Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-06-17 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTown of Reading ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes of June 17, 2004 R' CEIVED )j'~jNCLERK °.,,DING, MASS, 1004 EP - q p 12= 3 2. 11 Members Present: John Jarema Susan Miller Robert Redfern Paul Dustin Mark Gillis 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 were Chris Reilly, Town Planner, and Glen Redmond, Commissioner of Buildings. Other Business Sumner Cheney Place modification of Chapter 40B Comp permit (Case #00-33) Donald Van Dyne appeared before the Board representing the Sumner Cheney Homeowners Association. They want to erect a white PVC fence between the four buildings as well as along a stretch of Route 28 and they consider this an insubstantial change to the comprehensive permit. The fences will not touch the buildings so it is not an encroachment and the Building Inspector said a permit is not necessary. The Conservation Commission has no concerns regarding this fence. The homeowner in the end unit closest to Main Street has asked for an additional fence in one area next to their unit which would be 12 long as opposed to the others which will be 6' and the association has agreed to this. The Chairman said the plan for the Chapter 40B housing developments was to have them fit into the neighborhood and not have them stick out. The entire development was moved forward 50' because of Conservation Commission issues and now with additional changes and requests this development is not commensurate with the neighborhood as a whole. The Board felt they were making substantial changes to what was voted on three years ago. Now the Board must decide if this fence is an insubstantial change and would they allow this. The Town Planner said he thought the request was reasonable and would have minimal impact on the abutters. But he was concerned about the streetscape. The Chairmen said right now it is just a stone wall and grass in back of the units so there is no aesthetic problems but the Board would have liked to have heard from the abutters regarding this request. The end-unit owners said they need that fence to reduce the pollution and give them some privacy because cars driving by can look right into their house from the street. The Chairman said the wall is about 30" high so with the fence the total height will be about 8 1/2 feet tall. The Board said it would look more attractive if the wall could be improved with landscaping. It was suggested by the homeowners they could stagger the fence with a piece angling in with shrubs and then add more landscaping later when they have funds in their condo association. One owner was upset that they had to come before the Board for approval and the general principals of Chapter 40B comprehensive permits were explained to him. The Town Planner said he though this was a workable project but the Petitioners have to present a landscaping proposal to the Board. They also wanted the immediate abutter present at the next hearing or at least some notification from him. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to continue the hearing to June 24, 2004. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. Case #04-12 A Public Hearing on the petition of Christine Shaw who seeks a Variance under Section 4.10.4.3 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to construct an addition within a required 60' setback in a PRD- G development on the property located at 8 Back Bay Court. The Chairman explained that the hearing had been continued so the Petitioner's attorney could present some previous cases and Town Counsel could give the Board additional information and advice. The Community Planning and Development Commission said they were comfortable with the Zoning Board hearing this case and rendering a decision. There were two major points regarding this case according to Town Counsel. The dwelling was there before the PRD-G and therefore a 60' setback is not applicable. The Board had Attorney Chris Latham re-outline his justification for presenting the variance. Attorney Latham explained that the 1997 CPDC memo indicated why the dwelling should be exempted and the structure and lot shape make this unique because the owners cannot add any thing to this house in any direction without it violating the PRD-G. The Historical Commission is also in favor of allowing this variance so one of the oldest houses in Reading can be preserved. Attorney Latham explained that the PRD-G allows clustering and you can build things right up to the lot line. Putting the addition right up to the line would be acceptable and allowable. Virginia Adams, speaking for the Historical Commission, asked if the Board could add a ' condition that the new addition would have to be approved by the Historical Commission. The Chairman said they could have a side bar agreement between the Historical Commission and the owner and put it in the Historical Commission's files. On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to grant the Petitioner's request for a Variance from Section 4.10.4.3 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to add a rear addition and a rear deck in accordance with the Plan of Land prepared by Hayes Engineering, Inc., Wakefield, MA, dated September 30, 2003, minus the proposed front entry and steps indicated on said plan subject to the three standard conditions. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. Case #04-16 A Public Hearing on the petition of Debra Leona who seeks a Variance and/or Special Permit under Sections 5.1.2/6.3.17 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to demolish an existing non- conforming structure on an existing non-conforming lot and to construct a new 24' x 40' single family dwelling as shown on plan of land dated September 18, 2003 on the property located at 3 Line Road. Steve Medugno spoke on behalf of the Petitioner. They want to demolish the house because it does not have a foundation, is deteriorating and too small with only 940 square feet of living space. They want to use the same footprint that does not meet side and front setback requirements and extend it about one foot farther. They also cannot meet the requirements of the Conservation Commission. The Board did not want to set a precedent by allowing something to be built even closer to the property line than it was before. They also were concerned that they would be increasing the concerns of the Conservation Commission. The Building Inspector explained that the house to the left has the same front setback and the one to the right has a 9' front setback. There is a bylaw that states the average front setback can be met by the house in the middle so that would remove the front setback problem. The Chairman explained that the Conservation Commission was not giving this project an endorsement because the Applicant has to produce the drawings with the dimensions. What may be practicable to the Zoning Board may not be practicable to the Conservation Commission. One of the Board members said they did not think the Applicant would have to go through too much of a process because they are not encroaching into the wetlands but just building in the area of disturbance that is already there. Steve Medugno said the Conservation Commission told them if they remove the cement patio and put grass in its place they would be replacing some of the area they would be taking away by enlarging the house. Jerry Pellitier of 315 Salem Street said he did not have any problems with what the Applicant wanted to do. He said he had plans to also increase the size of his house that had 800 square feet of living space with just one bedroom. The neighbors to the left also had no objections and they had just added a second floor to their house. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Susan Miller, 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 demolish the existing dwelling and to construct a new single family dwelling as shown on the submitted Plot Plan with the usual three standard conditions. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. Case # 04-17 A Public Hearing on the petition of John & Karen Janowski who seek a Variance / Special Permit / Appeal of the Building Inspector under Sections 5.1.2/5.2.8/6.3.11.2 of the Zoning By- Laws in order to add a 3rd dwelling unit on a non-conforming lot within the required setbacks on the property located at 38 Salem Street. John Janowski said he was a design builder and renovated older buildings. They bought the house to renovate and sell as condos. As they did the work they realized there was far more work required than they had originally anticipated. The cost was going way beyond their budget and the only way they could recoup their loss was to add a third unit and a three-car garage. The Building Inspector said this property was located in an A40 district and they did not have the area required. The proposed wood frame addition in the rear and the deck would not meet zoning setbacks. Mrs. Janowski spoke about the historical aspects of the house. Her father gave his opinion of the situation based on his having been a former member of the Ipswich Zoning Board. He said the Applicants would suffer severe financial hardship if the permit were not granted. The Chairman explained that the Board has not recognized financial hardship as being the sole reason for a variance. Barbara Cade of 42 Salem Street said her primary concern was the right of way and the increased traffic. The roadway is very narrow and it serves three residences and the fire station. Only one vehicle can pass through at a time. The Board agreed that with a three-car garage there would not be sufficient space. Board members also questioned the substantial increase in lot coverage and the fact the fire station uses this right of way often. John Janowski again mentioned that he would not get the return on two-bedroom condos that he would get for three-bedroom condos. The Board members reminded him that return on investment would not be suitable criteria for a financial hardship and they thought this was self- imposed hardship. They felt it was not their job to bail someone out. The suggestion was made that they only add two garages and nothing else. The Applicant said it would be a loss and there would be no gain. The Chairman said they were requesting up to 5 or 6 variances for what they were proposing and the Board members thought it is was just too much and maybe the plan needed to be altered. He suggested they continue the hearing so the Applicant can alter the plans or they could give the applicant the option of withdrawing or a vote could be made on what had been presented. John Janowski said there was also a side deck that had not been talked about yet and he wanted to make sure that got approved. He asked for a continuance so he could alter his plans. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to continue the hearing to July 15, 2004. 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.