The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-12-04 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTown of Reading ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes of December 4, 2003 Members present John Jarema Robert Redfern Paul Dustin Mark Gillis U i y t g `JA Srr ~ J, .3. F 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. Other Business The Chairman explained that on April 17, 2003 the Zoning Board of Appeals approved the Comprehensive Permit application by Archstone Smith for an apartment complex on West Street that will consist of two hundred and four units. A letter was submitted to the Board from Archstone Smith on November 25, 2003 requesting an insubstantial modification for a revised grading plan. The plans submitted showed site plan development, grading, and drainage.. Bob McCullough said they were filing a notice of intent with the Conservation Commission. They took a closer look and saw they would be removing 27,000 cubic'yards of material. The site is flat and drains well and there were many benefits to adjusting the drainage plan: the reduction of heavy equipment, less trips in and out exporting excess material, and a reduction in the amount of retaining walls necessary. The new plan would increase the open space by reducing the amount of grading and they could move to a, gravity fed system with one building requiring a pump. There would be better infiltration by elevating the site slightly with no resulting change in building heights by definition. Rick Lantini explained how the newest cross section showed that there were few or minor changes. The increase in height (six feet) would be six inches viewed from 100 feet away. The buildings have not moved on the site, they have the same footprint, and the outline has stayed the same. The shape of the clubhouse has changed slightly. Chris Reilly said the Fire Chief was at the DRT meeting and his concerns were addressed adequately. The Board addressed condition number 33 that related to management and security. Chris Reilly said it was thought that a large property management company could handle this and they do not have any issues with the revising of condition number 33, they will strike the word `security' and t/ put in `management.' He went over the minutes of the DRT meeting that was held on November 24th and said that there were many benefits to the requested changes: the grading changes were better for the neighborhood, there was an important visual benefit by lowering the rear retaining walls, drainage will meet the Conservation Commission's concerns, gravity fed systems are preferable over mechanical drainage, and less trucks removing fill is a plus for the neighborhood. Some abutters at the meeting asked questions relating to the elevation of the buildings that were answered by Rick Lantini. The larger buildings are set in the back so they would have less of an impact. The net increase above sea level is just under six feet. Bob McCullough said the grading plan would not change at all if the garages underneath were eliminated. The grading change is consistent with their goals to minimize the disturbance. This survey was done for the Fuller property because this was the property we thought would have the most impact. We think this represents 85% of the way there and there may be some very minor changes. Joanne Metzger asked if the applicant will increase the age and tree height to offset the increased height of the buildings. The Chairman said if they were planting the same trees as proposed in the grading and landscape design and elevated six feet that is going to elevate the height of the trees by five or so feet anyway. Bob McCulluogh said they would be willing to work with Mrs. Metzger on identifying the trees that will impact and offer some type of mitigation. The Chairman said the first order was to determine if the changes are substantial and then move to adjust conditions of 333 and 345 in the 40b. He also would check with Town Counsel regarding how to phrase the situation regarding the Metzger property. On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to accept the revised grading plan modifications as insubstantial. 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 moved to defer to the next meeting on December 11, 2003. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. Case # 03-22 Public Hearing on the petition of Michael & Kristen Merullo who seek a Variance under section 5.0 (sideyard setback) of the Zoning By-Laws in order to allow an existing structure (currently under construction) to remain within the sideyard setback of 15'0" on the property located at 48 Woodland Road. Michael Merullo said they were requesting the Variance because there was a discrepancy between their building plans and the plot plan. It was an honest mistake and he reported it the 2 next day to the Building Inspector. The plot plan showed the proposed addition fit within the setbacks for his property but he failed to see that the width of the addition was shown incorrectly on the plot plan. He offered to put trees along the lot land and to shield his neighbors. The addition was framed and had the roof on. He said that to tear it down now would cause severe financial hardship for his family. The Building Inspector said the building permit was issued based on the plot plan and the surveyor made the basic shape fit by reducing the shape of the addition. It appeared to be an honest mistake between the contractor, the owner and the building department. The owner presented the four criteria that are required for a Variance. Number one was that his lot is at an angle and his backyard faces the abutters on Intervale Street. Number two was that tearing down the structure would cause severe financial hardship and he could not rebuild. Number three was the structure would not be a detriment to other houses in the neighborhood or community. Number four is he needs to seek relief because he could not make any change to the structure without taking the entire structure down. The Chairman explained that the problem goes deeper than the error that was made in that the Board could be challenged by any neighbor or abutter. If the Board were to grant this variance it could be challenged, the Board would lose and the Petitioner would be tied up in court for years. The solution for relief does not fit the error for what is there. The Petitioner said he had talked to those who were closest, the abutters on Intervale Street, and they understood that it was an error and did not want to see him take the structure down. After discussion by the Board members, the Chairman said they could not put conditions on Variances but they could grant the Variance predicated on the Petitioner getting written statements from all three abutters that they would not challenge relief granted by the Board. They also could put a condition that evergreens be planted on the property line that would run from the perpendicular of the lot line to the corner of the existing house to the back of the house. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Mark Gillis, the Zoning Board of Appeals requested that the Petitioner get notarized letters from the abutters stating they will not object to a Variance being granted to the applicant and the case will be continued to January 8th. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. Case # 03-23 Public Hearing on the petition of Richard P. Bova, Jr. who seeks a Special Permit under Section 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws in order to demolish an existing single family dwelling and to construct a new single family dwelling on the property located at 95 John Street. Richard Bova said he would keep the square footage the same as there now. The present house was run down and a new house would be an improvement for the neighborhood. 3 The Board members discussed how the lot was a grand-fathered non-conforming lot. The proposed structure would meet all the set back requirements unlike the present structure. There also was a letter from an abutter who was pleased with the proposed new house. The new house would be better than what was presently there and would also be more conforming but the foundation corners must be pinned before it is poured.. Paul Forsythe of Green Street asked if the present structure was faced with asbestos. The Petitioner said it was and they were hiring a contractor who would properly remove it. Mr. Forsythe said one of the prior owners had dug out boulders and put them on top of the wall. He wanted to know if anything could be done and the petitioner said he planned to pull out the present wall and build an attractive structured stone wall. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to grant a Special Permit under Section 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-Laws to demolish the existing dwelling and to construct a new single family dwelling on the lot as shown on the submitted plot plan of the proposed house prepared by PJF & Associates of Medford, MA and dated October 24, 2003, with the following conditions attached: 1. The Petitioner submit an as-built foundation plan to the Building Inspector prior to the Building Inspector issuing a Building Permit for the new house; 2. The Petitioner's final construction plans (including Certified Plot Plan) shall be submitted to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of a Building Permit; 3. As-built plans 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. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Mark Gillis, 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 4