Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-03-06 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes/ I GuIn1 Ct~KK Town of Reading ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes of March 6, 2008 Members present: Robert Redfern, Chairman John Jarema Clark Petschek John Miles Paul Dustin Susan Miller Peter Tedesco Members absent: P 2:2b 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 attending the meeting was Glen Redmond, Commissioner of Buildings. Case # 08-01 A continuation of a Public Hearing on the petition of Sandra M. Carter who seeks a Special Permit under Section(s) 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws in order to demolish an existing single family dwelling on a non-conforming lot (Option A & B) and to construct a new single family dwelling on the property located at 355 Franklin Street in Reading, MA. Attorney Daniel Sherwood represented the Applicant. The Chairman asked Mr. Andella if he had submitted a certified plot plan as requested by the Board at the last meeting and Mr. Andella said the Town Engineer had approved his infiltration system. The Chairman explained to Mr. Andella that he had submitted an infiltration system plan but not a certified plot plan as requested to do so. This was one of the main reasons the meeting had been continued to this third hearing was because Mr. Andella had not brought the required certified plot plan to the second hearing as requested at that time. The Chairman explained again to Mr. Andella that the Board needed a certified plot plan in order to make a decision. Attorney Sherwood said he had the certified plot plan of the existing dwelling and a certified plot plan of the proposed dwelling and he distributed copies to the Board. The Chairman said there was not a table of the impervious areas of the lot on the certified plot plan for the proposed dwelling. Attorney Sherwood said that information was on the infiltration design plan that had been submitted earlier in the day. The Chairman explained again to Mr. Andella and his attorney what the Board had requested: a certified plot plan that showed a table of the impervious area calculations on the plan. He stated the Board had been quite clear in explaining to Mr. Andella exactly what the Board required. ZBA Meeting, March 6, 2008 The Chairman asked the Board if they had all reviewed Town Counsel's opinion regarding this case and if they had any questions. The Chairman said the Reading By-laws allow a lot of Board discretion regarding demolition and rebuilding of structures. He said he was not convinced that Section 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws was the right section for this case. He cited Town Counsel's opinion in her memo that said "subdividing a larger lot into two lots does not make those lots buildable." Attorney Sherwood said he thought Section 6.3.17 was the appropriate by-law. He said the proposed structure should conform to the maximum amount practicable and he said this was being done with the proposed structure. Attorney Sherwood thought Mr. Andella had done all he could to comply with the requirements. Attorney Sherwood also said the new structure will be an improvement to the neighborhood and Mr. Andella is replacing two run-down structures with two new dwellings. The Chainnan said the Board has discretionary powers under Section 6.3.17 according to Town Counsel. He said the purpose of this by-law is to prevent overcrowding of land. Mr. Andella took an average size lot in this neighborhood and subdivided it and now has the two smallest lots in the neighborhood. Attorney Sherwood said they should not be quibbling about the amount of the expansion because he thought the structure proposed was proper for the lots and Mr. Andella was also reducing the impervious area on both the lots. Mr. Jarema said what bothered him most was that the Applicant wanted to build a structure upon this lot that was suitable for the larger lots in the neighborhood but not suitable for this smaller ` size lot. The Board wants to be consistent as to how the zoning is applied. He did not feel this is the maximum amount practicable even though the Applicant meets the required setbacks. He thought that the proportion of the dwelling compared to the lot size is inappropriate. Mr. Dustin said the size of the house, the sheer bulk and height of the house compared to the lot size, is what troubled him. He said it was totally out of proportion to the size of the lot. Ms. Miller said if the house is too massive for the lot and the neighborhood then the Board should consider some measures regarding this situation. She would like to find a way to reduce the size of this house. She also thought the Board should not hold the Applicant to a higher standard because he was able to take advantage of a legal loophole to subdivide a lot and make it into two smaller lots. Mr. Jarema said in a previous case back in the 1980's a new dwelling put the abutting house into a situation where it only received late afternoon sun for a small portion of each afternoon. He thought this possibility should be considered by the Board regarding this case also. The Building Inspector said the Board had approved more than 50% of the cases who were requesting relief from the zoning regulations. He said this proposal meets all the Section 6.3.17 requirements in the by-laws. 2 ZBA Meeting, March 6, 2008 Mr. Petschek said it meets the dimensional requirements but does not necessarily meet the maximum amount practicable. He said this was a unique situation because the Applicant owns the abutting lot also. He thought it seemed like an end run around the density requirements. The Building Inspector said he did not think one owner made a difference; tomorrow there could be two different owners. He did not think any cases citing Section 6.3.17 had ever been denied by the Board. Mr. Jarema said they should consider each of these two cases separately and decide what they have to for each case. Mr. Tedesco said building two exact houses with the same setbacks side by side is not doing what is best for the neighborhood. The Applicant said he tried to talk to the neighbors at the last meeting and all they wanted was just one house and nothing else. Ron Weston of 63 Blueberry Lane said he had reviewed Town Counsel's memo and he offered his opinion and interpretation on a number of the points covered in her memo. The Chairman said although the Board may not like the size of the lots, they have been subdivided legally and now the Board has to decide what can be done with the situation. Scott Deluca of 358 Franklin Street said he did not think the proposal was right for the - neighborhood and listed areas of his concern. Scott McGurn of Franklin Street listed his objections to the proposal comparing this lot to other lots in the immediate neighborhood. Ms. Miller said the abutters should not worry about future changes by any new owners because these new owners would have to come to the ZBA for any increases in the impervious coverage. Jason Shultz of Franklin Street said his mother-in-law would lose her sunlight and the view from her home if this structure were to be allowed to be built. Rich Demarco of 334 Franklin Street said the existing dwellings on these lots are not houses but cottages. He said new dwellings would be an improvement to the neighborhood but not of the size proposed. Jim Sopchak of 364 Franklin Street presented a petition with 64 signatures of abutters and neighbors opposing the proposed new dwellings and listing the reasons why. He said they wanted just one lot with one house. Attorney Sherwood said the animosity shown by the neighborhood shows they would not be satisfied with anything and it is not up to the neighborhood what is approved. He said the Applicant has done all that he could do. ZBA Meeting, March 6, 2008 Mr. Weston said there have been some discussions with the Applicant but there have not been - any improvements made in the situation. He said the builder is doing everything right to the maximum allowable even though it is wrong for the Town and the neighborhood. Mr. Dustin said he is very concerned about the size of the house relative to the size of the lot and the effect on the neighborhood. He said the Applicant has chosen to propose the largest possible house he can on this lot. Mr. Jarema said the Board has the discretion to ask for a smaller" size structure than what has been proposed. Attorney Sherwood said the Applicant would be willing to discuss some modifications with the Applicant. Mr. Dustin asked if they would consider the height also. Ms. Miller said she is concerned about the lot coverage being the maximum allowed because a new owner would want a shed and then they would have to come back before the Board. The Applicant said it would be a walk out basement so the owner can store lawnmowers, etc. in there and a shed was not necessary. The meeting recessed briefly so the Applicant could confer with his Attorney. When the meeting reconvened Attorney Sherwood said the Applicant would be willing to reduce the length of the house by 4' and reduce the height of the roof by 2' but that is all he is willing to do because otherwise the project would not be economically feasible. The Chairman asked if the Applicant would come back to the next meeting with an adjusted certified plot plan and the Applicant said he would handwrite the changes but he wanted the Board to vote at this meeting. He said he would come back later with a new certified plot plan reflecting the changes he offered to make. The Board explained to the Applicant that the Board need a certified plot plan that included the proposed impervious cover on the plot plan itself and the Applicant agreed. Mr. Jarema said the Applicant should keep the larger drainage plan even though he is slightly reducing the size of the house in order to accommodate any changes a new owner might make regarding a shed and the Applicant agreed to this. On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the Applicant a Special Permit under Section 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws to demolish an existing single family dwelling on a non-conforming lot and to construct a new two-story single family dwelling on the property located at 355 Franklin Street in Reading, MA as shown on the Board of Appeals Plan prepared by Troy, Meade & Associates, Professional Land Surveyors of Tewksbury, MA dated March 7, 2008, with a handwritten revision date of March 3, 2008, and in accordance with the Infiltration System Design prepared by Cyprus Design, Inc., dated January 15, 2008, to allow for 20% lot impervious coverage. The Special Permit is subject to the following conditions: 1. The roof shall have a maximum 10:1 pitch with no occupancy of the third floor allowed. 4 ZBA Meeting, March 6, 2008 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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 4-1-0 (in favor: Redfern, Jarema, Miller, Dustin, opposed: Petschek). Case # 08-02 A continuation of a Public Hearing on the petition of Sandra M. Carter who seeks a Special Permit under Section(s) 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 361 Franklin Street in Reading, MA. Attorney Daniel Sherwood represented the Applicant. He distributed certified plot plans for the existing dwelling and the proposed dwelling. The Chairman said at the last meeting the proposed dwelling offsets had changed and the Applicant had reconfigured the dwelling so it now met all setbacks. The house is the same as the one previously proposed architecturally. Ms. Miller said it was still almost up to the maximum impervious allowed with 19% and without any shed shown. The Chairman said the proposed infiltration system has been approved by the Town Engineer. Mr. Dustin said this now meets the setbacks but the Applicant had done it by making the house smaller and he wondered why the Applicant had not presented this plan at the last meeting. The Applicant said this was not very practical but he had to meet the requirements so he will reconfigure the interior. Mr. Jarema said this was a proposed 2 %2 story dwelling and the Applicant said yes. He wondered what the possibility was that this structure could,be changed to something such as an expanded cape. He asked if the Applicant could build something other than the same house he would be building on the adjoining lot. 4 5 ZBA Meeting, March 6, 2008 Mr. Tedesco said what has been proposed is not attractive. He wondered what could be done to make this dwelling more architecturally attractive. The Applicant asked if this case could be approved this evening with a condition that he constructs a differently designed house. The Chairman explained the Board could not do this without visual plans. But he said the Board would like to see something different. The Applicant said the neighborhood has many of the same style houses right in a row and what he is proposing is not any different than what has already been done. Mr. Jarema said streetscapes have a very large impact on a neighborhood and perhaps this house could be moved back farther. The Applicant said the Board could ask for the same size as the previous case house but let the house not be a mirror image. Mr. Dustin said the Board could not vote without a visual image of what is proposed. The Applicant asked if he tried to redesign the house and renovate it would the Board let him keep the barn. Ms. Miller said the Board could approve Variances above the 20% impervious cover. She said the Board might consider this. The Building Inspector said if he maintained the existing impervious cover and added a recharge system it would be permissible. He said if they add on to the back of the existing house they would have to relinquish something else on the property. The Chairman said he would be interested in a renovation of the house instead of another cookie cutter house. This type of proposal would be under Section 6.3.11 because it would not be a total demolition. Hillary Brownell of Franklin Street asked questions about the driveway if the old house was now going to be renovated. The Applicant said he thought the driveway would remain the same but he could not promise. She wondered about the existing stonewall and whether it could not be removed because of a state law. The Building Inspector said he thinks the state rule about stone walls deals with declared scenic districts. Ron Weston of 63 Blueberry Lane said the abutters at the meeting were overwhelmed with shock by the approval of the Applicant's previous case. He asked that this case be continued because the abutters were disappointed and would not want to discuss any designs at this point. The Chairman said he would not close the public comments for this case at this point but will keep it open. He said the Board needs a proposal for the proposed renovation. Attorney Sherwood asked that the hearing be continued to the next meeting so that the Applicant could present a proposal. On a motion by Paul Dustin, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to continue the hearing to March 20, 2008. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Jarema, Miller, Dustin, Petschek). 6 ZBA Meeting, March 6, 2008 - Case # 08-07 A Public Hearing on the petition of Richard R. Merrill, Trustee, who seeks a Variance under Section(s) 4.8.3/4.8.6.1.9/4.8.6.1.10 of the Zoning By-laws in order to allow an extension of prior variance and an approximate two percent (2%) increase in impervious surface from the previous variance granted (Case # 05-15) on the property located at 175 Franklin Street in Reading, MA. Attorney Chris Latham represented the Applicant. He presented the case to date and described the shape of the lot in question. He said the only reason the Applicant is appearing before the Board was because to the lot is located in the Aquifer Protection District. He said they have looked at all the options suggested in memos from the Conservation Administrator and they are not feasible. 77.8% of the lot's impervious coverage is the roadway and sidewalks. They had requested relief from the CPDC for the roadways and sidewalks but it had been denied. The Applicant would like to increase the size of the three houses and install standard recharge systems on all three proposed houses. Attorney Latham presented the criteria required for a Variance that the lot presented. He said the overall project would be an attractive addition to the neighborhood. Mr. Jarema asked about the size of the proposed houses increasing from 24' x 32' to 27' x 50'. He also asked Attorney Latham if they had reapplied to the CPDC for a reduction in the roadway and walkways and he said they had not. Mr. Jarema said the Applicant or his attorney should speak with the Town Planner regarding this situation because the Board had already granted what they felt was suitable for this project. Mr. Jarema would like to know what the CPDC thought about this situation regarding the roadway and sidewalks before the Board proceeded with this case any further. Mr. Jarema said maybe they could get the required roadway reduced to something more realistic and remove the sidewalk requirement. He also thought there could be some adjustment made to the house sizes but not the amount requested by the Applicant. The Chairman said the standards were due to the fact the Applicant planned on this becoming an accepted road by the Town. He suggested perhaps they could keep it a private road and avoid the sidewalks. Attorney Latham said they would be agreeable to finding out what the CPDC and the Town Engineer would be willing to do. Steve Nazzarro of 17 Collins Avenue said he did not want to see the sidewalks removed from the proposal. He was not as concerned about the size of the houses as there was a buffer between his house and the proposed project. The Chairman said that the Applicant should take into consideration some of the comments made by the Board and the abutters. 7 ZBA Meeting, March 6, 2008 Attorney Latham requested a continuance. On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to continue the hearing to April 3, 2008. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Jarema, Miller, Dustin, Petschek). 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 5-0-0 (Redfern, Jarema, Miller, Dustin, Petschek). 4 Respectfully submit d, 00 ~ireen i~lkt " Recording l; 8 ZBA Meeting, March 6, 2008