2009-01-27CITY 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: January 27, 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 Members: Pamela
Gougian
Others Present: Building Commissioner /Zoning Officer — Steve
Frederickson and Clerk of the Board/Diane Rogers.
Chairperson Day Ann Kelley opened the meeting to the public at 7:00 p.m.
181 Elliott Street — Building 500 — Suite 1100- Beverly Commerce Park, Inc.
Variance Request Continued from November 25, 2008
Edward Juralewicz, President of the United Sign Company stated his proposal was
carried over from the November 25, 2008 hearing. The Board had suggested the need for
a Master Plan so they will know what will come before them now that the 500 building is
completed. Kelley stated this building was not in the 1998 Cumming Center discussion
of plans for the site. Mr. Juralewicz introduced Steven Drohosky /Vice President of
Cummings Properties. Mr. Drohosky stated he had spoken to the Chairperson of the
Board, Day Ann Kelley regarding the sign proposal. He stated that the location of the
sign is directly above the entrance to New England Academy. He added that granting
this variance would not be contrary to the public good and would not be in contrast to the
intent of the zoning ordinance. He commented that the zoning ordinance restricts signs
on the first floor level and this sign is proposed to be placed above the 3 rd floor level and
below the 4 th floor level. He added that the location of the parcel is unique in the I G
Zone. Mr. Drohosky stated that this building has the most vacancies. He added there are
(5) existing signs and that this proposal would be number (6) He stated "When I come in
with the 11th sign application, I will return to the Board ". Kelley asked what are the
plans for signs on the pond side of the property. Mr. Juralewicz stated there are only 2
locations that would go on the upper level. He added that the signs did not require
Design Review Approval. Mr. Drohosky asked the Board to approve the 30" H by 336"
W Raceway mounted channel letter sign and logo, the letters to be white faces, black
trimcap with black returns logo to be burgundy and gold face with black trimcap and
returns. He stated the hardship is the distance from Elliott Street to the 500 building,
which is located in the rear of the parcel.
Chairperson Kelley asked if any member of the public had any questions or comments.
There being no one present she asked the Board for their questions and comments.
Kelley stated that in 2007 a sign on building 500 included a 5 -year termination date for
the variance. She stated that she would like a master plan so the Board can issue a
variance that will not expire.
A motion was made by O'Brien to grant the Variance with the following conditions: (1)
the variance is specific to the location size, lettering, logo and colors as shown on
attached plan. Ferguson seconded the motion. The motion carried 5 — 0. (Kelley,
O'Brien, Ferguson, Margolis, and Gougian in favor)
85 Essex Street — R -10 Zone — Frantz Lauredant
Section 6 Finding Request
Mr. Carl Dumas of Kneeland Construction spoke on behalf of the petitioner. He stated
he was requesting to allow the proposed construction of a rear shed dormer upon a non-
conforming dwelling. The proposed 12 -feet dormer addition (side elevation) and the
proposed 33 -feet shed dormer addition on the (rear elevations), were drawn on a scale 1 /4"
= 1 -foot drawn by Kneeland Construction dated September 23, 2008. The dormers will
be within the existing footprint. A photograph of the rear of the dwelling was included in
the plan drawings for the Board to review. The shed dormers will increase the size of the
2nd floor bedrooms and create a bathroom. Mr. Lauredant stated his lot is the smallest in
the neighborhood. He added that the view of Essex Street will remain the same after his
dormers are added. A petition was submitted with the following abutters in favor of the
proposal: Stephen Jones, 96 Essex Street, David French of 89 Essex Street, Suzanne
Nolan of 98 Essex Street, Richard Foote of 2 Pratt Avenue, Robert R. Reardon of 6
James Street Beverly, Ma.
Chairperson Kelley asked if there were any members of the public present who are in
favor or in opposition to this proposal. There being no one present she asked the Board
members for their questions and comments. Mr. Ferguson requested the record show that
all the abutters were in favor of this proposal. Ms. O'Brien stated that this was a
2
minimum request for relief Mr. Margolis and Ms. Gougian stated they had no questions
regarding this Section 6 Finding.
A Motion was made by Mr. Ferguson to approve the Section 6 Finding and move that
this single - family residential structure does not increase the non - conforming nature of
said structure and will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non-
conforming structure to the neighborhood. In addition I move that the Board grant the
proposed application subject to the following conditions: that the plans submitted with
the application are strictly complied with, are identified in, and incorporated into, the
Boards 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 voting in favor)
8 Willow Street -R -6 Zone- Glen Janvrin
Section 6 Finding Request
Ms. O'Brien recuses herself
Glen Janvrin spoke of his own behalf. The stated he was requesting to allow the
proposed construction of a 3 rd story addition, 23 -feet by 11 -feet over the existing first
floor deck. (10 -feet by 11 -feet of the existing deck to be open) The second floor addition
to contain a new great room and a master bedroom located upon the third floor. Plans
were submitted to the Board to review by Vincent J. Scagliotti, Jr. Design, dated
February 2008. Drawings of the left and right side elevation and rear elevations, were
included. Mr. Janvrin stated he purchased his dwelling in 2002 and that he had made
renovations in the past. He added that he was in dire need of more living space. He
submitted letters from abutters in favor of this proposal.
Chairperson Kelley asked if there were any members of the public in favor or opposition
of this proposal. There being no one present she asked the Board members for their
questions and comments. Ms. Kelley asked what the overall size of the lot was and if he
had spoken to his neighbors. Mr. Janvrin responded that he did speak to his neighbors
regarding the project. The Board reviewed the plans submitted and asked why the design
was extended to create a 3 rd floor. He responded he was requesting a master bedroom
upon the third floor. Ms. Kelley asked if another design could be drawn that would not
require a third story addition. She indicated the plan submitted was too high and could
go over the height limitation. Mr. Janvrin stated he did not know how to measure the
height of the actual dwelling. Ms. Brusca stated she had concerns because the design of
the dwelling is out of character for the neighborhood. She asked why the additions did
not begin on the first floor. Mr. Janvrin responded that he did not want to demolish his
open deck upon the first floor of the dwelling. She commented that sometimes you have
to give up something to gain something better. Ms. Gougian stated the design of this
dwelling was out of character of the neighborhood. Mr. Margolis concurred, the plans
were too high and there would be too much volume. Chairperson Kelley asked Mr.
Janvrin if he would like to withdraw without prejudice and return to the Board with new
plans or continue and receive the Boards vote. Mr. Janvrin responded he would like to
withdraw without prejudice his application.
3
A Motion: to withdraw without prejudice the plans on 8 Willow Street was made by Mr.
Ferguson. Seconded by Ms. Brusca. Motion carried unanimously. (Ferguson, Brusca,
Gougian, Margolis, and Kelley voting in favor.
20 Webber Avenue — R -6 Zone- Katherine Austin
Section 6 Finding Request
Katherine Austin spoke on her own behalf. She stated she was requesting to extend a
non - conforming detached garage by the addition of a 10 -feet by 15 -feet sunroom to the
rear of the garage. The property encroaches 2 -feet 11- inches upon the left side yard
setback of 10 -feet, and 1 -foot upon the rear yard setback of 25 -feet. Photographs of the
addition, drawings of the foundation, foundation wall and footings plus elevation plans
were also distributed to the Board for review. A plot plan dated November 2008, drawn
by Gerald Marsella, scale 1 "= 20' was submitted for the Board to review. Chairperson
Kelley asked Ms. Austin to inform the public more about the proposed addition. Ms.
Austin responded that she had made a mistake and had not obtained a building permit.
She added that she had constructed the entire project by herself, right down to the
foundation installation. The following is a list of abutters in favor of the sunroom built to
the rear of the detached garage: 36, 41, 42, and 43 Wellman Street, 21, 22, 23, and 27,
Webber Avenue, and 27, 31, 37, and 39 School Street.
Chairperson Kelley asked if there were any members of the public in favor of this
proposal. Donna Corio of 42 Wellman Street stated she was in support of the sunroom
addition to the detached garage. No one spoke in opposition of the proposal.
Chairperson Kelley then asked the Board for their questions and comments. Mr. Margolis
asked it the roof was flat. Ms. Austin responded no, the sunroom had a hip roof. Ms.
Brusca commented that the roof did appear to be flat. Ms. O'Brien stated this proposal
was of minimal size and she was in favor.
Margolis: Motion to approve the Section 6 Finding for 20 Webber Avenue for the
approval of the sunroom addition to the detached garage and finding that such addition
shall not be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood, subject to the plans
submitted tonight. Seconded by Ms. Brusca. Motion carried 5 — 0. ( Kelley, Ferguson,
Margolis, Brusca, and Gougian in favor)
(CONT TILL FEB 24 ) 60 Glidden Street — R -10 Zone — Ronald and Susan Lent
Special Permit and Variance Request
Mr. Ronald Lent spoke on his own behalf. He stated he was requesting to be allowed to
demolish the existing garage, shed, and sunroom and replace with/new one -car garage,
workshop, and mudroom. The existing main dwelling will extend upward with a second
floor, which will extend 1 -foot closer to the left side property line. Also, a Variance to
construct a 6 -feet by 28 -feet front porch second floor addition that encroaches 3.9 -feet
M
upon the required 20 -feet front yard setback. David Grover Keery of Design Build, LLC
drew the plans for the proposal. Photographs of the property were also submitted for the
Board to review. Kelly asked what the existing square footage of the dwelling was. Mr.
Keery, Architect for the project responded that the existing dwelling was 1,300 square
feet. He added that the new square footage added would be 1,570, making the total
square footage 2,870. Mr. Keery stated this design was in the scale of the other dwellings
in the neighborhood. He added that he had a few letters from abutters in favor of the
project. He commented that the non - conforming lot was the hardship.
Chairperson Kelley asked if anyone from the public was in opposition or in favor of this
proposal. Debra Zaldivar stated her parents built their single -story modest dwelling in
1954. She has concerns with the existing garage being demolished and rebuilt much
larger. She added that the variance request for the front porch and second floor addition
would cause her to loose the privacy in her back yard. Mary Parker of 36 McKay Street
stated this proposal is out of character of the neighborhood.
Chairperson Kelley asked the Board members for their comments and questions.
Margolis asked what the hardship was for the porch variance. Mr. Keery responded that
the lot was non - conforming having 9,350 sq. ft. instead of the required 10,000 s q. ft.
Kelley responded lot size is not considered a hardship. O'Brien asked "who did give
their ok on this petition ?" Ms. Kelley stated she is of the opinion that there is too much
volume and the project is overbuilt. Brusca asked what the height of the attic was over
the proposed new garage. Mr. Lent responded that you can stand in the attic therefore,
the height must be 7 '/z -8 -feet. Mr. Ferguson asked if the attic would be unfinished. Mr.
Keery responded that the attic would be unfinished. Mr. Ferguson stated " this is too
much ". He commented that the project should be scaled down. Mrs. Lent stated they
had 6 grandchildren and needed the living space. Ms. Kelley commented that you cannot
have everything you want. She would like to review more modest plans. She suggested
the petitioner speak to their neighbors who were opposed to the project. They might be
able to agree on a smaller scale. Brusca stated the proposed porch is now having a room
built over it and it is a huge increase in volume.
Mr. Ferguson made a motion to continue the proposal until the next scheduled meeting
on February 24, 2009. Seconded by Ms. O'Brien. Motion carried 5 — 0 to continue the
proposal to the February 24, 2009 hearing.
A waiver of time to be signed.
14 Hart Street — R -6 Zone — Mary Ellen and Edward Leekley
Section 6 Finding Request
Builder, Charles Thomas spoke on behalf of the petitioner's. He stated he was requesting
to square off the existing dwelling footprint by extending the enclosing one -story porch
5.1 -feet by 4.4 -feet for a proposed downstairs half -bath. The dwelling has a rear setback
of 14 -feet instead of the required 25 -feet. Mr. Thomas added that the addition will be no
closer to the rear or side setbacks than the existing building. Photographs and drawings
were submitted for the Board to review. Hancock Survey Associated, Inc. of Danvers,
E
MA revised the Plot Plan of the Land dated October 24, 2008. Two letters were
submitted from Nancy Bouchard of 19 High Street and Valerie Dubitsky of 16 Hart
Street stating they were both in favor of this proposal.
Chairperson Kelley asked if any member of the public was in favor or opposition to the
proposal. There being no on present she asked the Board members for their questions and
comments. Mr. Ferguson asked if all the abutters had been notified. Mr. Thomas
responded yes, the abutters were notified of the proposal. He commented that there were
only two neighbors that could see the addition. Ms. Kelley stated the dwelling is older
and this small proposal will improve it.
Mr. Margolis made a motion to approve the Section 6 Finding to this single - family
residential structure, which does not increase the non - conforming structure to the
neighborhood. In addition the plans submitted with the application are to 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
O'Brien. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, O'Brien, Ferguson, Margolis, and Brusca in
favor)
65 West Street — R -45 Zone — John Connolly, Jr.
Section 6 Finding Request
Mr. John Connolly, Jr. spoke on behalf of Carol Horvitz, Trustee of the Edgewater Trust,
owner of the property located at 65 West Street, Beverly Farms, MA. He stated he was
requesting that the proposed addition to the pre- existing non - conforming one family -
structure is not substantially more detrimental than the existing non - conforming structure
or use to the neighborhood and shall not create a new non - conformity. The existing one -
family structure, which was built in or around the year 1900, exceeds the maximum 35-
foot building height requirement. The proposed addition is to contain gallery space and
personal office space. The two -story addition will comply with all setback requirements
Page 7
and the 35 -feet building height requirement. The Proposed Site Plan was drawn and
stamped by Paul J. Donohoe of Donohoe and Parkhurst, Inc. from Boston, MA. The
Existing Site Plan, Proposed Exterior Elevations and Building Sections, Proposed First
and Second Floor Plan, Proposed Roof Plan, and Proposed Basement Floor Plan were
drawn by Margolis Incorporated Architecture Interiors and Garden Design of 710 Hale
Street, Beverly Farms, Ma. Photographs of the property were submitted for the Board to
review.
Mr. Connolly in a letter dated January 16, 2009 stated that after submitting the initial
plans, the project was re- evaluated and a decision was made to significantly reduce its
size and to subtly alter its design characteristics. The primary goal was to reduce the
visual impact of the proposed addition in terms of its size and to generate an appearance
that the addition was a natural extension of the covered terrace to which the proposed
0
addition is to be attached. One issue to be discussed at the hearing is the determination as
to whether or not the gallery addition constitutes an alteration or extension of a pre-
existing, non - conforming structure or constitutes an accessory building. The petitioners
filing is based upon the conclusion that the proposed project is an addition to the existing
residence and not an accessory building.
Mr. Connolly stated this project is an addition to a large dwelling. There would be a 20%
increase in size of dwelling but that the addition would be smaller in height. He added
the purpose of this addition is to serve as an art gallery. Mr. Horvitz has one of the
largest collections of drawings and paintings in the world. Art is spread throughout his
home. This is almost a full time magnitude. He has art students, a research library, and
curators. John Magolis, Architect showed the amended floor plans for the gallery. Brusca
asked if the plans were changed. Mr. Margolis responded yes, the plans were changed.
He added that there would be less impact now. Ferguson asked if the flat roof would be
used for anything else. Mr. Connolly responded there would be nothing on the roof. He
added that the mechanicals would run from the dwelling in crawl spaces. He stated there
will be a breezeway with a trellis to make everything blend in. He commented there is a
porch, which has a separate function.
Chairperson Kelley asked if there were any members of the public in opposition of this
proposal. Ms. Emily Smith of Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP stated she
represented an abutter, Evan Wile, Trustee of West Street Realty Trust, owner of 63 West
Street. She submitted a packet dated January 27, 2009, for the Board members to review.
She stated that the Locus does not comply with current Beverly zoning. She added under
Massachusetts law, building an addition on the non - conforming house on the Locus
creates a new non - conformity, and more than a Finding is required. A discussion
followed and the Board reviewed the Subdivision Plan of 1950, deeds, and an ANR Plan
that were submitted. Ms. Kelley commented that the lot must have been approved. She
added she feels that the Board can look at this proposal as a Section 6 Finding. She
added that the decision can be appealed. Mr. Connolly stated that the lots created in 1955
did get endorsed by the Planning Board. Ms. Kelley asked why this addition should not
be called an accessory building. Mr. Connolly responded that case law indicates this
proposal is not an accessory building. The building will be connected underground as
well and will be an extension to a non - conforming structure, that was built in 1910. Mr.
Connolly stated this addition will not be visible to anyone. He added that the neighbors
Mr. & Mrs. Doyle are bringing the sewer line up the driveway from West Street and that
the large two septic system/ leeching fields will be eliminated.
Chairperson Kelley then asked the Board members for their questions and comments.
Ms. O'Brien asked what the setback was on Evan Wiles side of the property. Mr.
Connolly responded that the addition meets the side setbacks. Margolis asked if
gatherings for public uses would be held at this new addition. Mr. Connolly responded
that a home occupation is allowed by right. He added that there might be art shows but
nothing considered commercial use. Mr. Ferguson asked if he had any comments from
any abutters. He responded that Ms. Smith, representing Mr. Wile was just introduced.
Brusca had no comments at this time.
7
Chairperson Kelley stated to the Board members, based on the criteria for a Section 6
Finding what are your recommendations and observances. Brusca stated the utilities will
be part of the main dwelling. Ms. O'Brien stated she did not believe this would be any
more detrimental to the neighborhood.
Ms. O'Brien made a motion that the proposed reconstruction- extension- alteration to this
single - family residential structure does not increase the non - conforming nature of said
structure and the proposed alteration - reconstruction- extension will not be substantially
more detrimental than the existing non - conforming structure to the neighborhood. The
Board finds that there is objection from one neighbor. Therefore, I move that the Board
GRANT the application, subject to the plans submitted with the application are complied
with, referred to, and incorporated into, the Board's decision. Seconded by Ms. Brusca.
Motion carries 5 — 0. (Kelley, O'Brien, Ferguson, Brusca, and Margolis in favor)
10 Thorndike Street — R -6 Zone — John Lu, LLC (Pam will vote)
Modify the existing Special Permit & a Finding
Attorney Thomas Alexander spoke on behalf of the petitioner. He stated he was
requesting to modify the existing special permit, which allows up to 10 youths residents
on the property, to allow for six (6) residential units, and a FINDING to allow for the
slight expansion of the existing non - conforming building by adding a 32 sq. ft.
conforming addition as shown on the floor plans submitted and a conforming addition to
the existing stairwell to add a third floor to the stairwell. The existing lot with area of
10, 880.7 sq. feet with existing non - conforming building located at the corner of
Thorndike and Endicott Streets is shown on the existing Site Plan filed with this
application. A copy of the May 1, 1973 decision to the First Baptist Church in Beverly
to use the property as a charitable institution for the provision of room, board, education,
counseling, leadership, and related services to youths from Beverly. On April 3, 1979 the
First Baptist Church came back to the Board to modify the existing special permit on the
Anchorage, Inc. for renewal of the special permit to operate a youth residence and to
permit up to Eight (8) youth residents at one time, and for renewal of the special permit.
A copy of the May 12, 1981 Renewal and Modification was submitted for the Board to
review. Tenant count was now at 10 resident students. It was voted unanimously to
renew the permit and remove the restriction of the Petitioner having to come for re-
hearings as previously decided. Mr. Alexander provided the Board with several
photographs of the property. The existing site plan was drawn by Kane Land Surveyors,
72 Hamilton Avenue, South Hamilton, MA on December 11, 2008. The property was
acquired October 22, 2008 by John Lu, LLC c/o Antoinette Musante of 12 Willow Street.
Beverly, MA. Mr. Alexander stated he represents Toni Musante of 12 Willow Street
who will be the manager of the premises. He added that this lot was 100 -feet from a
Commercial District which consists of City Hall, the Police Department, a bank, a 15
office complex, and a 7 unit residential dwelling. Mr. Alexander stated that in 1973 this
property was used as a group home with 8 boys to live on site and 5 to 8 staff people.
The group home modified their special permit and the total was changed to 10 boys to
live in the dwelling. He stated that the property has been abandoned for the past two
years. He added that any group home may reside on the premises. Mr. Alexander stated
that the dwelling was in need of care and renovations. He added that his client proposes
to make the dwelling into a 6 -unit rental. He stated there would be 2 parking spaces per
unit. Mr. Alexander stated he had case law indicating this modification can be done
legally.
Thad Siemasko, Architect spoke on the petitioner's behalf. He stated the building would
appear better with a hip roof and clapboard siding installed. New landscaping would be
done throughout the lot. He discussed the 6 -Unit apartment building plans with the
Board.
A petition was submitted to the Board in favor of the proposal from Robert Amer 24
Parsons Rd, West Newbury owner of 8 Thorndike Street and Amy B. Dow of Gloucester,
MA, owner of 15 Thorndike Street, Kathy Callahan 11 Thorndike Street Unit 1 and Toni
Musante of 13 Thorndike Street. .
Chairperson Day Ann Kelley asked if there were any members of the public in opposition
to this proposal. Ronald Mac Neil of 7 Endicott Street stated he has resided here for 27
years. He stated he thought because of the density, 6 -Units is too much. He added the
neighborhood needed some relief. Ms Fenn of 19 Abbott Street (corner of Endicott)
stated her dwelling was a one - family. She added she believed 4- Residential Units should
be enough. John Sciola of 12 Thorndike Street stated he has two small apartments and
his apartment space. He added that 6- Resisdential Units are too many. He commented
there would be too many visitors.
Chairperson Day Ann Kelley asked the Board members for their questions and
comments. Ms. Kelley asked if they were adding some patio space and rebuilding the
porch on the Thorndike Street side. Mr. Siemasko responded yes. Mr. Ferguson asked if
the wheel chair use would be taken off and if all porches would be refurbished. Mr.
Siemasko responded that was correct. Ms. Kelley stated she believed this would not be
allowed by a Variance request because there are no use changes in the R -6 Zone. She
stated this use has nothing to do with the former one. Brusca asked if all units would be
rented. Ms. Gougian asked if there were any presidents on this modification from the
City of Beverly. Mr. Alexander stated you can modify the existing special permit. He
referred to Huntington v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Hadley, 12 Mass. App. Ct.710. Mr.
Margolis stated requesting 6 units are beyond moderation. Mr. Alexander stated his
client is not looking to make money he is just trying to improve the property. Ms. Kelley
stated looking at the size of the building she could consider 4- units, not six. Mr.
Ferguson commented a group home to rental apartments. There is strong opposition from
abutters. He added he could consider 4 -units not six. Ms. Brusca concurs. She stated the
request was too many units for the area. Mr. Alexander asked to continue the proposal
until the next scheduled meeting February 24, 2009. A waiver of time was signed.
NW of Intersection of Conant Street and Cherry Hill Drive - Harvest Development,
LLC /Glovsky
Special Permit Request IR Zone
0
Attorney Mark Glovsky spoke on behalf of his client, Harvest Development. He stated
he was requesting a special permit to allow the petitioner to use the property for
subsidized elderly housing in an IG Zoning District. The petitioner seeks to use the
property as defined under Section 29- 2.1358. Mr. Glovsky stated the property consists of
approximately 9.4 acres of unimproved land, as shown more particularly on the plans
accompanying this application. A Preliminary Site Plan, Scale: 1" = 40' -0" dated
December 1, 2008 was submitted to the Board for review. Projected Statistics:
Retirement Residence: 4 floors, 38,408 sq. ft. , 9 Duplex Cottages: 31,050 sq. ft. Total
Building Coverage: 69,458 sq. ft. Patios: 6,600 sq. ft., Drives/Parking: 78,270 sq. ft.,
Walks: 6,000 sq. ft., Open Space: 254,273 sq. ft. Parking: 100 open spaces at
retirement, 12 Covered spaces, and 4 accessible spaces makes 116 Total Spaces at
Retirement. Parking Required: 0.75/Unit. Building Setbacks: Front: 30', Rear: 25',
Sides: 20'. Parking Setbacks: Front: 30', Rear: 15', and Sides: 15'.
Mr. Glovsky introduced his staff member Amanda Gooding, Owens McCullough and
Robert Mc Sorley P.E. Senior Project Manager from Sebago Technics, Dan Routh of
Curry Architecture and Richard Cane from The Flatley Company. Mr. Glovsky stated
that Curry Architecture withdrew without prejudice their proposal a few months ago. He
added that Harvest Development, LLC is he largest owner of Senior Housing in United
States. There are 4 similar projects in Massachusetts that are similar and over age 55. He
added there are (3) requirements, which are: 15% need to be affordable, 80% over the age
of 55 and 10% handicap accessible. In the 154 unit building, residents will receive (3)
meals a day, laundry services, housekeeping services, 24 hour management (20
employees) and utilities. In the (9) cottages 18 units, there will be one meal a day, a
choice of laundry services and transportation. 20% of the residents will probably have
their own automobiles. Residents will mostly be in their 70's and 80's with 10% being
couples. Mr. Glovsky stated there would be approximately 200 -225 people residing in
the senior housing development. He added the new design has reduced the number of
units from 238 to 172 units. He stated there would be fewer vehicles, less traffic, and (2)
accesses, which was an issue a few months ago. Mr. Glovsky stated this proposal is an
appropriate use, elderly housing is allowed in this zone and there is a 40B Apartment
project on the Danvers line. That project did receive approval from the FAA and the
Massachusetts Aeronautical Commission. He added there would be fewer vehicles
within this project. Mr. Glovsky stated that Frank Killilea/Engineer from the City of
Beverly wrote a letter approving this proposal. He commented that the elderly have to go
to Danvers or other towns because Beverly does not provide this type of housing.
Mr. Own Mc McCullough stated there would be two means of egress at all times on the
new proposal. He added the project would be great for tax purposes, provide 20 jobs, and
would not have children residing there. He added the 4 -story building would be framed
with extra cement board siding. The outside park -like atmosphere with cement walkways
and plantings would be attractive to the tenants.
10
Lincoln Property Company submitted "Land Use Study" dated December 30, 2008
prepared for: Mr. Mark Lowen, Curry Brandaw Architects, Salem, OR by Donald P.
Bouchard, MAI, Boston MA. They stated they had found no evidence that the presence
and development of Assisted Living Facilities near office, commercial or industrial uses
has a detrimental impact on their use, leasing potential or marketability. (See packet
provided with further information) A 7 page packet was submitted to the Board from
Sebago Technics Inc, Isaiah M. Bean, Design Engineer, regarding Erosion &
Sedimentation Control Plan relative to Beverly Retirement Community located at 145
Conant Street. A -2 page letter dated January 27, 2009 from Paul Vitale, Chairman of
Beverly Airport Commission was read into record. They asked for the Board to impose
(2) conditions to the issuance of a Special Permit for the project: (1) that the
improvements be supplemented with acceptable noise proofing materials and (2) that all
residents be required to execute an Airport Noise Disclosure Statement, in the form
attached to this memorandum and that copies of said statement be forwarded to the
Airport Commission for its records. A 5 page report regarding Stormwater Management
prepared by Patrick M. Martin, of Sebago Technics Inc. dated January 19, 2009 was
submitted for the Board to review. The stormwater management controls that are
outlined in this plan have been designed to best suit the proposed development and to
comply with applicable regulatory requirements.
Chairperson Kelley read into record the following letters: William F. Scanlon, Mayor of
Beverly in support of this project. Attached was a letter in favor of this project from the
Beverly Council on Ageing, 90 Colon Street, dated January 22, 2009. A letter from
Wade Burritt, Director, Corporate Services and Facilities Axcelis Technologies dated
January 26, 2009. He stated Axcelis remains in opposition to construct residential
housing in the Cherry Hill Industrial Park. A Traffic Assessment report dated January
20, 2009 from Sebago Technics Inc, John Q. Adams, P.E. Senior Transportation Engineer
was also submitted for the Boards review. On January 28, 2009 the Clerk of the Board
received a 5 -page packet from North Atlantic Air, Inc., Beverly Airport, Danvers, MA
from Kenneth Robinson, President. He stated that the proposed location of the project
falls within the Noise Impact Area of the Beverly Airport and is directly under the flight
path of two runways. This means that upwards of 50% of the Flights arriving or
departing will fly directly over the proposed site of the complex. It is the FAA's
recommendation, that local communities implement land use control measures by zoning
land within an airport noise impact area as non - compatible for residential use. Mrs.
Rogers forwarded the packet to each of the Board members by mail.
William Coughlin, Councilor At Large stated he saw no airport infringements. He added
this property has been for sale for a long time. He stated he had not received one
telephone call in opposition to this proposal.
Timothy Flaherty, President of the City Council stated this project can help the City of
Beverly. He commented that the location is on Conant Street, not Cherry Hill Drive.
Kathy A. Faulk, Esq. stated she was speaking on behalf of direct abutters of this project,
Axcelis Technologies Inc. of 55 Cherry Hill Drive and Connolly Partnership of 152
11
Conant Street. She added that Philip Baldi Trustee of 71 Cherry Hill Drive owns
property right behind the proposed site. She stated that the above mentioned properties
will be impacted by this proposal and that they have issues that need to be addressed.
She stated her clients remain opposed to this petition. She added she disagrees with Mr.
Glovsky, this will adversely affect her clients property. Ms. Faulk stated this proposal
will be directly under the flow of air traffic. There are parking lights, deliveries, and
industrial materials not permitted in the residential zones abutting residential apartments.
She is of the opinion placing this facility in the middle of this area would diminish the
rights of these long term industrial and commercial uses to use their property as they have
in the past. In 2002 the hotel was allowed and his clients approved of that because it was
a short-term occupancy, and no substantial investment upon the resident. Kathy Faulk
stated there are numerous projects in other towns and cities the age related restrictions
were lifted because the premises could not be sold or rented to persons 55 or older. She
requested that the Board deny this proposal. Chairman Kelley asked Ms. Faulk to give
the Board two simple things about the project that is detrimental to her clients. Ms. Faulk
responded that Commercial and Industrial Zones flourish when surrounded by
complimentary neighbors. She added that the noise at 6:00 a.m. along with the early
traffic and the storage of materials only allowed in the IR zone would create friction in
their own permitted zone if the neighbors were residential.
Steven Connolly stated this project would impact his properties. He added that the
residents would be there 24 hours a day, Mays a week.
Tina Cassidy, City Planner explained the area of the zone.
Mr. Glovsky stated the residents of this elderly housing development could leave when
ever they wanted because the units are rented.
Chairperson Kelley stated the Board has heard the pros and cons on this proposal.
Ferguson stated there was merit on both sides.
THE PUBLIC MEETING WAS CLOSED and will continue at a special meeting
scheduled for Tuesday, February 3, 2009 at City Hall, 7:00 p. m.
Discussed minutes. September 25, 2007 was approved.
Adjourned @ 12:15 a.m.
12
13