Appeals, Zoning Board of

CITY of BEVERLY Zoning Board of Appeals September 22, 2021 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. Members Present: Joel Margolis, Chairperson, Victoria Caldwell, David Battistelli, Jim Levasseur, Kevin Andrews, alt., Members Absent: Pamela Gougian, Margaret O’Brien Others Present: Steve Frederickson, Building Commissioner Leanna Harris, Zoning Board Administrative Assistant Location: Council Chambers City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, Beverly Joel Margolis, Chairperson began the meeting at 7:09 pm. I. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Jason Beal requests a Variance to construct a front addition with a front setback of 18' to addition and 11.91' to an open landing, where 20' is required. This property is located at 5 Lake Shore Drive in the R10 zoning district. Lidia Syzdlowska (PionArch) addressed the Board on behalf of Jason Beal and outlined the project. Mrs. Syzdlowska stated it is a nonconforming lot and so they are asking for front set back relief. The Beals would like to add an additional bedroom to the second floor and expand the front dormers to gain more headroom in the bedrooms. Mrs. Syzdlowska referred to the locus plan where it shows the neighborhood and where the house is situated at the turn. The houses on the same side of the street are closer the property line than the required setback. The front entry of the house is a covered Ms. Syzdlowska stated the hardship is the shape and size of the small lot as well as the nonconformity, the side is sloped to the back a bit and it would be better for the addition to be on the front not the back. No one spoke in favor or against. Jason Beal provided a letter from Michael Foley at 4 Lakeshore Drive in support of the project. Mr. Andrews stated the addition will match the design of the house and Mr. Battistelli stated this is a reasonable request that will add value to this house.  MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Battistelli seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. MOTION: Mrs. Caldwell moved to GRANT a Variance at 5 Lake Shore Drive to construct a front addition with a front setback of 18' to the addition and 11.91' to an open landing, where 20' is required and 14.6’ to the porch overhang due to the shape and size of the lot creating a hardship, subject to the plans submitted. Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. B. Amanda Wall-Graf and Darryl James request a Special Permit to construct a porch with a front setback of 13.7' where 20' is required and a Variance to construct a porch with a right side setback of 10.6' where 15' is required. This property is located at 13 Bertram Street in the R10 zoning district. Darryl James and Amanda Wall-Graf addressed the Board and stated their Architect Walter Jacobs was also present. Mr. Jacobs reviewed the project and stated they are requesting a wrap around porch and as well as a small back addition that is completely conforming. In the front and the on right side they are encroaching more than 50% into the setbacks. On the right side, where they are creating a new setback, they are required to have a Variance. Mr. Jacobs stated they are looking to have a combined entrance for themselves and their guests. Mr. Jacobs reviewed the elevation drawings and stated the porch helps to step down the property. Mr. Jacobs stated they are requesting a Variance due to the configuration of the existing lot creating a hardship. No one spoke in favor or against. Mr. Andrews asked if the only relief they are asking is for the porch and Mr. Jacobs confirmed. Mr. Caldwell stated she likes the design that it’s a nice addition and a big improvement for the property. MOTION: Mr. Andrews moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. Page 2 of 10  MOTION: Mr. Andrews moved to GRANT a Special Permit at 13 Bertram Street for the wraparound porch with a setback of 13.7’ where 20’ is required as this change will not be more detrimental to the neighborhood, subject to the plans submitted. Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Andrews moved to GRANT the Variance at 13 Bertram Street due to the shape and size of the lot subject to the plans submitted. Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. C. Barlo Signs o/b/o Topp Salad requests a Special Permit to allow the installation of an internally illuminated projecting wall sign. This property is located at 211 Rantoul Street in the CC zoning district. Brandon Currier (Barlo Signs) addressed the Board and stated they are seeking a Special Permit for the illuminated existing blade sign. They are looking to light up one section of it. The Design Review Board has approved the request. Mr. Currier stated the illumination will fit in with the style of the architecture at the location. No one spoke in favor or against. Mr. Andrews stated this is a nice design and he doesn’t have a problem with it. Mr. Battistelli stated it is a modest sign. MOTION: Mr. Andrews moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to GRANT a Special Permit at 211 Rantoul Street to install one internally illuminated projected wall sign subject to the plans submitted and as approved by the Design Review Board. Mr. Battistelli seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. D. Kelly Renae Haines and Melinda Starr request a Variance to construct two doghouse style dormers on front roof and to construct a shed dormer on rear roof of nonconforming house. This property is located at 38 Arlington Avenue in the R10 zoning district. Chris Caruso (Caruso Building & Design) addressed the Board on behalf of the home owners. Page 3 of 10 There are two abutters effected one of which faces the water department and that is the side with the set back issue. Mr. Caruso stated they are not asking to come any closer they are going straight up to add a second floor to the rear of the house and the dormer is within the setback. Most of the houses in the neighborhood have similar dormers or second floors. They are looking to have two bedrooms upstairs. Mr. Caruso stated the hardship is the shape of the lot and the way the existing house sits on the lot. Donald Dodge, 36 Arlington Ave , stated he is a direct abutter and has no issue with the request. MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Battistelli seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Battistelli moved to GRANT a Variance at 38 Arlington Avenue to construct two doghouse style dormers on the front roof and to construct a shed dormer on rear roof of a nonconforming house due to the shape of the lot and the position of the existing house creating a hardship, subject to the plans submitted. Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. E. Alexander & Femino o/b/o David and Jacqueline Genest request a Special Permit to allow a 30’x25’ two story addition that complies with all zoning setbacks which will have a 2-car garage on the first floor and an accessory 1-bedroom 750 sq. ft. in-law apartment on the second floor to serve as a residence for the owner’s mother and stepfather. Since a corner of the existing structure encroaches 2.3’ into the front yard setback the proposed addition, though fully complying with all setbacks requires a special permit as well. This property is located at 127 Standley Street in the R15 zoning district. Tom Alexander, Esq. (Alexander & Femino) addressed the Board on behalf of David and Jacqueline Genest and stated they have owned this property since 2005 and Mr. Genest is a Beverly firefighter. This is a good sized lot for this zone. The zone requires 15,000 sq. ft. of land and 100 feet of frontage and this lot exceeds both of those requirements. One corner of the house is nonconforming. This is an expansion of a nonconformity and they are also seeking a Special Permit for an in-law that will be over a 2-car garage. An affidavit has been submitted confirming the occupants. Atty. Alexander reviewed the criteria for an in-law apartment and a Special Permit. Atty. Alexander provided a map and a petition of the abutters who have signed in favor. Mark Cutler, 122 Standley Street, stated he is in support of the request, it is architecturally compatible with the neighborhood and streetscape. Page 4 of 10  MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to the close the public hearing. Mr. Battistelli seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to GRANT a Special Permit at 127 Standley Street to allow a 30’x25’ two story addition that complies with all zoning setbacks which will have a 2-car garage on the first floor and a 1-bedroom, 750 sq. ft. in-law accessory apartment on the second floor for the owner’s mother and stepfather. A Special Permit is also Granted for the proposed addition which a corner of the existing structure encroaches 2.3’ into the front yard setback, though fully complying with all setbacks, subject to the plans submitted. Mr. Battistelli seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. F. Glovsky & Glovsky o/b/o 143 Brimbal Avenue LLC request a Special Permit/Finding to authorize (i) the substitution of a nonconforming rug and carpet retail store for the presently nonconforming club/event hall use, pursuant to Sections 300- 82(C) and 300-91B of the Zoning Ordinance, and (ii) the expansion of the existing nonconforming building with a main level and upper level additions having approximately 11,602 SF and an approximately 400 SF loading dock addition, pursuant to Sections 300-82B(2) and 300-91B of the Ordinance. The existing nonconforming situation includes a 1.25 acre lot area where 2 acres is required, a 19.4 foot front yard setback where 30 feet is required, an 18 foot side setback, where 20 feet is required, a lot coverage ratio (building and impervious surface) of 85.9%, where 60% is the maximum allowed, and noncompliant front and side parking setbacks. This property is located at 143 Brimbal Avenue in the IR zoning district. Miranda Siemasko, Esq. (Glovsky & Glovsky) addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant and stated Principals of the LLC, future tenants Landry and Arcari and Tom Rocci of the Rocci Post were also present. The applicant intends to purchase the property and relocate their rug company from Salem and will combine all components in one new facility where they are presently occupying two buildings. Atty. Siemasko stated they are eager to find new space that works for them as well as be in Beverly. The building is nonconforming and the Board previously granted a Special Permit for a larger project with fewer parking spaces than what is before the Board tonight. The ZBA decision was appealed to Land Court by the direct abutter and is presently still pending. A second appeal was also filed challenging the IR overlay district. Atty Siemasko stated the Arcari’s are very committed to this project and the Rocci Post is committed to the sale. The Arcari’s went back to the drawing board to try and address the subjects of the appeals. The biggest change is the parking. They had intended to apply for a Special Permit but they have decided to build the building up instead of out which comes at a considerable cost to the applicants and also requires operational adjustments. The vertical decision also means the Rocci Post cannot stay in the building while construction occurs and so they have agreed to reduce the time they had planned to have a lease option from five years to two years. Page 5 of 10  They are seeking a Special Permit and a finding to authorize the expansion of the building as well a change in Use to substitute the nonconforming retail portion of the project for the existing nonconforming Rocci Post. This request is an alternative to requesting a Special Permit under the IR overlay district which is being appealed. Thad Siemasko reviewed the plans and walked the Board through the changes. Atty. Siemasko stated this Board must find the Use is no less compatible to the IR district than the existing nonconforming Use it replaces. Rebecca Brown reviewed the traffic items relating to this project. Bill Sheehan, Esq. who represents 133 Brimbal Ave LLC stated they are dealing with a nonconforming building sitting on a lot substantially too small for the district. Atty. Sheehan stated the Board needs to consider the district that it is in, it is not in the overlay district. Atty. Sheehan asked if this Board is going to permit retail use in the IR district, even though it is prohibited. Atty. Sheehan stated the Board is being asked to add an additional nonconforming Use because the Rocci Post is going to continue to operate for two years and this Board lacks the authority to grant the relief sought. Atty. Sheehan stated the specific site is absolutely inappropriate for retail use and the character of adjoining uses will be adversely affected. Atty. Sheehan asked what will happen when parking at 143 Brimbal Avenue is full and people park at 133 Brimbal Avenue because it is practical. Catherine Burack, 6 Brimbal Hills Drive stated Ward 5 has been called the ‘fighting five’ which comes from the capacity to mobilize several hundred people in opposition of something overnight. Ms. Burack stated she is in support of the requested Use of this property and believes this is the best possible Use. Landry & Arcari have met with residents and have been open to their concerns. Kathleen Feldman, 20 Somerset Avenue stated she is the Ward 5 Councilor and she is speaking in support of this project. She has not heard one issues about not supporting this project. Ms. Feldman stated she thinks this is the perfect Use for this property. Atty. Siemasko stated not all retail is the same and to the extend Atty. Sheehan argues the addition of a new Use or a new nonconforming Use during a 2-year interim period is not covered by the Ordinance she is not entirely convinced that is true. When the duration of this interim period shrank they anticipated the retail Use would not happen during that interim and that it will be used for storage. Atty. Siemasko stated the abutter is entitled to be concerned about the Use of the property and the parking available. Mr. Andrews stated he is more concerned that there are too many parking spaces and it should be more permeable space. These are large retail items that take up a large amount of space. Mr. Andrews stated he doesn’t see the argument for parking or traffic for carpets. Mr. Levasseur stated he agrees about the parking and the type of retail, it is a different type of retail. Page 6 of 10 Mr. Margolis stated he endorses this application as it is the right business for that location. Its appropriate for the area that it is in. Mr. Margolis stated if it was a big box store, he would have reservations. There aren’t that many people in the building other than staff and limited customers. Atty. Siemasko stated what Atty. Sheehan omitted is that a significant portion of the space is actually for storage of the carpets and rugs. Jeff Arcari stated if you look at the Salem store now the floor is about 8,900 sq. ft. and in that space, there are restoration people, all the customer rugs that have been washed and are ready to be picked up, storage of all the repair accessories as well as rugs on pallets. There are also pallets of rugs that they sell online or if someone is looking for an odd size. There is a lot of storage in their business. The entire downstairs is fabrication. Atty. Sheehan stated everything is based on this particular Use and only 9,900 sq. ft. for the sale of carpet only and he is going to ask the Board specify that in the decision. Mr. Andrews stated they are thrilled that it is this vendor and we’re not talking about any other potential vendor and he doesn’t want to hem them in. Mr. Levasseur asked if this Special Permit is granted and ten years down the road Landry & Arcari move on will the new tenant have the luxury of the new Use rules. Mr. Battistelli stated he agrees. Mr. Levasseur stated we are potentially allowing this Use based on parking spaces and traffic but who is to say down the road they don’t move on or subdivide the building. Mr. Frederickson stated its in the ordinance that the Use can’t be substituted without coming before the Board. MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Andrews seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. MOTION: Ms. Caldwell moved to GRANT the Special Permit at 143 Brimbal Avenue under 300-82C and 300-91B to allow a retail rug and carpet store at the subject premises and a Special Permit under 300-83B(2)to authorize one or more additions on an undersized lot, subject to the plans submitted and also the applicants intention to withdraw from their petition the Phase 1 plan to have retail Use during the Rocci Post interim. Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 4 (Margolis, Caldwell, Levasseur, Andrews) Votes Opposed: 1 (Battistelli) Motion carries. Page 7 of 10  MOTION: Ms. Caldwell moved to FIND under Section 6 _______________ Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. G. Alexander & Femino o/b/o John and Patricia Iltis request a Variance to allow the property to be divided into 2 lots in accordance with the original subdivision plan for this neighborhood such that Lot 31, where the existing house is located, has 183’ of frontage, 8,852 sq. ft. of area, and a 5.3’side yard setback, and Lot 30 would have 50’ of frontage, 8,031 sq. ft. of area and side yard setback of 13’ where existing zoning calls for 100’ of frontage, 10,000 sq. ft. of area and 15’ side yard setback. This property is located at 14 Jordan Street in the R10 zoning district. Tom Alexander, Esq. (Alexander & Femino) stated he represents John and Patricia Iltis who have owned the property since 2015. The existing lot has 183’ of frontage and over 16,000 sq. ft. of area. This was intended to be two buildable lots at the outset. This subdivision was largely built out in accordance with the plan submitted. There are 41 total lots which more than 30 are under 5,000 sq. ft. with 50’ of frontage. Atty. Alexander stated they are proposing to redivide this lot in accordance with the original subdivision. These two lots are bigger than 30 of the existing lots in the subdivision and would be in keeping with the neighborhood. The shape of the lot is long and narrow and a literal enforcement would create a hardship because this lot was intended to be two lots. They would be bringing this particular lot into conformance with the way it was designed and the way the neighborhood has been built up. This request is the minimal necessary. iAtty. Alexander stated t would be a great location for a family as it backs up to City high school. Atty. Alexander provided a petition with direct abutters who have signed in favor. No one spoke in favor or against. Mr. Battistelli asked about the lots being in a flood zone. Mr. Iltis stated this recent rain storm did not flood the lot. MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Andrews seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Andrews move to GRANT the Variance at 14 Jordan Street based the shape and existing house on the adjacent lot causing a hardship for the subdivided lot, subject to the plans submitted. Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. Page 8 of 10 II. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Anchor Sign o/b/o Dollar Tree requests a Special Permit to install two 60” raceway mounted LED store logo disks to the front southeast and right northeast building elevations. This property is located at 50 Dodge Street, a/k/a 48 Dodge Street in the CG zoning district. Jim Hirni (Anchor Sign) addressed the Board and stated the two medallions they are requesting relief for are not illuminated. The drawings provided tonight are for nonilluminated medallions. The June 23rd hearing referred to the lighting on the right side of the building being illuminated after 10pm. Mr. Hirni stated they have since made sure that it is not illuminated after 10pm. Mr. Hirni showed on a photo that the bulbs from the goose neck lamps have been removed and they do not light up, they are officially off. Scott Przybycien, 5 Conant Street, stated he lives directly across the street from the Dollar Tree and with the medallions not being illuminated, a lot of his concerns are alleviated. The backlit sign is what lights up his house and they had requested the gooseneck lamps be back on and the backlit sign off. MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Battistelli seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to GRANT a Special Permit at 50 Dodge Street to install two 60” nonilluminated raceway mounted LED store logo disks to the front southeast and right northeast building elevations based on the designs submitted and as approved by the Design Review Board. Mr. Battistelli seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. B. Glovsky & Glovsky o/b/o The Trustees of the Marcheterre Family 2012 Realty Trust request Variances to authorize a new lot division line separating the properties located at 93 and 95 Corning Street to be consistent with the apparent lot division line existing on the ground in a manner that will render the two lots, as a whole, closer to conformity than they presently are, but will require two dimensional Variances: (1) to reduce the lot area at 93 Corning Street to 6,331 sq. ft. where 10,000 sq. ft. is required, and (2) reduce the frontage at 93 Corning Street to 79.90 feet where 100 feet is required. This property is located at 93 & 95 Corning Street in the R10 zoning district. Page 9 of 10  MOTION: Ms. Caldwell moved to approve the request to continue the application at 93 and 95 Corning Street to the October 27, 2021 meeting. Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. OTHER BUSINESS Approval of August 25, 2021 ZBA Minutes (Gougian) Held. MOTION: Mr. Margolis moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:55pm. Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Margolis, Caldwell, Battistelli, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. Leanna Harris, Administrative Assistant Board of Appeals of the Zoning Ordinance Page 10 of 10