Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-05-20 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTown of Reading ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes of May 20, 2004 Members present: John Jarema Susan Miller Robert Redfern Paul Dustin CEIVED TO `/N CLERK P ADI G, MASS. 1004 SEP -9 P 12: 32A 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. Minutes On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Susan Miller, the minutes of April 1, 2004 were approved with changes. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by Robert Redfern, the minutes of April 8, 2004 were approved with changes. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by Paul Dustin, the minutes of April 15, 2004 were approved with changes. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. Case # 04-11 A Public Hearing on the petition of John Grayson who seeks a Special Permit & Variance under Sections 6.3.17/5.2.81 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to occupy the existing dwelling while constructing a new single family dwelling and then removing the original dwelling prior to occupying the new structure on the property located at 145 Van Norden Road. John Grayson said he would like to build a new two-story dwelling and a two-car garage right behind the existing dwelling and all setbacks will be conforming. He is requesting a Special Permit for demolition and reconstruction but he is also asking to live in the existing house during construction. As soon as the new dwelling is ready they would vacate the older dwelling for a week while it is demolished. They would then move into the new dwelling after the utilities were connected. He presented a letter from the immediate abutters saying they were in favor of the style of the new dwelling and the occupation of the existing dwelling during construction. The Chairman explained that there were actually two petitions. One is to build and then remove the original structure. While this is a straightforward request it bothers the Board that by allowing the Petitioner to live in the existing home while constructing the second home that there will be in fact two structures on the property at the same time. The Chairman said they could not condition a Variance based on that. He was not sure why the Building Inspector was moving in that direction. He also explained that the Petitioner could not get an Occupancy Permit until all the conditions have been met. John Grayson said they could not get utilities connected to the new dwelling until the old one is demolished because they go through the middle of the site. The Chairman also questioned the fact that the proposed dwelling appears to have an overlap with the present dwelling. The Petitioner explained that it was a porch area that would be completed after the demolition was done. The Chairman also wondered why the Building Inspector thought they needed a Variance. He said they should separate the requests and remove the Variance. The Board suggested the Petitioner remove his request for a Variance and then they would add a condition to the Special Permit stating that the existing house must be removed before an Occupancy Permit could be issued. The Chairman also said he would like the Building Inspector to write a denial letter and insert it into the file because the Board did not want to set a precedent within the town. On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to grant the Petitioner a Special Permit under Section 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-Laws to occupy the existing dwelling on the property during construction of a new single family dwelling that will meet all setback requirements and, then remove the original dwelling prior to occupying the new dwelling on the property, with the following conditions attached: 1. The Petitioner shall submit to the Building Inspector a Certified Plot Plan of the proposed construction and proposed foundation plans prior to the Building Inspector's issuance of a foundation permit for the proposed dwelling. 2. The Petitioner's final construction plans for the proposed dwelling (including Certified Plot Plan) shall be submitted to the Building Inspector prior to the Building Inspector's issuance of a Building Permit for the proposed dwelling. 3. The existing dwelling on the property must be removed completely before the Petitioner occupies the newly constructed single family (proposed) dwelling on the property. 4. As-built plans showing the removal of the existing dwelling on the property and completed construction of the proposed new dwelling shall be submitted to the Building Inspector immediately after the work is completed and prior to the Building Inspector issuing an Occupancy Permit for the newly constructed dwelling. 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 accept the Petitioner's request that his application for a Variance be withdrawn without prejudice. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. Case # 04-01 A Public Hearing on the petition of Richard & David Zenga who seek an appeal from a decision of the Building Inspector under Section 7.4.2.1 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to construct a single family dwelling on the lot adjacent to 9 Gardner Road. Information submitted to the Building Inspector was not adequate to make a determination. The Chairman explained that the case had been continued to give the Petitioner's attorney time to do additional research on the lots. Attorney Chris Coleman-said the Building Inspector had wanted a survey done on the two lots to see if there was any encroachment on Lot 11. There is nothing located at.present on the vacant lot. The assessor's records did not go back far enough so they used the census records and also did a title exam for all the lots surrounding Lot 10. Jeff Robbins was the owner of Lot 10 from 1940 until 1965. Lot 9 was owned by the Maxwells from 1937 to 1987. Lot 11 was owned by the Ellingwoods from 1940 until recently. Lots IA, 1B and 1C were owned by the Cullingtons. They sub-divided the property and Attorney Coleman had the deeds for all the lots. Mr. Kinwood conveyed property to Mr. Robbins for Lot 10 in 1942 which is the subject lot. Attorney Coleman said they have to at least determine who owned Lot 10 in 1942. Lot 9 was owned by the Maxwells in 1941 and they are on the census. Number 15 was the address at that time. The deed was entered in 1937 at the probate court. The next document showed that Mrs. Maxwell died in 1987. The lot was then transferred to the current owner who was the heir of the estate. The next is Lot 11 to the right of the subject lot that was owned by the Ellingwoods. The deed is dated 1940. The Petitioners were related to Mr. Ellingwood and took the property through the Ellingwood estate. Lot IA and 1B can only be dealt with together when the Cullingtons took possession of the property from 1936 to 1964. Mr. Robbins owned Lot 10 and these added references indicate he did not hold deeds to any other lots and the lot did conform at the time of the zoning change. Attorney Coleman said the papers given to the Board are proof that Lot 10 was not owned in common with any of the abutting lots. The Board concluded that the lot in question, Lot 10, had not been held in common with any adjacent lot in 1942 and that the requirements of Section 6 of the MGL Chapter 40A had been demonstrated. On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to overturn the decision of the Building Inspector dated December 12, 2003, denying Richard and David Zenga a Building Permit for the property described as Lot 10, Map 77, and that the Building Inspector be instructed to issue the Zengas a Building Permit upon the receipt of plans that otherwise comply with the current zoning requirements with the exception of lot size and frontage. The following conditions shall apply to this decision: 1. The Petitioner shall submit an as built foundation plan to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the dwelling. 2. The Petitioner's final construction plans (including a Certified Plot Plan) shall be submitted to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 3. An as built plan showing the final construction shall be submitted to the Building Inspector immediately after construction is complete and prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. Case #04-08 Continuance of a Public Hearing on the petition of Kevin Hoag and Diane Simons who seek a Special Permit under Section 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to demolish an existing single family dwelling on a non-conforming lot and to construct a new single family dwelling on the property located at 29 Winslow Road. The Chairman explained that no one had shown up at the first hearing and the Board had voted to continue the hearing. Kevin Hoag, owner of the property said the other person listed on the ZBA application was supposed to purchase the property but had backed out at the last minute. He would like to continue with the petition as the owner in seeking the Special Permit. The Petitioner had a new potential buyer, Ronald Iapicca, who would also be the contractor. He said the house he would build would be back the same 25' and stay in the perimeter of the original request. The Board wanted a new plot plan because the original buyer pulled out and her name is on the plot plan. If there were going to be changes and new names attached to the project then there should be a new plot plan. On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by Paul Dustin, 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 construct a new single-family dwelling on the condition that the reconstructed dwelling either meets or exceeds the setbacks shown on the Plan of Land dated February 14, 2004, prepared by John Russell, of Stoneham, MA. The Special Permit is also subject to the following conditions: 1. An as-built foundation plan is submitted to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of a building permit; and 2. A Plot Plan showing the proposed construction plans is submitted to the Building Inspector prior to issuance of a building permit; and 4 3. An as-built plan is submitted to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit. 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. Attorney Chris Latham, representing the Applicant, read from a memo he had submitted to the Board presenting his argument why the Applicant should be granted a Variance. Virginia Adams, representing the Historical Commission, said this was an important property within the community that has a post and beam construction. It is very small and so the Commission advocated relief so the house can remain on its present site as it has been moved twice already. The Board was concerned that this should go back to the Community Planning & Development Commission because it is an amendment to an original PRD-G but Attorney Latham said the Town Planner said this was the way they should proceed. There was some question as to why this house was incorporated into the PRD-G in the first place. Virginia Adams said the PRD-G applicant owned the old house and the surrounding property. The Chairman said since none of the Board members are PRD-G specialists perhaps the history of the property relating to the PRD-G could best be determined by Town Counsel. The Town Counsel could get back to the Town Planner and give the Board some direction because the Town Planner is the most closely connected to a PRD-G. The Applicant explained that the land behind the house is common land and has more than a 100' setback before you reach the next property line that is part of the PRD-G. She said you can see how other properties on Back Bay Court have dwellings that sit right on the corner of their property lines. This property is part of the PRD-G yet there is a property line showing it from the rest of the PRD-G so it makes it unique. It is supposed to be a part of the PRD-G but yet it is not because of the way it was written. The Board wanted advice from the Community Planning & Development Commission, the Town Planner, and Town Counsel since they did not have the deed and they needed more information as to how to proceed. The CPDC has always handled the PRDs and the Zoning Board does not know what the relief mechanisms are. A continuance will give the Board opportunity to get the additional information needed. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to continue the hearing to June 17, 2004. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. Respectfully Maureen M. Recording S