The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005-02-03 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes10 W d CLEP,K v Town of Reading CLERK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, r S S Minutes of February 3, 2005 Members Present: Susan Miller Michael Conway Paul Dustin Robert Redfern Mark Gillis John Jarema Members Absent: None 43 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 in attendance was Glen Redmond, Commissioner of Buildings. Case #04-30 Continuation of a Public Hearing on the petition of Wendy Robinson who seeks a Variance under Sections 4.0/4.2.2 of the Zoning By-laws in order to allow open storage in front of a retail store during regular business hours on the property (The Corner Closet) located at 6 Linden Street. The Chairman said the Board had heard from the Town Counsel, Town Planner and Town Manager. The Ace Art Company owned the property until 1983 when it was sold and the new owner opened a thrift shop in the building. When she died in 2000 the thrift shop was operated sporadically by her daughter. The Applicant rented the property in September 2002 and began cleaning and putting in storage space and a dressing room. The applicant filed a DBA with the Town Clerk in the fall of 2002. When she opened for business she continued the practice of displaying goods outside the store as had happened at the previous thrift shop. The Building Inspector wrote a letter to the Applicant at the request of a member of the CPDC stating she was violating the open storage policy and must not display goods outside the store. The Board questioned the Building Inspector about other businesses in town that display goods outside. The Building Inspector said Home Depot is in a PUD, Calareso's is in Business A and had a Special Permit with conditions attached that said everything must be under a canopy and Eric's Greenhouse is agriculture and they have different requirements. The Board said they had two remedies that were within the power of the ZBA. One is the pre- , existing non-conforming use and if the Applicant met it they could continue operating the same as in the past and display goods outside. The other remedy would be a Variance because open storage is not allowed by the Zoning By-laws in the district. For the first remedy Town Counsel said the Applicant needed to convince the Board as to the exact dates and that there was not a 24-month period in which the ongoing use was not in practice. Susan Miller said the burden is on the Applicant to prove that there was a concerted effort to find a new renter who would continue the thrift shop and that there was not a 24-month break between businesses. Robert Redfern said the Applicant should get copies of the new information that had been submitted by Town Counsel and the Town Planner. The Applicant should speak with the Town Planner and get actual proof of when things ceased and the new business started up. Susan Miller explained that if the use had been abandoned for a 24-month period then it could not be "grand-fathered." All parties should be in agreement as to what the actual facts are and the Applicant should submit proof. The Applicant was told by John Jarema that perhaps they should get legal counsel as to how to prepare their proposal before they appear again before the Board as the Board might give this information to Town Counsel for an opinion. Section 5.2.1 of the General By-laws states: no one may put anything out on the sidewalk that may impede pedestrian access without express permission of the Selectmen. The Applicant was told that if they were unable to attend the meeting on March 3, 2005 they should submit in writing a request to extend the case beyond the allowed 100 days. On a motion by Mark Gillis, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to continue the hearing to March 3, 2005. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Gillis). Case # 05-01 Mark Gillis withdrew from the case because of professional connections with the Applicants' architect. Nancy Twoomey spoke for the Applicants as their architect. She said they want to add a two- level addition with a deck to increase their living space. They will not be extending the non- conformity. She submitted letters from the two abutters who would be most affected and they are in favor of the project. The other houses in the neighborhood have similar non-conformities. The existing deck appears to be on the property line but the new deck will be more conforming without further encroachment. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to grant the Applicant a Special Permit under Section 6.3.11.1 of the Zoning By-laws in order to construct a rear addition and deck to the dwelling as shown on the submitted Certified Plot Plan with the usual three conditions. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Jarema). (Mark Gillis rejoined the Board at the conclusion of the above case.) Other business: Archstone Smith, 40-70 West Street The Town Planner had sent a memo to the Board stating he had reviewed and approved the Regulatory Agreement for the Archstone Smith Apartment Complex and now the Board has to affirm it. Brian Blaiser of Archstone Smith said he was not looking for a signature tonight but if approved by the Board he would like to get signatures as soon as possible. With this approval Archstone Smith can then request a building permit. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by John Jarema, pursuant to condition number 13 of the Comprehensive Permit granted to ASN Reading, LLC (successor in interest to Archstone- Smith Operating Trust), the Zoning Board of Appeals, having received the Draft Regulatory Agreement as previously approved by Town Counsel, hereby approves the Regulatory Agreement for execution by the Town and the other parties to the Agreement. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Jarema). Minutes: On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Paul Dustin, the minutes of October 7, 2004 were approved without any changes. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0-0 (Redfern, Jarema, Dustin, Conway). On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Paul Dustin, the minutes of October 14, 2004 were . approved with changes. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Jarema, Dustin, Conway, Miller). On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Paul Dustin, the minutes of October 21, 2004 were approved with changes. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Jarema, Dustin, Gillis, Miller). On a motion by Mark Gillis, seconded by John Jarema, the minutes of November 4, 2004 were approved with changes. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Jarema, Dustin, Conway, Miller, Gillis). On a motion by Michael Conway, seconded by Paul Dustin, the minutes of December 2, 2004 were approved with changes. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Jarema, Dustin, Conway, Miller). On a motion by Mark Gillis, seconded by Robert Redfern, the minutes of January 6, 2005 were approved with changes. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Gillis, Dustin, Conway, Miller). On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Mark Gillis, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Jarema, Dustin, Gillis, Conway) Respectfully submitted, Maureen M. Kmah Recording 4