Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-12-18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutesow, LEAK R11_CEIVED Town of Reading T o~ iN CLERK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS E r r 5 ' Minutes of December 18, 2008 1-501 FEB -b P 5b Members Present: Paul Dustin Clark Petschek Robert Redfern John Miles John Jarema Jeffrey Perkins Peter Tedesco Members Absent: 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. Case # 08-28 A Public Hearing on the petition of James Lordan who seeks a Special Permit under Section(s) 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws in order to demo an existing single family dwelling and shed, and construct a new single family dwelling on a non-conforming lot on the property located at 13 Buckingham Drive in Reading, MA. Clark Petschek recused himself from this case. The chair, Paul Dustin, stated that he is a resident living within 300 feet of the property in question and as a result filed a Disclosure of Financial Interest form as required by Mass GLC. 268A. Sect 19, with the Reading Board of Selectmen, stating that he has no financial interest in the case. This form was accepted by the Board of Selectmen. Paul Dustin continued sitting on the case. The Applicant, James Lordan, reviewed the application he submitted to the Board. He is selling the rear of the lot to an abutter who has been using that part of the land. The CPDC had no objections to the proposed subdivision or the project at 13 Buckingham Drive. The Board asked a few questions of the Applicant but overall they approved of the project and the design of the house. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by John Miles, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the Applicant a Special permit under Section 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws in order to demolish an existing non-conforming, single family dwelling and shed, and construct a single t family, 1 %2 story structure on the non-conforming lot as depicted in the Plot Plan, in t 1 ZBA Meeting, December 18, 2008 substantially the same design as shown on the architectural rendering submitted for a proposed residence. This Special Permit is conditioned upon the following 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 (Miles, Redfern, Jarema, Tedesco, Perkins). Case # 08-29 A Public Hearing on the petition of Robert L. Zeraschi who seeks an appeal from a decision of the Building Inspector under Section(s) 7.4.2 of the Zoning By-laws in order to seek an exemption from site plan review in accordance with MGL Chapter 40A, Section 3, commonly referred to as the "Dover Amendment" on the property located at Lots G & H Torre Street (10 Torre Street) in Reading, MA. Attorney Steven Cicatelli represented the Applicant, Robert Zeraschi. The proposed structure will be a child-care facility and the Applicant thinks it is not subject to site plan review under the exemption contained in M.G.L. c. 40A, Section 3, referred to as the "Dover Amendment." Town Counsel and the CPDC think the Town may conduct a limited site plan approval process and therefore the Board should not overturn the decision of the Building Inspector. The Chairman reviewed the memos submitted by the CPDC and Town Counsel. Attorney Cicatelli said he did not think the review before the CPDC would be fair. He said the Building Inspector should handle the enforcements and he was amenable to this process. He said the Building Inspector's hands were being tied by the advice of Town Counsel and the CPDC. The Board had a number of questions as to why the Applicant wanted the Building Inspector to review the project as opposed to the CPDC's limited site plan review as has been done for other similar projects in Town. Attorney Cicatelli said he did not think his client would be treated fairly by such a CPDC review. He said this process by the CPDC is also not authorized by the Town by-laws. 2 ZBA Meeting, December 18, 2008 The Chairman said the Zoning Board is less authorized than the CPDC to determine if the Building Inspector was correct in his assessment of the plans submitted. Mr. Redfern said this issue would not be resolved at this meeting. He said the Town has chosen the CPDC to do a limited site plan review and although Attorney Cicatelli may not agree with this process, it is the process required by the Town. Mr. Jarema said he is not comfortable overturning the decision of the Building Inspector without more information as to why Town Counsel gave the opinion that she did. He said the Board has only heard half of the argument and they need to hear the other side with Town Counsel and the Building Inspector present. Mr. Petschek said he also would like to have some additional questions answered. Attorney Cicatelli said he was disappointed that Town Counsel and the Building Inspector were not present at this meeting. But he did not think having her at the meeting would necessarily help his case as she has given her opinion. On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Clark Petschek, at the request of the Applicant's Attorney, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to continue the hearing to January 22, 2009. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Miles, Redfern, Jarema, Dustin, Petschek). On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 7-0-0 (Miles, Redfern, Jarema, Tedesco, Perkins, Petschek, Dustin). Respectfully submitted, Meen M. Recording ~ 3 ZBA Meeting, December 18, 2008