Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-07 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutesowe CLw Town of Reading ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes of April 7, 2005 C= Members Present: Susan Miller " y Paul Dustin Robert Redfern co c-y John Jarema > M, ar CD Michael Conway C/) Mark Gillis Members Absent: 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 # 05-06 A Public Hearing on the petition of John Ciano who seeks a Variance/Special Permit under Sections 5.1.2/6.3.10/6.3.11.1/6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws in order to remove a portion of the existing structure (two-family) and to rebuild that portion on the property located at 244 Haven Street. The Applicant also seeks permission for a recently built deck (constructed without a Building Permit) to remain. Attorney Josh Latham represented the Applicant. The two-family house was built at the turn of the century. It is a duplex style with two entrances. The use predates zoning and it has always been a two-family. The setback in the rear is non-conforming. The Applicant wants to rebuild in that back section and turn it into a two- story addition. There currently is no foundation in this section of the house. The bathrooms for both units are in this addition and they do not meet current codes and need to be rebuilt. The setback encroachment is just about %a an inch. The client built a wooden deck last year without a building permit and it encroaches into the rear yard set back 6". There is a parking lot behind the deck. The Building Inspector is having the Applicant file for a building permit. The Board had difficulty with the 6" encroachment into the setback and thought it would be appropriate to pull the deck back 6" which would also make the deck parallel to the house. This is a two-part request, a special permit for the teardown and rebuilding within the same footprint and then, second, the deck. The Board said looking at the two plans it appears that the %2 inch difference is not even in the footprint of the first story addition so the Applicant is increasing the footprint of the addition. Attorney Latham said if the Board would put the addition and deck on the special permit together the Applicant will bring the deck back the 6". Timothy Clifford, an abutter at 249 Haven Street, said he was in support of the project for both the addition and the deck. On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to grant the Petitioner a Special Permit under Section 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws in order to remove the existing addition attached to the dwelling. It will be replaced with a two-story addition consistent with the plans submitted and the certified plot plan dated February 10, 2005 and revised March 2, 2005. The addition shall be no closer than 19.96' from the rear property line and the proposed deck shall be no more than same 19.96' and be reconstructed under the direction of the Building Inspector with the usual three conditions of a foundation permit, a building permit, and an occupancy permit. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Jarema, Redfern). Case 05-07 A Public Hearing on the petition of Danis Reading Realty Trust who seeks a Variance/Appeal from a decision of the Building Inspector under Sections 6.2.3/7.4 of the Zoning By-laws in order to install a free-standing sign on the property located at One General Way. The sign exceeds the maximum sign area allowed and also exceeds the allowable height. Attorney Mark Favaloro spoke on behalf of the Applicants. They are looking to expand the permitted area and height of the freestanding sign. They are proposing a sign that will be 30' in pylon height and 196 square feet. The uniqueness is that the property is set back, does not have any curb appeal and is not visible from the street. There was a site plan approval allowing this layout. The Applicants feel they need this type of relief in order to have their tenants compete with other similar businesses and they feel it would be fair to grant this in view of the sign that was allowed at Walkers Brook Crossing development which far exceeds their sign in all aspects. The Board said they would like Town Counsel or the Town Planner to be at the meeting to give the Board some guidance. They would also like to see a Certificate of Appropriateness. Attorney Favaloro said one of the conditions of the CPDC was that there should be a master signage plan submitted back to the CPDC. It became clear the Applicants would need a variance so they came before the Board. The Board said the submitted plan does not include a stamped certified plot plan by a registered land surveyor. There are two things needed: a registered engineer for the sign and placement of the sign by a certified land surveyor to set the markings. They also felt they could not make a decision without getting some guidance from both the CPDC and the Town Planner because at issue is a site plan review for an industrial area without signage. Attorney Favaloro stated again that the Applicants were before the Board because the Town Planner and the Building Inspector said they should get a variance first from the Zoning Board. An abutter, Tony Derossi said the Danis property could have been applied for as a PUD but was not and therefore this property should not get the relief that the PUD would have given it. This sign is inappropriate for a residential area. Susan Miller read into the record an email to the Town Planner from Doug Neary of 155 Gillis Street expressing his disapproval. Joyce Kirk, 151 Village Street, said the plans shown at the meeting are not accurate and do not show the homes in the area. She thinks the present sign is big enough and customers were able to find Frugal Fannies without any problem. She said the traffic light will impact on the neighborhood and they have been neglected throughout this whole business. Kerry Bramhall and Helen Evans, both of John Street Court, said the present sign is large enough. Tony D'Agostino, financial manager for the Danis property said over the last three years they have had difficulties keeping tenants. They are trying to redevelop the property and the sign they are proposing, relative to the size of the building, is consistent and they are looking for some relief in their attempt to attract new tenants. The Board concluded the Applicant needed to first seek the opinion of the C.P.D.C. On a motion by Robert Redfern, second by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to continue the hearing to May 19, 2005. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Jarema, Redfern). Mark Gillis left the meeting at 9:15 PM. Other Business On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to approve the Regulatory Agreement for Maplewood Village pursuant to Condition Number 25 in the decision granting the Comprehensive Permit on June 24, 2004. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Jarema). On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Paul Dustin, 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). y Maureen M. Recording S 4