2008-02-26CITY 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 26, 2008
Place: Beverly City Hall, Council Chamber, 191 Cabot Street
Board Members Present Full Members Scott D. Houseman, Chairman, Margaret
O'Brien, and Scott Ferguson. Alternate Members Jane
Brusca, and Joel Margolis
Others Present: Building Commissioner /Zoning Officer — Steve
Frederickson and Clerk of the Board — Diane
Rogers
Absent: Noelle Faris, Alternate Member
Chairman Scott D. Houseman opened the meeting to the public at 7:00 p.m. He stated
that some administrative matters would have to be discussed before any public meeting
could be heard.
Chairman Houseman stated that the following cases were continued to this evening's
meeting: 548 Cabot Street, represented by Thomas Alexander, Esq. He added that there
have been discussions as recently as last week, between Mr. Alexander and Roy
Gelineau, City Solicitor regarding this matter. Houseman stated that it is anticipated by
the applicant that this case should be resolved between now and next month. A request
was made to continue this case to the next scheduled meeting. A waiver of time to be
signed.
Ferguson: Motion to continue this case until the March 25, 2008 hearing. Seconded by
O'Brien. Motion carries unanimously. (Houseman, O'Brien, Ferguson, Brusca, &
Ferguson in favor)
Page 2
3 Greenwood Avenue — R -45 Zone — Michael Otis
An Appeal from an Administrative Decision
Thomas Harrington Esq, signed a waiver of time to continue the hearing and requested a
special meeting to be held on Wednesday or Thursday March 5 or 6 regarding the
property located at 3 Greenwood Avenue. The property is owned by Ben and Adrienne
Stinson. Mr. Harrington requested a continuance last month to allow sufficient time for a
new Board member to be appointed. However, Noelle Faris the newly appointed Board
member could not attend the meeting tonight. Chairman Houseman stated there was a
request to hold a special meeting and he would give the Board the option of choosing
Wednesday the 5 th of March at 7:00 p.m. in the Councilors Chamber or Thursday evening
the following day.
Margolis: Motion to accept the application of the waiver and hold a special meeting on
Thursday, March 6, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the Councilor's Chamber, 191 Cabot Street.
Seconded by O'Brien. Motion carries unanimously. (Houseman, O'Brien, Ferguson,
Brusca, and Margolis in favor)
43 Water Street — WD Zone - Beverly Port Marina, Inc.
An Appeal from an Administrative Decision Request
Kevin Dalton, Esq. spoke on behalf of the petitioner. He stated that he was appealing the
Building Commissioner's letter determination of December 4, 2007, that the parking at
Port Marina is not grandfathered.
Chairman Houseman stated he had a chance today to speak with both, Attorney Dalton
and Roy Gelineau, City Solicitor, regarding this matter. Houseman added that there
seems to be an agreement that the Board must deal first with the issue of whether the
Board has jurisdiction to hear this matter at all.
Mr. Dalton discussed the letter written on December 4, 2007 by Building Commissioner
Steven Frederickson. He stated that this dates back to the former Commissioner Mr.
Nelson for the 10 -A Mooring Float Permit. He submitted two documents to show the
background. One letter is from the Harbormaster dated May 30, 2006 and a letter to then
Commissioner Robert Nelson, from Mr. Jonathan Silver, regarding pending application
for a 10 -A permit, relative to parking certification and harbor issues. Mr. Dalton spoke
to Roy Gelineau, the City Solicitor. Mr. Gelineau provided Mr. Dalton with the
following case law: Commonwealth Trust v. Arthur Smith, Town of Lexington that
indicates that under Chapter 40A the Board might not have jurisdiction on this matter.
Mr. Frederickson thought because of the repaving and paving at the site the grandfathered
parking might be nil. Beverly Port Marina thought that decision might bind them down
the road.
Page 3
Houseman stated he would like to hear from Mr. Frederickson. He added that he does
not believe the letter written by him was an order but rather an advisory response
requesting information to determine conformance. There was no request or denial of a
building permit.
Mr. Frederickson stated that he expressed an opinion and requested more information in
his letter written on December 4, 2007 to Mr. Jonathan Silver.
Houseman stated that under Chapter 40A the Board has no jurisdiction in this matter. He
read the case law statute. He suggested a Board member make a motion. O'Brien
discussed the case law with Houseman. She questioned if Attorney Dalton was satisfied
with this. Mr. Dalton responded yes, he was satisfied.
O'Brien: Motion that the Board lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal and will file a
written letter with the City Clerk's office to that effect. Seconded by Brusca. Motion
carries unanimously. (Houseman, O'Brien, Ferguson, Brusca, and Margolis in favor)
41 Dartmouth Street — R -10 Zone — Michael I and Mary Jean Raimo
Section 6 Finding, Temporary Conditional /Special Permit and Variance
Requests
Robert Nelson spoke on behalf of the petitioners. He stated he was requesting a Section
6 Finding that a proposed 26' — 6" by 38' one -story addition that contains bedroom,
kitchen, living room, sewing room and full bath will be no more detrimental than the
existing single - family residential structure that presently encroaches 3 feet upon the 20
feet front yard setback and the lot has 80 feet of lineal frontage where 100 feet is required
and a temporary conditional special permit to accommodate a person to live in proximity
to, but with independence from, a relative; and a Variance to allow both mother and
father in —law (Shirley and Ray Whittier) to reside on premises. Mr. Nelson introduced
Mr. Whittier, the father -in -law who is requesting to be living in his daughter's dwelling.
He stated that he has medical problems and living in a one -story quarters would benefit
his illness. He added that his wife of 54 years and he could live comfortably for the
remainder of their life. He stated that he raised 8 children and lives in Lynn, MA. He
added that the dwelling is now too large for them, as the children are gone. He stated
that he was in the sign business, which brought him to Beverly quite often. Mr. Nelson
stated that he researched the in -law apartment permits issued in the past. Two cases were
submitted to the Board for review. He added that the Zoning Ordinance only states one
person can live in proximity to a relative. Mr. Thomas Bussone and Mr. Edward Bussone
Page 4
were both granted a temporary special permit for an accessory apartment because they
also applied for a Variance to allow (2) persons to reside in the apartment. Ferguson
asked how the hardship relates in this case. He added that the narrowness of the lot and
the way the dwelling is placed upon the lot did fit the criteria in this case. He added that
he was in favor of the request.
Houseman asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this petition. There
being no one present he asked the Board for their questions and comments. The Board
reviewed the photographs and drawings submitted. Ferguson asked if all the abutters
were notified. A petition was submitted from abutters in favor of the proposal. from the
following: Denise D. Nervil of 39 Dartmouth Street, Daniel Gelsomini of 43 Dartmouth
Street, Jason Clark of 3 Colby Road, Susan Cena of 14 Cornell Street, Richard Tiplady of
12 Cornell Road, and Edward O'Neil of 10 Cornell Road.
Houseman asked how many bedrooms remain in the existing dwelling. Mr. Raimo
responded that there are 3 bedrooms in the main dwelling and one proposed new in the
addition. Houseman asked what would happen if Mr. & Mrs. Whittier moved. Mr.
Raimo responded that he had five children and the additional space would remain in the
family. Ferguson stated the shape of the lot was irregular and the position of the dwelling
upon the lot is considered a hardship. He added he would like a condition placed upon
the decision that the proposed addition would be one - story. He stated he would like the
sun -shine clause also enacted. Section 29 24 C 1 — 11 Rev 6- 26 -87. Houseman stated
that the four conditions listed in #11 on page 105 be enacted.
1. Upon the death of the designated occupant; or
2. Upon the change of residence of the designated occupant; or
3. Upon the transfer of ownership of the premises, if such transfer is unrelated
to the issuance of the temporary Conditional Permit; or
4. Upon the expiration of the permit period set forth above.
The City Clerk shall notify the Building Commissioner of any change of occupancy.
Houseman is of the opinion this site can accommodate this expansion.
Ferguson: Motion on the Section Six Finding that the proposed alteration/reconstruction
to this single - family structure at 41 Dartmouth Street does not increase the non-
conforming nature of said structure and that the plans submitted with the application are
strictly complied with, identified in and incorporated into, the Board's decision, and that
the elevation drawings, to the extent feasible are recorded with the decision. The Board
found that the hardship associated with the granting the variance is that is the shape of the
lot is irregular and the position of the dwelling on the lot, therefore the hardship is met.
That the temporary Conditional Permit for an accessory apartment, and any renewal of
said temporary Conditional Permit, shall terminate: per Section 29 -24 -C 11- 1 -4 . (Page
105) That the City Clerk shall notify the Building Commissioner of any change of
occupancy. Following termination of said temporary Conditional Permit, the designated
occupant (of the accessory apartment) shall have ninety days to relocate; the kitchen built
Page 5
as a result of the temporary Conditional Permit shall be removed by the owner ninety
days after the designated occupant leaves. The dwelling will revert back to a one - family.
Proposed addition to be one - story. Seconded by O'Brien. Motion carries unanimously.
(Houseman, Ferguson, O'Brien, Brusca, and Margolis in favor)
9 Pearl Street — R -10 Zone — Michael W. Renfroe
Section 6 Finding Request
Mr. Renfroe spoke on his own behalf. He stated he was requesting a Section 6 finding
for a change to a non - conforming one - family structure. To change the existing "hip roof'
to a "gable" roof for a proposed attic space for a future master bedroom over existing
footprint. Photographs of the site were submitted for the Board to review. Mr. Renfroe
submitted new plans this evening for a change in the design of the roof. The new plan
revised the length and setback of the bedroom dormer on the gable roofline. Houseman
stated he made a site visit. He stated the structure and changes in the roofline of the
dwelling would satisfy a Section Six finding. He asked what the intended use was inside.
Mr. Renfroe responded the proposed attic space would be for a bedroom and future
bathroom. He added that he spoke to his neighbors last evening and they were in favor of
the proposal. A petition was submitted in support of the project from the following
abutters: Linda Birch, 10 Pearl Street, John & Judy Doherty, 8 Pearl Street, Jim & Mary
Archibald, 26 Gardner Street, Herbert & Sue Schlegel, 24 Gardner Street, Beverly /Smith
Anthony Tr., 17 Gardner Street, Kimberly Daracy, 14 Pearl Street, Robert & Janice Rink,
20 Warren Street, William & Carol Hamor, 16 Warren Street, Sharon Lyons, 12 Pearl
Street, and Lon Hamor, 8 Gardner Street.
Chairman Houseman asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this
petition. There being no one present he asked the Board members for their questions and
comments. O'Brien asked if the elevations on the plans would change because of the
revisions. Houseman discussed the new plans with the Board members.
O'Brien: Motion that the alteration/reconstruction to this single - family residential
structure at 9 Pearl Street does not increase the non - conforming nature of said structure,
and that the proposed extension or alternation will not be substantially more detrimental
than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood. That the special permit
criteria set out in the Beverly Zoning Ordinance at Section 29 -27 C (2) (a) — (f) are
satisfied and signatures in favor of the project are on file. I move that the Board grant
the proposed application, subject to the following conditions: (1) that 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. Seconded by Ferguson. Motion carries unanimously. (Houseman,
Ferguson, O'Brien, Brusca, and Margolis in favor)
Page 6
18 County Way — R -10 Zone — Richard P. and Denise A. Dechamps /(Alexander)
Section 6 Finding Request
Attorney Thomas Alexander represented the petitioners. He stated his request was to
allow a proposed 24 feet by 20 feet family room addition and a 7 feet by 24 feet open
deck, to the rear of an existing one - family dwelling, which will encroach 10 feet upon the
required 15 feet side yard setback and will not be substantially more detrimental than the
existing non - conforming structure to the neighborhood. Mr. Alexander stated the
property is abutted on the side by Stewart Avenue, the elderly public housing in the rear,
and a group home on the left side. He added that there are heavily wooded areas also in
the rear of the property. Mr. Alexander stated that because of the water issues the
proposed addition will be built further out back along the rear of the property. He added
that the proposed one -story addition will have a basement below. Mr. Alexander stated
that the specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use, and that the character
of adjoining uses will not be adversely affected. He added that there are no valid
objections from abutting property owners based on demonstrable fact. In fact the
following neighbors signed in favor of the project: Dino & Corleigh Donati, 22 County
Way, Patty Charette, 15 County Way, Bruce Abbott, 13 County Way, Debbie Mahoney,
7 Stewart Avenue, Marjorie Pasquale, 17 County Way, Linda Overberg, 14 Stewart
Avenue, Joyce Oikle, 17 County Way, Peter Johnson, 17 County Way, and Kevin
Ascolillo, 137 -R Bridge Street. (Elderly Housing Director) Mr. Alexander commented
that the manager of the Group Home next door did not have the authority to sign the
petition.
Chairman Houseman asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this
petition. Linda Overberg of 14 Stewart Avenue and Dino Donati of 22 County Way
stated that they were in support of this proposal.
Chairman Houseman then asked the Board members for their questions and comments.
Ferguson stated that he had concerns because the plans submitted for review did not show
how the project would appear when complete. He added that the existing dwelling
contained 720 square feet and that the proposed plan would increase by 480 square feet.
He calculated that the increase in the footprint would be 66 %. Ferguson stated he was in
favor of the proposal. Margolis and Brusca concurred with Ferguson. They would also
like to view what the project would look like when complete. They stated they would
like to have more adequate drawings. Brusca stated the proposal is ok, however, she did
have concerns relative to the drawings. O'Brien stated she was of the opinion the
drawings were good enough. Board members discussed their concerns with the drawings
and then stated they would not hold up this proposal. Commissioner Frederickson stated
the plans were sufficient to obtain a building permit.
Page 7
Margolis: Motion to find that the proposed alteration/reconstruction at 18 County Way
single - family residential structure does not increase the nonconforming nature of said
structure and that the proposed extension or alteration will not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood. Seconded by
O'Brien. Motion carries unanimously. (Houseman, Ferguson, O'Brien, Brusca, &
Margolis in favor)
4 Burley Street — R -15 Zone - Bethany Nottingham
Section Six Finding Request
The petitioner spoke on her own behalf. She stated she was requesting to be allowed a
proposed first floor addition, 4 feet by 16 feet, to enlarge the great room and a proposed
2nd level addition, 16 feet by 24 feet, to contain (2) bedrooms upon a nonconforming
structure that encroaches 5.27 feet upon the front yard setback.
Photographs of the property were submitted for the Board to review. Ms. Nottingham
stated her neighbors were in favor of the project and she submitted a petition with the
following neighbors signatures: Robert and Prudence Eriksen , 8 Hathaway Avenue,
Louise Kennedy, 7 Hathaway Avenue, Margaret Morse of 7 Burley Street, and Michael
Grassia of 1 Hathaway Avenue.
Chairman Houseman asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this
petition. There being no one present he asked the Board members for their questions and
comments. Ferguson asked if she had a copy of the Assessor's map showing her
dwelling and the neighbor's lots. Ms. Nottingham responded she did not have that plan.
Ferguson responded that he usually colored in the abutter's lots that were in favor of the
petition. Houseman stated he conducted a site visit on Sunday. He added that this is
quite a modest replacement. He commented this project would not impact the
neighborhood. He stated that a Section Six Finding was in order here. After a discussion
with all the Board members Brusca stated she would propose a motion.
Brusca: Motion to find that the proposed alteration/reconstruction to this single - family
residential structure at 4 Burley Street does not increase the nonconforming nature of said
structure and that the proposed extension or alternation will not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood. She added
signatures are on file of abutters in favor of the project. 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 Ferguson. Motion carries unanimously. ( Houseman, Ferguson,
O'Brien, Brusca, and Margolis in favor)
Page 8
Administrative discussions:
The Board made a motion to approve the February, March, and April 2007 minutes.
O'Brien: Move that the Board approve the February, March, and April 2007 minutes.
Seconded by Ferguson. Motion carries unanimously. (Houseman, Ferguson, O'Brien,
Brusca, and Margolis in favor)
Mrs. Rogers will give Joel the April 2007 minutes to review again. Margaret will review
the May 2007 minutes, Scott Ferguson will review the June minutes, and Jane will review
the July 24 and July 31, 2007 minutes. Mrs. Rogers will telephone Peg to see if she will
also review the August minutes. Leah Zambernardi must also review the following
minutes: June, July 24, and 31, and August 2007 before I distribute them to the Board
members.
Mrs. Rogers stated that the September (2), October, and November minutes were done by
someone else. She suggested Scott Houseman ask Leah Zambernardi to review them and
if any changes the woman can amend them and send them to the Board to be approved.
The minutes on Holcroft Park Homes, LLC were time stamped on September 5, 2007.
The decision was corrected and time stamped again on October 10, 2007.
Remember to post the Special Meeting on March 6, (Thursday) Councilors Chamber for
Mr. Otis, 2 Greenwood Avenue, Tom Harrington, Attorney
Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.