Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-03-15 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTown of Reading ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes of March 15, 2012 Members Present: Jeffrey Perkins, Chairman Robert Redfern John Jarema Damase Caouette Kristin Cataldo Glen Redmond Members Absent: John Miles 'ToW Ca RECEIVED TOWN CLERK READING, MASS: 0112 JUN 18 A 10:51' 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 -03 A Public Hearing on the petition of Steven Cicatelli who seeks a Special Permit under Section(s) 6.3 of the zoning bylaws in order to demolish an existing foundation and to construct a new single family dwelling on a non - conforming lot on the property located at 60 Mount Vernon Street in Reading, MA. Attorney Steven Cicatelli represented the owner of 60 Mount Vernon Street. Also present was the owner and the engineer. He presented the proposal and gave the history of the property. A Special Permit was granted in the past for this property for storage of motor vehicles. Due to disrepair, all that remains at this point of the building is the existing foundation because the Building Inspector said the structure was unsafe and had to be removed. The new foundation will be removed and made more conforming when it is replaced by a new foundation that will have a smaller footprint. It will not increase the nonconformity. The previous building was commercial in nature but this new structure will now be a residential dwelling only. The Building Inspector said he rejected the proposal under dimensional controls because he did not think it met the residential setbacks but he did think it was a good proposal. In the past a two - family had been proposed but it was not allowed in this district. Since the foundation is being removed, they basically are starting from scratch again. He thought a Variance might be a more appropriate choice. The Board members made their individual comments. They thought it was more conforming and an improvement than what is there now. They questioned the side setbacks and wondered if it needed a variance although they were now 9' instead of the previous 6.' There was a discussion ZBA Meeting, March 15, 2012 if this did qualify for a Special Permit under section 6.3.8. It was regarded as an improvement to the neighborhood. They agreed the use was not an issue. They questioned the lot coverage as it was missing from the plot plan. It appeared to be a legal non - conforming lot. It was questioned what they would do with the walls that are preventing the neighbor's lots from falling into this lot when the walls are removed. The grading was questioned due to the irregularities of the contours of the lot. The Board questioned why they did not receive any architectural rendering as they usually do to attach to any decision. Also there was a safety issue due to only 15' between this house and an abutter. Attorney Cicatelli said he would have asked for a Variance if he thought that was what would be required. He will withdraw if the Board is leaning towards not granting a Special Permit and resubmit the case for a Variance. Mr. Jarema said perhaps they should continue the case for two weeks to give Attorney Cicatelli an opportunity to prepare a presentation for a Variance. The Building Inspector said a clearer and more appropriate plot plan should also be submitted. Muriel Hall of 63 Mount Vernon Street had questions about how the house would be built on the property and the Applicant answered. The Building Inspector explained that the Town Engineer has to approve any grading that is done and it must meet the Town's requirements. Gina Snyder of 11 Jadem Terrace had questions about the drainage and the Building Inspector and Mr. Jarema explained that information must be submitted and approved before a building permit will be issued. Bo Garrison of 11 Jadem Terrace had concerns about water runoff, he wanted the grading lowered, and he was worried about a second floor deck and the Applicant responded. A] Jolson of 72 Mount Vernon Street had concerns about drainage and structure walls and the Applicant responded. The members of the Board thought a Variance was the more appropriate choice for the proposal. Attorney Cicatelli asked that the case be withdrawn without prejudice and he will submit a new application for a variance. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to withdraw the case without prejudice. The vote was 5 -0 -0 (Perkins, Cataldo, Redfern, Caouette, Jarema) ZBA Meeting, March 15, 2012 Case # 12 -01 Continuation of 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 reviewed that the case had been continued because the Board had asked if there were any way that parking spaces could be added to the property. He submitted a plot plan that showed added spaces. The Town Engineer thinks it is workable other than that the two spaces on the northern side be more angled. The Mass Historical Commission said they would give consent and they submitted a letter giving their approval to the scope of the project as presented. Attorney Latham also reviewed the memos submitted by the Town Manager stating the adjacent parking lot is not public parking but is for the use of Town Hall employees and visitors to the Town Hall and a memo from the CPDC about their approval and decision. He proposed that if there was indeed a parking problem then the Town has the right to ask for this additional parking to be installed. Jeffrey Perkins was not at the previous meeting but did review a DVD of the meeting and signed a document to that effect and will be a voting member on this case. The Board members gave their individual opinions about overturning the decision of the Building Inspector or the granting of a Special Permit as well as the proposed review by the CPDC of the situation in a few months. Mr. Caouette did not want to see the beauty of the property destroyed by parking spaces and thought the appeal of the Building Inspector's decision was the best direction. Mr. Jarema said Sanborn Street is always full of parked cars. He also was concerned about the safety of the younger children and their being dropped off too far from the building and the parent's dislike of this arrangement. Also the blocking of the through driveway will prevent any possibility of drop offs being done that way and he thought this was the best solution. He felt that CPDC reviewing the parking situation in 60 days is not feasible both in time and conclusion since the Applicant will be required to resubmit another application to come before the Zoning Board. Mr. Redfern said if they did not overturn the decision of the Building Inspector then parking would be required based on the square footage and that would be a required 10 parking spaces and this would not be possible. Then a Variance would have to be obtained to overturn the ten - space requirement. ZBA Meeting, March 15, 2012 Ms. Cataldo said she is looking at the safety of the younger students entering and exiting the building. They are providing an educational service like a karate school and they need to uphold the decision of the Building Inspector and require a Variance. John Arena of 26 Francis Drive said the Christian Coop Preschool has the same issues as this property and they have managed to do so for many years. Also similar is the Creative Arts School who is an abutter of this building. He did not think the parking situation is a problem and parents have adjusted to how to drop off and pick up their children. Mr. Perkins said he thought it is a difficult situation and did not think four additional parking spaces would give any real benefit. He thinks the appeal of the Building Inspector might be the way to go. On a motion by Damase Caouette, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to overturn the decision of the Building Inspector. The vote was 2 -3 -0 (Caouette, Redfem) (Perkins, Jarema, Cataldo). The deliberations continued for a long time while all avenues were explored about how best to resolve this situation. On a motion by Kristin Cataldo, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a Variance from Section 6.1 of the zoning bylaws to permit the Applicant to provide four parking spaces on the Property as shown on the submitted Plot Plan of Land by P.J.F. and Associates, 11 Gleason Street, Medford, MA dated March 5, 2012. The Variance granted relates only to the use of the property as a ballet school. If there is a subsequent change in the primary use of the Property, the new use shall be subject to municipal review. The vote was 4 -1 -0 (Perkins, Cataldo, Redfern, Caouette) ( Jarema). Adjournment On a motion by Kristin Cataldo, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting. The vote was 5 -0 -0 (Perkins, Cataldo, Redfem, Caouette, Jarema). M'au e Knight Recording Secre ZBA Meeting, March 15, 2012