HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-04-17 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTown of Reading
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of April 17, 2003
Members Present
John Jarema
Edmund Balboni
Susan Miller
Robert Redfern
3'=ED
LE R K
w~ MASS.
Z,~LLIS P12- 1
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 Joan Langsam, Town
Counsel.
Case #03-03
A Public Hearing on the petition of Gayle Yotch who seeks a Special Permit under Section(s)
6.3.11.1 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to construct an addition within the required setbacks on
an existing non-conforming dwelling on the property located at 173 Lowell Street.
The architect, Olaf Volardson spoke for the Petitioner and said they want to add an addition to an
existing non-conforming structure. The addition will extend over the current side yard setbacks,
is not non-conforming in any other way and would meet all other requirements. The lot is only
50 feet wide and under current guidelines would now require 100 foot frontage. They are trying
to design an addition that meets the current characteristics of the existing house to make it fit in
as if always there.
The Board discussed the Applicant's request for a Special Permit under 6.3.11.1.
The architect was asked if they plan on keeping the addition that was 7'10" on the westerly side
and he said yes. The Building Inspector felt a permit should not have been issued for that
addition.
The Applicant will be increasing the footprint within the setback requirements and it appears the
addition will match the sides of the existing building. It was mentioned that the Board recently
had discussions with Town Counsel regarding this type of situation and that the Board had been
taking liberties regarding encroachment of sidelines.
It is a section the Board has been having problems with and the Town Counsel said they should
not be granting Special Permits in the manner that they have been. It was mentioned that the
Applicant had only applied for a Special Permit and that perhaps they should have applied for a
Variance. Two weeks ago the Board would have approved this request but matters have changed
since Town Counsel gave her opinion as to the meaning of this section.
f, The Board said this lot has 14,000 square feet, it was the frontage they were talking about and
that there was a possibility of a Variance. Had the Board not put this Section 6.3.11.1 before
Town Counsel they would have approved the request but they must take a different direction
now.
The Board said that the Applicant should now redo her plans and go off the back or up in order
to get approval for a Variance. They stated there were now two avenues for the Applicant to
seek: have the Board rule on it this evening or move to withdraw without prejudice and come
back before the Board with a request for a Variance. It was determined that the Town was at
fault for not also advertising for a Variance as that was listed in the initial application. Therefore
the Town will bear the cost of re-advertising the legal notice.
On a motion by Edmund Balboni, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted
to continue the hearing to May 29, 2003.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0.
Case #03-04
A Public Hearing on the petition of Thomas Davis who seeks a Special Permit under Section(s)
6.3/6.3.17 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to demolish an existing single family dwelling and to
construct a new single family dwelling on a non-conforming lot on the property located at 29
Dividence Road.
Attorney George Markopoulos spoke for the Applicant and said the property's frontage was
80.01 but otherwise met all requirements. They are requesting the Special Permit due to the
shape of the lot. The neighbors have indicated they do not have any issues with the proposed
plans. He stated the granting of this permit would not be inconsistent with the Zoning By-Laws
and will enhance the neighborhood.
The Board discussed the color of the proposed dwelling, whether it met existing Zoning By-
Laws, and whether the existing shed was going to remain on the property.
On a motion by Edmund Balboni, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted
to grant the petitioner a Special Permit under Section(s) 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-Laws to remove
the non-conforming structure and construct in its place a two-story single family dwelling that
will conform to all set back requirements as stated on the Plot Plan of Land dated January 23,
2003 prepared by Reid Land Surveyors of Lynn, Massachusetts subject to the following
conditions:
1. A Plot Plan showing the proposed reconstruction is submitted to the Building Inspector prior
to the issuance of a building permit; and
2. As-built plan(s) is submitted to the Building Inspector prior to issuance of an Occupancy
Permit.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0.
2
Case #02-24
A Continuance of a Public Hearing on the petition of Archstone-Smith who seeks a
Comprehensive Permit under MGL Chapter 40B to place a 232 unit apartment community on the
property located at 40-42 & 70 West Street.
Town Counsel said the purpose of this hearing was to go over the conditions and review the
Conservation Commission's comments. It was decided to take out the name "Spence Farm"
where used and to substitute "Archstone-Smith." The mitigation fee to be charged to the
Applicant was discussed. It was stated that the traffic mitigation fee was not included in the
overall fee because the Applicant is going to bear the full cost. The Chairman stated that the
Town will have a number of Chapter 40B applications and each one is unique so the working
group decided to put in an overall amount and this represents full mitigation minus an adjustment
for the affordable units.
The Board then went on to discuss the recommendations made by the Conservation Commission
and how the Board can best put into words what the Applicant must do in order to meet the
needs of the Conservation Commission, particularly regarding drainage.
There were some minor additional changes made to the conditions but overall the Board and the
Applicant were satisfied with what was written. The tree situation at the site was discussed and it
was determined that the tree warden shall identify the best practices to be used in minimizing
tree damage during construction.
The name of the development was discussed and it was mentioned that the Historical
Commission had offered to assist Archstone-Smith with a name that would be in keeping with
the town's history.
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Susan Miller the Zoning Board of Appeals voted
to grant the petitioner a Comprehensive Permit under MGL Chapter 40B to place a 232 unit
apartment community on the property located at 40-42 & 70 West Street, subject to the rules
and provisions in the Comprehensive Permit and Decision.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0.
On a motion by Edmund Balboni, 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 sub it
Maureen M. Knight
Recording Secretary