Zoning Board of Appeals

RECEIVED By City Clerk at 12:48 pm, 6/23/22 Approved: 6/22/22 MINUTES of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING THURSDAY, January 27, 2022 (Posted in accordance with the provisions of MGL Ch. 39, Sec. 23A, as amended) Council on Aging – 7:00 p.m. 68 Elm St. Amesbury, MA 01913 Attendance: Sharon McDermot (Chair), Donna Collins, David Haraske, Matt Vincent, Michael McCarthy Absent: Also in attendance: Building Inspector Vincent Tirone, Recording Secretary Heather Snide _______________________________________________ Agenda MINUTES of the August 26th meeting, September 23rd meeting, and December 16th meeting A Public Hearing will be held by the City of Amesbury Zoning Board of Appeals at the Amesbury Council on Aging, 68 Elm Street, Amesbury, MA on Thursday January 27, 2022 at 7:00pm to consider the following: Lisa Mead is seeking a VARIANCE under the Amesbury Zoning Bylaws, section VIII.5.A. The property is located at 115 Kimball Road in an R8 Zoning District (map 53, lot 147) according to the assessor’s database. CONTINUATION FROM DEC. 2021 MEETING: Richard Cunfi (co-owner), 99 Loring Rd., Winthrop, MA is seeking a possible SPECIAL PERMIT under the Amesbury Zoning By- laws, Section XI.K1 to convert an existing two-family structure to a three-family structure. The property is located at 22-24 Aubin St., Amesbury, MA in an R-8 Zoning District (Map 53 / Lot 147) according to the Assessor database. Applicant was voted by the ZBA to withdraw without prejudice at the Dec. meeting.  MINUTES: December 16, 2021, Meeting Minutes Chair McDermot called the meeting to order at 7:08pm Sharon opened the meeting. Chair McDermot read the agenda items. Chair McDermot asked the board if they have any changes to the minutes. Matt Vincent said the December minutes on page 4, there is room for another decision, it should say there is NOT room for another decision. Chair McDermot motioned to approve the minutes from August 26th, September 23rd, and December 16th with edits made Seconded by Michael McCarthy. All in favor. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 115 Kimball Rd. – The applicant proposes to renovate and add into existing structure which was constructed in or around the year 1911. Zoning by-law section 9. Chair Sharon McDermot welcomed Lisa Mead. Lisa Mead introduced herself as representative for the 115 Kimball Road application. She said:  It is a modification to a preexisting nonconforming structure.  Until recently, it contained a freestanding garage which was taken down.  The lot was created in 1946 as lot 2.  The zoning was adopted in 1971 so the lot is preexisting nonconforming.  The property is in the R20 section. 20,000’ are required. There is 6.8’ on the left side, there are only 14,700’. Lisa Mead said the proposal reduces the impervious area. They are only raising a portion of the back. The original foundation is 22’ x 24’. The house had a three-season porch added. They will take off the porch and add an addition which is 8’x24’. The next footprint is 4’ x 24’. The left side setback will be intensified to 3.1 feet. The lot has an odd shape. The right-side setback will be intensified, it is 14.7 currently. The deck will be 12.8’ Lisa Mead said the board must decide if the expansion is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than it currently is. There is no home to the right towards the front where the extension is going. On the left, the lot has a narrow neck, but the extension will not get close to the surrounding houses. The extension will not be a substantial detriment. No deck is added to the left side. The height will not change. The applicants removed an encroaching garage that went over the property line. Matt Vincent passed a google image print out to the board members. Lisa Mead clarified that the building inspector can issue a building permit without the board if there is no intensification or exacerbation. Matt Vincent asked if this is limiting findings of the building inspector. Michael McCarthy asked for the new and old structure dimensions comparison again. Lisa Mead said the new structure will be 4’ larger and the same dimensions wide and deep. The porch is being removed and the foundation will be extended 4 more feet. David Haraske asked to see the original layout. Lisa Mead showed the new layout compared to the original on a visual presentation. The board had no more questions. Greg Hockman, engineer said he is happy to answer any questions. There was no public comment. Moved by Donna Collins to discuss the application. David Haraske seconded. Donna Collins does not have the letter field card because the original letter states it was built in 1911. Lisa Mead provided the letter and field card. Chair McDermot read the Summary of Findings: Is there is proof that the property predates zoning? The Board replies “yes.” It was built in 1911. How is it nonconforming? The Board replies, area, frontage, right side, left side and rear. Is it more or less detrimental? The Board replies “less.” Does the alteration create a new nonconformity? The Board replies “no.” David Haraske motioned to approve Donna Collins seconded that motion The board unanimously voted for the occupational finding to be approved. CONTINUATION FROM DEC. 2021 MEETING: Richard Cunfi (co-owner), 99 Loring Rd., Winthrop, MA is seeking a possible SPECIAL PERMIT under the Amesbury Zoning By- laws, Section XI.K1 to convert an existing two-family structure to a three-family structure. The property is located at 22-24 Aubin St., Amesbury, MA in an R-8 Zoning District (Map 53 / Lot 147) according to the Assessor database. Applicant was voted by the ZBA to withdraw without prejudice at the Dec. meeting. Attorney James McKenna introduced himself as applicant asking for variance relief for the building built in 1850. It has existed as the same structure ever since. They are seeking to convert the building from a 2 to 3 family unit. Chairman clarified they are applying for a non-conforming Representative James said they are looking for dormers to be installed on the roofline. They submitted letter with the floor plans, site plans, and an expression of how they comply with all but one regulation. They are not enlarging the building. They have the largest lot, and the largest open space in the neighborhood. Applicant handed out images of other buildings in the neighborhood which are many multifamily structures. The request for relief conforms with the intent and purpose of the ordinance. Applicant said relative to whether it is substantially detrimental to the neighborhood, the applicant does not believe so. They are looking to coming forward and acknowledge it as a nonconformity which the previous owners did not do. There are many cases in the boards history that when they find a site is reasonably situated and the neighborhood is not poorly impacted by relief of the nonconforming, the board grants it. Matt Vincent asked for the property address of the building reference 39 Cedar Street David Haraske asked for the case in the letter the applicant sent. Applicant Representative James said, in summary this is a request to acknowledge the preexisting nonconformity. It brings the units up to the market level and substantial reinvestment to the site which will improve the neighborhood, keep consistency to the neighborhood and improve the tax base. It encourages owner occupation. For those reasons, they are seeking allowance for the special permit. No questions from the board Chair McDermot asked if the board is ready to go through the requirements Motion to close and discuss by Donna Collins. Seconded by Michael McCarthy. Motion passed unanimously. Chair McDermot said last month, they allowed the applicant to continue without prejudice. Matt Vincent said he is curious because it reads that “In no instance should the lot be less than 12,000” and it was 11,400.” They were hung up on 4 last time, the issue was not being arbitrary. They are suggesting that they had allowed for these others so where do they draw the line? David Haraske said the thing that strikes him is determining which other cases do they make okay. Where do they say exceptions are fine? Matt Vincent says they look at this and say no flexibility or they say this is where the town says as a board, they have leniency. Chair McDermot said they have already allowed this in the past. Vinny Tirone, building official, City of Amesbury introduced himself. He asked would there be any structure created for that third floor that would be substantially detrimental to the neighborhood including parking? Rochard Cifuni, contractor, said no, everything will be done within the existing foundation. The dormers will be added within the existing structure lines. The parking is satisfied. David Haraske said the issue was adding an extra unit. The board had no other questions Chair McDermot read the Summary of findings. She asks if the use currently exists in the table of uses. All say “yes”. She asks if it is essential/desirable to public convenience/welfare. All say “yes.” She asks if will not create undue traffic/impeded pedestrian safety. All say “it will not.” She asks that it will not overload public systems. All say “correct”. She asks if the special conditions of Section XI are satisfied. All say “yes”. She asks if that it will not impair the character/health, welfare of the district. All say “correct”. She asks that it not create excess use of the neighborhood. All say “correct”. In no instance should the lot be less than 12k sq ft the frontage will be less than 80 sq ft, minimum off-street parking for 3 vehicles, the board should require a site plan for at least 5 vehicles All conversions, all safety health condition should be met, further all occupancy permits should be met Al proposals are subject to special permit sec 10l.j Matt Vincent said that this should be at the discretion of the zoning board of appeals at the end of the day. Motion to approve by all simultaneously. Seconded by David Haraske All voted yes. Chair McDermot said there will be a 20-day appeal period and after that you can pick up the permit. That is the end of the agenda The group gave a shoutout to David Haraske for being with the board for 7 years. Motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:52pm saluted by all, unanimously. Seconded by Michael McCarthy. Motion passed unanimously. NEXT MEETING – FEBRUARY 24, 2022 Seating L – R: Vincent, Collins, McDermott, Haraske, McCarthy