Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-02-06 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTOWN OF READING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6, 2003 MEMBERS PRESENT EDMUND BALBONI SUSAN MILLER ROBERT REDFERN DONNA BOGGS TUWH CLERK ADING. MASS. 2003 FEB 26 , 11: 05 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. Building Inspector Glen Redmond and Town Planner Chris Reilly were also in attendance. Case # 02-35 A Public Hearing on the petition of Jerry & Sandra Pothier who seek a Variance and/or Special Permit under Section(s) 5.1.2/6.3.17 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to construct a new single family dwelling on a non-conforming lot located at 3 Hillcrest Road. Edmund Balboni swore in the applicants. John Millis, Millis Construction, representing the Pothiers: The Pothiers want to demolish the existing house and rebuild using the plans that he submitted. The new house would include assisted living quarters for their mentally and physically challenged son. There would be a passageway between the family's living quarters and the son's quarters. The house would be a modular home with the rear section for the son. Jerry Pothier: His son was ready for this type of arrangement as it would foster more independent living and prepare him more for the future. Glen Redmond, Building Inspector: Had some areas of concern, if this is allowed it must not be used as a rental unit in the future. Also that the Board must consider Hillcrest Road and not Prescott Street as the proper frontage, otherwise house would not fit on the lot. Edmund Balboni: There must be a condition that the unit not be used as a rental apartment in the future. John Millis: The neighbors were supportive of the Pothiers and their plans. Glen Redmond: If the house were torn down and just an empty lot then Prescott Street would be the legal frontage. Susan Miller: Can the ZBA make a finding that Hillcrest can be the frontage and would a variance be required. Glen Redmond: The applicants would need either one or the other. Edmund Balboni: Would it have to be a Special Permit with a variance. Glen Redmond: Once the present house is torn down we have a non-conforming lot so the applicants will need a Special Permit or a Variance, essentially they are starting from scratch. Edmund Balboni: There are two letters from neighbors in favor of applicants. Lorraine Salter and John Harrington, neighbors of the applicants, attended the meeting to show their support. Virginia Adams, Historical Commission: Is the assisted living section of the house the same as an accessory apartment. Susan Miller: Is the assisted living section self-contained and does it have it's own entrance. John Millis: There would be ramps to walk up to the house and there would be an open doorway into the rest of the living space. The son would have his own cable and television. The open area would not be closed off from the main house. Edmund Balboni: A closed doorway must not be put in the open area. John Millis: It would remain an open area. The son's area will be handicapped equipped. There will be rails along the walls and a sliding door into the bathroom area rather than a hinged door. The doorways will also be wheelchair width in case that is necessary in the future. Glen Redmond: The board should determine if this is a single or a two family dwelling. Edmund Balboni: It should be looked at as a single family with special conditions for one of the tenants and this area of the house could never be rented out. Would this meet the requirements. Glen Redmond: Yes, it would meet the requirements. Susan Miller: What specifically gives Glen Redmond concern. Glen Redmond: With the bedroom, bath and kitchen it appears to be an apartment. All someone would have to do is just block off a doorway and it becomes an apartment. Donna Boggs: Should the Board say that a stove should not be allowed. Glen Redmond: That would not stop it from being an apartment. But it could be registered at the Registry of Deeds that no future owners can make this an accessory apartment. Susan Miller: Would that address Glen Redmond's concerns. Glen Redmond: Yes, it would, and a Special Permit could be issued with mention made that the guest area will never be an accessory apartment. Edmund Balboni: The structure is to be built as a single family dwelling and no part of it is to be used as an accessory apartment. On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to grant Jerry & Sandra Pothier, for their property located at 3 Hillcrest Road, a Special Permit under Section(s) 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-Laws, to construct a new single family dwelling as shown on plans submitted with the application, with the following conditions: 1. That the house be a single family dwelling with no part to be considered as an accessory apartment. 2. That the frontage for said property is on Hillcrest Road. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. Case #03-02 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 located at 170 Salem Street. Edmund Balboni swore in the applicants. Robin Maganzini: It would be more cost effective to demolish the house and rebuild. (Presented an artist rendition of what the house would look like.) No neighbors are against the plan. This would give them a more open floor plan. Glen Redmond: Applicants want to tear down present dwelling and rebuild, and if they can't do that, then they want to add an addition. They will need a Special Permit to tear down and rebuild and also need one to add an addition. Edmund Balboni: What are the conditions they need to meet. Glen Redmond: Proposed 2-story dwelling is 11 feet (instead of the required 15 feet) from side property line so they would also need a variance. Robert Redfern: So if the present dwelling is torn down the property becomes a vacant lot and so they must meet the required setbacks. Edmund Balboni: It appears we could not grant their request for a Special Permit. Robert Redfern: Do they need a Special Permit for the second option of adding an addition. Edmund Balboni: Yes, they still need a Special Permit. 6.3.11.1 is ambiguous. Robin Maganzini: What if we went up and built over the garage? It was decided that the Maganzinis' will explore their options and return before the Board again on February 20, 2003 to present a Plan C. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to continue the hearing on the petition of Eugene & Robin Maganzini for the property located at 170 Salem Street on February 20, 2003. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. Case #02-31 Continuance of a Public Hearing on the petition of Massapoag Real Estate who seeks a Comprehensive Permit under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40B to construct four units on approximately 2 acres of land off Sanborn Lane. Steven Eriksen, Norse Environmental Services: We relocated the buildings to get more distance from the wetlands area....the "Storm Ceptor" unit will trap the sediment, runoff and oils and will clean the water before entering the storm water. Because of the concern about the salamander habits we will add logs at random. We have changed the plant species to include indigenous plant species. We have just received a drainage report that we will submit tonight. It shows a slight increase in the rate of runoff on the site. We have just received information from the Fire Chief who wants fire hydrant in a specified location and we can do this. We can also provide turnaround but between Fire Department issues and conservation issues we are not sure which issues are more important. We know runoff is important but don't know which way the Board would like us to go. We can use permeable pavement throughout. It is a possibility we can allow most of the runoff into the ground rather than having it run off-site, can also use paving blocks which would allow water to sink into the ground. A "Storm Ceptor" makes more sense, to try and collect the water and clean it before it enters the wetland area. We can provide what the Board would prefer, we are just looking for direction to make this a nice site that everyone would like. Fran Fink, Conservation Administrator: Let's go through this memo, we looked at the revised plans together, item number one is to make it look better from a conservation point of view, more natural vegetation, added a "Storm Ceptor," however, there are still some areas where there might be improvement. What is the relationship between the developer and the owner? Steven Eriksen: The owner is Steven Boucher, Donald Guidoboni has the site under agreement and he is a partner with Walter Eriksen. Fran Fink: We still have all the parking garages on the wetland side and see how close it is to the green line. Steven Eriksen: It would be difficult to put parking on the upgrade, would end up being an awkward configuration to get into the garage. We show guest parking in front of the garage area where it is already paved. We want to accommodate everyone but we don't know how. Fran Fink: Is the affordable unit enough to overcome these obstacles. I have not seen the Fire Department report yet. Do we really need a fancy access for the Fire Department on a four unit lot? Steven Eriksen: Installation of a fire hydrant should be sufficient for the Fire Department. Fran Fink: Looking for a wider driveway for two way traffic on a piece of land that is not very big....how much can we fit on it and meet all the concerns before the Board and how much will this piece of land support? There were some things that sounded good but will they sound good to the Conservation Commission, enough to offset the loss of wildlife? Steven Eriksen: We can put in a trail and restrictions. Fran Fink: The animals that use the wetlands migrate upland for breeding, etc. If they meet retaining walls or driveways they become an obstacle. Sometimes tunnels are used with fencing that guides the animals to where the tunnels are, this is another possibility but I am not sure what the technical design should be. Chris Reilly, Town Planner: Nothing to add at this time, the crucial information is the Fire Department concern about the narrow access. Edmund Balboni: The memo was dated February 5, 2003. Steven Eriksen: We could meet the Fire Department requirements but we can't do that and meet the Conservation Commission requirements at the same time. Edmund Balboni: How would you put in a turnaround? Steven Eriksen: We could put a narrow driveway that would loop all around and provide paved access for a turnaround. Chris Reilly: You would have to provide this in detail for the Fire Department. Show us some more maps and have the design review team review them with you, that would be the next step. Steven Eriksen: We don't know what options to take. Fran Fink: You are trying to put too much on the space. Walter Eriksen, Massapoag Real Estate Development Corporation: We are trying to not impact on the wetlands at all. Limiting the width of the driveway might be best so that we don't have to fill in the wetlands. We are trying to limit the impact on the wetlands with the protection measures we have here. We are trying to comply with the Conservation Commission as closely as possible and still meet our objective. Fran Fink: The Conservation Commission policy is to require replication, not just with the wetlands but with the species habitat. They are using both the wetlands and the uplands and the more physical barriers the more unlikely they are to survive. If you install a retaining wall across the streambed you will have to take some part of that off if they widen the driveway. Steven Eriksen: There is plenty of room for that area., there is over 30 feet where that could go in. We can meet the 18 feet here but in this small strip we would have to fill in the wetlands. Fran Fink: Or try to get the property owners next door to sell you a piece of their lot. For the size of the project it could be treated as a common driveway. I have not talked to the Fire Department but maybe they would be willing to reduce the width of the driveway, it would not be unreasonable to ask them to consider this. Edmund Balboni: Maybe they are considering two vehicles being able to pass each other. All I can go by at the moment is the letter from the Fire Department. Chris Reilly: From my experience the 18 feet minimum would be required and we will have to address the wetlands issues. Edmund Balboni: Seems like the Fire Department will require the 18 feet minimum. Have you done some bridges before? Walter Eriksen: Yes, but not like this, maybe precast concrete planks might be the answer. Chris Reilly: We can review this at the DRT meeting. Robert Redfern: I assume that this whole lot from the point of the wetlands boundary is all wetlands? Frank Fink: The land rises. Steven Eriksen: It is walkable wetlands, not swamp, you can walk through it, we would even be able to provide a trail. 6 Robert Redfern: My main original concern was the width of the driveway, I do not support anything 10 feet and really it is 9 feet because of the top of the wall. You need whatever the Fire Department requires and with guardrails it will be 23 feet. Chris Reilly: Get back to me when you have plans and we will schedule a DRT meeting. Edmund Balboni: We are between a rock and a hard place primarily to do with access and the driveway configuration. Edmund Balboni suggested a continuance until March 6, 2003. On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to continue the hearing on the petition of Massapoag Real Estate Development Corporation for the property located off Sanborn Lane on March 6, 2003. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by Donna Boggs, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to adjourn at 9:35 P.M. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. Respectful: y Maureen N Recording