2010-09-28CITY 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: September 28, 2010
Place: Beverly City Hall, Council Chamber, 191 Cabot Street
Board Members Present: Full Members: Day Ann Kelley, Chairperson, Margaret
O'Brien, Scott Ferguson, Jane Brusca and Joel
Margolis
Alternate Members: Pamela Gougian, and John Harden
Others Present: Building Commissioner — Zoning Officer Steven
Frederickson and Clerk for the Board Diane Rogers
Absent: Alternate Member Sally Koen
Chairperson Day Ann Kelley opened the meeting to the public at 7:00 p.m. She
announced that Atty. Thomas Alexander signed a waiver and was requesting the case of
Gilbert A. Norwood, Trustee at 26R Michael Road, which was continued from the July
22, 2010 meeting be postponed to the regularly scheduled meeting on October 26, 2010.
A motion was made by Mr. Ferguson to allow the petitioner Gilbert A. Norwood, Trustee
at 26R Micheal Road to be postponed to the October 26, 2010 meeting. A copy of the
waiver signed by Atty. Thomas Alexander was presented to the Board. Ms. O'Brien
seconded the motion. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Margolis, Ferguson, Brusca, and
O'Brien in favor)
8 Haves Avenue — R -10 Zone — Eric Thibodeau
Section 6 Finding Request
Mr. Paul Fermano of Fermano & Associates Architects of Marblehead spoke on behalf of
the petitioner. Mr. Fermano is requesting to construct a (10.6 -feet by 9 -feet )single -story
addition to the right corner of the rear of an existing ell to contain a repositioned
replacement bathroom to the existing non conforming dwelling which encroaches upon
the side yard setback requirement by 10 -feet. He stated the width of the lot is 70 -feet and
it contains 7,000 square feet which makes the property non - conforming. This design
allows for the updating and combining of the Kitchen and Dining Area as well as re-
positioning of the Master Bedroom, with both minimal cost and change to the structure.
The petitioners feel that this is a minor modification to their single - family dwelling and
that it does not deviate from its appropriate use. The proposed single -story addition is less
than 100 square feet, which in -fills a rear corner, makes no further incursion into the
setback than already exists.
In favor of this proposal were Shawn Giles of 9 Hayes Avenue, Peter and Joyce
Wendling of 12 Hayes Avenue and the residents at 6 Hayes Avenue and 7 Taft Avenue.
Photographs, proposed elevations, plot plan, and floor plans were submitted to the Board
for their review.
Chairperson Kelley asked if anyone in the public had questions or comments relative to
this proposal. There being no one present she then asked the Board members for their
questions and comments. Ms. Brusca asked if the addition was a one - story. Mr.
Fermano responded that was true. Ms. Gougian asked if anyone was present tonight in
favor of this petition. Mr. Ferguson asked if the neighbor at 12 Hayes Avenue was in
favor of this request. Mr. Thibodeau responded letters in favor of his proposal were
submitted in the package he presented to the Board. Mr. Ferguson reviewed the letters
and then stated that Peter and Joyce Wendling were in favor. Chairperson Kelley stated
there was a great deal of space between this house and the next and she did not believe
this proposal would impact either neighbor. She commented that the addition would not
encroach further into the setbacks than what already exists.
A motion was made by Mr. Ferguson to approve the Section Six Finding at 8 Hayes
Avenue with the condition that the plans submitted with the application are strictly
complied with, are identified in, and incorporated into the Boards decision, and the
elevation drawings, to the extent feasible, are recorded with the decision. Seconded by
Ms. Brusca. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, O'Brien, Ferguson, Brusca, and Margolis in
favor)
34 Cole Street — R- 15/R -22 Zone — Herbert D. Rice and Janet P. Rice
Variance Request
Attorney Thomas Fallon spoke on behalf of the petitioner's. He stated he was requesting
variances per Section 29 -9D1 of the Beverly Zoning Ordinance regarding minimum lot
area; from Section 29 -9132 of the Beverly Zoning Ordinance regarding minimum
frontage and Section 29 -6D1 regarding minimum rear yard setbacks for a swimming pool
on the property located at 34 Cole Street in an R- 15/R -22 Zoning District. Atty. Fallon
stated the property currently consists of a single - family dwelling on a 30, 803 s. f. parcel
2
of land in a neighborhood of predominantly R -15 parcels of land, R- 15/R -22 zoning
district bisect the property. Subject property was derived from the deeding of two
separate parcels of land, each over 15,000 s. f. but merged into one lot by operation of
law. He added that the owners want to revert to two separate lots, and in order to do so
need variances for one of the lots for frontage, lot area and rear yard lot line setback for
the existing inground swimming pool. Atty. Fallon stated the primary reason for the
variances requested is due to the R -22 zoning district "portion" of the lot. Atty. Fallon
believes the dimensional variance requested is the minimum necessary to have the lot
comply. He submitted an addendum to form 2A stating Lot A -1 is in the R -15 side of the
property and meets all zoning requirements. Lot 1 has been deemed to be in the R -22
Zoning District and does not meet the R -22 requirements as follows: Lot 1 contains 15,
028 s. f., (22,000') frontage of 126.74 -feet (150'), and encroaches 5.1 -feet upon the
required 10 -feet setback for and inground pool. Atty. Fallon stated if the two lots merged
and were both in the R -15 Zone my clients would not have to be here tonight.
A Plan of the Land dated December 23, 2008 drawn by Bradford Engineering Co. of 3
Washington Sq. Haverhill, Ma. 01830 were submitted to the Board to review.
Chairperson Day Ann Kelley asked if any member of the public had any questions or
comments relative to this proposal. Mrs. Martha Bussone of 24 Cole Street stated her
father sold the second parcel of land to the petitioners back in 1978. She added she was
in favor of this proposal.
Chairperson Kelley then asked the Board members for their questions and comments.
Ms. Brusca questioned if it were considered a hardship when two different zones go
through a property. Ms. Kelley asked if Atty. Fallon had a subdivision plan or any other
history of the property. Mr. Fallon responded that the two lots came in separately. He
stated he believed the hardship is the loss of a buildable lot. Ms. Kelley stated on Cole
Street a variance for frontage and minimum lot area is required along with the
encroachment of approximately 5.1 -feet upon the 10 -feet setback requirement for the
inground swimming pool in the rear yard. Ms. O'Brien clarified that if both lots were in
the R -15 Zoning District they would have the allowed setbacks. Mr. Ferguson asked if
the inground pool would be re- fenced. He questioned if the Rice's were aware of the
split zoning on this property when they purchased the land? He commented if not, he
believes this is a hardship. Ms. Kelley stated the size and shape of the rear lot are similar
to the shape of the other lots nearby in the neighborhood. She believed not allowing this
deprives the petitioner use of their property. Mr. Ferguson asked if there were any issues
of wetlands on the property. Mrs. Bussone responded that there are some natural waters
next to the lot but there was not a water problem in the neighborhood. Ms. Gougian
discussed the square footage of both lots. Mr. Harden asked if the inground pool required
a variance when first built. Atty. Fallon responded that when the pool was installed his
clients thought they had plenty of land. Ms. Kelley stated the 1978 plan shows two lots.
3
Mr. Margolis questioned the design of the pool and was the setback from the pool edge or
concrete apron. Mr. Ferguson stated he had no problem with the request for the frontage
or the 2nd request for lot area but he did have concerns with the variance request for the
pool encroachment. Ms. Brusca stated she wanted to be clear on why the Board would
allow the encroachment of the inground pool. Atty. Fallon stated if the pool were above
ground, it would be removed. He added a condition in the decision could be that if any
substantial replacement of the pool becomes necessary the pool will be removed. Ms.
Kelley stated another option would be to fill in the pool. Building Commissioner Steven
Frederickson stated that requirements for a pool are that a 4 -feet high fence with a safety
latch and lock must be installed. The setback for a pool is 10 -feet from the side /rear lot
lines. Ms. Kelley stated the variances are for Lot 1 which is in the R -22 Zone.
Ms. Brusca made a motion to grant the variance at 34 Cole Street, which contains (2) lots
which have merged and now are to be separated by the Planning Board. Lot 1 granting
variance for minimum lot area which contains 15,028 -feet, 20,000 -feet is required and
variance for frontage which has 126.74 -feet where 150 -feet are required. The existing
inground swimming pool is within 5.1 -feet of the rear of what will become the new rear
yard lot line of Lot 1, where 10 -feet is required. The pool cannot be substantially altered
or replaced. The hardship is the fact that lots are both split by the zoning lines of R -15
and R -22. Add condition that this will not affect generally the zoning district in which it
is located and would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the property. The 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. There
will be no impact on the neighborhood. This motion grants the Variances from Section
29 -913 1, Section 29 -9 -132, and Section 29 -6131. Seconded by Ms. O'Brien. Motion
carries 4 — 1. (Kelley, O'Brien, Brusca, Margolis is favor) (Mr. Ferguson voting in the
negative)
138 Conant Street — IR Zone — Stephen J. Connolly
Variance Request
Stephen J. Connolly spoke on behalf of Raymond Lane Realty Trust, which he and his
father, Steve Connolly IV, own and manage, a 4 -story 65,000 s. f. multi- tenant office
building. He stated he had written a letter to the Board in July, requesting the possibility
of obtaining a blanket sign variance on this property. He added there would be the
following restrictions: Property owner may grant no more than (3) tenant's rights to
install signage on two sides of the building each. Signage is required to be located in
space between the head of the window line and sill of the window above tenant space.
Signs shall not exceed 75.s.f on the 3 floor or 4 th floors, and 55 s. f. on the 1 or 2nd
floors. Mr. Connolly stated the property is located between a state highway (Rte. 128)
and Conant Street. The building is 100 plus feet from Rte. 128, and although within 35-
feet of Conant Street, does not allow for tenants to show identity. Wall signage is not
allowed above 15 -feet or the sill of the second story window (whichever is lower).
11
Currently there are a total of (5) tenants out of (7) that would not be allowed signage
rights because of this height restriction. He added this would not allow a tenant to have a
sign be representative of their occupied space in the building. He stated the Beverly
Design Review Board would review the proposed signage.
Chairperson Day Ann Kelley asked if anyone from the public had questions or comments
relative to this proposal. They're being no one present she then asked the Board
members for their questions and comments. Ms. O'Brien asked what side of the
building the signs would be located and if the trees by Rte. 128 block the view. Mr.
Connolly responded that he was not sure yet as there are tenants facing different parts of
the building. He added that the trees would not be taken down at the 152 Conant Street
site. Chairperson Kelley stated that the Orchard Brand sign, 74 square feet on one side of
the building would be difficult to see if smaller, She commented that if the signs were
below each other they would appear better than spread around. She asked if the
maximum signage would be (6) signs, (3) on each side. Mr. Connolly responded the
building is not a perfect square but that was the correct total of signs. Mr. Margolis and
Ms. Gougian discussed the location of the proposed signage and asked if this proposal
would go before the Design Review Board. Mr. Connolly responded he would obtain
Design Review approval. Ms. Kelley stated that the Zoning Ordinance does not address
large buildings in the IR Zoning District. She is of the opinion the hardship is the
uniqueness of the building in the Industrial District. Ms. Brusca asked if someone else
would be allowed to install a sign on the fourth floor? Mr. Connolly responded that there
was not much space available. Ms. Kelley stated she does have concerns with lighting of
the signs in the evening, which is near some residential homes. Mr. Connolly responded
that shielding on the light poles and parking lot lights would be installed. He added the
lighting on the poles is on a timer, which would shut off at approximately 10:30 p.m.
Board members questioned the existing signs located at 152 Conant Street. (the older
building) Mr. Connolly responded that "CSL International" and "DMB Financial" signs
were already in place. Building Commissioner Stephen Frederickson stated those signs
were installed before his time and he did not believe a variance was sought. Mr. Harden
asked what the maximum amount of signage would be on the buildings. Mr. Connolly
responded there would be no more than (3) tenants that would have signs, a total of (6)
signs. Ms. Kelley stated the buildings are very large and she believed this proposal
would not have a huge impact on the neighborhood. Ms. Brusca asked if a clause could
be added to the decision stating that the proposed signs must go before the Design
Review Board? Building Commissioner Mr. Frederickson stated the Zoning Ordinance
stipulates before a sign permit can be issued the petitioner must go before the Design
Review Board. Mr. Ferguson stated the sign could include logo, boarders, letters etc.
Chairperson Kelley stated " the square footage encompasses the outside corner of the
entire building." Mr. Ferguson stated he was in favor of both of Mr. Connolly's petitions.
A motion was made by Mr. Ferguson to grant the blanket sign Variance at 138 Conant
Street with the condition that any light on the sign be linked simultaneously with the
lighting in the general area of the building including the parking lot submitted to it.
5
Seconded by Ms. O'Brien. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Ferguson, O'Brien, Margolis,
and Brusca voting in favor)
152 Conant Street — IR Zone — Stephen J. Connolly
Variance Request
Stephen J. Connolly spoke on behalf of Raymond Lane Realty Trust, which he and his
father, Steve Connolly IV own and manage, a 75,000 s. f., multi- tenant, Class B office
building. He stated he was requesting a blanket sign variance with the following
restrictions: Property owner may grant no more than (3) tenants rights to install signage
on two sides of the building each. Signage is required to be located in space between the
head of the window line and sill of the window above tenant space. Signs shall not
exceed 55 s. f. on the 3 floor and 25 s. f . on the 1 and 2nd floors. The building
currently is occupied by (9) tenants. Mr. Connolly stated this property is located
between a state highway (Rte. 128) and Conant Street. The building is roughly 60 -feet
from Rte. 128 and 50 -feet from Conant Street. These circumstances do not allow for
tenants to show identity. Mr. Connolly stated wall signage is not allowed above 15 -feet
or the sill of the second story window (whichever is lower). Beverly Design Review
Board will review the proposed signs.
Chairperson Day Ann Kelley asked if anyone from the public had questions or comments
relative to this proposal. They're being no on present she then asked the Board members
for their input. The Board members discussed this petition during the request at 138
Conant Street.
A motion was made by Mr. Ferguson to grant the variance at the locus 152 Conant Street
with one single condition "that the lighting in the exterior of any kind of design be linked
simultaneously with the other exterior general lighting in the locus more likely than not
the parking lights." Seconded by Ms. O'Brien. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, O'Brien,
Ferguson, Brusca, and Margolis in favor)
10 Gage Street — RMD Zone — Therese Sauvneau and Joseph Boudreau
Section 6 Finding Request
Timothy Brennan spoke on behalf of the petitioner's. He stated he was requesting to
raise the roof of an existing 1' /z story dwelling to create two full stories. The dwelling
does not meet the front or side yard setback requirements. Elevation drawings and
revised second floor plans were submitted to the Board for review. Photographs of the
31
current small dwelling were also included. The owners would like to upgrade the
residence in this existing neighborhood. A plot plan was prepared by Gerald Marsella
and dated June 7, 2010.
Chairperson Kelley asked Mr. Brennan to describe the site. Mr. Brennan stated the
nonconforming dwelling has not been occupied for a long time however, after the
proposed renovations the appearance of the dwelling would improve the neighborhood.
No member of the public was present to comment on this proposal.
Chairperson Kelley asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Ms.
O'Brien stated she made a site visit and she believed there was more space on the site
than the photographs indicate. She added this proposal would improve the neighborhood.
Ms. Kelley stated this property is located close to the lot line however; it does abut a park
and the MBTA line. She asked how soon the renovations would begin. Mr. Brennan
responded if granted, the project would begin in 34 days. Mr. Ferguson stated he made a
site visit and spoke to some neighbors. He added this project would be an improvement
to the locus and would not be detrimental to the neighborhood.
A motion was made by Ms. O'Brien to grant the Section 6 Finding at 10 Gage Street
that the alteration/reconstruction to this single - family residential structure does not
increase the non - conforming nature of said structure and that the proposed alteration will
not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the
neighborhood. Seconded by Mr. Margolis. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Ferguson,
O'Brien, Brusca, and Margolis in favor)
Meeting adjourned @ 8:30 p.m.
7