Loading...
2011-02-23CITY 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 Board's 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: February 23, 2011 (Wednesday Evening) Place: Beverly City Hall, Council Chamber, 191 Cabot Street Board Members Present: Day Ann Kelley, Chairperson Regular Members: Scott Ferguson, Jane Brusca and Joel Margolis. Alternate Member: John Harden Others Present: Diane Rogers — Clerk for the Board Absent: Margaret O'Brien, Pamela Gougian, Sally Keon and Steven Frederickson/Building Commissioner /Zoning Officer. Chairperson Day Ann Kelley opened the meeting to the public at 7:00 p.m. She announced that there was one case to be heard tonight. 73 Cross Lane — R -10 Zone — Donald R. Benoit Section 6 Finding Request Mr. Benoit spoke on his own behalf. He stated he was requesting to construct a two -car garage (24' by 28') on the left side of a nonconforming dwelling. The garage will meet all setbacks. Also, to construct a 13 -feet by 22 -feet open deck attached to the rear of the dwelling, with rear setback of 11.4 -feet. Mr. Benoit explained that he went to the Building Department to obtain a permit for this work and was informed that because of the previous addition the former owners constructed, the lot was now non - conforming. Building Commissioner Steven Frederickson stated he would have to apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow this proposal. Mr. Benoit stated he owned two antique vehicles that he would like to store them in this new garage. Front, rear, right and left side elevations were submitted to the Board to review. Photographs of the dwelling were also provided. Mr. Leroy Hutt of 71 Cross Lane stated he owned the right away and had given the former owners at 73 Cross Lane the right to use it. When the dwelling was sold to Mr. Benoit the agreement continued. Mr. Hutt stated he was in favor of this petition. Mr. Albert E. Carter Jr. of 75 Cross Lane (abutter to the left) was also in favor of this proposal. Ms. Kelley asked the Board Members for their comments and questions. Mr. Margolis asked if there would be any trees taken down during construction or any wetlands in the area. Mr. Benoit replied in the negative. Ms. Brusca asked if the garage would be one - car. Mr. Benoit responded that the proposed garage would be for his two antique vehicles but there would be only one door. After reviewing the plans, Mr. Ferguson stated he was of the opinion the proposed addition is oversized and did not fit into the character of the neighborhood. He added that he would compromise and except a one - car wide 18' x 20' garage. Mr. Harden discussed the elevations submitted and other options available. He also asked if the existing driveway would remain functional. Ms. Kelley was concerned because a garage already existed on the property. Ms. Brusca asked what the present garage was used for. Mr. Benoit replied that the existing garage was used to house vehicles. Mr. Margolis asked if the request could be scaled down to a one -car garage, 24 -feet by 24 -feet, a standard size. Ms. Brusca concurred. Ms. Kelley stated she did not like the idea of two garages on one lot but that the two abutters were in favor of this proposal and the garage did meet the setback requirements. Mr. Ferguson asked Mr. Hutt if the easement was a legal street, did it have utilities, and sewer? Mr. Hutt responded "no" to all questions and added that he paid to have the snow removed. Ms. Brusca stated she could accept a proposed 24 by 24 -foot garage. Mr. Benoit stated there would be one door on the garage only to service that one bay. He added the siding would be shingles. Ms. Brusca suggested a smaller mass with a step down in height and depth. Mr. Benoit stated there would be no rooms above the garage just roofline storage. He did not understand why he could not construct this garage. Ms. Kelley responded that each case is based on the criteria in the Zoning Ordinance and how each Board member views the petition. 2 A motion was made by Ms. Brusca to grant the Section 6 Finding to construct a two -car garage (24' by 28') on the left side of a non - conforming dwelling with the following conditions: 1. That the width of the driveway be no more than 12 -14 -feet wide. 2. That the ridgeline of the new garage would match the ridgeline of the garage on the other side of the dwelling. Ms. Kelley stated that Mr. Benoit should provide another plan that shows that, which would then be submitted with the decision. Mr. Benoit agreed he would provide new front and side elevation drawings to the Building Department within a few days. Mr. Benoit asked the Board to allow the driveway to curve when it meets the garage. Board members affirmed that would be allowed. Seconded by Mr. Ferguson. Motion carries 4 — 1. (Kelley, Margolis, Harden, and Brusca in favor) (Mr. Ferguson voted in the negative) Second part of the request is to construct a 13 -feet by 22 -feet open deck attached to the rear of the dwelling, with rear setback of 11.4 -feet. Mr. Ferguson asked if the deck would be on Sono- tubes approximately 8 ". Mr. Benoit responded the deck would be constructed on 10 -inch Sono - tubes. Mr. Ferguson made a motion in favor of constructing a 13 -feet by 22 -feet "open deck" attached to the rear of the dwelling located at 73 Cross Lane relative to the plans submitted with the following conditions: 1. That the deck remain "open" at no point will it be screened, roofed or enclosed. Seconded by Ms. Brusca. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Margolis, Ferguson, Brusca and Harden in favor)