Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-12-15 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTown of Reading. V E D ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS L Minutes of December 15, 2005 S S. :li1 Members present: Susan Miller Robert Redfern Michael Conway Members absent: Mark Gillis John Jarema Paul Dustin ri ~ 0A CLERK 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 # 05-30 A Public Hearing on the petition of Black Hawk Builders, LLC who seek a Special Permit under Section 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws in order to demolish an existing dwelling on a non- conforming lot and to construct a new single family dwelling on the property located at 25 William Road. Attorney Brad Latham represented the Applicant, Mike Brussard. During the process of adding a second floor to the existing dwelling (for which they had a building pen-nit) there was structural damage and the dwelling had to be razed and removed. The Applicant is seeking permission to build a new dwelling on the lot with a slightly increased footprint. The proposed new dwelling will conform in all regards except for the minimum lot, size. This lot is the largest in the neighborhood even thought it does not conform with the 20,000 square feet that is now`required. The proposed dwelling will not be detrimental to, the public good and there will, be no. increase in traffic or density. What is being proposed is consistent with the neighborhood: The Building Inspector said a Building Permit was issued for an addition with a second level and a garage under with a deck. The damage occurred when the Applicant was removing the roof section so he decided to take down all the walls. This case should be treated like an ordinary tear down and rebuild. Robert Redfern said he was concerned about the 15' setback, Although the Applicant meets the requirement he was worried that it might come back before the Board with a 14'10" setback. The Building Inspector said there would be an as-built done for the foundation prior to any framing being done. Robert Kiley, 37 William Road, said to his knowledge it was never the intention of the builder to take the house down and he did not have any problem with a new house being built. December 15, 2006 On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Michael Conway, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the Applicant a Special Pen-nit 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 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 Building Pen-nit. 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 Building Inspector's 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 a Occupancy Permit. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Conway). Case #05-27 A Public Hearing on the petition of Gary Buonarosa who seeks a Variance/Modification of Special Permit under Section(s) 4.2.2/6.3.1/6.3.2/6.3:4/6.3.10 of the Zoning By-laws in order to expand the owner-occupied second floor residential living space and concurrently renovate and reconfigure first floor of the structure which is currently being used for a convenience store on the property located at 287 Lowell Street. Attorney Chris Latham spoke for the Applicant. The P&S Convenience store is on the first floor and the Applicant lives on the second floor. The Applicant is seeking a modification of an existing Special Permit in order to increase the living space on the second floor. In order to do this he must come into compliance with the present building regulations and must install two handicap restrooms on the first floor. The cost will create a hardship for the Applicant and to defray some of this cost he would like to add a 450 square foot Dunkin Donuts on the first floor. The Applicant will set the hours of operation. He also was proposing several minor build-outs as a result of moving some of the storage. There will be a vestibule on the front of the building and the total size of the build-outs would be about 175 square feet. For generations this spot has been an informal forum where citizens can exchange news and have a cup of coffee together. In 1942 when the Town adopted zoning bylaws the neighborhood enterprises were exempted and now there are only two surviving neighborhoods stores (Little Chuck's Deli is the other). The Applicant is seeking a modification of his Special Permit to allow this renovation. The residence on the second floor of the building would be expanded 500 square feet. The first floor has always been used as commercial space and this floor would be expanded approximately 200 square feet with the addition of two handicap bathrooms. The Building Inspector said everything meets the required setbacks except the vestibule and the additions in the back that would require the approval of the Board. It is the front vestibule and the rear cooler that require this approval and if they were not being added the Applicant would not have to appear before the Board. December 15, 2006 The parking will not be changed and there will continue to be 20 parking spaces. Both the State and the Town did the design of the parking lot. A number of the parking spaces are in the right of way of Lowell Street and this was brought up in the letter to the Board from the Conservation Commission. Robert Redfern said the Applicant must have a legal document showing that they have been given permission for these spaces that are not on his property. Twelve spaces are off the lot and only eight are actually on the lot. The Building Inspector said it could be considered a public parking area. Attorney Latham presented a document that showed these spaces as a public parking lot and he said if the Board continues the hearing he will get more information from the Town and answer the questions raised about this parking lot. There are wetlands on this site and it is in an Aquifer Protection Zone. The Building Inspector said the biggest problem would be with the Conservation Commission and the maximum 15% lot coverage. He said it is the additional coverage proposed now that could trigger the AQ district problems. Peter Tedesco, 15 Intervale Terrace, had many concerns, disputed the Building Inspector's opinion, disagreed with the percentage of increase in the retail and apartment areas, and said the Dunkin Donuts would cause traffic problems. Attorney Latham said these concerns would come up when the Applicant appears before CPDC and the Conservation Commission. The original Zito's did sell coffee, donuts, and even had a deli. This building was always used for commercial use. Traffic is a concern, always will be, and CPDC would require a traffic study. Jennifer. Kent, 313 Lowell Street, said the store is now going to be a chain store and it will lose the neighborhood feel. Darlene Porter, 193 Lowell Street, said all the roads in the Town have become very busy and most of the people who will go to the proposed Dunkin Donuts are the ones who go there now anyway for their coffee. Joseph Browning, Intervale Terrace, said because of the stockade fence you cannot see the traffic until you get to the store and this traffic will increase if there is a Dunkin Donuts in there. Keith Dissell, 202 Bancroft Avenue, said the current building is an improvement over what was there and the new building will be even more of an improvement. Leigh Loftus, 22 Intervale Terrace, asked about truck deliveries and number of employees. Fred Caratelli, 284 Lowell Street, said the traffic is bad, he didn't object to the Applicant increasing his living space but did not want a Dunkin Donuts there. Terry McDonald, 190 Main Street, said they all just have to live with what is in their neighborhood. December 15, 2006 Patricia Andres, 23 Intervale Terrace, said it's their right as parents to try to maintain their living environment as much as possible. She also worried about this being the closest Dunkin Donuts to the playing fields and YMCA. Margaret Gardner, neighborhood abutter, said she could buy coffee there now. Dean Koulouris, 465 Franklin Street, said he did not think you would be able to tell it is a Dunkin Donuts from the outside. Steve Gameau, 39 Grove Street, said what is being proposed will not be a problem and the traffic would be there anyway. The neighborhood abutter from 51 Grant Street said the Applicant has made a tremendous improvement in the property. Mark Nelson, 71 Winthrop Ave said he does not see houses losing value. The Applicant said he has mills, bread, coke and deli deliveries everyday as well as a tractor trailer delivery at 8:00 AM and he was not aware of anyone complaining now. He said he is actually losing retail space. He presently has 20 seats but he is reducing it to 10 seats so customers will come and purchase but there will only be 10 seats in the deli section. The Applicant said he presently has a thriving coffee, lunch and sandwich business and the present parking more than adequately handles his customers. He said he could not image Dunkin Donuts having more customers than he presently has for his sandwich business. He said he takes care of his property and he is a good neighbor. The Chairman said the Board has identified three items they want to explore; lot coverage, second use, and the Town's position on the parking. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Michael Conway, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to continue the hearing to January 19, 2006. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Conway). On a motion by Michael Conway, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Conway). 4 December 15, 2006