Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-16 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesuwrJ cov, Town of Reading ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes of March 16, 2006 Members present: Susan Miller Robert Redfern , C John Jarema Paul Dustin = Michael Conway - ~.c cry Members absent: Mark Gillis ' 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 # 06-03 A Public Hearing on the petition of Carl & Gina DiRocco who seek a Variance/Special Permit under Sections 5.1.2 & 6.3.11 of the Zoning By-laws in order to construct an addition to a non- conforming dwelling and to expand a small portion of that addition beyond the existing 12' side setback on the property located at 33 Knollwood Road. Gina DiRocco said their house currently has a 12' side setback and they want to maintain that setback in a new addition but there is one small wedge section that is part of a landing and they were requesting a Variance for that wedge. The Building Inspector said if it was just a landing they could encroach into the setback but since they want a roof over the landing it must meet zoning setbacks. It is actually the roof that is causing the encroachment. One abutting neighbor said he was in favor of the project and it would not affect him in any way. The other abutting neighbor said she also supported the project. Mrs. DiRocco said their lot slopes up from the street and the roof over the landing would provide for easier access in bad weather as well as it being more artistically pleasing with the roof over the landing. On a motion by Paul Dustin, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a Variance from the side yard setback requirements of Section 5.1.2 of the Zoning By- March 16, 2006 laws, Table of Dimensional Controls, for the exit way landing to encroach into the existing side yard setback by eleven inches. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Dustin). On a motion by Paul Dustin, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a Special Permit to allow construction of the proposed dwelling addition under Section 6.3.11 of the Zoning By-laws. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Dustin). The Variance and the Special Permit were granted conditioned upon the following: 1. The Applicant shall submit to the Building Inspector a Certified Plot Plan of the proposed construction and proposed foundation plans prior to the Building Inspector's issuance of a foundation permit for the work. 2. The Applicant's final construction plans for the new dwelling (including Certified Plot Plan) shall be submitted to the Building Inspector prior to his issuance of a Building Permit. 3. As-built plans showing the completed construction of the new dwelling shall be submitted to the Building Inspector immediately after the wok is completed and prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit. Case # 06-01 Continuation of a Public Hearing on the petition of Bayfield Development Co., Inc. who seeks a Variance/Special Permit under Sections 4.2.2/5.0/6.1.1.3/6.3.10.3 of the Zoning By-laws in order to renovate and redevelop the original organ pipe factory located at 10 Pierce Street as nine residential condominium units. Attorney Josh Latham represented the Applicant. They had appeared before the DRT and the Historical Commission since their last hearing before the Zoning Board. The relief they are seeking is a Special Permit to substitute a non-conforming residential use instead of the non- conforming business use that is currently in place on the property. At the last meeting there was much discussion as to whether the Applicant had to go before the CPDC before getting a decision from the Zoning Board. The DRT determined that there was a lack of parking spaces and the Conservation Commission said there were no wetland issues. The Fire Department wants a minimum of an 18' driveway and sprinklers in the building. The Town Planner said at least one unit should be affordable and he thought this project should be filed as a LIP. He also thought there should be other requirements relating to parking, landscaping, screening and street trees. The Historical Commission submitted another letter in support of the project. March 16, 2006 John Jarema said it was good for the Applicant to meet with the DRT and for them to bring up issues that the Zoning Board has touched on at the prior meetings. It reinforced the need for other Town departments to be involved from the onset. Attorney Latham said they are only looking for the change of use Variance at this particular time. During the planning process, if they find they need any other Zoning relief they would have to come back before the Board. Michael Conway said it seemed to him that neither the Board nor the Town is giving up any safeguards on this project by making a use determination. He saw it simply as whether the project use is less detrimental than what is presently allowed. Other Board members also agreed with this assessment. The Applicant could come back before the Board for specific relief if it was needed further along in the planning of this project. John Jarema said they are allowing the CPDC to determine what is viable in this project and the Board needs to limit their decision as to what the change in use is and not add any conditions because that will be determined by the CPDC. Paul Dustin would like the type of multi-family use to be specific and defined in the Board's decision. Michael Conway said it should just be called residential use and not specific. John Jarema agreed and said they should only decide about the use and whether it is less detrimental to the neighborhood as a residential use. The entire Board seemed in agreement that this project is less detrimental than a business use and the other Town boards will make the necessary determinations. Michael Conway said he thought there should be some basic minimal restrictions as to the use of the two buildings presently there. John Jarema said specific conditions in the decision could hamper the other departments in Town in performing their duties by having the Applicant meet their requirements. The Building Inspector said the Applicant has already put in his conditions and if he wants to alter things he must come back before the Board. If the Board approves the Special Permit as requested then the Applicant will have to come back before the Board if there are any changes. Don Dewey, 17 Spring Street, said he would be impacted by the project. He listed many reasons why a new use would be more detrimental to him because what is there now hardly impacts him. John Jarema said they could grant a Special Permit under Zoning By-law Section 6.3.10.3 subject to the CPDC's conditions and restrictions. Attorney Latham said they could omit the number of units and just reference using the two historic buildings. Mr. Dewey said he wanted a minimum of two parking spaces per unit put in the decision as a condition. The Board reminded Mr. Dewey that the parking would be reviewed by the CPDC under site plan review. On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a Special Permit under Section 6.3.10.3 of the Zoning By-laws to Bayfield Development Co., Inc. of Wilmington, MA for the property located at 10 Pierce Street in order to allow a "New Use", Multi-family Residential, which will replace the current nonconforming Commercial/Industrial use on the property by finding that this new use will be substantially less March 16, 2006 detrimental to the neighborhood than that which currently exists subject to the following conditions: 1. The residential dwelling units shall be developed as condominium units pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 183A; 2. Redevelopment of the site shall include demolition of those buildings identified for demolition, and reuse of those buildings identified for redevelopment, as shown on the plans submitted by the Applicant and entitled "Existing Conditions Plan" and "Site Layout Plan", both prepared by Eugene T. Sullivan and dated January 11, 2006; 3. The buildings to remain on the site as identified in the above mentioned plans shall not be expanded or enlarged, except within the existing footprint and height of the current two structures; 4. The CPDC or other Town regulatory review group shall determine the number and size of the units, access to and from the development, parking, lighting, landscaping, and other restrictions as they deem appropriate; and 5. The granting of this Special Permit shall neither guarantee nor imply any additional relief, dimensional or otherwise, to the Petitioner for the development identified above. Any additional zoning relief will require the Petitioner to re-file a request with the Board. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Jarema). On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept the request of the Petitioner to withdraw without prejudice his request for relief under Sections 4.2.2/5.0/6.1.1.3 of the Zoning By-laws. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Jarema). Other Business: A request by Archstone-Reading for determination of minor modification of a previously issued Comprehensive Permit. Carl Trieschman and Arthur Costello of Archstone-Reading are requesting an Occupancy Permit for the clubhouse at the Archstone-Reading development. Mr. Trieschman said this is the first of eleven Occupancy Permits and this building will be their management and leasing office. According to the Comprehensive Permit, no Occupancy Permits are to be issued until Archstone- Reading submits their Monitoring Agreement to the Town. C.H.A.P.A. is not acting as a monitoring agent any longer so Archstone-Reading has been trying to locate an agent and they think they have one but it is not final. The Chairman wanted to know why they needed to open the clubhouse before the pre-leasing period. Mr. Trieschman said it looks good to people considering leasing because it is an attractive community amenity that helps sell the apartment complex. March 16, 2006 John Jarema wanted to issue a temporary Certificate of Occupancy enforceable by the Building Inspector that would have a condition that the safety of visiting clients will be protected during visits to the clubhouse. Mr. Costello said the clubhouse area would be fenced-in and it would not have any construction debris. Archstone has already obtained the approval of the Police and Fire Departments. Michael Conway said the temporary Occupancy Permit could be conditioned upon Archstone submitting the Monitoring Agreement to the Town, and upon receipt of this document the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy becomes permanent. That would ensure that this is a minor modification. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals made a finding that the modification is a minor modification and instructed the Building Inspector to issue a temporary Certificate of Occupancy (provided all other necessary conditions are met). Once the Monitoring Agreement is submitted to the Town the Building Inspector may issue an Occupancy Permit. The finding was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Jarema). Minutes On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept the minutes of November 3, 2005 with changes. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Jarema, Conway). On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept the minutes of November 10, 2005. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Jarema, Conway). On a motion by Paul Dustin, seconded by John Jarema, 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 Maureen M. Recording S r` March 16, 2006