Loading...
2008-01-22CITY 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: January 22, 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. 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. Assistant City Solicitor Robert Munroe was present for a short Executive Session. Chairman Houseman stated the Board was going into Executive Session and that the Board would reconvene the regular meeting upon the close of the Executive Session. Margolis made a motion, seconded by Brusca to ask for a roll call. Margolis, Brusca, Ferguson, Houseman and O'Brien all present. The Members returned and Houseman called the regular meeting back to order. Chairman Houseman stated that the following cases were continued to this evenings meeting Re: 548 Cabot Street, 79 Conant Street 3 Greenwood Avenue, 44 Sonning Road, and 25 Hale Street. Page 2 Thomas Alexander, Esq., requested that the Board continue his case at 548 Cabot Street to the next scheduled meeting. He wrote in a letter dated January 22, 2008 that he was having ongoing discussions with the City's legal department and planning department relative to his proposal. A waiver of time was signed. A motion was made by O'Brien to grant the continuance until the next scheduled meeting February 26, 2008. Seconded by Ferguson. The Board voted unanimously to grant the request to continue the case to the next scheduled meeting. ( Houseman, Ferguson, O'Brien, Brusca, and Margolis) Discussion: A motion was made by O'Brien for Mr. Alexander to provide the Board with more details and explanations relative to the ongoing discussions with the City's legal department and the planning board, at the February 26, 2008 scheduled meeting. Seconded by Brusca. Motion passed unanimously. 79 Conant Street — R -10 Zone — Mark Pietrini Special Permit Request The Board requested that the plans submitted at the October 23, 2007 meeting be changed. At that time a waiver was signed to continue the case to the next scheduled meeting in November. Mr. Pietrini did not attend the November 27, 2007 hearing. The Board voted unanimously to continue the case until the next scheduled meeting January 22, 2008. A waiver of time was to be signed. Mr. Pietrini did not attend the January 22 meeting. The Board discussed whether to withdraw without prejudice or deny the application. Mrs. Rogers stated she had telephoned the applicant several times and also wrote a letter requesting him to sign the enclosed waiver of time. There was no response from Mr. Pietrini. A motion was made by O'Brien to deny the petition. Seconded by Ferguson. That motion was withdrawn. Following a discussion among Board members a new motion was made by Margolis to grant the petition. Seconded by Ferguson. Motion did not carry. 0 — 5. Application denied. 3 Greenwood Avenue — R -45 Zone — Michael Otis An Appeal from an Administrative Decision A letter dated January 18, 2008 was submitted to the Board from Attorney Thomas Harrington of Miyares and Harrington LLP representative of the petitioner Michael Otis regarding 3 Greenwood Avenue. He respectfully requested that the petition be continued until the next meeting of the Board of Appeals. He added that Board member Jane Brusca will likely recuse herself from consideration of this matter. It appears therefore, that there will only be four members of the Board sitting at the January 22, 2008 hearing. He stated he believed that his client would be prejudiced by the need to obtain a unanimous 4 -0 vote, rather than the supermajority 4 -1 vote required by statute. He added accordingly, he was requesting that the hearing be continued until the next hearing to allow sufficient time to appoint a new Board member. Page 3 Brian M. Hurley, of Rackemann Sawyer & Brewster, Counsellor's at Law, representative of Ben and Adrienne Stinson, owners of 3 Greenwood Avenue submitted a letter dated January 22, 2008. Mr. Hurley stated that they did not believe that having only four Board members available was reason to have the hearing continued. He added that his clients are anxious to promptly resolve this appeal. Chairman Houseman stated he spoke to Mr. Hurley and Mr. Harrington during a three - way telephone conversation today. He added that an agreement was made. Mr. Harrington requested the proposal be continued. A waiver of time was signed. A motion was made by O'Brien to grant the continuance until the next scheduled meeting February 26, 2008. Seconded by Ferguson. The Board voted to grant the request to continue the case to the next scheduled meeting. Motion carried 4 -0. (Houseman, Ferguson, Margolis, and O'Brien) ( Brusca recused) 44 Sonnin2 Road — R -10 - Ralph J. Schiavone To Modify a Variance granted June 26, 2007 David Jaquith, Architect spoke on behalf of the petitioner at the November 27, 2007 hearing. After a discussion he requested to have the case continued to the next scheduled meeting in January, 2008. At the January 22, 2008 hearing Mr. Schiavone requested to have the case withdrawn without prejudice. He commented that the existing new foundation was cut to meet the current setbacks. A motion was made by Margolis to allow Mr. Schiavone to withdraw without prejudice his petition. Seconded by Brusca. The Board voted unanimously to grant the request to withdraw without prejudice the petition. (Houseman, O'Brien, Ferguson, Brusca, and Margolis) 25 Hale Street — R -6 Zone — Mavis W. Jaworski, Trustee of Broken Arrow Realty Variance Request At the November 27, 2007 hearing, Philip C. Wysor, Attorney from Glovsky and Glovsky represented the petitioner. A letter dated November 27, 2007 stated that on behalf of his client, he would like to request a continuance of tonight's hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals to the next scheduled meeting on January 22, 2008. At the January 22, 2008 hearing, Mr. Wysor then submitted another letter dated December 13, 2007 stating that his client has decided not to go forward at this time with her application for a Variance, which is pending. He requested that the Board allow the application to be withdrawn without prejudice. A motion was made by O'Brian to grant Mavis W. Jaworski to withdraw without prejudice the application. Seconded by Ferguson. The Board voted unanimously to grant Page 4 the request to withdraw without prejudice the petition. (Houseman, Ferguson, O'Brien, Brusca, and Margolis in favor) 42 South Terrace — R -10 Zone — Thomas Barrowclough Finding Request Thomas Barrowclough spoke on his own behalf. He stated his request is for a change to a non - conforming one - family structure. To add a proposed additional story over the existing footprint. The addition will contain bedroom, office, full bath, and open deck. Margolis stated that he must recuse himself because he knew the applicant. Houseman asked Mr. Barrowclough if he would prefer to continue his case until next month when there would be (5) members to vote on his proposal. Mr. Barrowclough responded that he had provided the Board with all the required information and that he would accept the vote from (4) Board members. Houseman asked Building Commissioner Steven Frederickson if this was a Section Six Finding. Mr. Frederickson responded this petition is a Section Six Finding. Photographs of the existing dwelling and abutting neighbor's homes were submitted for the Board to review. A letter dated January 8, 2008 was submitted from Janice and Robert Hurlbert of 43 South Terrace in favor of the proposed addition. The following is a list of abutting neighbors in favor of this proposal that was submitted tonight: Charles Raymond, owner of 39, 49, & 54 South Terrace, William and Manuela Liss of 41 South Terrace, Linda Richard of 40 South Terrace, Marcie Sidman & Brian Norris, Tim Lundergan of 38 South Terrace, and Leroy Gamble of 69 Shortell 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. The Board reviewed the plans drawn by Integration Jason Gove & Associates, Architects, A.I.A. of 5 Autumn Land in Gloucester, dated 9- 12 -07, Drawing A -1 Floor Plans, A -2 Elevations, Ex -1 Floor Plans, and Ex -2 Elevations. Ferguson asked if there would be any change in the footprint of the dwelling. Mr. Barrowclough responded no, the footprint would remain the same. Ferguson asked if all abutters were notified. Mr. Barrowclough responded yes, the abutters were notified and I submitted the letters of approval for review. O'Brien stated she made a site visit and she was of the opinion that the proposal would not block any neighbor's view. Houseman asked if there would be any demolition besides removing the roof. Mr. Barrowclough responded that the only demolition would be the roof. Houseman asked Mr. Frederickson if this was a Section 6 Finding. Mr. Frederickson responded, yes. Page 5 Motion: O'Brien moved 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, the proposed alteration - reconstruction will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non - conforming structure to the neighborhood, and 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, referred to, and incorporated into, the Board's decision. Seconded by Ferguson. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Houseman, Ferguson, O'Brien and Brusca voting in favor) (Margolis recused himself) 7 Melvin Avenue — R -10 Zone — Owen Mysliwy Variance Request Robert Griffin of Griffin Engineering spoke on the petitioner's behalf. He requested to demolish a non - conforming dwelling with attached garage and reconstruct a proposed dwelling on the existing foundation with footprint additions. He stated that the proposed structure increases the site coverage, gross floor area, and building volume by greater than 10 %. He added that the front yard setback requirement of 20 feet would be reduced to 7.9 feet. He stated that the property is near Danvers and on the Danvers River. Mr. Griffin stated that this proposal had been to the Conservation Commission and was granted approval. He added that the area was within the 100 year flood zone. He stated that as you could see in the photographs that there was a topographical drop off in the rear of the property. He added that a 20 feet wide right of way for a 36" diameter pipe for the City of Salem water main makes it impossible to reconstruct the proposed residence while conforming with current front yard setback requirements. Mr. Griffin stated that the existing front yard setback of 7.9 feet would remain the same. The side and rear setbacks conform to zoning regulations. Mr. James Velleco, Architect, stated the proposed new dwelling would contain (3) bedrooms, full bath, and laundry room on the second floor. The first floor would contain kitchen, dinning room, pantry /mud room, guest bedroom, and media room. The plan is dated 11- 06 -07, scale: 1 /4 "= l' -0 ", drawn by Grazado Velleco Architects, Little Harbor, Marblehead, MA, designated A -1 First Floor, A -2 Second Floor, and A -3 Elevation. Mr. Velleco stated that the open notches of the existing dwelling would be filled in. He added that the footprint of the dwelling would be larger. A breezeway off the new garage would also be constructed. He stated that the proposed dwelling would be wood frame, 9 '/z in 12 pitched roof, wood shingle siding, wood trim and double hung windows. He added that the garage would have a stone foundation because of the drop off Houseman asked what the nature of the hardships were. Mr. Griffin stated the hardships were the flood plain comes to within 15 feet of the front yard and the diagonal watermain Page 6 easement goes through the yard. He added that the height of the proposed dwelling would be 33 feet high, which is 2 feet below the required 35 feet. 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. Brusca asked if the body of the new house would remain on the same space. Mr. Velleco responded, yes. O'Brien stated she made a site visit to the property. She asked if the petitioner had received any letters from the neighbor's across the street from the proposed garage. Mrs. Mysliwy responded that she had resided there for 34 years and that she had shown the plans to her neighbors. She indicated that the neighbor's dwelling across the street is higher up and her plans would not block the view. Ferguson asked the square footage of the proposed new dwelling compared to the existing dwelling. Mr. Vellecho stated that the proposed dwelling and garage would be 1,500 square feet larger, and the old dwelling contained 1,150 square feet. The total square footage would be 2,050 square feet. Mr. Ferguson responded that this was 100% larger than the existing dwelling. A discussion followed relative to the asphalt regarding what was going to be torn up. Mr. Griffin stated that the asphalt is not a sidewalk. He added that the residents used the pavement to park upon. He stated that grass was going to be planted where the asphalt was located. Mr. Margolis stated he made a site visit. He asked if the pavement was city owned. He stated it appeared to him to be a sidewalk. Houseman stated the overall increase of the footprint of the proposed dwelling is large. He added that there are restraints but that he would like to have letters from the neighbors indicating their approval. O'Brien stated the proposed plans for the new dwelling were beautiful but that the plan is out of scale with other dwellings in the neighborhood. Margolis stated that this type of project will probably be a trend now. He complemented the architect's drawings. He added that if the neighbors were not in favor of this proposal that they would be here tonight. Ferguson stated unless he was sure that the neighbor's at 2, 8, & 10 Melvin Avenue had been notified of this plan, he would vote against it. Diane Rogers presented Mr. Ferguson with the abutter's list. Ferguson asked if the notices were sent out return receipt requested. Diane Rogers, Clerk for the Board responded that the abutter's list was not mailed out, "certified ". Mr. Griffin stated he had in his possession return receipt cards that the Conservation Commission had mailed out. After reviewing these cards Mr. Ferguson was satisfied the neighbors were notified. Houseman stated that the footprint and volume will impact the neighborhood. He added that this lot contains 11,000 square feet of land, which is the largest lot on the street. Brusca: Motion to grant the variance to demolish a non - conforming dwelling with attached garage and reconstruct the proposed dwelling on the existing foundation with foot print additions. The proposed structure increases the site coverage, gross floor area, and building volume by greater than 10 %. The front yard setback requirement of 20 feet will be reduced to 7.9 feet, with special circumstances or conditions applying to the land or building for which the variance is sought (such as, but not limited to exceptional topographical conditions which circumstances or conditions are peculiar to such land or building but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located. The hardship Page 7 is the drop off to the rear of the property and the 20 feet right -of -way water main easement. The flood plane encroachment is the unbuildlable portion of lot. Also: Brusca moved 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. The Board made the following findings of fact: Section 29- 28 -C -2 (a) That the specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use, and that the character of adjoining uses will not be adversely affected. (c) That no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result. (d) That adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation and maintenance of the proposed use. (e) That there are no valid objections from abutting property owners based on demonstrable fact (f) That adequate and appropriate City services are or will be available for the proposed use. Seconded by O'Brien. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Houseman, Brusca, O'Brien, Margolis, & Ferguson in favor) 21 Bertram Street — R -10 Zone — David and Janice Reynolds Finding Request Mrs. Reynolds spoke on her own behalf. She stated she was requesting to encroach 12.4 feet plus or minus upon the required side yard setback of 15 feet, with a proposed 3 feet by 8 feet, half bathroom addition, located upon the first floor. Mrs. Reynolds stated that the brick steps would be removed and the existing door would be changed to a window. Photographs of the property were submitted to the Board for review. 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. Houseman commented that the photographs provided indicate to the Members who did not view the site where the addition will be located. Brusca asked if any existing windows would be lost. Mrs. Reynolds responded that no windows would be lost. Houseman asked if there would be a full foundation. Mr. Reynolds responded there would be footings and a crawl space. Ferguson asked if the proposed bathroom would contain a water closet and sink. The Reynolds responded yes, the proposed bathroom is a half bath. Houseman asked Mr. Frederickson if this proposal was a non - conforming structure that required a Section Six Finding. Mr. Frederickson responded yes, this is a Section Six Finding. O'Brien stated this proposal is minimum and will grant reasonable relief to the owner and is necessary for a reasonable use of the building. Page 8 Motion: Ferguson moved 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 proposed alteration will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non - conforming structure to the neighborhood. He moved that the Board GRANT the application subject to the plans submitted with the application being complied with, referred to, and incorporated into, the Board's decision. Also Section 29- 28 C2 A, C, D, E, & F conditions are met. Seconded by O'Brien. Motion carries 5 —0 (Houseman, Ferguson, O'Brien, Brusca, & Margolis in favor) 7. 209 Dodge Street — R -10 Zone — Donald J. Aucone Finding Request Mr. Robert Nelson spoke on behalf of the petitioner. He stated he was requesting to erect a proposed second level addition on an existing legal non - conforming structure that encroaches upon the required rear yard setback of 25 feet by 13.5 feet and also encroaches upon the 20 feet required front yard setback by 3.0 feet. The addition shall contain two bedrooms, family room, office, and 1 '/z baths. Mr. Nelson stated the lot contained a little over 10,000 square feet, the frontage was 89 feet, and that the front yard setback and rear on the right of the building encroached. He added there is currently 3,745 square feet of living space. This would be increased by 950 square feet, making the living space a total of 4,696 square feet an increase of 25 %. Plans drawn by Mr. Nelson dated November 2007 were reviewed by the Board. 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. Brusca stated she had no questions at this time. Ferguson questioned if the petitioner had spoken to the abutter at 2 Elnew Avenue. Mr. Nelson responded that the following letters were submitted to the Board in favor of the proposal: Ann Garrity of 2 Elnew Avenue, David Thibedeau of 211 Dodge Street, Priscilla McKinnon of 207A Dodge Street, and Natalie Saltikoff of 207 R Dodge Street. Houseman questioned the elevations drawn. Mr. Nelson explained and discussed the plans and elevations. He stated the existing roof would be taken off and would be rebuilt in the Mediterranean style of the dwelling. Houseman stated that the letters from the immediate neighbors indicated approval of this proposal. He added that he was of the opinion that the neighborhood would not be negatively impacted by this application. Ferguson: Motion 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 that the proposed alteration - reconstruction will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non - conforming structure to the neighborhood. Therefore he moved 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. Page 9 and that having considered the special permit criteria set out in the Beverly Zoning Ordinance, Section 29 -28 C2 A, C, D, E, & F conditions are met. Seconded by O'Brien. Motion carries 5 -0 . (Houseman, Ferguson, O'Brien, Margolis, and Brusca in favor) 65 Balch Street — R -10 Zone — Mr. Palm Finding Request Mr. Robert McLaughlin, a contractor from Beverly, spoke on the petitioner's behalf. He stated he was requesting to encroach 2 feet plus or minus upon the required 15 feet side yard setback with a proposed shed dormer upon the front elevation and another to the rear elevation of a non - conforming dwelling. Houseman asked if the footprint on the side would remain the same. Mr. McLaughlin stated that he would be extending upward and that the 2 feet current side encroachment would remain the same. He added a new 30 feet wide front shed dormer and an 8 feet wide rear shed dormer would be added. A letter dated December 13, 2007 was submitted to the Board in favor of this petition from Rajiv Sharma of 63 Balch Street. Chairman Houseman asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this petition. There being no one present he asked members for their questions and comments. Brusca asked if the abutter at 63 Balch Street was in favor of this proposal. Mr. Palm responded that Mr. Sharma did provide a letter to the Board in favor of his plan. Brusca asked if this property had Beverly Housing as a rear abutter. Mr. Palm responded yes. Brusca asked if the owner of Lot A was notified. Mr. Palm responded that he could not contact the owner of Lot A. Houseman stated he was in support of this proposal. He added he drives past this property every day. He is of the opinion that this proposal meets the standard criteria for a Section 6 Finding, it would not be out of scale in the neighborhood, it would be an appropriate use for the property and would not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. O'Brien: Motion that the Board finds that the proposed alteration to this single - family residential structure does not increase the non - conforming nature of said structure and will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non - conforming structure to the neighborhood. The Board finds that there is support from the letter submitted from Rajiv Sharma. The Board moved to 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 Ferguson. Margolis asked if the plans submitted would be acceptable by the Building Department. Building Commissioner Frederickson, stated that in order to obtain a building permit the existing plans must be more precise. O'Brien: Motion that new plans must be presented to the Building Commissioner to obtain a building permit. Seconded by Ferguson. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Houseman, O'Brien, Ferguson, Brusca, and Margolis in favor) Page 10 14 Pearl Street — R -10 Zone — Kimberly Darcy Finding Request Matthew Cummings, Architect spoke on behalf of the petitioner. He stated he was requesting to encroach 16.1 feet plus or minus upon the required 20 feet front yard setback with a 7' — 6" by 8' — 0 "one -story bathroom addition and to encroach 6.1 feet plus or minus upon the 15 feet side yard setback with a 26' — 6" by 14' — 0" open deck addition to an existing non - conforming structure. He stated that the petitioner decided to change the plans. Houseman asked "does it increase the amount of encroachment your asking for on either the front or side yard setback ". Mr. Cummings responded no. Mr. Cummings added that the existing historic home has a non - functioning kitchen on the first floor and remodeling it would allow this dwelling to be preserved. He presented new plans for the Board to review. He stated that a new non - conformity has not been created because the addition does not extend past the front and rear lines of the existing dwelling and the deck does not extend past the left and right lines of the existing dwelling. Ferguson asked if there would be any change in the outside. Mr. Cummings responded no. Mr. Cummings stated the exterior materials will be historically correct such as: 4" or less to weather smooth wood clapboards, crown molding to match the existing dwelling at the rakes and overhangs. Houseman stated that he has concerns with the legal ad because it does not mention a kitchen addition. Building Commissioner Stephen Frederickson stated he had the same concerns. After a discussion and reviewing the plot plan Houseman stated he was of the opinion the new plan submitted is not required to be written in the legal advertisement because it will not change the dimensions of the setback encroachments. Mr. Margolis stated that he has no problem with the new kitchen alteration plan because it is not affected by the setback encroachment. Ms. Darcy stated that she had reviewed the new plans with four neighbors for their approval. A list was submitted to the Board of four neighbors in favor of the proposal: Linda C. Cicchetti Birch of 10 Pearl Street, Caroline Page of 24 Warren Street, and two other names that are illegible on the petition. Mr. Cummings stated there are many "bump out" addition type structures at the side of immediate neighborhood dwellings. Chairman Houseman asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this petition. There being none, he asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Houseman stated the first plot plan does not show the proposed addition. He commented that the proposed new kitchen alteration is not affected by the setback encroachments. O'Brien stated that the filler work would not require a finding. She added that this plan would not be more detrimental to the neighborhood. O'Brien stated this was a nice plan. Margolis: Motion that the Board finds that the proposed alteration to this single - family residential structure does not increase the non - conforming nature of said structure, and the proposed alteration will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non- conforming structure to the neighborhood. He moved that the Board GRANT the Page 11 application, subject to the plans submitted with the applications are being complied with, referred to, and incorporated into, the Board's decision. Seconded by Ferguson. Motion carried 5 — 0. (Houseman, Ferguson, O'Brien, Brusca, and Margolis in favor) 126 Park Street — IG Zone — Ruth Britton Finding Request Attorney Mark Glovsky represented the petitioner. He stated he is requesting a change of use on a portion of the subject property from automobile sales, repair and parts storage, to a health club, which will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non- conforming use. Mr. Dennis Britton was present on behalf of his mother, Ruth. Mr. Glovsky added that Mr. Britton also owns the property known as North Shore Volkswagen, which is adjacent. He added that 126 Park Street is located on the corner of West Dane Street. There is 258 feet of frontage, and 114 feet on the westerly side of Park Street. The Lot area is 27,000 square feet, which contains a single story steel building that was constructed in 1973. The Britton family purchased the property in 1972. The footprint is 12500 square feet. The building originally was used as auto, storage and repair, which were permitted as a right in the Industrial B Zone. Mr. Glovsky stated that today, in 2008, the zone was changed to IG (General Industrial). He added that the property is now non - conforming and a special permit is required for auto repair. The proposal is to change the front section of the building for a new use for North Shore Property, Inc./Health Club. The president of the business is Dave Parcardy who is experienced in the training business for health and fitness. He is planning on using 6600 square feet as a coed facility for health and fitness. He explained that for the past 2'/2 years he has another business in Topsfield. The hours of operation will be 6:00 a.m. to 9:00. p.m. Clients have private training sessions with a coach at a fraction of cost. Houseman asked if exercise machines were to be available. Mr. Parcardy responded that his classes are movement fitness. Houseman discussed the photographs that were submitted for the Board to review. Houseman stated the structure or use will not be increase by 25 %. He discussed the Table of Uses listed in the zoning ordinance. He added that there is no residential property across the street. Houseman stated the suggestion would be having a cross training use here would not be substantially more detrimental than what is there currently. Chairman Houseman asked if anyone in the public had any comment or questions. There being no one left in the room, he asked the Board members for their questions and comments. Ferguson stated there was 2,200 square feet of area excluding a couple of offices and showers. He added the approximate size of the room would be 29 feet by 27 feet. He asked how many people would be in a class at one time. Mr. Glovsky responded that there would be 10 to 12 clients in a class at one time. Margolis asked if there was adequate parking for this new health club. He asked about the signage upon the building. Mr. Glorsky responded that the signage would appear before the Design Page 12 Review Board. Ferguson asked if the exterior lighting would remain on all night. Mr. Glovsky responded that the lights would be turned off when they leave the building. A security light would remain on. Ferguson asked how many parking spaces were available. Mr. Glovsky stated there would be 7 spaces measuring 9' by 20', and 4 non- conforming spaces measuring 9' by 5'. Ferguson asked about the bathrooms and if any cleaning solvents went down the drain on site. Mr. Glovsky stated this building has always had bathrooms and only basic soap products would be used. He added that if more parking spaces are required by the Building Commissioner he would ask the land lord to provide them. Mr. Britton stated he could supply more parking to this new business. O'Brien: Move that the Board find that the changes to the non - conforming structure and the use for the building are satisfied in Section 29 -27 E of the Beverly Zoning Ordinance. Seconded by Ferguson. Motion carries 5 — 0. (Houseman, Ferguson, O'Brien, Brusca, and Margolis in favor) Administrative Business Discussed: 10:00 p.m. Chairman Houseman stated that every January a Chairman is voted upon, for the Board of Appeals. O'Brien made a motion to designate Scott D. Houseman, Chairman for the year 2008. Seconded by Brusca. Motion carried unanimously. (Ferguson, Brusca, O'Brien, and Margolis in favor) Houseman stated that a new alternate Board member (Noelle Faris) was being designated for the Board of Appeals at the Councilor's meeting tonight and if passed, she would be attending the February 26, 2008 meeting. Jane Brusca's membership was to be re- appointed. Houseman proposed that if a petitioner does not have photographs of his property submitted with his package the month before, his /her case will be automatically become the last heard. Houseman added that photographs were essential if any member did not make a site visit to the property. Board members discussed the drawing of the plans submitted with a case. Margolis stated the plans need to be drawn to a minimal level. (Mr. Palm of 65 Balch Street drew plans for two proposed shed dormers on his dwelling. Mr. Frederickson, Building Commissioner, stated that the existing plans would not serffice to obtain a building permit. Diane Rogers stated she submits the "List of Rules for Board of Appeals" to every petitioner. Houseman stated that document is too large, people don't take the time Page 13 to read all that material. Building Commissioner Frederickson stated he would compile a smaller scale check off list for the applicants to follow. Houseman stated he assumed the minutes for the year of 2007 have not all been time stamped. Diane stated she would have a report relative to what months of minutes remain to be time stamped, at the next scheduled meeting in February. Meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. 12.