Loading...
2011-12-13CITY 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 or outcome of the public hearing should include an examination of the Board's Decision for that hearing. Board: Zoning Board of Appeal Date: December 13, 2011 Place: Beverly City Hall, Council Chamber, 191 Cabot Street Board Members Present: Chairperson: Day Ann Kelley Full Members: Margaret O'Brien, Scott Ferguson, and Joel Margolis Alternate Member: John Harden Others Present: Building Commissioner — Director Steve Frederickson Clerk for the Board — Diane Rogers Absent: Jane Brusca, Sally Koen, and Pamela Gougian Chairperson Day Ann Kelley opened the meeting to the public at 7:00 p. m. She stated there were three new cases to be heard tonight. 45 Parramatta Road — R -10 Zoning District — Douglas O. & Carol R. Reynolds Variance Request Mr. Reynolds spoke on his own behalf. He explained the proposal to construct an 18 -feet by 38 -feet addition, which will encroach 8.1 -feet upon the required 15 -feet side yard setback and 9 -feet upon the 25 -feet rear yard setback and the proposal to construct a 16- feet by 10 -feet all season porch which encroaches 7 -feet upon the rear yard requirement of 25 -feet and to construct an 8 -feet open deck. Mr. Reynolds explained he has resided in the dwelling for 20 years. Most dwellings in the neighborhood are of ranch or split level home design. He stated that Mr. Nelson, designer of the plans said the structural frame- work of the dwelling would not withstand the construction of a second level. The size of the lot is 7,740 sq. ft. where 10,000 sq. ft. is required and therefore does not allow for the construction of an addition, which would be compliant with the zoning ordinance. The proposed additions were reviewed with all neighbors and abutters at the following addresses: 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, and 54 Parramatta Road and 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18, Pine Road. Mr. Reynolds commented that there are several homes in the area with additions that exceed the R -10 setback requirements including the home located at 43 Parramatta Road and 12 Pine Road. Ms. Kelley asked if anyone from the public had any questions or comments relative to this project. There being no one present she asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Mr. Ferguson asked what the hardship of the proposal was. Mr. Reynolds responded the size of the lot and the position of the dwelling on the lot. Ms. Kelley stated the neighbor mostly impacted by this proposal in the rear yard location had signed in favor. She added the plans were not exorbitant and seemed to fit the building. Ms. Kelley was supportive to this one -story proposal. Ms. O'Brien observed the bulkhead and asked if there was a basement under the proposed addition. Mr. Reynolds responded yes. She asked if there were any water problems in the area and Mr. Reynolds responded that the lot had no water issues. The members of the board had concerns with the existing shed(s) on the property. Mr. Reynolds responded the sheds were being removed from the property. Mr. Margolis discussed why it wasn't feasible to add a second floor. Mr. Harden asked what the increase of square footage would be. Mr. Ferguson stated the total increase of the footprint would be 35 -37 %. Ms. O'Brien made a motion to approve the application at 45 Parramatta Road with the hardship being (1.) size of the lot; (2.) the structure not being able to support a second level; (3.) the shed(s) are to be removed from the lot as stipulated on the plans. 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 Mr. Ferguson. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, O'Brien, Ferguson, Margolis, and Harden in favor) 3 Tremont Street — R -10 Zone — Christine O'Neill Variance Request Mr. Shawn O'Neal spoke on his wife's behalf. He stated his request was to construct a 24 -feet by 18 -feet one -story addition at the rear of the dwelling, which will encroach 8- feet upon the 25 -feet required rear yard setback. Mr. O'Neal explained they have a two - story dwelling on a 5,500 sq. ft lot. The building cannot be expanded to the side because of the narrow lot. The following abutting neighbors signed in support of the proposal: 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, Tremont Street and 606 Cabot Street. 2 Chairperson Kelley asked if anyone from the public had any questions or comments relative to this project. There being no one present she asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Ms. O'Brien stated the lot in the rear has "open space" so that the proposed addition would not impact the closest neighbor. Mr. Margolis stated he believed the hardship was the small size of the lot and basically the rear yard was the only location for an addition. Ms. Kelley stated this lot was the smallest in the neighborhood and nothing can be done to enlarge this dwelling without obtaining a variance. The size of the proposed addition is modest and in keeping with the house and the neighborhood. The petitioner pulled the addition in 2 -feet from the existing rear of the dwelling and the proposed family room is of reasonable size. Ms. Kelley stated she is in favor of this proposal. A motion was made by Mr. Margolis to grant the variance at 3 Tremont Street to construct a 24 -feet by 18 -feet one -story addition at the rear of the dwelling. The hardship being the small size of the lot and not being able to add a 3 rd level. The plans submitted with this application are to be 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 Ms. O'Brien. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Ferguson, O'Brien, Margolis, and Harden in favor) 357 Hale Street — R -45 Zone — Colin Angle and Erika Ebbel Angle Tom Alexander, Esg./ Variance Request Thomas Alexander, Esq. represented the petitioner's. He explained his request to allow a detached garage of twenty six (26) feet in height where fifteen (15) feet is allowed and to have 18.5% of the garage in the front yard where the zoning ordinance calls for 100% or of the garage to be located within the side or rear yard. Atty. Alexander stated the building built in the 1890's is a very unique property that is unusually shaped. The lot contains 1.62 acres of land, which is over the 45,000 minimum lot area required in this R- 45 Zoning District. If the proposed garage were attached to the dwelling no variance would be required. Atty. Alexander stated the owners want to maintain and preserve the nature of the dwelling. To remove the existing granite used in the construction of their dwelling would be problematic. He added the unusual shape of the lot and the 25 -foot no build zone due to the proximity of the property to the coastal bank make locating an accessory building on the lot very difficult. Placing the proposed garage a little into the front yard allows neighbor's views of the ocean not to be blocked. The garage would comply with all setbacks requirements so it will not substantially derogate or nullify the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Atty. Alexander stated this proposal meets the criteria of Section 27 C 2. Atty. Alexander stated his clients have met with neighbors and the following are in support of this project: Brad Paul of 345 Hale Street, John C. and Maureen E. Wilson of 355 Hale Street, and Jack L. Altshuler, TR at 359 Hale Street. Atty. Alexander stated this plan meets the criteria for obtaining a variance and read into record Section 29- 28 -D1- a b & c. 3 Chairperson Day Ann Kelley asked if anyone in the public had any questions or comments regarding this petition. There being no one present she asked the Board Members for their questions and comments. Ms. O'Brien commented "nicely done, keeps with the architectural design ". Ms. Kelley stated there are two variance requests: the request to place 18.5% of the detached garage in the front yard and the height variance. She feels the hardship in regard to the placement of the garage is due to the way the dwelling sits at the rear of the lot and the unusual frontage. She asked why the request for the height of the proposed garage was so tall (26- feet). Atty. Alexander responded the garage height of 26 -feet was necessary to match the architectural scale and appearance of the dwelling. Mr. Harden questioned the two bays located in the front of the garage. He asked if there was also one in the rear of the structure. Mr. Ebbel responded that would be the third cars space. Mr. Margolis asked if there would be living space on the second level. Atty. Alexander responded the second level would be sheet rocked and there would be a washroom. He added there was very little ceiling height because of the roofline. Ferguson stated he had concerns because the garage would have radiant heating on the ground floor, be connected to water and sewer, and have a 200 amperage electric service. He was of the opinion this proposed garage would someday become residential. Atty. Alexander stated there is no desire to convert this proposed detached garage into a residence. He suggested the decision reflect that fact. Ms. O'Brien commented she believed a garage could have heat, a bathroom, and electricity and not be habitual. Mr. Harden stated if you didn't have the third bay you wouldn't need the front yard setback variance. Ms. Kelley feels this detached garage does compliment the dwelling. The building is unique and to construct a garage in keeping with the zoning requirements might detract from the property. She added that the neighbors are all in support of this proposal. The conditions on the decision are that the second floor is to be used only as storage or a work- shop. The front hardship is the way the lot is shaped and where the dwelling is located upon the rear lot. Mr. Harden made a motion to grant the Variance at 357 Hale Street with the stipulation that the second floor not to be occupied as habitual for an apartment. Subject to the plans presented this evening. Seconded by Ms. O'Brien. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Ferguson, O'Brien, Margolis, and Harden in favor) OTHER BUSINESS: 11 MR. FERGUSON MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE NOVEMBER 22, 2011 MINUTES. SECONDED BY MS. O'BRIEN MOTION CARRIES 5 - 0. (KELLEY, FERGUSON, O'BRIEN, MARGOLIS, AND HARDEN IN FAVOR) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:45 R.M.