Appeals, Zoning Board of

CITY of BEVERLY Zoning Board of Appeals November 29, 2023 at 7:00 pm These minutes are not a verbatim transcript of the public hearing of the Board of Appeals. Reviews of these Minutes or outcome of the public hearing should include an examination of the Board’s decision for that hearing. Members Present: Kevin Andrews, Chairperson, Will Cosmas, Cory Farinella, Kellie Rivera, Laura Meisenhelter and alternate member Mike Barone. Others Present: Jim Butler, Building Commissioner Leanna Harris, Administrative Assistant Location: Council Chambers City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, Beverly Kevin Andrews began the meeting at 7:03pm and introduced the Board members present. I. MODIFICATION REQUEST Miranda P. Siemasko, Esq. o/b/o 40 Dunham OC, LLC The Agenda included a petition for a request for a Special Permit to authorize the construction of a subsidized elderly housing project, pursuant to Section 300-42C(1)(a) of the City of Beverly Zoning Ordinance, together with such other relief that may be required. The proposed project will contain approximately 160 units with on-site parking for approximately 210 motor vehicles. The property is located at 40 Dunham Ridge in the IR zoning district. Miranda Siemasko (Glovsky & Glovsky) addressed the Board on behalf of 40 Dunham OC, LLC and stated this project received a Special Permit in May of 2022. Atty. Siemasko provided an outline of the initial application and stated the applicant is requesting to make a minor site modification. The project went through and completed the whole MEPA process in April 2023. Due to a tightening of capital market conditions, changes are needed. The applicant is looking to move the 36 below grade garage parking spaces to the surface which results in less site preparation costs. The original proposed landscaped area would now be a parking area. There will be no impact on parking compliance. The bedroom count will be reduced from 245 to 220. Atty. Siemasko stated a full set of site plans were submitted with the Modification request. Atty. Siemasko requested the Board grant a 1-year extension of the Special Permit to expire May 25, 2025. No one spoke in favor or against. Mr. Cosmas asked for confirmation that there is a reduction of square footage and Atty. Siemasko confirmed. Mr. Cosmas asked if the loss of green space will result in going before the Conservation Commission and Atty. Siemasko confirmed and stated they will be going before them and the Planning Board in December. Mr. Andrews asked if there is any planning for catchment areas on site and Atty. Siemasko stated storm water management has also been revised and re-upped to accommodate the above ground parking. MOTION: Mr. Cosmas moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Farinella seconded the Motion. Votes in favor 5-0 (Andrews, Cosmas, Farinella, Rivera, Meisenhelter ) Motion carried. MOTION: Mr. Cosmas moved the Board to determine the request is a Minor Modification at 40 Dunham Ridge. Ms. Rivera seconded the Motion. Votes in favor 5-0 (Andrews, Cosmas, Farinella, Rivera, Meisenhelter ) Motion carried. MOTION: Mr. Cosmas moved to GRANT the Minor Modification at 40 Dunham Ridge, subject to the plans submitted. Mr. Farinella seconded the Motion. Votes in favor 5-0 (Andrews, Cosmas, Farinella, Rivera, Meisenhelter ) Motion carried. MOTION: Mr. Cosmas moved to GRANT a 1-year extension of the Special Permit at 40 Dunham Ridge to May 25, 2025, subject to the plans submitted. Ms. Meisenhelter seconded the Motion. Votes in favor 5-0 (Andrews, Cosmas, Farinella, Rivera, Meisenhelter ) Motion carried. I. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS Christopher Chang requests a Variance to allow a 2-story garage addition to an existing nonconforming structure that will extend into the side yard setback. The property is located at 106 Corning Street in the R10 zoning district. Remko Breuker (Breuker Design, LLC) addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant and provided an overview of the proposed addition. The current house is nonconforming in the front yard setback. The applicant is requesting a Variance for the side yard setback for 9.5 feet where 15 feet is required. The applicant would like to have an attached garage. The upstairs will have a deck area, flexible guest room and office space. The addition will match with the historic nature of the existing house in terms of the eaves and ornamentation. Mr. Breuker stated they reviewed the overall composition of the houses on Corning Street and the majority are nonconforming and have smaller lots than what is required. Only one house Page 2 of 7 conforms to the side yard setback. The applicant has one of the largest and widest properties and they are hoping that will allow them to request the addition on that side of the house. Mr. Breuker stated the hardship is the frontage on the site and the shape and size of the lot. It’s a very large lot and there is a lot of space. Mr. Andrews stated there is a lot of land but not in the correct spot. No one spoke in favor or against. Mr. Barone stated the home is a 2-family and asked if the garage will be shared by both units. Mr. Chang stated they aren’t currently using it as a 2-family home. Mr. Barone stated right now there is adequate parking for two units but once there is a 2-car garage it will force cars out onto the street if it is only used by one of the units. Mr. Barone stated the proposed garage is a 22.5’ wide and there is 5.9’ between where it would be located and the house. Mr. Barone suggested moving the garage forward and into the existing alcove so they could maintain the required 15’ setback. Mr. Breuker explained why that wouldn’t be ideal and how it would impact the interior of the house. Ms. Meisenhelter asked if the existing house will change and Mr. Chang stated it will remain a 2-family. Mr. Andrews stated the design and the windows look great and the applicant’s case for the proximity to the side yard makes sense for the neighborhood. Ms. Rivera asked for confirmation that it’s nonconforming on both sides and Mr. Breuker stated technically yes. Ms. Rivera stated the existing height of the house is also nonconforming and Mr. Breuker stated the height of addition will be conforming. Mr. Barone stated part of the criteria for a Variance is that the shape, topography or size of the lot creates a hardship and the map seems to indicate all the lots on that street suffer from the same issues. Mr. Barone asked the applicant to elaborate on the hardship. Mr. Andrews stated they have the support from the two neighbors most effected and they are maintaining the historic construction. There were three emails in favor of the proposal submitted by abutters. MOTION: Mr. Farinella moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Barone seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Andrews, Farinella, Rivera, Barone, Meisenhelter ) Motion carries. MOTION: Ms. Meisenhelter moved to GRANT a Variance at 106 Corning Street to allow a 2-story garage addition to an existing nonconforming structure that will extend Page 3 of 7  into the side yard setback due to the shape of the lot creating a hardship, subject to the plans submitted. Mr. Farinella seconded the Motion. Votes: 4-1 (Andrews, Farinella, Rivera, Meisenhelter , Opposed: Barone) Motion carries. MT Hospitality LLC requests a use Variance from 300-40 (12)(3) – the regulation that allows restaurants with dine in service only to allow the operation of a fast casual restaurant with dine in and take out options. The property is located at 374 Rantoul Street in the CC zoning district. Jill Mann, Esq. (Mann & Mann) addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant and stated they are requesting a Use variance. Atty. Mann stated she was surprised to find that only the IR district permits take-out dining but there is take-out dining everywhere in Beverly. The current restaurant is a Japanese place who currently offers take-out. The building is only 2,100 sq. ft and the size of the lot is also small. The size of the property is arguably an issue. It is a mixed-use lot with retail on the first floor and residential on the second floor. There is a uniqueness with this property. It is not possible to operate a dine-in only restaurant in 2,100 sq. ft. without being able to supplement it with take-out. Atty. Mann stated the hardship is that the building cannot support this type of use. The name of the new restaurant is Jamie’s Roast Beef. Mr. Andrews asked for Atty. Mann to repeat the hardship. Atty. Mann stated the size of the property and the size of the building creates a hardship because it cannot support a full-service dine-in only restaurant. Peter Kelly stated he owns the parking lot right beside Domo and he is looking to sort something out relating to parking before Jamie’s Roast Beef goes in. Atty. Mann stated they are willing to post signs inside and in the parking lot as well as also meet outside of this meeting. Mr. Barone asked what they expect their business to have for on site vs off site consumption. Jeff Silverman, the applicant stated the Peabody location only has four seats and so almost all (80%) of their business is take-out. Mr. Cosmas asked if they were aware of the need for a use variance prior to coming to an agreement with the property owner and Atty. Mann stated they are not committed to lease if this doesn’t get approved. Mr. Barone asked if the lease provides any off-site parking and Atty. Mann stated it does not. MOTION: Mr. Barone moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Rivera seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Cosmas, Farinella, Rivera, Barone, Meisenhelter ) Motion carries. Page 4 of 7 Mr. Cosmas stated this seems like it goes on everywhere without a permit and Mr. Butler confirmed. Mr. Cosmas stated it seems like the Board would be creating something where everyone would now need to come in for a Variance. Ms. Meisenhelter stated when the pandemic came, restaurants were encouraged to offer take out to stay in business and at that point the genie was out of the bottle. Ms. Rivera stated that is a topic for another time, we are just speaking about this one building and restaurant. Mr. Andrews stated if we don’t grant a Variance a restaurant will not go in there if they can’t offer take-out. Ms. Rivera stated they haven’t reviewed any other potential uses of the property. Mr. Barone stated any commercial use is going to run into the issue of not having any parking. Mr. Cosmas stated it is important they work out a condition of the Variance addressing the parking issue with Mr. Kelly. Ms. Rivera stated she is struggling with this business creating issues for existing businesses. MOTION: Mr. Barone moved to GRANT a use Variance from 300-40 (12)(3) to MT Hospitality LLC to allow the restaurant to operate a fast casual restaurant with dine in and take out options at 374 Rantoul Street due to the size of the property and the lot and existing structures on the lot creating a hardship and a literally enforcement of the ordinance would render it impossible subject to the Condition that the applicant enters into an agreement with Mr. Kelly for the parking lot to the north of the premises to prevent patrons from using those spaces as parking, subject to the plans submitted. Ms. Meisenhelter seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Cosmas, Farinella, Rivera, Barone, Meisenhelter ) Motion carries. Alexander & Femino o/b/o 31 Cabot Street Beverly LLC requests a Special Permit/Finding and a Waiver to allow for the addition of a one bedroom residential dwelling within the existing footprint of the building on the 3rd floor of 31 Cabot Street where there is currently an area that has been used for five bedrooms. The proposed unit would have two existing internal staircases providing access and egress. Pursuant to section 300-85A. A parking waiver is also requested for the increase of a one bedroom unit on site. The property is located at 31 and 31R Cabot Street in the CN zoning district. Tom Alexander, Esq. (Alexander & Femino) addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant and stated there are six units and six parking spaces on the property. They are proposing to add a 5th unit to the front of the 4-unit building. There are 2 existing accesses and egresses. The rear gable has an interior staircase that is ½” short at the highest point of what current code requires. They are proposing to push the gable up a couple of feet and add dormers on the side to put a one bedroom unit up there. The existing parking is nonconforming. They are seeking to reconfigure the parking so there will be seven spaces, one space for each unit. Atty. Alexander stated unless you are in the CC district you are required to have two spaces per unit. The division line for the CC district and the CN district is Cabot Street so if the building was located on the opposite side of the street, they Page 5 of 7 would have enough spaces. The ordinance does provide for a parking waiver when there is sufficient municipal parking in the area. There are two municipal lots within 500’ of this building. Atty. Alexander stated that the Planning Department has studied this and the houses in this area actually average less than one car per unit due to its walkable location and the 451 bus that goes up and down Cabot Street. There is also the Beverly train depot which is 1,873 feet from this property which is less than a half mile. The present owners of the property purchased it in December 2022 when the property was not in good condition and they renovated all 6 units with new flooring, new kitchens and new bathrooms. Atty. Alexander stated this lot historically had a third building on it and provided a map from the early 1900s showing the third building. The foundation can still be seen. It is a densely populated area. The RMD district is adjacent to this CN zone. It is an existing multi- family they are just looking to add an additional unit to it. Atty. Alexander outlined the criteria required for a Special Permit. No one spoke in favor or against. Mr. Cosmas stated the parking request isn’t clear. Atty. Alexander stated one lot is located by the Harbor Bridge and another parking lot is over by The Anchor. Mr. Cosmas asked if this plan is in lieu of adding bedrooms to existing units and Atty. Alexander confirmed. Ms. Meisenhelter stated the parking between the two buildings looks very tight and asked what will happen during a snow storm. The applicant stated they have a company that comes in and takes the snow offsite. Ms. Meisenhelter asked if the parking waiver could create problems if parking isn’t available. MOTION: Ms. Rivera moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Cosmas seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Andrews, Cosmas, Farinella, Rivera, Meisenhelter ) Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Cosmas moved to Find that the proposal is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood at 31 and 31 R Cabot Street, subject to the plans submitted. Ms. Rivera seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Andrews, Cosmas, Farinella, Rivera, Meisenhelter ) Motion carries. MOTION: Ms. Rivera moved to GRANT a Special Permit at 31 and 31R Cabot Street for the addition of a one bedroom residential unit within the existing footprint, subject to the plans submitted. Mr. Farinella seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Andrews, Cosmas, Farinella, Rivera, Meisenhelter ) Motion carries. Page 6 of 7  MOTION: Ms. Meisenhelter moved to GRANT a parking waiver at 31 and 31 Cabot Street to allow one space per unit as opposed to two spaces as required by zoning. Mr. Cosmas seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Andrews, Cosmas, Farinella, Rivera, Meisenhelter ) Motion carries. III. OTHER BUSINESS A. Approval of October 25, 2023 Meeting Minutes (Andrews) MOTION: Mr. Andrews moved to approve the Minutes from the October 25, 2023 meeting as written. Mr. Cosmas seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Andrews, Cosmas, Farinella, Rivera, Meisenhelter ) Motion carries. B. Discussion and approval of ZBA 2024 meeting dates (L. Harris) Wednesday, January 24 Wednesday, February 28 Wednesday, March 27 Wednesday, April 24 Wednesday, May 22 Thursday, June 27 Wednesday, July 31 Wednesday, August 28 Wednesday, September 25 Wednesday, October 30 Tuesday, November 26 No December meeting. MOTION: Mr. Cosmas moved to approve the list of 2024 ZBA meeting dates as presented. Ms. Rivera seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Barone, Cosmas, Farinella, Rivera, Meisenhelter ) Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Cosmas moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:50pm. Ms. Meisenhelter seconded the Motion. All in favor. Motion carries. Leanna Harris, Administrative Assistant Board of Appeals of the Zoning Ordinance Page 7 of 7