Loading...
2009-10-27 (2)CITY 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 Appeal Date: October 27, 2009 Place: Beverly City Hall, Council Chamber, 191 Cabot Street Board Members Present: Full Members Day Ann Kelley, Chairperson, Margaret O'Brien, Scott Ferguson, Joel Margolis and Jane Brusca. Alternate Member: Sally Koen. Others Present: Building Commissioner - Director Steven Frederickson, and Clerk for the Board — Diane Rogers. Absent: Alternate Member: Pamela Gougian Chairperson Day Ann Kelley opened the meeting to the public at 7:00 p.m. 446 Rantoul Street — CC Zone — Gary McCoy/Poyant Signs Variances Ms. Carol Bugbee of Sandwich, MA representative of Poyant Signs spoke on behalf of CVS Pharmacy. She stated she was requesting variances for proposed wall signs exceeding number and size allowed in the CC District and for a proposed monument sign not allowed in the CC District. The site plan, West Elevation, Rantoul Street Elevation, North Elevation were reviewed by the Board. Directionals C1, C2, C 3, and C 4 and the proposed 10 -feet high internally illuminated pylon sign were submitted for the Board to review. This property is located on the North West corner of the intersection of Elliott and Rantoul Street. The frontage on Elliott Street is 265 -feet and on Rantoul Street the frontage is 340 -feet plus or minus. Ms. Bugbee stated in July of 2009 she withdrew without prejudice her application for signs when this Board requested more information. She added C. V. S. Pharmacy changed the plan to the following: 1. Omitted the 25 sq. ft. wall sign on the Rantoul Street elevation. Took it completely away. 2. Reduced the ground sign from 24 -ft. OAH (over all height) to 10 -feet OAH. 3. Reduced square footage of the ground sign proposed from 67.3 sq. ft. to 22.27 sq. ft. 4. reduced free standing directional sign to 2- square feet, acceptable to code. Ms. Bugbee stated the proposal is for one set of letters to meet code on the Rantoul Street Elevation side but the Elliott Street side does not meet code because it sets back 100 -feet. Also, if one had to meet code on the Elliott Street side, letters would be 18 -feet in size. She added the customers could not see the free standing sign to identify the building. Ms. Bugbee submitted a proposed landscaping plan showing the location of shrubs and trees for the Board to review. She added that benches were to be installed for the public to have a nice sitting area. She is of the opinion the proposed signage would not set a precedent because of the signs erected upon other businesses nearby. Chairperson Kelley asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this petition. There being no one present; she asked the Board Members for their questions and comments. Ms. Kelley asked if this proposal went before the Design Review Board? Ms. Bugbee responded no. Ms. Kelley commented the Design Review Board's input regarding the signs would have been helpful. She added she was of the opinion that the pylon sign doesn't specify the dimensions for the variance request. Ms. Bugbee responded the dimensions are stated in the tables in the plan provided. Ms. Kelley commented that the By Laws state signs are for identifying the property not for advertisement. Ms. O'Brien stated she was of the opinion the monument sign measuring 9 -feet wide and 11 -feet tall was too large. She added the wall signs on the building were fine. She asked what the purpose of the 2nd sign was. Ms. Bugbee responded the 2nd sign indicates to the motorist where C.V. S. is located. Ms. Kelley stated you cannot look back at the Walgreen's sign approval because this is another Board. Mr. Margolis asked if the monument sign could be reduced in height. Ms. Brusca stated the signs on the building were fine but the pylon sign was not needed to provide direction to the building. She added she did not see any hardship. Mr. Frederickson, Building Commissioner, stated if the building were 200 -feet back the monument sign would be allowed. Ms. Bugbee stated she was proposing 3 -feet letters the same as Walgreen's. Ms. O'Brien stated she was of the opinion the pylon sign would not be visible from many directions. Mr. Margolis asked if the height of the monument sign (the peak) could be reduced by 3 -feet. Ms. Brusca concurs with Ms. Kelley and Ms. O'Brien. The Elliott Street sign and the Rantoul Street sign will be the same size and Board members concur. Mr. Ferguson stated the ground level sign is 2- feet, the sign is 5 -feet. He believes the construction of the building itself says C.V. S. and the pylon sign is not needed. Ms. Kelley stated she could not vote for the pylon sign proposed this evening. 2 Mr. Ferguson made a motion to approve the variance for proposed wall signs exceeding number and size allowed in the CC District. 1. The Elliott Street sign 3'x 28'x11 "wide total 84.4 -feet Rantoul Street same size. 2. West side of canopy will say EXIT 7" letters 3. Sign on canopy EAST : Full Service, Drive Through Pharmacy East" full service 13 sq. ft (one) Motion seconded by Ms. O'Brien. Ms. Bugbee to provide the revised plans to the Building Department. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Ferguson, O'Brien, Brusca, and Margolis in favor) Motion made by Mr. Ferguson to allow Ms. Bugbee to withdraw without prejudice the proposed request for a monument sign at C.V. S. Seconded by Ms. O'Brien. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Ferguson, O'Brien, Brusca, and Margolis in favor) 646 Hale Street — R -15 Zone — Thomas Bahr Section 6 Finding Request Mr. Bahr spoke on his own behalf. He stated the proposed addition is to construct a kitchen and screened porch under an existing deck located at the rear of the nonconforming dwelling. The proposed addition will meet all setbacks. The portion of the existing dwelling, which is non - conforming is not involved in the addition. The proposed addition will not change the support facility requirements in any way. No nuisance or hazard will be created by the proposed addition. Roberts Architecture and Design, Boston MA, submitted the Proposed First and 2nd Floor Plan; along with the South, West, North, and East elevations for the Board to review. Photographs of the dwelling were included in the package for the Board to review. There were no letters in favor or opposition of this proposal. Chairperson Kelley asked if there were any members of the public that would like to comment on this petition. There being no one present, she asked the Board for their questions and comments. Ms. Brusca visited the site today and stated she was in support of the proposal. Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Margolis concurred. Ms. O'Brien stated she went by the property and was also in support of the project. Mr. Margolis made a motion to grant the Section 6 Finding at 646 Hale Street being the reconstruction will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood. This decision is subject to plans submitted with the application are complied with, referred to, and incorporated into, the Board's decision. Seconded by Mr. Ferguson. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Ms. Kelley, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Margolis, Ms. O'Brien and Ms. Brusca in favor) 437 Essex Street - R -15 Zone — 437 Essex Street Inc. Section 6 Finding Request 3 Mr. Edward Potvin, Executive Director of Bass River Programs stated he is requesting to allow a full bathroom addition (13.5 -feet by 23 -feet) to an existing nonconforming structure. The addition will comply with all setback requirements. Mr. Potvin stated 437 Essex Street presently houses the offices of Bass River Inc. a 501 c 3 nonprofit company. It also houses the program site for contracted service from the Department of Mental Retardation serving over 100 people on a daily basis. The entire building is used to afford day services to adults that are mentally challenged. The hours of operation are Monday — Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. through out the year. The back yard (gazebo) is used primarily for lunch and defined activities. He added that the building is also used by the Centerville Improvement Society for its Community functions. Mr. Potvin stated no nuisance or hazard will be created to the detriment of the health safety and /or welfare of the occupant or the citizens of the city but the small addition on the side of the building will in fact improve the present use of the building. This small addition will not have any impact on parking, traffic flow or any other issue, which would be detrimental to the use of the building. Plans of the proposal and photographs of the property were submitted to the Board to review. Chairperson Kelley asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this petition. There being no one present she then asked the Board for their questions and comments. Ms. Kelley asked if Mr. Potvin spoke to his neighbors. He responded yes, he had spoken to his neighbors. Ms. Brusca stated she went by the property today and she was in support of the project. Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Margolis stated they had no questions relative to the proposal. Ms. O'Brien made a motion to approve the Section 6 Finding to allow a full bathroom addition (13.5 -feet by 23 -feet) to an existing nonconforming structure. The alterations will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood. The plans submitted with the application are complied with, referred to, and incorporated into, the Board's decision. Seconded by Mr. Ferguson. Motion carries 5 — 0 (Ms. Kelley, Ms. Brusca, Ms. O'Brien, Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Margolis is favor) (CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 2, 2009) 15 Bailey Avenue - R -10 Zone William and Janet Bresnahan Variance Request Robert H. Griffin, P.E. spoke on behalf of the Bresnahan's. He stated he was requesting a variance to voluntarily demolish an existing nonconforming single - family residence and construct a larger residence with a porch within the front and side yard setbacks. He added the undersized lot has a 25 -foot wide sewer easement owned by /Southern Essex Sewer District. An additional 10 -foot wide City of Beverly sewer easement crosses the northerly portion of the lot. The small lot size, its irregular shape and corner lot status further restrict the amount of buildable area. Also, the current building foundation, which 11 is to be saved, will be an integral part of the proposed structure. The dimensional variances are for the side yard and front yard setbacks. The existing building side yard is 12.5 -feet. At its closest point, the proposed side yard setback to the building corner is 10.4 -feet and 1.7 -feet to the proposed wrap around porch. The existing front yard setback to the nonconforming deck is 12.1 -feet. A proposed front yard setback of 9.1 -feet at its closest point is proposed to construct a wrap- around porch. Griffin Engineering Group, LLC of Beverly prepared the plot plan for the Board to review. The Architects are Gray Inc. Salem, MA, and Padjen Inc. Topsfield, MA. who drew the elevation and first and second floor plans for the proposed new dwelling. A Notice of Intent filed by William & Janet Bresnahan was heard on October 13, 2009 by the Beverly Conservation Commission. Chairperson Kelley asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this petition. There being on one present Chairperson Kelley asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Mr. Margolis asked what the plan was along the lot lines, perhaps a fence? Mr. Griffin responded there would be some planting along the lot lines but no fencing. Ms. O'Brien asked to define the photographs submitted and point out where the tree was located. Mr. Griffin responded that the tree was located on the lot next door #17 Bailey Avenue about 3 or 4 -feet from the lot line. Ms. O'Brien asked how wide the proposed deck would be that goes all around the dwelling. Mr. Griffin responded the width would be 14 -feet to 6 -feet by the door and then 8 -feet 6- inches along back to 5 -feet. Mr. Ferguson asked if there was a 3 rd floor plan he could review. There was no plan available. He added he was surprised that all abutters signed the petition. Mr. Ferguson discussed the elevations and drawings showing 3 stories. Mr. Bresnahan responded that the 3 rd floor was to be for his kids. He did not know how many sq. ft. it was. Ms. Kelley stated the design is great but the proposed dwelling is too large and does not match the neighborhood. Mr. Griffin responded "This is only a 3- bedroom dwelling." Ms. Brusca stated that she went by the property today and she is of the opinion the size of the dwelling on the lot is a concern. Ms. Kelley stated the dwelling and porch needs to be scaled down. She added that the dwelling is only 1 '/z -feet from the lot next door. Ms. O'Brien suggested the proposal be withdrawn without prejudice. Mr. Griffin stated he was willing to go over the plans. Ms. Kelley stated there must be a substantial change. Mr. Ferguson suggested no dormers, use skylights or even better no third floor. Ms. O'Brien asked what the area of the dwelling was. Mr. Griffin stated there would be 1,450 on the first and second floor and that he would have to calculate the third floor. Discussion: Have the new plans delivered to the Building Department before the November 24, 2009 hearing. A motion was made by Mr. O'Brien to continue this proposal until the next scheduled meeting November 24, 2009. Subject to signing a Waiver of Time. Seconded by Mr. Ferguson. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Ferguson, O'Brien, Brusca, and Margolis in favor) 5 2 Hull Street — R -15 Zone — Cynthia A. Bugden Variance Request Attorney Thomas Alexander spoke on behalf of Ms. Bugden. He stated he was re- questing to allow Lot 2 to have 14,673 sq. ft. of area where 15,000 sq. ft. is required and allow 15 feet rear yard setback from house and 5 foot setback from garage /shop on Lot 1 where 25 feet is required. In May, 2009, the petitioner received approval to subdivide the lot as shown on Exhibit A (ANR Plan) however, the variance request would allow preservation of building older than 50 years and more rational lot line location. (The Historic District Commission has a demolition delay ordinance for structures older than 50 years.) The ANR plan shows that the shop and garage must be demolished. Atty. Alexander stated the land consists of 31,887 sq. ft. of land fronting on Hull Street and Essex Street as shown on Plan of the land of Cynthia A. Bugden, August 2009. Ms. Bugden is a single mother trying to keep the dwelling in the family. She indicated that it would cost $20,000 for the demolition work. The dwelling was purchased by Ms. Bugden's father in 1959. Atty. Alexander submitted photographs of the dwelling and an Ariel photo of the property for the Board to review. Chairperson Kelley asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this petition. William Terry of 530 Essex Street stated he walked by the property daily and he was of the opinion that to demolish anything would be detrimental to the property. Elizabeth Bugden of 162 Lothrop Street Danvers stated her sister Cynthia Bugden was trying to keep the house and she needed help. Mr. Frank Rodgers of 1 Harwood Street stated he was in opposition to this proposal. Robert and Sandra Brown of 8 Hull Street were also in opposition. Mr. George Earle of 14 Hull Street stated he has resided there for 37 years. He asked " Was the shop built at the same time as the garage ?" Chairperson Kelley then asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Ms. Brusca asked if the shop and the barn were to be removed to make the extra lot. Ms. O'Brien stated she was surprised of the opposition to this proposal. Ms. Kelley asked why Ms. Bugden went to the Planning Board first. She added this is not a historical structure. She commented that a financial hardship was not part of the criteria of obtaining a variance. Atty. Alexander responded that financial hardship should be considered per the zoning by laws and Ms. Bugden was trying to preserve a building and this was the minimal variance they were requesting. Atty. Alexander stated the 2nd lot would probably sell for $120,000. Ms. Brusca stated the petitioner was coming to this Board to try and keep what the Planning Board stated should be demolished to make the 2nd lot. She does not want to see a precedent set here. Mr. Margolis stated no one knows what will be built on Lot #2. The new dwelling might have the correct setbacks. The rear yard setback from the dwelling would be 15 -feet rather than 25 -feet required and a 5- feet setback from the garage /shop where 25 -feet is required. Mr. Ferguson stated a hardship could be the location of the dwelling on the lot and this is a minimum request. Ms. Kelley commented that she believes it should all be demolished as specified on the 31 ANR plan. The building could be demolished with the proceeds of the sale of Lot #2. Mr. Brusca commented that the shop should come down because one cannot have it both ways. A motion was made by Ms. O'Brien to accept the variance to allow Lot 2 to have 14,673 sq. ft. of area where 15,000 sq. ft. is required and allow 15 -feet rear yard setback from dwelling and 5 -feet setback from garage /shop on Lot 1 where 25 -feet is required. The variance would allow preservation of building older than 50 years and a more rational lot line location. The hardship is the shape of the lot and the placement of the dwelling on the lot. Seconded by Mr. Margolis. The vote was 2 — 3. Motion was denied. (O'Brien & Margolis in favor) — (Kelley, Ferguson, & Brusca voted in the negative) 7