HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-08-05 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTOWN OF READING
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF
MEMBERS PRESENT: CHRISTOPHER VACCARO, CHAIRMAN
BERNARD W. O'SHAUGHNESSY - ASSOCIATE
MICHAEL LARKIN
MEMBERS ABSENT: JOHN COOTE
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 PM. Mr. Vaccaro swore
in, under oath, those present that would be addressing the Board this evening.
Case #93-2
Attorney Scott Consaul, O'Neill & Associates, PC, requested an extension on behalf of his
client, Dorothy Jones, et al, for a Special Permit for an additional six months on the
property located at Lot 198 Harvest Road, Reading, MA. Attorney Consaul explained
that after two attempted sales, the owner is now going forth personally.
Mr. Larkin moved to grant an extension for six months. Voted: 3-0.
Case #99-17
Arrow Direct, Inc. seeks a variance and special permit under Section(s) 4.0/4.2/5.1/6.3.2
of the Zoning By-Laws in order to change the use of the existing operation and to
construct an addition to a non-conforming structure/use on the property located at 15-17
Pierce Street, Reading, MA. Attorney Brad Latham, Larry Berreault, one of the two
owners, and Mark Pelletier, the architect, were present. Attorney Latham explained how
the building was converted from a furniture restoration business to the present Weber &
Smith, Inc. The present company employed approximately 18-20 people and the present
hazardous liquids and soils would be disposed of Arrow Direct, Inc. is a mail marketing
business. The new company would install handicap ramps and would like to build a 3000
s.f. extension within the U-shape, a single story, of the current building. The new owners
plan to landscape, install new windows in front, and replace the front door.
Attorney Latham explained that the business would conduct a quiet mailing program
generating little traffic. The petitioner would like to change his filing so that the parking
area will only extend to the existing .fence. The existing loading dock is 4' above the
basement and 6' below the first floor. The petitioner would like to change the dock so that
the floors would coincide with the loading dock. None of the setbacks would change only
the percent of lot coverage. 6.3.3.4 was cited which could allow the ZBA to grant an
>v" exception if the change is not more detrimental than the existing conditions.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of 8/5/99 Page 2
Attorney Latham cited 6.3.2.2 - changing a building to a more restricted use, which he
claims this would be, and 6.3.3.4, which says that the Zoning Board may grant an
extension if not more detrimental than what's existing use. Mr. Latham said that they are
building within the shape of the building and not extending out. Attorney Latham's
arguments for a variance were that; 1) the building has an unusual courtyard, the lot is
unsuitable for a single family and if a variance is not given, it would cause a hardship.
The new business hours would be 7:30 am to 9:30 pm with approximately 22 people
working during the day and some weekends . James Cronin, the present owner, stated
that a cleaning person is there now. October 30, 1998, they stopped making their die
substance.
The Building Inspector stated that the handicap ramp needed to make the building
handicap accessible will encroach on the rear yard setback.
Peg Pratt, 136 Salem St., stated her concerns about the traffic in the .area. Kevin Keating,
3 5 Pierce St. gave Mr. Vaccaro a letter from nine abutters opposing the new business.
Mr. Keating said that in 1982 six people were working with no evening or weekend hours.
He felt this company would be more imposing. Ralph Chloodian, 76 Orange St., felt the
area is residential. Carol Sinclair, 79 Orange St., felt area has too much traffic now and
the business would not be good for the neighborhood. Richard Sinclair, 79 Orange St.,
concerned with noise control with the air conditioners. Susan Suarez, 11 Appleton Lane,
wouldn't like to see more traffic and is concerned with lighting come in her bedroom
windows.
David Gillette, 26 Pierce St., sees building as a betterment. Jane Gillette, 26 Pierce St., is
in favor of the project and wouldn't want to see the building abandoned. Don Dewey, 17
Spring St., wouldn't like to see the building abandoned and would look forward to a clean
company going in but is concerned about future owners and asked what the variance
would restrict. Attorney Latham submitted a letter from sixteen neighbors, not of the
Pierce St. neighborhood group, expressing support for the change.
Attorney Latham and the applicant stated that they would be willing to have a left-turn
only exiting the parking lot, they could work out the lighting and noise control, erect a
privacy fence for abutting neighbors and would try to work out a shift schedule to
accommodate the neighbors.
Mr. Larkin made a motion to close debate. Mr. O'Shaughnessy seconded the motion.
Voted: 3-0. After some consideration, members felt the restrictions that would have to be
made couldn't be comply with or couldn't be governed.
Mr. Larkin made a motion to grant the petitioner a special permit under Section 6.3.2.1 of
the Zoning By-laws to allow the petitioner to extend the non-conforming use of the
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of 8/5/99 Page 3
property for a mail marketing business. Mr. O'Shaughnessy seconded the motion. Voted:
1-2-0. Mr. Vaccaro voting in favor, Mr. Larkin and Mr. O'Shaughnessy voting against.
The motion failed.
Mr. Larkin made a motion to grant a variance to allow the petitioner to increase the lot
coverage percentage of the building to 27.8%, in excess of the lot coverage restriction in
Section 5.1 of the Zoning By-laws. Mr. O'Shaughnessy seconded the motion. Voted:
1-2-0. Mr. Vaccaro voting in favor, Mr. Larkin and Mr. O'Shaughnessy voting against.
The motion failed.
Mr. Larkin made a motion to grant the petitioner a special permit under Section 6.3.3.4 of
the Zoning By-laws to allow the petitioner to alter and extend the non-conforming
building. Mr. O'Shaughnessy seconded the motion. Voted: 1-2-0. Mr. Vaccaro voting
in favor, Mr. Larkin and Mr. O'Shaughnessy voting against. The motion failed.
Respectfully submitted by Kathleen Morgan, Recording Secretary to the Zoning Board of
Appeals. i
Signed: y~S~r%G
Date: a,//g 9
Approve