Loading...
2010-06-22CITY 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: June 22, 2010 Place: Beverly City Hall, Council Chamber, 191Cabot Street Board Members Present: Full Members Day Ann Kelley, Chairperson, Margaret O'Brien, Scott Ferguson, Joel Margolis and Jane Brusca Alternate Members Pamela Gougian, Sally Koen and John Harden Others Present: Building Commissioner — Director Steven Frederickson Clerk for the Board — Diane Rogers Chairperson Day Ann Kelley opened the meeting to the public at 7:00 p.m. She introduced John Harden, a new alternate member of the Board. The first case to be heard tonight is a carryover from the May 25, 2010 meeting relative to a new proposed sign at CVS Pharmacy. 446 Rantoul Street -- CC Zone —CVS Pharmacy — Agent Gary MCCoy/Poyant Sign withdrew without prejudice Mr. Richard Westergren, Regional Vice President of Poyant Signs Inc. spoke on behalf of CVS Pharmacy. He is proposing to install a 6 -foot by 7- foot -4 inch monument sign. He added that in a "CC" District, a free- standing sign is not allowed. The overall height is 10 -feet and would be located at the intersection of Elliott and Rantoul Streets as per site plan. Mr. Westergren stated CVS Pharmacy has been open since early 2010 and has had the time to experience the success of their current signage. At this point, they feel that the addition of a small monument sign on the corner of Rantoul and Elliott Street would provide the necessary identification that they feel is lacking for their customers. He commented that the lack of signage on the corner creates a hardship for easy visibility and identification for CVS customers. Chairperson Kelley asked if anyone from the public had any comments or questions. Mr. Frank Cuoco of 153 Park Street stated the new building was nice but he wondered where the proposed sign would be located and how it would affect traffic. He commented he believed the proposed sign was too high. Chairperson Kelley then asked the Board for their questions and comment. Ms. O'Brien and Mr. Margolis felt the proposed sign was too large and commented that most people know where the new CVS store is located. Mr. Margolis questioned if the gable on the top of the sign could be eliminated to bring down the height. Chairperson Kelley commented that the Board was looking for the minimal relief available. She asked if this project had gone before Design Review. Mr. Westergren responded the project had not gone before the Design Review Board. Ms. O'Brien stated the design of the sign was nice but a smaller sign is how she was thinking. Mr. Ferguson stated he believed the sign was too big and in the wrong place. He suggested Mr. Westergren might want to redesign the sign. Chairperson Kelley suggested Mr. Westergren go before the Design Review Board before returning to this Board. Ms. Gougian commented that the Walgreen's sign was substantially larger. Ms. O'Brien made a motion to allow Mr. Westergren, of Poyant Sign to withdraw without prejudice the petition for a free- standing sign 6 -feet by 7 -feet —4- inches located at CVS Pharmacy at 446 Rantoul Street. Seconded by Mr. Ferguson. Motion carries 5 — 0. ( Kelley, Ferguson, O'Brien, Margolis and Brusca in favor) 6 Gove Avenue — RMD Zone — Katherine M. Almeida Section 6 Finding Request Ms. Almedia spoke on her own behalf. She proposed to construct a 12 -feet by 24 -feet addition that contains kitchen expansion and mudroom on the 1 floor and bedroom expansion on the 2nd floor. Ms. Almedia stated she has a small kitchen that she always wished to expand. She added that the structure would be increasing the floor area from 2,178 sq. feet to 2,970 sq. feet. Chairperson Kelley asked what the size of the lot was. The lot has 4,565 square feet where 8,000 square feet is required by zoning. Chairperson Kelley stated there was a 5 -feet encroachment into the 20 -feet front yard setback but that the side yard conformed. The addition would have the same setbacks. Chairperson Kelley asked if anyone in the public had any questions or comments regarding this petition. There being no one present she asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Ms. Gougian asked if the addition would affect the parking area. Mr. Margolis questioned the proposed open deck. The deck is allowed if it extends only 10 feet off the foundation. Ms. O'Brien was concerned by the volume of the proposal. She asked if a vehicle could drive out back past the new addition. Ms. 2 Almeida responded that there is enough room to drive out in the rear yard but that she did not plan to do that. Chairperson Kelley stated this is a small lot but you have spoken to your neighbors and received support. She asked if there was anything in writing. Ms. Almeida responded she did not. Mr. Ferguson had no questions at this time. Mr. Margolis made a motion to grant the Section 6 Finding at 6 Gove Avenue to construct a 12 -feet by 24 -feet addition that contains kitchen expansion and mudroom on the 1s floor and a bedroom expansion on the 2nd floor. The proposed extension will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood. Seconded by Ms. O'Brien. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Ferguson, O'Brien, Margolis, and Gougian in favor) 7 Pine Road — R -10 Zone — Dana DeFuria Variance Request Mr. Dana DeFuria spoke on his own behalf. He proposed to construct a detached two -car garage, 24 -feet by 24 -feet, with a rear yard setback of 10 -feet 2- inches rather than the 25- feet required by zoning. A resident of Beverly for over 22 years, he will be moving to this location to accommodate his medical conditions. The lot has 90 -feet of frontage with a 147 -foot rear lot line. Mr. De Furia stated the dwelling is located in such a way that it is difficult to situate a proposed two -car garage. Chairperson Kelley asked if there would be a second floor on the garage. Mr. DeFuria responded that there would be a storage area above the garage with a pull down access stairway. Mr. DeFuria submitted a petition to the Board from 15 abutters that approved the plans for the construction of the two -car garage. Mr. DeFuria stated the garage structure would match the exterior feature of the existing dwelling. Chairperson Kelley asked if anyone from the public had questions or comments regarding this petition. There being no one present she asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Mr. Margolis asked what the hardship of the variance was and why a two -car garage rather than a one. Mr. DeFuria responded that his right to enjoy his land plus the fact he hasl47 -feet lot line in the rear and 90 -feet of frontage would deny his right for a two -car garage. He added that his closest neighbor in the rear would be 144 -feet away. He commented that there is also a 40 -feet right of way behind the property by the rear of Corning Street. This property is vacant and unkempt land. Ms. O'Brien stated that she believed if the proposed garage were located differently it would encroach on the side yard setback and be too close to the neighbor's property. Chairperson Kelley stated she was of the opinion the 2 -car garage was of standard size, and would not impact the neighbors. She added that the lot meets the requirement of 10,000 sq. feet and the way the dwelling was located upon the lot, with the 40 -feet Right of Way in the rear, the hardship of the variance is proven and she has no issues with this petition. Ms. Brusca concurs. Mr. Margolis discussed the width of the hot top driveway with Mr. DeFuria. The driveway is to be two widths so one can back out the truck and then reduce in width to be no wider than one -car width. 3 Ms. O'Brien made a motion to approve the request of a variance for a two -car detached garage given that the neighbors were in favor of the proposal and the lot is oddly shaped and it would be the minimum relief requested and the addition will be built according to the plans submitted. Petition seconded by Mr. Margolis and motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Margolis, O'Brien, Ferguson, and Brusca in favor) 157 Essex Street — CN Zone — Amit Patel Section 6 Finding Request Mr. Gregory Smith, Architect for GSD Associates, LLC spoke on behalf of Mr. Patel. He is proposing to demolish existing grocery store structure and reconstruct new grocery store structure within the existing structure setbacks. The new structure would be no more nonconforming to the zoning regulations than the existing structure. Mr. Smith stated Mr. Patel would like to have a small local grocery store for the neighborhood. He added that the existing building had been neglected and is disrepair. The structure is outdated and will have to be brought up to today's standard codes. Mr. Smith stated as per Section 29 27.2 the nonconforming building would be voluntary demolished and rebuilt in the approximately the same location. Mr. Smith commented that on Saturday, June 19 he met with some of the neighbors and they requested a few changes in the existing plan. He then updated the plan and submitted the documents to the Board for review this evening. He explained that the building was moved 3 -feet and the curb cut was decreased. The existing stair entry ramp encroached into sidewalk over the property line. The new proposed design lowers finish floor to sidewalk level and entry is handicapped accessible. A new sidewalk will be provided at the entrance. The new proposed building is set 2 -feet back from the front lot line and 4 -feet — 5- inches from the side lot facing Gardner Street. There will be landscaping added in the front of the building and a small grass area on the side. The dumpster will be relocated and the 9 -feet by 11 -feet dumpster pad will have a fence to enclose the debris. (The existing wood fence along the side and rear lot line fence will be 6 -feet high and repaired or replaced) Chairperson Kelley asked if anyone in the public had questions or comments relative to this petition. Mr. Jeff H. Prince, AIA of 12 Gardner Street stated the building and site has been seriously neglected and that he would be happy to see a brand new store. He added that he would like to see additional green spaces on both the east and west side of the lot. He would also like to request additional screening of the parking lot to be provided by a continuation of the public sidewalk green strip, about 3 -feet wide by 18- feet long, located at the south of the Gardner Street curb cut parallel to the handicapped parking space and painted to a height of 5 -feet maintained by the Owner. Mr. Kevin Hobin of 6 Gardner Street, Ward 4 Councilor spoke in favor of this project. 0 Mr. Jack Kelleher, Contractor for this proposal stated he was in favor of this project. He added that he had spoken with Mr. William Burke Director of the Beverly Board of Health who oversees rodent control. Beverly Tompkins and her husband of 17 Gardner were concerned with lead paint removal, varmints, traffic and deliveries of products. Chairperson Kelley asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Ms. Gougian asked if the proposed building would be lower than the previous one. Mr. Smith responded the new building would be lower for handicap reasons. Ms. Kelley asked about the dry well not working. She suggested meeting with the City Engineer to perhaps tie into the drains in Essex Street. Ms. O'Brien stated she would like the window signs to be the minimal allowed by zoning. Ms. Gougian asked what the operating hours of the store would be. Mr. Smith responded the store would open at 6:00 a.m. and close at 9:00 p.m. Ms. Kelley asked what Mr. Patels background was. Mr. Patel stated he had been operating stores for ten years or so. Ms. O'Brien asked what time during the day the deliveries would be in effect. Ms. Gougian asked how many signs would be on the building. Mr. Smith responded two signs maximum 40 s. f. externally lit. He added they will require Design Review Board Variance. The existing projecting sign is 4 -feet from the building facade. Mr. Ferguson asked how many parking spaces would be on the lot. Mr. Smith responded there will be (10) parking spaces and (1) Handicapped space. He added there would be minimal lighting cut off at a low level near the parking spaces. He added that all external lighting would be shielded downward with exception to the security lighting in the parking lot. Mr. Ferguson asked if the planters (flowers) would be in the ground not in Teflon tubs. Mr. Smith responded that the planters are to be open to ground water. Mr. Ferguson discussed the hours of deliveries. It was determined the hours of delivery would be 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Ms. Kelley asked the height of the tower that was located at the front entrance. Mr. Smith responded that the tower design on the front entrance was approximately 19 -feet high with a 6 -feet metal roof (peak) total: 26 -feet high. Ms. Kelley stated she has concerns regarding subsequent uses of the building in the future. Mr. Margolis asked if this proposal has to go before the Historical Society because of the age of the building. Mr. Smith responded yes it does. Mr. Smith commented that there would be more than one employee working at a time, which the previous store did not provide. Mr. Ferguson made a motion to approve the Section 6 Finding subject to the following conditions. Seconded by Ms. O'Brien Discussion: on Motion for Conditions: 1. Hours of operation: 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.( lights out 9:00 p.m.) 2. Deliveries would be made during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. 3. All external lighting on the building to be shielded downward pointing toward the interior of the locus with the exception of security lighting in parking lot. 4. Signs to be externally lit. 5. The (3) planters on the Garden Street side are to be maintained by the owner 5 along with the (2) on the Essex Street side, according to plan submitted. 6. Grass will be planted on the 5 -feet strip. (which might be city property) 7. Extend the city sidewalk strip (approx 3 -feet by 18 -feet) along the Garden Street side of locus. 8. Trash containers are to be placed around the lot. 9. Signs are to go before the Design Review Board. 10. The siding will be a cement vinyl clapboard material. 11. The dumpster will be fenced with (2) gates 15 -feet high with a 9' by 11' concrete dumpster pad. 12. HVAC Mechanical units will be located on the roof and will be acoustically and visually screened to minimize effects. Ms. O'Brien stated the canvas awning signs are allowed by right in the front of the building. Ms. Gougian asked if there would be any shopping carts. Mr. Patel stated no, there would not. This proposal must go to Planning's "Site Plan Review" to replace the building. The proposed plans may be altered by the Planning Department. Motion granted 5 — 0. (Kelley, Ferguson, Margolis, O'Brien and Brusca in favor) 19 Jewett Road — R -10 Zone — Mary Chapman Section 6 Finding Request Mr. Kenneth Chapman spoke on behalf of his wife. He is proposing to construct a 2- story 22 -feet by 12 -feet rear addition to contain family room and full bath on the 1 st floor and study on 2" d ° to the existing nonconforming dwelling. Mr. Chapman stated he had spoken to his neighbors and submitted two letters in favor of the petition from Richard Cunningham of 21 Jewett Road and Joan Hay of 17 Jewett Road. Mr. Chapman commented that the railroad tracks were to the rear of his property. He added he had a contractor waiting to begin the construction. Chairperson Kelley asked if anyone in the public had any questions or comments regarding this proposal. They're being no one present she asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Mr. Ferguson stated the abutters on both sides of Mr. Chapman's dwelling have signed in favor of the project. Chairperson Kelley stated this project was of reasonable relief. Building Commissioner Steven Frederickson stated that this construction would be passed as a "legal right" in a few more weeks because the lot meets all setbacks. A motion was made by Mr. Ferguson to approve the Section 6 Finding to construct a proposed two - story, 22 -feet by 12 -feet rear addition to contain family room and full bath on 1 floor and study on 2 nd . That the plans submitted with the application are strictly complied with, are identified in, and incorporated into, the Board's decision, and recorded with the decision. That the proposed alteration will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood. In 31 accordance with Section 29 27 C (2) A, C, D, E,& F — The Board finds those criteria are satisfied. Both abutters were in favor of the proposal. Petition seconded by Mr. Margolis and motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Ferguson, O'Brien, Margolis, and Brusca in favor) 7