HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-10-06 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTown of Reading
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of October 6, 2005
Members present: Susan Miller
Robert Redfern
John Jarema
Paul Dustin
Michael Conway
Members absent: Mark Gillis
r
'ASS.
3[4
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 #05-19
A Public Hearing on the petition of Carl E. D'Angelo, Jr. who seeks a Special Permit under
Section(s) 6.3.10.2/6.3.17/6.3.11/6.3.11.2 of the Zoning By-laws in order to raze the existing
four-unit dwelling and construct a new four-unit dwelling on the property located at 30-32
Elliott Street / 100-102 Green Street. The use is a non-conforming use.
Attorney Brad Latham spoke on behalf of the Applicant, Carl D'Angelo, Jr. The present
structure is non-conforming with four units on a little over 17,000 square feet. The property is
located in an S-15 district with approximately 150' frontage. The existing structure is in poor
condition and has a total of eight bedrooms and that will not increase in number. Attorney
Latham submitted copies of excerpts from the Town Census for multiple years which all show
that it has been a four-family dwelling. The census history shows four families at this address
with 4 street numbers. There are two doors on the Elliott Street side and two doors on the Green
Street side. The property was probably a fann at one time and the dwelling was originally a
single family home that appeared to become a four-family during the 1920's.
The proposed new dwelling will have four units; each town house would have a garage and over
1,500 square feet of floor area. There will be a total of four parking spaces inside with two
stacked parking spaces outside each garage. There will be a catch basin system that will prevent
water runoff from sheeting off the building and going into the street. Attorney Latham presented
letters from neighbors supporting the proposed project. The height of the proposed dwelling
would be 28-29' right at the peak. The existing lot coverage is presently a little over 12% and the
proposed building lot coverage would be a little over 22%.
October 6, 2005
The Board asked if the owner had thought about turning it into a condominium complex and
Attorney Latham said it would lend itself to that situation. The Applicant said he wanted to build
something that looked tasteful.
The Board stated all they needed to do was make a decision as to whether or not to issue a
Special Permit for the continued non-conforming use of the property. The Applicant will have to
go before CPDC for site plan review. Attorney Latham said the decision should be to approve
the continued use in the new format presented.
Ellen Childress, 105 Green Street, was concerned about losing four units of affordable housing in
the Town but she was told this property does not count toward the Town's 10% affordable
housing. She also was worried about the run-off from the rain and she wants permeable pavers in
the front. She objects to the curb cuts on Green Street, wants tall landscaping and more frontage,
objects to the increase in the footprint, does not like the proposed plan, wants drainage to be
addressed and also wants an investigation about it really being a three-family dwelling and not a
four-family.
Attorney Mark Favaloro spoke as the representative for Lynn and Ed Vargas of 101 Green
Street. He said his clients are worried about the design of the garage units and the water runoff
because of the pitch of the roof. They also are concerned about the drainage and want to see what
the drainage design looks like. They also do not like the access to all units off Green Street
which is different from that which is presently there with 2 units using Elliott Street. They would
like to see one or two units again oriented towards Elliott Street because Green Street is a very
- busy street.
Attorney Latham said drainage is an issue but the new structure will not increase runoff but it
will affect how it is dispersed. The preference is to leave the four emits fronting on Green Street.
Attorney Latham did not think two additional units fronting on Green Street would increase the
traffic.
The Board said the proposed dwelling does not appear to violate any of the zoning by-laws and
Attorney Latham said he thought the Building Inspector had sent the case to the Board as a
precaution.
The Board had an extended conversation as to what particular by-law would most closely match
the proposed situation and they concluded that Section 6.3.10.2 would. CPDC, in their site plan
review, will then determine what the conditions are relating to drainage, parking, and building
height. Attorney Favaloro thought Section 6.3.17 b was the appropriate by-law. Attorney Latham
thought 6.3.10.2 a was more appropriate. The Board felt the proposed four-family stricture was
neither substantially more nor less detrimental to the neighborhood than what was presently
there. The CPDC will determine specific recommendations for the proposed building.
On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to grant a Special Permit under Sections 6.3.10.2 and 6.3.17(b) to the Applicant to raze the
existing four-family structure and construct a new four-family structure at the location of 30-32
October 6, 2005
Elliott Street/100-102 Green Street. The Board recognizes the present use of the existing
stricture, a four-family dwelling in a single-family zoning district (S-15) as a legal non-
conforming use. The Board also recognizes the Applicant's intent is to replace the existing
dwelling with another four-family dwelling that complies with all other current zoning
requirements and that CPDC will address in its Site Plan Review the issues of drainage, curb cuts
and appropriateness of the design of the structure in relation to the neighborhood.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Jarema, Redfern).
Case # 05-22
A Public Hearing on the petition of Cingular Wireless who seeks a Special Permit/Modification
of ZBA Case # 1997-4 under Section(s) 4.3.5 of the Zoning By-laws in order to make
modifications to Cingular's roof top wireless communications facility on the property located at
1 Summit Drive (listed as 605 Summer Avenue by the Town Assessor's office).
Ken Adams represented Cingular Wireless and explained that the original Special Permit for the
roof top wireless communications facility on the property was issued to AT&T which is now
owned by Cingular. Currently there are nine, antenna panels on the penthouse roof of 1 Summit
Drive. Cingular wants to remove all nine and put in six new ones that will be painted to match
the building. They will also be replacing the coaxial wires that are in a 16" wide cable tray that
will be painted to match the fagade of the building. To the naked eye there will be no discernible
difference from the existing arrangement. It is difficult to see what is there now and will continue
to be the sarne. The purpose of the change is to enhance features for Cingular but not coverage.
The Board inquired about the radiation factor and was the told the emissions are in the single
digits and way below the standards. All original Special Permit conditions would be met and the
only change is in the number of antenna panels.
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to grant the Applicant a modification to the Special Pen-nit issued on March 6, 1997 in ZBA Case
No. 1997-4 for the previously herein described changes to the rooftop wireless communication
facility at 1 Summit Drive (listed as 605 Summer Avenue by the Town Assessor's office),
Reading, MA. With the exception of the described proposed changes to the facility, all other
terms and conditions of the original Special Pennit granted shall remain in effect.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Jarema).
Case #05-23
A Public Hearing on the petition of Jimbo's Roast Beef/John Spencer who seeks a Special
Permit under Section(s) 6.0/6.1.1.2 of the Zoning By-laws in order to allow offsite parking for
employees on other lots for the property located at 454 Main Street.
October 6, 2005
John Spencer, the Applicant, said there are eighteen parking spots at the site and thus forty-eight
seats allocated for both Jimbo's and Dunkin Donuts, which is the second business located in the
building. There are six to seven employees per shift for both facilities and he would like them to
park offsite so he can increase the number of seats in Jimbos's from the twelve seats presently
allowed to twenty-eight to thirty-two seats (four seats per parking space are allowed).
The Applicant submitted two rental agreements, one for four rental parking spaces and one for
two rental parking spaces. The dumpster corral in the back takes up one parking space.
The Board concluded that if Jimbo's has off-street, offsite parking for seven employees then they
are just approving offsite parking within 300 feet of the property.
On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals made a
motion to grant the Applicant, Jimbo's Roast Beef and Seafood, a Special Permit under Section
6.1.1.2 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to allow off-street, off-site parking for employees in
accordance with the requirements of section 6.1.1.2 of the By-laws.
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 Zoning Board of Appeals voted
to adjourn the meeting.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Jarema, Dustin, Conway).
Respectfully sub t d,
seen M. igh
Recording S retar
October 6, 2005