Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-04-17 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes1,10a Leoc, I-- 1- 4 Town of Reading T C C L E R K ZONING BOARD OF APREAL Minutes of April 17, 2008 !UN 10 P 3:05, Members present: Robert Redfern, Chairman Paul Dustin Clark Petschek John Jarema Members absent: Susan Miller Peter Tedesco 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, at 7:00 P.M. Also in attendance was Glen Redmond, Commissioner of Buildings. Case # 08-10 A Public Hearing on the petition of Robert Scarano, Trustee of MK Realty Trust who seeks a Variance under Section(s) 5.1.2 of the Zoning By-laws in order to construct a single family dwelling on a lot without the required 120' frontage on the property located at End of Fairchild Drive in Reading, MA. The property is located in an 5-20 District. The Applicant's attorney submitted a letter requesting a continuation. The Chairman opened the hearing and read the letter from the Applicant. On a motion by Paul Dustin, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to continue the hearing to May 22, 2008. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0-0 (Redfern, Jarema, Dustin, Petschek) Case # 08-09 A Public Hearing on the petition of Barlow Signs for George Danis who seeks a Variance under Section(s) 6.2.3.2.4 (Table 6.2.3) of the Zoning By-laws in order to construct a free-standing sign of 219.25 square feet rather than the allowable sign of 75 square feet on the property located at 1 General Way in Reading, MA. The property is located in an Industrial District. 1 ZBA Meeting, April 17, 2008 Tim Sullivan of Barlow Signs represented the Applicant. They are seeking a variance for a 219.25 square foot sign instead of the 75 square feet allowed. Mr. Sullivan said the wetlands forced the building to be set back 800' off of Walkers Brook Drive. He said the only way you can see the sign is to have it right on the end of the driveway at Walkers Brook Drive. Mr. Sullivan said the variance should be granted because it is the only way the Applicant can install a sign that would be visible from both directions. There are overgrown trees that also obstruct the view. There will ultimately be approximately 15 tenants in the shopping mall and the size of the current sign is not sufficient to have large enough letters that would be legible. He said that in his opinion the proposed sign is physically attractive and ties well into the environment around it. He did not think the sign would have any effect on the surrounding neighborhood and it would not be as large as the entrance sign across the street to Walkers Brook Crossing. Attorney Mark Favaloro, also representing the Applicant, said this variance is appropriate and the proposed sign is compatible with other signs in the area. He thought the hardship was the unique shape of this property. Mr. Sullivan said what is being proposed is not going to be any taller than the existing sign that is there now. The Chairman reminded the Applicant that the topography of the lot is required as a hardship. Attorney Favaloro said the wetlands cause the building to be set back where it is and thus the necessity for a larger sign than what is there now. He said this proposed sign would be consistent with other signs in this commercial area and thus would not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. The Building Inspector said there have been variances issued to other commercial buildings in the area for their signs but usually in return the Applicants have decreased the signage on their building to less than what would be allowed. The Marketing Director for Market Basket said they could have put a much larger sign on their building than they did but they felt the reduced signage was all that was necessary. The Chairman asked why this proposed sign was not included with the CPDC review process for the building. He said the CPDC discussed this case at their last meeting and their opinion was they were against the proposal as written. The Chairman read the memo from the CPDC to the ZBA as to their opinion and recommendations regarding this proposed sign. Attorney Favaloro said there was an understanding back when the building was under site plan review that the tenants would drive this matter and it would be considered at a later date. He said this proposed sign was not part of the CPDC review because it did not exist at the time of site plan review. He said the proposed sign would remain at the size requested and future tenants could not ask for more signage. The Building Inspector said he did not think the Board had issued any variances for freestanding signs in the area. 2 ZBA Meeting, April 17, 2008 Mr. Dustin said he thought the proposed sign was overly large and the entire sign was quite full and totally blocked in. Mr. Sullivan said the tenants need this exposure on the sign so that it can be read. He thought the sign should be legible from 100' away. The Building Inspector said CPDC has no authority in the decision made by the ZBA for this proposed sign. He thought the CPDC were out of their jurisdiction regarding this proposed sign and their recommendation that it not be allowed. Nick Nicolau, Danis Properties, said there had been no mention made of CPDC being involved in this sign decision. Mr. Jarema said the Board needs to see something that is appropriate for all tenants. He does not have a clear picture of what is being proposed and he said the variance would have to be for the entire sign. The Chairman read a letter from the Jerrett's of 102 John Street that had been submitted to the Board stating their objections to the proposed sign. Ellen Childress of 105 Green Street voiced her objections to the sign and the Danis Properties. Douglas Neary, 155 Village Street, said Mr. Danis is trying to maximize the site. He also voiced his objections to the current sign and the proposed sign. He said there are tenants listed on the current sign that have moved out. Helen Evans, 128 John Street, said she strongly opposed this proposed sign. She did approve of the other signs on this side of the road. Gordy Evans, 128 John Street, complained about the present sign and the lights. He felt the three times larger sign was not warranted. Joyce Kirk, 155 Village Street, voiced her objections to the pictures that were presented to the Board by the Danis Properties. She said she thought all women would be able to find the Market Basket supermarket without the help of signs. She did not like the present sign and objected to the proposed sign. Attorney Favalro said it is their intent to work the best they can with the Town and the neighbors. He said he would like to have a workshop with the CPDC and the neighbors. He requested a continuation of the hearing to May 15, 2008. On a motion by Clark Petschek, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to continue the hearing to May 15, 2008. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0-0 (Redfern, Jarema, Dustin, Petschek) 3 ZBA Meeting, April 17, 2008 Case # 08-11 A Public Hearing on the petition of Robert Geist who seeks a Special Permit under Section(s) 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws in order to demolish an existing non-conforming single family dwelling on a non-conforming lot and construct a new single family dwelling as per plans (26 x 44 dwelling) on the property located at 10 Baystate Road in Reading, MA. The Applicant, Robert Geist, said he has a one-bedroom bungalow. He had thought he could add an upper level but said the dwelling was built as a summer place that cannot be improved upon. His family has outgrown the home and he would like to have something newer and more attractive. He would like to demolish the existing dwelling and build a 26' x 44' single-family dwelling. The Chairman said the Applicant would be reducing the present set back non-conformity on this legal, non-conforming lot. He also said if the Applicant met the required side yard setbacks it would reduce the house to 20' wide which would not be practical. The house will be situated on the lot so the front door will be facing the west side of the lot. Mr. Geist said the Building Inspector told him this would not make any difference. Mr. Dustin asked about the off street parking situation and Mr. Geist said he had adequate off street parking because there will be a two-car garage. The Building Inspector said the Applicant has been meeting with him and made the recommended changes he had suggested. The Chairman said the CPDC had made recommendations to the Board on this case regarding conditions that could be required but he did not think this was necessary. He thought the Applicant met the requirements of Section 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws. Linda Williamson of 6 Bay State Road asked the Applicant questions about what the process would be and the Applicant explained it to her. The house is a pre-manufactured house so the construction will progress quickly. On a motion by Clark Petschek, seconded by Paul Dustin, 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 the existing single-family dwelling and construct a new single-family dwelling on the property as depicted on the Plot Plan and in substantially the form shown on the Architectural Plans. This Special Permit is subject to 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. 4 ZBA Meeting, April 17, 2008 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 4-0-0 (Redfern, Jarema, Dustin, Petschek) Other Business Mr. Jarema said that after the joint meeting of the ZBA and the CPDC and the recommendations they made to the Selectmen, the Selectmen voted to not improve upon the residential areas of the zoning by-laws at this time, but they will pursue the commercial ones. 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 4-0-0 (Redfern, Jarema, Dustin, Petschek) Respectfully submitted Maureen M. Knight Recording Secretary I f l ZBA Meeting, April 17, 2008