HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-04-18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes�0uJ a ��ERK
Town of Reading
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of April 18, 2013
Members Present: Damase Caouette
Robert Redfern
Kathleen Hackett
David Traniello
John Jarema
Members Absent: John Miles
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 # 13 -01
A continuation of a Public Hearing on the petition of Artis Senior Living LLC who seeks a
Variance, Special Permit under Section(s) 4.3.1.4, 6.3.2.b of the zoning bylaws in order to
remove the existing structures and to construct a new two -story 65 bed nursing home as per plans
submitted on the property located at 1090 -1100 Main Street in Reading, Massachusetts.
Attorney Brad Latham said research has been done since the last hearing. He distributed
architectural renderings that showed the proposed building and it was no higher than an ordinary
dwelling. It also was done in a typical New England style.
Attorney Latham said they needed the Board's approval or they would need to go before Town
Meeting and then the Attorney General and it would add much time to the project. He said the
greenhouse was built without a building permit and he said a greenhouse that was built with a
plastic coating does not require a building permit and therefore he said it was a lawful pre-
existing use when it was built. He submitted aerial views that he said showed this area was used
primarily for agriculture purposes. Judge Lobel corroborated this opinion in a later written
document. Migrant farm workers were employed and housed at the dwelling on the property and
a Certificate of Building Inspection (Farm Labor Camp) was issued for 1100 Main Street on
January 28, 2008.
Attorney Latham said he would present an argument for a Variance if the Board still felt that one
was required.
The Building Inspector said he verified that the information about the greenhouse not needing a
building permit if there was plastic sheeting was correct and he did the inspection on the Farm
Labor Camp in 2008.
ZBA Meeting, April 18, 2013
Attorney Latham said the use of the residence was a legal non - conforming use. When you have a
sales property with an agriculture use it is a non - conforming use. He said although there are two
lots they are used as a combined use.
The Chairman said it was difficult to digest all the information that Attorney has just presented to
the Board and it would have been best if it had been presented with enough time prior to the
meeting to be reviewed properly. Mr. Jarema also voiced his agreement of the amount of
material just submitted to the Board.
Mr. Jarema said a sticking point in his mind was the Variance under 4.3.1.4. He said looking at
the property it was a S 15 and its underlying use is residential. He also thought the architectural
drawings submitted tonight would be a positive impact to him for the community. He said again
the amount of material submitted tonight without time to review was difficult.
Attorney Latham said the relief they are seeking can have conditions put upon it and they still
need to go before the CPDC. He said there would be ample review done by CPDC and the
Applicant has been working with the neighbors to make the proposal acceptable to them.
Mr. Redfern said the Applicant is looking to receive a Special Permit under 6.3.2.b for non-
conforming use on the two lots.
Mr. Jarema agreed with Mr. Redfern but said which is the non - conforming use - the business use
of a residential lot or is it the residential lot that is the non - conforming aspect of the business use.
Mr. Jarema said he is in favor of the proposal. Mr. Redfern said he thought that also and that it
was a less detrimental use than the previous retail use. The Chairman said he thought the Board
thinks it is a good use but they are struggling with how to grant it. Mr. Jarema also thought that
the Applicant might have to come back before the Board after they have gone though CPDC's
review.
The Chairman asked the Board if they felt they needed more time to review the material
submitted tonight and they all agreed they did. He opened the meeting up to public comment.
Edward Manzi of 71 Ashley place voiced his approval of the project.
Another gentleman who was a side abutter from Main Street voiced his approval of the project.
Christopher Laspina of1082 Main Street voiced his approval of the project
On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to continue the meeting to May 16 so that the members had time to review the material just
submitted.
The vote was 5 -0 -0 (Caouette, Jarema, Redfern, Hackett, Traniello).
ZBA Meeting, April 18, 2013 2
Case # 13 -04
Continuation of a Public Hearing in the Selectmen's Meeting Room at the Town Hall, 16 Lowell
Street, Reading, Massachusetts on Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 7:00 PM on the petition of Michael
& Mary Belmonte who seek a Variance and a Special Permit under Section(s) 4.2.2 and 6.3.8. Lb
of the zoning bylaws in order to demolish an existing non - conforming single family dwelling and
to construct a new two family dwelling on the property located at 172 Washington Street in
Reading, Massachusetts.
Attorney Brad Latham said the Building Inspector and the Assessor did a site visit and
determined that the total amount of rooms in the present dwelling is 9 rooms, 8 of which were
habitable. So the Applicant would be able to build a two - family dwelling by right. There would
not be any non - conformity involved with the proposal. Attorney Latham reviewed what he
thought were the four criteria that needed to be met in order to obtain a Variance.
The Building Inspector said the property can be converted into a two family by right or add an
addition but there would be considerable amounts of money to repair the house that was in
horrible condition. He did not have any problem with this being demolished and rebuilt as a two -
family dwelling.
Mr. Redfern had a problem with the first criteria that relates to the topographical condition
because the lot is a flat even lot. Attorney Latham said it was the condition and location of the
building that meets the first criteria.
Mr. Jarema wanted more information about the lot itself. Attorney Latham said the building is
way over on one side of the lot because this is one lot with a second lot added. Mr. Jarema also
thought the garage is too close to the front and should be moved back further. He also thought
the proposed dwelling could be more creative and situated better on the lot. Mr. Jarema referred
favorably to the four - family on Green Street that was uniquely designed and you also didn't even
realize it was a four- family.
The Applicant said he could change the design for the new dwelling and move it back to a more
agreeable position. The present dwelling is in terrible shape and it is at its end.
Mr. Traniello said they could accept the fact that the dwelling could be rebuilt as a two family
and a more unique design would be good.
Mr. Jarema said the present structure is so close to the street and does not line up with other
houses in the area.
Mr. Redfern said a new certified plot plan would be required and Attorney Latham said they
could put in conditions.
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to grant the Applicant a Variance from Section 4.2.2 of the Zoning Bylaws in order to demolish
the existing single- family dwelling and to construct a new, two- family dwelling on the lot as
ZBA Meeting, April 18, 2013
depicted on the referenced Certified Plot Plan, with the condition that the proposed two - family
dwelling be located at least 50' back from Washington Street in order to provide sufficient on-
site parking, snow storage, and front yard landscaping.
The vote was 5 -0 -0 (Caouette, Jarema, Redfern, Hackett, Traniello).
Case # 13 -05
A Public Hearing on the petition of Phillip Cormier who seeks a Special Permit under Section
6.3.8.1 of the zoning bylaws in order to remove an existing single family dwelling and to
construct a new single family dwelling on an existing non - conforming lot on the property located
at 17 Kenneth Road in Reading, Massachusetts. See Proposal "A" and Proposal `B."
Phillip Cormier reviewed his proposal with the Board. He said he has two proposals. It is a single
family dwelling on a 10,000 square foot lot in an S 15 district. He wants to demolish the existing
dwelling and build a new single - family dwelling. It will meet all set backs. He offered two
designs with footprints of either 26' x 60' or 26' x 62.' He is not yet sure what one he wants to
build.
The Building Inspector said the proposals meet all set back requirements and he did not have any
issues with them. The Board seemed to prefer the smaller option. The Applicant said he would
prefer the larger. The Building Inspector said they both meet zoning requirements and he did not
have any issues with the larger plan being used.
Mr. Jarema said he would have liked to have the certified plot plan showing the previous
dwelling measurements as well as the new dwelling measurements.
Delia Quinlan of 38 Bear Hill Road asked why it was considered a non - conforming lot.
Ed Busch of 16 Kenneth Road voiced his approval of the proposal.
On a motion by Kathleen Hackett, seconded by David Traniello, the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to grant the Applicant a Special Permit under Section 6.3.8. Lb of the Zoning Bylaws in
order to permit the demolition of the existing single family dwelling and to construct a new
single family dwelling on an existing non - conforming lot on the property as shown on the
referenced Plot Plan of Land.
The Special Permit is conditioned upon:
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.
ZBA Meeting, April 18, 2013 4
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 (Caouette, Jarema, Redfern, Hackett, Traniello).
Case # 13 -06
On a motion by David Traniello, seconded by Kathleen Hackett, the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to accept the withdrawal without prejudice by The Story School.
The vote was 5 -0 -0 (Caouette, Jarema, Redfern, Hackett, Traniello).
Adjournment
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by David Traniello, the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to adjourn the meeting.
The vote was 5 -0 -0 (Caouette, Jarema, Redfern, Hackett, Traniello).
Respectfully
ima en M.
Recording S
ZBA Meeting, April 18, 2013