Loading...
2009-02-24 (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: February 24, 2009 Place: Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, Councilor's Chamber, Y floor, 7:00 p.m. Board Members Present: Full Members Day Ann Kelley, Chairperson, Margaret O'Brien, Scott Ferguson, Jane Brusca, and Joel Margolis. Alternate Member Sally Cohen Others Present: Building Commissioner /Zoning Officer — Steve Frederickson and Clerk of the Board/Diane Rogers Absent: Alternate Member Pamela Gougian Chairperson Day Ann Kelley opened the meeting to the public at 7:00 p.m. She stated there were two continued cases from the January 27, 2009 hearing. 60 Glidden Street — R -10 Zone — Ronald and Susan Lent Special Permit and Variance Request David G. Keery of Design Build, LLC spoke on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Lent. He stated he revised the drawings (dated February 9, 2009) showing a reduction in the massing of the proposed garage and main house additions. He added he had also submitted to the Board to review a study of the potential lot coverage and volume as allowed by the zoning ordinance and how that potential allowed volume compares to the current additions /alterations proposed by the Lents. Chairperson Kelley asked Mr. Keery to discuss the revisions of the new drawings rather than what was allowed by right. She asked if Mr. Keery had spoken to his neighbors. Mr. Keery responded that he had spoken to his neighbors regarding the revisions in the plans. He stated a new site plan was redrawn and a proposed demolition page. He added that on page A -0 showing the foundation/cellar plan he brought the porch dimension back 5 -feet. On page A -1 the proposed first floor plan the specific change to the garage was the addition of a shed in the rear for storage of bikes etc. and the removal of the second floor. The one -car garage could park two vehicles piggyback. Plan A -2 through A -6 consisted of the proposed second floor plan, and the north, east, and south elevations, which were discussed. Mr. Keery stated he is proposing an 8- percent increase in lot coverage. He presented three large photographs of dwellings in the neighborhood that did contain second and third stories plus a garage. He stated his proposal for the kitchen was "L" shaped with a 6 -foot jog. Mr. and Mrs. Lent were proposing to extend the kitchen to add a preparation island and to extend their small dinning room. The bedrooms would be located on the second floor. Mr. Keery stated there was opposition to this proposal from the neighbor next door at 62 Glidden Street. She did not want to view a second or third story on Mr. Lents dwelling. He added she objected because she believed the addition would be an invasion of her privacy and that many more parked vehicles would mean more guests. Mr. Keery stressed that the dwelling would be 27 -feet high, not the 35 -feet that was allowed by right. Chairperson Kelley stated that the garage is the same width but would be altered to have a shed roof. She requested Mr. Keery discuss the variance part of his proposal for the front porch. Mr. Keery stated he believes that the foundation which sets back 22 '/2 - feet from the street and the way the dwelling is situated upon the lot causes a hardship. A letter from Kristine and Anthony Alvino of 54 Glidden Street indicating their support for the project was read into the record. Chairperson Kelley asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Joel Margolis stated he approved of the new design of the dwelling and that he was in favor of the proposal. Ms. O'Brien stated she was satisfied with the revisions. Scott Ferguson stated he concurs with Board members. Ms. Brusca reviewed the photographs of other dwellings in the neighborhood and stated she was in favor of the revised plans that Mr. Keery submitted. She added that she felt privacy was not an issue because the opposing neighbor resided toward the garage side of the dwelling and there was an existing tree that provided privacy. Ms. Kelley asked if the setback on the garage side would remain 7 '/z -feet. Mr. Keery responded that was correct. Ms. Kelley had concerns with the proposed shed. She asked if the shed could be sacrificed as a concession to the neighbors. Ms. Brusca stated the proposed shed conforms to the width of the garage. Ms. O'Brien commented that if a fence was erected it would help block off the proposed shed. Mr. Ferguson asked the Building Commissioner what the setback was for a detached shed. Mr. Frederickson, responded that a detached shed could be erected 5 -feet from the property line, a maximum 100 sq. feet in size, and be 15 -feet in height. Debra Zaldivar of 62 Glidden Street stated she remained in opposition of this proposal. She stated the photographs shown of the dwellings in the neighborhood were located way down the street. She commented that Mr. Lents property is situated much higher than hers and her future privacy would be an issue. Mary Parker of 36 McKay Street showed the Board members a site plan of her dwelling when it was built years ago. She stated she was not in favor of this proposal. 2 Chairperson Kelley stated to the Board members to consider if the following and other conditions are met for a special permit: a. That the specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use, and that the character of adjoining uses will not be adversely affected. b. That no factual evidence is found that property values in the district will be adversely affected by such use. c. That no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result. d. That adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation and maintenance of the proposed use. e. That there are no valid objections from abutting property owners based on demonstrable fact. f. That adequate and appropriate City services are or will be available for the proposed use. She further stated the conditions for a Variance are a minimum relief to the owner and is often necessary for a reasonable use of the land or building. She added there was concern on the original plan for the 40 -foot long garage, which was now adjusted with the 2" d floor shed roof and the addition of a shed in the back to contain bikes etc. Mr. Ferguson suggested that some landscaping should be done. A motion on the Special Permit was made by Ms. Brusca to grant and approve the application request at 60 Glidden Street for the criteria conditions of Section 29 -27 C2 a.- f. have been met. Seconded by Mr. Ferguson. Ms. Kelley suggested the plans submitted with the application are to be complied with, referred to, and incorporated into, the Board's Decision. Landscaping to be done on the right side of the property between the garage and shed to provide visual screening. Ms. Brusca and Mr. Ferguson concurred. Motion carried 5 — 0. ( Brusca, Ferguson, Kelley, Margolis, and O'Brien in favor) A motion on the Variance request was made by Ms. Brusca to approve the variance presented by the revised plan dated February 9, 2009. To now encroach 3.3 -feet upon the required 20 -feet front yard set back. of the second floor addition and also 5.2 of the front of the dwelling. Seconded by Ms. O'Brien. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Brusca, O'Brien, Ferguson, and Margolis in favor) 10 Thorndike Street — R -6 Zone - John Lu, LLC To Modify the existing Special Permit and Finding request Attorney Thomas Alexander spoke on behalf of the petitioner. Chairperson Kelley stated that Board member Ms. Gougian could not be here tonight therefore there would be only 4 members present to vote. Mr. Alexander responded that he would continue with his discussion of the case and decide at the conclusion whether to continue until the March hearing. Ms. Kelley stated the special permit as written in 1973 was for a non - profit institution. Before that there were 3 units in the building and the current zoning law allows two - units. Mr. Alexander stated that at the January 27, 2009 hearing the neighbors were concerned with the request for 6- units. The courts have held that a Board may take a modification to a special permit so long as the proper notice and hearing requirement for a special permit are met. He quoted Barlow v. Planning Board of Wayland, 64 Mass. App. Ct.314. Thus, the modification should be based on the criteria outlined in Section 29 -28 ( C ) of the Zoning Ordinance governing special permits. Mr. Alexander stated the special permit allowed for residential use (10 individuals to reside in Anchorage plus staff) This application is changing the number of units and the type of use. He added that the structure has been beat up for a long time and will require quite a sum to renovate. If this building consisted of only 2- units, each would contain 3,000 sq. feet. In today's market large apartments are not being rented. What is being proposed is in the existing footprint except the slight expansion of a 32 sq. ft. con- forming additions and an addition to the existing stairwell to add a third floor to the stairwell. Mr. Shulman, Architect stated the proposal is for 4 units, (1) three- bedroom Unit "A" with 2700 sq. ft. to be owner occupied on the 1st 2nd & 3 floors and (3) apartments with two bedrooms Unit `B" 1 floor, Unit "C" 2nd floor, Unit "D" 3 floor to be located on the other side of the building. He added the parking required would be 8 vehicles, not the 12 required for the 6 units. The proposed exterior renovation to the building would remain the same as shown on last month's package. Mr. Shulman exhibited a proposed site plan dated 12 -11 -08 and proposed drawings. Mr. Alexander stated there is a good plan for a high quality landscaping and screening project on site. He commented lawns, patios, and walkways would be added to enhance the appearance of the site. Chairperson Kelley asked if anyone from the public had comments or questions. John Sciola of 12 Thorndike Street stated he was opposed to the (6) unit project but he reviewed the new (4) unit plans and is in support of the project. Elizabeth Fenn of 19 Abbott Street stated she is now in favor of the proposal. She added that her dwelling abuts the parking area. She stated she is requesting a fence to be erected in the rear of her property. Mr. Alexander responded that the requested fence would be installed. Mr. Ronald Mac Neill of 7 Endicott Street stated he remained in opposition to this proposal. He believes that in the R -6 Zone the property owner is allowed to convert the property into two units. He commented that this proposal would set a precedent of others to obtain a special permit for additional units. Antoinette Mustante of 12 Willow Street stated she purchased a 7- family dwelling at 13 Thorndike Street seven years ago. She added she believed that 10 Thorndike Street is a historical dwelling built in 1848 that needs to be restored. Chairperson Kelley asked how 13 Thorndike Street could have 7- units. Ms. Mustante responded the dwelling was pre- existing non - conforming. Mr. Alexander stated that most of the neighbors are in favor of the proposal or do not care one -way or the other. Ms. Kelley asked if Mr. Alexander spoke to the neighbors regarding the new revisions to the plan. Mr. Alexander responded, yes. Chairperson Kelley then requested the Board members ask their questions and present their comments. Mr. Ferguson stated that in the 1973 the Decision for a special permit was for a charitable institution with no request being made for a variance. Mr. Alexander responded it was a non - profit organization for 10 residents to live there with staff 0 members, which is a residential use. Ms. Kelley stated that the original special permit was for non - profit and she thought this was stretching it. Mr. Alexander responded that sometimes the Board and the City engages in stretches for worth wild projects. He commented that this Historical dwelling has been in need of costly renovations for probably the past 50 years. Mr. Margolis had no questions at this time. Mr. Ferguson read the definition of "Use" in the Zoning Bylaws. He also stated there is not substantial opposition in this proposal. Ms. Kelley commented this building was a 3 -Unit use 30 years ago. Mr. Alexander stated another group home could be located on the site. Ms. Kelley responded that it was possible that another group home could be located at this site. Ms. Brusca stated the Use as "Charitable" more of less is incidental. It was intended for room and board for a group home. She feels it is residential going to residential. Ms. Kelley asked if this property could work as a 3 -Unit building. Mr. Alexander stated that 6,000 sq. ft. of space would require many expensive repairs. Ms. Kelley stated we are stretching this, however, the majority of the neighbors are in support. She added this is a unique situation and that the residential Group Home was next to a commercial property. She commented she was willing to allow the extension - modification of the special permit. Ms. Brusca asked if this building was a 3 -unit, what would an owner have to do to convert to a 4 -Unit? Building Commissioner Steve Frederickson responded the owner would apply for a finding and would have to prove it was not detrimental to the neighborhood. Ms. Kelly stated the dwelling would have to convert back to a two - family. Mr. Frederickson responded yes, by right. Mr. Margolis asked could you use this building as a two - family or two condominiums. Mr. Alexander responded he could not justify that because of the present market. Mr. Ferguson stated this proposal is a singular option decision tonight that does not set a precedent. Ms. Kelley asked Mr. Alexander if he wanted to vote on the proposal tonight. Mr. Alexander responded, yes. A motion was made by Mr. Ferguson to modify the existing special permit at 10 Thorndike Street to allow the structure to become a 4 -Unit residence, subject to the plans submitted. Seconded by Brusca. Motion carries 5 -0. (Kelley, Ferguson, Brusca, O'Brien, and Margolis in favor) 15 Eisenhower Avenue — R -10 Zone — Amy Murphy Section 6 Finding Request Mr. Van Vewalle, the hired contractor spoke on behalf of the petitioner. He stated the request was to build a proposed one -story addition, 12.5 -feet by 28 -feet to contain a "great room ". The existing dwelling has a side setback of 6.6 -feet instead of the required 15 -feet. The addition will meet all setbacks. He added that there is an existing concrete patio with an overhang on the rear of the dwelling. The proposed addition will be constructed on that area of the footprint. The only reason the petitioners are here is because the side setback of the existing dwelling is non - conforming by 6.6 -feet. The proposed 12.5 -feet by 28 -feet great room addition does conform. The owners of the property the Murphy's are in favor of this proposal. Ms. Amy Murphy walked the neighborhood and obtained the following information: a letter dated February 12, 2009 5 from Edward and Lauren Doherty, direct abutters stated they had no objection to the proposed addition. A petition was submitted to the Board in support of the proposal from the neighbors at 7, 9, 12, and 14 Eisenhower Avenue. Photographs of the property were submitted for the Board to review. A site plan dated January 7, 2009, rear elevations floor /wall framing, roof framing, and an assessor's map were also provided in the packed. There were no members of the public in opposition to this project. Ms. Murphy stated she went to Conservation last year because of the wetlands. Chairperson Kelley asked the Board Members for their questions and comments. Ms. O'Brien stated she saw no residents in the rear of the property because of the woods. Ms. Brusca stated that the woods area that backs up to this property is about to have conservation restrictions written on it. Mr. Margolis had no questions. A motion was made by Ms. O'Brien to grant the Section 6 Finding at 15 Eisenhower Avenue. The proposed addition to this single - family residential structure does not increase the non - conforming nature of said structure and the proposed addition will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non - conforming structure to the neighborhood. The Board finds there has been support from neighbors based on a letter and petition and there were no objections. Therefore, the Board grants the application subject to all plans submitted with application are complied with referred to, and incorporated into the Boards decision and elevations drawings to be recorded with the decision. The conditions of Section 29 -27C2 - A through F criteria have been satisfied. Seconded by Mr. Ferguson. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, Ferguson, O'Brien, Brusca, and Margolis in favor) 14 Friend Street — R -10 Zone — Sean Hagerty Variances Requested Mr. Hagerty spoke on his own behalf. He stated he was requesting variances to allow a rear setback of 10 -feet instead of 25 -feet and a height of 20 -feet 6- inches instead of the maximum allowed 15 -feet, to construct a detached two -car garage with storage space above. He stated he had to locate the proposed garage at this location because of the water flood force and washout that comes down his existing driveway. He added he would also have to remove the rear porch and stairs and take up some of the existing concrete if the garage were located next to his dwelling. He commented that petitioning the garage to meet setbacks would not allow any parking and require backing into the street. Letters from the following abutters were submitted to the Board for review: Richard White of 18 Friend Street, Carol Ferris of 15 Friend Street, John Gagnon of 11 Friend Street and Peter Jaquith of 17 Friend Street. There was no opposition from the public. Day Ann Kelley, Chairperson asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Ms. Brusca asked if the petitioner would object to a condition placed on the decision stating that space above the garage be storage only. Mr. Hagerty responded he had no problem with that condition. Ms. Kelley asked about the proposed height of the 31 garage. Mr. Hagerty responded the height would not be above his existing dwelling because the land drops downward. He added there was no dwelling built behind him. Mr. Margolis stated he was in favor of this proposal because of the land situation. Mr. Ferguson stated the variance is for height of the garage but photographs show it won't have an impact on the neighborhood. He fees it is the minimum relief allowed to the owner. Ms. Kelley stated the way the dwelling is situated on the lot causes a hardship. She asked Building Commission Frederickson the rules for height on a garage. She thought there was another formula for determining the garage height. Mr. Frederickson responded that he thought that 15 -feet in height for a garage was too low. The former calculation was to mean height. Ms. Kelley stated the cause of the hardship is because the property slopes down from the street and the property has water issues. A motion was made by Mr. Margolis to grant the variances requested at 14 Friend Street a. There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land or building for which the variance is sought (such as, but not limited to, the exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of the property in question, or exceptional topographical conditions) which circumstances or condition s are peculiar to such land or building but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located and the application of the standards of this Chapter would deprive the applicant of a reasonable use of the property. b. The specific variance as granted by the Board is the minimum variance that will grant reasonable relief to the owner and is necessary for a reasonable use of the land or building. c. The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Chapter, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Seconded by O'Brien. Discussion: Amendment to motion: the plans submitted with the application are to be complied with, referred to and incorporated into the Board's decision. ( Brusca) that the room over the proposed garage be used as storage and not to be heated. Margolis yes, to the amendment. Seconded by O'Brian. Motion passes 5 — 0. (Margolis, O'Brien, Kelley, Brusca, and Ferguson in favor) Discussion on minutes: MOTION: The minutes for the months of February 2008 — to — November 2008, to be approved, after the corrections submitted have been made. Motion carried unanimously. (Kelley, Ferguson, O'Brien, Brusca, and Margolis in favor) Meeting adjourned 9:30 p. m. 7