The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006-09-21 Zoning Board of Appeals Minuteso~u~~ C~ERI~ Town of Reading ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes of September 21, 2006 - Members present: Robert Redfern cr M __H > C Susan Miller " C:3 M John Jarema w Paul Dustin , Peter Tedesco CD Clark Petschek cry Members absent: Michael Conway 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. Case # 06-21 A Public Hearing on the petition of Reading Cooperative Bank who seeks a Variance/Special Permit or an amendment of Variance 1978-3 under Section(s) 4.2.2/6.3.10.3 of the Zoning By- laws in order to construct a parking lot on a lot located mostly in an 5-15 District and partially in a Business B District on the property located at 16 Sanborn Street in Reading, MA. The Chairman opened the case and read a letter submitted to the Board by the Applicant's attorney requesting that this case be withdrawn without prejudice. On a motion by Ms. Miller, seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the Applicant's request that the case be withdrawn without prejudice. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Tedesco). Case # 06-20 A Public Hearing on the petition of Kurt & Beryl Schmiedl who seek a Special Permit under Section(s) 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws in order to demolish an existing fire-damaged single family dwelling on a non-conforming lot, and to construct a new single family dwelling on the property located at 93 Pine Ridge Road in Reading, MA. ZBA Minutes, September 21, 2006 Mrs. Schmiedl said their house was destroyed by an accidental fire and they would like to rebuild as well as replace the one-car garage with a two-car garage. The new house would meet all setback requirements. The lot has 11,300 square feet instead of the required 15,000. Jamie Lynch, contractor, said the smoke damage cannot be removed and there is structural damage. To gut it and start over is not practical. The new structure will blend in well with the neighborhood. Mr. Jarema said the lot coverage should be shown on the plot plan but it was not. The Board figured it was approximately 22% coverage. There were no further questions from the Board or people attending the meeting. On a motion by Ms. Miller, seconded by Paul Dustin, 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 the existing dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling as shown on the Plot Plan of Land prepared by John D. Sullivan III, PE of Boxford, MA dated August 17, 2006. The Special Permit is subject to the following conditions: 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, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Tedesco). Case # 06-22 A Public Hearing on the petition of Motiva Enterprises, LLC who seek 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. Steven Pedro of Motiva spoke on behalf of the Applicants. The canopy at the gas station was damaged by a car and then the canopy was removed. There are existing pumps at the station and they want to protect their clients during inclement weather with a new canopy but they need relief from the setbacks. The size of the new canopy would be 50' x 50' which would cover the pumps and the vehicles. They also are requesting signage on either side of the canopy and an internally illuminated band. Mr. Pedro said the Building Inspector told him the internally illuminated area is considered a sign. The front setback they are asking for is 8' and the side setback is 14'. ZBA Minutes, September 21, 2006 The Chairman asked Mr. Pedro if the old canopy had signage and Mr. Pedro said it did not because it had a pitched roof but there were lights under that shone down on the pump area. The Chairman said he thinks the internally illuminated band that projects light is considered a "beacon" as defined in the By-laws. He quoted from the sign regulations that said any sign that served as a beacon was prohibited in the Town. The lit red band going around the canopy serves no purpose other than to attract attention. Mr. Pedro said the Applicant would forgo the interior illumination and would just use a plain red painted band. Mr. Tedesco questioned the rainwater drainage system on the canopy. Mr. Pedro said they are handling that situation with the Conservation Commission but to answer his question the canopy has an interior drain that goes down the inside of the columns and then the rain water is disbursed. Ms. Miller said businesses are only allowed a certain square footage of signs and without anything in writing from the Building Inspector it is hard to determine what is allowable. The Chairman said they could vote on the canopy without the illuminating band, but without the Building Inspector present, it would be difficult to determine what signage would be allowable. Ms. Miller said the Applicants need a Variance for two more requested wall signs that say Shell. Mr. Jarema said he would like to know the history of the property and when it was built. In November 1980 the Town Meeting voted for canopy exclusion in an industrial district. He said the canopy must have been originally approved by the Planning Board. When the damage was done and a section of the canopy was removed, Texaco would not have taken off a section that critical to their operation without getting some type of permission from the Town for restoration of some sort. He wondered if this was a non-conforming situation that was created by the Town when Planning granted the canopy. Mr. Pedro said when the damage occurred his structural engineers said the damaged canopy was dangerous and it should be taken down. He said the Zoning Board was the right board to grant the replacement of the canopy. The Board wanted to continue the case until the Building Inspector could be present at a later meeting to give his input. Ms. Miller asked Mr. Pedro why they wanted the two extra signs on the ends of the canopy. Mr. Pedro said since only one sign per building is allowed the one on the building is for the food mart. Shell wanted the name Shell to be visible. The freestanding sign only has the company logo. These two end signs are to identify the site as a Shell gas station. Mr. Jarema said they needed some consistency though out the Town with regards to signage at other gas stations. Mr. Dustin would also like more information about the past history of this location. Mr. Pedro wanted to know what the issue was that the Board had: was it the sign issue or granting a variance for dimensional setbacks. The Chairman said this new canopy was an entirely new canopy and was not a rebuilding of the original structure. ZBA Minutes, September 21, 2006 On a motion by Ms. Miller, seconded by Mr. Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to continue the hearing to October 5, 2006. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Tedesco). Other Business: The Chairman read a letter from Mr. Schaffer regarding the townhouses on the corner of Woburn and Bancroft Street. He said they were plain and unattractive and not as originally presented. The Building Inspector has told the contractor that he will not issue an Occupancy Permit for the three units until the structure more closely resembles the artistic rendering that had been submitted to the Zoning Board when the Special Permit was granted. On a motion by Mr. Dustin, seconded by Ms. Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Respectfully submi Maureen M. Recording S 4 ZBA Minutes, September 21, 2006