Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-07-06 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes(1,-0 W ~ CIc RK Town of Reading ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes of July 6, 2006 Members present: Susan Miller Robert Redfern John Jarema Paul Dustin Michael Conway Members absent: Peter Tedesco 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 #06-14 Continuation of a Public Hearing on the petition of Quality Additions (Fred Hancox) who seeks a Special Permit under Sections 6.3.17 & 6.3.11.1 of the Zoning By-laws in order to demolish an attached non-conforming garage and to construct a larger garage/porch on a non-conforming lot on the property located at 84 Lowell Street in Reading, MA. The proposed structure does not conform to the current setbacks. Robert Redfern assumed the position of Acting Chairman for this case because Susan Miller had not been at the previous hearing. Mr. Redfern had been Acting Chairman at that hearing. He said according to the revised plot plan submitted it indicated the lot coverage would be 24%. Mr. Redfern thought perhaps the surveyor included the deck in error in the calculation and he had recalculated the actual lot coverage to be 23.5%. The Applicants are under the 25% lot coverage as required so the Board was comfortable with the revised plot plan. On a motion by Paul Dustin, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the Applicant a Special Permit under Section 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws in order to demolish an attached garage and to construct a two-story addition with a porch on a non- conforming lot on the property located at 84 Lowell Street as shown on the Certified Plot Plan conditioned upon the following: July 7, 2006 1. The Applicant 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 Applicant's final construction plans for the new dwelling shall be submitted to the Building Inspector 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 3-0-0 (Redfern, Jarema, Dustin). Case #06-09 Continuation of a Public Hearing on the petition of Kevin Fulgoni who seeks an appeal from a decision of the Building Inspector under Section 7.4.2.1 of the Zoning By-laws in order to construct a single family dwelling on a non-conforming lot on the property located at Lot A, South Street in Reading, MA. The Chairman said the Board had all read the written opinion provided by Town Counsel as well as a written supplemental response to a conversation Town Counsel had with Mr. Fulgoni's attorney, Lisa Meade. Attorney Meade submitted her written rebuttal to the opinion rendered by Town Counsel to the Board. The Chairman said it appeared that at this point what the Board has to decide is if this is a build-able lot. Attorney Meade cited various legal cases to prove her opinion that the Board should overturn the determination of the Building Inspector and find that Lot A is a pre-existing nonconforming lot and that any building thereupon must meet the current dimensional requirements so long as they are not more restrictive than those that were in effect at the time of the zoning case in which case the zoning requirements in 1966 will apply. Attorney Meade cited the Sturges v. Chilmark decision as her basis for fact. Michael Conway did not agree and thought the statute applied only to one and two family lots and not for commercial lots. Mr. Conway said the Town knew Lot A, South Street was a commercial lot but maybe the State was not aware of this fact when they took the land for the highway. Paula Gentile, the immediate abutter, said her house has been on her property since 1959 when the lots were carved up for the taking of land for the highway. Mr. Conway said the State took the land and changed the character of this lot by fronting it now on South Street instead of Main Street and that would now restrict it to residential use. Attorney Meade said Town Counsel has not had the opportunity to read the opinion submitted by Attorney Meade to the Board at this meeting. F 2 July 7, 2006 The Chairman said the Board should allow Attorney Meade and Town Counsel to resume a conversation between them that was cut short regarding Attorney Meade's rebuttal. The Board should also have more time to study the material recently submitted to the Board by Town Counsel and Attorney Meade in the past two days. Ms. Gentile wanted to know if Town Counsel would also consider the abutter's concerns regarding this property. The Chairman said she would forward the package Ms. Gentile submitted along with the other information to Town Counsel. On a motion by Michael Conway, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to continue the hearing to August 17, 2006. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Conway). Case # 06-15 A Public Hearing on the petition of Joseph & Kristen Shutt who seek a Variance and a Special Permit under Sections 5.1.2 / 6.3.11.1 of the Zoning By-laws in order to construct an addition on a non-conforming lot on the property located at 70 Forest Street in Reading, MA. The proposed two-story addition encroaches into the required side yard setback of 15'. Attorney Chris Latham represented Joseph & Kristen Shutt who also attended the hearing. The Shutt's lot is a strip lot having a width of 50' and length of 544'. At least two thirds of the lot is wetlands with the rear of the house within the 100' wetland buffer zone. The house is only 18' wide and sits lopsided on the lot. It is within the side yard setback and within 7.5' of the northeasterly property line. Mr. Solimine, the contractor, thought it would be difficult structurally and a substantial hardship to put an addition on the front of the house. The Applicants want to put an addition on the side of their house. It was originally a camp and they are not totally sure of the original structure. The proposed two-story addition would give them additional living space of 600 square feet that would include two bedrooms and a full bath on the second floor. The Chairman read a letter that had been received from the westerly abutter supporting the proposed addition of the Shutts. The Chairman asked about the configuration of the driveway and the access to the garage. Mr. Solimine said the present garage would be removed and the driveway will end at the front of the house. The Chairman also said there were a number of these strip lots in the neighborhood and that would not make this lot unique. Attorney Latham said most of them were wider and this lot does stand out in the neighborhood. Mr. Solimine said there could be ledge and there is a low foundation that could be due to the fact that this was originally built as a camp. It is a loose fieldstone foundation with a 6' height in the basement. They had considerable water in the basement during the recent floods. The Shutts July 7, 2006 have not gone to the Conservation Commission yet and that would be a necessity because of the wetlands. The Board advised the Applicants to begin their discussions with the Conservation Commission as soon as possible. The Building Inspector said there are no visible signs of ledge on the lot and he did not know why it was being brought up. He also said he always requires plans to be supplied for the hearing and he thought he had written on the application that plans were to be provided before the hearing. Attorney Latham said they could provide plans if the Board would need them to make a decision. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to continue the hearing to July 20, 2006 so that the Shutts could provide the needed plans. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Jarema, Dustin, Conway). Other Business Mobil station, 178 Main Street The Town Planner asked the Board for their interpretation of Zoning By-law 6.2.3.2 b as regarding a site plan review for Mobil Oil at 178 Main Street. They want to put a canopy over the pumps that will be illuminated. Does this constitute a sign? The CPDC thought it was a device to attract attention and therefore it is a sign. The Building Inspector thought common lighting below the canopy should be allowed but this particular treatment of the canopy itself being lit up is a device to attract attention and therefore a sign and should not be allowed. It would be considered an additional sign. The Building Inspector said he would like to see the plans submitted. The Chairman said it sounds like the CPDC wants to know if the Zoning Board agrees that this is a device to attract attention. John Jarema said that consistency is important so that one retailer would not try to outdo another retailer at the expense of the community. The Building Inspector said the by-law does allow canopy illumination to light the pumps below. But does an illuminated fascia board only for attention constitute a sign? The Board said they need more facts in order to make an interpretation. The Chairman said the Building Inspector should look at the plans and get the decision of the CPDC for the Board's review before they continue the discussion. The discussion was tabled until the next meeting. Quiznos Parking According to the Building Inspector, the CPDC eliminated one of the parking spots during their site plan review so they could add some landscaping. The CPDC wants an interpretation as to whether they can eliminate this spot. The Zoning Board issued a Variance conditioned on a specific number of on-site parking spaces. . 4 July 7, 2006 The Building Inspector said he did not think CPDC could remove this space because the site was lacking the proper number of spaces to begin with. The Applicant does not want to remove this parking space so the CPDC has asked the Building Inspector for his interpretation and he thought the question should be brought before the Zoning Board. The consensus of the Board is that the original parking plan that was approved by them and was a condition of the Variance that was issued by the Zoning Board should stand. The Building Inspector can issue an Occupancy Permit because the Applicant is complying with the requirements of the Variance. But the Building Inspector can put a condition on the Occupancy Permit that if additional relief is due the Applicant can come before the ZBA asking for a modification. Reorganization of the Board The reorganization of the Board for the next year will be as follows: Robert Redfern, Chairman Paul Dustin, Vice Chairman Susan Miller, Voting Member John Jarema, Voting Member Michael Conway, Voting Member Peter Tedesco, Associate Member On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Jarema, Dustin, Conway). Respectfully July 7, 2006