HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-06 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTown of Reading
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of April 6, 2006
Members present: Susan Miller
Robert Redfern
John Jarema
Paul Dustin
Michael Conway
Members absent: Mark Gillis
u-
may;
XJ
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 # 06-04
A Public Hearing on the petition of Steven Napolitano who seeks a Special Permit under Section
6.3.11.1 of the Zoning By-laws in order to remove and replace an existing set of front steps. The
existing steps are non-conforming (front setback) on the property located at 81 Mineral Street in
Reading, MA.
Steven Napolitano said he had a small, existing set of steps with a roof-over that are original. He
said they were narrow and unsafe and he wanted to remove and replace them with a slightly
enlarged platform area. The new steps would be encroaching more towards a neighbor but will
not be encroaching any further toward the street. The new platform will be expanded slightly
more on the right side than the current one. The roof-over will remain the same along with the
columns.
The Board thought it was a small expansion that would not impact the neighborhood and it met
the requirements for the Special Permit.
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to grant the Applicant a Special Permit under Section 6.3.11.1 of the Zoning By-laws in order to
remove and construct a new front landing and steps on the dwelling at 81 Mineral Street as
shown on the submitted Certified Plot Plan, with the following conditions attached:
April 6, 2006
1. A Certified Plot Plan showing the proposed front landing and steps is submitted to the
Building Inspector prior to the issuance of a Building Permit;
2. A Certified Plot Plan of the "as-constructed" foundation and footings for the new
front landing and steps is submitted to the Building Inspector prior to proceeding with
final construction; and
3. An "as-built" plan of the new front landing and steps is submitted to the Building
Inspector prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Jarema).
Case # 06-05
A Public Hearing on the petition of Black Hawk Builders who seek a Modification of a Special
Permit under Section 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws in order to modify Special Permit # 05-30.
The Applicant would like to remove the existing foundation and construct a completely new
single family dwelling as shown on Plot Plan of Land for 25 William Road in Reading, MA
dated March 15, 2006.
John Jarema recused himself from the case because he currently has a business relationship with
the Applicant's Land Surveyor.
Attorney Chris Latham spoke on behalf of his client, Black Hawk Builders. They want to
demolish the existing foundation and build a larger foundation. The proposed dwelling would
meet all zoning regulations and although the non-conforming lot is smaller than required it is
larger than the other surrounding lots in the area.
Jack Sullivan of Sullivan Engineering Group is the engineer on the project. The lot is in the
Aquifer Protection District and he designed the recharge system that will be installed at the site.
The Building Inspector explained this case was a modification of a Special Permit already
issued. He also said Jack Sullivan must have the recharge system approved by the Town
Engineering Department.
Robert Redfern did not think the case was a modification but rather a new separate case.
Attorney Latham said he also thought it was a new case but it had been advertised as a
modification. Michael Conway said it would be cleaner to treat it as a modification.
The Chairman read a letter from some concerned neighbors who thought that Black Hawk
Builders should not be granted the modification.
Bob Kiley, 37 William Road, said the Applicant should have built on the existing foundation.
Bill Robichaud, prospective owner and son of a partner in Black Hawk Builders, said it was not
the original plan to change the foundation.
Y
April 6, 2006
Attorney Latham said the only thing making this lot non-conforming was that it does not meet
the required lot size and therefore there was no reason for the modification not to be granted.
The Board concluded that the new single family dwelling conformed to the Town's by-laws the
"maximum extent practicable" by meeting or exceeding all setback requirements, fit with the
surrounding neighborhood and, a modification to the original Special Permit was justified.
On a motion by Michael Conway, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to grant the Applicant a Modification to Special Permit 05-30 under Section 6.3.17 of the
Zoning By-laws in order to remove the existing house foundation and construct a new single
family dwelling as shown on the submitted Certified Plot Plan with the original conditions
attached to the Special Permit for Case # 05-30, as received by the Town Clerk on December 22,
2005 and recorded in Book 46868, Page 75 at the Middlesex Registry of Deeds, still in effect.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Conway).
Case # 06-06
A Public Hearing on the petition of Paul Turecamo who seeks a Special Permit under Section
6.3.11.1 of the Zoning By-laws in order to construct an addition on a non-conforming structure
and lot. The proposed addition is located within the required setbacks on the property located at
237 West Street in Reading, MA. The Proposed 18' x 24' deck appears to not conform to the
required rear setback of 20'.
Paul Turecamo said he wants to do a two-story addition off the back of his house. There is an
issue regarding the deck that he attributed to an incorrect interpretation by the Building Inspector
regarding what is the back line of the lot and what is the side line of the lot.
The Building Inspector said the present structure is placed on an irregular shaped lot that is non-
conforming in both lot area and frontage, having only 66.8' of frontage on West Street and 8,846
square feet of area. The lot also has a 14'+/- jog to the northerly side of the property that ranges
from 95' on the southerly side to 60' on the opposite side with a portion of the proposed addition
and the new deck within this jog. The rear yard requirement would follow the 32' rear property
line and the 14.33' rear property line as shown on the submitted plot plan dated September 23,
2005 and last revised March 31, 2006.
The Board members said they were not inclined to overturn the Building Inspector's
longstanding interpretation as to. what constitutes side and rear lines. Therefore they wanted to
consider the alternative proposal that was also submitted by the Applicant at this meeting. The
revision accommodates the proposed deck off the rear of the new addition in relation to the
above-mentioned jog in the property and would comply with the dimensional controls stated in
Section 6.3.11.1 of the Zoning By-laws.
Robert Redfern questioned the proposed lot coverage because it was not shown on the Certified
Plot Plan but Nick Safina, architect on the project, determined that it was less than 20%.
April 6, 2006
The Building Inspector said prior to the issuance of a building permit he would want the revised
deck dimensions to be on the Certified Plot Plan and said the surveyor could also add the lot
coverage to the plan at that time.
On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to grant the Applicant a Special Permit under Section 6.3.11.1 of the Zoning By-laws in order to
construct a two story addition with deck to be consistent with the revised Certified Plot Plan
drawn by John A. Hammer and dated March 31, 2006 being no closer to the northerly side lot
line than 6.0' and otherwise being conforming to the rear and southerly side lot lines with the
following conditions attached:
1. A Certified Plot Plan showing the proposed foundation of the addition is submitted to
the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of a Building Permit;
2. A Certified Plot Plan of the "as-constructed" foundation and footings for the new
deck be submitted to the Building Inspector prior to proceeding with final
construction; and
3. An "as-built" plan of the new addition and deck is submitted to the Building Inspector
prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Jarema).
Minutes
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to accept the minutes of December 8, 2005.
The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Dustin, Conway).
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to accept the minutes of December 15, 2005.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Conway).
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 submit d,
Maureen M. Kni t
Recording Secret ry
April 6, 2006