2010-07-27CITY 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 or outcome of the public
hearing should include an examination of the Board's Decision for that hearing.
Board: Zoning Board of Appeals
Date: July 27, 2010
Place: Beverly City Hall, Council Chamber, 191Cabot Street
Board Members Present: Full Members Day Ann Kelley, Chairperson, Margaret
O'Brien, Scott Ferguson, and Joel Margolis
Alternate Members: Pamela Gougian, Sally Koen and
John Harden
Others Present: Clerk for the Board — Diane Rogers
Absent: Full Member Jane Brusca and Steven
Frederickson - Building Commissioner /Zoning Officer
Chairperson Day Ann Kelley opened the meeting to the public at 7:00 p.m. She
announced there was no hold over cases from the June 22, 2010 hearing.
104 Hale Street — R -10 Zone — Brian McHugh
Variance Request
Mr. William Nolan, Designer spoke on the McHugh's behalf. He is requesting to
construct a proposed (16 -feet by 24- feet -10 -inch) kitchen addition with a side setback of
10.09 — feet instead of the required 15 -feet. The addition will be no closer to the side
setback than existing. He stated the dwelling was of a cape style design built around
1983. The proposed addition is most practical on the East side of the dwelling to take
advantage of existing utilities as well as the existing parking. Mr. McHugh stated he
believed the hardship was due both to the shape of the lot, the placement of the dwelling
on it and that a covered entrance to protect against the weather and kitchen renovation
would need to encroach slightly on the East side. He added there is currently an existing
structure, an open deck, which would be removed and replaced with the proposed
addition. Mr. Nolan submitted photographs of the property and stated this proposal
would keep with the scale of the neighborhood.
Mr. Peter Reed of 108 Hale Street and Mr. Luis Carmona of 102 Hale Street wrote letters
in favor of this proposal. Mr. Nolan stated the dwelling located at the right of the Mc
Hugh's was a rental unit and he could not reach the owner to discuss the proposed plans.
Chairperson Day Ann Kelley asked if anyone from the public had questions or comments
regarding this petition. They're being no one present she asked for the Board's questions
and comments. Mr. Ferguson asked why the addition could not be placed in the rear of
the dwelling. Mr. Nolan responded that there was an existing bathroom there. He added
that the shape of the lot and the placement of the dwelling on the lot make the most
practical cost reason for locating the proposed addition. He commented that the style of
the dwelling was a gambrel roof with dormers on the back. Viewing the plan, Mr.
Margolis asked if there would be a finished space under the deck. Mr. Nolan responded a
foundation would be constructed under the deck for storage and to house and protect all
the plumbing pipes from the weather. Ms. O'Brien had no questions at this time. Mr.
Harden discussed the property lines and the small drop off of land. Ms. Kelley
commented that the frontage is less than the required 20 -feet.
A motion was made by Mr. Margolis to grant the application for a variance at 104 Hale
Street with the hardship being the shape of the lot and the position of the existing
dwelling upon the lot. Ms. O'Brien. Seconded the motion. Motion carries 5 — 0.
(Kelley, Ferguson, O'Brien, Margolis, and Harden in favor)
138 Conant Street — IR Zone — Steven J. Connolly
Variance Request
Steven Connolly IV, owner of the property spoke on his own behalf. He is requesting to
vary the zoning ordinance by allowing a wall sign to be placed above allowable height,
larger than allowed size, and on two sides of the building. Partial building elevations and
photographs of the four -story building were submitted to the Board for review.
United Sign Company provided photographs of the proposed sign, which will state
ORCHARD BRANDS a non illuminated dimensional letter sign, Conant Street Facade.
The channel letters will be 5- inches deep and overall size 36- inches by 296'/2 inches.
Digitally printed logo per file applied on face with trim cap and returns painted to match
pantone 382C and 123C. The Rt. 128 Facade sign will be the same. Orchard Brands is a
tenant that occupies the entire third floor of the building. Mr. Connolly commented that
the Beverly Zoning Ordinance does not really address signage on third and fourth floors
of a building located in the IR Zone. He added that his son, Jay Connolly wrote a letter
dated June 30, 2010, to the Chairperson of the Beverly Zoning Board of Appeals
suggesting the possibility of creating a blanket sign variance for his properties at 138
Conant Street and 152 Conant Street. As owner and manager of the properties we would
like to grant exterior signage rights to no more than three tenants in each building. Each
2
tenant would be allowed to place signage on two sides of the building. Signage would be
required to be located in space between the head of the window line and sill of the
window above the respective tenant. Each sign would not exceed 75 s. f. on the third or
fourth floors, and 55 s. f. on the first or second floors. Mr. Connolly stated he would like
to discuss this further and hopefully arrive at an agreement, which will accommodate
both of our objectives without necessitating multiple return trips to this Board.
Chairperson Kelley responded that the Board would look at the whole package and was
looking forward to Mr. Connolly returning to the Board with plans and photographs how
the property would appear. Ms. O'Brien stated she believed there was a hardship for a
large company located in this building. Mr. Margolis stated he was concerned what the
building would look like after three more applications came in requesting signs. He
added he would like to see a "Master Plan" for the buildings before he approved a blanket
agreement. Chairperson Kelley asked if there would be one or two signs per business.
Mr. Connolly responded there would be (6) signs total on the two buildings. He added
there are (7) tenants in the new building at 138 Conant Street with (4) floors and (3) want
signs. At 152 Conant Street there are (10) tenants in the old building with (3) floors and
they have 2 sign variances.
Chairperson Kelley stated the Board should focus on the Orchard Brands sign tonight so
they can proceed and install the sign. Ms. Kelley stated she did not want the proposed
sign to be illuminated. She added the colors were acceptable but the size 3 -feet by 24-
feet was a concern. She commented that the property is unique and there are issues
considered for a hardship.
Ms. Kelley read into record a letter dated July 2, 2010 submitted from the Design Review
Board in unanimous support of the sign designs as presented.
A motion was made by Mr. Ferguson to grant the application at 138 Conant Street the
hardship of the variance being the locus of the building, the distance from Rte. 128 and
inaccessibility to the visibility to the sign to note there is a business there. As per plans
submitted this evening. Seconded by Ms. O'Brien. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley,
O'Brien, Ferguson, Margolis, and Gougian in favor)
50 LOTHROP STREET - R -10 Zone Matthew Hoffman
Variance Request
David Jaquith, Architect spoke on behalf of Matthew Hoffman. He is requesting to
encroach 4.8 -feet plus or minus upon the right side yard setback with a proposed new
porch and to encroach 6.5 -feet plus or minus upon the front yard setback with the same
new porch. Both encroachments not to extend beyond the existing elements of the
residence and to construct a roof over the existing deck. Mr. Jaquith stated currently on
the premises is a single - family Victorian residence with a deck in the front setback. Also
on the premises is a small two -car garage. Both were built prior to zoning at the turn of
the 20 century (1897). The dwelling is located across the street from Independence
Park. Mr. Jaquith feels that the hardship is the way the dwelling is located on the lot
3
closer to the front and right side than the setbacks allow today. He added the new work
will not exceed the present setbacks to the existing deck and right side of the residence.
The Hoffmans would enjoy the privacy of a roofed porch rather than the existing open
deck. Photographs of the property and proposed elevation drawings were submitted to
the Board to review. A petition signed by (5) abutters and (5) neighbors was submitted in
favor of the proposed porch addition.
Chairperson Day Ann Kelley asked if anyone from the public had any questions or
comments relative to this proposal. They're being no one present, she then asked the
Board members for their questions and comments. Mr. Ferguson stated "let the records
show that the abutters directly impacted by this proposal are marked off in favor of these
plans on the Assessors map ". Ms. Kelley stated the new porch would have a roof, but
would not be enclosed. Mr. Ferguson stated the hardship is due to the lack of frontage,
(20 -feet is required) the location of the dwelling on the lot and the encroachment on the
right side would be 4.8 -feet and 6.5 -feet plus or minus in the front yard setback. Ms.
Gougian asked how close to the sidewalk would the addition be. Ms. Kelley commented
that the design of the proposed porch was nice and not overdone. Ms. O'Brien stated she
was familiar with the property site.
A motion was made by Ms. Gougian to grant the Hoffman's variance request at 50
Lothrop Street to add a porch, which will not encroach more to the right side of the
property than 4.8 -feet and 6.5 -feet plus or minus -feet into the front yard setback where
the roof will be. The hardship is the position of the dwelling on the lot. Subject to the
plans that have been submitted this evening. Ms. O'Brien seconded the motion. Motion
carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Ferguson, O'Brien, Margolis, and Gougian in favor)
26 Rear Michael Road — R -10 Zone — Gilbert A. Norwood, Trustee
Variance Request
(Voting on this application tonight will be Sally Koen)
CONTINUED to Sept. 28,2010
Attorney Thomas Alexander spoke on behalf of the petitioner. He is requesting to allow
for 51 -feet of pavement for frontage on Michael Road where 100 -feet is required. The
property has required frontage (100 -feet) on Michael Road, but this portion of the street
has not been paved. Atty. Alexander stated that due to the presence of ledge, there is a
significant hardship, which prohibits the lot from being useful without the allowance of a
frontage variance. Photographs of the lot were provided for the Board. Atty. Alexander
added that the proposed variance would provide the minimum lot frontage that would
allow for adequate access for public safety vehicles. He stated that the public good
would be enhanced because the proposal provides for a Hammer Head and 30 -feet by 10-
feet turn - around Easement for public safety vehicles conforming to the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials standards. Front, rear, and
right elevations were provided to the Board to review along with the first and second
floor plan of the proposed new dwelling. Atty. Alexander stated the hardship is the
special conditions having to do with topography of the land, which includes ledge on the
site. He added this is a minimum variance request for the construction of a proposed
11
single - family dwelling, which will be in conformance with land requirements. Atty.
Alexander stated he believed this proposal would not cause undue traffic, appropriate city
services are or will be available, and adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided
for the proper operation and maintenance of the proposed use. This proposal will have to
go before the Planning Board for their approval of the extension of the street.
Ten letters of support were submitted to the Board to review. The following were direct
abutters: John Putney of 29 Berrywood Lane, Michelle Horrigan of 33 Berrywood Lane,
Ann Horrigan of 35 Berrywood Lane, Richard and June Williams of 21 Michael Road
and John Potter of 19H Michael Road.
Chairperson Kelley asked if anyone from the public had any comments or questions.
Paul Goodwin of 26 Michael Road, Robert Esper of 32 Berrywood Lane and his mother
who resides at 25 Berrywood and Brian Maloblocki of 23 Michael Road were concerned
about the project. Their issues were parking in front of their dwellings because that was
the only place available, snow removal in the winter and the mounds of snow that
sometimes reached 10 -15 feet high, their property values decreasing, the water shed areas
found there which contain swampy areas, and what was the hardship for this variance
request. Mr. Esper stated the proposed "turnaround" would definitely affect his property.
Dr. Norwood's Realtor Gail Guittarr stated she had lived on Berrywood Lane for 15
years before moving to 8 Hidden Road and that she did not feel that an extension to a
road would hurt property values. Day Ann Kelley had concerns for the neighbors
regarding what type of gravel or asphalts would be used on the extended street.
Chairperson Kelley then asked the Board members for their questions and comments.
Mr. Ferguson questioned that if 100 -feet of the street were paved would the neighbors all
approve of this proposal? Ms. Kelley stated she did not see a hardship and that Michael
Road was a dead end street. Ms. O'Brien concurred. Ms. Kelley commented that the
Planning Board does have to approve the street. She asked Attorney Alexander if he
would like to withdraw without prejudice his petition. Mr. Alexander stated if 100 -feet
of the street is paved would this proposal pass? He requested the petition be continued
until the next scheduled meeting September 28, 2010.
A motion was made by Mr. Ferguson to continue the request of a variance by Gilbert A.
Norwood, Trustee at 26R Michael Road to the next scheduled meeting September 28,
2010. Seconded by Ms. O'Brien. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Ferguson, O'Brien,
Margolis, and Koen in favor)
5