Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-08-07 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTown Of Reading ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS August 7, 2003 Members present: John Jarema Robert Redfern Susan Miller Mark Gillis Paul Dustin U E R K 7D 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; Chris Reilly, Town Planner; and John Gannon, Town Counsel. Annual Reorganization: On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals nominated John Jarema for Chairman. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0-1. On a motion by Paul Dustin, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals nominated Susan Miller for Vice Chairman. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0-1. Case # 03-07 Continuation of a Public Hearing on a petition by Wayne Webster who seeks a Special Permit under Section(s) 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to remove in part a portion of an existing non-conforming structure and to construct a new structure on the property located at 21 Line Road. The Board had asked for a new certified plot plan from the Petitioner which he submitted. The Building Inspector explained again how the new Certified Plot Plan was necessary because it was not known what was on the site prior to construction. There were no photographs showing what was there prior to demolition. He felt the main question was whether the petitioner should seek a Special Permit for what is there or a Variance. The other problem was that the new structure is cantilevered to the lot line. - The Petitioner stated that the foundation was old and starting to fall apart. One half has a poured foundation and then it turns into block. He rebuilt it on both sides of the bulkhead. The Petitioner stated that he did not think the new structure was cantilevered and that the contractor assured him everything was taken care of and by code he could do this. He trusted this contractor and now he is trying to fix the mess. The Board stated the Petitioner did not meet the requirements for a Variance which is why the Building Inspector also included a request for a Special Permit. They wanted to resolve the situation and the Building Inspector reminded everyone that if the petitioner had filed for a Building Permit in the first place he would not be in the position he was in. With a Special Permit he could construct in a manner different from what was there. The addition could conform to the maximum extent practicable. The Board also suggested a penalty of double the normal permit fee. On a motion by Susan Miller, 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 demolish in part a portion of an existing non-conforming dwelling and to reconstruct that demolished portion of the dwelling on the property located at 21 Line Road with offsets as shown on the Certified Plot Plan dated June 12, 2003, prepared by Robert Survey of Arlington, Massachusetts. The Special Permit is conditioned upon the following: 1. A Certified Plot Plan showing the proposed reconstruction is submitted to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of a Building Permit; and 2. As-Built Plans are submitted to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit. 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. This is a continued hearing but the case has been in limbo for two years in litigation. The Board met a month ago and voted to continue. They wanted to hear more about the project because many of the people now involved were not part of the original hearings. Because of litigation the case is still open and the Board wants to hear from all the parties involved. Town Counsel John Gannon explained that the George Street abutters sued the developer and the Zoning Board of Appeals. The abutters have reached an agreement amongst themselves and the developer from the initial application. The matter now before the Board concerns the modification which changes the access to Curtis Street. 2 Attorney Stephen Ciccatelli gave his overview of the case. He stated that in April of 2001 the - Zoning Board of Appeals approved the application. The approval was appealed but they have now reached a settlement with the George Street abutters. The access is being relocated onto Curtis Street and there will no longer be a driveway in the George Street area. The difference is the change in the access, the units are the same. Attorney Ciccatelli said they had previously submitted a water pressure test. He stated this plan was an improvement relative to fire equipment access and the only change was the access way which he thought was an improvement over the previous plan. The Chairman explained that no one on the Board at present was part of the previous hearings. Questions were asked regarding the Certified Plot Plan as it stood at the time of the original application when the frontage was on George Street. Attorney Ciccatelli said there was 22 feet frontage on George Street and that one of the waivers was because they did not have the required frontage. On Curtis Street they now have 20 feet of access but 0 frontage. He stated this was a better plan with a much improved access road that still maintains fire access. He read a letter from the previous Fire Chief who thought the access of 20 feet was adequate and the previous approval was based on this 20 feet. The Board had two concerns: first, the neighborhood has changed from George Street to Curtis Street and second, the Board is sitting on litigation on another case which is basically access or easement over one piece of property to gain access to another piece of property. Town Counsel did not feel the second issue was major because it involves another 40B application but when the access was changed for this development it was changing to another neighborhood. The Fire Chief mentioned he needed 24', it is now being accessed through 0 frontage whereas at least there was 22' previously at George Street. The abutters in the new neighborhood have the right to object the same as the George Street abutters have already done. It is a major substantive change. Attorney Ciccatelli stated the only clients they have had litigation with have been Attorney Lamond's clients. He said they are treating the George Street and Curtis Street areas as one whole neighborhood. He stated he did not think the frontage would make any difference and they would win if they went to court. He thought this new plan would make more people happy and although it is a change it is not substantial. Town Counsel reminded the Board that the town did not have anything to do with the settlement between the owner and the abutters and the Board should not feel pressure to come to any decision this evening. The Town Planner said they had a DRT meeting and there were few recommendations because they had limited information. The Town Engineer would like to see a drainage plan and a landscaping plan in relation to the new access. Attorney Ciccatelli said he did not know there was a DRT meeting. He stated again that the access was the only change, the Board had all the information already in their files and he was not asked to bring any additional information. He told the Board they could read the decision made by the prior Board and he did not want to present any information to the Town Engineer. 3 He said they have an approval and the Board can look at it but they cannot second guess the prior Board. The Chairman stated this Board is new to the case, no one has seen the information and maybe this Board would not have approved the petition. Since this is a large project for the neighborhood it needs to be considered in an orderly manner so that everyone knows up front what is being done. The Board needs to make sure what they are voting on and a change in the access is substantial. Attorney Cicatelli said if the Board has a problem with the location of the units they are not going to change that. He said he does not want to deal with issues that have already been decided. He said there is adequate access from I95/93 and the prior Fire Chief approved this. There is an adequate driveway and you can get behind all the buildings. Robin Hamilton of 102 Curtis Street said the entrance at 107 Curtis Street is now 10 feet and there will have to be major construction to make it 20 feet. She also voiced concern that they would lose the sound protection given by the trees that would be removed and then also lose the townhouse units if the area is taken by the I95/93 highway project. The idea of fighting a fire in the area from I95/93 did not seem feasible. Brett Rice of 99 Curtis Street said the impact to the neighborhood by extending the dead end street would have a significant effect on the quality of life. Donna Milli of 34 George Street said she was involved in the original discussions and she brought in the Fire Marshall who said there was not enough turning radius for the fire equipment on George Street. She said she would like to know the opinion of the current Fire Chief. Kate Murphy of 59 Heather Drive said she was also concerned about the removal of the trees and the resulting noise and pollution. She said the traffic in the area is congested now and two cars can barely pass each other. She was also concerned about the water pressure. The Chairman asked Town Counsel for a recap on where the town now stands with the proposal. Town Counsel said the abutters challenged the decision, the town defended its decision and said the Board acted correctly in the first place. The town can now consider a modification or may choose not to. If the Board does not accept the changes in the proposal the abutters would not challenge the modified plan and the proposal goes back to square one. If the Board approves the modification then the Curtis Street abutters have the right to appeal the decision. The Board said they would like various departments in the town to review the proposed change of access and give their opinion at a DRT meeting. The Chairman asked if any consideration had been given to removing the house and building 11 units rather than 10 and opening up the entire frontage of the property which would be more than sufficient for the fire department. Attorney Ciccatelli said it had been considered but it would be a substantial change and would require a new Chapter 40B application. 4 The Town Planner asked for information from the Applicant to be submitted for a DRT meeting. Attorney Ciccatelli said all the information the town needed was in the current file because this is the same project and additional information is not required. The Town Planner stated in order for the DRT to proceed they need the information on the proposed change. The Chairman asked the Applicant to supply an original set of plans from the proposal back in 2000 and stated that he would like to have whatever is needed to make the DRT meeting meaningful. The Town Planner said we now have storm water management requirements that cannot be waived and we need a plan for the Curtis Street area that indicates the drainage and shows that the stormwater question is being addressed. Attorney Cicatelli asked permission not to submit this information because he said he was less concerned with the Town Engineer's opinion as to whether he was satisfied with the original decision. The Board discussed again the fact that the water, sewer and drainage schematics that were submitted three years ago were for George Street. Since Curtis Street is now being used for the access the Town Engineer will want to see information specific to Curtis Street. Attorney Cicatelli said he does not look at this as a new application and thought the Board had been satisfied. He said they will submit the requested information before the August 19th DRT meeting. On a motion by Paul Dustin, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to continue the hearing to September 4th 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. The Chairmen mentioned that all seven members of the condo organization and the direct abutters had been notified regarding date, time and nature of the hearing. Donald Van Dyne said the abutter has asked for a 4 foot wall to be built. The Conservation Commission approved this request which would mainly benefit the abutter. The developers would like to have this wall built and were also aware they still had landscaping and the final coating in the parking lot to be completed. The Town Planner said the Town Engineer approved the design and it would take the drainage away from the immediate abutter. He also reminded the applicant that once they satisfy all the 5 conditions in the permit they will be issued the final Certificate of Occupancy for the eighth unit and the bond will be released. On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to approve the modification. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. On a motion by Mark Gillis, 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 sub tted, ~=v Wlxm c Maureen M. Kni ht Recording Seer tar 6