HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-04 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes0 U,11A UR~
Town of Reading
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of March 4, 2004
Members present:
John Jarema
Susan Miller
Robert Redfern
Paul Dustin
Mark Gillis
A" c`: 3
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 Chris
Reilly, Town Planner, and Glen Redmond, Commissioner of Buildings.
#04-01
A Public Hearing on the petition of Richard & David Zenga who seek an appeal from the
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.
Since some of the abutters had not been notified of the hearing as required by law the case was
continued to April 15, 2004. The case will be re-advertised and all the abutters will be notified of
the continued hearing date.
Other business: Archstone
Brian Blazer, speaking on behalf of Archstone said they were back before the Board primarily
for a correction. There are two level spreaders shown on the drainage plan which are closer than
20 feet to the wetlands and no one took note of this. The Conservation Commission then noticed
it and concluded the level spreaders have to be where they are and wanted a clarification from
the Board. The applicants asked for a modification under the modified permit that this was an
insubstantial change. They asked the Board to make a finding and grant the level spreaders in
addition to the other changes previously granted under the modification.
The Chairman said the Board had a memo from the Conservation Commission stating they were
in favor of this additional setback in that particular area and were willing to grant a variance.
Town Counsel said they would support the Board's decision. The Board must determine if this
was a substantial or insubstantial modification and would be allowed only for these two level
spreaders.
The Town Planner said the town would allow an exception for the setbacks by reducing it to zero
because it had no bearing or impact on the boundaries of the wetlands themselves.
Brian Blazer said in the introduction they need to reference that there was a prior modification in
December and the applicant is now coming forward for a second modification.
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted
to consider the two level spreaders in question as an insubstantial modification.
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 a second modification from the original Permit for the project as written by the Town
Planner.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0.
Case #04-02
A Public Hearing on the petition of Damien & 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. This property is in an AQ and 5-20 district.
Attorney Chris Latham said one third of the proposed addition was already covered by a deck.
The property is triangular shaped and lower than many of the surrounding properties with
frontage on Zachary and Cory Lanes. The applicant needs a larger kitchen and interior alterations
are not feasible because there is a bathroom right in the middle of the kitchen. This addition will
not affect conservation issues and this is a unique situation and a substantial hardship.
A memorandum dated February 26, 2004 from the Conservation Commission was read. The
Chairman said he had spoken with Fran Fink and one of the additional things she wanted brought
out was that under the present by-law definition, the pervious pavers used by the applicant for his
driveway in 1998 are now considered as being impervious materials. In 2001 the Town set the
impervious cover to 15% maximum and the existing pavers are no longer considered pervious.
The applicant stated that he was willing to put in a deed restriction that he would not in the future
put asphalt over his driveway. The applicant also has a roof down-spout recharge system but it
has not been approved by the Town Engineer.
The Board discussed that if the recharge system has not been approved by the Town Engineer,
regardless of whether the driveway or walkway is impervious or not, the table presented shows
that the impervious area still is over the 15% maximum allowed. There was a case like this
previously and the Board ensured the driveway would not be paved over by conditioning the
granting of the variance on limiting the total pervious area by the minimum recharge rate of 1.0
inches per hour. The Board would need to know what the order of conditions stated back in
1998.
The Board thought this case may be unresolved with the Conservation Commission and perhaps
it should be resolved there first. The Applicant explained the process was to first get relief from
the Zoning Board of Appeals and then go before the Conservation Commission to deal with the
unresolved issue. He said the Conservation Commission, back in 1998, had instructed him to use
these particular pavers which cost in excess of $50,000. He wanted to use stamped concrete that
would have cost $15,000.
The Board said their concern was, if they grant a variance they have to address the four criteria
required. The impervious area table on the plan shows a 15.5% impervious area and the by-laws
require a 15% maximum without an approved recharge system.
Board member Mark Gillis excused himself at this point because he was on the Conservation
Commission when this case was heard before them.
The Board wanted to know if the Applicant could bring the impervious area below 15%. The
Board agreed it is difficult to determine the rate of infiltration you would get from this driveway.
If the pavers were removed from under the deck then the deck area would be considered.
Attorney Chris Latham said the deck works out to one percent and if the board agreed the deck
area is pervious then it brings it down to 14.5%. The deck should not have been included as an
impervious area. The Applicant can have the engineer redraw and correct the mistake and the
Board would still need to make a determination that the pavers are pervious.
The Building Inspector pointed out that they would still have the issue that all the others areas
count regardless of the materials so the total coverage area would still be 26.6% with the deck
excluded.
The Chairman said if they remove the deck from the calculations the project comes into the
realm of possibility but the letter from the Conservation Commission indicates that they have not
signed off from what was done in 1998. They have to make that portion of it right before the
Board could grant a variance because the sequence is important in a case like this.
The Building Inspector said if the Board made a decision based on the compliance of the
Conservation Commission and wanted a deed restriction then he would not have a problem.
The Chairman said the owner agreeing to a deed restriction that these pervious paver areas would
never be paved over could be written into the petition by the Applicant but the Board would like
to see the recalculations on the chart first.
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted
to continue the hearing to April 1, 2004.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0.
Case #04-03
A Public Hearing on the petition of Kneeland Construction Corporation 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.
The representative from Kneeland Construction said the home is very small with one bedroom
and they want to increase the size so the Applicants can stay in Reading. The existing setback on
the left is nonconforming. The addition will be on the existing footprint but there will be a
garrison overhang on both side of the house causing an increase in nonconformity
The Chairman noted the four criteria necessary to get a variance.
The Applicant explained the financial hardship would be met because if they do not get the
variance they will be forced to leave Reading. The site is unique because it goes down severely
from the street line property line, and the house sits on the left of the property because of the
grade of the right side. The Board asked if it made sense to reposition the house on the lot so that
the setbacks could be met or to go straight up with the overhang.
The Chairman talked about the non-conformity on the one side and the front. However, the
westerly side and the rear the dwelling was in conformance. If they were putting four feet on the
westerly side of the house and taking it back they would be asking for a Special Permit instead of
a Variance. He explained that it is very difficult to come up a reason why this property is so
unique.
Pam Lane said they could not afford to do any other option than the one presented to the Board.
The Building Inspector said they could hang over on one side only and keep it straight on the
other side. The Chairman suggested they go back to their engineer and try to work something
out.
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted
to continue the case to April 1, 2004.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0.
Case #03-02
A Public Hearing on the petition of Eugene & Robin Maganzini who seek an Amendment to a
Special Permit under Section 6.3.11.1 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to construct a 9'x12' deck
within the required setback on the property located at 170 Salem Street.
4
Robin Maganzini explained that the original deck was 5 %2'x16' and they would like to increase
it to 9'x20'.
The Building Inspector said they could do this by right with a Special Permit.
On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted
to approve the Applicant's request for an Amendment to their Special Permit for the construction
of a 9'x20' open deck as shown on the submitted Plot Plan of Land, said deck being located on
the easterly side of the house and being 11.7' from the side property line at it's southeast corner
and 11.4' from the side property line at it's northeast corner. Approval was granted conditioned
upon the Applicant submitting an As-Built Plan of the deck construction to the Building
Inspector upon completion of the work.
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.
Respectful]
Maureen N
Recording