Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-06-03 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes'-fo a~ K, Town of Reading ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes of June 3, 2004 ~ CD Members Present: Susan Miller C;) ' Robert Redfern r- Paul Dustin CZ) Mark Gillis Na cn A= Members Absent: John Jarema CD 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 Glen Redmond, Commissioner of Buildings. Minutes On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Paul Dustin, the minutes of March 4, 2004 were approved. The motion was approved by a vote of 2-0-0. (Redfern, Dustin) On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Paul Dustin, the minutes of May 13, 2004 were approved with changes. The motion was approved by a vote of 2-0-0. (Redfern, Dustin) Case #04-13 This case was chaired by Robert Redfern because Susan Miller arrived later. A Public Hearing on the petition of Dr. & Mrs. Mullaney and Joan & Greg Lepore who seek a Variance/Special Permit/Amendment to Existing Variance under Sections 2.2.17 / 4.2.2 / 7.3 / 6.3.10.2 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to amend an existing Variance to allow Variance to be transferred or obtain new relief so as to allow continued use of a portion of Premises as office / home occupation in order to sell the Premises to prospective buyers who need and contractually require office / home occupation as pre-condition of their purchase. Prospective buyers seek to continue office / home occupation in order to stay home with minor children. Prospective buyers seek to occupy Premises as their home at the property located at 92 Prescott Street. V The Petitioners had mailed a letter to the Board prior to the hearing requesting that their petition be withdrawn. On a motion by Paul Dustin, seconded by Mark Gillis, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to accept the withdrawal of the petition without prejudice. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. (Redfern, Dustin, Gillis) Case #04-14 Susan Miller chaired this case and the following case. A Public Hearing on the petition of Haralampos Sidiropoulos who seeks a Variance under Sections 5.0/6.1/6.2 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to demolish an existing structure and to construct a new building, canopy, and to use the existing free standing sign. A Variance is requested from Section 5.0 (dimensional controls) for the front setback of the canopy proposed to be located 22' from the property line rather than the 50' required; a Variance is requested from Section 6.1 (parking); a Variance is requested from Section 6.2 (signs) for the total number of signs allowed; a Variance is requested for from Section 6.2 (signs) for the allowable height and area of the existing free standing sign; on the property located at 110 Main Street. Daniel Sherwood represented the Petitioner. He explained that the location is now an empty business. The prior gas station had the pumps within the 50' setbacks. The Petitioner wanted to use the freestanding sign on the corner of the lot that had been there for some time. They will move the pumps farther back into the site to make it less non-conforming than it is now. There would be a building in the rear with a basement that they would not be using so they do not need to have the extra parking spaces required. Anthony Goupa explained they want to remove the remaining building but the driveways would remain as they are now. The canopy would be typical and the islands would be perpendicular to the street. There. would be about 30' between the islands and the parking spaces so people could turn easily. The station will most likely be a Shell station as previously. The Petitioner wants three signs across the building but they would be less than what would be allowed if there was just one large sign. The building will be colonial style with a brick front. The canopy would be wood with shingles. The Petitioner will seek a tenant who can use the drive-through window such as Dunkin Donuts. The drive-through would be around the back and there would be room for ten cars between where you enter and where you exit. The Petitioner is not proposing to change the traffic patterns because they do not expect the traffic volume to be significantly increased. The Building Inspector said that regarding the parking issue he was including the basement floor area because they have two means of egress and it is a substantial area. If that space is going to be just for storage then the parking regulations would not apply; but until there is a condition saying this area was to be used only for storage the area must be considered in calculating the number of spaces required. Mr. Goupa said based on the space they would be allowed 180 square feet of signage but what they were proposing was about half that at 54 square feet, or 18 square feet per sign. They would be willing to have a condition that cuts that down to half if required. The Building Inspector said regarding the freestanding sign they are allowed 50 square feet but with multiple business they can have 75 square feet. The old sign was supposed to have been removed within 30 days and was not. The Building Inspector said if the Petitioner will state that the lower space will not be used for other than storage, the Board can condition this into a finding so that future owners will know the area can not be used as business space and that the parking spaces were based on this condition. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to grant the Petitioner's request for a gasoline pump canopy setback of 22' as shown on "Site Improvement Plan" for Trickett Realty Trust, Drawing C-1, Revision of 02-27-04, by Ayoub Engineering, 414 Benefit Street, Pawtucket, RI. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. (Miller, Redfern, Dustin) On a motion by Paul Dustin, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to accept the Petitioner's request for withdrawal of his request for a Variance for parking. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. (Miller, Dustin, Redfern) On a motion by Paul Dustin, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to grant the Petitioner permission for three wall signs on the condition that the maximum area for the three signs combined would be ninety square feet (one square foot per linear foot frontage of the building). The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. (Miller, Dustin, Redfern) On a motion by Paul Dustin, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to accept the Petitioner's request that his petition for a Variance for the use of the current freestanding sign be withdrawn. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. (Miller, Dustin, Redfern) Case #04-15 A Public Hearing on the petition of Barbara Stitt who seeks an appeal from a decision of the Building Inspector under Section 6.2/6.2.3 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to allow a "no trespassing" sign to remain on the property and not be considered a personal message type sign that requires a setback of 20' on the property located at 54 Deering Street. Barbara Stitt was seeking relief from a zoning violation. She said the sign was located on a side yard and it was a standard "no trespassing" sign. She claimed it was not a personal message sign but a notice of intent. As a homeowner she was seeking protection under the fourteenth amendment which allows people to express their wishes regarding their property. Therefore she thought this sign was not a personal message but instead an effective message posted where it was a detriment to trespassers but it could not be put at a distance of 20' feet. Ms Stitt said the sign was approximately 8" x 12" and was attached to a fence that was five feet from the neighboring property line. The sign had been there since October 2001 because there had been an incidence of trespassing and destruction on her property. It would not be visible if posted farther away from her house that is located approximately 10' from the property line on that side. This side was where the incident occurred. Kevin Murray, 60 Deering Street, the abutter in question, said there presently were three fences between the two houses and there are three signs posted on Ms Stitt's property. The Building Inspector explained there is no definition in the Zoning By-Laws stating what a personal message sign is. The Building Department received a complaint about this sign. Dan Bornstein, Assistant Building Inspector, investigated the sign and it appeared to be a personal message sign. Members of the Board noted that within the by-laws there are 13 types of signs with additional requirements for each sign depending on the type of sign. A personal message sign should not be posted for more than 14 days. The other categories did not fit so almost by default it fit in the personal message sign category. The Building Inspector said he had had complaints on similar signs in the past but they had never come before the Zoning Board for a decision. Because this is the first it is important what was concluded at this hearing. He stated he gave Ms Stitt the option of removing the sign, paying a fine at the court, or appealing his decision. She decided immediately to appeal and come before the Board so he did not issue a fine. Mr. Murray presented a petition from 13 of the neighbors disapproving of the sign who also concurred that this is a personal message and not for reasons of security or safety. He also submitted several color photographs showing that the sign is clearly visible from his back yard and his upstairs. A few years back there had been a landscaping incident wherein the landscapers cleared some overgrowth by mistake in that area that belonged to Ms Stitt. He tried to clear the situation with Ms Stitt but was not able to resolve it. He felt the sign was a spite sign designed to make him and his family feel uncomfortable in their own yard. He said they also received a strongly worded letter from Ms Stitt renouncing the incident. She then put up a number of "no trespassing" signs. Mr. Murray said he asked her to remove the signs and offered her compensation for the loss of her small saplings that had been inadvertently removed by the landscapers. He said he felt terrible that this animosity had continued to go on. He said he put a fence in that area because there have been a number of things dumped in that area by Ms Stitt that were unsightly. The area in question is a small area and there was litter and 4 garbage, three trash cans, an old hose and a chair. His family could not take it anymore because every Saturday something else would show up in that area. Ms Stitt had to cut her fence and crawl in order to gain access to that area. There was an incident when Ms Stitt was just sitting in that area and looking into his yard so he put up a fence where the no trespassing sign was. There also used to be a white basket in that area that Ms Stitt used to store plastic bags filled with dog feces. Mr. Murray has sold his house and will be moving soon but came before the Board because the neighbors have also been affected and have thanked Mr. Murray for trying to resolve this neighborhood issue. He said he would have to hop over three fences to gain access to Ms Stitt's property. On the other side of her house there is a low fence that could be accessed easily but there is not a "no trespassing" sign there. After being issued the violation, Ms Stitt moved the sign 20 feet back and put it on a tree but this was not allowed. She then added the third fence between the properties, moved the sign back to where it was originally and filed the appeal with the Zoning Board. Mr. Murphy said he felt he should come before the Board for the sake of the new owners and the neighborhood. Ms Stitt said that in her opinion the sequence of events differed from what Mr. Murray had said. The landscaper had to go over two fences and a stone wall so his claim that the cuttings were an accident was absurd. The area referred to between the two houses is a corridor and not a small area. Mr. Murray gave her a variety of responses as to why these trees were cut down. He said they were dangerous for his young children and he did not know the landscapers were coming. Ms Stitt said there was a 5' distance between the original fence and the stone wall so after this incident she felt she had to lay claim to this land. She said she had to let them know this was definitely her property so she put out some statues and little urns so they would know this was her property. The following summer Mr. Murray put in their fence in response to the little urns and flowers. There were some barrels but there was no garbage. There is nothing for them to be offended by. The fence they installed is without any gradual ending and it looks like a spite fence, to Ms Stitt. Ms Stitt said her basic issue was this resulted from an action that they engaged in that destroyed her property, offended her and made her feel unsafe. She wondered what they were going to do next. Ms Stitt stated that this gathering of the petition by the neighbors was offensive and a travesty. She also stated she had not been offered any compensation by Mr. Murray. Ms Stitt became extremely upset and the Board recessed while she composed herself. The Acting Chairman said the Board does not have the jurisdiction to resolve this type of issue but they did have authority regarding the sign. First they had to decide if this was a personal message sign and if so even personal message signs are not supposed to be displayed for more than 14 days. The Board was going to decide if they were going to uphold the decision of the Building Inspector. The Building Inspector said he looked through at the Massachusetts General Laws to see if there was some type of definition listed regarding personal message signs but he could find nothing. Members of the Board said that by default the "no trespassing" fell into the personal message sign category, it would still require the 20' setback and the Building Inspector made the correct decision. The sign was also in violation of the 14-day limit rule. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to uphold the First Notice of Violation issued to the petitioner by the Zoning Enforcement Officer dated March 31, 2004. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. (Miller, Redfern, Dustin) On a motion by Mark Gillis, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. (Miller, Gillis, Redfern, Dustin) Respectfully submitted, Ma reen M. Knigl Recording Secreta