The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009-03-05 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes'I awns Town of Reading ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ~ - Minutes of March 5, 2009 Members Present: Paul Dustin Robert Redfern Clark Petschek John Jarema John Miles Peter Tedesco Members Absent: Jeffrey Perkins Frv 13 52 L_k - 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, at 7:00 P.M. Also in attendance was Glen Redmond, Commissioner of Buildings. Case # 09-01 Continuation of a Public Hearing on the petition of Salem Five Cents Savings Bank who seeks a Variance/Special Permit/and an appeal of a decision by the Building Inspector under Section(s) 6.2.3 (9)/ 6.2.2.3/ 6.3.10.2/6.3.10.3 of the Zoning By-laws in order to install a free standing sign on the non-conforming existing pylon posts and base on the property located at 8 Walkers Brook Drive in Reading, MA. The existing posts and base do not meet the required setback of 20'. All non-conforming signs shall be removed or shall be altered so as to conform to the provisions of Section 6.2.2.3. The Chairman read the request for withdrawal without prejudice that had been submitted by Attorney Chris Latham. On a motion by Clark Petschek, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept the withdrawal without prejudice by the Applicant. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Dustin, Jarema, Redfern, Petschek, Miles). Case # 08-30 Continuation of a Public Hearing on the petition of Massimiliano and Andrea Gabriello who seek a Variance and a Special Permit under Section(s) 6.1.1.3/5.1.2/6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws in order to demo the existing fire-damaged building, maintain the existing foundation and to increase the floor area of the second floor as per plans submitted on the property located at 285 Main Street in Reading, MA. j. ZBA Meeting, March 5, 2009 The Chairman read Town Counsel's opinion to the Board regarding this case. Attorneys Mark Johnson and Kristine Sheehy represented the Applicant. Attorney Johnson said Town Counsel told him that if the Board determined that the property had been abandoned, the Board could still issue a Special Pen-nit under Section 6.3.17. He submitted a letter to the Board stating his opinion after speaking to Town Counsel that the appropriate section to be used in this case is Section 6.3.17. Attorney Johnson outlined the specifics of the building and how it was to be used, the outdoor lighting, and loading spaces. Attorney Johnson reviewed his conversations with Fran Fink, Conservation Administrator, and said she had no additional suggestions at this time. He reviewed the outline dated March 5, 2009 that he submitted to the Board that explained why he thought the property had not been abandoned. Attorney Ted Bettencourt represented Saunders & Mishken, the property owners. He reviewed the history of the property since the fire, including the interactions the owner has had with environmental clean-up issues on the property and how there had not been any abandonment. He answered questions asked by the Board. The Chairman asked Attorney Johnson to summarize the relief he was looking for from the Board and he did so. If the Board determines that there was no abandonment, Attorney Johnson wanted the Board to grant a Special Permit for the demolition and the rebuilding of the building on the same footprint. Attorney Johnson submitted another letter to the Board dated January 14, 2009 from GeoInsight regarding the environmental clean-up issues on the property. The Board, in recognition of the evidence presented by the Applicant, reached a consensus that the structure on the property had not been abandoned, and the Board was of the opinion Section 6.3.17 was the appropriate By-law in this matter. The Board reviewed the submitted plot plan for the proposed project. The intent is to use as much of the existing foundation as possible. The Building Inspector explained they should be able to use this foundation with some interior repairs. The Board also reviewed the site plan layout (C2) that had been submitted to the Board in the application package. Site plan review with CPDC will be required as well as Conservation Commission approval. Attorney Johnson submitted a written request for the withdrawal without prejudice of the request for the variance for the single loading space shown on the submitted plan. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to allow the Petitioners to withdraw, without prejudice, their request for a Variance for a single loading space as shown on the submitted Proposed Site Layout Plan, Drawing No. C-2, Project No. 08029, prepared by RJ O'Connell & Associates, 80 Montvale Avenue, Stoneham, MA, dated 7/11/2008 and, stamped by David M. Petkewich, Professional Civil Engineer. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Dustin, Jarema, Redfern, Petschek, Miles). ZBA Meeting, March 5, 2009 2 On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by John Miles, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to - grant the Applicant a Special Pen-nit under Section 6.3.17. of the By-Laws to demolish an existing two-story fire damaged building and, construct on the same foundation and footprint, a new, two-story structure on the lot located at 285 Main Street in Reading, Massachusetts as depicted on the Plot Plan for 285 Main Street, Reading, MA prepared by Bowditch and Crandell, Inc., 54 Mystic Street, Arlington, MA 02474, stamped and dated 11/20/08 John W. McEachern, R.L.S. and, the aforementioned Proposed Site Layout Plan, Drawing No. C-2, by RJ O'Connell, dated 7/11/2008. This Special Permit is subject to the following conditions: 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; and 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. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Dustin, Jarema, Redfern, Petschek, Miles). Case # 08-31 Continuation of a Public Hearing on the petition of Luke Roy of O'Neill Associates who seeks a Special Permit under Section 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws in order to demolish an existing single family dwelling and to construct a new single family dwelling on a non-conforming lot on the property located at 57 Dividence Road in Reading, MA. Mr. Roy submitted his proposal to the Board at the last meeting and said he had requested a continuance until the Board received Town Counsel's opinion concerning the use of Section 6.3.17. He had received a copy of Town Counsel's opinion that stated, in her opinion, the Board should continue their use of Section 6.3.17 as they had in the past. Mr. Roy reviewed his proposal again. The Board asked a few questions of Mr. Roy about the proposed demolition and reconstruction. On a motion by John Miles, seconded by Clark Petschek, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the Applicant a Special Penult under Section 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to construct a new single family dwelling, as depicted on the referenced Plot Plan and architectural design. i ZBA Meeting, March 5, 2009 This Special Permit is conditioned upon the following standard conditions: 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. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Dustin, Jarema, Redfern, Petschek, Miles). Minutes Minutes were continued to the next meeting on April 2, 2009 because the Board members had not been provided with final draft copies. Other Business The Board discussed the forms designed and submitted to the Board by Town Counsel for continuances. Mr. Petschek made suggested changes to the forms but he had not yet heard from Town Counsel. Adjournment On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-0-0 (Dustin, Jarema, Redfern, Petschek, Miles, Tedesco). Maureen M. Recording S ZBA Meeting, March 5, 2009 4