'Brien, Trustee who owns 11 Congress Street and the easement on Lot 4, which could provide access to Moulton Court. He added he was in favor of this proposal. Attorney Alexander confirmed that Mr. O'Brien owns the easement and pays taxes on it but has to let other people pass over it. He confirmed that the driveway easement was for 11 Congress St. and for Lot 4 and so there is potential for Lot 4 to be developed without an entrance on Moulton Court. Ms. Kelley stated that unfortunately something was overlooked when the plans were approved. She added the site has been improved and should be a benefit to the neighborhood and the hardship is the shape of the lot. She added the fact is that the building was built before the discovery on the deed was found. She did not believe there would be any negative impact to the community. A motion was made by Mr. Margolis to grant the requested Variance to allow the existing dwelling to be .5 -feet from the location of an access easement on the westerly side of the subject property, where 10 -feet is required. The dwelling is 10.5 -feet from the side property line. The property is located at 7 -9 Congress Street in an R -6 Zoning District. The hardship being the shape of the lot and the fact the building was already built before the easement problems were detected. Seconded by Ms. O'Brien. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, O'Brien, Margolis, Gougian, and Ferguson in favor) 31 5 Lakeshore Drive — R -10 Zone — Jason Beal Variance Request Pamela Gougian voting on this Decision Mr. Beal spoke on his own behalf. He explained his request to remove the existing enclosed porch and construct a two -story addition which will encroach 2.9 -feet plus or minus upon the side yard setback requirement of 15 -feet. There will be a crawlspace foundation, a mudroom and dining room on the first floor and a bedroom on the second story. This is a single - family cape cod styled home with a shed located to the rear of the dwelling. This structure sits on a small lot in width and in depth relative to many other neighboring properties. The petitioner would have a hardship not being able to alter the dwelling to accommodate their growing family. They feel this is the minimum relief necessary to accomplish this proposal. The proposed footprint of the added space will also not encroach further to the property line than the nearest abutting dwelling, thereby maintaining appropriate spacing between dwellings. Plans were drawn by CJC Design of Melrose and photographs of the dwelling were submitted to the Board for review. A petition was submitted in favor of this proposal from the following addresses: 3, 7, & 9 Lakeshore Drive, 18, & 22 Parramatta Road, and 50 Lakeshore Avenue. Chairperson Day Ann Kelley asked if anyone from the public had any questions or comments relative to this proposal. There being no one present she asked the Board Members for their questions and comments. Ms. Kelley stated this 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. She added there wasn't much the petitioners could do on this property without a variance. Mr. Margolis stated there was a slope in the rear of the yard, which is a hardship. Mr. Ferguson stated he believed this was a minimal request and the existing porch is rotting out. A motion was made by Mr. Ferguson to grant this Variance to Jason Beal to remove existing enclosed porch and construct a two -story addition which will encroach 2.9 -feet plus or minus upon the side yard setback requirement of 15 -feet, located at 5 Lakeshore Drive in an R -10 Zoning District. Subject to plans submitted. All conditions per Section 29 -28 -C A -F have been met, excluding B. Owing to hardship also being preventing this couple just and righteous use of their property. Seconded by Ms. O'Brien Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Ferguson, Margolis, O'Brien, and Gougian in favor) Business: A motion was made by Mr. Ferguson to accept the February 2012 minutes. Seconded by Ms. O'Brien. Motion carries 5 —0. 7 A motion was made by Mr. Ferguson to accept the January 2012 minutes. Seconded by Ms. O'Brien. Ms. Kelley stated the final copy of the new "access apartments" (In -law) definition had been sent to the City Council for approval. Ms. Kelley will not be available to Chair the meetings in May or June therefore, Ms. Brusca or Ms. O'Brien will act as chairperson.