HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-10-18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes` IOWA ~E~K
Town of Reading
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of October 18, 2007
Members present: Robert Redfern, Chairman
Paul Dustin
John Jarema
Susan Miller
Members absent: Peter Tedesco
Clark Petschek
iaWN CLERK
READING, t`~SS.
2000 JAN 10 A 11: 44,
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 #07-20
A Public Hearing on the petition of Salvatore Santorelli who seeks a Variance from the Aquifer
Protection District under Section(s) 4.8 of the Zoning By-laws in order to build 8,400 square feet
of retail space on the property located at 1349 Main Street in Reading, MA.
The case was continued because there were only four Board members in attendance and one of
them, Mr. Jarema, recused himself because of a business relationship with the Applicant's
attorney. Since four members are required for a quorum, the Applicant has agreed to a
continuance.
On a motion by Paul Dustin, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
continue the hearing to October 30, 2007, hoping the two absent members could attend as well as
the Applicant and his attorney.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-1 (Redfern, Miller, Dustin, Jarema abstaining).
Case # 07-18
A Public Hearing on the petition of Dena Hayden who seeks a Variance under Section Table
6.2.3 Item 12 of the Zoning By-laws in order to allow an existing wall sign to project more than
6 inches from the building wall on the property located at 156 Main Street in Reading, MA.
1
1 ZBA Meeting October 18, 2007
The quorum situation of only four members present was explained to the Applicant, Dena
Hayden, but she chose to go ahead and have her case heard anyway. She submitted an actual
photo of the sign that was installed on the building and presented her four criteria as to why she
thought she met the requirements for a Variance.
The Building Inspector explained why the sign was non-conforming and he explained that if the
business changes owners the non-conformity should be corrected with any new signage installed.
The previous sign also did not conform.
The Chairman said he thought that all back-lighted signs usually projected 6" to 8" for safety
reasons. The Applicant said three different sign companies had told her that a 6" projection
would be a fire-hazard. Mr. Dustin said he thought the more modern agreement was an 8"
projection as opposed to a 6" projection.
On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
grant the Applicant a Variance from the specific requirements of Table 6.2.3, Item 12 of the
Zoning By-laws in order to allow an existing wall sign to project more than 6" from the building
wall on the property located at 156 Main Street.
The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Dustin, Jarema).
Case # 07-19
A Public Hearing on the petition of Kevin P. O'Flaherty who seeks an appeal from a decision of
the Building Inspector under Section(s) 7.4.2/7.4.2.1 of the Zoning By-laws in order to execute
an enforcement request on the property located at One General Way in Reading, MA.
The quorum situation of only four members present was explained to the Applicant, Kevin
O'Flaherty, but he chose to go ahead and have his case heard.
Kevin O'Flaherty, Attorney for Stop & Shop, said they were here to appeal the decision of the
Building Inspector to not enforce a requested zoning action against the Market Basket being built
next door to the Shop & Shop. Attorney O'Flaherty highlighted the areas on a map that he
thought were non-conforming and were in violation of the Zoning By-laws and said he brought
these violations to the attention of the Building Inspector who dismissed them. Attorney
O'Flaherty cited different regulations that he thought applied in this situation and how, in his
opinion, there were still non-conformities and violations. He said the Market Basket should come
before the Zoning Board for a Special Permit for the perceived parking violations and a Variance
for the perceived loading space violations. He also referenced mixed use that had been prohibited
in this area and which he and his client felt is in effect. Attorney O'Flaherty listed the remedies
he thought should be taken by the Board in this case.
The Building Inspector said upon receiving the letter from the Stop & Shop he asked Town
Counsel for her opinion of the request and she responded in aletter dated July 7th that addressed
all the areas mentioned by Attorney O'Flaherty. Town Counsel said in the letter of July 7th that
2 ZBA Meeting October 18, 2007
the Building Inspector had responded to the Stop & Shop request appropriately. The Building
Inspector said the parking plan was for the entire area and the few spaces referred to were not an
issue for the Market Basket, but for any future tenants of the property who will have to resolve
the issue of the few missing spaces. The Building Inspector also said all businesses usually
contain some office use.
Mr. Jarema asked about the history of this case before the CPDC and site plan review and the
Building Inspector said CPDC had approved the site plan for this particular project and may have
missed a few parking spaces but this should not affect the Market Basket project. All parking
spaces for future tenants at the development will be monitored by the Building Inspector.
Attorney Mark Favaloro, representing Danis Properties (whose tenant is Market Basket),
questioned whether Stop & Shop has standing in order to make the complaints submitted. He
also said the height issue was not raised by Attorney O'Flaherty in the submitted complaint and
therefore is a non-issue. Attorney Favaloro said Danis Properties are looking at a new parking
design that will be presented to the CPDC and this has been an ongoing process. He made his
argument why Section 6.3.17 was for a complete demolition with an entire rebuild. He said this
is not a mixed use in the typical way as described in the Zoning By-laws.
Malcolm Robinson, 20 Osborne Avenue, said he thought free competition was good for all.
James Dunphy, 136 Village Street, asked about the flyer that had been mailed anonymously to
abutters and said he found most of it to be amusing.
Kevin Cignetti, 13 Smith Avenue, asked questions about the loading docks and offsite parking
spaces. He still had complaints about Jordan's and Home Depot and said any problems with this
development should be fixed up front.
Mr. Dustin asked Attorney O'Flaherty exactly what relief he was seeking from the Building
Inspector. Attorney O'Flaherty said the tenants of Section 6.3.17 were violated and the Market
Basket developer should have to appear before the Zoning Board to apply for a Special Permit.
He said certificates of occupancy should be held up until the Market Basket does all that is
required according the by-laws.
Attorney Favaloro said Section 6.3.11.2a is what applies to the rebuilt area where the Market
Basket is located.
Mr. Jarema said the only lingering question he had was regarding Attorney O'Flaherty's
statements and whether he was referring just to the Market Basket area or the entire
development. Attorney O'Flaherty said in most areas it is the entire development. Mr. Jarema
said he thought most of these areas were already covered in site plan review and the other areas
were in discussion between the Town and Danis properties and in the process of being corrected.
Mr. Jarema said he did not see any areas in which the Building Inspector erred.
On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
overturn the decision of the Building Inspector dated August 17, 2007, denying the Applicant's
ZBA Meeting October 18, 2007
request, dated July 17, 2007, for zoning enforcement relating to the property located at One
General Way.
The motion was denied by a vote of 0-4-0 (Redfern, Miller, Dustin, Jarema).
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, Miller, Dustin, Jarema).
Maureen M.
Recording S
4 ZBA Meeting October 18, 2007