Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-11-02 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes`Ow~ CLERK DECEIVED Town of Reading TOWN CLERK ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL RE A D I N G, M r S S. Minutes of November 2, 2006 2091 JAN 18 A 9. 35 Members present: Robert Redfern Susan Miller John Jarema Paul Dustin Michael Conway Clark Petschek Peter Tedesco Members absent: 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 # 06-26 A Public Hearing on the petition of David & Maria Walsh who seek a Special Permit under § 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws in order to demolish an existing dwelling (keeping foundation) on a non-conforming lot, construct a new single family dwelling and add a mudroom and a two-car garage on the property located at 12 Sandra Lane in Reading, MA. Maria Walsh said they bought this house next door to her parents one year ago. It is a two- bedroom ranch and they have three children. There is too much work required to do a remodel and it would be more practical to do a demolition and build a new dwelling on the old footprint with a slight addition for a mudroom and a two-car garage. The Building Inspector said it is a typical tear down and rebuild. The proposed structure meets all zoning setbacks but the Applicants would be required to add a recharge system because the dwelling is in the Aquifer Protection District and they will exceed the maximum 15% lot coverage. The Town Engineer must approve the submitted recharge system and this will allow them to go up to 20% lot coverage. On a motion by Mr. Dustin, seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the Applicants a Special Permit under § 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws in order to demolish an existing dwelling (keeping the foundation) on a non-conforming lot and to construct a new single family dwelling including a mudroom and a two-car garage on the property. This Special Permit is conditioned upon the following: ZBA Minutes, November 2, 2006 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. 4. The Aquifer Protection District Infiltration System Design for 12 Sandra Lane, dated October 27, 2006 as prepared by Sullivan Engineering Group, LLC is to be submitted to and approved by the Reading Town Engineer. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Conway). Case # 06-27 A Public Hearing on the petition of David & Cheryl Cannon who seek a Special Permit under Section(s) 6.3.11.1 of the Zoning By-laws in order to construct a 1 %2 story addition to the rear of the existing non-conforming dwelling on the property located at 30 Beech Street in Reading, MA. The proposed addition is located within the required 15' side-yard setback. David Cannon said they have lived in this house for ten years and their family has grown. Mr. Cannon is a contractor and they would like to add a bedroom on the second floor and a family room on the first floor. The Building Inspector said it is a non-conforming house on a non-conforming lot. The Chairman said it meets the requirements for § 6.3.11.1. On a motion by Mr. Conway, seconded by Mr. Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the Applicants a Special Permit under § 6.3.11.1 of the Zoning By-laws in order to construct a new 1 %2 story addition at 30 Beech Street as shown on the submitted Certified Plot Plan, with the following conditions attached: 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. ZBA Minutes, November 2, 2006 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 5-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Conway). Case # 06-24 Continuation of a Public Hearing on the petition of Blacksmith Enterprises II, L.P. (128 Ford) c/o Robert C. McCann, Esq. who seeks a Variance/Special Permit/Appeal from a decision of the Building Inspector/Seeks interpretation and determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals under § 5.1 / 5.1.1 / 5.1.2 / 6.1 / 6.1.1.3 / 6.2 / 6.2.3.2 / 4.3.2.9 of the Zoning By-laws in order to demolish an existing building and to construct a new building on the Reading/Wakefield town line on the property located at 88 & 98 Walkers Brook Drive in Reading, MA. The proposal also indicates a structure that is encroaching on a utility easement. Attorney Robert McCann, Brian Milisci, Engineer, and Tom McManus, owner of 128 Ford, appeared before the Board. Attorney McCann said the Applicant had requested three items. The first was where the property line was and that is still a question for the Board. The second was the parking issue and the Wakefield Building Inspector said the parking is okay in Wakefield and he submitted a letter to the Board. The third was .the request for a Variance to allow a third sign and this request will be withdrawn. The only issue now is where the property line is. Attorney McCann submitted a statement regarding title ownership of the property and he also reviewed the Variance that was granted in 1968 and the deed restrictions. In 1970 his client received a second Variance so they could still build the building they were under deed restriction to build in the event the zoning by-laws changed before construction. Attorney McCann summarized other deed restrictions that were part of the Variance from 1968 and 1970. He also summarized the Variance they received from the Town of Wakefield regarding signage. He said that the property also met the requirements for the requested Special Permit. He said they were not increasing the number of employees because no additional employees would be hired. He said they do not anticipate increased activity or business. The renovation is simply to meet the increased requirements of the Ford Motor Company. He said they also have submitted a proposed re- striping of the parking lot. They also submitted the requested Certified Plot Plan of the property showing the building location. The building being rehabbed is actually an existing building on the Town line right now. There will be a small expansion and they expect to use the same foundation. They do not want to disturb the landfill capping that is in place. Mr. Jarema said, because of the wording of the condition to be submitted for site plan review for the CPDC, it could remove the Special Permit required for dimensional controls. Attorney McCann said that was not his intent in the wording. The Building Inspector said the by-laws in Reading would not have jurisdiction in regards to the property line in Wakefield. The Town By- laws note the setbacks are measured from the property line, not the Towns' boundary line. Mr. Dustin questioned from what section of the By-law they could grant a permit. The Building Inspector said he thought it would be § 6.3.17. But he had some concern using the overall total property as one lot and he wondered how that would be considered by the CPDC. Mr. Jarema said considering the commonly owned property as a whole lot instead of considering the Town's ZBA Minutes, November 2, 2006 boundary line as a property line from which to measure offsets would be best. Attorney McCann said the Applicant has no access on the Wakefield side so clearly the lots have been merged into one parcel over the past forty years because of the lack of frontage. He also said he would not have any problem with the CPDC making a restriction that no building is to go onto the Wakefield part of the property even though they already have deed restrictions stating this. On a motion by Ms. Miller, seconded by Mr. Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to find that the property line, rather than the town boundary line separating the Towns of Wakefield and Reading, serve as the line for determining conformance with the dimensional requirements for the purpose of demolishing an existing building and constructing a new building on the site as shown on the Building Location Plan prepared for Carmart by Whitman & Bingham Associates, LLC, dated October 24, 2006. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Conway). On a motion by Ms. Miller, seconded by Mr. Conway, the ZBA moved to accept the Applicant's request for withdrawal without prejudice the request for zoning relief for both parking and signage. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Conway). Case # 06-25 Continuation of a Public Hearing on the petition of Quannapowitt Players/Jason Benagh who seeks a Variance/Special Permit under Section(s) 5.0/6.3.10/6.3.10.2/6.1 of the Zoning By-laws in order to construct an addition to a non-conforming structure within the required setbacks on the property located at 55 Hopkins Street in Reading, MA. Mr. Redfern turned the case over to Mr. Dustin because Mr. Dustin had chaired the previous meeting on October 19, 2006 due to Mr. Redfern being absent. Mr. Dustin explained that he had requested Town Counsel's opinion after the last hearing. Town Counsel submitted a letter to the Board on October 23, 2006. Mr. Dustin summarized Town Counsel's opinion that the only solution is for the Applicants to seek a Variance so that is what the Board will now consider. Dale Jienapp, engineer for the Applicant, said he was prepared to present the criteria for the Variance. He submitted numerous reasons why the topography and soils are unique to the area due to the retaining wall and condition of the soils. He said the hardship is because of the parking requirements. If they were required to move the addition it would reduce the number of parking spaces available. Mr. Jienapp also said if the Applicants did not get the Variance they would not be able to continue as a theatre without the proposed addition. He said if the building were to be converted to another use the expense would reduce the value of the building and be a loss to the theatre group. Mr. Jienapp listed other hardships that were financial, historical, medical, artistic and social. He said the desired relief would not be detrimental to the public good and would be virtually unnoticeable to the neighborhood. He mentioned numerous reasons why there would ZBA Minutes, November 2, 2006 not be any detrimental factors to the neighborhood and the community at large. Mr. Jienapp said this Variance could be permitted without nullifying any of the zoning by-laws but he knew they still had to go to the CPDC, Historical Commission and the Conservation Commission. Jerry Fiore, 10 Gateway Circle, said he still had concerns about this proposed addition changing the nature of the neighborhood more to a commercial area than a residential. He said he would be looking at shingles and a structure instead of the retaining wall that he looks at now. This retaining wall masks the current building and helps maintain the look of a residential dwelling for the playhouse. Mr. Jienapp discussed the retaining wall and explained that they are excavating the earth for construction reasons and they will build the addition down to the grade level without the wall. He presented a drawing of what is there now and what will be there after the construction. There will be a two-story building visible after the construction and possibly a very small retaining wall depending on how things go with the addition.. Donna Corbett, Quannapowitt Players, said this is the most aggressive project to date for the playhouse and it could maintain the company for another seventy years. On a motion by Mr. Jarema, seconded by Mr. Conway, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the Applicants a Variance from § 5.1.2 of the Zoning By-laws in order to construct an addition to a non-conforming structure within the required setbacks on the property located at 55 Hopkins Street. The proposed addition is to be built in accordance with the Certified Plot Plan of John A. Hammer, III dated August 24, 2006 with the following conditions attached: 1. The project be submitted to complete site plan review by the CPDC 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 5-0-0 (Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Conway, Petschek). Other Business: The Board discussed having a designated signer for decisions. The Chairman said he would be willing to be the designated signer with the Vice-Chairman being the signer in his absence or incapacity. Mr. Petschek said perhaps the drafter of the decision could be the designated signer. "Mr. Dustin said he thought it should be the Chairman/Vice Chairman for continuity. ZBA Minutes, November 2, 2006 On a motion by Mr. Conway, seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to allow the signature of one member on a decision to bind the entire Reading ZBA. The member signing any decision on behalf of the Reading ZBA must be a voting member on that decision. In the first instance, all decisions will be signed by the Chairman. In the event the Chairman is unable to sign or did not vote on a case, the decision shall be signed by the Vice-Chairman. If both the Chairman and Vice-Chairman are unavailable, any other voting member may sign the decision on the behalf of the entire Board. The motion was approved by a vote of 7-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Conway, Tedesco, Petschek) The Board also discussed the Mullin Decision that will be brought up at the next Town Meeting. Mr. Dustin will copy the material he has on the subject and will email it to the other members of the Board. On a motion by Mr. Jarema, seconded by Mr. Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 7-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Conway, Tedesco, Petschek). Respectfully ~l Maureen M. Recording s, 6 ZBA Minutes, November 2, 2006