Appeals, Zoning Board of

CITY of BEVERLY Zoning Board of Appeals January 29, 2025 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: Will Cosmas, Acting Chairperson, Cory Farinella, Kellie Rivera, Laura Meisenhelter and alternate member Michael Barone, Jr. Member Absent: Kevin Andrews Others Present: Jim Butler, Building Commissioner Leanna Harris, Administrative Assistant Location: Council Chambers City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, Beverly Will Cosmas, Acting Chairperson began the meeting at 7:03pm and introduced the Board members present. I. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS Alexander & Femino o/b/o Stavri and Klarenta Braco request a Variance under Sections 300-39(B)(3) and 300-39(D) to build on the existing footprint of the commercial building at 20 Oak Street which is 8.8’ from the side lot line and 8’ from the front lot line where current zoning requires 20’ and 10’ from the side lot line and replace the existing commercial building at 20 Oak St that is occupied by six (6) businesses with a residential building that would accommodate five (5) residential units. In addition, the free- standing building at 22 Oak Street, which as one (1) business in it, would be removed and the area that it is located in would be used for off street parking of two (2) spaces per residential unit. The property is located at 20 and 22 Oak Street in the CN zoning district. Tom Alexander, Esq. (Alexander & Femino) submitted a written request to the Board to withdraw the application without prejudice. MOTION: Ms. Meisenhelter moved grant the request to withdraw the application at 20 and 22 Oak Street without prejudice. Mr. Barone seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Cosmas, Rivera, Farinella, Meisenhelter, Barone). Motion carries. II. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS Vito and Maria Venuti requests a Variance under Section 300-27(E)(2), (3), (4) to replace an existing 12’x8’ shed with 100 sq. feet with a 12’x20’ shed with 240 sq. ft with a height of 15’ where 10’ is allowed. The proposed shed will be 5’ from the rear lot line where 25’ is required. The property is located at 11 Birch Woods Drive in the R22 zoning district. Vito Venuti addressed the Board and stated that they currently have a 12’x8’ shed on their lot. It’s not big enough for what they need it for and they are looking to increase the size. There is ledge everywhere on their lot which prevents them from putting the shed elsewhere. Mr. Cosmas stated that when the Board grants a Variance, the law requires them to give the least amount of relief that would accomplish the request. Mr. Cosmas asked why they are requesting a height variance for the shed. Mr. Venuti stated that since they cannot increase the shed dimensions due to the ledge, they would like it to be higher than what is currently there so they can construct a loft for more storage. Mr. Farinella asked if the photo in the application showing the ledge is on his property and Mr. Venuti confirmed. Mr. Barone asked if the ledge is behind both the pool and the shed and Mr. Venuti confirmed. No one from the public spoke in favor or against. MOTION: Mr. Farinella moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Meisenhelter seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Cosmas, Rivera, Farinella, Meisenhelter, Barone). Motion carries. Ms. Rivera stated that the request is straightforward. The area is very rocky and it’s a reasonable request. Mr. Barone agreed that there is a lot of rock there and that is unique. MOTION: Ms. Rivera moved to GRANT a Variance at 11 Birch Woods Drive under Section 300-27(E)(2), (3), (4) to replace an existing 12’x8’ shed with 100 sq. feet with a 12’x20’ shed with 240 sq. ft with a height of 15’ where 10’ is allowed. The proposed shed will be 5’ from the rear lot line where 25’ is required. The approval is subject to the plans submitted and due to special conditions of the property that are unique to the site. The topography and the shape of the lot create a hardship. Ms. Meisenhelter seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Cosmas, Rivera, Farinella, Meisenhelter, Barone). Motion carries. Page 2 of 9 Gregory and Samantha Harris request a Special Permit to add a conforming rear and right side addition onto an existing nonconforming structure increasing the square footage more than 25%. They are also requesting a Finding to allow a roof over existing exterior stairs and landing that encroach .4’ into the front setback. The property is located at 161 Lothrop Street in the R10 zoning district. Mr. Butler stated that there is an issue with this application as it is presented and he thinks it will need to be continued. Chris Crump (CWC Design) addressed the Board and stated that the property is a pre-existing nonconformity due to the front and side setbacks. The owner is adding a conforming addition to the right and rear of the structure. The rear addition has two (2) levels. The additions will be over the 25% increase allowed. There is a front entry way with steps up to a landing. They would like to put a roof over the landing. Mr. Crump stated that under the deck is a screened in porch which does not go into the setback. The right-side wall is inside the setback. It won’t be heated or air conditioned. Mr. Butler stated that the deck doesn’t meet the setback and the plot plan doesn’t show accurate dimensions. . Ms. Rivera asked if the inaccuracy is within the setback, Mr. Butler stated he is not sure, the plot plan is confusing. No one from the public spoke in favor or against. Mr. Crump submitted, for the record, a letter in support from a direct abutter. MOTION: Ms. Rivera moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Meisenhelter seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Cosmas, Rivera, Farinella, Meisenhelter, Barone) Motion carries. Ms. Rivera stated that it is a reasonable request and if the plans were accurate, she would be voting in favor of this project. Mr. Barone stated that he agrees and given the narrowness of the lot it’s a reasonable build. Mr. Crump requested to continue the application to the February 2025 meeting. MOTION: Mr. Cosmas moved to approve the request to continue the application at 161 Lothrop Street to the February 26, 2025 meeting, subject to signing the Waiver and Agreement. Ms. Meisenhelter seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Cosmas, Rivera, Farinella, Meisenhelter, Barone) Motion carries. Page 3 of 9 Derek Cavanaugh requests a Variance under Section 300-27 (E)(1) (2) (4) to construct a carport 7.5’ from the side property line where 10’ is required and 15’ from street where 20’ is required. The property is located at 772 Hale Street in the R6 zoning district. Derek Cavanaugh addressed the Board and stated that they are looking to build a simple carport. They have pushed it back from the street as far as they can due to an existing retaining wall. Mr. Cosmas asked what the issue with the land is and Mr. Cavanaugh stated there is a retaining wall that they are backing up to. There are two (2) letters in favor submitted from abutters that are included with the application. Ms. Meisenhelter stated that in Google maps it doesn’t look like there are other carports or garages on the street Ms. Rivera stated it’s a straight forward request. No one from the public spoke in favor or against. Mr. Barone asked if they are making the carport as wide as it is so there is no post in the driveway and Mr. Cavanaugh confirmed. MOTION: Ms. Meisenhelter moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Farinella seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Cosmas, Rivera, Farinella, Meisenhelter, Barone) Motion carries. Mr. Cosmas asked if there is anything going on top of the roof and Mr. Cavanaugh stated there is not. Mr. Cosmas stated that it sounds like the existing retaining wall is the hardship. Mr. Barone stated that a carport is far less intrusive than constructing a garage, it should look nice. Mr. Cosmas stated he appreciates that the applicant reached out to their direct neighbors. MOTION: Mr. Farinella moved to GRANT a Variance at 772 Hale Street under Section 300-27 (E)(1) (2) (4) to construct a carport 7.5’ from the side property line where 10’ is required and 15’ from street where 20’ is required due to the topography of the property creating a hardship, subject to the plans submitted. Ms. Rivera seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Cosmas, Rivera, Farinella, Meisenhelter, Barone) Motion carries. Page 4 of 9 Glovsky & Glovsky o/b/o Goldberg Brothers Real Estate LLC request a Variance under Section 300-40D(2)(a) to authorize the division of a single lot containing two (2) buildings in existence at the time that Zoning Ordinance was adopted into two (2) new lots with nonconforming lot area, one (1) with approximately 1990 sf where 2000 sf is required and the other with approximately 3978 sf where 7000 sf is required. The property is located at 42 ½ – 44 Cabot Street in the CC zoning district. Mr. Cosmas recused himself and stepped out of the room. The applicant submitted a written request to withdraw the application without prejudice. MOTION: Mr. Barone moved to GRANT the request to withdraw the application at 42 ½ - 44 Cabot Street without prejudice. Ms. Meisenhelter seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 4-0 (Rivera, Farinella, Meisenhelter, Barone). Motion carries. Mr. Cosmas returned to the meeting after the vote was taken. Douglas Hardy requests a Variance under Section 300-34D(3) to construct a 6’ x 32’ farmer’s porch on to the front of the existing dwelling 4’ into the setback, where 20’ is required. The property is located at 34 Nelson Avenue in the R10 zoning district. Douglas Hardy addressed the Board and stated that they are looking to add a farmer’s porch. They have lived at the property since 1985. No one spoke from the public spoke in favor or against. MOTION: Ms. Rivera moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Meisenhelter seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Cosmas, Rivera, Farinella, Meisenhelter, Barone) Motion carries. Mr. Barone stated that the plan looks nice and that the mass of the house isn’t being increased. The porch is in line with the neighborhood. MOTION: Mr. Barone moved to GRANT a Variance at 34 Nelson Avenue under Section 300-34D(3) to construct a 6’ x 32’ farmer’s porch on to the front of the existing dwelling 4’ into the setback, where 20’ is required, subject to the plans submitted. The position of the existing house on the lot creates a hardship that would otherwise prevent adding a farmer’s porch. Mr. Farinella seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Cosmas, Rivera, Farinella, Meisenhelter, Barone) Motion carries. Page 5 of 9 Alexander & Femino o/b/o Russell and Paula Gregoire request a Special Permit/Finding under Sections 300-86(C) and a Variance under Sections 300- 27E(3) & 300-86C(1) to allow the demolition of the existing 12.6’ length and 11.1’ height garage that is .7’ from the side lot line and is legally pre-existing and replace it with a shed in the same location that is 12’ in width, 20’ in length and 15.5’ in height were current zoning provides for 10’ height for accessory building and 15’ side yard setback. The property is located at 5 Sturtevant Street in the R10 zoning district. Tom Alexander, Esq. (Alexander & Femino) addressed the Board and stated that the garage was built in approximately 1930. It is old and tired and falling down. Atty. Alexander stated that this house really needs that space for storage and so they are seeking to tear down the existing garage and put a new storage shed in the same location. It would be in the same footprint but it is taller than the existing structure. The proposed height is 15.5’ and requires a Variance. Atty. Alexander stated that the lot is long and narrow and both the lot itself and the basement are wet due to a high water table. Atty. Alexander distributed to the Board a petition and a map of the area showing that the houses on either side have signed the petition in favor. Atty. Alexander stated that the volume would be increased by more than 50% No one spoke from the public in favor or against. MOTION: Mr. Barone moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Meisenhelter seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Cosmas, Rivera, Farinella, Meisenhelter, Barone) Motion carries. Mr. Cosmas asked why they are building the shed so high and Atty. Alexander stated that they can’t use their basement for storage. It will be a new building on site and it will be look better than what is currently there. Ms. Meisenhelter asked if they need to go through Conservation and Atty. Alexander stated it is not on wetlands, there is a high water table. Ms. Rivera stated that since the direct abutters are in favor that she is in favor as well. Ms. Rivera stated that she lives in this neighborhood and she thinks it will be improvement to the existing structure. Mr. Farinella agreed that it looks nice. MOTION: Mr. Barone moved to GRANT a Special Permit at 5 Sturtevant Street to voluntarily tear down the existing garage and rebuild, in a similar but smaller footprint a shed that would not be more detrimental than what current exists, subject to the plans submitted. Ms. Meisenhelter seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Cosmas, Rivera, Farinella, Meisenhelter, Barone) Page 6 of 9  Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Barone moved to GRANT a Finding at 5 Sturtevant Street that the proposed replacement shed would not be substantially more detrimental than the existing shed, subject to the plans submitted. Mr. Farinella seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Cosmas, Rivera, Farinella, Meisenhelter, Barone) Motion carries. MOTION: Mr. Barone moved to GRANT a Variance at 5 Sturtevant Street to permit the construction of a shed with a height of 15.5’, where 10’ is permitted, subject to the plans submitted on the basis that use of the shed would be greatly improved by the increased height and that locating the shed off the lot line would be difficult due to the high water table creating a hardship. Ms. Meisenhelter seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Cosmas, Rivera, Farinella, Meisenhelter, Barone) Motion carries. Alexander & Femino o/b/o Henry David Mitcheson request a Special Permit/Finding under Sections 300-82 and Chapter 40A Sec. 6 to alter the legally pre-existing use as a beauty salon such that the resulting use will be 42% salon and 58% business/professional office use. The building footprint and parking area will remain the same. The interior of the building will be reconfigured to accommodate the new use. The property is located at 20 Bridge Street in the R10 zoning district. Tom Alexander, Esq. (Alexander & Femino) addressed the Board and stated that this property has been used for business purposes for at least 45 years. It was a retail gift shop by Variance that has morphed into a beauty salon. The applicant is seeking a Special Permit/Finding that would allow a partial change of use. 42% of the building would remain a beauty salon and 58% would be used for an office for online plant based healing and natural health practices. The distribution of written materials would take place at this location. Once every 4-6 weeks they would have materials delivered to be distributed. On site there would be two (2) employees there three (3) days a week to distribute the materials. The materials would be delivered by the United States Postal Service. During the first two (2) weeks of December, they would be busier with three (3) employees and the deliveries out would be five (5) days a week. There would be no retail sales from this location. It’s a non-intensive use. Atty. Alexander stated it will be less intensive than a retail shop and the size of the beauty shop would reduce. It would require eight (8) parking spaces and there are eight (8) spaces. Atty. Alexander stated that the use is in harmony with the zoning ordinance and it’s an appropriate site. The proposed change in use would not be more detrimental to the neighorbord than what currently exists. Atty. Alexander provided to the Board a signed petition and a map showing the abutters who have signed off in favor of the application. Darcy Jutras, 7 Winthrop Avenue stated that she was trying to interpret what the Special Permit allows and it seems like over the course of time the building could be expanded. Ms. Jutras Page 7 of 9 stated there is limited parking there and she is concerned that they will be using that limited parking. Ms. Jutras stated it almost sounds like a warehouse and asked if there will be trucks coming and going. Atty. Alexander stated that there is only one (1) delivery every 4-6 weeks of materials and only one (1) delivery out of materials. It’s only being operated three (3) days a week except for the first two (2) weeks of December. Atty. Alexander stated it will be far less intensive than the beauty salon that has had 100% of the building. Mr. Farinella asked what a daily delivery looks like. Atty. Alexander stated that once a day the postal service comes and picks up whatever has been ordered. Mr. Farinella asked what the volume each order would be. The applicant demonstrated what would be shipped out and stated possibly 50 sets. Kevin Sopp, 3 Winthrop Avenue stated that his understanding was that it would be a minimal use. Mr. Sopp asked how many employees are at the salon. They are concerned that the parking will be taken up by delivery trucks and also that it will become a school versus an online school. Denise Colangelo, 4 Winthrop Avenue stated that the salon is the backdrop to their yard. Ms. Colangelo asked for confirmation that if they want to change anything being discussed and approved tonight that they will need to come back before the Board. MOTION: Mr. Barone moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Farinella seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Cosmas, Rivera, Farinella, Meisenhelter, Barone) Motion carries. Mr. Barone stated that parking is obviously a concern but this use does seem less intensive than what is currently there. It should decrease traffic in the area. Mr. Barone stated that he is comfortable with this application due to its less intensive use. Mr. Cosmas stated it is his understanding that activity picks up in December and Atty. Alexander confirmed and stated in the first two (2) weeks they are open five (5) days as opposed to three (3) days. MOTION: Mr. Barone moved to GRANT a Special Permit at 20 Bridge Street under Sections 300-82 and Chapter 40A Sec. 6 to alter the legally pre-existing use as a beauty salon such that the resulting use will be 42% salon and 58% business/professional office use subject to the plans submitted. The building footprint and parking area will remain the same. The interior of the building will be reconfigured to accommodate the new use. Mr. Farinella seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Cosmas, Rivera, Farinella, Meisenhelter, Barone) Motion carries. Page 8 of 9  MOTION: Mr. Barone moved to GRANT a Finding at 20 Bridge Street that the proposed use will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing use. Ms. Meisenhelter seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 5-0 (Cosmas, Rivera, Farinella, Meisenhelter, Barone) Motion carries. III. OTHER BUSINESS A. Approval of November 26, 2024 Meeting Minutes (Andrews). MOTION: Ms. Meisenhelter moved to approve the Minutes from the November 26, 2024 meeting. Mr. Farinella seconded the Motion. Votes in favor: 4-0 (Barone, Meisenhelter, Farinella, Rivera) Motion carries. B. 50 Balch Street (Vote) – Darlene Wynne MOTION: Ms. Meisenhelter moved to confirm the intent of the Board’s February 28, 2024 decision, as modified, is to require that the proponent, Beverly Commerce Park LLC, construct nine (9) affordable housing units, or 15% of the total units, designated for occupancy by persons of low or moderate income as determined by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) that applies to the City of Beverly. Mr. Barone seconded the Motion. Abstentions; 1 (Rivera) Votes in favor: 4-0 (Cosmas, Farinella, Meisenhelter, Barone). Motion carries. MOTION: Ms. Meisenhelter moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:41 pm. All in favor. Motion carries. Leanna Harris, Administrative Assistant Board of Appeals of the Zoning Ordinance Page 9 of 9