2010-04-27CITY 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: April 27, 2010
Place: Beverly City Hall, Council Chamber, 191 Cabot Street
Board Members Present: Full Members Day Ann Kelley, Chairperson, Margaret
O'Brien, Scott Ferguson, and Joel Margolis.
Alternate Member Pamela Gougian
Others Present: Building Commissioner — Director Steven Frederickson
Clerk for the Board — Diane Rogers
Absent: Regular Member Jane Brusca and Alternate Member
Sally Koen.
Chairperson Day Ann Kelley opened the meeting to the public at 7:00 p.m.
14 Princeton Avenue — R -10 Zone — Sylvan Menezes
Section 6 Finding Request
Ms. Karen Menezes spoke on behalf of her father Sylvan. She introduced her contractor
Ed Grenier to the Board. He stated the request is to construct a single - family rear yard,
first floor addition as well as an accessible ramp to the rear door. The required setback is
15 -feet and this measures 11.7 -feet. Mr. Grenier stated that the dwelling is a two -story
garrison colonial single - family, with a detached garage. The three existing bedrooms and
full bath are located on the second floor. He stated the proposed addition is for a new
first -floor bedroom, handicap accessible bathroom, and access to kitchen and first floor
living area as well as an accessible ramp to the rear door for the owner Sylvan Menezes
who has been diagnosed with ALS.
Mr. Grenier stated that the ramp is close to the property line because of the placement of
the proposed addition.
Drawings for the proposed rear addition were prepared by Kevin Neumann, AIA and
submitted to the Board for review
Chairperson Day Ann Kelley asked if anyone from the public have any comments or
questions. Mr. Alis Akanda of 15 Princeton Avenue and Joanna Murphy of 11 Princeton
Avenue spoke in favor of this proposal.
Chairperson Kelley then asked the Board for their comments and questions. Board
Members asked if other neighbors had signed off in favor of the petition. Ms. Menezes
stated that she informed her neighbors of her plans but she did not have any additional
letters or petitions. Chairperson Kelley asked if this proposal was less than the existing
encroachment. Ms. Menezes responded that it was. Ms. O'Brien stated she made a site
visit and that she was in favor of the proposal. Mr. Margolis, Mr. Ferguson, Ms. Gougian
concurred. Chairperson Kelley stated this proposed one -story addition is to the rear of
the dwelling that encroaches upon the right side yard setback.
A motion was made by Mr. Ferguson to approve this Section 6 Finding subject to 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. That the criteria has been met from Section 29 -27 C ( 2)
a,c,d,e,and f. Seconded by Ms. O'Brien. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Ferguson,
O'Brien, Margolis, and Gougian voted in favor)
10 Smithson Drive — R -10 Zone — John R. and Mabeth Q. Richards
Variance Request
Attorney Thomas Alexander spoke on behalf of the Richards. Mr. Alexander represented
the request was for minimal relief from the zoning ordinance to allow for a 6 -feet
addition on the northerly side of the dwelling to allow for expansion of a dining room,
resulting in an 11.53 — feet side yard setback where 15 -feet is required and extending the
14.33 -feet front yard setback where 20 -feet is required. Atty. Alexander represented that
the request was for minimal relief from the zoning ordinance and that the addition would
be in harmony with the neighborhood. He stated he was before the Board previously for
an addition in the rear of the property, which was granted and for a 6 -feet addition in the
front of the building, which he withdrew. He came back to the Board tonight showing
drawings of the 6 -feet proposed addition located on the northerly side which he believes
fits the neighborhood better. Photographs of the property, plot plan dated February 24,
2010, and drawings of the existing work to be done were submitted for the Board to
review. Atty. Alexander submitted a GIS map of the property showing that the dwellings
at #12, 9, 8, and 7 Smithson Drive appear to have additions built closer to the lot lines
2
than this request. A petition with 13 abutters' in favor of this petition was submitted to
the Board for review. Mrs. Richard's parents are moving into the household. They are
not applying for an In -law apartment; there is no separation; all will be sharing the space.
He added that Mr. and Mrs. Richards are present to answer any questions.
Chairperson Day Ann Kelley asked if anyone in the public had questions or comments.
Their being no one present, Chairperson Kelley then asked the Board members for their
questions and comments. Ms. Kelley noted that the Board previously granted a Section 6
finding for an addition in the rear of the property. She noted that a request for a Variance
for an addition to the front, which was withdrawn after negative feedback from the
Board. Chairperson Kelley stated that the new proposal was in response to the Board's
input and was more in keeping with the streetscape. Ms. O'Brien, Mr. Margolis, and Ms.
Gougian stated they are in favor of this side yard addition. Mr. Ferguson asked Atty.
Alexander to discuss the hardship of the variance request. Atty. Alexander responded
that the position of the dwelling upon the lot and the narrowness of the lot is a hardship.
Mr. Ferguson observed that the lot was basically flat and contained no ledge.
Chairperson Kelley stated this was a minimal request that will still allow the petitioner a
reasonable use of their property.
A motion was made by Mr. Margolis to grant the variance. Mr. Ferguson seconded the
motion. The motion carried 5 — 0. Neighbors were in favor of the petition and (4) of
the neighbors dwelling were similar with side yard encroachments. 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. (Kelley, Margolis, Ferguson, O'Brien and Gougian in favor)
25 Cox Court — RMD Zone — Carleton Ekbm III & Cynthia Rowley Ekbor2
A Finding and Modification of a Variance
Attorney Miranda Gooding spoke on behalf of the petitioners. She stated this request is
to allow the change in the use of a portion of property from a printing business to office
equipment sales and service business. The applicant is the purchaser named in an
agreement to purchase the property, dated March 1, 2010. Atty. Gooding provided the
following information to the Board. She submitted a decision dated July 26, 1955 that
granted Donald W. Moran, d /b /a The Colonial Press a variance to change the use of that
building from a paint shop to a printing shop and a modification to this variance that was
granted on July 19, 1977. Mr. Ekborg, III proposes to use the printing business space as
office, showroom and warehouse space for an office equipment sales and services
business. There are approximately 4,188 square feet on the first floor of the building on
the property is used for the operation of a printing business. Two two - bedroom
apartments, containing approximately 2,208 square feet are located on the second floor of
the building. (granted inl977) The proposed use as office, showroom and warehouse
space for an office equipment sales and services business is less intense than the present
industrial use and is permitted in zoning districts that do not allow printing
3
establishments. The proposed use will be entirely contained within the building, will not
require exterior storage and will not necessitate the use of hazardous materials.
Photographs of the buildings and improvements on the property are attached together
with a description of the premises and facilities for the Board to review.
In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Ekborg stated that technicians arrive in the
morning to pick up service orders and supplies and usually leave the site by 8:30 a.m.
They remain on the road most of the time. He added he had six full -time employees and
two part-time secretaries and two technicians. Mr. Ekborg said that the company has
only one van and the others are regular vehicles.
Chairperson Day Ann Kelley asked if anyone from the public had any questions or
comments regarding this proposal. There being no one present Ms. Kelley then asked the
Board members for their questions and comments. Atty. Gooding noted that the
neighborhood includes mostly multifamily homes and businesses. She commented that
the proposed use is not more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the
neighborhood. Mr. Margolis asked how many parking spaces were required for each of
the two bedroom apartments. Atty. Gooding responded that one car space was allowed
for each of the two apartments. She added that there are 6 marked spaces and 4 spaces
around the building. (On the Reality listing it specifies 12 parking spaces). Mr.
Margolis questioned why it wasn't 1 '/z to 2 parking spaces required. Steve Frederickson,
Building Commissioner responded that today, two spaces would be required. Mr.
Margolis stated he wanted to know how many vehicles would be parked on site during
the day. Atty. Gooding stated the hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p. m. M- Thurs.
8:30 — 4:00 p.m. on Fridays. She added there would be no weekend or evening hours.
She showed a site plan to the Board indicating the parking spaces. Atty. Gooding
submitted a petition signed by neighbors in favor of this proposal. Chairperson Kelley
observed that no street parking is allowed on Cox Court. She added this was an older
area but traffic is a concern. She commented that there are a variety of uses there and she
believes this change in use will not negatively impact the neighbors. Ms. Gougian asked
what type of supplies and goods were to be stored in the building. Mr. Ekborg responded
there would be copy machines, printers and toner stored on site, nothing hazardous. Ms.
O'Brien stated that parking did not appear to be a problem. Mr. Ferguson suggested that
the open business hours be noted from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Chairperson Kelley stated there are open business hours and they seemed ok to her. She
would like them listed in the decision.
A Motion was made by Mr. Ferguson to grant the request to modify the Variance that
was granted in 1955 and modified in 1977 to allow the change of use from a printing
business to office equipment sales and service business and to grant the request for a
Section 6 Finding Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 29 -27.E. subject to the condition
that Open business hours are limited to 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday. There are to be no evening deliveries or work on weekends. Seconded by Ms.
O'Brien. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Ferguson, O'Brien, Margolis and Gougian in
favor)
0
Meeting adjourned 8:20 p.m.