2008-07-22CITY 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: July 22, 2008
Place: Beverly City Hall, Councilor's Chamber,
191 Cabot Street, Y Floor, 7:00 p.m.
Board Members Present: Full Members: Scott D. Houseman, Margaret
O'Brien, and Scott Ferguson. Alternate Members:
Joel Margolis, Jane Brusca, and Noelle Faris.
Others Present: Building Commissioner /Zoning Officer — Steve
Frederickson and Clerk of the Board — Diane
Rogers.
Scott D. Houseman opened the meeting to the public at 7:00 p.m. He stated he would
serve as the Chairman on the continued cases of Deborah Gauthier, 556 Cabot Street and
the Curry Architecture Project, Northwest of the Intersection of Conant Street and Cherry
Hill Drive. He added that tonight's cases would be called in order as written on the
agenda.
566 Cabot Street — R -10 Zone — Deborah A. Gauthier
Variances Requested
Thomas Alexander, Esq. spoke on behalf of the petitioner. He stated he was requesting
to allow for (1) a second room in a home occupation to provide privacy for certain
customers; (2) to allow for 6 parking spaces where 4 are allowed; (3) to allow parking
within the front yard setback; and (4) to allow a 4.84 square feet sign where 2 square feet
is allowed. He submitted a landscape and parking plan drawn by Ms. Gauthier. (6)
arborvitaes will be located on the left side yard and (2) upon the left front yard. (4)
arborvitaes will be located on the right front yard. Day Lilies and hydrangeas would also
be planted. Ms. Gauthier wrote on her landscaping plan that hydrangeas might be too
Page 2
much for the front flowerbeds therefore arborvitaes and grass pots would be placed there.
This landscape plan accomplishes the intent and provides a more residential appearance
in the front yard. (By adding the5 '/z feet from the paving would increase the planting
area by 65 %.) The front yard parking plan indicated (6) spaces (3 on each side) 18 -feet
long by 9 -feet wide and there would be 24 -feet clearance between the parking areas.
Scott Ferguson wrote on the plan "application of Deborah A. Gauthier to the Zoning
Board of Appeals dated May 8, 2008" and today's date July 22, 2008. The parking will
be in and out the same front driveway. Mr. Alexander stated the existing sign size would
go before the Design Review Board for their approval. He added his client would accept
whatever their regulations were. He stated the parking was amended to 90 degree rather
than diagonal, which made more room for planting. O'Brien asked when the plan on the
landscape areas would be completed. Mr. Alexander responded that the landscaping
would be completed the middle of October. Ferguson asked what was under the hot top.
Ms. Gauthier stated there was stone under the hot top but she could add loam and have
raised beds of flowers. Mr. Alexander stated the landscaping plan was not drawn to scale
but he estimated the dimensions would be 5 '/z -feet by 60'. (30' on one side, 40' on the
other side and the 24'opening. Ferguson stated he thought at last months hearing it was
determined that the hot top was to be cut back 5 -feet for vegetation to be planted.
Houseman responded he was not too sure. He added he was not too sure that pots, with
trees planted inside was a good idea. Margolis stated he was of the opinion the intention
at last months hearing was to tear up the pavement. Brusca asked what the cost would be
to remove the pavement. Ferguson stated he was of the opinion that cutting out the
pavement would be approximately $500/600, which is comparative in price. Mr.
Alexander asked the Board if Ms. Gauthier could have until mid November 2008 to
complete the landscaping if she has to tear up the pavement. He added that she would
probably do the work herself.
Ferguson stated he has done several site visits and found the average number of vehicles
parked on the property is 4 to 5. He added that number seems to go down on weekends.
Mr. Ferguson commented that he did observe a motorcycle parked on the property today.
He stated that if he votes tonight for (6) parking spaces to be allowed, (4) would be for
the business and (2) would be for the owner's personal vehicles. He added that he did not
want to observe any more than (6) vehicles parked upon the property. Houseman stated
he would like to discuss the existing sign on the property. He added that a 2 square -feet
sign was allowed by zoning and that the existing sign was 4.84 square -feet. Houseman
stated that the sign is secured on 4 poles that are 4 -feet high. Brusca stated there was
lighting on the sign. John Burke stated he represented the residents as Councilor of Ward
III. He commented that this salon is located on the Rt. IA highway and that there are
larger signs than Ms. Gauthier's in the neighborhood. He added that her building is set
back further than most and he is of the opinion that is a hardship. Mr. Burke stated Ms.
Gauthier obtained her building permit and played by the rules. Margolis asked if the sign
could be redesigned. O'Brien stated she had concerns with the 4 legs the sign was
attached to.
Page 3
Chairman Houseman asked if anyone from the public had any questions or comments.
Joan Murphy of 36 Longmeadow Road stated she was of the opinion that this is a
residential area and the existing sign was too large.
O'Brien and Margolis concurred that the maximum parking spaces be limited to six. (4
for the business and 2 for the owner's personal vehicles)
Mr. Alexander suggested no action be taken tonight regarding the sign. Brusca asked if
the decision was to be separately written and filed and the sign request be carried over.
She asked what size of the sign are we leaving open. Mr. Alexander responded approval
of a sign not to exceed 4- square feet. He added the existing sign would be subject to the
Design Review Board's decision on the design, not the size. The Board accepted Mr.
Alexander's proposal regarding the sign and decided to separately review the remainder
of the variance request as follows: The Board stated to Mr. Alexander that the sign
should be submitted to the Design Review Board for approval with an area not to exceed
4- square feet.
Motion: Ferguson moved that the Board grant that the variance request of Deborah
Gauthier of 566 Cabot for (1) a second room in a home occupation to provide privacy for
certain customers requiring such privacy for issues of personal grooming; (2) to allow for
6 parking spaces where 4 are allowed; can be grouped w /3; to allow the parking within
the front yard setback subject to the following conditions: 3 vehicles park on the right —
(West), 3 vehicles park on the left — (East); Parking shall be 90 degree; be at least 5 -feet
from the property line on both sides; the front yard setback existing asphalt to be cut back
5 '/z feet and be removed and replaced with vegetation for the property to appear more
residential; the bituminous landscaping is to be maintained perpetuity I find that the
Board finds there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land or building
for which the variance is sought because of the distance of the building from the roadway
and the site is located on the state highway; which circumstances or conditions 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; The specific variance was 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. The Board to allow a sign not to exceed 4- square
feet; subject to the Design Review Board's decision on the design, not the size. The
parking and landscape plan, drawn by Ms. Gauthier be complied with and incorporated in
the Board's decision. Seconded by O'Brien. Motion carries unanimously. (Houseman,
O'Brien, Ferguson, Margolis, Brusca, Faris in favor)
Page 4
44 River Street — IG Zone — National Grid /The Sign Center
Variance Request
Mr. Jay Kahn of the Sign Center, representing National Grid spoke on their behalf. He
stated he was requesting a Variance to allow a 30- square feet wall sign where the Sign
Ordinance codes allow them to be only 25- square feet when setback from the street line
is less than 20 -feet. A letter from Mr. Patrick Burns, PE from National Grid, dated April
2, 2008 authorized the Sign Center to act on their behalf relating to applications for sign
permits. A photograph was submitted for the Board to review of the 35.25" by 120"
(29sq.ft.) proposed sign. Mr. Kahn described the sign as white, with blue letters 9 1 /2 "
tall, with a blue stripe along the bottom. He stated the hardship is the request is for a
modest 5 -feet enlargement. He added that there is "0" setbacks at this location. He
commented that the sign is constructed of Aluminum.
The Board asked if anyone in the public had any questions or comments relative to this
request. There being no one present, they asked the Board Members for their questions
and comments. O'Brien questioned how it compared with other signs. Mr. Kahn stated
the other sign was on a different building. O'Brien commented the sign was attractive.
Faris asked if the sign could be reduced in some way. Mr. Kahn responded that he
believed the proposed sign was an appropriate use on a building that size. Brusca asked
to review the pictures that were not submitted for the Board to review. Ferguson asked if
there were any egresses on River Street. Mr. Kahn responded that there were no egresses
on River Street. Brusca stated that a smaller sign might make it more difficult to see the
name of the building. Ferguson asked if the public visits the building daily. Mr. Kahn
responded that the public does not go to the building, only the National Grid crews.
Margolis asked if this request was not allowed would the company then use a smaller
size. Mr. Kahn responded yes, a 24- square feet wall sign would be utilized.
Motion: O'Brien — I move that the Board grant the variance request for the proposed 30-
square feet wall sign at 44 River Street in the IG Zoning District. There are special
circumstances or conditions applying to the land or building for which the variance is
sought which circumstances or conditions 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.
Seconded by Ferguson. Motion DENIED (O'Brien, Ferguson, Brusca, Margolis, and
Faris voted in the negative)
9 Agate Street — R -6 Zone — Robert Gulla, Architect
Section 6 Finding
Robert Gulla, Architect spoke on behalf of the owners Joe and Kim Falloni. He stated he
was requesting to allow a 4 -feet by 5 -feet first floor and 9 -feet by 23 -feet second floor
addition as well as a covered porch to a non - conforming dwelling. Mr. Gulla submitted a
Page 5
site plan dated June 4, 2008, indicating the first and second floors of the proposed plans.
Included were photographs of the property. He stated the dwelling is deteriorating and
Mr. and Mrs. Falloni hope to renovate and restore the dwelling with some minor
modifications so their family can reside there. Mr. Gulla added that the non - conforming
covered patio at the rear of the building would be removed. A letter dated July 16, 2008
was submitted to the Board containing 10 signatures of neighbors in favor of this
proposal.
The Board asked if anyone in the public had any questions or comments relative to this
request. There being no one present the Board asked the members for their questions and
comments. Ferguson asked if this dwelling was built around the 1900's and had only one
foot of setback. O'Brien asked if the carport would be removed. She stated the design
would appear nicely in the neighborhood.
Motion: Brusca: I move that the Board finds that the proposed alteration - reconstruction
to this single - family residential structure does not increase the non - conforming nature of
said structure, and the alteration - reconstruction will not be substantially more detrimental
than the existing non - conforming structure to the neighborhood. The Board finds that
there is support from 10 neighbors based on the letter provided and therefore, 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
O'Brien. Motion carries unanimously. (O'Brien, Ferguson, Margolis, Brusca, and Faris)
(Houseman not voting)
3 Melvin Avenue — R -10 Zoning — Paul Gareri, Trustee
Section 6 Finding
Paul Griffin of Griffin Engineering Group, LLC spoke on behalf of the owner of the
property, Paul Gareri. He stated he was requesting to construct a proposed 20 -feet by 28-
feet first floor addition, a 6 -feet by 24 -feet front porch, a 16 -feet by 28 -feet rear open
deck, and a 1,228 square -feet second floor addition with a 6 -feet by 14 -feet rear
cantilevered porch. The front porch encroaches an additional 5.7 -feet upon the front yard
setback (12.7 proposed) and the rear deck encroaches 13.3 -feet upon the rear yard
setback. (11.7 -feet proposed) He stated the property was purchased December 27, 2007.
The existing dwelling contains 700 square feet of living space and 5,507 square feet of
area. The new proposal will increase the living space to 2400 - square feet and the one -
story dwelling will become two - stories. Mr. Griffin stated the petitioner proposes a
modest and attractive vertical and horizontal expansion of the dwelling. The proposed
front porch decreases the front yard setback in a manner that is consistent with other
dwellings along the street. The proposed rear deck will extend into the rear yard setback
more than 10 -feet from the building foundation wall. The rear yard deck construction is
along the Danvers River. Mr. Griffin added that the proposed addition is not
Page 6
substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. The encroachments into the front
and rear yard setbacks are consistent with neighboring properties, and will not adversely
effect any neighbors. Neighboring views of the Danvers River will not be substantially
altered by the proposed addition. He commented that there is no residence directly across
Melvin Avenue. Photographs of the property were submitted to the Board for review.
Mr. P. Finn of Main Street Architects/Danvers, Ma submitted the proposed floor plans,
and exterior elevations of the dwelling. The first floor will contain family room, kitchen,
dining area, guest room, bathroom, deck, and front porch and the second floor would
contain three bedrooms, laundry room and deck. He added that the owner planned on
saving some of the large trees located in the rear of the property. He stated the
Conservation Commission had no major concerns relative to this proposal. Mr. Finn
stated that the Conservation Commission is waiting to hear the Zoning Boards decision.
The Board asked if anyone from the public had any questions or comments. Joan
Murphy of 26 Longview Drive asked if the Conservation Commission placed any
restrictions on this proposal. Mr. Finn responded the Conservation Commission
requested the owner plant 6 shrubs in the salt marsh.
The Board Members then gave their comments and questions. Ferguson stated that by
his calculations the dwelling with the proposed plans would take up 46% of the lot.
Brusca stated she had no questions at this time. Margolis asked who owned the 2,150
square -feet of land before mean high water mark, before the pier. The response was no
one knew who owned that land. O'Brien stated this was a large addition and that she
was torn on this proposal. She commented that there were abutters in favor. Margolis
asked if this proposal would raise or lower the property values for other neighbors. Mr.
Finn responded that the value of the dwellings would rise. Brusca said she had concerns
with the size of the proposed addition. She added that other neighbors have been
expanding their property. She commented that the overall design is nice. Brusca then
stated she was comfortable with this proposal. Mr. Finn stated the lot is narrow and
2,400 square feet of living area is not really that large.
Motion: Margolis: Move that the Board GRANT the proposal at 3 Melvin Avenue, the
proposed alteration - reconstruction to this single - family residential structure does not
increase the non - conforming nature of said structure and the alteration will not be
substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the
neighborhood. The Board finds there is support from the neighbors based on
letters /petition they provided. The plans submitted with the application shall be complied
with, referred to, and incorporated into, the Boards decision. Seconded by O'Brien.
Motion carries 4 — 1. (Margolis, O'Brien, Brusca, and Faris in favor) (Ferguson voted in
the negative) (Houseman was present but did not vote)
Page 7
18 Bosworth Street — R -10 Zone — Michael Schleuter
Section 6 Finding
Mr. Schleuter spoke on his own behalf. He stated he was requesting to construct a 16-
feet by 10 -feet proposed addition with a right side setback of 10.29 -feet instead of the
required 15 -feet. This addition will not be closer to the sidelines than the existing
dwelling. The addition will contain a bedroom and ' /z bath. Mr. Schleuter does not plan
to exceed the existing footprint of the dwelling or to go closer to side lot line. Letters in
favor of the proposal were submitted to the Board from Jen Ward of 20 Bosworth Street
and Peter King of 16 Bosworth Street. Elevation drawing and plans were submitted
from Peter King, Architect dated June 15, 08.
The Board asked if anyone from the public had any questions or comments. There being
no one present the Board Members discussed their questions and comments. O'Brien
stated she had made a site visit. She is of the opinion that this is a minimum request that
will grant reasonable relief to the owner. After the discussion Noelle Faris stated she was
ready to make a motion.
Faris: Motion that the Board finds that the alteration - reconstruction to this single - family
residential structure does not increase the non - conforming nature of said structure and
the reconstruction will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non-
conforming structure to the neighborhood. Subject that the plans submitted with the
application are complied with, referred to, and incorporated into, the Board's decision.
Seconded by O'Brien. Motion carries 5 — 0. (O'Brien, Ferguson, Brusca, Margolis, and
Faris voting in favor) (Houseman present but not voting)
61 Cabot Street — CC Zone - Real Estate, LLC
Section 6 Finding / Modification of the Special Permit granted December 3, 1968
Attorney Mark Glovsky spoke on behalf of William Goldberg/Real Estate, LLC. He is
requesting a Section 6 Finding to allow the petitioner to eliminate the motor vehicle
repair area within the existing building (gas station) and use the area as additional retail
space or Modification of the Special Permit granted on December 3, 1968. Mr.
Glovsky stated the property has 17,866 square feet of land, 163.95 -feet of frontage on the
southeasterly side of Cabot Street and 141.00 -feet of frontage on the northerly side of
Union Street. The property was acquired by Mr. Wm. H. Goldberg by deed dated May 6,
2008. 16 Photographs of the property were submitted to the Board to review. The site
plan, retail layout, west, north (front), east, and south (rear) elevations were drawn by
Richard W. Griffin, Registered Architect and submitted to the Board for their review.
Page 8
Mr. Muftah Bugazia (Mike) will be the operator of the business. Mr. Glovsky stated the
property is subject to a special permit in 1968 that contained specific conditions. #3 The
station shall operate only between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p. m. daily. There is to
be no deliveries of fuel or other commercial activities outside of these specified hours.
Mr. Bugazia stated he was not asking to increase those hours. He added that he might go
home early on Sundays. Mr. Glovsky stated the proposal is to eliminate the existing car
repair, which is not allowed today and replace the use with a convenience store, which is
allowed. He submitted a list of neighbors who were in favor of this proposal. He added
that several owners did not reside on their property and therefore were unable to be
contacted. Houseman asked whether the Board was to vote on a Section 6 Finding or
Modification of the special permit granted in 1968. Mr. Glovsky responded he thought
he needed a Section 6 Finding and that the Building Commissioner /Zoning Officer
suggested that he modify the special permit granted in 1968. Mr. Frederickson/Building
Commissioner stated use variances are no longer allowed and he is of the opinion the
special permit granted in 1968 should be modified to eliminate the car repair use and
substituted with a convenience store. Mr. Glovsky stated the owner was planning on
repairing the canopy, adding additional landscaping to the property and adding handicap
parking. Houseman asked if this petition would be for a modification or a Section 6
Finding. Mr. Glovsky stated he would ask for the special permit to be enforced and to
modify the changes to the building as submitted, altering the inside space change, and to
allow the gas station use excluding the repair of vehicles.
The Board asked if anyone from the public had any questions or comments. Elizabeth
Lincoln of 7 Union Street. Unit 2 stated the existing floodlights brighten up her bedroom
every night. She added that she had concerns relative to the hours related to delivering
products, and the hours of the daily operation of the business. She asked if the store
would be serving liquor. Mr. Glovsky responded liquor would not be for sale. She added
she also had concerns with the amount of traffic the convenience store would generate.
After a discussion Ms. Lincoln was satisfied her questions and concerns had been
answered.
The Board Members then discussed their questions and comments. Ferguson stated he
was being employed by Mr. Goldberg for a few weeks but it does not have anything to do
with this case. The Board stated he could vote on this petition.
O'Brien Motion to GRANT the Modification of the special permit granted on December
3, 1968 as requested, per Section 29 28 2 a — f conditions are met. She added she had
concern regarding the lighting after hearing from the neighbor on 7 Union Street. She
stated the lighting should be adjusted so that it will not be directed Southward toward Ms.
Lincoln's residence. Margolis stated the Board did not know what Mr. Goldberg's
lighting plans were for the site. He added that the lights should be redirected downward
and not off site. William Goldberg, owner of the property stated he was not aware of Ms.
Page 9
Lincoln's problem of light glare going into her residence. He added that he wanted to
accommodate the neighbors and would take that specific light off the site.
The Board made the following conditions:
1. Lighting to be allowed on the building must all have to be fully cut off
and screened and be pointing downward toward the building.
2. There is to be no interior freestanding lights above 4 -feet.
3. Any freestanding lights that can not exceed 4 -feet must also be cut off
straight and pointing downward and be screened
4. Lights on the canopy will also be full cut off and screened with shields.
5. There is to be no exterior lights along the fascias.
6. Landscaping should comply with the plans submitted.
Seconded by Margolis. Motion carries 5 — 0. (O'Brien, Ferguson, Brusca, Faris, and
Margolis voting in favor)
Northwest of the Intersection of Conant Street and Cherry Hill Drive — IR Zone
Curry Architects — Special Permit Requests
Mr. Owens Mc Cullough, P.E. Senior Project Manager of Sebago Technics Engineering
spoke on behalf of Melissa Leclerc, Project Manager of Curry Architecture. He stated
that at the previous meeting the Board had requested more information be collected. A
letter dated July 11, 2008 to Mr. McCullough stated copies of the final determination by
the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission (MAC'S) on your request for Airspace
Review of the 4 Story Retirement Residence in Beverly are enclosed. The MAC's
assistance is offered pursuant to the aviation law requirements of the Commonwealth.
Although these proposals are not subject to further action required by MAC laws or
regulations, this office may offer additional comments after considering FAA's
determination of its impact to a public use airport or NAVAID facility through the
aeronautical study process. These projects do not violate MAC laws or regulations. The
letter was signed Joanne M. Ruddy, Airport Engineer. A memorandum dated July 16,
2008 from Robert A. McSorley, P.E. Senior Project Manager, Sebago Technics stated he
met with Chief Richard Pierce and his Deputy and Lieutenant on July 9, 2008 to discuss
the proposed Site Plan. The summary of this meeting was provided to the Board
members to review. Melissa Leclerc submitted documents related to the discussion at
last months Zoning Board Meeting. The reduction in buffer document shows that the
150' buffer shown on the survey in Curry's original application is in error, the planning
commission modified the original subdivision requirements in November of 2002 and
reduced the buffer to 75'. Exception 9a demonstrates that Mr. Flatley reserved the right
to waive the restrictions on the parcel under consideration. A portion of a modification to
the purchase and sale agreement with Mr. Flatley's estate stipulates that the project as
proposed meets the intent of the restrictions, and that the document will be signed at
closing. The protective covenants — for reference only shown. A copy of the modified
survey showing the correct buffer along with additional traffic and utility information
Page 10
was forwarded to the Board members for their review. Mr. McCullough stated that an
office building on this site would have much more traffic.
Chairman Houseman asked if any member of the public would like to comment on this
petition. Paul Barnico of 11 Iverson Road stated that this project does not follow the
Master Plan. He added residential is not compatible to the IR Zone. He has concerns
because the site is directly under the flight path. He commented that no resident would
be able to open their windows because of the noise the planes make. He added that safety
is a major concern with him. Joan Murphy of 36 Longmeadow Road stated that currently
the planes are flying in a different direction than they were when Extended Stay America
Hotel was granted on this site. She has concerns with this project. Kathy A. Faulk, Esq
stated she was representing direct abutters of this project, Axcelis Technologies Inc. of 55
Cherry Hill Drive and Connolly Partnership of 152 Conant Street. She stated Industrial
businesses use chemicals that should not be used near residential areas. She added that
Philip A. Baldi Trustee, of 71 Cherry Hill Drive owns property right behind the proposed
site. Ms. Faulk commented that basically all four abutters are opposed to this proposal.
She is of the opinion this proposal could be located in another vicinity. She added the tax
monies collected by the city would be lower being based on residential buildings. Ms.
Faulk was concerned because residential apartments would have the daily burden of the
loud noises from the planes every day. She added that the Planning Board modified the
150' green area to 75' for the proposed Extended Stay Hotel, not this petition. The
discussion continued with the Board members. Houseman requested a copy of the
decision for "Extended Stay Hotel" be sent to the Board members. The Board motioned
for this case to be continued at the August 26, 2008 hearing. Motion granted subject to a
waiver of time being signed.
Meeting adjourned @ 12:10 a.m.