Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-01-03 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesaulnlCtFRK Town of Reading ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ` ~.'Minutes of January 3, 2008 Members present: Robert Redfern, Chairman Paul Dustin Clark Petschek Peter Tedesco Susan Miller John Jarema Members absent: RECEIVED 0WN CLERK RED 01,NG, MASS. 1808 FEB 22 P a: 01 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 Public Hearing on the petition of Sandra M. Carter who seeks a Special Permit under Section 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) on the property located at 355 Franklin Street in Reading, MA. James Andella, who has a Purchase & Sales Agreement for the property, represented the owner, Sandra Carter. He said they want to demolish the existing dwelling and replace it with a new, larger structure. He submitted two plans for the proposed structure, one of which provided for a side setback that was more non-conforming than the other but which Mr. Andella said would look better for the neighborhood. The existing house on the lot was built in 1942 and is in disrepair. This property was originally one larger lot containing the large white house and a smaller house on the same lot. Mr. Andella said this property had been divided into two lots (ANR) with a house on each lot and that the two lots had been recorded at the Registry of Deeds in October 2007. Mi. Dustin wanted to know how a non-conforming lot could be subdivided into two lots that are even more non-conforming; and now become build-able lots. Mr. Andella said it was an old law and he just followed the law. Mr. Jarema said when you subdivide a lot all it means is that you have subdivided that lot. It does not mean it now becomes two build-able lots. Mr. Jarema said this situation is not practicable and does not meet the intent of the by-law. The Chairman read aloud a memo given to the Board by Mr. Andella that was written by Town Counsel to the Town Planner and that gives Town Counsel's opinion regarding the subdivision ZBA Minutes, January 3, 2008 t of these lots. Town Counsel said an ANR decision does not make these lots build-able. The lots remain subject to the local by-laws and the existing structures remain non-conforming structures. She said any changes require a Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Building Inspector said this property with the two dwellings existed prior to zoning and the owner received an "Approval Not Required" (ANR) endorsement from the CPDC to make two lots (ANR). So now there are two lots, each with a dwelling in poor condition. The Applicant wants to tear down the two dwellings and build two new larger ones. The Building Inspector thought the situation was now just a typical tear-down and rebuild under Section 6.3.17. Mr. Andella said he would prefer that the Board approve Plan A but he could work with Plan B if that is what the Board approved. The Chairman said the setbacks asked for are closer to the abutters on the side although the proposed dwelling meets setbacks on the westerly side of the lot and maintains the existing setback on the easterly side of the lot. The Chairman said there is an easement on this property by the Town and the Applicant could not build any structures into the easement. Mr. Andella said the easement was made for future sidewalks and to protect a tree in this area. Mr. Jarema explained to the Applicant that the non-conformity is being increased by the size of the structure and the increased non-conformity in the setbacks. The Chairman said they have to deal with this situation as a legal, non-conforming lot with a non-conforming structure. The Board has to determine if this Plan A is the most practicable use. The Chairman thought that Plan B would meet the criteria as being more practicable than Plan A. Mr. Petschek said the Applicant should situate the house so that the most conforming setbacks can be reached and both Plan A and Plan B fail to do this. The Chairman said a 24' house would allow the Applicant to meet the setbacks whereas a 28' house would not. Ms. Miller said the house will cover 14% of the lot but the plans do not show any driveways, walkways or accessory structures and these would cause the total impervious cover to increase. Ms. Miller said since the property is in the Aquifer Protection District the submitted plan should show all impervious coverage that will be on the lot. If the coverage were to exceed 15% then the Applicant would have to come before the Board to request a Variance. The Building Inspector said he thought the Special Permit could be granted for this proposal but when the Applicant applies for a Building Permit he would have another obstacle in that the plan will have to show the lot coverage and this might require the Applicant to install a recharge system or reduce the overall size of the house. Mr. Andella said he would like to withdraw Plan A and have Plan B be considered instead. Mr. Jarema said the Board would be required to stamp this plan if it grants the Special Permit and he thought the plan was flawed. Ms. Miller thought it might be best to continue the hearing and give the Applicant the opportunity to submit to the Board a completed plan showing all the 2 ZBA Minutes, January 3, 2008 walkways, driveways, shed, etc. because the plan he submitted is not workable. The Building Inspector said it was critical that the Applicant's engineer had neglected to indicate on the plot plan that this property is in the AQ District. Mr. Andella asked the Board for a continuance so that he could get a completed plot plan that shows the driveways and walkways with a total impervious cover amount. Scott De Luca of 358 Franklin Street said the house looked like it was originally a garage. He thought the legal ad in the newspaper for the case lacked important information. Mr. De Luca also said the lot is very level and is without any grade, contrary to what the Applicant has stated. He thought the two small lots were not consistent with other properties in the area. Ronald Weston of 63 Blueberry Lane said the legal ad in the newspaper indicated that the antique white house was to be demolished and another house built in its place but the second lot was just going to be demolished without any other house being built. Now he has discovered that there will be two houses, one on each lot. Mr. Weston thought this situation would not be an asset to the neighborhood. On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to continue the hearing to January 17, 2008 to allow the applicant time to obtain and submit to the Board a new plot plan showing all impervious cover. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Petschek). Case # 08-03 A Public Hearing on the petition of Monica Veneziano who seeks a Variance under Section(s) 6.2.3.2.d / 6.2.3.2.b / Table 6.2.3 / 6.2.3.2.2 of the Zoning By-laws in order to install an awning sign, place letters on the exterior surface of glass, place an additional wall sign, and to install a mural (second wall sign on parking lot side) on the property located at 12 Woburn Street in Reading, MA. Attorney Brad Latham represented the Applicant, Monica Veneziano. The property is going to be a yoga studio and art gallery. The public entrance to the building is on Woburn Street. There have been many failed businesses at this location because it is physically isolated from the rest of the business district. Reasonable identification is necessary for location awareness and attractiveness of the rather plain building. There is a driveway that drops dramatically and traffic enters the municipal parking lot through this driveway. The proposed awning is approximately the same size as the prior awning on the building. It is the method of measurement that causes this awning to require approval from the Board. Attorney Latham said there is little pedestrian traffic by this building and traffic moves by on Woburn Street without noticing this building. Therefore this building needs to have attention directed to it. He thought the awning being proposed will be an attractive addition. The issue of the height of the awning is created because of the sloping of the sidewalk. It is 12' on the upper ZBA Minutes, January 3, 2008 level and 8' on the lower level. The awning also provides shelter for people entering and exiting the building so if it is raised higher you lose the shelter aspect of it. Attorney Latham said the bylaws state that any lettering must be on the inside of the glass and not on the outside. What is being proposed for the outside of the glass is professional and attractive. The glass is tinted and thermo-pane so anything on the inside of the glass is not visual. The proposed signage is less than what would be allowed. It is on the same scale as what had been there previously. The Applicant would like to have a small box affixed to the front of the building with brochures for people passing by. There is artwork being proposed for the side of the building that is on the driveway side going into the municipal parking lot. Attorney Latham said, in his opinion, it is artwork and not a sign. It is a reproduction of a 15th century art piece of museum quality. He said the CPDC determined this is a work of art, not a sign, and issued a Certificate of Appropriateness. Attorney Latham said this request is reasonable for this location due to its past history. The Building Inspector said he denied the permit because the proposed awning is too large and the whole awning is a sign. The by-law requires that letters be placed on the inside of glass areas only. One wall sign is allowed but the small box for brochures on the outside is also considered a sign in his opinion. The Applicant said the box is clear with no signage. Because the building abuts a public way, they are allowed a second sign on the side of the building of 29 square feet. The Building Inspector said he considered the mural to be an attraction, not a work of art, and therefore a sign. Attorney Latham said the Applicant has a Masters in Art History and lectures on art history. This artwork shows her interest and appreciation of art. The Chairman read emails from the Town Manager, Town Planner, and DPW Director regarding the awning height and proposed artwork. Ms. Veneziano said the previous tenant had a much larger awning than what she is asking for. Attorney Latham said this previous awning was never knocked down or impeded by sidewalk snow equipment. The Building Inspector said he thought there were many awnings in Town less than 8' but the previous awning for Sofia Brina should not have been permitted. The Applicant said her awning is very discreet with more of an artistic presentation. She also said she would have been happy to put the lettering inside on the glass but due to the darkness and thickness of the glass any sign inside would not be legible on the outside. The Building Inspector said he thought the artwork proposed for the parking lot side of the building met the description of a sign. The Applicant read a letter from the Smithsonian that said she must reproduce this artwork exactly as done originally with no additional material associated with it that showed, in her opinion, that it was considered a work of art. 4 ZBA Minutes, January 3, 2008 The Applicant said she first saw this image in a 15th century manuscript in a magazine and was quite taken with it. One of her instructors told her that the building looked too plain and the Applicant thought of adding this 15t" century artwork- to the driveway side. The artwork will be painted on four panels and mounted as one unit on the building. Marisue Blue of 94 Oak Street said she worked with the Applicant on the lease arrangements and is in favor of this use for the building. Barbara Boviard of 67 Sanborn Lane is a long time acquaintance of the Applicant and is in favor of the project. Kathleen Smith of 14 Reading Terrace said she approves of what the Applicant has requested. Pamela Goodale of 52Weston Road said she is happy the Applicant is moving her business to Reading and is favor of the artwork. Kristen Burke of 59 Locus Street said she also supports this business. On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals made a finding that the proposed clear acrylic brochure box measuring 10" x 4" x 7" to be affixed to the side wall of the recessed front doorway is not a sign and, therefore, no relief from the zoning by- law is required for its installation. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Jarema, Miller, Dustin, Tedesco) On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a Variance from Table 6.2.3 and Section 6.2.3.2 of the Zoning By-laws in order to install a black- canvas awning on the front of the building, 24' long x 3'9" wide with a ground clearance of 8' with white lettering that reads Yoga East (9'0" wide x 12" height) and the phrase May all sentient beings have happiness (6' wide x 4" height) and a circle logo of a bird flying over grasses 16" in diameter. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Jarema, Miller, Dustin, Tedesco). On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a Variance from Section 6.2.3.2.d of the Zoning By-laws to place lettering on the exterior of the door and windows, indicating the name and type of business and its logo, not to exceed 30% of the glass surface (shown as sign A & B in the Applicant's application) on the condition that any missing letters are promptly replaced. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Jarema, Miller, Dustin, Tedesco). On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a Variance from Section 6.2.3.2.2 of the Zoning By-laws in order to install a 64 square foot painting mounted on four wooden panels on the wall of the building that abuts the driveway to ZBA Minutes, January 3, 2008 the municipal parking lot, said painting to be a replica of an original 15th century work in the possession of the Smithsonian Institute depicting the archangel Israfil (Raphael) blasting a horn. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Jarema, Miller, Dustin, Tedesco). Other Business: 45 Beacon Street This is a 2001 ZBA case for a 40B Comprehensive Permit that was granted. It was appealed and the Applicant, Angelo Salamone, said the courts found in his favor. Both the Applicant and the Town have misplaced their copies of these plans. Mr. Salamone's attorney had a set of plans that Mr. Salamone has submitted to the Board, requesting that these be approved as the original plans that were submitted. Mr. Jarema said he could not be sure that these were the original plans after seven years. But he did explain to Mr. Salamone that these plans were only conceptual and he would have to present actual plans to the Building Inspector for a building permit. Town Counsel said the decision would remain the same. Mr. Salamone has also requested that his development be phased but Town Counsel said this might have to come back before the Board as a major or minor modification of the original 40B Comprehensive Permit. Mr. Jarema also explained to Mr. Salamone what he would have to do if the phasing was approved regarding the moderate-income units. Mr. Jarema also said the decision is very specific and Mr. Salamone must go by this document, seeking guidance from the Town government. Mr. Salamone said he had not yet spoken to anyone except the Town Planner. The Board felt they do not have any part in this decision at this point in time. Mr. Jarema thought they might have to ask Town Counsel if the Board needs to grant anything in this case. The Board said they have no reason to believe that these plans are not the original plans but they thought that there must be plans within the court system involved in the appeal. Mr. Jarema said Mr. Salamone should speak with the Town Planner again because the Board does not feel comfortable stamping and signing these plans. Ms. Miller said even if Mr. Salamone would only be able to locate reduced size plans through the court system, at least the Board would have something to compare these larger plans with. Mr. Jarema reminded Mr. Salamone again that he would need to have final plans made up before he can proceed any further. These submitted plans are just roughed-out conceptual plans. Mr. Jarema said the actual decision is far more important than any conceptual plans. These conceptual plans are not critical and Mr. Jarema will contact the Town Planner and the Building Inspector telling them the Board is no longer involved at this point. Maplewood Village No one appeared to represent Maplewood Village, nor was any memo submitted by the Town Engineer, so this discussion was tabled. 6 ZBA Minutes, January 3, 2008 Minutes On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept the minutes of October 18, 2007. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0-2. On a motion by Paul Dustin, seconded by Clark Petschek, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept the minutes of October 30, 2007. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-1 On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept the minutes of November 1, 2007. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. On a motion by Clark Petschek, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept the minutes of November 8, 2007 with changes. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. On a motion by Clark Petschek, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Respectfully Maureen M. Recording Sf 7 ZBA Minutes, January 3, 2008