Loading...
2008-05-27CITY 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 out come of the public hearing should include an examination of the Board's decision for that hearing. Board: Date: Place: Board Members Present: Others Present: Absent: Zoning Board of Appeal May 27, 2008 Beverly Public Library /32 Essex Street Full Members: Chairman, Scott D. Houseman, Margaret O'Brien, and Scott Ferguson. Alternate Members: Joel Margolis and Jane Brusca. Building Commissioner /Zoning Officer - Steve Frederickson and Zoning Clerk - Diane Rogers. Noelle Faris Chairman Scott D. Houseman opened the meeting to the public at 7:00 p.m. He stated the first case to be heard would be the continuance of Mr. Michael Hardiman's proposal for the property located at 94 Preston Place. Chairman Houseman read into record a letter from the Director of Development, Justin Belliveau of Windover Development LLC. He stated that on behalf of Windover Properties, LLC he was respectfully requesting that the Zoning Board of Appeals withdraw, without prejudice, the Application for Variances for the project located at 363- 399 Rantoul Street. Windover determined that it is inappropriate for them to continue permitting the project at this time because of the decline in market conditions related to rental housing. Page 2 A motion was made by O'Brien to allow the withdrawal without prejudice. Seconded by Ferguson. Motion carried unanimously. (Houseman, O'Brien, Ferguson, Margolis, and Brusca voted in favor) 94 Preston Place — R -90 Zone — Michael Hardiman Section Six Finding Request Mr. Hardiman spoke on his own behalf. He stated the Board had requested last month that he present the plans of his proposal to four abutters for their approval. He commented that he had contacted six abutters to his property and that only four met with him to review and discuss his proposal. Mr. Richard A. Hrycaj of 90 Preston Place signed in favor of the proposal on condition that the dwelling referenced above will be wood sided. Mr. Mark J. Lamothe of 97 Preston Place and Ms. Andrea Bray of 101 Preston Place signed in favor of the proposal. Douglas and Mary Tersolo of 96 Preston Place were also in support of this project. Mr. Hardiman stated that last month Mr. Tersolo requested time to review the project with his wife. Mr. Hardiman added that the dwelling at 99 Preston Place has been on the market for 6 months. Number 95 Preston Place - he made contact with the owner's daughter but the owners did not return his call. Douglas and Mary Tersolo of 96 Preston Place signed in favor of this petition. They share a driveway with Mr. Hardiman. Mr. Hardiman stated the dwelling at 91 Preston Place was sold but remains unoccupied. 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 what type of siding would be used on the additions. Mr. Hardiman responded that there is painted cedar on the dwelling currently which is expensive. A discussion took place relative to whether Board and Batten or Hardiboard- cement base siding should be chosen. Mr. Hardiman stated he would prefer siding the dwelling with hardiboard with a cement base. He added that he would like to flash the projecting window with copper. Ferguson stated that he felt Mr. Hardiman had met the burden of proof the Board had placed before him last month. He stated he was in favor of this proposal. Motion made by Ferguson that the Board find that the proposed alteration - reconstruction to this single - family residential structure does not increase the non - conforming nature of said structure and the proposed reconstruction will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non - conforming structure to the neighborhood. The Board finds that there is support from the neighbors based on letters submitted. Therefore I move that the Board GRANT the application subject to the plans submitted with the application being complied with, and incorporated into the Board's decision. Seconded by O'Brien. ( Brusca was present but not voting) Motion carries 4 — 0. (Houseman, O'Brien, Margolis, and Ferguson in favor) Page 3 5 Orchard Street — R -15 Zone — Ellen Miller Section 6 Finding Request Ellen Miller spoke on her own behalf. She requested to be allowed to build a 7 -feet by 10 -feet rear laundry room addition and the construction of a roof over the replaced deck. She stated her proposal would not be more detrimental than the existing structure. She added the addition will meet all setbacks. Ms. Miller commented that the previous deck was rotted and that a new deck was constructed. She added that her lot was non- conforming because her dwelling was located approximately 5 -feet from the front yard setback requirement of 30 -feet. Photographs of the property were submitted for the Board to review. Elevation drawings were provided by Meridian Construction, Beverly, MA. A plot plan dated 09 -13 -07 was submitted by the petitioner from Bay State Surveying, Beverly MA. The following abutters signed consent for this project : Francis and Nancy Courchene, 6 Orchard Street, Jacqueline Zoll of 4 Orchard Street, Jo Ann O'Brien of 3 Orchard Street, and Eileen Orner of 7 Orchard 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 for their questions and comments. O'Brien stated she had made a site visit and she is in favor of this proposal. Margolis and Brusca stated they had no questions at this time. Houseman asked if there were any other comments or questions. O'Brien made a 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 proposed alteration - reconstruction will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non - conforming structure to the neighborhood. The Board finds there is support from 4 neighbors based on petitions signed and therefore move that the Board GRANT the application, subject to the plans submitted with the application being complied with, and incorporated into the Board's decision. Seconded by Ferguson. Motion carries 5 -0. (Houseman, Ferguson, O'Brien, Margolis and Brusca) 30 Rowell Avenue — R -10 Zone — Thomas I Hody Section 6 Finding Request Mr. Hody spoke on his own behalf. He stated he was requesting the proposed construction of (3) window dormers on the front roof. He added that the dormers will be within the current footprint of the structure, but will encroach 10.9 -feet upon the required 20 -feet front yard setback and will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non - conforming structure to the neighborhood. Page 4 A plot plan dated July 31, 2007, by Civil Environmental Consultants LLC of Peabody, MA was submitted for the Board to review. Photographs of the dwelling were also provided. 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 stated she had made a site visit and was in favor of this proposal. Ferguson questioned the check mark beside the word Variance on the application. The Clerk for the Board stated the proposal was advertised as a Section 6 Finding request and that she disregarded the check mark. Ferguson praised Mr. Hody for having all the information and photographs pertaining to his proposal. Ferguson stated he was in favor of this application. Ferguson made a motion that the project by Mr. and Mrs. Hody of 30 Rowell Avenue, be GRANTED and that the proposed alteration - reconstruction to this single - family residential structure does not increase the non - conforming nature of said structure and that the proposed alteration - reconstruction will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non - conforming structure to the neighborhood. The plans submitted with the application must be complied with and incorporated into, the Board's decision. Seconded by O'Brien. Motion carried 5 — 0. (Houseman, Ferguson, O'Brien, Margolis and Brusca in favor) 3 Bridle Path Lane — R -45 — David Jepsen /T. Barrowclough Section 6 Finding Request Thomas Barrowclough, Contractor spoke on behalf of Mr. Jepsen. He stated he was requesting a Variance to encroach 7 -feet upon the sideline setback to construct a 14 -feet by 22 -feet screen porch and an open deck on the right side of the dwelling tying into the rear deck. He added that the petitioner's had purchased the property in February of 2006 and had obtained six building permits to improve the dwelling. Mrs. Jepson stated the dwelling appeared to be very dark inside and light had to be brought into the rooms. She added the proposed screened porch would adjoin the family room and would provide her 4, 3, and 7 '/z month old children a safe place to play when outside. The following three letters were submitted to the Board in support of the project from: Rebecca and Derek Smith of 2 Bridle Path Lane, Carl and Phyllis Kooyoomjian of 4 Bridle Path Lane, and Pat Finn - Martens and Leon Martens of 1 Bridle Path Lane Chairman Houseman asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this petition. There being on one present, he asked the Board members for their questions and comments. O'Brien stated that she had made a site visit to the property. She added that the request was for a variance, which required a hardship determination. She commented that she believed there was no other place to build the proposed screen porch. Houseman Page 5 asked the contractor Tom Barrowclough to illustrate on the submitted plans the location of the proposed screened porch. Ferguson stated he felt the position of the dwelling on the lot is a hardship. Houseman stated the side yard requirement in that location is 20- feet. He added the petitioner was requesting slightly 1/3 of that setback requirement. Hardships relating to obtaining a variance were discussed. Ferguson stated the lots of the abutters in favor of the project should be colored in on an Assessors map for reference. Motion made by O'Brien that the Board GRANT the variance due to the special circumstances or conditions applying to the land or building. (odd shape of the lot, the position of the dwelling upon the lot and the fact that ledge is existing on the property) 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. 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 Ferguson. Motion carried 5 — 0. (Houseman, Ferguson, O'Brien, Margolis, and Brusca in favor) 38 Lexington Drive — R -10 Zone — Randy and Lori Reinbold Temporary Conditional /Special Permit and Variance Request Randy and Lorie Reinbold spoke on their own behalf. They are requesting a Temporary Conditional /Special Permit for an accessory apartment on the ground floor of the existing dwelling. (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 (Rene and Marie Soucy) to reside on the premises. Mrs. Reinbold stated her father is wheel chair bound. She added the plan is to construct a bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, closet and storage space within the existing dwelling. She stated the garage door would be replaced with a permanent wall, including entry door and two casement windows. The garage walls and ceiling would be insulated and heat would be added to the unit. The following abutters approved of this request: Andrea and James Trefry of 36 Lexington Drive, Kevin and Susan Anderson of 31 Lexington Drive, Megumu and Masaharu Mabuchi of 29 Lexington Drive, Brian and Marie O'Leary of 33 Lexington Drive, Jeane A. and Glenn Martin of 40 Lexington Drive. Chairman 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. Ferguson asked what was located in the rear. Mrs. Reinbold responded industrial space was located in the rear. Ferguson stated that the immediate abutters were in favor of this proposal. Houseman stated the only changes in the dwelling would be the addition of walls to create a bedroom, bathroom and kitchen. The plan stated the first floor is currently finished, with the exception of the garage. The new work was highlighted on the first floor plan, which was submitted to the Board to review. Page 6 Houseman commented that the Board had never denied a married couple to live together. He added that the standard variance criteria did not apply to this proposal. He stated that there is certainly a hardship for the couple. Brusca stated that #8 listed under Section 29- 24, "Special Provisions for Accessory Apartments ", states that the dwelling unit shall have only one front entrance, when practical. She added that this proposed request had two. O'Brien stated she believed that the mother and father -in -law needed to be able to enter and leave from separate accesses. She added she believed that was required by fire code. Houseman read (10) & (11) from the Zoning Ordinance that per Section 29 -24 11, upon the death of the designated occupant's or transfer of ownership of the premises, the temporary Conditional Permit for the accessory apartment shall terminate. He added that the kitchen built as a result of the temporary Conditional Permit shall be removed by the owner (90) days after the designated occupants leave and the dwelling will then revert back to a single - family residence. Brusca questioned line item #9 of Section 29 -24 -C, regarding the two dwellings units shall contain no more than (5) bedrooms. Houseman stated the Board should make two separate motions. Ferguson: I move that the Board GRANT the Temporary Conditional Permit for an accessory apartment at 38 Lexington Drive. The proposed alterations will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non - conforming structure to the neighborhood subject to the (12) signatures from abutters that were submitted to the Board in favor of the proposal. The plans submitted with the application shall be incorporated into the Board's decision. Seconded by O'Brien. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Houseman, Ferguson, O'Brien, Brusca, and Margolis. Ferguson: made a motion to GRANT the Variance to allow both mother and father -in- law to reside on the premises in the accessory apartment. Seconded by O'Brien. Amendment: Ferguson stated the name of the mother and father -in -law (Rene and Marie Soucy) must be recorded in the decision. Seconded by O'Brien. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Houseman, Ferguson, O'Brien, Margolis, and Brusca in favor) 43 Cole Street — R -15 Zone — Gunter and Stephanie Steege/T.Frangos Section 6 Finding Request Thomas Frangos, Contractor, spoke on behalf of Mr. Steege. He stated the request to construct a master bedroom addition which is (Option A) 25 -feet by 28 -feet 2nd floor addition or (Option B) a 12 -feet by 20 -feet extension at the rear of the existing garage. The right side yard setback encroaches 12.90 -feet and the left side encroachment is 6.60 - feet. Mr. Frangos asked that the Board to grant both Option A and Option B to the petitioner so he could choose which design he preferred. After a discussion the Board members responded to Mr. Frangos that the petitioner must choose Option A or Option B, then the Board would vote on that proposal. Mr. Frangos then requested that he be Page 7 allowed to choose Option B, but enlarge the design from 12 -feet by 20 -feet to 15 -feet by 20 -feet. Ferguson stated the public records indicate a plan 12 -feet by 20 -feet and therefore Mr. Frangos could not extend the design to 15 -feet by 20 -feet. The Board discussed the options with Mr. Steege, the owner of the property. Mr. Steege was indecisive. Gail and David Overberg of 2 Thomas Road indicated their support for Option A or B. John Taylor of 41 Cole Street was also in favor of this plan. Margolis asked if on Option B the project would be constructed in the rear yard. Brusca questioned the height and lines of the roof upward and downward. A discussion followed about ledge lines locations. Brusca specified that the contractor did not provide enough information and photographs of how the project would appear when completed. She added that if the petitioner chooses Option A, she believes the neighbors would be affected. She commented that the front elevation drawings of Option B and photos of the front of the dwelling would be required. O'Brien stated if the footprint of the proposal were to change a new scale would have to be presented to the Board to review. Houseman reviewed the proposed Option A design and stated he was not too enthused with it. He suggested if Mr. Steege chose Option B, to advertise the legal ad without Option A. Board members discussed the project and a motion was made by Ferguson to Withdraw Without Prejudice the petition. Seconded by O'Brien. Motion carried 5 — 0. (Houseman, Ferguson, O'Brien, Margolis and Brusca in favor) Meeting adjourned 9:15 p.m. by Scott Houseman, Seconded by Ferguson. All members in favor.