HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-02 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTown of Reading
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of March 2, 2006
Members present: Susan Miller
cLERK
Robert Redfern
John Jarema
Paul Dustin;
c-•
Members absent: Mark Gillis F i
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. Also in attendance was Glen
Redmond, Commissioner of Buildings.
Case # 06-02
A Public Hearing on the petition of William & Pamela Keating who seek a Special Permit under
Section(s) 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws in order to tear down an existing structure on a non-
conforming lot and to construct a new single family dwelling on the property located at 42
Intervale Terrace in Reading, MA.
William Keating said he has a cape-style house with only two bedrooms. He presently has three
children and plans on having another child. He wants to tear down the present dwelling and build
a two-story colonial house with additional bedrooms. The new structure will be moved back 10'
from where the present house is located. The new dwelling will meet all setbacks and will be
improving one of the side setbacks to make it more conforming than the present dwelling. The
height of the new dwelling will be 29.5' to the ridge. The driveway will stay where it currently is
located and they have no plans to. build a garage.
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 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws in order to
demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new single family, two story dwelling as shown
on the submitted Certified Plot Plan with the following three conditions attached:
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.
March 2, 2006
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.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Jarema).
Case # 06-01"
A Public Hearing on the petition of Bayfield Development Co., Inc. who seeks a
Variance/Special Permit under Section(s) 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. The property dates back to 1840 when it was a
factory for organ pipes. The existing structure is now used for computer parts and service repair.
The Board needs to determine that residential use will be substantially less detrimental. than what
is presently there. The lot is located in a S 15 residential district. Some of the structures presently
on the property will be demolished but they are not of a historic nature. Removing the additions
will cause the front building to more conform within the setbacks.
Brad Richards from Bayfield Development Co., Inc. spoke about the proposed project. They
have had one meeting with the Historical Commission and have scheduled a second one. The
Historical Commission gave the developer some direction as to what they would like to see
happen to the building. The Applicant is proposing five units in the front and four units in the
rear. They want to restore the buildings to what they looked like in the past but with modern
features. They plan on installing walkways and sidewalks with landscaping. Each unit will have
its own entrance without a common area. They propose a kiosk in the front that documents the
four stages the building has gone through since it was built. Mr. Richards emphasized that the
artist renditions of the proposed project were just sketches and not the final design, but they
should give the Board an idea of how they want to restore the property.
Attorney Latham said they planned on applying for site plan review with the CPDC and DRT.
He said they want to make sure first that they can do what they propose. John Jarema said that
the input back from CPDC and the DRT helps the ZBA to make their decisions and he would
like to see more information about neighborhood density, impact and the opinion of the fire
department before any decisions are made.
Attorney Latham said what his client really needed is for the Board to determine that residential
use is less detrimental than what is presently there. Paul Dustin thought the Board would not be
able to determine if it was less detrimental or approve a Special Permit without having any
details of the project.
March 2, 2006
John Jarema said if the building remained a business/factory use the impact actually would be
less detrimental to the neighborhood.
The Board thought the proposed 16 parking spaces would be sufficient.
The Building Inspector said that he has not seen any plans showing how the condo owners would
enter and exit the property. Attorney Latham said he knew that ultimately these plans were
needed but it was not necessary for this meeting.
Roberta Sullivan, Historical Commission, said this property was listed on the National Register
of Historic Places as well as the Town's Historical List. The Historical Commission said they
thought this was a good way to preserve these buildings for the Town. She said the project will
go before any and all Boards that are necessary but the Commission hoped for a favorable vote at
this meeting from the Board.
Margaret Pratt, 136 Salem Street, said what is being proposed is good for the Town and the
neighborhood.
Mrs. Hildreth, 24 Pierce Street, said the present building is a mess and they have had problems
with critters in the area. The Board of Health could not help her because there is no food being
served in the building. She said that the Fire Department told her that if the present building
caught fire their first priority would be to save homes in the area.
The abutter who lives in the home next to the organ factory said he thinks residential use would
be better than business use but he is concerned with the density.
David Strand, son of the owner, said it had been a family business for thirty years. He displayed
an old picture of what the building looked like in the past and it greatly resembled the proposed
renovation. He said his family refused another offer to buy this property because the proposed
buyer wanted to tear down the present buildings.
Don Dewy, 17 Spring Street, wanted it explained more clearly just what the Applicant was
asking for and what the restrictions would be. The Chairman explained the Applicant wanted a
finding that a residential use would be less detrimental than what is presently there. The Board
could, however, restrict the number of units approved.
Attorney Latham said the Board could put in the restriction that there be no more than nine units
contained within the structures that are there now.
David Gillette, 26 Pierce Street, wanted a clarification between what constitutes apartments and
condominiums
Bill Cheverie, 128 Salem Street, wanted a condition imposed that the proposed demolition of the
accessory buildings must be done so that the developer does not put more units on the property.
f`
March 2, 2006
Mr. Dewy said he wanted to know how an apartment complex could be allowed in a S15 zone
and the Chairman told him it could be done if the Board deemed the proposal to be less
detrimental to the neighborhood.
Mr. Strand said his family had considered alternatives but they wanted to make sure that any
proposed project respected the historic aspects of the buildings and this project met their
requirements. They felt this proposal was appropriate for the neighborhood.
Judith Gillette, 26 Pierce Street, said there was a lot of suspicion because of what had already
been done on this street across from the old organ factory but she thought the neighborhood
should give this proposal a chance.
Karen Cheverie, 128 Salem Street, said she thought nine units were too many for the property.
Mr. Strand agreed and said three units in the back and four in the front were enough.
Attorney Latham said the developer needed nine units in order to make the project financially
feasible.
Roberta Sullivan wanted the future condo owners to have deed restrictions stating they cannot
change the basic concept and size of what is there now.
John Jarema said he was not comfortable using all these restrictions. He would prefer a finding
simply stating that a residential use would be less detrimental and that the Applicant would be
required to appear before the CPDC and DRT. The Board does not know what the Fire and
Police Departments and other departments are going to require for the project.
There was considerable discussion by the Board regarding whether to call the proposed
residences apartments or townhouses using the Town's by-laws. Attorney Latham said that
apartment is the only allowable name choice under the Town's table of uses.
The Board also discussed at length as to how they could say the use would be less detrimental if
they did not know the exact number of units that would be on the property.
The Applicant said the Zoning Board is the place for them to come and get a Special Permit
before they can appear before the CPDC and DRT.
John Jarema said they are asking for nine units on a lot that barely meets the requirements for a
single-family dwelling.
Based upon the information available at the present time the Board reached no consensus. The
Board did, however, recommend to the Applicants that they meet with the DRT prior to their
next meeting with the ZBA in an effort to resolve some of the issues raised at this meeting.
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
that the case be continued to March 16, 2006.
March 2, 2006
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 October 6, 2005 with changes.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Dustin).
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to accept the minutes of October 20, 2005 with changes.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Dustin).
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 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Dustin).
Respectfully
;i
a
cost M.
Recording S
March 2, 2006