Loading...
Minutes' 1 y' City of Beverly Zoning Board of Appeals May 24, 2016 at 7pm These minutes are not a verbatim transcript of the public hearing of the Board of Appeals. Reviews of the Board's Decision or outcome of the public hearing should include an examination of the Board's decision for that hearing. Meeting Minutes Members Present: Victoria Burke Caldwell, Vice Chair, Pamela Gougian, David Battistelli, Kevin Andrews, alt., Margaret O'Brien, Alt. Members Absent: Joel Margolis, Chairperson, Jim Levasseur Others Present: Leanna Harris, Zoning Board Administrative Assistant Location: 191 Cabot Street, 3 rd Floor, Councilors Chambers Ms. Caldwell called the meeting to order at 7:01pm. I. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Daniel and Lisa Carnevale In a petition for a request for a Variance to allow for an addition accommodating an attached single car garage with a bedroom above and an attached deck which is 16:8' at its closest point from the front lot line for the garage with bedroom above and 8.2' from the front line for the deck where 30' is required. The property is located at 116 West Street in the R45 zoning district. Attorney Alexander-addressed the Board and requested to withdraw withourprejudice. Attorney Thomas Alexander addressed the board and requested to withdraw without prejudice. MOTION: Ms. Gougian moved to accept the request to withdraw without prejudice. Second by Battistelli. Votes 5 -0 (Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, O'Brien, Andrews) Motion carries. IL NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS A. John Sheehan In a petition for a request for a Special Permit to construct a second floor addition on a nonconforming house with a front yard setback of 24.9' where 20' is required and a rear yard setback of 16.4' where 25' is required. The property is located at 9 Lexington Drive in the R10 zoning district. John and Holly Sheehan addressed the Board. Mr. Sheehan stated they would like to add a second story to their single story home to add an additional bedroom. Nothing will be added on the first floor. Mr. Sheehan stated he talked to their neighbors about the project and provided, with his application, signatures from abutters. Ms. Sheehan stated the house is a cape and has sloped ceilings so they just want to make the top floor square so they can have a square bedroom with taller ceilings. Public Participation Thomas Milianes and Deborah Geary, 3 Medford Street Mr. Milianes stated they have lived in their house for over twenty years and the proposed addition will tower over their property. They are a direct abutter to Mr. Sheehan's property. Mr. Milianes stated Mr. Sheehan originally told them they were just adding a dormer and now it's a full second story addition that will tower over their property and affect their property value. Mr. Milianes showed the Board pictures of the property and Ms. Geary requested to review the plans. Ms. Caldwell read a letter into record from David Keefe owner of 12 Lexington Drive. Mr. Sheehan stated he did go around to all of the abutters and showed them the pictures of the proposed project. Ms. Gougian asked Mr. Sheehan how much higher the proposed addition would be than the pitch of the existing dormer and Mr. Sheehan stated he will need to get that information from his contractor. Mrs. Sheehan stated other houses on the street have done this, it's nothing unusual. Mr. Battistelli asked if the existing bathroom window would be kept the same size and Mr. Sheehan confirmed and stated the addition would have 9 windows. Ms. Gougian stated in order to receive a Special Permit six out of eight requirements have to be met and she reviewed the criteria. Ms. Caldwell stated a Special Permit is not as strict as a Variance and thereforeihe Board has a lot of discretion. ' Ms. O'Brien stated she would like to know the height difference from what is existing, compared to the proposed addition. Mr. Sheehan stated he would have to get that information from his contractor. Mr. Battistelli stated that is a very fair question and he thinks it should have been included in the application. Mr. Battistelli suggested the applicant come back with plans showing the existing house and the proposed addition as well as the dimensions for the windows. Ms. Caldwell also suggested bringing in pictures of houses in the neighborhood that have similar additions. MOTION: Ms. O'Brien moved to continue this application to the June 28 meeting. Second by Mr. Andrews. Votes 5 -0 (O'Brien, Andrews, Battistelli, Caldwell, Gougian) Motion carries. B. Shirley Haynes /Girdler House In a petition for a request for a Special Permit to replace an existing sign with a new and more visible sign 36%2 inches by 47%2 inches, set back four feet from the sidewalk. The property is located at 78 Lothrop Street in the R6 zoning district. On behalf of the Girdler House, Shirley Haynes addressed the Board. Ms. Haynes stated the existing sign is quite old and not very noticeable. The Girdler House is looking to get more visibility. Ms. Haynes explained the sign size, shape and location and stated they will be removing the existing sign. The Design Review Board unanimously recommended the sign and submitted a letter dated April 8, 2016 in support of the sign. Ms. O'Brien stated she is fine with the proposed sign but she likes the existing sign. MOTION: Ms. Gougian moved to close the public hearing. Second by Mr. Andrews. Votes 5 -0 (O'Brien, Andrews, Battistelli, Gougian, Caldwell) Motion carries. MOTION: Ms. Gougian moved to approve the sign at the Girdler House as presented and approved by the Design Review Board. Second by Ms. O'Brien. Votes 5 -0 (O'Brien, Andrews, Battistelli, Gougian, Caldwell) Motion carries. C. Glovsky & Glovsky on behalf of Aileen Torrance In a petition for a request for a Special Permit and Finding to authorize (i) the replacement of an existing porch with an enclosed 12'x8' mudroom and 5'x8' covered entry, and (ii) the construction of a 24'x22' garage addition to an existing single- family property which is nonconforming with respect to frontage, lot area and the northerly side setback. The proposed additions will maintain the existing nonconforming side setback of approximately 4.2' along the northerly side lot line where 20' is required. The property is located at 62 West Street in the R45 zoning district. Miranda Gooding, Esq. addressed the Board on behalf of the Applicant. Attorney Gooding stated the Lot is undersized and has no frontage and the property shares a driveway with 58 West Street. There is a pond at the rear of the property and so there is a wetland buffer behind the house. There is an existing septic system in the front of the house. Attorney Gooding reviewed the Site Plan, an aerial Google map and also the original 1983 land division plan. The applicant is proposing to relocate the driveway and abandon the right -of -way. There would be 3 trees that would need to come down. They are seeking to attach a garage to the house by a mudroom. No new nonconformities would be created by the proposed expansion or relocating the driveway. Thad Siemasko, Architect addressed the Board and further described the proposed plans in detail. Deborah Eliason, Esq., Gloucester addressed the Board on behalf of Deborah Quirk- Timmer owner of 58 West Street. Attorney Eliason distributed packets to the Board and stated Ms. Quirk - Timmer is against the proposed project. Attorney Eliason showed the Board pictures of Ms. Quirk- Timmer's window that would look out to the garage and how the garage would block the light and open space view. In the back yard, there is a patio that Ms. Quirk - Timmer enjoys that would also be affected by the garage. The proposed garage will affect Ms. Quirk- Timmer's daily living while in her kitchen and living room. It's about 4' from her property line and it will negatively affect her property value. Attorney Eliason stated they included an opinion from Caldwell Banker stating how light effects property value. Attorney Eliason stated the applicant purchased this property earlier this year knowing she needed a garage for her father and knowing that this property had limitations. Attorney Eliason stated it's an 80% encroachment into the setback and the Board should not set the precedent. They are requesting the special permit be denied, it will have a negative impact on Ms. Quirk - Timmer's property value. Mr. Battistelli asked how close Ms. Quirk- Timmer's house is to the property line and Attorney Eliason stated it is 12.5'. Ms. Quirk - Timmer has a garage but it doesn't overlook the applicant's property and has been up many years prior to the applicant purchasing the house. At that time the neighbors were in agreement regarding the Variances required to construct that particular detached garage on the Quirk- Timmer's property. Attorney Gooding stated if the Board doesn't grant the Special Permit for the garage they are still intending to relocate the driveway and both property values will increase substantially if each house has their own driveway. Mr. Andrews asked the architect if the proposed addition would affect the historical value and visual appeal of the house by replacing the farmer's type porch with a garage. Mr. Siemasko stated that over the years people have already added onto this house. Ms. Gougian stated when the garage was first planned to be put on the other side of the property was it going to be attached -and Attorney Gooding stated it would have been detached and would have required a Variance. Attorney Gooding stated, Mr. Siemasko met with the parties involved to see how they could alleviate concerns regarding the height affecting Ms. Quirk- Timmer's property. They proposed to take the eave off the roof, lowering it close to 5'. They also suggested planting more buffers to create screening. Attorney Gooding stated they would further entertain more discussions with Ms. Quirk - Timmer and suggested a site visit may be helpful to the Board in making their decision. Attorney Eliason agreed and stated it is important to remember that this is a Special Permit and the applicant is not entitled to this by right. Ms. Caldwell asked about the porch on the applicant's house and stated that it's very close to Ms. Quirk- Timmer's home and if they were out there having parties or gatherings it would affect Ms. Quirk - Timmer. Ms. Caldwell stated that sometimes a garage can add more privacy. Ms. Caldwell asked for clarification as to what room in the house would be looking out at the garage from and Attorney Eliason stated it is Ms. Quirk- Timmer's living room. Mr. Siemasko stated there is a very large oak tree, a dog wood tree, a cherry tree and other vegetation between the property lines. It's very lush between there the proposed garage would be and the lot line. Mr. Andrews stated he thinks they need to separate the two requests, the garage and the moving the driveway. Mr. Andrews stated moving the driveway will benefit both properties because property values will increase, but he doesn't think permitting the garage at 62 West would benefit another property. Mr. Battistelli would like the applicant to find another couple of feet for a buffer. Ms. Caldwell stated as much as she understands the neighbors objections to it she thinks it's an aesthetically pleasing design. Ms. O'Brien agreed with Ms. Caldwell and stated she would like to see the applicant consider a lower pitched roof. Attorney Gooding spoke with the applicant and stated they are willing to reduce the pitch of the room, reduce the length of the garage by 2' and the mudroom by 2' and also put up screenings. Mr. Siemasko stated 21" of height can come off the garage roof height by changing the pitch. Attorney Eliason stated a flat roof would be preferable because then it would be level with the portico. MOTION: Ms. O'Brien moved to close the public hearing. Second by Mr. Andrews. Votes 5 -0 (O'Brien, Andrews, Battistelli, Gougian, Caldwell) Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Andrews moved that the Board authorize a Finding to replace the existing porch with an enclosed 12'x8' mudroom, a 5'x8' entry way and construct a 24'x22' garage with a flat roof the same height as the existing portico and to also include evergreen screening and for the Board to Find that this change will not be substantially detrimental as compared to the existing structure. Second by Ms. O'Brien. Votes 5 -0 (O'Brien, Andrews, Battistelli, Gougian, Caldwell) Motion carries. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Ms. O'Brien moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:12 pm. Second by Ms. Gougian. All in favor.