Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-03-01 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTown of Reading ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes of March 1, 2012 Members Present: Robert Redfern, Vice Chairman Kristin Cataldo r John Jarema Damase Caouette John Miles Members Absent: Jeffrey Perkins LiZK RECEIVED TOWN CLERK READING, MASS. 2012 JUN 18 A 10: 5l A meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room of the Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts beginning at 7:00 P.M. Also in attendance was Glen Redmond, Commissioner of Buildings. Case # 12 -01 A Public Hearing on the petition of Northeast Youth Ballet, Inc. who seek a Variance /Appeal of the Building Inspector under Section(s) 6.1 of the zoning bylaws in order to use the structure as a non - profit school without on -site parking on the property located at 32 Lowell Street in Reading, MA. Attorney Brad Latham represented the Applicants who were present. He presented his case for the Board regarding the requested Variance/ Appeal of the Building Inspector. The CPDC approved the site plan this past Monday night. Attorney Latham wanted to have the Applicants take no action regarding the parking and if after 60 days the Town Engineer recognizes traffic problems, the CPDC can request additional times between scheduled classes. The school is a registered non - profit institution with the State. There is a preservation restriction on the property. There was a discussion about the parking situation and the Applicants said they would agree to stagger the classes so there would not be parents dropping off and picking up at the same time. The Applicants said there is space for three vehicles but these would be for teachers and not students. Attorney Latham presented his rebuttal of the Building Inspector's decision regarding the number of spaces required. He said there is no on -site parking requirement and if the Town wants that then Town Meeting should change the bylaws. Attorney Latham also said the school would be within 300' of public parking because the school will abut the Town Hall parking lot. Attorney Latham also presented his arguments for the granting of a Variance by listing the four required criteria to receive a Variance. 1\ ZBA Meeting, March 1, 2012 There are no exterior renovations being done, just slight interior work. The Building Inspector indicated that Town Counsel said the Applicants must seek a Variance for parking as other new schools in the town had to. He also thought the Town Hall Parking Lot was not a public lot but instead for the use of Town Hall employees and visitors to the Town Hall. The Chairman said they must reach a decision based on the regulations that they have. There was also a discussion regarding if the customers going to the school were consumers. This category is used to cover almost every building in Town other than restaurants. Other Board members voiced their opinions. Mr. Caouette was inclined not to overturn the decision of the Building Inspector or to grant the Variance. Mr. Jarema reviewed his observations of the building and asked whether there were any landscaping demands as part of the Mass Historic agreement that would prohibit additional parking to be found on the property. Mr. Jarema also questioned CPDC making the decision as to how parking is working out because technically this would come back before the ZBA for their decision. He said he would not want to see the school opened and then have the ZBA have to close the school due to a parking situation. He would want additional information sought by the Applicants and some attempt made to find and provide some type of on -site parking. And he thought the first priority was the safety of the students and their access to the building. The Building Inspector said it was the jurisdiction of the CPDC to design parking. He also said the architect said the capacity of the building was 300 people and if that were ever achieved then where would they park. Ms. Cataldo said she thought the issue was parking and not just drop off and pick up. Especially for the younger children, even if there was no observation allowed of the classes by the parents. Attorney Latham said to grant a Variance predicated on the basis of this school as a non - profit educational institution. He said the Applicants cannot afford the expense of providing on -site parking. Ms. Cataldo said there are several ballet schools and karate schools in town and she had reservations because she thinks this school falls under the consumer establishment and using the Town Hall Parking Lot is not the solution. She would like to see if there is some way for them to provide on -site parking. Mr. Redfem did not think the Variance was feasible and he also put the school in the consumer services category like the majority in the town. The Building Inspector said the school was not consumer services but instead an educational institution. Mr. Jarema said it was a change of use as voiced by the Building Inspector and if it was deemed a consumer services institution it would be required to provide parking. ZBA Meeting, March 1, 2012 Attorney Latham asked if, with the approval of Mass Historic, that the Applicant could put in two on -site parking spaces, would the Board consider granting a Variance based on that. The Applicant said the three parking spaces were sufficient because there are three teachers and all others are drop -off and pick -up. The discussion continued because there were varied opinions among the Board as to how the Applicants could or could not provide additional parking. Mr. Jarema said he wanted at least an attempt to provide at least two additional parking sites or widen the driveway for extra spaces so that down the road this would be a building with on -site parking. Attorney Latham requested a two -week continuance so that the Applicants can speak with their engineer and the Town Engineer and see what they might be able to do to show good faith. On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Kristin Cataldo, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to continue the hearing to March 15, 2011. The vote was 5 -0 -0 ( Cataldo, Jarema, Miles, Redfern, Caouette). Case# 12 -2 A Public Hearing on the petition of Gaetano, Maria & Melissa Fodera who seek a Special Permit / Variance under Section(s) 6.3.6/6.3.8/5.1.2 of the zoning bylaws in order to demolish a non- conforming single family dwelling and to construct a new single family dwelling on the property located at 20 Eaton Street in Reading, MA. Attorney Josh Latham represented the Applicants who were in attendance at the meeting. He presented the history of the property. It was bought for their daughter and was in a state of disrepair. The new dwelling would take up a greater area and have a different footprint. The proposed dwelling will correct one of the current non - conformities and will be built smaller than it could be in order to achieve this. The Building Inspector said it a typical demolition and rebuild and the non - conforming woodshed located on the property would be removed. The Board members asked questions of Attorney Latham regarding the set backs, garage, lot coverage, dimensions, and height of the structure. Kenneth Toomajian of 22 Eaton Street had questions about the driveway. On a motion by Damase Caouette, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the Applicants a Special Permit under Section 6.3.8. Lb of the zoning bylaws in order to demolish the existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling on the property as shown on the referenced topographic plan of land. This Special Permit is conditioned upon the following: ZBA Meeting, March 1, 2012 1. The Petitioner shall submit to the Building Inspector a Certified Plot Plan of the proposed construction and proposed foundation plans, prior to the issuance of a foundation permit for the work. 2. The Petitioner's final construction plans for the new structure shall be submitted to the Building Inspector, along with the as -built foundation plan(s), prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. As -built plans showing the completed construction shall be submitted to the Building Inspector immediately after the work is completed and prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit. The vote was 5 -0 -0 (Miles, Cataldo, Redfern, Jarema, Caouette). Other Business Major or minor modification for 285 Main Street The Building Inspector said the Special Permit was issued to take the building down to the foundation and use the same footprint but with repairs being necessary it proved to be too expensive so they want to put in a new foundation on the same footprint. He thought this would be a better alternative to the existing foundation. They will use a small portion to reduce the impact on the brook. The Chairman said it appeared to be the same but with a different method of construction meeting all the current building codes. The Building Inspector said they needed to also get approval for this new foundation from the Conservation Commission due to the fact that it is slightly more intrusive than what was originally proposed from a conservation point of view. The Board members thought it was reasonable and in fact a better foundation than what was originally proposed. Mr. Jarema said this was a solid project that has been continuously pursued by the Applicants who are eager to begin construction. On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Damase Caouette, the Zoning Board of Appeals made a finding that use of the same footprint with repairs proved to be too expensive so the Applicants will put in a new foundation on the same footprint. The Board thought this was a better alternative to using the existing foundation and the Applicants will use a small portion to reduce the impact on the brook. The vote was 5 -0 -0 (Miles, Cataldo, Redfern, Jarema, Caouette). ZBA Meeting, March 1, 2012 4 Minutes On a motion by Damase Caouette, seconded by John Miles, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept the minutes of January 5, 2012. The vote was 4 -0 -0 (Miles, Redfern, Jarema, Caouette). Adjournment On a motion by Kristin Cataldo, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting. The vote was 4 -0 -0 (Miles, Redfern, Jarema, Caouette). submitted, Mureen Knight Recording Seca ZBA Meeting, March 1, 2012