HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-10-20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minuteslujll ~=aw,
Town of Reading
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of October 20, 2005
Members present:
Members absent:
Susan Miller
Robert Redfern
Joln7 Jarema
Paul Dustin
Michael Conway
Mark Gillis
C,! E~?,
M ASS.
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.
Case # 05-24
A Public Hearing on the petition of Barbara James Selfridge who seek a Special Permit under
Section(s) 6.3.11.1 of the Zoning By-laws in order to construct a 10' x 14' deck within the
required setback of 15' on a non-conforming lot on the property located at 116 Pearl Street.
Barbara and James Selfridge said there is nothing there right now and they want to build an
enclosed 10' x 12' screened three-season porch with an open deck area that leads to a hot tub.
They are 5.9' from the side yard. The yard's terrain is uneven so they kept the deck level with
the other side of the house.
The Board said they are not making the setback any more non-confonming and there is no
additional encroachment. There is a fence so they are somewhat screening the view of the porch
from the neighbors. The neighbors in attendance had no objections.
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to grant a Special Pen-nit to the Applicants under Section 6.3.11.1 of the Zoning By-laws in order
to construct a screened porch/deck at the rear of the dwelling with the following conditions
attached:
1. A certified plot plan showing the proposed screened porch/deck 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 screened
porch/deck be submitted to the Building Inspector
3. An `as-built' plan of the screened porch/deck is submitted to the Building Inspector
prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Pemlit for the addition.
1 October 20, 2005
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Jarema).
Other Business:
Proposed modification to the Archstone Comprehensive Permit
Rick Lattini said Archstone wants permission to remove the tree across from Louanis Drive. The
Archstone transportation engineer said the tree reduces the sight-distance on West Street. The
Town Tree Warden and the Archstone arborist both agreed the tree is in decline and they do not
kiiow how long it will survive.
The Chairman read the memo from the Town Tree Warden, Bob Keating, who said many of the
maple trees in Reading are in the same condition. His standard is not if they are in decline but
rather if they present a danger. This tree may have five or more years left and he did not think
that it was a hazard. Mr. Keating said that if the Board agreed to the tree being removed they
should ask Archstone to replace the tree.
Archstone said they would consider providing another tree that will not reduce the sight distance.
They propose to plant a tree in front of Townhouse No. 3 because that was the only place where
there was any space.
John Jarema said he looked at the tree in question and the southerly and westerly roots had been
cut for drainage work. The protective fencing around the tree was gone and there were building
materials stacked against the cut roots. He did not think the best practices were being employed
and since there were only two specific trees singled out for saving it was unfortunate that best
practices were not employed. He also questioned whether the setbacks on the townhouses were
appropriate. The intention was for townhouses 1,2,3 and 4 to mitigate the impact of the rest of
the project to the streetscape and be an immediate buffer to the rest of the project. If they lose
this tree if will affect the project and they will need something to break up the graduation of the
resulting town houses. He was not convinced this was a minor modification. He thought the
Board should move this was a major modification and advertise the next hearing. What was
proposed and what was being delivered was not the same. The townhouses were shown on the
rendition with more space between them and set further back. The appearance was supposed to
be of four colonial homes that would break up the height of what would be built behind them.
The roofline that covers the entrances had not been an issue in the past but what was built was
not what was in the architectural renderings. Maybe some other buffering trees would help the
situation.
Robert Redfern said the Board should defer to the Town Engineer but he wanted to know why
this sight-distance situation developed when this tree was originally supposed to remain.
Mr. Lattini said that after the fact they saw that it was going to be a problem and obstruct the
view.
The Chairman reminded the Board that the main thing for them to decide at this meeting is if this
is an insubstantial modification or a major modification.
2 October 20, 2005
Some Board members thought it was a major modification and the abutters who were concerned
~ should be able to give their views regarding this tree. By declaring it as substantial it would show
that it had been important to the people who were at the previous hearings and give them an
opportunity to discuss what and where trees should be placed.
Chris Reilly, Town Planner, arrived at the meeting and said the roof height is higher than
anticipated and although he thought the Applicant may not be at fault, a number of people are
unhappy and he hoped the Applicant would cooperate to alleviate the situation.
Archstone said they would meet with the tree warden and their arborist to see what could be
done to help the situation. He said they must define what is possible and then work from that.
Robert Redfern said he would like to see a revised planting plan that shows tree size changes
with increased caliper and height of some of the trees.
Mr. Lattim said they could revise the plan with the input from tonight's meeting and also the
input from Bob Keating. They would then submit the revised planting plan for review and
approval before they come back for the determination as to whether it is a major or minor
modification.
The Town Planner said he would follow up with the Tree Warden and arrange something at
everyone's convenience. He also said a notice should be sent to the abutters to make them aware
of procedurally how the Town is approaching the situation. He would notify the immediate
abutters because there should be some public awareness of what is being done.
With the concurrence of the Applicant and a motion from the Board, the proposed modification
for Archstone was moved to Other Business on November 10"' with the immediate abutters to be
notified and given the opportunity to review the proposed changes to the landscaping.
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted
to adjourn the meeting.
The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Jarema, Dustin, [Conway
having left earlier in the meeting]
Respectfully submi
October 20, 2005