Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-01-05 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes~a~a C~~RK Town of Reading ;'s = C ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS L LE ' I h-1- Minutes of January 5, 20,06 _ "1" ' Members present: Members absent: Susan Miller Robert Redfern John Jarema Paul Dustin Michael Conway Marl-, 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 present was Glen Redmond, Commissioner of Buildings. Case # 05-31 A Public Hearing on the petition of Edward G. Thomas who seeks a Special Permit under Section(s) 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws in order to construct a new single family dwelling on a non-confonning lot on the property located at 99 Oak Street. Michael Conway recused himself from the case because he is a neighbor of the Applicant. Richard Bova spoke on behalf of the Applicant. They want to build a 2,800 square foot home on the non-conforming lot that has 14,478 square feet with only 85' frontage. The existing dwelling is a small cape. The new dwelling will comply with all the current zoning setbacks and it will be no more than 32' high at the ridgeline. It will have four bedrooms instead of the two in the current dwelling. The Board asked about the drawing that showed a walkout with sliding doors off the dining room. Mr. Bova said that it would have an on-grade patio. There will be 18.84% lot coverage including the garage. The existing shed will be moved to the rear of the lot or maybe even be removed. The Board did not have any problems with the proposed design and said it will fit more with the neighborhood than the existing cape. 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 January 5, 2006 demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new single family, two story dwelling as shown on the submitted Certified Plot Plan with the following 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. 2. The Applicant's final construction plans for the new dwelling and addition (including Certified Plot Plan) shall be submitted to the Building Inspector prior to the 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 work is completed and prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Pen-nit. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Jarema). Case # 05-33 A Public Hearing on the petition of Brinker International who seeks a Variance under Section(s) 4.9.5.6/4.9.5.6.1/4.9.5.6.4 of the Zoning By-laws in order to install two additional signs on a building located in a PUD-I (Roman's Macaroni Grill) on the property located at 48 Walkers Brook Drive. Hazel Wood Hopkins spoke on behalf the Applicant, Brinker International (Roman's Macaroni Grill). She said they are entitled to one wall sign and that is presently on the front of the building measuring 75 square feet. The Applicant is asking for a sign for the right elevation where there is an entrance into the service area where people pick up food-to-go. They would like a sign identical to what is on. the front of the building and it would be over this side entrance. The Applicant is also asking for a 12 square foot directional sign that.would say `Curb Side to Go.' The Chili's in this shopping area has signs on all three sides of their building. If you approached the Romano's Macaroni Grill from the front you would see the current sign but if you approached from the side you would not know what the building was. The Chairman asked the Building Inspector why Chili's has the additional signage and he said it was determined at the DRT meetings and since he is not part of that group he did not know why. It appears that CPDC did not allow the additional signage for this restaurant even though it had been allowed for other structures in the shopping area. Tony Darezzo of 130 John Street said the buildings in Phase I of the Walkers Brook development may be in violation of the Zoning By-laws. He said both Chili's and Romano's Macaroni Grill are owned by the same group and if they wish to equalize the signage situation they could just remove the additional signs from the Chili's restaurant. The Chairman said that since this is a PUD-Industrial perhaps it should be before the CPDC and not the Zoning Board. January 5, 2006 Ms. Hopkins presented the minutes from two prior CPDC meetings that discussed signage at the Phase I and Phase II sections of the Walkers Brook Development. When the CPDC discussed the Phase II signage, which included Romano's Macaroni Grill, Bank of America, and the retail strip, it was determined that these Phase II businesses would have to conform to the one sign that is allowed unlike what was allowed for the Phase I buildings. The Board felt could be a CPDC issue and that the Zoning Board would not be the governing board to determine this situation. The Building Inspector said he thought according to the By-laws that CPDC could allow more than one sign per business in the PUD-Industrial. Michael Conway said he thought the request for additional signage is a modification of the Special Permit issued by the CPDC for Romano's Macaroni Grill and therefore the request for additional signage should be heard before them. Ms. Hopkins said the CPDC was pressured by the abutters at the hearings regarding Phase II into allowing only one sign per business. The Building Inspector said the Applicant should be appealing the decision of the CPDC. He also questioned calling the third sign a directional sign. John Jarema said the Zoning Board did not have the power to override a decision that was made by another permit-granting authority, in this case the CPDC. The Chairman will ask for an interpretation from the Town Planner regarding what had happened and what is the proper recourse. On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to continue the hearing to February 2, 2006 in order to clarify the jurisdiction of this request. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Jarema). Case # 05-32 A Public Hearing on the petition of Richard Smart who seeks a Variance under Section(s) 6.1/6.1.1.3 of the Zoning By-laws in order to install a Quizno's Sub Sandwich Shop in a former retail space on the property located at 505 Main Street. The Chairman read a letter from the Applicant's attorney, Mark Favaloro, stating that he was unable to attend this meeting on January 5"' and requesting that the case be opened and continued to January 19, 2006. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals made a motion to continue the hearing to January 19, 2006. January 5, 2006 The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Jarema). Other Business Request for a modification of a Special Permit previously granted (Case # 05-20) for 78 Lowell Street. The Building Inspector explained that what is being built is contrary to what was approved by the Board and what the Applicant needs is a modification to the Special Permit that he was already granted. The roof frame is being run parallel to the existing octagon porch outline and the roof did not match that so they need to cantilever the porch out from the foundation to match the roof. John Jarema said the Board spent a lot of time previously on this case and they based their decision on information the Applicant brought to them that reflected what was originally there. He said he is not sure if this is a modification or whether the abutters should be notified because it is a major change. The Applicant said this was a safety issue and he was not trying to sneak anything in. There were three days of rain prior to him taking the porch down and the rain caused the porch to pull away from the house. It was not going to stand very long and it was a liability. The Applicant said he received permission from a member of the Town Staff (Dan Bornstein, former Assistant Building Inspector) to remove the porch without a permit. He said he asked an engineer to put dimensions on the certified plot plan after the porch's removal but these do not work in the actual building of the porch. Mr. Hogan's father-in-law said he is the contractor on the job. He said what they are doing is trying to make the house look really nice and that is why they need the approval. He did not see anything wrong with doing what they want. The Building Inspector said the problem is how can you get an as-built plan for something that is no longer there. The plans that are being used do not match what was approved for the permit that was issued. Robert Redfern said they should build the porch based on the plans that were submitted for the Special Pen-nit. Now they are coining back before the Board because it does not tie in with what is there. Since this is all new material they will have to show construction plans for this new porch. Mr. Hogan's father-in-law said they are not encroaching and they are trying to make a huge mess come out good. Michael Conway said they issued a Special Permit based on what the Applicant submitted and that was what permission was given for and now something different is on site. 4 January 5, 2006 Robert Redfern said maybe the Applicant must re-advertise and comeback before the Board in a public hearing because this is an additional encroachment. Susan Miller said what the Applicant asked for is not build-able and the new figures they are submitting are now the maximum amount practicable. Michael Conway said what they asked for was not what was historically there and instead they submitted plans for what they wanted to put there. And now they are saying they cannot build what they asked for in the request for a Special Permit. Mr. Hogan said he did not even look at the design prior to attending the hearing when the Special Permit was granted. Now he knows that what they asked for cannot be done so he is now asking for a modification for the one comer. The Building Inspector said they should ask Town Counsel if they should re-advertise and hold a public hearing. Mr. Hogan said he did not understand why he could not get a modification if he is not encroaching but Mr. Jarema said that he is encroaching so perhaps the Board should go to Town Counsel to ask what is needed. John Jarema said they should continue the hearing to get the opinion of Town Counsel. Mr. Hogan's father-in-law asked if they could continue to work while waiting for Town Counsel's opinion. The Building Inspector said this would not be advisable. The Chairman said the procedure is what also counts and they must follow the proper process. On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Board made a motion that they will not take any action on the modification at this time but, instead seek advice from Town Counsel. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Jarema). Historical Commission Re: Proposed Zoning By-law to reduce setbacks for Historical Structures Virginia Adams presented a proposed by-law change relating to Historic Preservation Zoning Relief. She explained the proposed by-law change as written in their draft of January 4, 2006. The Historical Commission has been working on this proposal for some time that will offer relief for threatened historical structures. January 5, 2006 The Board took exception to the requirement that the Historical Commission approve the Zoning Board findings. The Board would, however, welcome the Commission's input and opinions as always. Recording the required three necessary documents simultaneously at the Registry of Deeds could present a problem because there are time restrictions imposed on the Zoning Board. What has been outlined seems to be cumbersome in that approval from all the Boards could take an excessive amount of time. The format of a 40B would have to be followed in order to try and accomplish what they hoped to do in a reasonable amount of time. The Board also said they would be more comfortable having Town Counsel review the Historical Commission's proposal; this will be done after the Commission presents its proposal to CPDC. The Commission asked the Board to submit any written comments to them prior to their meeting with CPDC and they also extended an invitation to attend the meeting between the CPDC and the Historical Commission. Minutes On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by John Jarema, the minutes of July 14, 2005 were approved with changes. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Jarema) On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by John Jarema, the minutes of July 21, 2005 were approved. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Redfern, Jarema, Dustin) On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Jolu1 Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adj ourn the meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Jarema, Dustin, Conway). Respectful] AMa seen N . Recording January 5, 2006