The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-04-01 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTown of Reading ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes of April 1, 2004 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 was Glen Redmond, Commissioner of Buildings. Case # 04-02 A continuation of a Public Hearing on the petition of Damian & Michelle Dell'Anno, Trustees, who seek a Variance and a determination under Sections 4.8/4.8.3/4.8.6.1/4.8.6.1.10 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to construct a 5'x28' addition to an existing dwelling on the property located at 19 Zachary Lane which is an AQ and S-20 district. Attorney Chris Latham spoke on behalf of the Petitioners. With the recalculation on the pavers the project would result in a 14.5% impervious cover so they were within the 15% allowed. They also submitted the requested deed restriction asked for by the Board at the last hearing. This deed restriction would allow the town the right to inspect and issue penalties if the Petitioner defaulted. The Chairman said if the Board sees these pavers as pervious material they would be agreeing with the previous By-Laws that allowed these pavers and they would be doing a finding. When this was originally done there was considerable expense to the applicant and he should not be held to a new standard. The deed restriction draft prepared by Attorney Latham would be a legal document so should something happen beyond the applicant's ownership this would be passed down and registered at the court. The Building Inspector has the right to go on the property and inspect for additional imperviousness. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted in the affirmative to find, in this instance, the paver stones at the Property are considered "pervious" not an "impervious surface" under Zoning By-Laws Section 4.8.3 and that the Petitioner does not need a Variance in this matter since the "impervious area" and "coverage" of the Property does not exceed that maximum 15% allowed under Section 4.8.6.1.9, so long as: 1. The petitioner voluntarily executes and records at the Registry of Deeds the restrictive covenant not to pave over pervious surfaces on the Property, at his own cost; and 2. The Petitioner agrees to satisfy outstanding conditions, if any, in Reading Conservation Commission's order of Conditions (DEP#270-236; RGB#1991-10) as in effect as of May 5, 1998. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. Case # 04-03 A continuation of a Public hearing on the petition of Kneeland Construction Corp. and Pam & Michael Lane who seek a Variance under Section 5.12 (setbacks) of the Zoning By-Laws in order to add a second level to an existing non-conforming dwelling on the property located at 148 Lowell Street. Carl Dumas presented a copy of the old and new engineering calculations so the Board could see that they are close to being accurate. They had previously based the Variance on the hardship of the geographical restrictions of the lot. Five of the neighbors, four of whom are the direct abutters, submitted a letter showing their support of the project. After much confusion about the four different plot plans submitted by the Petitioners, the Board was instructed to keep only the second one that was submitted. The Board questioned why the engineer did not stamp, sign and date the plot plan. Part of the conditions for this Variance would be that an as-built plan be submitted to the Building Inspector. Robert Medeiros of 144 Lowell Street said he was the closest abutter and he would like to see the Lanes get this Variance because they are good neighbors. The Building Inspector required that another plan identical to the one submitted but with a revised date be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. The Board determined that the small size of the lot, the steep grade, the location of the existing dwelling on the lot, and the unusually narrow width of the dwelling are unique circumstances relating to soil conditions, shape and topography not affecting generally the zoning district in which the Property is located. The Board further concluded that a literal enforcement of the side yard requirements would involve substantial financial hardship to the petitioner. The Board also concluded that a Variance could be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the by-law. On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to grant the Petitioner a Variance under Section 5.12 of the Zoning By-Laws to allow the addition of a second level to the existing structure as shown on the Certified Plot Plan dated December 16, 2003, prepared by Bay State Surveying Associates, Inc., 100 Cummings Center, Beverly, MA showing a right front setback of 18.45', a left front setback of 18.51', a left front side yard setback of 9.67', and a left rear side yard setback of 13.53'. The Variance is conditioned upon the following: 1. Another copy of said plan with the correct revision date and a new signed surveyor's stamp is to be submitted to the Building Inspector prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit. 2. An as-built plan is submitted to the Building Inspector prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. Case # 04-09 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 Chairman stated that the Petitioners had already appeared before the Board of Selectmen to present their LIP application. Now the Petitioners will present their proposal to the Zoning Board. John Smolak explained they have 6.1 acres of land on Salem Street. All units would be located in one of six buildings on the property. All units will be two bedrooms and two baths. Twenty-five percent of the 36 units will be affordable. They had started with the Design Review Team (DRT) process last summer. There has been remediation for the hazardous site on the property and it now meets residential standards. There have been a number of revisions requested and those have been integrated into the plans now presented to the Zoning Board. David O'Sullivan said they have located the entrance and exit to satisfy requests by the DRT. There are 32 garages with the front doors and garages facing the internal street. They have no back and all four sides are very articulated and presentable which adds interest to the back that will face on Salem Street. Each unit will have an outdoor space of some kind. Each unit will have it's own private entrance and there are porches and overhangs over the garages. Three lower units will be handicapped accessible. Each unit has a washer and dryer and their own utilities. The exterior material siding will be of clapboard. Peter Gamia pointed out a portion of the site is wetlands and is heavily vegetated. The property is located one-third mile from the Route 128 interchange and there are no buildings on the site today. The topography is a 3% gentle slope down into the wetland area. The existing vegetation is dense undergrowth with a full canopy. There are several areas where dumping has occurred over the years and these areas will be cleaned up. There is a right entrance and a right exit only on one side and both an entrance and an exit on the other side. Landscaping will be formal with passive recreation areas and a path meandering through the site which may be linked in the future with town paths. Three of the buildings are outside of the buffer area and three lie partially in the buffer zone. Gas is available and utilities will be underground. There are three dry wells across the back and the project will meet all storm water requirements. David Ginngrande explained that this project is a passive residential use. They looked at the trips generated from the site using statistics and in this case they used a land use code for elderly housing but expect more activity as the project is for ages 55 and up so there would be a more lively use. They looked at the site to make sure that there was enough sight distance. In 1998 it was determined a traffic signal was not warranted at this location. There is no left in and no left out on the western driveway. The distance between the buildings in the rear is 30 feet which was deemed adequate by the fire department. The lighting on the property will be residential scale lanterns on poles that do not spill beyond the site. No signs have been planned, if any it would just say the name of the development. Curb cuts would be town approved. Units without garages will have an assigned space. There would be a dye test before the Occupancy Permit is issued. The town would be looking for illegal drainage connections. The Conservation Commission said that in the hazardous waste corner there are drains coming into the catch basins from the Registry building. The Chairman said he would like to see one additional DRT meeting with everyone present to go over all the concerns. The DRT also needs to see the waivers that are being requested. The appropriate individuals including Town Counsel would attend. Steve McLaughlin of 195 Salem Street expressed concerns that the back yards would be facing on the street. The Chairman assured him that this issue would be addressed because streetscape is very important. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to continue the hearing to May 13, 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 submitted, 1 Maureen M. Knight Recording Secretary t 4