Loading...
2008-06-24CITY 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: June 24, 2008 Place: Beverly Public Library, 32 Essex Street, 7:00 p.m. Board Members Present: Full Members: Scott D. Houseman, Chairman 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 Chairman Scott D. Houseman opened the meeting to the public at 7:10 p.m. He stated that some administrative matters would have to be discussed before any public meeting could be heard. He commented that there were no holdovers from the previous meeting and that tonight's cases would be called in order as written on the agenda. 566 Cabot Street — R -10 Zone — Deborah A. Gauthier An Appeal from an Administrative Decision Request Attorney Thomas Alexander spoke on behalf of the petitioner. He stated this was a request of an Appeal from an Administrative Decision of the Building Commissioner's letter Determination of February 25, 2008: Noncompliance with some home occupation requirements. Interpretation Claimed: Pre - existing nonconforming dimensions and use regarding parking and room used; incorrect information alleged regarding number of employees. Mr. Alexander stated he signed a waiver of time to hold this meeting tonight. He added that Ms. Gauthier purchased the property September 11, 2006, from Andrew Swaine. A letter dated June 23, 2008, from Mr. Swaine was submitted for the Board to review. Mr. Swaine stated in his letter that his home occupation business occupied the Page 2 same area, first floor and part of the basement, as Ms. Gauthier's home occupation business presently occupies, and the parking area was the same as presently for the site. Mr. Alexander stated that Ms. Gauthier did change the parking lots crushed stone materials to the current asphalt. She felt she was bettering the appearance of her property. Ms. Gauthier stated she purchased her building permit on December 21, 2006, to install a new window in the front of the dwelling and to install cabinets, and counters for her home based hair salon. In the basement, the ceiling was dropped and partitions and blue board and plaster were installed, and new plumbing and electrical. (to accommodate hair salon stations) The occupancy permit was issued on January 25, 2007. She indicated that the Building Inspector knew her plans before she purchased the property and he stated her plans were acceptable. She commented that she would not have known where to install the exit signs indicating to customers how to leave the room in the basement where waxing is done in private. Mr. Alexander stated his client is a young 24 year -old woman trying to begin a successful business. He added that one year later she received a letter from Steve Frederickson, the Building Commissioner on February 25, 2008. He stated Ms. Gauthier was in violation of the zoning requirements because only one room is allowed to be utilized in a home occupation and the parking requirements are limited to four parking spaces. The spaces must be screened from abutting properties. Also, the pavement appears to be located within the front yard setback and within 5 -feet of the side lot lines, both which are prohibited by Chapter 29 -25 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Frederickson suggested she provide him with a proposed plan he would be happy to review it. He added that the free- standing sign exceeds the size limit (2 sq. ft.) of Chapter 29- 26.0 -9 of the zoning ordinance. Also the freestanding sign was installed without a building permit. Another complaint at this address was there can be no more than one employee, in addition to the owner, working at the premises at any given time. Mr. Alexander stated his response to this is two fold here. He added that he filed an Appeal of an Administration Decision because Ms. Gauthier is a bonafide purchaser. She obtained her building permit and one year later she received a violation letter. He added that she is using minimal use of her property as a home occupation. Ms. Gauthier stated she could do some landscaping if it was necessary. Mr. Frederickson stated the former Building Commissioner issued Ms. Gauthier's building permit in December of 2006. He added that when he received a complaint he inspected the site. He had not originally seen the plans for the scope of work, nor did he see any floor plans that should have been submitted. He added Ms. Gauthier should make alterations to provide not more than four parking spaces on site. One option would be to place concrete wheel stops, planters, etc. to block access to the excess pavement. The four spaces must be striped, and they must meet the front and side yard setbacks, and they must be screened. Chairman Houseman asked if the use was allowed in the R -10 Zone. Mr. Frederickson responded a hair salon is allowed as a home occupation. He added that a dimensional variance on how many parking spaces could be requested. He stated the parking spaces do go right up to the existing fence. Houseman stated Mr. Frederickson was doing his Page 3 job to correct a complaint. He added that someone in the same prior position had unforeseen the consequences of the permit. Mr. Alexander stated there is only one other employee. He added that Ms. Gauthier also works as a waitress to supplement her income. He commented that the petitioner has a roommate and between the two of them they take up four parking spaces when they have company. Mr. Alexander asked the Board for their discretion in this matter. Chairman Houseman asked if anyone from the public had any questions or comments. Joan Murphy of 36 Longmeadow Road stated she walked past this property quite frequently. She added she never saw many vehicles when Mr. Swaine had his photo business there. She stated presently the lot is hot topped almost right up to the sidewalk. She commented that the salon sign" DiValore" is too large and is illuminated. She commented that there is advertising for nails, massages, waxing, along with cutting hair. Rosemary Maglio of 30 Pleasant Street stated use variances are not allowed in the R -10 zone. She added that only one room is allowed for a home occupation. Jessaca Hamel of Peabody a customer stated she knew the property well. She added that the salon is very neat and clean. She commented that Ms. Gauthier was just trying to earn a living and that she was a benefit to the City of Beverly. John Burke, Councilor, Ward III stated that he never heard a complaint relative to this property until tonight. He was in favor of this proposal. Mr. and Mrs. William Desimone of 145 New Balch Street stated Ms. Gauthier has improved the property since the former owner resided on the premises. They are both in favor of the proposal. Ten abutters and twelve nearby residents signed a petition in favor of this proposal. Mr. Alexander stated the hardship in this case is the building and land was purchased for a hair salon home occupation business. He added that this is a minimum variance request that will grant only minimum relief to the applicant. Chairman Houseman asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Ferguson asked Mr. Frederickson the number of complaints he received regarding this property. Mr. Frederickson responded that he had received two complaints regarding this property. Mr. Ferguson asked if the building permit was obtained from the former Commissioner. Mr. Frederickson responded yes. Ferguson stated he had made a site visit today. He confirmed that during the visit he saw one single employee and one customer. He added that there were 4 vehicles parked on the lot. He commented that approximately 6 -feet of the current parking spaces encroached on the front yard and side yard setback. He stated that he spoke to a utility meter reader from National Grid and he confirmed that the sign installed had been there for approximately one year. Ferguson stated the current sign installed was at least two times the size that is allowed by right. He added that the extended room located in the basement for waxing was not in use Page 4 today. He commented that the room was very clean. Ferguson believes that the parking and sign problems could be dealt with. Brusca concurred with Ferguson. She added that the sign was not permitted and she believed there was an issue with the parking arrangement. She added that some people had no problem with 6 spaces. She stated she would like to hear comments from the other Board members. Faris stated she does utilize all the services provided at this salon. She agreed that a separate room is needed for privacy. She asked if there was another place Ms. Gauthier could do the waxing. Ms. Gauthier stated she had nowhere else to provide the waxing. Margolis asked if Ms. Gauthier knew the requirements for a home occupation before she purchased the property. Ms. Gauthier responded that her plans were approved. Margolis stated he had reservations if the business grew and prospered, where would the customers park. He added he believed there was too much hot top poured in the front yard. He suggested placing more greenery throughout the property by removing some of the asphalt in the front yard to make the property appear more residential. O'Brien suggested placing potted trees along the property. She added let the spaces remain. She commented the current sign installed was a problem. She added that the one room in the basement should be limited to waxing for a home occupation. Houseman stated he could limit the home occupation for 7 years and then return to the Board. O'Brien stated that several neighbor's were in favor of this proposal. Margolis asked if there were two part-time employees. Ms. Gauthier responded she did employ two -part time people. She added however, the p. t. employees do not work at the same time. Brusca stated the variance must be regulated. O'Brien asked to discuss the fact that a variance runs with the land. Houseman stated that the Appeal from an Administrative Decision relates to a second room in the basement and the dimensional variance related to the front yard asphalt issue. He added that there is no supportive evidence regarding the number of employees because they come and go. The Board could uphold the Commissioners decision except for the number of employees, could be overturned. Brusca suggested separating the requests. She concurs that there is no evidence on how many employees worked there. Ferguson: Motion: Relative to the Administrative Decision regarding Ms. Gauthier of 566 Cabot Street, I move that the Building Commissioner's Determination be UPHELD in terms of Interpretation Claimed: Pre - existing nonconforming dimensions and use regarding parking. In terms of the number of employees, I DO NOT uphold the Building Commissioner's Determination because no factual evidence has been presented. Seconded by O'Brien. Motion carried unanimously. (Houseman, O'Brien, Ferguson, Margolis, Brusca, and Faris in favor) Houseman: Continue the same public hearing regarding the dimensional variance to grant relief but draft some kind of restrictions that change the circumstances on the ground rather than limitation. This seems to be the Boards feelings. He added that he did not want the petitioner to go out of business but in the mean time the Board could narrow down what needs to be carried forward until next month. Ferguson stated Ms. Gauthier cannot be using an illegal 2nd room in the basement for one month. Mr. Alexander stated Page 5 that a landscaping plan and the parking plan for spaces could be laid out and presented at the July 22, 2008 hearing. Ferguson stated there is no parking on the right side presently, why couldn't they park parallel, out of sight from Cabot Street? Ferguson: Motion: I move that the Board find the variance request from Debra Gauthier of 566 Cabot Street be Granted for pieces numbered 1 — 3. I find that the Board find 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. 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. 1. That the Board allow the useage of this 2nd room in a home occupation. to provide privacy for customers requiring such privacy for issues of personal grooming. 2. To amend to allow 5 parking spaces where 4 are allowed; can be grouped w /3; to allow the parking within the front yard setback subject to the following condition: That a parking plan be submitted at our next scheduled meeting to address the following: (1) 2 vehicles park on the right — (West) (2) 3 vehicles park on the left — (East) (3) Parking shall be angled and curb stoning; parking to be at least 5 -feet from the property line on both sides; In terms of the front yard setback the existing asphalt be removed and replaced with vegetation. Vehicles be set back away from the front yard setback as possible; and for the property to appear more residential. Seconded by O'Brien. Motion carried unanimously. ( Houseman, O'Brien, Ferguson, Brusca, Margolis, and Faris in favor) (no action on the sign was taken. She could go to the Design Review Board who will make recommendations. Next month the Board would review the landscape and parking plan. Sign open and parking spaces open) 22 and 24 Haskell Street — R -15 Zone — Estate of Robert W. Campbell (1) and David Cicchetti (2) Variance Requests Thomas Alexander, Esq. spoke on behalf of the petitioner. He stated the abutting Petitioner's request was to allow for 85.03 -feet of frontage where 125 -feet is required and a side yard setback for an existing shed and roof over area where 15 -feet is required in order to accomplish a swap of abutting parcels. Previously granted variance decision is Page 6 attached. Mr. Alexander stated that the address #24 Haskell Street was changed to #2 Rezza Road. He added that David E. Cicchetti went before the Board on June 24, 1997 for a similar request. The variance was not implemented because the time ran out. Mr. Alexander stated the owner of the land became sick. A copy of the 1997 variance was submitted for the Board to review. Ms. Nancy Jewell, Executer of the Estate stated the swap never was done because the variance lapsed after one year. Lot B -1B, land of Campbell to be combined with Lot C -1 land of Cicchetti to form one contiguous lot. (Area = 15,000 s. f. plus or minus) Lots C -2 & C -3, land of Cicchetti to be combined with Lot 13-1A land of Campbell to form one contiguous lot. (Area = 17,913 s. f. plus or minus) Utility easement shown is for the benefit of land of Cicchetti. The Plan of the Land was prepared by Douglas Chapman/Bay State Surveying Assoc. Inc. Scale 1" = 20 ft. This plan supercedes the plan by Bay State Surveying Ser, Inc. Dated June 24, 1989. Mr. Alexander stated the hardship is well shown, because of the topography of the land and ledge. He added that #22 Haskell Street has found it difficult to design a new driveway. Chairman Houseman asked if anyone in the public had any questions or comments relative to this request. There being no one present, he asked the Board for their questions and comments. Brusca asked why this was not completed in 1997. Ferguson stated he did a site visit today and met with Mr. Cicchetti. He stated he believed the hardship criteria had been met because of the existing ledge upon both properties. Attorney Alexander discussed the Plan of Land drawing with the Board members. Brusca: Motion: Move that the Board grant the requested variances for 2 Rezza Road and 22 Haskell Street due to the special circumstances or conditions applying to the land for which the variance is sought, shape of the lot, ledge everywhere on the lot, which circumstances or conditions are peculiar to such land but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located and the application of the standards of the Chapter would deprive the applicant of a reasonable use of 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. Seconded by O'Brien. Motion Carries unanimously. ( Houseman, Ferguson, O'Brien, Margolis, Brusca, and Faris in favor) 319 -325 Cabot Street — CC Zone — 319 -325 Cabot Street, LLC Variance Request Attorney Thomas Alexander spoke on behalf of the petitioner. He requested that the variance for this proposal that was previously granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on December 18, 2006, be reissued. Due to delays in the funding process the (1) year period for exercising the variance has expired and the applicant requests the re- issuance of the Page 7 variance and special permit. Mr. Alexander introduced Owens A. McCullough, P.E. Senior Project Manager /Sebago Technics, Richard Cane Regional Director, Real Estate Planning and Development/Flatley Company and Mickey Northcut Director of the Beverly Affordable Housing Coalition, and Don Preston, Chairman. Mr. Alexander explained the specifics of the plan. Houseman asked if anything was changed since the prior decision was granted. Mr. Alexander responded there have been no changes to the plans. He added that there might be minor ones that will come back to this Board. He commented that the date of the plans have changed but they are just copies of the last set provided. He was positive there were no revisions. Chairman Houseman asked if any member of the public had comments or questions. There being no one present he asked the Board for their comments and questions. The Board members had no questions at this time. Ferguson: Motion to grant the variance request tonight that was granted on November 28, 2006. Seconded by O'Brien. Motion Carries unanimously. (Houseman, Ferguson, O'Brien, Margolis, Brusca, and Faris in favor) Northwest of the Intersection of Conant Street and Cherry Hill Drive — IR Zone Curry Architects — Special Permit Requests Melissa Leclerc spoke on behalf of Curry Architecture LLC. She stated she was requesting a special permit for a two phase subsidized senior housing community consisting of a 118 suite retirement residence in the first phase and a 120 unit Independent Living Facility (ILF) in the second phase. The 120 Unit ILF consists of three buildings, 28, 44, and 48 units. There is also a 4830 s. f. community building and six six -stall parking garages. The current parcel will be divided into two lots and a reciprocal parking agreement between the two phases will be filed. The applicant is also seeking a reduction in the green space along Conant from 150 -feet to 75 -feet. She added that the property is located in the IR Zoning District. She commented that this is a Holiday Retirement Phase 4 story residential building. Ms. Leclerc stated the residents could live there month to month. She added the apartments would have no kitchens and there would be no medical components provided. Ms. Leclerc stated that most of the proposed residents would not have a vehicle but would use the transportation vehicle they provide twice a day to go shopping or to the doctor. They would provide parking for visitors and staff Ms. Leclerc stated the community room was made smaller since her submission of paper work was accepted. 150 feet of green space approval went down to 75 feet. Danvers also abuts this property and they were notified of this proposal. Ferguson asked Ms. Leclerc if she had received a copy of the letter dated June 23, 2008 from Kevin Brewer, Vice President of Operations Axcelis Technologies, Inc. Mr. Leclerc responded that she had not received a copy of the letter. Page 8 Mr. Ferguson provided her with a copy. The contents of the letter from Mr. Brewer contained their concerns. He stated while he was fully supportive of development in the City of Beverly the following are his concerns: The development plan calls for the construction of a complex, which will house retirement residences and senior apartments. The planned development appears to be aesthetically pleasant and does not seem to be a project that would be offensive to almost any neighborhood. A project such as this in an industrial area creates a mixed -use environment that may not be a best situation for either the residents of the complex or the business in the area. There is a good deal of delivery truck traffic, a large number of vehicles for commuting employees, and traffic from sales and service personnel visiting the businesses in the park. Mr. Brewer added that some of the issues were (1) the mixed -use environment will inevitably lead to noise, traffic, and or other complaints from the residents of the planned retirement project; (2) Placing residences in an industrial area may impact property values adversely; The plans indicate an anticipated 450 -500 vehicle trips per day to /from the residences. Given that expectation, one of the two driveways shown on the plan is too close to the Cherry Hill Drive /Conant Street intersection. He would prefer to see one entrance /exit to Conant Street directly. He added that if the plan is not modified he would anticipate significant traffic and safety issues at this intersection. Chairman Houseman asked if anyone from the public had any comments or questions regarding this proposal. Rose Maglio of 30 Pleasant Street voiced her concerns regarding high density and the fact the property abuts the Industrial Zone. Steven Connolly, owner of two office buildings located at 138 and 152 Conant Street voiced his concerns. A resident at 24 Eastern Avenue asked if any traffic studies had been conducted as to the impact to the neighborhood. Paul Vitale of the Airport Commission stated he was not present tonight to oppose the proposal but to insure the safety of pilots and passengers. He added that the proposed buildings would be very close to the runway. Mr. Vitale stated the project would have to be discussed with the FAA because they require 20,000 feet between the airport and buildings. He added the other problem is noise because the residential buildings would be under the flight paths. He questioned the height of a 4- story building. Leo White of 12 Stewart Lane and Paul Barnico of 11 Iverson Road concurred with Mr. Vitale. Houseman asked if any complaints had been received from the Danvers complex. No complaints had been received because the complex was further away. Ms. Leclerc responded that the proposed tenants of the buildings could sign a waiver concerning accepting the noise levels at the airport. She added the windows on the proposed buildings could be air tight to block out noise. John Duval of 6 Marjorie Way stated that the airport has been extended since 8 years ago and he is concerned with safety. Rose Maglio stated her concerns with parking, residential neighbors, and only one entrance. She questioned where the fire lane would be. Chairman Houseman then asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Ferguson requested a traffic study be conducted and proof that city services, sewer, power, etc would be available for this proposed project. Houseman stated traffic was a primary concern at the site as well as for the Industrial Park. Owen from Curry Page 9 Architecture stated he would provide subject material to be approved by the FAA in writing to the Board. He added that this project would have less traffic than the hotel that was granted on this property. O'Brien questioned the density of population and the number of people residing at the proposed buildings. She questioned why the 150 -feet buffer zone was lessened to 75 -feet. Richard Crane representative from the Flatly Co. responded that the Planning Board had amended it to a 75 -feet reduction. Margolis stated he was concerned that there was only one entrance and questioned if the Fire Department was aware of that fact. Motion: Ferguson: Motion to continue Curry Architecture's application until the next scheduled meeting July 22, 2008. Seconded by O'Brien. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Houseman, Ferguson, O'Brien, Margolis, Brusca, and Faris in favor) Administrative Business: Chairman Houseman submitted a copy of the "Rules of Board of Appeal" to each Board member. He suggested the following be amended: Page 2 — 3. A One application form shall be filed for each presently sitting member of the Board with the exact number provided by the building inspector' office plus four additional application forms one each for the planning department and the city clerks office and two for the building inspectors office. (total of 11) Add Section Six Finding, and Administrative Appeal to the first sentence. Page 4 j. All applications that include "over- sized" plans (commonly three by four feet ) shall include a reduced size of every sheet of such plans submitted to the Board (both originally filed and as they may be revised from time to time). Acceptable reduced sizes will be 8.5 x 11 inches; 8.5 x 14 inches; or 11 x 17 inches. k. In the Building Commissioner's discretion, when an application is submitted, certain plan requirements may be waived when such requirements would not appear to be helpful or relevant to the Board's review. This discretion may not be delegated. (for example, waiving exterior elevations if no exterior elevations changes are proposed might be reasonable.) However, by a vote of three members of the Board, any such waiver may be reversed during the Board's hearing on the application. An applicant's request for such a waiver, if granted by the Building Commissioner shall not be considered a prejudicial factor in the Board's consideration of the application. 8. Strike that sentence. 9. Add by a vote of four members of the Board for failure to comply with these rules. Page 10 Revised and adopted on January 25, 2005 — change to June 24, 2008 by a majority vote of a quorum of the Board, effective immediately. Meeting adjourned @ 11.10 p.m.