Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-06-24 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesoUj~ cto Town of Reading ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes of June 24, 2004 0 Members Present: John Jarema, Susan Miller' Robert Redfern Paul Dustin Mark Gillis w w c:2 3 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. #04-09 Continuance of a Public Hearing on the petition of Maplewood Village Development LLC who seek a Comprehensive Permit under MGL Chapter 40B of the Zoning By-Laws in order to construct 36 age-restricted condominium units on the property located at 201-275 Salem Street. The Town Planner explained that the attorneys for the Petitioners and the Town had reviewed the conditions and discussed any changes. They had incorporated the changes that were discussed during the last meeting. Although there were concerns regarding the conservation areas and the language used regarding them, the draft decision had been signed by everyone. The Chairman said after reading the comments submitted by the Conservation Commission he too had the same concerns with the Petitioners asking for exceptions from all the conditions. The attorney for the Petitioners said they were concerned with the procedural aspects of the local wetland by-laws. He said they have gone through the Conservation Commission process and they are complying with the local bylaws. He said what they try to do in terms of local by-laws is waive the local procedural requirement since they filed under the state by-laws. They are trying to avoid the mechanics of procedural local by-laws because it is a method to minimize certain appeals. Under Chapter 40B you can request an exception from every local by-law and regulation. The Town Planner said Town Counsel reviewed the language and she did not have any problems but the Town Planner was not comfortable with the entire blanket waiver although technically the plan will meet all requirements of the local by-laws. The Chairman said because such extensive hearings had been held with the Selectmen the Board did not think they would have to go into this proposal with the depth that they had on other applications but now will make sure that will not happen again. The Town Planner said they had a good working relationship and he was not concerned about granting this exception. But he thought they should err on the side of caution and he wanted to put in a condition that waives the requirement for a local filing but would still guarantee compliance. A blanket waiver had not been approved by the Conservation Commission and Fran Fink said they would not be waived from requirements that they previously said they would meet. The Board said they would leave it up to the Conservation Commission to make sure they are satisfied with the Applicant's compliance. On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to approve issuance of a Comprehensive Permit to the Applicants, Maplewood Village Development, LLC, as stated in detail in the decision issued June 24, 2004. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. Old business: 1375 Main Street This was a continuation of a previous discussion regarding a proposed minor modification to the 40B Comprehensive Permit issued for 1375 Main Street. The hearing was continued so that the - Board could have some clarification regarding the proposed privacy fencing and have it placed on the landscaping plans of the original 40B Comprehensive Permit. The Town Planner said he contacted the two abutters and he did not hear back from them so he said they must not have any concerns regarding the proposed fence. Donald Van Dyne presented a plan that had three junipers along the fence with indentations. The Board had concern that there was nothing on the certified plot plan added by the original design architect. The submittal by the homeowners association does not show the setbacks on the property. The Chairman noted the design was for an 8' fence with a 3' jog and the planned use of three junipers for a 40' run seemed too scanty to break up the fence. The Board agreed that it would accept the plan that was submitted subject to the approval of the Town Planner with his recommendation that there be five arborvitae, adding one to each end of the fence. The Board also wanted the placement shown of the five other 6' x 6' fence sections between the units. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals decided that the changes requested were insubstantial and shall be approved subject to the following conditions: The landscaping plan shall be modified to allow for privacy and perimeter fencing as indicated on the lastly revised Landscaping Plan, prepared by Duran Associates, dated June 2004 and approved herein, and the "Chesire" fence detail submitted with the Modification request. The design and materials of the perimeter fencing and associated landscaping shall be substantially as submitted in the letter from the applicant dated June 24, 2004, subject to the approval of the Town Planner. The Town Planner was asked to draw up the modification. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. Respectfully sub to , Maureen M. ght Recording Sec tar