No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-02-20 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesED Town of Reading C t'l, H CLERK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS _ I N G MASS. Minutes of February 20, 2003 -1 P 4- 52 Members Present: John Jarema Edmund Balboni Susan Miller Robert Redfern 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. #03-02 Continuance of a Public Hearing on the petition of Eugene & Robin Maganzini who seek a Special Permit under Section(s) 6.3/6.3.17/6.3.11.1 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to demolish an existing dwelling and to construct a new dwelling on a non-conforming lot or to construct an addition to a non-conforming portion of the structure on the property located at 170 Salem Street. Edmund Balboni: The applicants had decided to restudy their options and come back before the 1 Board with Plan C tonight. Robin Maganzini: We now propose to keep the garage, take down the house part of the structure, bring it in four feet, add another story above the garage, and build the new structure so it would be within the By-Laws. We don't know if we can do this. It would still look basically the same as in the plans, a similar colonial style house. We would like to keep the garage. Robert Redfern: To maintain the garage as it is now and build above that, can this be done structurally. I have concern you might have to go under it and shore it up. Robin Maganzini: The house should look okay from the front, maybe a little strange from the side. Robert Redfern: You can work with an architect, this is just a rendition that you have here. Edmund Balboni: We have pictures here of the house, so you would have the garage where it is and build above it. Robin Maganzini: If it can be done. Robert Redfern: All you have there is parking for two cars without going out into the street. Edmund Balboni: This appears to be a way to get around the zoning restrictions and it seems doable according to the zoning regulations. How much are you taking down and how much are you leaving in order to make it an addition. Robert Redfern: You are not increasing the side coverage. Edmund Balboni: All you would need is a Special Permit under Section 6.3.11.1 to build the second story over the existing garage, the rest is by right. Susan Miller. Except, I still see it as under Section 6.3.17 as a voluntary demolition before you rebuild under the required setbacks. I still think it will be under 6.3.17., I don't see a problem as it is in conformity. Robert Redfern: You see it as under Section 6.3.17. Robin Maganzini: That is what the Building Inspector put it under. Edward Balboni: Should we put it under both Sections to be safe. Susan Miller: No, Section 6.3.17 would be enough. Robert Redfern: I agree with Ed that it should also be Section 6.3.11. L Edward Balboni: I don't see why it can't be one vote encompassing both Sections. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to grant Eugene & Robin Maganzini, for their property located at 170 Salem Street, a Special Permit under Section(s) 6.3.11.1 and 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-Laws, to allow for a second story addition above the existing garage which is currently located within the required setbacks as shown on plans prepared by Robert W. Smith; and also to allow under Section 6.3.17 the reconstruction of the house as shown, after voluntary demolition, on the same plan; and to conform to all required front, side and rear setbacks; with the condition that they submit a certified plot plan prior to the issuing of a building permit and that the as-built is submitted to the Building Inspector after the building is completed. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. 03-01: A Public Hearing on the petition of William & Kelley Malin who seek a Special Permit under Section(s) 6.3.11.1 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to remove a non-conforming structure and to construct a two story structure in the same location on the property located at 77 Bancroft Avenue. John Jarema swore in the applicants. 2 William Malin: The existing vestibule in the front entry way is on concrete block. The plan is to dismantle, rebuild, bring heat out that way, and bump out the top section and add a bath there. Kelley Malin: I have pictures that will illustrate what we are dealing with. William Malin: We are not increasing the footprint at all, we are just bringing it flush to the existing walls. John Jarema: So you are not really changing the side dimensions at all, just adding above it and keeping the same footprint and side set backs. William Malin: We are taking the vestibule down because the foundation is not sound and that is what brought us here. Edmund Balboni: What is the existing foundation. William Malin: It is brick above grade and rubble below it with a recessed cement stoop. Edmund Balboni: So you are going to rebuild the vestibule and build on top of it. The plan shows that you are actually going to bring it out about 3 inches or so to bring it to both sides. William Malin: About five inches on the driveway and street sides, it will be 107' Edmund Balboni: So you are just bringing it even to where the rest of the house is. William Malin: Yes, just bringing it across. John Jarema: The only non-conforming aspect is the vestibule. Robert Redfern: You are not supposed to increase the footprint, only go up. John Jarema: You want to come out even with the front of the house now, so it would be 107' Robert Redfern: You are doing an addition for the back also. William Malin: Yes, we already have the permit for that in hand. John Jarema: The major concern here is Section 6.3.11.1. It is a replacement of what exists now. The only encroachment is an additional 3". It looks like the foundation for that addition is set back just slightly from the original pouring for the foundation. William Malin: The brick is bumped in a bit too. Robert Redfern: Does the Building Inspector just basically consider it a replacement and not an encroachment. William Malin: Just building above it would not be a problem. We are just increasing the soundness of the foundation. John Jarema: Once you take it down, it comes under replacement of a foundation so it really falls under Section 6.3.11.1. He is not increasing it at all which Section 6.3.17 addresses; it meets the spirit and the intent. Susan Miller: Section 6.3.17. does refer to voluntary demolition and 6.3.11.1 only addresses adding a structure. Edmund Balboni: I have a different problem. Is it not being increased 3/10 of a foot closer to the street. William Malin: Yes, we are moving it flush to the house so I guess it is being increased. Edmund Balboni: It makes common sense to let these people do what they propose but the wording of this document make its difficult. Robert Redfern: Section 6.3.17 is partial demolition, being reconstructed in whole or part for the same use. It meets the the maximum extent practicable, so it could fall under that. Edmund Balboni: I like that better, too. Robert Redfern: And also because of conforming use it meets Section 6.3.17. John Jarema: Section 6.3.11.1 also addresses going up, so you could address it under both Sections 6.3.11.1 and 6.3.17. Susan Miller: It seems to me the By-Laws should not prohibit this. We need to try and have some degree of consistency with our decisions. John Jarema: The Building Inspector must interpret according to the Zoning By-Laws: 20' front and rear and 15' for the sides. But the Zoning Board is trying to make the determination if this is going to impact in a detrimental fashion if we allow too much expansion in what the request is before the Board. Susan Miller: This is a classic case to give meaning to the maximum extent practicable. Edmund Balboni: I like Section 6.3.17, it is more practical. John Jarema: Do you wish to amend your request that this petition include Sections 6.3.17 and 6.3.11.1. William & Kelley Malin: Yes, we do. The Zoning Board members all voted in favor of this request. On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by Edmund Balboni, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to grant William & Kelley Malin, for their property located at 77 Bancroft Avenue, a Special Permit under Section 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-Laws, to remove a section of a non-conforming structure , i.e. vestibule, and construct in its place a first-story vestibule with second-story bathroom it, as shown on the Plot Plan of Land dated November 21, 2002 prepared by Medford Engineering & Survey of Medford, MA, subject to the following conditions: 1. that a certified plot plan be submitted to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of a building permit and 2. that as-built plan(s) be submitted to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of an occupancy Permit. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. John Jarema: We need a clarification for Sections 6.3.11 and 6.3.17. We need to talk to Anne Krieg and Joan Langsam and if need be, go before the Town Meeting in April. Minutes On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by John Jarema, the Minutes of 01-23-03 were accepted with corrections. The motion was approved 3-0-0. On a motion by Edmund Balboni, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Minutes of 02-06-03 were accepted with corrections. The motion was approved 3-0-0. Old/New Business John Jarema: Discussed the upcoming working group meetings for Spence and Longwood. He stated that they wanted to wrap up if possible in the near future and close the public hearings. He also noted that both of these projects have to go before M.E.F.A. Edmund Balboni: Discussed the market value of the units at Longwood and whether the builders are low-balling the anticipated sale prices. John Jarema: Said profit is not as important as whether these units in 10 or 20 years have enhanced the community, and if the owners will be glad they purchased these units. Edmund Balboni: I would like to have the town hire a consultant to do an independent study as to the market value of the units and what they could sell for. Then if the developer is making a 25% profit he will have to do something that will bring the profit down to 20%. Susan Miller: We agreed to conceptual plans and if we did this now we would be changing things around. We are supposed to be trying to wrap things up. Robert Redfern: They are going to get what the market will give them and who knows what is going to happen in the years to come. Edmund Balboni: We need a professional independent market study or it is meaningless. John Jarema: I could approach the Town Manager to discuss the hiring of an person to perform an independent professional market study. Susan Miller: I would not be comfortable at this time doing this. Robert Redfern: I agree. John Jarema: The study by Ann Reitmayer should be here by Tuesday, February 25, 2003. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to adjourn at 10:00 P.M. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. Respectfully submitted, Maureen M. Knight Recording Secretary