HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-02 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
Town of Reading
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of September 2, 2004
Members Present:
Susan Miller
John Jarema
Robert Redfern
Paul Dustin
Mark Gillis
Michael Conway
G~ R'4
C
Iim
:y---j c?
C?
Members Absent
None
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 Chris
Reilly, Town Planner.
Minutes
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted
to accept the minutes of May 20, 2004 with changes.
The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0-1. (Jarema, Miller, Redfern, Dustin, [Gillis not at
meeting on May 20th])
The minutes of June 3, 2004 needed revisions and were deferred to a future date.
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to
accept the minutes of June 10, 2004 with changes.
The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0-1. (Jarema, Miller, Redfern, Dustin, [Gillis not at
meeting on June 10th])
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Mark Gillis, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to
accept the minutes of June 17, 2004 with changes.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. (Jarema, Miller, Redfern; Dustin, Gillis)
Other Business: 23 George St
Richard Bova who is the owner/contractor was seeking a modification that would add 8' x 12'
decks to the 10 town house units he is building at 23 George Street. The new plans show a
walkout in the back with a deck above it. Originally there was just an 8' x 12' patio. There would
not be a roof over the decks and the area between decks would have a privacy fence.
The Town Planner said he asked the Fire Chief if these new plans would prevent fire vehicles
from having access but he had not yet heard back from him.
A discussion was held regarding whether it would be beneficial to have the jog on unit eight
moved closer to the bump out with the deck shortened to ensure access.
The main question was whether this was a substantial or insubstantial modification. If the fire
department has a problem with this proposal then it becomes a substantial change. It was
suggested the hearing be continued to get input from the Fire Chief. The applicant should alsc
indicate the jogs on his plan before it is shown to the Fire Chief.
On a motion by John, Jarema, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted
to continue the hearing to September 16, 2004.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. (Miller, Redfern, Jarema)
Other Business: 40-70 West Street
Archstone-Reading was seeking a modification to the Comprehensive Permit that was previously
issued. They are changing their financing to Mass Development and want to change the
affordable housing from 51 units at 80% of the median area income to 41 units at 50% of the
median area income as required by HUD. Brian Blazer said Archstone thought this was an
insubstantial modification and would benefit the town by making the affordable units even more
affordable. The regulatory agreement will have to be approved by Town Counsel. C.H.A.P.A.
will still do the monitoring.
The Board questioned how this would benefit the town. The Archstone representatives said they
would be providing 41 units at a lower range that would be more attractive to those needing the
affordable units and the Town would be capturing more benefit. Archstone will have full-time
on-site management and they would speak to the tenants if there were any problems. Archstone
said most housing advocates are in favor of this plan because it offers deeper discounts to the
community and there would be no real economic benefit for Archstone.
The Board asked what Archstone would do if the Board denied the change. Brian Blazer said
they would appeal the decision or build under the NAF program but they did not think the
modification was substantial.
The Town Planner said the Town Manager would clearly want considerable discussion regarding
this change and indicated he would arrange a working group meeting so all the issues can be
explored. The Board thought this was the correct route to take.
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted
to continue the hearing to September 16, 2004.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Jarema).
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
Maureen M.
Recording Sf