BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF EVERETT, MASSACHUSETTS. MINUTES FOR JULY 18 th, 2016

Transcription

1 Audio Tape Record Petition # Tremont Street, LLC Re: 3 Air Force Road, Everett, MA BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF EVERETT, MASSACHUSETTS MINUTES FOR JULY 18 th, 2016 Pursuant to notice duly given a meeting of the Board of Appeals was held in the George Keverian Room, City Hall, Everett, MA, on Monday, July 18 th, 2016 at 7:00 P.M. Those members present were: Joseph DeSisto, III Chairman, Michael Dantone, Richard Zullo, Steven O Connor, Roger Thistle, Alternate Member, and Mary Gerace, Alternate Member, being all of the Board and a quorum for the transaction of business. Chairman Joseph DeSisto, III presided at the meeting and the Clerk, Kimberly Rauseo, kept the minutes of the meeting. A public hearing was granted to the 68 Tremont Street, LLC, 101 Station Landing, Suite 2200, Medford, MA (RE: 3 Air Force Road, Everett), who petitioned the Board for a Special Permit of the Building Zone Ordinance of the City, as applied: Applicant seeks a permit to construct a 28,000 sf two story structure located upon a five (5) acre lot within the Riverfront Overlay District. The proposed uses shall include the sale of new and used vehicles including vehicle service and repairs. Permit was denied in accordance to the City of Everett Zoning Ordinance Appendix A Section 26 (b) 4 (b) The City of Everett Zoning Ordinances allows Free Standing retail sales and services uses, by special permit. Applicant must seek relief in the form of a special permit issued by the Board of Appeals. The Petitioner was present and Chris Gordan, President of Wynn Resorts, we are the own the 168 Tremont. This is a lot that you know well 4 lots down from the river the GE lot it has been owned by a variety of people. Where are, as you know, developing that area, we have approached some of them, one across street freightliner dealership, they are here with us, Mike Bohler and folks from freightliner here tonight and Jenny Peterson from our office. As we looked around we looked at that property potential to locate it, it has been empty for 27 years, on market off market we did purchase we do own we are working on big

2 plans with the property we have met with the city regarding this. The first proposal is relocate the dealership to keep in Everett. The idea was to put it there and under zoning it is allowed by special permit and we are here tonight requesting that special permit for that business. Mike is here to discuss this. I would like to direct your attention to the packet provided with petition. Plot plan give you context for site. It is 37 ½ acres and the Boston Freightliner has proposed on 5 and the lines you see in river green drive were all established as part of the river green technology park proposed in Overall property is the 37 ½ acres, in all lot lines were created including river green were created as part of definitive subdivision that was approved by the planning board looked at in It is made up of 2 of the lots that were established those 2 lots that exist map d3 lot 30 and 218 include about 8.5 acres those are the lots that are subject to this evening. Once project is permitted to planning board and conservation commission the idea is to carve out this new lot and this new configuration we have not done that yet. The status of river green drive right now it exists as a paper street but as I mentioned it was fully designed and approved back in February Roadway would be fully constructed not only to Boston Freightliner but also unlock the potential of the rest of the development. This site was approved for ½ million square feet so we would be building off those earlier approvals. 5 acre outline river green drive across page, 28,000 square foot 2 story building, use of that building is new and used truck sales service, office component office support space the west wing of building is for service east block for contains office space, storage. The access points, there are two proposed, 230 foot wide access points, full circulation around the building, in terms of parking there is full parking, 47 parking spaces for passenger 9 x 18, 100 parking spaces larger 12 x 30 service and sales of trucks. You will notice that there is some generous landscaping about 34 feet front to back, trees, shrubs, fence to proposed facility. The stone water management will be designed with DEP regulations lighting at site LED 24 mounted height. Utilities all available east of Air force Road, water, gas and power services will be brought to the site via River Green Drive. Grey line is part of river walk being proposed around entire project. That component of project will be constructed exactly as proposed in Speaking to the public about the plans that were just discussed with the board members explaining what they are proposing to do with the property. IN FAVOR Greg Antonelli 120 Tremont Street, Everett I have property that abuts this property 27 years vacant parcel, many attempts no one has been successful in developing this property. There are some environmental issues, GE would not lift, I think great opportunity for Everett, nice business to go behind not much traffic there. There is plenty of access. I am I favor of this petition.

3 OPPOSED Michael MacLaughlin 9 Baldwin Place, Everett- council of this area, no one has talked to me about these plans. I am concerned about the access, trucks that big cannot go over the bridge, 100 trucks. Open up gates letting trucks go through bike pass, only 1 entrance in and out Tileston Street Bridge cannot handle the traffic. I am not really against proposal they should have neighborhood meeting out businesses down that area are talking about growth, so much growth in that area, now with tractor trailers going down there. I am sure none of the residents have heard about this proposal. I would ask that you table this piece until August 15 th and some more research done on this piece. Chris Bohler On the access issue this site was approved for 500,000 square feet they did traffic study, NEPA, chapter 91 and state approvals they will have dramatically less traffic than that. We are going to be approving Santilli circle that included the traffic capacity that was in previous approval, it was factored into our traffic counts, it will be able to take it. As far as the bridge access, we are not going to be using that bridge, I know that the state will not allow the bridge to be used by those trucks we know that, the 100 trucks a day Anthony Vigorito is here he can answer any questions on how many trucks a day coming and going. As far as opening up Tremont Street we are not proposing opening Tremont Street, we have no issue with us. We did meet with bike advocates, they said the same thing they do not like when people cross the bike path. They asked about Tremont Street we told them we are not aware of any plans to open or close not part of our proposal. As far as other growth in area we totally support it. All of people in and out of that area are in support and want to grow. As far as communication with Councilman I apologize we are more than happy to have all kinds of communication on this project. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD: Michael Dantone Is this land going to take any radiation? Response As a former GE site they did not leave it in perfect condition it is still has underground contamination, debris, there is a variety of things it has had extensive environmental study, there is an AUL on the property we can work within that it doesn t prohibit what we are doing. We don t in vision additional remediation being required we have had Vertex and GZA to look at they have been fine with the plan. There is no need to do anymore remediation any further. Any soil removal will be handled anyway but we are not doing any large scale removal outside.

4 Joseph DeSisto Do you have any estimate of how much traffic will be created do to this? Response I think the reference was made through 100 parking spots for trucks for service. Often times they will go to the trucks instead of the trucks coming to them. Michael Dantone made a motion to move for favorable action and Roger Thistle seconded the motion. Joseph DeSisto motion for favorable action has been seconded any further discussion. Roll Call: Mary Gerace Yes Richard Zullo Yes Michael Dantone Yes Steven O Connor Yes Joseph DeSisto Yes PETITION - GRANTED Kimberly Rauseo, Clerk Audio Tape Record Petition #2293 Dennis Dzong Re: 7 Wilbur Street, Everett, MA BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF EVERETT, MASSACHUSETTS MINUTES FOR JULY 18 th, 2016 Pursuant to notice duly given a meeting of the Board of Appeals was held in the George Keverian Room, City Hall, Everett, MA, on Monday, July 18 th, 2016 at 7:00 P.M.

5 Those members present were: Joseph DeSisto, III Chairman, Michael Dantone, Richard Zullo, Steven O Connor, Roger Thistle, Alternate Member, and Mary Gerace, Alternate Member, being all of the Board and a quorum for the transaction of business. Chairman Joseph DeSisto, III presided at the meeting and the Clerk, Kimberly Rauseo, kept the minutes of the meeting. A public hearing was granted to the Dennis Dzong, 548 Pleasant Street, Malden, MA (RE: 7 Wilbur Street, Everett), who petitioned the Board for a Variance of the Building Zone Ordinance of the City, as applied: Applicant seeks to change the use of the existing two (2) family dwelling and convert it to a three (3) family dwelling within a Dwelling District. Permit was denied in accordance to the City of Everett Zoning Ordinances Appendix A: Section 4 Dwelling Districts (b) Dimensional Regulations (2) Lot Area (c): All other uses maximum floor area ratio a. The change of use to a three (3) family requires the proposal to comply with the zoning ordinance for density. The requested proposal would result in a floor area ratio of.625. The Applicant must seek relief in the form of a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Petitioner, Dennis Dzong, was present and he spoke on his own behalf. When I bought this property it was a 3 family and I have paperwork stating it is a 3 family. I have plenty of parking spaces. Wasted space on 3 rd floor and I want it to be legalize the 3 family. IN FAVOR NONE OPPOSED NONE QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD: Michael Dantone The 3 rd floor has been empty no one is there now? Response No one is there now.

6 Richard Zullo You bought this house and you thought it was a 3 family? Response Yes Richard Zullo - Where are the papers from that you have and do you have anything else like permits that were issued that states it is a 3 family? Response Assessors office. No I do not. Richard Zullo Do you have a mortgage on the house and was the bank involved? Response No I do not have a mortgage on the house. Mary Gerace How long have you owned the property and was there ever a bank involved? Response 6 years now, I am not sure I forgot which bank I got involved with. Michael Dantone made a motion for favorable action and Richard Zullo seconded the motion. Joseph Desisto - There has been a motion for favorable action and it has been seconded any further discussion. Mr. Soper this has to come to you even if we issue this correct? Jim Soper That is correct they still have to get building permits and an occupancy permit. Joseph DeSisto Is there anything in the records that would show? Jim Soper Our records reflect since Michael Dantone Mr. Soper the FAR is the only issue? Jim Soper That is correct. Owner They came down and said that there is a lot of parking there I should have plan. Richard Zullo Is there a hardship there? Does it have to do with the soil? Response - Building inspector said I don t have one, I am not sure.

7 Joseph DeSisto In order to grant variance, there has to be hardship, soil, shape, topography, I don t think they apply here, it is FAR. Jim Probably 60 square feet, I have not seen the house just doing the math. Joseph DeSisto Any further discussion? ROLL CALL Mary Gerace Steven O Connor Richard Zullo Michael Dantone Joseph DeSisto Yes Yes No Yes Yes PETITION GRANTED Kimberly Rauseo, Clerk Audio Tape Record Petition #2296 DDR Corp. Re: 23 Mystic View Road, Everett, MA BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF EVERETT, MASSACHUSETTS MINUTES FOR JULY 18 th, 2016 Pursuant to notice duly given a meeting of the Board of Appeals was held in the George Keverian Room, City Hall, Everett, MA, on Monday, July 18 th, 2016 at 7:00 P.M. Those members present were: Joseph DeSisto, III Chairman, Michael Dantone, Richard Zullo, Steven O Connor, Roger Thistle, Alternate Member, and Mary Gerace, Alternate Member, being all of the Board and a quorum for the transaction of business.

8 Chairman Joseph DeSisto, III presided at the meeting and the Clerk, Kimberly Rauseo, kept the minutes of the meeting. A public hearing was granted to the DDR Corp., 3300 Enterprise Parkway, Beachwood, OH (RE: 23 Mystic View Road, Everett), who petitioned the Board for a Variance of the Building Zone Ordinance of the City, as applied: Applicant is seeking approval to remove the existing wall sign and install a new wall sign/s of sq. ft. in area. Sign Area: The Vitamin Shoppe = 17-6 x 4-10 = sq. ft. Permit was denied in accordance to the City of Everett Zoning Ordinance Section 26 River Front: Zoning: Section 26 River Front District Paragraph (f) which states the following: Sign Requirements. Signs within the River Front District shall be subject to the following requirements: 1. Wall signs shall be limited to individual signs identifying on-site tenants and each shall not exceed fifty (50) square feet on any wall and the total area of all wall signs on a building shall not exceed one hundred fifty (150) feet in area. Violation: The proposed sign is in excess of the allowed area by sq. ft. The Petitioner, Ann Ramsey from View Point Sign, was present and spoke on their behalf. We are asking to make our sign bigger due to visibility. We don t believe that the sign that we are proposing is any bigger than the sign that is there now. IN FAVOR NONE OPPOSED NONE QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD:

9 Richard Zullo Could you compare to me your sign to Total Wines sign. Response I am not familiar with that sign. Response Our sign will probably be half of the size of that sign, we are over by Chuck E Cheese and Verizon. Our proposed sign would be similar to Verizon sign. Roger Thistle I was there the other day there is a sign already there is that the actual sign or a temporary sign? Response That was put there temporarily, we applied for both sign permits at the same time we do already have one to put in the back also. Michael Dantone made a motion to move for favorable action and Roger Thistle seconded the motion. Joseph DeSisto motion for favorable action has been seconded any further discussion. Roll Call Roger Thistle Yes Richard Zullo Yes Michael Danton Yes Steven O Connor Yes Joseph DeSisto Yes PETITION - GRANTED

10 Kimberly Rauseo, Clerk Audio Tape Recorded Petition #2300 Nelson Chaves Re: 56 Wyllis Avenue, Everett, MA BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF EVERETT, MASSACHUSETTS MINUTES FOR JULY 18 th, 2016 Pursuant to notice duly given a meeting of the Board of Appeals was held in the George Keverian Room, City Hall, Everett, MA, on Monday, July 18 th, 2016 at 7:00 P.M. Those members present were: Joseph DeSisto, III Chairman, Michael Dantone, Richard Zullo, Steven O Connor, Roger Thistle, Alternate Member, and Mary Gerace, Alternate Member, being all of the Board and a quorum for the transaction of business. Chairman Joseph DeSisto, III presided at the meeting and the Clerk, Kimberly Rauseo, kept the minutes of the meeting. A public hearing was granted to the Nelson Chaves, 39 Blacksmith Way, Saugus, MA (RE: 56 Wyllis Avenue, Everett), who petitioned the Board for a Variance of the Building Zone Ordinance of the City, as applied: Applicant seeks to convert an alter the existing one (1) Family Dwelling into a three (3) Family Dwelling. REASONS FOR DENIAL: Permit was denied in accordance to the City of Everett Zoning Ordinance, APPENDIX A, 1) Section 4 Dwelling Districts (b) Dimensional Requirements. (2) Lot Area: line c. All other uses maximum floor area ratio 2) Section 17 Off-Street parking paragraph (J) which states: Parking facilities shall be designed so that each motor vehicle may proceed to the parking space provided for it without requiring the moving of any other vehicle. The Board of Appeals, however may by special permit modify this requirement and the dimensional requirements of paragraph (I) of this section, where a parking facility is under full-time attendant supervision. Violations:

11 The proposed floor area ratio will be.96 will exceed the maximum allowed FAR by.46, and the parking area is shown to have stacked parking. The Petitioner was present and his attorney, Sean Donahue, 88 Black Falcon Ave., Boston, spoke on his behalf. We are asking that you open the hearing and continue this until a later date, at this point and time we are not prepared to proceed this evening. Joseph DeSisto Do you have a date in mind? Response August 15tth. Michael Dantone I make a motion to table this petition until August 15 th and Steven O Connor seconded the motion. Joseph DeSisto - There has been a motion for favorable action and it has been seconded any further discussion. 5 Yas 0 Nas Petition has been tabled until August 15, Kimberly Rauseo, Clerk Audio Tape Record Petition #2294 Marilyn Roberto Re: 92 Baldwin Avenue, Everett, MA BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF EVERETT, MASSACHUSETTS MINUTES FOR JULY 18 th, 2016 Pursuant to notice duly given a meeting of the Board of Appeals was held in the George Keverian Room, City Hall, Everett, MA, on Monday, July 18 th, 2016 at 7:00 P.M.

12 Those members present were: Joseph DeSisto, III Chairman, Michael Dantone, Richard Zullo, Steven O Connor, Roger Thistle, Alternate Member, and Mary Gerace, Alternate Member, being all of the Board and a quorum for the transaction of business. Chairman Joseph DeSisto, III presided at the meeting and the Clerk, Kimberly Rauseo, kept the minutes of the meeting. A public hearing was granted to the Marilyn Roberto, 6 Hancock Street, Everett, MA (RE: 92 Baldwin Avenue, Everett), who petitioned the Board for a Variance of the Building Zone Ordinance of the City, as applied: Applicant is seeking approval to create a new parking area in the front yard of the lot as described on the Plot Plan dated April 27, 2016 by Medford Engineering Associates, Inc. The applicant s proposed parking layout violates the following City of Everett Zoning Ordinance Appendix A: 1. Section 17 paragraph (K) requiring Parking facilities shall be designed so that no vehicles shall be parked nearer to any street lines than the minimum specified building setback for the Zoning District in which the parking facility is located 2. Section 17 paragraph (M) requiring No parking shall be located within eight (8) feet of any window of habitable rooms in the basement or first story level of any building Section 17 Paragraph (I) No driveways or curb cuts shall exceed thirty (30) feet in width. Permit was denied in accordance to the City of Everett Zoning Ordinance: Violations: Per the plot plan submitted parking is shown to be in the front yard. Per the plot plan submitted parking is shown to be within 8 ft. of a window on the 1 st floor. Per the plot plan the curb cut will be 62 ft. +/- long. The Petitioner, Marilyn Roberto, was present and she spoke on her own behalf. We are discussing 92 Baldwin Ave property which Anthony, my husband, and myself own. We are looking to put a front yard parking because we own a daycare. We are Everett s largest, privately owned daycare center. We have 46 Bucknam Street and 92 Baldwin Ave which are adjacent from each other. Currently we have 130 families from Everett that we service that is a hardship, not only our surrounding neighbors, we have enough right now to cover 6 maybe 7 parking spaces now that is drop off and pick up daycare. Drop off is between 8 and 9 in the morning then again around 4:30 to 5:30 at night is pick up time to service parents that come in at different times, anywhere from 4 to 5:30 and 8 to

13 10 in the morning, no one else is ever in the driveways but we need extra parking because of the second location to free up the congestion, people driving around the block waiting to pick up kids from class rooms and driveways are being blocked. All my parents and neighbors are in support of this there may be some here tonight that will tell you about the parking situation. Even so in the winter it is hard to have daycare in the city, public schools do not offer this in our city, and we service Everett families who need full time care. We are asking for front parking the same as we have at Bucknam Street on corner of Baldwin Ave side, we can have that because it is grandfathered in, we have had that property for 25 years and it works out perfect. We want to do the same thing, we will pay for everything. We keep in good condition inside and out. We own property commercial property. It is completely a daycare center as is next door. IN FAVOR NONE OPPOSED Patricia Cardello Alves 30 Bucknam Street, Everett, my mom owns property at Baldwin, her house is across from the daycare. I understand they are in need of daycare services, this is a business and a very knowable cause, I have no problems with this issue. Our driveway is always blocked which is a nuisance but beyond that it is a safety issue, police, fire cannot get up street, when trying to pull in my driveway, cars will not move. I have an elderly mother that is 89 if a fire truck had to get back there they would not be able to get back there. The business is wonderful and they have grown they are great people. My mother told me not to come here, but I have to protect our property and our neighborhood, this is not a good thing, it is going to look like a parking lot, they say they are going to be putting 6 parking spots and it will make it better I find that difficult those parking spaces are going to be perpendicular to Baldwin Ave, backing up right on to Baldwin Ave, there will accidents there, there are children all over there. I appreciate them trying to create more spaces but there has to be a better way than this. Jillian Alves 87 Baldwin Ave., Everett, very close to the 92 Baldwin Ave. property. There is also a fire hydrant in front of my house and pick up time between 4 and 4:30 is busy, cars cannot get up and down the street. We have lots of elderly in our neighborhood, driveway and hydrant is blocked constantly. If neighbors need medical aids, they will not be getting there. Also, the top of Baldwin Ave., trying to get into current spaces, they come down the wrong way. I am against it the parking spaces they have now

14 trying to get in and out of the driveway you have to plan accordingly what time to leave Baldwin Ave. Harry Ellis 30 Bucknam Street, in regards to the owners they have a great business there, biggest problem is 4:30 to 5:30 it is crunch time, it is a very narrow street. The problem is at 92 Baldwin Ave it is going to affect 2 more driveways, at 87 and driveway across the street. Baldwin Ave is a one way street and it comes into Bucknam Street most of the time people coming down Main Street will take a left on to Baldwin to go to Bucknam street to avoid traffic to get to circle. To take front yard and put 5 more spots that they want it is a small area and congested street. It is a blind corner, many accidents and there is a cross walk that goes right across. I am against the petition, we want to keep it a good neighborhood, they have a good business but I am against the petition for the parking spots. Michael MacLaughlin 9 Baldwin Place, Everett I have no personal problem with petitioner they run a great business, I do have a problem with them wanting to add additional parking. I live on the upper half almost in there neighborhood. A lot of days I cannot get off the street the way people park. At some point you iout grow hyour space, I don t want to hurt them, but to allow a curb cut onto Bucknam Street is a death trap waiting to happen. It is tight enough getting cars in, it is a negative beyond words, I see it every day. I wish them the best of luck but I am not in favor of this petition. They have a 130 families attend their daycare, 6 more spots are not going to resolve this issue. Everett Police Officer should refer to traffic commission. Marilyn Roberto First of all it is not like this is the first parking we are doing we already having parking on Baldwin Ave. We have no problenmw e have been operating like this since Pulling in pulling out, yes it is busy, pretty soon we will become Boston, even in the schools, they have crossing guards and police officers. We are waiting to provide 6 more spots doing nothing is not going to make this problem go away. This is a solution at our expense what we are willing to do. All the parents do not come in at the same time; it is 10 minutes in and out. It is busy in the morning and again at 4:30 and closed at 5:30. No nights, no holidays, no snow days, no weekends, is it worse in the winter, what isn t. All the streets are busy in Everett. What I am proposing to do is alleviate the drop in and drop out relieved. As far as tying up Baldwin Ave, how can that make that worse? Doing nothing makes it worse, I am not moving, so this is a solution, every month we send out notices to parents, please be careful where you are parking. It will be 12 lines in and out, it is not all day long. They are not allowed in after 10:00. Most of our parents are working full time parents who need all year round. During the day there is no one in the driveway. We are trying to relieve the congestion. We have not grown we

15 added another location next door to make easier preschoolers in one location and babies in the next. We have 87 children we had 93 we put a break room in for our employees. We have an excellent reputation. It is busy everywhere. Doing nothing is a problem. We can plow better we have plows that come in and get rid of it. Pulling out being in the way I don t understand that. We tell our parents to be considerate of the neighbors. We are aware of what goes on with our property inside and out. This is the solution we came up with to make this better. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD: Joseph DeSisto Are you expanding this business? Response No we already did that in That is the main building we added to rooms in the back in November. Joseph Desisto I can relate to this, I grew up on 86 Baldwin Avenue, I know the area very well, I lived within 100 yards of the public school, so when I hear people talking about blocking their driveways, one of the problems is that your business has expanded into a residential area, that is maybe suffering, not that your business is a bad business, I just question whether or not 6 additional parking spaces is going to accomplish this problem. Your business maybe too big for your area. We reject people every month for proposed parking within 8 feet of a window with children inside. The new plan shows curb cub is 124 feet. Michael Dantone Where do your employees park now? Response They park off on street parking around the areas, some car pool, they are not all from Everett. Most of our kids are from Everett, some from Malden. Michael Dantone Would transportation be something to think of? Response That is another whole different thing. Michael Dantone - Your business has expanded. Response so doing nothing is going to resolve this? My daughter will be getting the business. If you go to Saint Anthony s they are all over the place they don t have parking, they have more kids they are on a corner lot. Joseph DeSisto Saint Anthony s has nothing to do what we are talking about this evening.

16 Mary Gerace On the curb that you plan to cut, is there parking on that side of the street? Response There is not any parking on that side, next to it is handicapped spot. This is the best route to go there is no land in Everett and this will help in some way. Richard Zullo How long have you had parking issues in that area? Response I ve never had parking problems with my neighbors, other than last week the daughters mother said to us this is a business. We have to tell them to be considerate to park between the lines. Richard Zullo You still made an addition to this business? Response Yes we did. We have done every way of research. I cannot see doing nothing because if they are complaining now they are going to continue. Joseph Desisto Mr. Soper 92 Baldwin Ave that is 100% residential correct? Jim Soper I would have to check the file. If you want to recess I can check the file. Joseph Desisto - That is where the problem occurs, your offering a business in residential area. It is secluded and your business is what causing the hardship. Response It falls under schools so it can be in a residential area. Daycare should be in a residential area, these are children. Richard Zullo moved for favorable action and Michael Dantone seconded that motion. Joseph DeSisto There has been a motion made and it has been seconded is there any further discussion? Roger Thistle - How many kids total in both locations? Response At 92 there are 43 children and next door at Bucknam Street 87 total of 130. Roger Thistle You did work last year. Response Yes we added an addition in November. Roger Thistle The plan says proposed daycare, is this to alleviate the existing children there?

17 Response Maybe the surveyor used the plot plan for the architect, it is not another proposed daycare and he showed the lines it is not another proposed daycare. It started late October and was completed in January. No more daycares going there just trying to relieve parking. No one is losing parking on that side of the street. ROLL CALL Roger Thistle Steven O Connor Richard Zullo Michael Dantone Joseph DeSisto No No No No No PETITION DENIED Kimberly Rauseo, Clerk Audio Tape Record Petition #2299 Carmine & Christina DeMaria Re: Central Avenue, Everett, MA BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF EVERETT, MASSACHUSETTS MINUTES FOR JULY 18 th, 2016 Pursuant to notice duly given a meeting of the Board of Appeals was held in the George Keverian Room, City Hall, Everett, MA, on Monday, July 18 th, 2016 at 7:00 P.M. Those members present were: Joseph DeSisto, III Chairman, Michael Dantone, Richard Zullo, Steven O Connor, Roger Thistle, Alternate Member, and Mary Gerace, Alternate Member, being all of the Board and a quorum for the transaction of business.

18 Chairman Joseph DeSisto, III presided at the meeting and the Clerk, Kimberly Rauseo, kept the minutes of the meeting. A public hearing was granted to the Carmine & Christina DeMaria, Central Avenue, Everett, MA (RE: Central Avenue, Everett), who petitioned the Board for a Variance of the Building Zone Ordinance of the City, as applied: Applicant seeks to alter and convert and existing two (2) family and change the use to a four (4) unit residential dwelling located within the Dwelling District. Permit was denied in accordance to the City of Everett Zoning Ordinance Appendix A as follows: 1. Everett Zoning Ordinance APPENDIX A Section 4(a) 1 limits a single or double semi-detached dwelling existing at the time of the first enactment of the Zoning Ordinance (1926) to convert to nor more than a total of three (3) dwelling units. The applicant must seek relief in the form of a variance allowing the conversion of a double semi-detached dwelling to a four unit dwelling. The Petitioner was present and their attorney, Paul Delory, spoke on their behalf. We seek a variance from Section 4 (a) 1 from the Everett Zoning Ordinance a single variance to convert the existing 2 family to a 4 family. The structure itself is a brick veneer duplex style house with a firewall extending from the roof to the basement. There is a detached garage, above ground pool and the interior is designed as such that there are the 1 st and 2 nd floor 2 and 3 bedroom apartments the petitioner is seeking to convert the units that are grade or slightly below grade to 2 1 bedroom apartments for the 4 apartments. When house was originally build it was designed that way to allow that type of expansion in the future and the petitioner is seeking that at this point and time. I want to hand out items that you can have closer look at what I ll be talking about. One of the problems with this are the pork chop lots that you see from time to time I want to give you some information about this. The original lot was square feet, in 1966 made original subdivision of this property into 4 individual lots. It stayed that way until 1995, 3 remaining lots, lot 4 sold has separate house on it number 5 was sold to Mr. DeMaria, he did not create original shape of the lot. What he proposes on this lot is to convert this existing dwelling into a 4 family, no dimensional variances or parking variances that are needed, we are simply going to take the structure within the envelope of the structure down the center of the firewall, put 2 units on each side. The parking, pool will be removed, deck on the left will be cut back to accommodate the turn space for cars, 2 cars in garage, 3 in the back. There is parking the driveway will be a problem that will be eliminated. There is really no change on the outside structure of this building. Picture of existing structure, entrances to two levels on first and second floor, between 2 porches that is where access point for the 2 ground level apartments, this is only change

19 except cutting deck back and removing pool. Downstairs is a full window almost exactly on grade, it is an open space just added to this particular apartment is to build a kitchen, these are 3 bedroom apartments have use of entire structure. View of property looking at the plan cars are parking there now they will continue to park there as part of 8 parking spaces, a tenant presently parks in driveway, no further parking will take place in the driveway all the parking will be recessed off site and set back you won t see cars from street, presently 5 cars parking there, there will only be 3 more spaces available that are there right now. Rear of property, 2 rear egresses to these ground level units that we are seeking to convert. Deck will be cut back 6 ½ feet for the cars coming in around and near garage. Those are the only modifications. With regard to the statute they are called pork chop lots, there is a 24 foot lot on Central Avenue widens to the full width and size of the lot. The shape of this lot all of the development has to be pushed to the rear of the lot creates a hardship as to any type of work that has to be done to the property. As the statute says it is a shape of a lot that does not generally affect the zoning district. There are only 6 lots out of 199 lots that have that unusual shape. 2.3% of lots have this unusual shape, this creates a hardship with doing anything with the property. The property is large nearly 13,000 square feet, under section 5 multi families would only require 8,000 square feet total in a one to one floor ratio he has more square footage than that, house is 3,700 square feet and lot itself is 13,000 square feet. Section 417 of Everett Zoning Ordinance when conversion takes place it must comply and it does in terms of zoning and parking. As far as the intent of the zoning ordinance, there is numerous multifamily residents, numerous apartments on Central Avenue, therefore it will not have any significant detrimental effect in the neighborhood. The property is only going to add a 1 bedroom unit down below. This is going to be a separate apartment and separate living area. The board has stressed the importance of multifamily housing in the City of Everett, Charlton Street approval, Belmont Street approval and the board stated the board finds benefits of proposed projects, needed multifamily housing for the city in general, this would be an addition this would need for multifamily housing there is no change in the structure it is all internal no additional parking on the street. IN FAVOR Joseph Internicola 5 Cedar Street, Everett, Carmine is a friend of mine, everything is off street, only adding 2 single 1 bedrooms I am in favor. Maureen DiPierro 31 Myrtle Street, Everett I feel they are great neighbors, they keep property great, no impact I am in favor of it. Giovanni DiPeirro 31 Myrtle Street, Everett I am in favor. Paul Delory I have a list of people of signed in favor of petition.

20 Guisseppe - 90 Central Ave, Everett Everything is good. Michael McLaughlin 9 Baldwin Place, Everett I know the DeMaria s personally, they are great residents in the city, I am in favor. Emily Pionni 11 Bettinson Court, Everett I live in back of them on the dead end, I have known them for years and I think it is a great move. OPPOSED NONE QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD: Michael Dantone What is square footage of these apartments? Response The whole building is 3700, about 700 square feet. Michael Dantone I was there yesterday and I couldn t see the access to the pool for the other 3 spots. Response We are taking the pool deck out and cutting them. There is an 18 foot drive and it will be cut back. Richard Zullo Do you have children? Did you tell them the pool is gone? Response Yes and we will be telling them my in laws will be coming there. Michael Dantone Mr. DeMaria are you staying there? Response- Yes I am. Michael Dantone made a motion to move for favorable action and Roger Thistle seconded the motion. Joseph DeSisto motion for favorable action has been seconded any further discussion. Roll Call: Roger Thistle Richard Zullo Yes Yes

21 Michael Dantone Yes Steven O Connor Yes Joseph DeSisto Yes PETITION - GRANTED Kimberly Rauseo, Clerk Audio Tape Record Petition #2295 Whidden Memorial Hospital c/o Cambridge Health Alliance Re: 103 Garland Street, Everett, MA BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF EVERETT, MASSACHUSETTS MINUTES FOR JULY 18 th, 2016 Pursuant to notice duly given a meeting of the Board of Appeals was held in the George Keverian Room, City Hall, Everett, MA, on Monday, July 18 th, 2016 at 7:00 P.M. Those members present were: Joseph DeSisto, III Chairman, Michael Dantone, Richard Zullo, Steven O Connor, Roger Thistle, Alternate Member, and Mary Gerace, Alternate Member, being all of the Board and a quorum for the transaction of business. Chairman Joseph DeSisto, III presided at the meeting and the Clerk, Kimberly Rauseo, kept the minutes of the meeting. A public hearing was granted to the Whidden Memorial Hospital C/O Cambridge Health Alliance, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA (RE: 103 Garland Street, Everett), who petitioned the Board for a Variance of the Building Zone Ordinance of the City, as applied: Applicant is seeking approval to remove three (3) existing signs and install five (5) new signs. Permit was denied in accordance to the City of Everett Signs and Billboard Ordinance Section 12A:

22 The applicant s proposed construction violates the conditions of Section 12A-53 SIGNS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS as follows: In any residential district as defined in the Everett Zoning Ordinance, there shall not be any sign except as follows: (a) One sign, not exceeding two square feet in total area, attached to the building or on a rod or post not more than four feet high and at least three feet in from the street line, and stating only the street number and name of the occupant or occupants of the lot. (b) One bulletin or announcement board, name-sign or entrance marker for each church or institution not exceeding twenty square feet in area, except that if the street frontage of such church or institution exceeds one hundred feet, one such sign for each hundred feet computed to the nearest hundred but in no event more than three such signs for each church or institution. (f) One sign, accessory to a non-conforming use, which conforms to 12A-53, provided however that the area of said sign does not exceed one-half of the area allowed in nonresidential districts under said Section. Violation: The building is located in a dwelling district (residential district) and signs are not allowed as defined in Section 12A Signs and Billboards. The Petitioner, David Farmer, was present and spoke on their behalf. We are in the process of a rebranding for all of our facilities and we have owned Whidden for over 15 years, we are looking to remove the existing signage, there are 3 along Garland Street, with the one at the main entrance and at the end and we would be replacing 2 signs with new signs, over 32 feet long our proposed sign is half the dimension. There is no set back on Garland Street and also with the relation to the parking garage it is hard to find main entrance of the hospital so signage is one way for people to find the main entrance from across the street. Then on the other front of the canopy would be a lit sign and on the ends of the canopy because we are right up against the sidewalk driving up Garland Street canopy over hangs sidewalk so we want to put a smaller sign matching dimension at end of the canopy 40 inches deep and 7 feet long which also marks entrance of hospital at either end of the canopy. The sign on front would mark as Cambridge Health Alliance. Also no Garland Street we have an existing sign which is opposite entrance of parking garage where people exit garage it shows people the entrance with the emergency department it is down one level because of the hill, one would be a new replacement sign down the hill to emergency department. This is a branding effort for us so all our signs match our new facilities. The 4 th sign being proposed is off of Lawrence Street, the emergency

23 department entrance is set back over 150 feet from Lawrence Street, parking lot is in front of it, just to make more visible coming up the hill. It is a new sign that is being proposed which is about 7 feet by 7 feet. It is just a challenge at the hospital with the topography, emergency department being access, just trying to make things visible. IN FAVOR NONE OPPOSED Derrick Mahoney 80 Garland Street, Everett, we live directly across the street from the hospital. We already live with trouble with the hospital, people blocking our driveway, parking in our driveway, cement deliveries at 6:00 am in the morning it is had been rough living there. We do not want them to install any lit sign anywhere in our residential area. Anything we want less in the neighborhood not more. One of these lights will actually shine right in my bedroom. Joanna 84 Garland St, almost directly across from main entrance of the hospital. Numerous times I have had to call the Everett Police for people parking in my driveway. The lit sign would be right into my bedroom. I have been hit by the shuttle. I ve been over to the Whidden to talk to move cars, employees have told me to deal with it. They are inconsiderate; the signs will be another inconsideration beside the hospital. People park their cars in front on main entrance I can t get into my driveway. It is so congested there. Anything that is going to make them park or come close to entrance is not going to work, I am not in favor of having a sign there. Response - We are required to have the signage and we have to change it to Cambridge Health Alliance, relative to the main entrance there is an option instead of doing direct lit sign we could do a halo lit sign, they are back lit, soft light shadow on the sign, it would provide people with information to the main entrance. It is a shadow type of light. A solid letter the letter is a couple of inches deep, spaced out from the face of the building and there is a gap so light comes from the back it just creates a soft light so letters are solid so you can read the names of the hospital. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD: Mary Gerace Would it be possible to not light the sign? Do they still lock the entrance at night and if so no one would be using the entrance at night?

24 Response We are trying to make the sign visible at night. They do lock the main entrance at night except in the winter when it gets dark at 5. One option is that maybe it is not lit at 8 but people still come to entrance. It is a public safety issue, they may go to main entrance before the emergency. Mary Gerace Do you have directions on the door? Response There is a sign on the door that says where to go after 8 pm Mary Gerace People seem to find it okay? Response Yes they do. What we do have a problem with is we have 2 entrances. If they are coming from garage they go to employee entrance which they cannot get into, the lighting will help us. Michael Dantone Did you consider having a meeting with some of the neighbors before this? Response That is probably a good idea we have done that with other locations. We can do that. Joseph DeSisto the chair would entertain a motion to table this until our August 15 th meeting and allow the petitioner to meet with the abutters. Michael Dantone made the motion to table this petition until our next meeting Monday, August 15 th and Steve O Connor seconded this motion. Joseph DeSisto the only thing standing before us that we will be voting on August 15 th is just the lighting and the signs. 5 yas 0 nas Petition has been tabled until Monday, August 15, Kimberly Rauseo, Clerk Audio Tape Record Petition #2297 Ivany Sousa Re: 103 Mt. Washington Street, Everett, MA

25 BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF EVERETT, MASSACHUSETTS MINUTES FOR JULY 18 th, 2016 Pursuant to notice duly given a meeting of the Board of Appeals was held in the George Keverian Room, City Hall, Everett, MA, on Monday, July 18 th, 2016 at 7:00 P.M. Those members present were: Joseph DeSisto, III Chairman, Michael Dantone, Richard Zullo, Steven O Connor, Roger Thistle, Alternate Member, and Mary Gerace, Alternate Member, being all of the Board and a quorum for the transaction of business. Chairman Joseph DeSisto, III presided at the meeting and the Clerk, Kimberly Rauseo, kept the minutes of the meeting. A public hearing was granted to the Ivany Sousa, 103 Mt. Washington Street, Everett, MA (RE: 103 Mt. Washington Street, Everett), who petitioned the Board for a Variance of the Building Zone Ordinance of the City, as applied: Applicant proposes to construct a seven (7) foot by thirteen (13) foot addition off the rear (south east) side of the single family dwelling. 1. City of Everett Zoning Ordinance Appendix A: section 4(b)(7) requires minimum rear yard setback of 25. The proposed set back of 21.8 requires relief in the form of a variance of 3-4. The Petitioner was present and spoke on his own behalf. My name is Carmela Sousa, we are building a living room and we want more space to have in the area, we want to put a pool table and an L shaped couch and a little more space than we have. IN FAVOR NONE OPPOSED NONE QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD: Mary Gerace - So the room is going to be used as a family room is there going to be any separate entrances into there?

26 Response No we have windows of to the right and a French door on to our patio, the patio is already existing. Richard Zullo Mr. Soper if this is granted would they be able to make bedrooms out of that space? Jim Soper Bedrooms legally, sure I could not prevent them for asking for a permit for bedrooms as long as the emergency egress windows big enough, there is nothing I can do to prevent them from having bedrooms if they want. Richard Zullo Were you up here recently? Response- Yes we originally requested for 13 x 21, we have a retaining wall it left a bit of a space remaining 7 foot, my step dad said we should come and ask for remaining 7 feet so we don t lose it. Yes you gave us something smaller. Michael Dantone made a motion to move for favorable action and Roger Thistle seconded the motion. Joseph DeSisto motion for favorable action has been seconded any further discussion. Roll Call: Mary Gerace Yes Richard Zullo No Michael Dantone Yes Steven O Connor Yes Joseph DeSisto Yes PETITION - GRANTED Kimberly Rauseo, Clerk Audio Tape Record Petition #2301 Saugutuck Partners 12, LLC Re: 1760 Revere Beach Parkway, Everett, MA

27 BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF EVERETT, MASSACHUSETTS MINUTES FOR JULY 18 th, 2016 Pursuant to notice duly given a meeting of the Board of Appeals was held in the George Keverian Room, City Hall, Everett, MA, on Monday, July 18 th, 2016 at 7:00 P.M. Those members present were: Joseph DeSisto, III Chairman, Michael Dantone, Richard Zullo, Steven O Connor, Roger Thistle, Alternate Member, and Mary Gerace, Alternate Member, being all of the Board and a quorum for the transaction of business. Chairman Joseph DeSisto, III presided at the meeting and the Clerk, Kimberly Rauseo, kept the minutes of the meeting. A public hearing was granted to the Saugutuck Partners 12, LLC, 11 Unquowa Road, Fairfield, CT (RE: 1760 Revere Beach Parkway, Everett), who petitioned the Board for a Variance/Special Permit of the Building Zone Ordinance of the City, as applied: Applicant seeks a permit to construct a 284 unit residential mixed use structure on a lot located within the Business Limited and Industrial Limited Districts. The proposed structure shall be 68 in height and encompass 6 stories. All parking shall be located within the structure on 1.5 stories of garage parking. Permit was denied in accordance to the City of Everett Zoning Ordinance Appendix A: 3. The proposed use as residential multi-family is not allowed within the Industrial Limited District. Relief must be requested in the form of a variance from the Board of Appeals pursuant to the City of Everett Zoning Ordinances, APPENDIX A Section 21 (a) Uses. 4. The proposed structure encroaches on the required front yard setback in the Business Limited District. Relief must be requested in the form of a variance from the Board of Appeals pursuant to the City of Everett Zoning Ordinances, APPENDIX A Section 20 (b) The proposed structure exceeds the height limitations for the Business Limited District. Relief must be requested in the form of a special permit from the Board of Appeals pursuant to the City of Everett Zoning Ordinances, APPENDIX A Section 20 (b) 5 to allow a height not to exceed The proposed structure exceeds the height limitations for the Industrial Limited District. Relief must be requested in the form of a special permit from the Board