HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-12-07 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes-ToUlnl C~mw, ,
Town of Reading
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of December 7, 2006
Members present: Robert Redfern
Clark Petschek
Michael Conway
Paul Dustin
Peter Tedesco
Members absent: Susan Miller
John Jarema
eNI) c c->?
p
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 present was Glen
Redmond, Commissioner of Buildings.
Case # 06-28
A Public Hearing on the petition of Amy Rosenblatt who seeks a Special Permit under § 6.3.17
of the Zoning By-laws in order to demolish the existing single family dwelling and to construct a
new single family dwelling on a non-conforming lot on the property located at 215 Franklin
Street in Reading, MA.
Nancy Twomey, Architect, spoke for the Applicant, Amy Rosenblatt. She submitted a revised
plot plan. There is an existing single family home on the property. There are two acres but the
frontage is approximately 78' and Zoning requirements are 120'. Ms. Rosenblatt wants to
demolish the existing house and build a new single family dwelling. The new house will conform
to all zoning requirements except for the frontage. The house size may be reduced if they
encounter ledge.
The Building Inspector said it is a very large house but it is a very large lot. He said the house
might be shifted from the left or right depending on the ledge conditions.
The easement has been moved on the plot plan and it is not now located on an abutter's property
as shown previously. Ms. Twomey said the maximum height of the new house would be 31'.
Karen Herrick, abutter, said she did not want the construction equipment to back over onto her
land. The Chairman said the Board does not get involved in construction activities but she could
consult with the Building Inspector about this issue.
ZBA Minutes December 7, 2006
A Dividence Road abutter wanted to know where the foundation would be and he was given a
copy of the plot plan.
On a motion by Clark Petschek, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to grant the Applicant a Special Permit under § 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws in order to
demolish the existing single family dwelling on the non-conforming lot as shown on the
Certified Plan of Land prepared by John D. Sullivan III, Professional Engineer of Boxford, MA
dated November 29, 2006. The 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.
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.
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 (Redfern, Dustin, Conway, Tedesco, Petschek).
Case # 06-29
A Public Hearing on the petition of Austin Preparatory School who seeks a Variance/Special
Permit/Finding as to Parking under § 6.11.3/6.3.11.2 (b) of the Zoning By-laws in order to do
interior renovations including a library and to extend an existing one-story canopy over the front
entrance and construct a one-story (6' x 39' addition on the property located at 101 Willow
Street in Reading, MA.
Attorney Chris Latham said the Applicant is proposing to add two additions to the school and are
requesting a Special Permit under § 6.3.11.2 (b) of the Zoning By-laws. They are also asking for
a finding as to whether schools have a parking requirement because this is not mentioned in the
by-laws. If the Board deems there is a minimum amount required they request that the Board
determine that the school does not have to meet it.
The Building Inspector said schools are regulated by the State and their use is allowed. He said
they are applying for the Special Permit because they are increasing the size. The building is
considered non-conforming because of its height.
The Chairman said it appears a Special Permit would be appropriate for the additions under §
6.3.11.2 (b) of the Zoning By-laws. Attorney Latham said the additions would not be detrimental
to the neighborhood. There were no abutters attending the hearing.
ZBA Minutes December 7, 2006
Attorney Latham said the Building Inspector has some concerns with the parking situation. But
neither of these additions will increase the amount of students or visitors to the school. He said
there is no requirement or formula regarding parking for schools but he was sure that CPDC
would cover this area when the Applicant appears before this Commission. The Chairman asked
if the school had any parking issues at this time and the Applicants said they had added 75
parking spaces when they did an addition a few years ago and in their estimation they had
adequate spaces for all students and teachers as well as for school functions.
Attorney Latham said in the absence of a parking requirement or a formula for schools he would
like a finding from the Board that the parking at the school is adequate. The Building Inspector
said when the CPDC reviews this case they will make a determination regarding parking. The
Building Inspector said if in the future they convert the monastery to classrooms that could
precipitate an increase in the amount of parking spaces required by the CPDC. The Building
Inspector said additions create extra space and that triggers additional parking requirements. This
particular proposal with the two small additions would require one additional parking space.
Mr. Dustin said since there was not a parking requirement for schools then he did not think there
was an issue before the Board concerning parking. The Chairman said CPDC would make the
final decision regarding parking issues. August Niewenhous, Chairman of the Board of Trustees
for the school, said the proposed renovations would not create any additional population within
the school.
Attorney Latham said he would like direction from the Board regarding the parking. The
Building Inspector said the proposed additions would require one additional parking space. Mr.
Conway said that unless the request is withdrawn, the Board must make a determination that due
to the nature and use of the additions they do not trigger any additional parking.
On a motion by Paul Dustin, seconded by Michael Conway, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to grant the Applicant a Special Permit under Section 6.3.11.2 (b) of the Zoning By-laws in order
to alter the existing non-conforming building with various additions and renovations as described
on the Plan of Land prepared by Benchmark Survey, Stoneham, MA dated November 10, 2006.
The Special Permit is conditioned upon the following:
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.
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 (Redfern, Dustin, Conway, Tedesco, Petschek).
ZBA Minutes December 7, 2006
Attorney Latham made a request to withdraw without prejudice the Applicant's request for a
finding and or Variance for the parking requirement.
On a motion by Michael Conway, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to accept the Applicant's request for a withdrawal without prejudice for the Variance and the
parking requirement.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Dustin, Conway, Tedesco, Petschek).
Minutes
On a motion by Mr. Dustin, seconded by Mr. Conway, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
accept the minutes of September 7, 2006.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Dustin, Conway, Tedesco, Petschek).
On a motion by Mr. Dustin, seconded by Mr. Petschek, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
accept the minutes of September 21, 2006.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Dustin, Conway, Tedesco, Petschek).
On a motion by Mr. Petschek, seconded by Mr. Tedesco, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
accept the minutes of October 5, 2006.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Dustin, Conway, Tedesco, Petschek).
On a motion by Mr. Conway, seconded by Mr. Petschek, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
accept the minutes of October 19, 2006 with changes.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern; Dustin, Conway, Tedesco, Petschek).
On a motion by Mr. Conway, seconded by Mr. Petschek, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
adjourn the meeting.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Dustin, Conway, Tedesco, Petschek).
Respectfully submi
Maureen M.
Recording S
s
4 ZBA Minutes December 7, 2006