Loading...
ZBA Minutes 5 24 2018City of Beverly Zoning Board of Appeals May 24, 2018 at 7:00 pm 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 Chairperson; David Battistelli; Jim Levasseur, Margaret O'Brien, alt., Kevin Andrews, alt. Members Absent Joel Margolis, Chairperson, Pamela Gougian, Stefano Basso, alt. Others Present Steve Frederickson, Building Commissioner Leanna Harris, Zoning Board Administrative Assistant Location 191 Cabot Street, 3rd. Floor, Council Chamber Ms. Caldwell began the meeting at 7:00 pm. and introduced the Board members present. I. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Joshua and Jennifer Morris In a petition for a request for a Special Permit to construct a rear two -story addition with a side setback of 13.8' where 15' is required. Addition will be no closer to the property line than the existing house. The property is located at 38 Budleigh Avenue in the R -10 zoning district. Joshua and Jennifer Morris addressed the Board and stated they would like to build a two story addition on the rear right side of their nonconforming home including a mudroom off the front of the addition. The home was built pre - zoning. The proposed addition would align with the existing left side of the house. There is an existing bump out and a deck which will be removed and replaced by the addition. The main motivation is to create a functional kitchen. The floor plan of their house makes it difficult to reconfigure the layout without considering an addition. The scale and size of the proposed addition is fitting with the neighborhood. Ms. Morris stated they purchased the home in 2010 and have invested in it significantly. They have received positive feedback from their neighbors and their application includes 21 signatures in favor including their two closest abutters. No members of the public spoke in favor or opposition. Mr. Andrews asked what type of windows will be installed and Mr. Panzero clarified. Mr. Battistelli stated the request is reasonable and won't be a detriment to the neighborhood. Page 1 of 9 MEAM& MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to close the public hearing. Second by Ms. O'Brien. Votes in favor 5 -0 (Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, O'Brien, Andrews). Motion carries. MOTION: Ms. O'Brien moved to GRANT the Special Permit for 38 Budleigh Avenue to build a 2 -story addition with a side setback of 13.8' where 15' is required, subject to the plans submitted. Second by Mr. Battistelli. Votes in favor 5 -0 (Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, O'Brien, Andrews). Motion carries. B. Margaret McInnis In a petition for a request for a Special Permit/Finding to construct a rear addition with a right side setback of 4.4' where 15' is required. Addition is to be no closer to the property line than existing house. The property is located at 4 Goodwin Road in the R -15 zoning district. Margaret McGinnis addressed the Board and stated she is looking to put a small addition on the back of her house. Currently there is a 5'x11' deck and she would like the addition to be 10'x25' which would bring it to the end of the house. Ms. McInnis stated she is redoing her kitchen and she would like to bring her laundry upstairs and this would add the additional space needed. Howard Hackett, 6 Goodwin Road stated he is in favor of the project, it is wonderful. Mr. Levasseur stated this is a modest request and the closest abutter is in favor. Mr. Battistelli agreed. MOTION: Mr. Battistelli moved to close the public hearing. Second by Ms. O'Brien. Votes in favor 5 -0 (Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, O'Brien, Andrews). Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Andrews moved to make a Finding that the proposed addition is not any more detrimental to the neighborhood than what currently exists nor will it negatively impact the homes in the neighborhood and will encroach no further into the side lot line than the existing structure, subject to the plans submitted. Second by Ms. O'Brien. Votes in favor 5 -0 (Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, O'Brien, Andrews). Motion carries. C. Windover McKay LLC In a petition for a request for a Special Permit under Section 300 -72 of the Ordinance to install 2 banner signs on primary and secondary facade for ongoing temporary use annually between the months of April and September. The property is located at 131 McKay Street in the R -10 zoning district. Michael Dissette, Esq. (Glovsky & Glovsky) addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant and stated they are seeing a Special Permit for temporary wall (banners) signs for the McKay Apartments. The signs would cover two elevations for a temporary period of time and they are hoping to have the banners approved to be used during that time frame annually from April to Page 2 of 9 September, as needed. Atty. Dissette stated if there are no vacancies, the signs would not go up. It will allow them to keep the building fully rented. The Design Review Board submitted a recommendation on May 4 th and agreed with the applicant that the signs and design respect the architecture and fit in with the building. Euplio Marciano, 141 McKay Street Mr. Marciano stated he agrees with the signs going up from April through September but he doesn't think they should be able to put them out randomly and annually. Mr. Marciano stated he is unhappy with Windover, they aren't complying with their agreement. Mr. Marciano stated in the winter Windover completely blocks the property by plowing snow right up on the walkway as well as leaving a trash enclosure right up against the walkway. Mr. Marciano stated Windover never put benches in and had stated they would. Atty. Dissette stated this is the first he is hearing of these issues and that they should be raised with the applicant. These issues do not pertain to their sign request in front of the Board today. Ms. Caldwell asked Mr. Frederickson if there is anything in the Ordinance that prevents Windover from getting a Special Permit if they aren't complying with the terms of their agreement. Mr. Frederickson stated only if there are outstanding fees. Mr. Andrews stated he is concerned about ongoing signs on Rantoul Street since it is on the edge of a residential neighborhood. Ms. Caldwell agreed and stated she is reluctant to approve that part of the request. Mr. Battistelli agreed. Atty. Dissette stated these signs are needed for the marketing of this business. The sign received the Design Review Board's unanimous approval. Mr. Andrews stated he does not see the need to have a rotating sign up there and it is also setting a precedent. Ms. Caldwell stated the sign is facing the road, not residential property. Atty. Dissette clarified. Ms. Caldwell stated she is not keen on giving approval for them to put the sign up over and over again. Mr. Battistelli asked Atty. Dissette what he anticipated Windover to do about snow removal. Ms. Poulin (Beverly Crossing) addressed the Board and stated the neighbor raised that concern with them as well and Windover addressed the issue as soon as possible but Mother Nature beat them to it. Ms. Poulin stated it is not their intention to put snow on the walkway, it was a miscommunication. Mr. Battistelli asked about the benches that were supposed to go in and the trash enclosure right up against the walkway. Ms. Poulin stated they had an approved trash enclosure in one location but they moved it and put a larger facility in. They have talked with neighbors who expressed they didn't like it there and it is Windover's intention to move it and have gates surrounding the enclosure. Mr. Andrews stated he doesn't have any problem with the design of the sign he just doesn't think it's appropriate to have this type of sign next to a residential area on an ongoing basis. Ms. O'Brien agreed that it should not be automatically renewed and stated there is a point where everyone knows it's an apartment building. Page 3 of 9 Ms. Caldwell stated she is fine with the Design Review Board approval but she would like to limit the amount of time it is up. Mr. Andrews stated he would like Windover reminded about the public art they were to display. MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to close the public hearing. Second by Ms. O'Brien. Votes in favor 5 -0 (Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, O'Brien, Andrews). Motion carries. Atty. Dissette stated they would like to amend the request to state from April 2018 through September 30 2018 with a condition that they come back before this Board with another request but would they like the opportunity to report back with the result of their trial and see if they can remove that condition. MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to GRANT the Special Permit at 131 McKay Street for the display of two banner signs as approved by the Design Review Board from April 2018 to September 30, 2018. Any future requests to post signs will require returning to the Board for further approval. Second by Mr. Battistelli. Votes in favor 5 -0 (Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, O'Brien, Andrews). Motion carries. II. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. United Sign Company, Inc. o/b /o LexaGene In a petition for a request for a Special Permit to install one 30 "x237.5 "x 48" sign above the fifth floor windows of Building 500 on the east fagade near the northeast corner. The property is located at 181 Elliot Street in the IG zoning district. Ed Juralewicz, United Sign addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant and stated LexaGene Technologies is a biotech company that will be occupying 17,000 square feet of Building 500 with approximately 25 employees. The applicant is looking to display a sign above the 5 th story of the east side of Building 500. LexaGene is a new company with lots of new clients coming in. The majority of people coming into Cummings Center enter from Elliot Street and this is the first place they would see a sign on this building. The sign would face into the center of the parking lot and granting a Special Permit would not adversely affect the neighborhood. The sign is LED illuminated similar to other signs in the Cummings Center and is far enough into the complex that it will not cast any light on adjacent properties. It will not be a burden on utilities and will effectively direct clients where to go. No members of the public spoke in favor or opposition. The Design Review Board approved the sign design and submitted a recommendation. Page 4 of 9 MOTION: Mr. Andrews moved to close the public hearing. Second by Ms. O'Brien. Votes in favor 5 -0 (Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, O'Brien, Andrews) Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Andrews moved to GRANT the Special Permit for the Lexagene Technologies sign to be placed above the 5 th story on the east side of Building 500, subject to the plans submitted and as approved by the Design Review Board. Second by Ms. O'Brien. Votes in favor 5 -0 (Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, O'Brien, Andrews) Motion carries. B. Glovsky & Glovslcy o /b /o Sohier Road Self Storage, LLC In a petition for a request for a Special Permit to authorize a self storage facility in an IR zoning district under Section 300- 42C(1)(i) and a Variance to allow 45% lot coverage by buildings where 40% is the maximum allowed under Section 300- 42D(1) and a Finding under General Laws Chapter 40 A, Section 6 to authorize the continued nonconforming parking setbacks (9.7ft/11.9ft/12.8ft) where a minimum of 15' is required, and continued lot coverage by impervious areas of approximately 82% where 60% is the maximum allowed. The property is located at 130 Sohier Road in the IR zoning district. Miranda Gooding, Esq. (Glovsky & Glovsky) addressed the Board and stated the request for zoning relief has been reduced from what was originally filed. The Applicant has submitted new plans such that there is no longer a need for a Variance with respect to lot coverage or a Finding with respect to parking setbacks and has minimized its request so that it is only seeking a Special Permit to authorize a self - storage facility which is a Use allowed by Special Permit in the Industrial District and a Finding to allow the continuation of an existing nonconformity with respect to lot coverage by impervious surfaces. The new design will actually improve the existing nonconformity with respect to lot coverage by impervious surfaces from 82% to 81% but will still exceed the 60% maximum in the Ordinance. There is a purchase and sale agreement in place, subject to permits being approved for the site, and the Applicant and the owner are hoping to close as soon as possible. Atty. Gooding reviewed the Site Plan and the overall plans and changes made from the original application. She stated that the Use satisfies the criteria for a Special Permit in the IR district, it generates very little traffic and any traffic tends to be off hours. She stated that it would be an appropriate use for the area where there are already traffic concerns regarding the planned Whole Foods Plaza and the proposed self storage does meet a community need. Storage in the main building will be climate controlled and there will be ample security. There will be elevator access as well. There will be approximately 890 storage units. A letter was distributed to the Board from Margaret Breen, on behalf of her family's realty trust which owns the property, describing the process they have gone through relating to the sale of this property and indicating that among the offers the family had received, they viewed the Applicant's offer as the least disruptive to the surrounding neighbors. Page 5 of 9 C� -- Thomas Ford, Manager of Beverly Airport Self Storage, LLC, submitted a letter in opposition to the request and addressed the Board. He stated that although he is happy to see the request for a Variance has been removed from the petition, he still objects to the permitting of additional self - storage in the City where he had purchased City -owned land in response to a Request for Proposals (RFP). Mr. Ford proposed a self - storage use for the property in December 2015 and from the City until November 2017 after he applied for and received decisions from City boards allowing the self - storage facility to be constructed on the site, including a special permit from the this Board. His deed includes a restriction requiring the property to be developed in accordance with the accepted RFP — self - storage. Mr. Ford stated that it was fundamentally unfair for the Board to grant the Special Permit to the Applicant where it could be fatal to his own project that the City had selected through the RFP process and that had taken two years to get underway. Atty. Gooding submitted a market analysis by Sovereign Realty Advisors into the record. The market analysis outlined that there is ample room for additional self - storage facilities in Beverly such that both Mr. Ford's project and that of the Applicant would not exceed the demand for self - storage. Atty. Gooding added that the Applicant has requested to meet with Mr. Ford on more than one occasion to discuss the timeline of these storage facilities. Airy. Gooding stated the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to identify areas in the City that are appropriate for various uses and that Mr. Ford's complaints were in essence about competition between two commercial uses, which is not an interest protected by the Zoning Ordinance. Attorney Gooding stated that the written application outlines that 130 Sohier Road is a perfect location for this Use and is entitled to a Special Permit from this Board. In its discussion, the Board members agreed that its decision must rest on the merits of the Applicant's petition with respect to zoning and cannot consider the relative fairness of permitting a second self - storage facility within the City after the City had entered into an agreement with Mr. Ford to sell City property for use as a self - storage facility. Mr. Levasseur asked how long the lighting will be on and also what is the access limit since it is across from a residential area. Atty. Gooding stated it will be a 24 -hour facility with security (cameras and key fobs) and lighting will be appropriately scaled and downcast. Mr. Andrews asked if there are any plans for solar and the Applicant stated 46,000 sq. feet is planned. Ms. Caldwell asked how many employees there will be and the Applicant stated two full -time employees are anticipated. MOTION: Mr. Andrews moved to close the public hearing. Second by Ms. O'Brien. Votes in favor 5 -0 (Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, O'Brien, Andrews). Motion carries. Mr. Levasseur stated this Use will not create a lot of traffic and will be much less than the roller palace. Page 6 of 9 P AR �. M Ms. Caldwell asked how many storage units there will be and Atty. Gooding stated about 890 units. MOTION: Mr. Andrews moved to GRANT a Special Permit at 130 Sohier Road to authorize the Use of a self storage facility in the IR district, subject to the revised plans submitted. Second by Ms. O'Brien. Votes in favor 5 -0 (Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, O'Brien, Andrews) Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Andrews moved to Find that the 81 % continued lot coverage by impervious areas where 60% is the maximum allowed will not be more detrimental than the 82% which exists currently exists. Second by Mr. Levasseur. Votes in favor 5 -0 (Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, O'Brien, Andrews) Motion carries. C. Alexander & Femino o/b /o Paxos LLC In a petition for a request for a Variance to allow a third unit to the existing two family dwelling to be located on the third floor. Currently the unit that occupies the second and third floor has 4 bedrooms. Allowing a new third floor unit would result in the same number of bedrooms on the second and third floor since each unit will have 2 bedrooms, for a total of the same number of bedrooms (4) on the second and third floor. The property is located at 22 Bartlett Street in the RMD zoning district. Tom Alexander, Esq. (Alexander & Femino) addressed the Board on behalf of Paxos LLC and stated the property is an existing two family where the third floor has been built out for at least a 100 years. The property is an existing two unit building. The applicant is looking to reconfigure the third floor and add a kitchen resulting in a separate 2- bedroom unit which will be contained within the existing footprint. There would be the same number of occupants in the building which is located in the RMD multi - family district. This particular area has more than 8 buildings that have 3 or more units within 300 feet of this building. The applicant is seeking a dimensional Variance because the Lot is 7,950 sq. feet and they don't have enough square feet to get an additional unit by right. Atty. Alexander distributed an Assessors Map to the Board and stated although the Lot is undersized for current zoning it is more than accurate for this area and is one of the largest parcels in the area. There will be two piggy back parking spaces per unit as allowed under the ordinance. The unit on the second and third floor is a four bedroom unit which is extremely difficult to rent out and is often rented out to college students. A four bedroom unit is not a reasonable use of the property, it is difficult to rent and the applicant is being deprived of reasonable use of the property. The minimum Variance requested will give the applicant relief. They will end up with the same number of bedrooms just configured differently. The plans submitted show secondary access to the third floor. Nearby buildings are multi families and so this request keeps with the neighborhood. Atty. Alexander distributed a signed petition by immediate abutters in favor of this petition. Page 7 of 9 s.' y The character of adjoining uses is not adversely affected but will actually be improved based on the types of tenants renting a 2- bedroom unit versus a 4- bedroom unit. There will be no undue traffic created and there are adequate City facilities and services available. No members of the public spoke in favor or opposition. Ms. O'Brien stated the Bartlett Street houses didn't sign off on the petition and Tom Keeley stated the owner doesn't live there and will be putting the house on the market shortly. Ms. O'Brien asked if the signatures are renters or owners and Mr. Keeley stated the direct abutters are owners but some signatures are from renters. Mr. Levasseur asked if the highlighted properties on the Assessor's Map that have significantly smaller lot sizes are also multi family and Atty. Alexander clarified. Mr. Andrews asked if curb cuts will be added and Mr. Keeley stated they are piggy backed parking spots and so they don't need additional curb cuts. Ms. Caldwell asked if this is located in the historic property district and Atty. Alexander stated it is just outside of it. Mr. Battistelli asked if it's been deleaded and Mr. Keeley confirmed. Ms. Caldwell stated having more housing without increasing a footprint is beneficial, especially in a walkable neighborhood like this one. MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to close the public hearing. Second by Ms. O'Brien. Votes in favor 5 -0 (Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, O'Brien, Andrews) Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Andrews moved to GRANT a dimensional Variance to allow the addition of a kitchen on the third floor to create a 2 bedroom unit within the existing envelope of the building on a 7,950 sq. ft. lot, where 12,000 sq. ft. is required, with the addition of a second egress porch, subject to the plans submitted. Second by Ms. O'Brien. Votes in favor 5 -0 (Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, O'Brien, Andrews) Motion carries. Page 8 of 9 III. OTHER BUSINESS A. Minutes MOTION: Mr. Battistelli moved to approve the Minutes from April 26, 2018 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Second by Mr. Levasseur. All in favor. Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to approve the Minutes from March 22, 2018 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Second by Mr. Andrews. All in favor. Motion carries. B. Adjournment MOTION: Ms. Caldwell moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:12 pm. Second by Mr. Battistelli. All in favor. Motion carried. Page 9 of 9