HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-09-04 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTown of Reading
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of September 4, 2003
Members present: John Jarema
Susan Miller
Robert Redfern
Paul Dustin
Mark Gillis
~i J
t E R°,K
t11fiA SS.
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.
Case # 03-17
Continuance of a Public Hearing on the petition of Richard & Jillian Kenney who seek a Special
Permit under Section 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to demolish an existing dwelling
and to construct a new single family dwelling on the property located at 40 Harvest Road.
The Petitioners were unable to proceed with their case because they were still working at
merging the two lots involved in the petition.
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted
to continue the hearing to September 18, 2003.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0.
Case # 00-10
Continuance of a Public Hearing on the petition of James T. Lynch, Trustee of L.A:B. Realty
Trust who seeks a Comprehensive Permit under MGL Chapter 40B of the Zoning By-Laws in
order to construct 10 townhouse units on the property located at 23 George Street.
Attorney Ciccatelli spoke on behalf of the Petitioners. He said that the Board approved the
Chapter 40B application and there has been a proposed settlement which is what should be under
consideration. The Town Manager had opposed the project when it was a LIP application and
again when it was presented as a Chapter 40B project. He questioned why the applicant was
being required to do work (fire lane width) that other applicants have not been required to do.
Engineering has already given their approval and there was no looping in the original approval.
Attorney Ciccatelli said they have addressed the DRT comments: the project will meet the DEP
guidelines; adequate snow storage has been provided; the sidewalks were moved to the
townhouse side; the project will comply with the Town sewer policy of two for one inflow and
infiltration; there will be fencing and screening; the light posts are shown in the updated plan; all
condo documents will be prepared as required; the suggestion to raze the house was considered;
the Petitioners should not have to submit a complete drainage study; and overall Curtis Street
was a better access way than George Street. He mentioned again that his problem was not with
the process but with the person who was chairing the committee and the politics involved.
The Board asked Town Counsel John Gannon what options did the Board have relative to this
application. Attorney Gannon said there were three options: to approve the settlement, defend the
original decision, or approve with conditions as appropriate. If the Board feels certain public
safety requirements are necessary then it should act on that, regardless of prior approval. He has
researched the HAC modifications and there is no grandfather clause with regards to public
safety. The Board would have to show valid concern to support the condition of protecting the
health and safety of the occupants. The Board should look at their concerns with this current
project and render a decision based on those concerns and not prior approval.
The Board said the approval given three years ago is not at issue and they should put the rest of
the litigation issue aside. The current public safety concerns regarding the Curtis Street access
and the fire lane entrance is the primary concern. Adequate public safety comes first, then the
other design issues can be addressed. This present drainage system has changed from the original
proposal and now shows an infiltration system. If ledge is present then infiltration will be
difficult and the soils tests need to show that infiltration can work. A drainage design is needed
to prove that infilatration can work.
The Board questioned the lack of topographical information, the tree line, the 22 foot easement
to the driveway on Curtis Street, and the fact that the right of way doesn't seem to provide more
than 12 feet of travel way.
Town Counsel said he can't recommend changes to the Board of Selectmen regarding public
roadways based on the Board's approval. Attorney Ciccatelli said this is not a no-build scenario,
they require the Board's consent for the settlement but can proceed with the approved plan if
they win in litigation. Town Counsel said imposition of improvements to a public way are not
tenable and Town approval is required. The Board wanted more design information regarding the
Curtis Street access onto the site, topographical plans and turning radii for fire equipment, and
whether the back fire lane access is adequate. The Board also needs a memo from the BOS
regarding their intentions with respect to the Curtis Street right of way access.
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted
to take a brief recess.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0.
Upon resuming the hearing, the Chairman requested that the Town Planner and the Town
Engineer clarify with Town Counsel whether the Curtis Street access needs the BOS's approval
and to make a report to the Board one week prior to the next hearing.
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted
to continue the case to October 2, 2003.
2
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0.
Case # 00-33
Continuation of a Public Hearing on the petition of 1375 Main Street Partners, LLC, for an
insubstantial amendment to the approved Comprehensive Permit for 1375 Main Street by
altering the impervious areas as indicated in the approved site plans to comply with the waiver in
the Comprehensive Permit allowing no more than 38% on-site impervious cover in the Aquifer
Protection District.
Donald Van Dyne submitted his request to the Board for consideration of relief of the original
38% impervious cover as insubstantial, with payment to the community stormwater management
efforts in the amount of $10,000 as mitigation in lieu of compliance.
Attorney Christopher Coleman made a proposal to the Board requesting a temporary Certificate
of Occupancy for the Unit 1 buyers. The Town Planner reminded the Board that the Certificate
of Occupancy is the only enforcement leverage the Town has left to insure compliance with the
permit.
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted
to approve the insubstantial amendment to the Comprehensive Permit, subject to the conditions
in the developer's letter dated September 4, 2003.
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 approve conditions one through four in the letter from Donald Van Dyne dated September 4,
2003, to allow relief of 38% impervious cover to 40.2%.
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,
~wf
Christopher Reilly,
Town Planner