Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-11-05 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutess FH Town of Reading M ~ 1 Meeting Minutes 9.. Imcon40 Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Zoning Board of Appeals Date: 2015 -11 -05 Building: Reading Town Hall Address: 16 Lowell Street Purpose: General Business Attendees: Members - Present: Time: 7:00 PM �o�,►�l CORK k;LCE IVf �) TOWN CLERK READING, MASS. .r!I A0Sq Location: Selectmen Meeting Room Session: General Session Robert Redfern, Damase Caouette, John Jarema, David Traniello, Erik Hagstrom, Kathleen Hackett Members - Not Present: Others Present: Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Kim Saunders Topics of Discussion: Mr. Redfern opened the meeting at 7:03 PM. Case # 15 -09 The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on the petition of St. Agnes Church (Archdiocese) who seeks a Special Permit and an Appeal of the Building Inspector under Sections 9.0/7.0 of the zoning bylaws in order to allow reduction in off - street parking and use off -site parking on the property located at 172 -186 Woburn Street in Reading, Massachusetts Mr. Latham, attorney for the petitioner, introduced Father Rock. He described the property located at 172 -186 Woburn Street. He said the property contains a church, rectory and parish center. He said the current bylaw does not define Church. Mr. Latham outlined the proposal. He reminded the Board a Special Permit was granted in 2013, and distributed a comparison between the 2013 Decision and current submission plan. Mr. Latham listed the requested relief the petitioner seeks from the Board to be able to grant a Special Permit. Mr. Redfern read a memo from Glen Redmond, Zoning Enforcement Officer, commenting on the case. Mr. Traniello asked if the property located at 172 Woburn Street would be used for residential. Mr. Latham answered it is intended if this permitting is obtained. He said 35 parking spaces will be used only for the apartment building and the other 32 spaces will be dedicated to the church. Page 1 1 Mr. Traniello questioned if Mr. Redmond used both the parish center and church to calculate parking spaces. Mr. Latham answered both buildings will not be in use at the same time. Mr. Latham said tandem parking is not unusual for churches to have. The tandem parking will be striped. Ms. Hackett questioned if the petitioner is asking for approval on one less parking space than in 2013. She questioned how the tandem parking would work when CCD and Church is operating at the same time. Mr. Jarema asked for clarification on the parking spaces in the lower lot. Mr. Latham explained, and said some parking spaces might be lost when the petitioner appears before other Town officials. Mr. Caouette said the current proposal is a distinct improvement over the proposal of 2013. Mr. Latham said the residential building will have 20 units. Mr. Redfern stated the church has been functioning for years and the request should be grandfathered. Mr. Jarema questioned the legal means for the easement to allow for dedicated parking spaces. Mr. Latham answered there could be a condition with approval by Town Counsel. Mr. Redfern opened the hearing to public comments. Mr. Greenfield of 192 Woburn Street stated he was surprised at the request to reduce parking. He said currently there are parking issues up and down Woburn Street. He said residents attending the Church block his driveway. Mr. Latham stated it is illegal to block a driveway. Susan Cappola of 100 Woburn Street said she is a parishioner at St. Agnes. She has been a longtime resident in Reading and grew up on Woburn Street. She said the church should be supported. She suggested the police are called if there are parking problems. Mr. Redfern closed public comment. Mr. Traniello questioned if a motion should be crafted including conditions with the concerns that were spoken about. Mr. Caouette questioned how tandem parking can be enforced. Mr. Latham clarified that 96 parking spaces are requested, not the 104 that were proposed. Mr. Jarema said the current proposal is a creative way to utilize the old school building. He questioned what would happen if the contract falls apart. Mr. Latham answered if nothing is done it will be nullified. On a motion made by Ms. Hackett, seconded by Mr. Caouette, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to approve the Petitioner's request for a Special Permit and made the following findings: 1. The sixteen tandem parking spaces as shown on Lot 1 -A of the Medford Engineering & Survey Plan, dated February 4, 215 as revised to September 2, 2015, are acceptable and can be counted as parking spaces for zoning purposes. 2. Up to 32 parking spaces on Lot -2 -A may be used for the benefit of Loo 1 -A. Parking spaces on Lot 2 -A dedicated for the benefit of Lot 1 -A shall be granted in perpetuity and Page 1 2 shall be for the exclusive use of Lot 1 -A. The form of the easement grant shall be subject to the reasonable approval of Town Counsel. 3. A deficit of 25 parking spaces from the 121 spaces required by the current zoning bylaws as to the off - street parking requirement for the Petitioner's use on Lot 1 -A as shown on the Medford Engineering & Survey Plan, dated February 4, 2015 as revised to September 2, 2015, is not substantially more detrimental than the existing non - conforming use to the neighborhood and is hereby permitted. Vote was 5 -0 -0 (Redfern, Traniello, Caouette, Jarema, Hackett). Case# 15 -11 The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on the petition of NH Signs who seek a Variance under Sections 8.0/8.2.5.e of the zoning bylaws in order to replace a portion of the existing free - standing sign with a LED Electronic Sign on the property located at 749 Main Street in Reading, Massachusetts. NH Signs, representing the property owners, said in 2015 the business was sold to Gulf. A new sign changing the name of the business was permitted by the Town. He described and showed the current and proposed sign. He said he would like permission to change the plastic lettering to a LED electronic sign. He commented the zoning code is not written for current technology. He listed his four criteria to meet a requirements for a variance. Mr. Redfern read Mr. Redmond's comments on the case. Mr. Hagstrom said LED signs are excluded in the zoning. He stated he had a problem with the first two criteria stated by the petitioner. Mr. Caouette questioned the paragraphs that were referenced. He asked what the right side setback of the sign is. Mr. Jarema said there are very few fueling stations that have not switched to this type of display. He questioned if the CPDC should have issued a Certificate of Appropriateness for this request. He stated that Variances are difficult to word for commercial properties. Ms. Hackett agreed with Mr. Jarema and stated a Variance is difficult. Mr. Traniello questioned the proposed change. The petitioner stated the dimensions are not changing and the digital will be the same size as the current letter box. The Board discussed Section 8.2.5 of the zoning bylaws. Mr. Redfern questioned why a certified plot plan was not submitted. The petitioner stated the property owner always wanted to have LED signage. The sale of the business happened quickly and it was decided to in letters until the request could be on the ZBA agenda. He commented the new sign is smaller than the previous Shell sign. Mr. Caouette read Section 8.2.6.3 of the zoning bylaws. He said the proposed LED sign is less intrusive than what is currently installed. The petitioner said the display will not switch showing two prices. Mr. Redfern requested that the illegal sandwich board be removed. Page 1 3 Mr. Redfern opened the meeting to the public. Mr. Finch of 51 Mill Road stated the proposed board is an improvement. He said there are other similar signs in Town. Mr. Redfern closed public comment. Mr. Jarema stated he was surprised no abutters from the condominium attended the meeting. He said the proposed sign illumination is an improvement. The petitioner stated the business will be in operation from 6:00 AM — 10:00 PM, 7 days a week. The lights will be turned off when not in operation. On a motion by Mr. Caouette, seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the agent (NH Signs) for the petitioner (ASZ LLC) a Variance under Sections 8.2.5.e and 8.2.5 to replace a portion of the free standing sign with a LED electronic sign on the property. Vote was 5 -0 -0 (Redfern, Traniello, Caouette, Jarema, Hackett). Case # 15 -12 The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on the petition of Anita Lalicata who seeks a Special Permit under Sections 5.3.2 & 5.4.7.2 of the zoning bylaws in order to create an accessory apartment on the property located at 17 Springvale Road in Reading, Massachusetts Mr. Traniello questioned if Attorney Brad Latham was aware that the plans submitted are not acceptable for construction per the comment from the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Mr. Latham said he does not believe the plans are relevant for the public hearing. He said acceptable plans will be submitted for a building permit. Mr. Latham introduced the petitioner and her son. He said the petitioner is asking for permission to construct an addition on her son's property to create an accessory apartment so she can live with him. He explained the proposal and stated the criteria satisfies' the zoning bylaw. Mr. Redfern read a memo from Glen Redmond, Commissioner of Buildings. Mr. Traniello said he had no questions; the petitioner meets all criteria. Ms. Hackett, Mr. Hagstrom and Mr. Cauoette all agreed they had nothing to add. Mr. Jarema questioned the calculation of the gross floor area and stated it appeared it is well within in the bylaw. Mr. Redfern asked if there would be additional parking needed. Mr. Latham answered the neighbors will not see an additional car since Ms. LaLicata currently babysits at the property. Mr. Redfern asked if the third floor is habitual. The property owner explained one -half was finished from a previous owner. The other half has a cedar closet. There were no public comments. Page 1 4 Mr. Jarema questioned if the petitioner would need Conservation approval. Mr. Latham stated the Conservation Administrator was satisfied with project. On a motion by Mr. Traniello, seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the Petitioner's request for a Special Permit under Sections 5.3.2, 5.4.7.2, and 5.4.7.3 of the zoning bylaws to permit the addition to the existing single - family dwelling, including the creation of an accessory apartment on the property as shown on the referenced Plot Plan and Architectural drawings. The Special Permit is conditioned upon the following: 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. 3. 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. Vote was 5 -0 -0 (Redfern, Traniello, Caouette, Jarema, Hackett) . Adjournment On a motion by Mr. Caouette, seconded by Mr. Traniello, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 PM. Vote was 6 -0 -0 (Redfern, Traniello, Caouette, Jarema, Hackett, Hagstrom). Page 1 5