Loading...
ZBA Minutes 2 27 2019City of Beverly Zoning Board of Appeals February 27, 2019 These Minutes are not a verbatim transcript of the public hearing of the Board of Appeals. Review of the Board's Decision or outcome of the public hearing should include an examination of the Board's written Decision for that hearing. Meeting Minutes Members Present: Joel Margolis, Chairperson, Victoria Caldwell, Pamela Gougian, David Battistelli, Jim Levasseur, Kevin Andrews, alt., Stefano Basso, alt. Member Absent: Margaret O'Brien, alt. Others Present: Leanna Harris, Administrative Assistant Location: 191 Cabot Street, P Floor, Council Chamber Mr. Margolis began the meeting at 7pm and introduced the Board Members present. I. Modification Requests A. Glovsky & Glovsky o /b /o Flour N Water Corp. In a petition for a request for a Modification of a Special Permit granted to David L. Bergmann and Sherri R. Bergmann, affected by Modification of Decision granted to Hale Street Tavern filed with the City Clerk on July 8, 1997 and June 5, 2012, respectively, to allow enlargement of the existing restaurant from 3,065 to 3,683 square feet of area. The property is located at 717 Hale Street in the CN zoning district. Miranda Gooding, Esq. (Glovsky & Glovsky) addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant. The architect Tom Peterman of Peterman Architects, Inc. and Hale Street Tavern's General Manager Zorba Kinigstein were present. Atty. Gooding stated the restaurant is in a CN zoning district and as such requires a Special Permit. The applicant is looking to enlarge the floor space of the restaurant all within the existing building footprint and add just over 600 sq. ft. The restaurant would move into the adjacent space currently used by Beverly Farms Motors which is leaving. The additional space would be used for cold storage, waiting area, new bathrooms and expansion of the bar. Currently there are 81 seats and this expansion would increase to 114 seats. The applicant is able to provide parking to support this use as outlined in the application. The restaurant was originally authorized in 1997 by Special Permit and the seating capacity has remained the same for over 20 years. This Modification will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The Site Plan maps out how parking will be provided, and municipal parking is available 150' from the restaurant and satisfies the remaining six required parking spaces. There will be no other material changes to the restaurant, entertainment is not being proposed. Page I of 12 i �s; Mr. Peterman provided an overview of the existing restaurant layout and the proposed renovations. There will be three designated exits which improves safety. No members of the public spoke in favor or against. Mr. Battistelli read a letter from an abutter opposed to the renovations from Paul and Allison Weingartner of 12 Everett Street. The Board determined that traffic and parking issues are an enforcement issue. Atty. Gooding submitted a petition signed in support of the application. The restaurant is a leased space, the applicant does not own the building. Mr. Battistelli asked about the fire code, and whether if there are 114 seats could there potentially be 135 people in the restaurant waiting for tables. Mr. Kinigstein showed on the drawing where they will be adding a drink rail around the bar, so patrons won't be obstructing exits areas. Mr. Peterman stated that with 3 exits they have enough exits for up to 500 patrons and the building is fully sprinklered. Mr. Margolis asked if they will be continuing outside seating and Mr. Kinigstein confirmed. MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Battistelli seconded the Motion. Votes in favor 5- 0(Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur) Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to GRANT the Modification of the Special Permit at 717 Hale Street to expand the restaurant from 3,065 to 3,683 sq. ft, finding this Modification is not more detrimental to the neighborhood, subject to the plans submitted. Ms. Gougian seconded the Motion. Votes in favor 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur) Motion carries. B. Glovsky & Glovsky o/b /o Justin and Cortney Negrotti o/b /o Channel Marker Brewing Original Request June 28, 2018 In a petition for a request for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance definition of a "tasting room" as consisting of no more than 33% of total square footage where 672 sq. ft. will be designated as a tasting room out of 1042 sq. ft. The property is located at 95 Rantoul Street, Unit 102 in the CC zoning district. ** Applicant requesting to expand the days and hours it is open to the public. Michael Dissette, Esq. (Glovksy & Glovsky) addressed the Board on behalf of the applicants and stated they are seeking a Modification to the Variance granted June 2018 limiting the hours of operation to three days a week (Friday, 4 -10; Saturday, 12 -10; Sunday, 12 -6). They would like to expand their hours to Monday through Sunday 12 -1Opm. so they can host member or group tastings. Page 2 of 12 Atty. Dissette addressed the email received from Leo Murphy, a tenant in the building, concerned about odors from the brewery. There is equipment installed to contain and prevent odors from escaping. There is a sealed pipe vented to the exterior which takes off the water vapor from the boiling equipment. It is the best equipment available and is adequately handling interior odors. The brewery has made an effort to keep the interior doors closed while brewing and it was their understanding that the odors had been properly dealt with. Atty. Dissette stated the brewing operation is a permitted use, the Variance granted was for the size of the operation. The brewing will continue with or without the granting of the Modification request. Atty. Dissette stated the expanded hours of tasting would not increase the production of brewing, the production is self - limiting by the space and the number of fermenters that can fit into that space as well as the time cycle it takes to complete a batch. Kirsten Shapiro, 12 Mason Street stated a tasting room sounds nice, it's a small local business, its good for the community, it sounds like a nice addition. Ted Richard, 95 Rantoul Street, Trustee stated he is impressed and pleased with how the brewery has handled their business. Mr. Richard stated he is sympathetic to the tenants who are concerned about the odors, but he stated he cannot smell anything. Mr. Richard read a letter in favor of the application from Andrew Houle who is an artist tenant located 30 feet away. Ms. Caldwell read an email received 2/27/2019 from Leo Murphy opposing the application. Lesli Woodruff, 95 Rantoul Street, Unit 203 stated she lives immediately above the brewery and stated she is favor of the brewery, but she does have concerns of occasional odor on the first and second floor lobby. It's a couple of times a week that the odor is present. Other times there is no odor. Dana Berardi, 95 Rantoul Street stated she has the same comments and concerns regarding the odor. The odor travels up to the 4 th floor and it can be really bad. The odor is in the hallway, not yet in her unit. It's a lingering, unpleasant odor. It travels up the elevator. It's impacting her quality of life. Mary Hulse at 95 Rantoul Street, Unit 201 stated she thinks the vent system runs out at street level and all the residential units are above that so her concern is opening the windows in the nicer weather since you can certainly smell it right now. There are nine residential units and 50 artist spaces in the building. Mr. Battistelli asked at what capacity of brewing they are at and Mr. Negrotti stated they are at 100% with an actual boiling time, where there is odor, of 60 -105 minutes three times a week. Page 3 of 12 Mr. Margolis asked if there is a way for them to vent the odor above the roofline. Mr. Negrotti stated there is water vapor that needs to be released and they installed a pipe that long they would have mold issues. Ms. Caldwell stated it sounds like the odors are settling in the common areas, not the units. Mr. Negrotti stated this request doesn't mean they will be brewing more beer, they are already at brewing capacity, they just want to be open more for tastings. Mr. Battistelli stated he doesn't think delaying this vote will solve anything. Mr. Margolis agreed and stated they are here to make a decision on the hours, not on the odors and that is a matter for the Board of Health. Mr. Margolis asked how additional hours will affect parking. Mr. Negrotti stated they haven't heard any concerns about parking, and they are within 500 feet of municipal parking. MOTION: Mr. Battistelli moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion. Votes in favor 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur) Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Battistelli moved to GRANT the Modification for Channel Marker Brewing at 95 Rantoul Street to expand hours of operation as stated in their application. Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion. Votes in favor 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur) Motion carries. C. Michelle Cabelus Original Request February 22, 2018: In a petition to request a Variance to demolish existing house and detached garage and rebuild new single family house with attached garage. New house to be no closer to front and left side than existing. New house to have rear setback of 15.7' vs. existing setback of 19.8' where 25' is required. The property is located on 7 Fosters Point in the R10 zoning district. * * Applicant requesting to change the approved roof design and to add a roof onto the deck. Robert Gulla, Architect addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant and distributed a drawing to the Board. The applicant would like to change the hip roof on the south elevation to a gable roof to gain more storage. There is already a second floor deck with a partial roof overhang and they are requesting to cover the whole deck with a flat roof. No one spoke in favor or against. Mr. Basso stated the gable roof with the triple windows looks nicer than the hip roof. Page 4 of 12 MOTION: Mr. Battistelli moved that the request is a Minor Modification. Ms. Caldwell seconded the Motion. Votes in favor 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur) Motion carries. MOTION: Ms. Caldwell moved to GRANT the Minor Modification subject to the revised plans submitted. Mr. Battistelli seconded the Motion. Votes in favor 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur) Motion carries. II. New Public Hearings A. Vincent and Paula Occhino In a petition for a request for a Variance to construct a two car garage and mudroom/breezeway 6.5 feet from the left side yard setback where 15 feet is required. The property is located at 15 Palmer Road in the R10 zoning district. Mr. and Mrs. Occhino addressed the Board and stated they have a garrison style colonial, the door is slightly off center and they have an odd shaped lot. They are looking to expand their home to include a small breezeway and single story garage. A Variance for the back left corner is needed to make the structure square. Mrs. Occhino provided letters in support from direct abutters at 11, 13 and 17 Palmer Road. Ms. Caldwell read the letters into record. Mr. Occhino stated the hardship is the odd shape of their lot and the position of the existing structure on the lot. No one spoke in favor or against. MOTION: Ms. Caldwell moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion. Votes in favor 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur) Motion carries. MOTION: Ms. Caldwell moved to GRANT the Variance to add a breezeway and single story garage at 15 Palmer Road due to the odd shape lot and position of the house on the lot creating a hardship, subject to the plans submitted. Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion. Votes in favor 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur) Motion carries. B. Batten Bros., Inc. o/b /o Kelly Ford In a petition for a request for a Special Permit to more signs than permitted on a single elevation. The property is located 420 Cabot Street in the CG zoning district. Page 5 of 12 R W �. y Jeff Sarra, Batten Brothers addressed the Board on behalf of Kelly Ford and stated they are requesting to allow three signs on the front of the building and a fourth sign on the side of the building to identify the service entrance. The location has been a car dealership for 50 years. The Zoning Ordinance allows for 150 sq. ft. of signage and they are requesting less than that at 130 sq. ft. which is also a reduction from what the Nissan dealership had. The proposed signs are standard for Ford branding. The Design Review Board approved the signage at the July 12, 2018 meeting. Currently there are vinyl graphics on the building which look to be exactly what they are requesting. They recently went before the Design Review Board for a freestanding sign to replace the Nissan sign that was there. Ms. Gougian asked for confirmation that there will not be additional lighting and Mr. Batten Brothers stated they will be the same as when they were Nissan. The lights will go off at night. Ms. Gougian stated the signs go off but the lights (32 lights) stay on. Kirsten Shapiro, 12 Mason Street asked to see the sign designs. Mrs. Shapiro stated she lives across the street on Mason Street and its already a very bright spot, its right next door to a baseball field. Mrs. Shapiro stated she is concerned about more illumination and more distraction for drivers. MOTION: Ms. Caldwell moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Battistelli seconded the Motion. Votes in favor 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur) Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to Grant the Special Permit to allow more signs than permitted on a single elevation as approved by the Design Review Board and subject to the signs submitted. Mr. Battistelli seconded the Motion. Votes in favor 4 -1 (Margolis, Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur; Opposed: Gougian) Motion carries. C. James Aloisio o/b /o Mathnasium In a petition for a request for a Special Permit to allow a building sign to be larger than permitted by Ordinance. The property is located at 142 Brimbal Avenue in the IR zoning district. Mr. Aloisio addressed the Board and stated he is requesting a building sign that is larger than what is allowed by right. The A+ in their logo is 3 times as large as the other letters and that extra height throws off the overall calculation making the square footage appear larger. Since the plaza is set back considerably the 20 sq. ft regulation would not allow for visibility of the sign. Page 6 of 12 1 The sign itself has a white inner background with a black perforated covering so during the day it's a black on white image and at night is a white on black image. The light is significantly reduced at night. They have a letter from the landlord stating the sign fits in well with the plaza. No one spoke in favor or opposition. MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Gougian second the Motion. Votes in favor 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur) Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Battistelli moved to GRANT a Special Permit for the application at 142 Brimbal Avenue, Unit 5 for a sign that is slightly oversized, subject to the Design Review Board's approval. Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion. Votes in favor 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur) Motion carries. D. Alexander & Femino o/b /o John P. Frates, Jr. and Nancy E. Frates, Individually and as Trustees of Frates Realty Trust In a petition for a request for a Variance to allow a side setback of 8 feet, where 15 feet is required (existing building is 7.2 feet from the side property line) and a rear yard setback of 15 feet, where 25 feet is required (existing garage to be removed, is 8 feet from the rear lot line) and a Finding to reconfigure the 2 existing nonconforming lots such that 108 Bridge Street (Lot A) is increased from 4,314 square feet to 6,153 square feet (Lot A -1) and 106 Bridge Street (Lot B) is decreased from 6,386 square feet to 4,548 square feet (Lot B -1) to allow for an addition to the existing building at 108 Bridge Street to accommodate 4 residential townhouse units, all having 2 parking spaces each, and a Use Variance to allow all the building to be residential use, without attachment to a commercial building. The property is located at 106 and 108 Bridge Street in the CN zoning district. Mr. Margolis recused himself. Tom Alexander, Esq. (Alexander & Femino) addressed the Board on behalf of the applicants and stated they have owned this property for thirty years. It used to be known as the Porter Dairy Farm and then the Porter Farm Ice Cream Shop. It is located in a neighborhood commercial zone. Its been a difficult spot since the ice cream shop closed. The property has under performed and has not been a credit to the neighborhood as much as they would like and so they are seeking to build four condo units on the site. It's an attractive design and a good use of the property, each unit will have two parking spaces, one underneath and one at grade level. They are seeking side relief of 8', where 15' is required. They are also seeking a 15' rear yard side set back, where 25' is required. The existing garage that will be torn town is already 8' from the rear lot line. The new building will be less of an encroachment than what is currently there. The owner located Page 7 of 12 5 behind the property on Carlton Avenue has concerns about drainage and they have addressed this drainage issue with them. They have agreed to have a condition stating they would provide drainage mitigation for the rear property. A Finding is requestd to reconfigure two nonconforming lots to accommodate the four units and a garage. Atty. Alexander provided the Board with a copy of a petition signed off on by neighbors in favor and also a map showing where each neighbor is located. Atty. Alexander reviewed the requirements for a Variance and a Finding and how this request meets those requirements. Atty. Alexander stated they are requesting a Use Variance to have the building not be a residential business use. They are seeking to construct the condo units and have them not be attached to a commercial building/use. George Zambouras, Engineer addressed the Board and clarified existing and proposed lot lines on the Site Plan. The existing store will become one of the condo units and then there will be three additional new condo units. Lyle Folkestad, Architect provided an overview of the proposed plans. Madeleine Starks, 7 Roderick Avenue stated right now it is very peaceful and quiet and she is concerned about the noise. She is also concerned about the size of the building and their view being decreased. The structure will be directly in their backyard. Ms. Gougian asked what the total height of the building is from the bottom floor where the garage is to the top ridge and Arch Mr. Folkestad stated it is 38' high. Mr. Andrews stated he doesn't think this design is keeping with the neighborhood, the density is quite a bit different from what is in that area, there are a lot of single family homes with yards. Mr. Basso asked if the Mr. Folkestad considered starting the roof on the third floor to drop the height. Mr. Andrews stated this is a neighborhood where the properties are well valued, they aren't looking to improve this neighborhood. Atty. Alexander stated this is a commercially zoned property that could have heavy retail use and the condo design is better suited to this neighborhood. Ms. Caldwell asked the Board for feedback as to how they would like to move forward. Page 8 of 12 ° U Mr. Levasseur stated he agrees with Ms. Gougian that they have taken advantage of every foot of height and the people in the back are going to be looking at a wall. Mr. Levasseur would like to see a different design on a smaller scale. Atty. Alexander stated he would like to come back with a lower height design. Ms. Caldwell asked if the Board is concerned about the number of units. Mr. Andrews stated they haven't talked about trash or snow storage. Mr. Basso stated he doesn't mind the density, its good family housing. Ms. Caldwell stated she doesn't have an issue with the four units particularly. Ms. Gougian stated she is also ok with the density, she would like to see the scale adjusted. MOTION: Mr. Basso moved to continue the application to the March 27, 2019 meeting, subject to signing the Waiver and Agreement. Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion. Votes in favor 5 -0 (Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur, Basso) Motion carries. E. Alexander & Femino o/b /o 586 Hale Street LLC and 64 Thissell Street LLC In a petition for a request for a Variance to allow the separation of the lot containing the existing building known as 64 Thissell Street with the attached residential units under construction from the lot containing the existing buildings known as 586 & 586R Hale Street by granting a side yard setback Variance of 4.5 feet, where 20 feet is required and a rear yard setback Variance of 1.1 feet, where 25 feet is required. The Variance will result in no change in the building location or design. The property is located at 64 Thissell Street, 582 Hale Street, 586 & 586R Hale Street in the CN zoning district. Mr. Margolis is recusing himself. Tom Alexander, Esq. (Alexander & Femino) addressed the Board and stated this property has been before the Board before. There are three existing buildings. The ZBA had granted zoning relief to allow for four units to be put on the property at 64 Thissell Street by adding two units to the back near the post office and two units in the front. The condominium is made up of three units, one property is at 586 Hale Street where J Barrett is the sole tenant, 586 Hale Street Rear houses 4 other businesses. The other existing business at 64 Thissell Street was the post office. The original proposed project doesn't work. They are seeking to separate the properties. The lot lines would result in 586 and 586R being on one property and then 64 Thissell Street and the new property called 582 Hale Street would be separate. There will be no difference in buildings, just a different form of ownership that makes much more sense. The shape of this lot is odd and the relief they are seeking would be of no detriment to the public good. Atty. Alexander provided a petition to the Board of abutters in favor. Atty Alexander stated the condominium will be dissolved if this goes through. Page 9 of 12 p No one spoke in favor or in opposition. Mr. Andrews stated the request seems to simply things. MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Gougian second the Motion. Votes in favor 5 -0 (Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Andrews moved to GRANT a dimensional Variance at 586 Hale Street /64 Thissell Street, subject to the plans submitted. Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion. Votes in favor 5 -0 (Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. F. Alexander & Femino o /b /o Benco LLC In a petition for a request for a Special Permit and a Variance to allow the continued use of 20 Webster Avenue (aka 1 Hickory Hill Way) as a five family house and 30 Webster Avenue as a six family house and a Variance to allow a five car garage at 20 Webster Avenue having a height of 18 feet 6 inches where the zoning Ordinance calls for 15 feet. The property is located at 20 and 30 Webster Avenue in the R45 zoning district. Mr. Basso is recusing himself. Atty. Alexander addressed the Board and stated they are seeking a Special Permit for a couple of buildings located at 20 and 30 Webster Avenue. The building at 20 Webster Avenue has 5 units and the building at 30 Webster Avenue has 6 units. There is a lot of ledge in this area and the elevation difference is over 30'. Ben Carlson purchased this property in 2017 from the Peterson Family who owned the property for many decades. Mr. Carlson was provided a box of documents with all of the involvement of the City of Beverly over the years with various inspections. Every year Mrs. Peterson filed with the City Assessor's office and so they were taxed as 5 unit and 6 unit buildings. The City receives $36k of taxes from these properties annually. Mr. Carlson has kept the rents affordable and plans to continue to do so. Atty. Alexander is requesting the Board to allow the Special Permit as it does satisfy all of the requirements. Allowing this Special Permit allows for the owner to invest in this property. Atty. Alexander stated they are seeking a Variance for a garage that is higher than allowed by zoning. It could be reduced by 3' and build it by right, but ascetically it wouldn't be as pleasing. Brian Bodensteiner, 20 Webster Avenue stated he has lived there for 23 years and when they moved in, they always assumed it was a five family. Page 10 of 12 se rt ?� William Parr, 30 Webster Avenue stated he has been a tenant at 30 Webster Avenue for the last two years and he would love to continue living there. Bob Jones, 8 Webster Avenue stated according to the Building Department 20 Webster Avenue is a single family. The family who previously owned it had illegally rented it out. Mr. Jones provided a list of signatures from neighbors opposing the Special Permit and stated they object to any changes. Mr. Margolis asked Mr. Carlson if the property was actively listed when he purchased it and Mr. Carlson stated it came to him through realtors and it was listed as a five and six family. Ms. Caldwell stated what they are asking for is a Use Variance and that is not allowed in that neighborhood. MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Battistelli seconded the Motion. Votes in favor 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur) Motion carries. Atty. Alexander stated they are withdrawing the request to build the garage. MOTION: Ms. Caldwell moved to GRANT the Special Permit to allow the continued use of the five and six family home at 30 Webster Avenue and 1 Hickory Hill pursuant to 300 -83 C(2), finding that the continued nonconforming, unauthorized use of the buildings is not substantially more detrimental than the existing use and that the existing capacity of the building remain unchanged. Mr. Battistelli seconded the Motion. Votes in favor 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur) Motion carries. III. Other Business A. Minutes Approval of November 29, 2018 Minutes (Levasseur) MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to approve the Minutes from the November 29, 2018 meeting. Mrs. Gougian seconded the Motion. Votes in favor 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur) Motion carries. Page 11 of 12 Approval of January 23, 2019 Minutes (Basso) MOTION: Mr. Basso moved to approve the Minutes from the January 23, 2019 meeting. Mrs. Caldwell seconded the Motion. Votes in favor 5 -0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Gougian, Battistelli, Levasseur) Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Margolis moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:16pm. All in favor Motion carries. Page 12 of 12