2010-03-23CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS
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: March 23, 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
Members Pamela Gougian and Sally Koen.
Others Present: Building Commissioner — Director Steven Frederickson
and Clerk for the Board — Diane Rogers
Absent: Full Member Jane Brusca
Day Ann Kelley, Chairperson opened the meeting to the public at 7:00 p.m. She stated
that Full Member Jane Brusca would be absent and Alternate Member Sally Koen would
be taking her place voting on the first three petitions. She added that Pamela Gougian
would vote on the remaining two.
21 Newbury Street- R -10 Zone — Wendy Russo
Section 6 Finding Request
Ms. Wendy Russo spoke on her own behalf. She stated she was requesting to construct
dormers on the front and rear of the existing nonconforming single - family dwelling. The
proposed first and second floor plans, elevation drawings, and photographs of the
property were submitted to the Board for review. Residents of 23, 24, and 26 Warren
Street along with 20, 22, 25, 27 Liberty Street and 11, & 19 Newbury Streets signed a
petition in favor of this proposal.
Chairperson Kelley asked if anyone in the public had any questions or comments. There
being no one present she asked the Board members for their questions and comments.
Mr. Ferguson stated he made a site visit and observed a dwelling to the right at 19
Newbury Street had 2 '/2 stories, and also a three -story dwelling with a full dormer and a
gambrel designed dwelling was located in the neighborhood. He stated he was in favor
of this petition. Ms. Kelley stated she was in favor of this petition and the other Board
members concurred.
A motion was made by Ms. O'Brien to GRANT the Section 6 Finding to allow the
construction of dormers on the front and rear of the nonconforming dwelling. The
Criteria of Section 29 -27 -C (2) A -F have been satisfied. That the alteration will not be
substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the
neighborhood being that nine neighbors signatures were submitted in favor of this
proposal. Seconded by Mr. Ferguson. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, O'Brien, Margolis,
Ferguson and Koen in favor.)
14 Foster's Point — R -10 Zone — C. Edward Gugler
Section 6 Finding Request
Thomas Alexander, Esq. spoke on behalf of Mr. Gugler, owner of the property. He stated
he was requesting to increase the roof pitch and install two dormers on the existing
nonconforming dwelling. Atty. Alexander stated the lot was located on the Danvers
River and consisted of 5,750 s. f. of land (upland) and 11,796 s. f. to mean high water.
The lot frontage is 40 -feet not 100 -feet that is required. The side yard setbacks are 7 -feet
and 9 -feet. The rear yard is 44 -feet to edge (upland) and 173 -feet to M. H. W. The
expanded roofline would be 31 -feet, under the 35 -feet requirement. Atty. Alexander
stated all the renovations are within the existing footprint. He added that a building
permit was obtained by the owner, however, he was not aware a finding was required to
add dormers. Atty. Alexander commented that for years the zoning ordinance allowed
building straight up without going to the Board of Appeals. Mr. Gugler went door -to -
door collecting (16) signatures from direct abutters and several other neighbors, which
were presented to the Board to review. Mr. Ferguson asked if the owner of the property
directly across the street signed the petition. Mr. Gugler responded no, he tried to reach
Mr. Nugent of 13 Fosters Point to no avail. Atty. Alexander stated under Section 29-27 -
D this pre- existing nonconforming one - family structures maybe extended or altered,
provided, that no such extension or alteration shall be permitted unless there is a finding
by the Zoning Board of Appeals that such change, extension or alteration shall not be
substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure or use to the
neighborhood and shall not create a new non - conformity. He added he believed this
design would be aesthetic to the neighbors not detrimental.
Chairperson Kelley asked if anyone from the public had questions or comments regarding
this petition. There being no one present she then asked the Board members for their
questions and comments. Ms. Gougian stated she was not unhappy with the design just
the fact that no permits were obtained for the dormers. Ms. Kelley reviewed a drawing of
the dwelling and indicated it appeared the owner had added (6) feet to the front of the
property by pulling the second floor over and also that the front porch encroached. She
stated the Board will focus only on the dormers this evening. She observed the
neighborhood and is of the opinion that Mr. Guglers plans are not overly done. Ms.
2
Kelley asked if there were any changes in the foundation. Atty. Alexander responded
the foundation remained the same. Mr. Ferguson stated he made a site visit on Monday
March 22, 2010 and observed the second dumpster was 2/3 full. He entered the building
with consent and walked right up as far as the 3 floor. There he found open stick wiring
half done and the framing on the dwelling was completed. He asked the owner if he was
a licensed contractor and how long he had been one. Mr. Gugler responded that he has
been a licensed contractor for 18 years. He added that the dormers were shown on their
second building permit application. Mr. Ferguson found it hard to believe a licensed
contractor thought he could do this by right. He commented that in the future he would
vote to have any unpermitted construction torn down. Ms. Gougian asked if there were
any fines that could be leved. Ms. Kelley responded no. Mr. Margolis stated he did not
believe the 3 floor space was for storage as indicated on the plan. The room had large
windows facing the water views. Ms. Kelley asked if Mr. Gugler planned on residing in
this dwelling. Mr. Gugler responded he and his wife plan to live in this dwelling for a
long time. Ms. Kelley stated Mr. Gugler should go to the building department and review
the plans he submitted. If the 6 -feet extension and the entrance way to the building did
not show, then he should reapply to the Board of Appeals for another finding. Ms.
O'Brien asked how the violation was found. Atty. Alexander responded that the building
inspector found the dormer additions while conducting a scheduled inspection. Ms.
Kelley asked how much higher the roof pitch would be. Atty. Alexander responded
approximately 8 -feet. Mr. Ferguson responded that he calculated 12 1/2 -feet, which
would make the ceiling height 7 1/2 —feet in the center of the room. Ms. Koen asked if
the front entryway (porch) would require a finding.
A motion was made by Ms. Kohen to grant the Section 6 Finding at 14 Foster's Point
That the proposed alteration reconstruction extension to this single - family residential
structure does not increase the non - conforming nature of said structure and the proposed
extension or alteration will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing
nonconforming structure to the neighborhood. That the Board grant the proposed
application 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. The special permit criteria of Section
29 -27 -C (2) a -f are satisfied and neighbors were in favor of the proposal.
This Decision is contingent with the owner returning to the building department to
confirm the expansion of the second floor and the front entry way was on his revised
plans. If they were not, he is to return to this Board for another finding. Ms. O'Brien
seconded the motion. Motion carries 4 — 1. (Kelley, O'Brien, Margolis, and Koen in
favor) (Mr. Ferguson voted in the negative)
29 East Corning Street — R -10 Zone — Michael McNiff /St. Luke's Trust
Section 6 Finding Request
Attorney Thomas Alexander spoke on behalf of Mr. Mc Niff. He stated he was
requesting to alter an existing single - family dwelling and to construct a proposed 2nd
level addition containing (3) bedrooms and (2) baths. He added the nonconforming lot
contained 8,330 sq. ft., where 10,000 is required. The frontage is conforming on
3
Oceanside Drive (20- feet), the side lines are 4.2 -feet rather than the 15 -feet required on
the right side and 23.7 -feet on the left side. Mr. Mc Niff stated he will be renovating the
entire property and explained the "existing" and the "proposed" drawing elevations. He
added the dwelling will go from Cape style to a Colonial design. A rear deck will also be
constructed. Atty. Alexander stated the former owners who resided in the dwelling since
1958 had just passed away. He believed the structure was built in 1946. Atty.
Alexander stated the proposed renovations would bring this dwelling up with the
neighborhood aesthetics. He submitted a petition in favor of this proposal from James
Gilligan of 12 Woodbury Street, Ellen Faulkner of 22 East Corning Street, William
Commette of 33 East Corning Street, Gerald Dooling of 17 Oceanside Drive, and
Priscilla and S. Hardy Prince of 22 Oceanside Drive. Atty. Alexander stated he was also
an abutter and that he was in favor of this proposal. He added he believed this project
will increase property values and that the Section 6 Criteria had been met. He introduced
Mr. Mc Niff, a longtime resident of Beverly who has constructed several dwellings in the
city.
Day Ann Kelley, Chairperson asked if anyone from the public had any questions or
comments. Keith Faulkner of 22 E. Corning Street explained that his wife had signed the
petition in favor of the proposal. She thought the dwelling would remain of Cape style
design. When she realized the dwelling would be of Colonial style they had concerns
with the height of the dwelling and believed the dwelling would take up more of the
8,330 square feet of lot space. Mr. Ferguson asked Mr. Faulkner if he thought it would
be out of character of the neighborhood. Mr. Faulkner responded yes. Atty. Alexander
stated there are other dwellings in the neighborhood that are similar to this type of
reconstruction.
Day Ann Kelley, Chairperson then asked the Board Members for their questions and
comments. Mr. Margolis stated he was in favor of the proposal. Ms. O'Brien stated she
had visited the site. Ms. Kelley stated that the front yard setback is 14 -feet, the side yards
are close to the property line but the Beverly Improvement Society side would not impact
anyone, and that it was a corner lot. Mr. Mc Niff stated there were some unhealthy trees
on the side of the dwelling that he was going to tear out. He added that he would try to
save the healthy ones in front. Ms. Kelly asked if a garage were to be built and whether
the dwelling would be built to specifications. Mr. Mc Niff responded yes, the dwelling
would be built to specifications and a garage would probably be constructed. Ms.
Gougian asked the scale of the dwelling and garage. Ms. Kelley asked if the attic would
be a room or storage space. Mr. Mc Niff responded that there were no dormers up there
and the height would be approximately 7 '/z feet in the middle of the room. Mr. Ferguson
stated that would be a 12 -feet pitch. Ms. Kelley stated that upon a site visit she was of
the opinion that is was a basic dwelling design and that it did not seem oversized. She
did not feel this would be detrimental to the neighborhood.
Ms. O'Brien made a motion to grant the Section 6 Finding at 29 East Corning Street that
the proposed alteration/reconstruction to this single - family residential structure will not
be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming nature of said
structure and the plans submitted with the application are strictly complied with, are
0
identified in, and incorporated into, the Board's decision and the elevation drawings, to
the extent feasible, are recorded with the decision. Seconded by Ms. Koen. Motion
carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Margolis, O'Brien, Ferguson, and Koen in favor)
Ms. Gougian will replace Ms. Koen in this proposal
21 Madison Avenue — R -10 Zone — Daniel B. & Sharon A. Ameika
Section 6 Finding Request
Attorney Thomas Alexander spoke on behalf of the petitioner's. He stated he was
requesting to replace an existing 12 -feet by 20 -feet carport with a 16 -feet by 20 -feet
garage pursuant to Section 29- 27 -C.2. Atty. Alexander stated the existing carport is 12-
feet by 20 -feet long and is not in the greatest shape. The plan is to demolish the carport
and replace with a 16 -feet by 20 -feet detached garage. The accessory building would be
the same footprint except for a 4 -feet addition. Atty. Alexander commented that this
proposal would be keeping up with the architecture of the neighborhood. He stated the
new structure would be more than 10% larger than the existing structure but the area
would conform. He added this lot is located in the Prospect Hill area, where most
dwelling lots have ledge and drop offs. It would be very difficult to locate the proposed
garage on any other area. A list of abutters in favor of the proposal was submitted to the
Board to review.
Day Ann Kelley, Chairperson asked if anyone from the public had any questions or
comments regarding this proposal. There being no one present she asked the Board
members for their input. Ms. Kelley asked what the second floor of the garage would be.
Atty. Alexander responded that the owner plans to have a drop down ladder for attic
storage above. Ms. Gougian questioned the area of the vehicle space. Ms. Kelley asked
the building inspector if windows are allowed in a garage. Mr. Frederickson responded
"if the accessory building was more than 3 -feet away, the garage could have windows ".
Ms. Kelley stated that a 20 -feet depth of a garage is fine with her. She added this was a
minimal relief requested. Mr. Ferguson stated he visited the site and found it was the
nicest location in the area. He confirmed that the existing carport is an unsightly and
unsound structure. He added it was certainly a safety issue with the kids getting in there
it was just an accident awaiting to happen. Mr. Ferguson stated he believed this was a
good project, would improve the neighborhood and that he was in favor of it. Ms. Kelley
asked to see the existing carport plan. Mr. Ferguson asked how far is the neighborhood
dwelling from the proposed garage.
A motion was made by Mr. Ferguson to approve the Section 6 Finding to Daniel
B. & Sharon A. Ameika at 21 Madison Avenue seeing that the Board finds the
alteration/reconstruction to this single - family structure will not be substantially
more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood.
That per Section 29 27 C (2) (a, c, d, e & f) Criteria have been satisfied. That the
plans submitted shall be 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. Seconded by Ms. O'Brien. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Ferguson,
O'Brien, Margolis and Gougian in favor)
5
Ms. Gougian will replace Ms. Koen on this application
WITHDRA RN WITHO UT PREJUDICE
16 Front Street — (commonly know as 29 V2 Cabot Street) — CN Zone
Highland Partners Reality Tr. Section 6 Finding Request
Mr. Daniel Finn spoke on his own behalf. He stated he and his family purchased the
property two years ago from the Auconi family. He added that this request for a Section
6 Finding was to convert an existing free- standing structure from a barber shop to a
single occupant residence. The wood building is approximately 120 years old and was a
barbershop for over 30 years. The space has been vacant for three months and Mr. Finn
would like to change the current use. The plan would be to paint the out side of the
building and the interior work would be to install a new kitchen and bath with a
combination living room/bedroom. Mr. Finn stated the only reason he is present tonight
is because this free- standing building is too close to the lot line and he is unable to meet
the required setbacks.
Chairperson Kelley asked if anyone from the public had any questions or comments.
Mary Beckman (Portage Properties LLQ owner of 25 Cabot Street stated that for the past
two years Mr. Finn's last tenant caused her problems by constantly parking in her lot.
She added there is no parking on Cabot Street and Mr. Finns tenant would have to park
on Front Street.
Chairperson Kelley then asked the Board Members for their questions and comments
regarding this proposal. Ms. O'Brien asked where was the access was to 29 1/2 Cabot
Street. Mr. Finn explained the building and the structures surrounding its location. A
walkway leaving this structure leads to Front Street where the resident could park his /her
vehicle.
Mr. Margolis asked how many buildings were on this lot and would the structure become
a condominium? Mr. Finn explained that his office and one apartment on the third floor
was located at 16 Front Street along with a garage and this former barbershop building.
He added the building would never be converted into a condominium. Mr. Ferguson
reiterated there is no parking on Cabot Street. Ms. Gougian asked if this use is allowed.
Mr. Finn responded the use is allowed, but the building does not meet the setbacks. Ms.
Kelley stated she believed the structure is too close to the property line, is located in a
very densely populated area, and appears too small to be a residence. Ms. O'Brien asked
the square footage required for an apartment. Mr. Ferguson asked the building inspector
to explain this proposal. Mr. Frederickson responded that the unit is there and if Mr. Finn
did not need a "change in use" he would not have to appear before this Board. He added
if granted there would be two dwellings upon the lot. Mr. Ferguson stated he believed
the petitioner should be allowed to withdraw this petition without prejudice. Ms. Kelley
stated the Board would allow Mr. Finn to withdraw. Mr. Finn asked the Board to allow
him to withdraw without prejudice his petition. Ms. O'Brien commented that as a Board
the members have to look at all the factors.
31
A motion was made by Mr. Ferguson to allow Mr. Finn to withdraw without prejudice
his petition at 16 Front Street, commonly known as 29 '/z Cabot Street. Seconded by Ms.
O'Brien. Motion carries 4 — 1. (O'Brien, Ferguson, Gougian, and Margolis in favor)
(Kelley voted in the negative)
7