HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-18 Zoning Board of Appeals MintuesTown of Reading
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of March 18, 2004
Members present:
Susan Miller
Robert Redfern
Paul Dustin
Mark Gillis
c_
.J,J.
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 # 04-04
A Public Hearing on the petition of Concord Oil Company who seeks a Variance/Special Permit
under Sections 6.2.2.3/6.2.3/6.2.3.2e/6.3.2 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to change (install new
face) an existing non-conforming sign and other signs at the gas pumps on the property located at
749 Main Street.
Attorney Chris Latham represented Concord Oil. William LeClerc from the company was also
present. The property is an unusual bow tie shaped lot on an oblique angle located on Main
Street next to the fire station. The property has been used for over 80 years as a gas station. Since
1996 Concord Oil has made improvements to the property. This gas station has been allowed to
have legends on the pumps the same as 2/3 of the other gas station in town. Seven out of the
eleven stations in town have valances or canopies with legends and designs. Attorney Latham
passed around pictures showing each of the different situations, both at this Shell station and at
the other gas stations.
The Board wanted to know why so many of the gas stations have more than the allowed number
of signs. The Building Inspector explained how they needed a permit to put up a sign but
sometimes through the Community Planning & Development Commission and site review they
are allowed to put up additional signs.
Attorney Latham said they were just replacing and not creating anything new. He explained that
all the gas stations in town had the prices on their pumps and it was mainly just a name and color
change.
The Board wanted to know what the Town Planner's concerns were and why he thought this case
should go before the Board. The Building Inspector said the Town Planner thought a lot of other
information was being put on the signs that was not listed in the By-Laws and there is more
control allowed in the Business B district than in the Business A district.
Some of the members of the Board were concerned about setting a precedent. The CPDC has a
sign review board for businesses in the Business B district and all the gas stations must have
gone before the sign review board or had site plan review.
The Building Inspector explained that the whole fuel pump should be looked at and the intent
should not be to make that fuel pump look like a sign. In this case there are a number of Shell
logos on it and he questioned how many you really need on a pump. The freestanding sign is 7'
from the road and 20' is what is required. He cannot issue a permit unless the sign conforms with
the By-Laws or a permit is granted by the Board. A Variance would help them in 2005 and the
sign would be allowed to stay.
The Town Planner spoke about the fact that there is no other gas station in town that you cannot
see their sign as you are approaching and he thought the uniqueness of this lot would protect the
Board from setting a precedent. The Board thought they would be inundated with a lot of
requests in 2005 but there was some argument to be allowed for the hardships at this location.
On a motion by Paul Dustin, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals decided
the design and legend on the fuel pumps would not increase the non-conformity; the Board made
a finding that the proposed Shell sign at the gas pumps, as shown on a photograph submitted and
also referenced on Drawing No. 1 of 1, Revision No. 0, Project No.S619, prepared for Concord
Oil Company by Bertin Engineering Associates, Inc., Southbridge, Massachusetts and dated
05/07/2003, was a similar replacement of the previous Texaco gas pumps and was acceptable.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0.
On a motion by Paul Dustin, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to
grant a Variance to allow a new Shell sign area of 64.11 feet as shown on the aforementioned
submitted Drawing 1 of 1. Section 6.2.3 of the Zoning By-Laws allows for a maximum 50
square foot area.
The motion was denied by a vote of 0-3-0.
On a motion by Paul Dustin, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to
grant a Variance to allow the free standing sign to remain in it's current location at the right front
corner of the lot as shown in the aforementioned submitted Drawing 1 of 1. In all other aspects,
the free-standing sign shall be in conformance with the current Zoning By-Laws.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0.
Case # 04-05
A Public Hearing on the petition of Dana Curry who seeks a Special Permit under Section 6.3.17
of the Zoning By-Laws in order to remove an existing non-conforming attached garage and
construct a two-story garage with room over in the same footprint on the property located at 11
Milton Road.
Dana Curry said he is seeking a permit to remove the existing garage and build a new two-story
addition with a family room and bedroom over with a new foundation on a footprint that is 6
inches less than the existing footprint.
The Building Inspector explained they need a Special Permit because of the voluntary
destruction. They will actually be improving the non-conformity.
On a motion by Paul Dustin, 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 permit the
demolition of the existing garage and construct in its place a two-story family room and bedroom
with full basement as shown on the Plot Plan of Land prepared by Stephen M. Melesciuc, P.L.S.,
entitled Proposed Addition, Assessors Map 30, Parcel 20, and dated February 5, 2004. with the
standard two conditions.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0.
Case # 04-06
A Public Hearing on the petition of Better Living Sunrooms/Eleanor DeCamey who seek a
Variance under Section 5.0 (dimensional controls) of the Zoning By-Laws in order to construct
an 8x16 sunroom on an existing non-conforming deck on the property located at 58 Track
Road.
Ryan Nalette spoke for the Petitioner and presented his plan for a three-season room on an
existing deck. Due to the shape of the lot the sunroom and existing deck will encroach on the
setbacks.
The Building Inspector said there did not appear to be a Building Permit for this deck and he did
not know the stability of what is there. If the deck has been there over 10 years without a permit
it can be grandfathered in but it must be approved by the Zoning Board. The Board also needs to
know the dimensions of the front corner because it is not know if that is 13' or 14.'
The Board explained to the Petitioners that they could go forward if they want to apply for a
Variance but they explained again that they are hard to obtain. Or the Petitioners could request a
continuance and try to find evidence of the age of the deck or get a revised plot plan that shows
the distance to the right rear corner. Then they could request a Special Permit.
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to
accept the Petitioners request for a continuance until April 15, 2004.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0.
Case #04-07
A Public Hearing on the petition of Mike & Ellen Canterbury who seek an appeal from a
decision of the Building Inspector and/or a Variance from setbacks under Sections 7.4/5.0/5.1.2
of the Zoning By-Laws in order to allow an existing structure (raised walkway and platform) to
remain within the required setback on the property located at 25 Wilson Street.
Ellen Canterbury said the Building Inspector issued a building permit but he denied the final
inspection and Occupancy Permit. It was denied because the Building Inspector said when he
approved the plan he thought it was a street level walkway and not a raised walkway.
The Building Inspector said the submitted application shows the raised walkway by a landscaper
and the 11 x 12 deck. It is an elevated structure that was denied when it was submitted in wood.
This is the same structure that was denied but built instead with dirt and pavers. It was not
known that the pavers would be on the same level as the deck because pavers are normally
ground level and he did not know the raised platform would be elevated and connected to the
deck. Homeowners are not allowed to build a retaining wall if it encroached on the property line.
When he did the inspection for the framing and the deck the raised walkway was not there but it
was there when he went for the final inspection. The plans are always stapled to the permit so it
can be looked at in the field a"s to what exactly the permit was issued for. He said he felt
uncomfortable because the wood walkway was denied and then this raised masonry walkway
was built.
The Board discussed that there were three possible solutions: issue a Variance, decide that this is
not a structure, or turn over the decision of the Building Inspector. In order to avoid similar types
of structures in the future the Board could say this was all a big mistake and everyone acted in
good faith.
On a motion by Paul Dustin, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to
overturn the decision of the Building Inspector dated April3, 2003, issued to Mike & Ellen
Canterbury for the property located at 25 Wilson Street, ordering the removal of an existing
structure (raised walkway and platform) approximately 5.0 feet by 36.0 feet in area, so as to
permit the retention of the elevated walkway as shown on the plans attached to Building Permit
#103084, dated July 30, 2002.
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
Maufteen M.
Recording S
4