Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-09-15 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutesaulrl LKK Town of Reading ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes of September 15, 2005 Members present: Members absent: Susan Miller Robert Redfernn - Paul Dustin r - Mark Gillis John Jarema c y Michael Conway CID 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 # 05-19 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 asked that the case be continued because the client is out of state. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to continue the case to October 6, 2005. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Dustin). Case #05-18 A Public Hearing on the petition of Kneeland Construction Corp. who seeks a Variance under Section(s) 5.0 (setbacks) of the Zoning By-laws in order to re-connect a pool deck to the existing dwelling on the property located at 7 Pine Avenue. The connection of this deck will be a violation of side and rear yard setbacks. 1 September 15, 2005 Carl Dumas of Kneeland Construction Corp. spoke on behalf of the Applicant. He submitted an infonnation package and a statement from the neighbors supporting the reattachment. It will violate side and rear setbacks if they reattach the deck to the pool. They need to reattach the deck to make the pool useful. The pool was built in 1987 and the deck was built in 1990. The structure is over ten years old. There would be no harm to the neighborhood. The house is at one level along with the deck and if the deck is not attached it would not be useful. The Applicant's handicapped child needs this deck in order to use the pool. The Applicant/Owner, Jim Cooper, said his daughter is housebound except for school and the pool is useful for her. He bought the house in 2001 because it did have the pool and deck. The Building Inspector said Mass General Law says if the deck has been there for over ten years it can be grandfathered in by the Board. The pool as it is now without being connected conforms but once you connect it, the deck becomes part of the house and must meet the 15' and 20' setbacks. There was a prior case that the previous owners withdrew without prejudice in the past that he thought was related to a pool and a deck. Phil Doherty, 13 Pine Avenue, said the original house always had a small deck but previous owners built the current pool and the deck. He said the pool and deck did not bother him even though it took up most of the Applicant's yard. The Board asked if the shed was going to be removed and Mr. Dumas said it would be. The Board said the Town By-laws reference the State statute that says any non-complying structure that has been in effect for more than ten years can be accepted. Therefore, the Board said that if they found the deck had been there for 10 years then it would just be a Finding and not a Variance or a Special Permit. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals made a finding that the existing deck surrounding the above ground pool, by virtue of evidence, has been in existence for over ten years and therefore, in accordance with Section 6.3.2.4 of the Town Zoning Bylaws, the deck surrounding the existing pool is grandfathered in regarding the existing setbacks. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Dustin). Case # 05-21 A Public Hearing on the petition of Keith Dissel who seeks a Special Permit under Section(s) 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws in order to remove an existing single family dwelling and to construct a new single family dwelling on the existing non-conforming lot on the property located at 202 Bancroft Avenue. 2 September 15, 2005 Keith Dissel said he has lived there for over 20 years and wanted to expand and renovate. The contractors he spoke with said it would be more cost effective to remove the old dwelling and build a new one. There will be a garage under the house and the stone wall that is presently there will be removed. The new structure will conform to all setbacks and the height will be 28'. The lot is non-conforming because of the area but the proposed dwelling will meet all required setbacks. The Building Inspector said they will need an elevation to know where the existing grade is now and the proposed elevation before it is demolished. The Applicant will be dropping the grade a few feet so it will be lower than it is at present. On a motion by Paul Dustin, seconded by Robert Redfern, 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 remove the current dwelling and to replace it with a new structure on the property, as shown on the Certified Plot Plan with the following three standard conditions: 1. The Petitioner shall submit to the Building Inspector a Certified Plot Plan of the proposed construction and proposed foundation plans prior to the issuance of a Foundation Permit for the work. 2. The Petitioner's final construction plans for the new dwelling shall be submitted to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 3. As-built plans showing the completed construction shall be submitted to the Building Inspector immediately after the work is completed and prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Dustin). Other Business: An inconsistency was noted by the Board in the decision previously submitted for ZBA Case #05-16. A paragraph will be deleted in order to make the wording clearer. The revised decision will be sent to the abutters. The initial release of the decision for this case inadvertently contained two contradictory conditions, Numbers (2) and (3). Condition 2 required a four foot chain link fence along the boundary between the two lots fronting on Main Street, rising to a six foot chain link fence in front of the wet lands protected area. Condition 3 required a six foot chain link fence continuous for the full distance. This correction deletes the previous Condition 2, and renumbers the remaining Conditions as 2 and 3, thus specifying a continuous six foot fence. Minutes: On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Paul Dustin, the minutes of June 1, 2005 were accepted with changes. September 15, 2005 The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Dustin). On a motion by Robert Redfern, second by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Dustin). Respectfully Maureen M. Recording Si 4 September 15, 2005