Appeals, Zoning Board of

CITY of BEVERLY Zoning Board of Appeals October 27, 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, Pam Gougian, Jim Levasseur and Kevin Andrews, alt., Members Absent: David Battistelli, Margaret O’Brien, alt. Others Present: Steve Frederickson, Building Commissioner Location: Council Chambers City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, Beverly Joel Margolis, Chairperson began the meeting at 7:00 pm. Mr. Margolis explained that only four voting members are present this meeting and how voting will work. I. MINOR MODIFICATION A. Michael and Melissa Pescatore Original Request: 5/26/2021: request a Variance to add an addition and a 2-car garage to existing single family dwelling creating a new proposed side yard setback of 1 foot. This property is located at 202 Greenwood Avenue and is in the R45 zoning district. **Applicant seeking to modify plans and add family room above garage. Michael Pescatore addressed the Board and stated the previous ZBA Decision was granted in May of this year. Mr. Pescatore stated he has gone through the process of recording the Decision at the Registry of Deeds and has applied for a Building Department. A discussion with his contractor about scheduling dates led to a discussion about utilizing the space above the garage. Mr. Pescatore stated the removal of the fireplace and the wall between the kitchen and the living room was a nice change but it introduced a lot of noise and commotion from the kitchen into the living room area. Mr. Pescatore stated they are looking to put a family room/tv room above the garage to separate their living space a little more. Mr. Pescatore stated they are not expanding the footprint of the foundation and they are not encroaching into the setbacks any further. It does change the hip roof to a gable roof with some windows. Mr. Margolis asked if there will be a bathroom in that space or kitchen area and Mr. Pescatore stated there is not. Mr. Pescatore stated they are adding a gas or wood insert fireplace. No one spoke in favor or against. Ms. Gougian asked how much more square footage will that space add and Mr. Pescatore stated maybe 600 square feet. Mr. Levasseur stated it looks like it qualifies as a minor modification. Mr. Andrews stated it also stays below the maximum height of the house, they aren’t adding mass, it blends in. MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Gougian seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 4-0 (Margolis, Gougian, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to identify the modification request at 202 Greenwood Avenue as a Minor Modification, subject to the original plans submitted. Mr. Andrews seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 4-0 (Margolis, Gougian, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. II. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Melissa Guevara requests a Special Permit to construct a 5' x 12.5' front porch with a left side setback of approximately 9.9' where 15' is required. Porch will be no closer to side lot line than existing house. The property is located at 19 Bosworth Street in the R-10 zoning district. Sanir Lotfija (Seger Architects) addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant and stated this is an existing nonconforming building that does not comply with the setback requirements. The existing house has a covered porch with stairs leading down. The applicant is requesting a Special Permit to enclose the porch and build a five foot small addition and another porch with stairs leading down to the front. Mr. Lotfija reviewed the plans and stated there is no entry when entering the house to remove coasts and shoes. The idea behind this addition is to convert existing porch and create a mudroom and closet. They plan to match the existing shingles and continue the existing roofline and also have a similar railing and wood stairs. Mr. Lotfija stated this is something that you do see in that neighborhood. The house next door has an enclosed porch that projects as well as some houses across the street. No one spoke in favor or against. Ms. Gougian stated this is a minor request and it is keeping with the design of the house. Page 2 of 9  MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Andrews seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 4-0 (Margolis, Gougian, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to GRANT the Special Permit at 19 Bosworth Street to construct a 5' x 12.5' front porch with a left side setback of approximately 9.9' where 15' is required. Porch will be no closer to side lot line than existing house, subject to the plans submitted. Ms. Gougian seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 4-0 (Margolis, Gougian, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. B. Alexander & Femino o/b/o Todisco Properties LLC requests a Variance to allow the division of the existing 17,006 sq ft lot into 2 lots each having 75 feet of frontage and one having 8,505 sq ft of area and the other having 8,501, where 100 feet of frontage is required and 10,000 feet of area. The proposed house on the new lot would comply with all zoning setbacks. The property is located at 5 Roosevelt Avenue in the R-10 zoning district. Tom Alexander, Esq. (Alexander & Femino) requested a continuance for 5 Roosevelt Avenue to the next regular scheduled meeting in November. A member of the public asked what the reason for the request is. C. Alexander & Femino o/b/o Watts Street, LLC requests a Variance to construct a 3-unit dwelling on a presently vacant lot that had a 3-unit building which burned down. The lot has 5,076 sq of area and 50 feet of frontage where 65 feet of frontage and 12,000 sf of area is required. The proposed building would be located approximately on the same location as the destroyed building with a front yard setback of 8.4’ where 20’ is required. The property is located at 19 Simon Street in the RMD zoning district. Tom Alexander, Esq. (Alexander & Femino) addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant and stated the property is owned by an LLC whose owners are known and active in the City and the area. The lot had a 3-family home since the 1900s but it burned down in the 1970s and building foundation that was on this property is still visible. Properties during that time were not kept up. Fortunately in the mid 90s The Shoe was vacant and bought by Cummings Properties who have done a terrific rehab of that property that resulted in a significant amount of employment. Atty. Alexander showed 2 photos of the vacant lot and all of the other properties occupying similar sized lots. The second photo is a historic photo from approximately the mid 70s that shows a house in existence there. Atty. Alexander stated this property would be a terrific improvement to the area. The original design was to have houses side by side on 5,000 sq. ft. lots and then this house was destroyed and the streetscape has a missing tooth. Page 3 of 9 Atty. Alexander stated the shape of this lot and the existence of the foundation on it creates a hardship to this property and properties around it because it has the appearance of a burned out neighborhood. Atty. Alexander stated approval of this Variance would restore this property to its historic use and also create housing. Atty. Alexander stated the request is keeping with the nature of this neighborhood and does meet the Variance requirements. It is also in close proximity to public transportation and urban resources. There will be 2 parking spaces per unit. No one spoke in favor or against. Ms. Gougian asked for clarification on the parking spaces. Atty. Alexander stated there are no tandem spaces but there are compact spaces. Ms. Gougian asked if the design will match the two on either side and Atty. Alexander confirmed. Ms. Gougian stated she would like to see it not look like a box covered with aluminum siding, she would like to see some moldings around the windows. Mr. Margolis asked if these are 3-bedroom units and Atty. Alexander confirmed and stated it makes it possible for families to live there. Mr. Andrews asked if they need to replace the foundation and Atty. Alexander confirmed. Ms. Gougian asked if the replacement will be the same size as the existing foundation. MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Andrews seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 4-0 (Margolis, Gougian, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Andrews moved to the GRANT a Variance at 19 Simon Street to construct a 3-unit dwelling on a presently vacant lot that had a 3-unit building which burned down. The lot has 5,076 sq of area and 50 feet of frontage where 65 feet of frontage and 12,000 sf of area is required. The proposed building would be located approximately on the same location as the destroyed building with a front yard setback of 8.4’ where 20’ is required due to the shape and size of the lot creating a hardship, subject to the plans submitted including window casings and siding. Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 4-0 (Margolis, Gougian, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. D. Alexander & Femino o/b/o MJP Properties, Inc. requests a Special Permit and a Variance to convert a nonconforming building containing 2 commercial units and 2 residential units to a building containing 4 residential units. The building’s footprint will not change but the envelope will be expanded by adding an additional Page 4 of 9 floor. The height will be 35’ and there are 8 parking spaces on site, both in conformance with the zoning ordinance for this district. The property is located at 492 Cabot Street in the CN zoning district. Tom Alexander, Esq. (Alexander & Femino) addressed the Board and stated the applicant has developed an active business rehabbing and improving buildings in the city as well as the northshore. Atty. Alexander stated the two existing residences are not great, the building itself is pretty tired. The applicant is looking to invest in the area. Atty. Alexander stated the lot is unusually shaped, it is triangular and the existing building also creates a challenge because it is pushed to one far corner of the lot. Atty. Alexander stated this would be an improvement to the neighborhood, the plans are keeping with the neighborhood and there are no setback changes. There will be two parking spaces per unit in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. Atty. Alexander stated this proposed use is considerably less intense than what could go into this building by right. Atty. Alexander provided a petition signed by 15 abutters in favor of the project. No one spoke in favor or against. Mr. Margolis asked how many bedrooms are in each unit and Atty. Alexander stated that there will be three 2-bedroom units and one 1-bedroom unit. Ms. Gougian stated she is getting more concerned with trash pick up and asked if they will come behind the building to pick up the trash or will the occupants bring their trash barrels to the sidewalk. The applicant stated historically they have gone behind the building. Ms. Gougian asked how that will work with the parking behind there and the applicant stated it can be put on the side on trash day. Ms. Gougian stated the city is looking into mandatory composting which will result in three containers per unit. Mr. Margolis asked if there is enough room on site for snow storage. Atty. Alexander stated the snow will be moved off site if needed. Mr. Andrews stated on the parking plan it looks like there is a spot that is two parking spaces wide that is not being used. Mr. Margolis asked if it makes sense to use that space as dumpster space versus having 8 barrels. Ms. Gougian asked if there are plans to add greenery and the applicant stated in the back there is room for a couple of shrubs but most space will be filled in to meeting the parking requirements. The front of the building is right on the sidewalk, there is probably only a foot there. Mr. Andrews asked for confirmation that the elevation won’t change and Atty. Alexander stated it will stay under the 35’. Page 5 of 9  MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Andrews seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 4-0 (Margolis, Gougian, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. Mr. Margolis read a memo into record from the Planning Department relating to parking. Ms. Gougian asked what the size of the parking spaces are. MOTION: Mr. Andrews moved to GRANT a Special Permit at 492 Cabot Street to allow two residential unit and two commercial unit building be converted to a four residential unit building, subject to the plans submitted. Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 4-0 (Margolis, Gougian, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Andrews moved to GRANT a Variance at 492 Cabot Street to allow the full residential use of the building due to the shape and size of the lot and the condition of the existing building creating a hardship, subject to the plans submitted. Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 4-0 (Margolis, Gougian, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. E. James Bradstreet requests a Variance to construct a 9.5' x 22' extension to front deck. Deck will have a front setback of 12.3' where 30' is required. Deck will be further from the street than existing deck. The property is located at 8 Wilkins Terrace in the CG zoning district. James Bradstreet stated the existing deck is at the 30’ setback and there are railroad tracks behind the house and to the left. Mr. Bradstreet stated they would like to extend the deck and they are unable to extend to the side. The other side of the house is a parking lot. Mr. Bradstreet stated the hardship is due to the pie shape of the lot and the lot size. Ms. Gougian stated the house is also surrounded by railroad tracks creating an unusual situation. No one spoke in favor or against. Mr. Bradstreet provided a letter in favor of the project from a neighbor. MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Andrews seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 4-0 (Margolis, Gougian, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. Page 6 of 9  MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to GRANT the Variance at 8 Wilkins Terrace to construct a 9.5' x 22' extension to front deck. Deck will have a front setback of 12.3' where 30' is required. Deck will be further from the street than existing deck, subject to the plans submitted. Mr. Andrews seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 4-0 (Margolis, Gougian, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. F. David Sullivan o/b/o CM&B Team requests a Special Permit to replace existing wall sign with new wall sign in same location. The property is located at 85 Sam Fonzo Drive in the IR zoning district. David Sullivan addressed the Board and stated this past spring the applicant purchased the property. They are presently located in Danvers at 75 Sylvan Street and would like to use the back lit sign at their new location since it is only 3 years old. The sign is not significantly bigger than what is there presently. No one spoke in favor or against. Mr. Andrews asked if it is internally lit and if it will match the cladding on the building. Mr. Sullivan stated it will be grey and white. Mr. Margolis asked if this has gone before Design Review Board and Mr. Sullivan stated it went before Planning and they have a letter of recommendation. MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Gougian seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 4-0 (Margolis, Gougian, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to GRANT the Special Permit at 85 Sam Fonzo Drive to replace the existing sign with the sign submitted. Mr. Andrews seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 4-0 (Margolis, Gougian, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. III. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 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 7 of 9  Conor Walsh, Esq. (Glovsky & Glovsky) addressed the Board on behalf of the applicants and stated they are seeking to reconfigure the lot line as it currently exists. The property has been held in common ownership since 1985. The actual legal configuration is an extremely narrow lot at 95 Corning Street, the lot at 93 Corning Street is inconsistent with the neighborhood. The lot at 95 Corning Street has the least amount of frontage along Lothrop and Hale. The applicant is seeking to reduce the frontage so they can proceed with dividing the lots. Atty. Walsh stated there is no way to configure these lots to make them conforming. A petition was signed but all of the abutters and submitted to the Board. Atty. Walsh stated the shape of the lots create a hardship. No one spoke in favor or against. Ms. Gougian asked why this was continued and Atty. Walsh stated there was a scheduling conflict. Ms. Gougian stated the lot on the left will be more of an L and asked why aren’t they moving the lot line straight back. Atty. Walsh stated the L shape increases the viability of the lots. Ms. Gougian asked for confirmation that they won’t be looking to further divide the lots and Atty. Walsh confirmed. MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Andrews seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 4-0 (Margolis, Gougian, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Levasseur moved to GRANT the Variance at 93 & 95 Corning Street 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, subject to the plan submitted. Mr. Andrews seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 4-0 (Margolis, Gougian, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. IV. OTHER BUSINESS Approval of August 25, 2021 ZBA Minutes (Gougian) MOTION: Ms. Gougian moved to approve the minutes from the August 25, 2021 Zoning Board minutes. Mr. Levasseur seconded the Motion Votes in favor: 4-0 (Margolis, Gougian, Levasseur, Andrews) Motion carries. Page 8 of 9  Approval of September 22, 2021 ZBA Minutes (Battistelli) (HELD) MOTION: Mr. Margolis moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 pm. Mr. Andrews seconded the Motion. All in favor. Motion carries. Leanna Harris, Administrative Assistant Board of Appeals of the Zoning Ordinance Page 9 of 9