Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-10-05 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes,--rou)d col~_ Town of Reading ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes of October 5, 2006 Members present: Robert Redfern y Susan Miller c'r'y c) z,. John Jarema r-n Paul Dustin Peter Tedesco r-- , Michael Conway s~ c Clark Petschek en 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 # 06-18 A continuation of a Public Hearing on the petition of Pam & James Borys who seek a determination from the Zoning Board of Appeals that the existing property is a three-family dwelling under § 6.3 of the Zoning By-laws in order to determine if the existing structure and use (three-family) is a proper use and may be allowed to continue on the property located at 65 Harnden Street in Reading, MA. The case had been continued for opinion from Town Counsel. Town Counsel said in a written opinion that this dwelling is not a legal three-family dwelling. Attorney Stephen Cicatelli, who represented the Applicants, said after 10 years the structure is grand-fathered but not the use. His clients did what they were asked to do when they. bought this house. Attorney Cicatelli said a Special Permit should have been obtained by the previous owner. But, Attorney Cicatelli said, the previous Building Inspector had declared this a three-family dwelling and so informed his clients. Mr. Redmond, the Building Inspector, said he spoke with Town Counsel by phone and she submitted a second letter that was emailed today. Mr. Redmond said the note allegedly signed by the previous Building Inspector can not be considered unless it is verified by Mr. LeClaire, the previous Building Inspector. Mr. Redmond also said he did not see how any decision could be made unless the property was inspected by the Town. He wondered about the unit placements, number of bathrooms, were the kitchens fully equipped and most important of all, there could be egress issues. Mr. Conway said a tour of the property does not relate to what the Board has to decide. He said the Board has to decide whether the use as a three-family dwelling can continue. ZBA Minutes, October 5, 2006 The Chairman said the Board will be deciding the determination as to use. The Building Inspector should inspect the dwelling to determine that all issues meet code and the Assessor should do an inspection because the dwelling has been listed and taxed as a two-family dwelling. He said the Town has an obligation to inspect the property to make sure it is safe and habitable. The Board noted that in her letter of October 3, 2006 to the ZBA, Town Counsel stated that Permit 06430 issued to the Borys on November 13, 1996 identifies the dwelling use for three families. In her opinion this permit "comports" (as she states it) to the proof requirements of Section 7. On a motion by Ms. Miller, seconded by Mr. Conway, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to find that the existing use of the property as a three-family dwelling is subject to the protections of M.G.L. c. 40 A, & 7 and, therefore, may be allowed to continue. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Conway). Case #06-23 A Public Hearing on the petition of Karen & Michael Bourque who seek a Special Permit/Variance under § 4.3.2.8 of the Zoning By-laws in order to create an accessory apartment by means of an addition. A greater portion (14' x 34.5') is proposed in the new addition on the property located at 76 John Street in Reading, MA. Kathy Goyotte spoke on behalf of the Applicants. They want to put an accessory apartment on the lower level of the original house (621 square feet) for Mr. Bourque's parents and add the addition for extra living space for the Applicants and their three sons. The Building Inspector said the accessory apartment should be a part of the main house and should not occupy more than one-third of the overall space. The egress that might be added should not exceed 10%. In this case, the proposed accessory apartment would be mainly in the new addition. The Applicant said the addition will not have a kitchen because the main house currently has two kitchens and the one on the lower level will become part of the new accessory apartment. Mr. Jarema said the accessory apartment is supposed to be carved from the original dwelling. He thought it was clear this addition should be granted with a Variance so as not to be construed as a two-family dwelling if it should be sold in the future. The Chairman explained to the Applicants that they must meet the four requirements for a Variance. Because this concerns an accessory apartment the first requirement is not applicable. The Board was of the opinion the Applicants met the other three variance requirements and the addition will meet the required property line setbacks. The accessory apartment must be granted through a Special Permit. ZBA Minutes, October 5, 2006 On a motion by Mr. Dustin, seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the Applicants a Variance from the restrictions of § 4.3.2.8.2 (a) of the Zoning By-laws in order to construct an accessory apartment. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Conway). On a motion by Mr. Dustin, seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the Applicants a Special Permit to allow construction of an accessory apartment under § 4.3.2.8 of the Zoning By-laws, subject to the Variance granted by Motion 1 and 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. 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 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 is encroaching on a utility easement. Attorney Robert McCann, and Brian Milisci, Engineer, represented the Applicant (128 Ford). Attorney McCann said there are two buildings on the property: the sales building and the repair shop. The Ford Motor Company has set requirements as to quality and appearance of their dealerships and the present structures do not meet these requirements. They are also asking for three signs on the front of the buildings. The sales building is a substantial building and there will only be one business in the building. The service building needs to be demolished and rebuilt. The Reading/Wakefield town line runs through the property. The Applicant needs to know what setbacks they must use and if the town line is the line that is used for determining the setbacks or is it the property line. Reading's bylaws do not address this situation. Some of the parking is in Reading and some is in Wakefield. The Building Inspector said he thought the parking in Wakefield could be used in the count for required parking spaces. The service building will increase its footprint. They will also add a partial second and third floor to the ZBA Minutes, October 5, 2006 building. The business is not changing or expanding but they have a space issue in the service building and that is why they are looking to add a moderate amount of square footage to the service building. CPDC has asked them to show on their plans where the loading zones are for the loading and unloading of cars, where parts deliveries will be made, revised landscaping plans and final lighting plans. Attorney McCann reviewed the site plan that showed the changes proposed to the service building. He said the new building does not encroach on the Town easement. The proposed canopy would have but it is not being requested now. He reviewed the three signs they are requesting for the front of the building. The specific requests are: the Special Permit for signs, a Variance from the parking requirements and the dimensional requirements. They also will work with the Conservation Commission and the CPDC to resolve any other Reading issues. Mr. Milisci said the plans showed turning radius for the delivery trucks and they would be able to make a loop around the building. He explained the sales room parking, the service building parking and the new car/fleet storage area. They would have a total of 358 spaces with 108 in Reading and 250 in Wakefield. The Building Inspector said it is an unusual piece of property and it is up to the Board to determine the setback lines. Attorney McCann said the building was built in the early 60's with regular building permits. Mr. Jarema said if they were coming in today and asking for a building permit for this project they would be required to have a permit for open storage for the vehicles. He wanted to know if the property line or the Town line determined the setbacks. Mr. Milisci said the Building Inspector and the Town Planner had said they could use the parking in both towns. The Chairman said he would like to see a certified plot plan for this property. Attorney McCann said he did have one but it was not included in the Board packets. The Chairman said he was concerned about the separate parcels and Attorney McCann said they did not have a problem with a deed condition being issued that these parcels could not be sold at a future date but would remain as part of 128 Ford. There is also an easement by the Town on the property. The Chairman said he would want to see the deeds that go with these parcels and any restrictions that may be in place on these parcels as well as the Town easement. Ms. Miller said she thought for consistency that the property line should be used for setbacks since they are allowing parking and storage on the Wakefield side of the property. Mr. Jarema said when the building was originally constructed the town of Wakefield did not want any buildings on their side of the line so the agreement was that the buildings would be in Reading and the vehicle storage in Wakefield. He agreed they need a stamped certified plot plan. The Building Inspector said the service building is being demolished but they are not building on the same footprint and they are increasing it slightly. Attorney McCann said he is requesting three signs instead of just the one allowed. He said the signs are not big and if there were three businesses in the building they could just put in these signs by right. It is because it is one business requesting three signs that they need a Variance. - - Mr. Jarema told Mr. McCann the Board needed the sign requirements and specifications for these three signs. 4 ZBA Minutes, October 5, 2006 The meeting will be continued so that the Applicants can submit to the Board a certified plot plan showing the present buildings and the proposed buildings, copies of the deeds for the parcels, a letter from the Wakefield Building Inspector regarding proposed parking on the Wakefield property and the sign specifications. Tony Darezzo, 130 John Street, said the Applicants indicated they were putting three signs on the service building as well as a sign on the sales building and the highway sign. He did not think they needed the extra signage on the service building. On a motion by Mr. Jarema, seconded by Mr. Conway, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to continue the hearing to November 2, 2006. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Conway). Case # 06-22 Continuation of a Public Hearing on the petition of Motiva Enterprises, LLC who seeks a Variance under § 5.1.2/6.2.3.2.3/6.2.3.2.4 of the Zoning By-laws in order to construct a new canopy with signage to replace a prior canopy that existed at one time on the property located at 87 Walkers Brook Road in Reading, MA. Alan Micale, Ayoub Engineering, said it was determined they needed a Variance to erect a new canopy and he summed up what had been discussed at the prior hearing. They have since changed the canopy to a non-illuminated canopy but would like one sign on the canopy if the Board allowed. The Building Inspector said at present there is no canopy. The plan submitted is for a proposed new canopy and it does not meet the required setbacks. He said signage is not allowed and the red raised illuminated red band is not allowed. Mr. Micale said on the new design the sign is not now illuminated and the band is just a flat red paint. The Chairman said they would need a Variance for the canopy and for the signage on the canopy. The Building Inspector said they would also have to discuss the free-standing sign as well. Mr. Micale said they will forgo the canopy sign in order to get the canopy up as soon as possible and they could come back before the Board at a later date for a sign. Right now they will just ask for a Variance for the canopy because they want to put it up before the winter weather sets in. Mr. Dustin said it seemed the 14' side setback is the only area for which the Applicant needs a variance (1'). The Building Inspector said he did not think the particular canopy exemption they cited for an industrial area applied to this particular canopy. He thought they needed a 6' exemption. He said the recent canopy removal was done without a building permit. Mr. Micale said he was aware from the beginning that once the canopy was removed it was a new situation. Tony Darezzo, 130 John Street, said the Applicant is in violation of a general bylaw because they are playing music and audio ads by speakers located on the pumps. ZBA Minutes, October 5, 2006 On a motion by Mr. Jarema, seconded by M r. Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the Applicant a Variance to construct a new canopy under § 5.1.2 for the setbacks requested consistent with the plans submitted by Ayoub Engineering entitled Project # 1857 Sheet # C-l, Sheet A-IA (for height and distance only) and the unstamped Certified Plot Plan dated with a revision of 10/03/06 with 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. 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, Tedesco). Mr. Micale asked to withdraw his application without prejudice for the requested signage. On a motion by Mr. Jarema, seconded by Mr. Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept the request for withdrawal without prejudice for the requested signage. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Tedesco). On a motion by Ms. Miller, seconded by Mr. Conway, 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). 6 ZBA Minutes, October 5, 2006