Loading...
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