Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-09-01 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes, -T ,m~ ~~Rl< v Town of Reading ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes of September 1, 2005 Members present: Robert Redfern John Jarema G Paul Dustin Michael Conway X" ) Members absent: Mark Gillis Susan Miller CD, 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 # 05-13 Continuation of a Public Hearing on the petition of Michael J. Garrity who seeks a Variance/Appeal from a decision of the Building Inspector under Sections 2.2.13 (frontage) / 7.4.2.1 of the Zoning By-laws in order to occupy a single family dwelling that does not comply with Section 6.1.1.3 off-street parking and loading/unloading requirements on the property located at 51 Colburn Road. Also does not comply with the definition of frontage (2.2.13). The Applicant's attorney, Mark Favaloro, submitted a letter to the Board requesting that the hearing be continued to October 6, 2005. He said in the letter that the Applicant needed more time to discuss the situation with Engineering. John Jarema said he spoke this afternoon with Chris Reilly, the Town Planner, regarding this situation and the letter from Attorney Favaloro was the result. Attorney Favaloro did not know where the Applicant stood at the moment other than that the Applicant was trying to work out something with the Town Engineer. Glen Redmond, the Building Inspector, had spoken with Joe Delaney, the Town Engineer, and Mr. Delaney said the Applicant had not met with him or spoken to him regarding this case. The Board had expected that the Applicant would proceed with what he had proposed and this is the second continuance. John Jarema did not think the Board should grant this continuance because it appeared that no progress had been made in the last two months. The Board thought it would be best to close the public hearing and vote on the initial request that was the appeal of the Building Inspector's decision. The Board said that what they were actually voting on was the appeal of the Building Inspector's decision. September 1, 2005 Ronald O'Connell, 63 Colburn Road, said the neighborhood would like to see something happen because it had been one bad thing after another. Each time there is a continuance there are less abutters and it seemed like an effort to just wear the neighborhood down until there is no one left to object. He did not want to see the Board keep this situation continuing. The Board decided to move first on the request by Attorney Favaloro and then on the appeal. On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the request for continuation that was made by the Applicant's attorney. The motion was denied by a vote of 0-3-0 (Redfern, Jarema, Dustin). On a motion by Paul Dustin, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to uphold the Building Inspector's decision to refuse to issue an Occupancy Permit for the single family dwelling that does not comply with Section 6.1.1.13 of the Zoning By-laws in regard to the off-street parking and loading/unloading requirement of the property. The motion was approved by a vote 3-0-0 (Redfern, Jarema, Dustin). Case # 05-20 A Public Hearing in the Selectmen's Meeting Room on the petition of Thomas J. Hogan who seeks a Special Permit under Section(s) 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws in order to rebuild a non- conforming porch that had been removed without obtaining a building permit. The proposed construction does not comply with the required setbacks of 15' (side) or 20' (front) on the property located at 78 Lowell Street. Mr. Hogan spoke on his behalf and said he wants to rebuild his porch. He said he was in this position because the Building Inspectors made a mistake. He said his porch had presented a danger because it was sinking, there was water intrusion and it was over 100 years old. He said the roof was pulling away from the house and it was rotted and had carpenter ants. The porch was a hazard to the health and well being of his wife and tenants so he demolished it. After the fact he went to the Building Inspector's office and spoke with Dan Bornstein, the Assistant Building Inspector. He said Mr. Bornstein said he needed to take action. He told the Applicant to fill out portions of the application form, provide pictures, and that he did not need a certified plot plan. On the Applicant's third trip to the Building Department Mr. Bornstein told him he needed a certified plot plan although he had already allowed the Applicant to proceed with just a mortgage plot plan. The Building Inspector, Glen Redmond, later said the mortgage plot plan that was acceptable to Mr. Bornstein was not acceptable to him. When the Applicant appealed to the Town Manager he also said the Applicant needed a certified plot plan. The Building Inspector denied the building permit application. The Applicant was asking for the Board's help in issuing a building permit because of the Town Building Department's errors. He then submitted a certified plot plan to the Board. September 1, 2005 The Board asked if the Applicant had talked to either the Building Inspector or his Assistant before he took the porch down. Mr. Hogan said he thought he had the right to remove any structure on his property. It was dangerous and the safety of others was more important than waiting to speak- to anyone about it first. The Board asked if the Applicant had submitted any actual building plans to the Building Department. Mr. Hogan said Mr. Bornstein told him hand drawings were sufficient and he did not need to submit anything else. He said his conversations with Mr. Redmond centered around the plot plans but Mr. Redmond did see the drawings and did not say that he had any objections to the hand drawings. The Board reminded the Applicant that in the letter to the Board from the Building Inspector it said the submitted hand drawings were not acceptable because they lacked detail and dimensions. The Applicant then submitted to the Board drawings from 1939 that showed the porch. The Applicant's father-in-law, Joe Palucca, said he instructed the Applicant to take down the porch over the weekend and then go to the Building Inspector on Monday to get a building permit. Mr. Palucca said he would be involved in the rebuilding of the porch. He told his son-in- law to leave the foundation in place and go to the Town Hall on Monday for the building permit. The Board asked if the Assistant Building Inspector came to review the property after he spoke with the Applicant. Mr. Hogan said he did not know who was the Building Inspector and who was the Assistant. He said Mr. Bornstein was at the counter and asked the Applicant if he could help him so he explained the situation to Mr. Bornstein. Mr. Hogan said he thought Mr. Bornstein was the Building Inspector. The Applicant said he asked for written proof of Mr. Bornstein's approval and he put his initials on the permit application and wrote OK next to his initials. He said neither the Building Inspector nor the Assistant Building Inspector went to his property or said they wanted to see anything. The Applicant also said he called Mr. Bornstein the day of this hearing and left a voice snail message for him requesting that he attend this meeting but Mr. Hogan did not hear back from him. Fred Garlick of 84 Lowell Street said he has lived there for 30 years and the porch had been in bad shape for a long time. The porch needs to be replaced to keep up the values of the neighborhood. Robert Redfern said in this case the Town may have erred and the Applicant did go to the Building Department and things became clouded at that time. The Building Inspector was on vacation when his Assistant gave his approval. Paul Dustin said that Section 6.3.17 gives the Applicant the right to apply for a Special Permit. He wanted to know how the new porch related to the previous porch and mentioned that there are some non-conforming issues that need to be evaluated. But he thought the new plans seemed to be slightly improved and he did not have any problems. September 1, 2005 Michael Conway asked if the Building Inspector thought he needed something more than that what had been submitted in order to issue a Building Permit for the porch to be rebuilt. Robert Redfern said he thought the Applicant would definitely need more detailed plans than those submitted. The Applicant said the problem was the certified plot plan and that no one had explained that his mortgage plot plan was insufficient. He was given approval to begin building, the plans were scrutinized and the Assistant Building Inspector's approval was based on those plans and he told the Applicant that they were sufficient. Robert Redfern explained that the Board likes to see the existing structure prior to any modifications and the proposed structure. In this case the then existing porch no longer exists and the Town must take some responsibility for allowing this to proceed as far as it has. John Jarema asked the Applicant if he bought the house from a local realtor and the Applicant said it was a realtor from Wakefield. Mr. Jarema then asked the Applicant if the realtor had told him the lot was non-conforming and he said he had not been told. Mr. Jarema then asked the Applicant what his profession was and he replied that he was an attorney. John Jarema said he was troubled by the fact that there had been errors on the part of the Building Inspector's office and that the Applicant chose to just take the porch down. The replacement of the porch is an issue that needed to be resolved but the process is as important as the result. A permit must be issued before any voluntary destruction. He said the community would be best served by replacing the porch. Some errors of judgement were made on the part of the Assistant Building Inspector, the Applicant and the Applicant's father-in-law. Mr. Jarema said he wanted a copy of the original building permit put in the file that clearly showed Mr. Bornstein's signature and approval. On a motion by Michael Conway, 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 re-build a non-conforming porch as shown on the submitted revised certified plot plan with the following conditions attached: 1. The Applicant shall submit to the Building Inspector a certified plot plan on 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 porch (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 plan(s) 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 (Redfern, Jarema, Conway). 4 September 1, 2005 On a motion by Paul Dustin, seconded by Michael Conway, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0-0 (Redfern, Jarema, Dustin, Conway). Respectfully Maureen M. Recording Sf September 1, 2005