Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-07-15 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesC~J Aj Cte-r i. °4. TOWN OF READING - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF JULY 15, 1999 MEMBERS PRESENT: CHRISTOPHER VACCARO, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL LARKIN BERNARD W. O'SHAUGHNESSY - ASSOCIATE JOHN JAREMA - ASSOCIATE 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 #99-15 The petitioner Attorney Acheson Callaghan, of Anderson & Kreiger, LLP, representing Madlyn Fafard of 40 Azalea Circle seeks an appeal from a decision of the Building Inspector under Section 7.4 of the Zoning Bylaws in order to construct a single family dwelling. Atty. Callaghan reviewed the history of the lot, the lot being transferred to Ms. Fafard in 1990 and an Order of Conditions being issued from the Conservation Commission in 1996. The Building Inspector and Atty. Callaghan have a dispute about frontage. Atty. Callaghan states that they have 80' on Azalea the Building Inspector doesn't feel that there is 80' of accessible land in the front of the house. Atty. Callaghan cited the case of Cochoran vs. the Board of Sudbury where the Supreme Court ruled that even though there were wetlands on the lot that didn't prevent physical access on the lot. He also cited Dunbar vs. ZBA where a second driveway was approved. He stated that under Section 4.5.2.9 - Wetlands Protection District - permissible activities includes driveways where other access is not available. Atty. Callaghan stated - Lot Width Circle, adopted in 1992 and Lot Shape, adopted in 1994 under the Zoning Bylaws do not apply to this property since it was transferred in 1990. Section 4.4.5 - building to be erected in the floodplain district would not apply either, stated Attorney Callaghan because this property is not in the floodplain. The wetland delineation is outlined on the plan. The Building Inspector stated that the petitioner should show the floodplain district and cited 4.4.4 & 4.4.2. Nancy Eaton, Chairman of the Conservation Commission, stated that the wetland decision was appealed, revised plans submitted, and the ruling was to revert back to the original lines. Also noted was that Note 4 under general notes on the plan submitted by the petitioner to the ZBA was not accurate as the plan submitted to Conservation. ZBA Meeting Minutes of 7/15/99 Page 2 r Thomas Anzuoni, 30 (D) Carnation Circle felt that the original owners of the property, the Ledgemere Corp., transferred this property to gain a house lot. Mr. Anzuoni presented MGLA 40A 6. Members felt that case was between a husband & wife where in this case there are separate entities. John Jinouski, 30 Azalea, is concerned with the wetland encroaching on his land after this driveway is installed. Mr. Callaghan stated that the catch basins would deal with the drainage. The Building Inspector stated the plan shows no dimensions and is in violation of the rear yard setback. Members agreed with the Building Inspector; because the garage is attached it is not an accessory structure and would require the 20' setback. Attorney Callaghan stated that the garage could be separated if necessary. Attorney Callaghan cited Case 95-21 Reading ZBA vs. O'Keefe & O'Soro, 11/2/95 where the appeal was upheld. The alternative access was through an easement and this access is through the same lot. Mr. Jarema stated that the denial was not only because of the easement but lack of frontage. Mr. Jarema said that in 1989 an ANR plan was submitted and CPDC accepted the lot, 80' on one street and 20' on the other. Section 6.3.1.4 gave an 8 year grace period to developing property after'95 when the bylaw was passed. The lot was acceptable until the bylaw regarding setbacks came into effect. Members felt that they had to act on the way the petition was worded which was whether or not to overturn the Building Inspector's decision. Because of plan errors and setbacks not outlined and whether the house is in a floodplain district, they had to agree with the Building Inspector's decision. Mr. Larkin moved to close the Public Hearing. Mr. Jarema seconded the motion. Voted 3-0. Mr. Jarema moved to uphold the Building Inspector's decision on the request of Anderson & Kreiger, representing Madlyn Fafard at 40 Azalea Circle. Mr. Larkin seconded the motion. Voted: 3-0. Mr. Jarema, Mr. Vaccaro, and Mr. Larkin voting. Case #99-16 Attorney Brad Latham represented Kenneth & Diane Cain, James & Carole McTaggart in a petition that seeks a variance and/or special permit under Section(s) 4.4.5/4.4 of the Zoning Bylaws in order to construct a roadway and single family dwellings, yards and driveways on the property located at Melendy Drive/Pleasant Road. Attorney Latham stated that the petitioners had been granted a special permit earlier in Case #99-04; that this project is located in Fooodplain District S20 & 515; section 3.6.0 is a bylaw describing the purposes of a floodplain; a variance from this section should not be required because this project is not subject to flooding, and part of building requires some filling and is an incidental right. ZBA Meeting Minutes of 7/15/99 Page 3 Attorney Latham cited Case 997-30 - Salem St. He also noted a letter from the Board of Health to ZBA on 3/3/89 which states that this project is not subject to flood, a letter from CPDC to ZBA dated 2/2/99 which states that this project is neither subject to flooding nor unsuitable for human occupancy, and a letter from the Town Engineer to CPDC stating the property is suitable for building and suitable for human occupancy. Attorney Latham stated a variance or special permit should be issued because of the unique shape of the lot, the hardship that the land will be unusable if the board doesn't give relief, and a variance won't be detrimental to the public good. Nancy Eaton, Chairman of the Conservation Commission, said that the plans submitted were not approved by the Conservation Commission. The Conservation Commission issued an Order of Conditions changing the limit of work line. Attorney Latham stated that the plans were approved under the state but denied under the local bylaws. Ms. Eaton stated that filling on the property wouldn't change the Conservation decision. Mr. Larkin said that fill will be needed to create the necessary drainage elevations. Mr. Jarema moved to close the Public Hearing. Mr. Larkin seconded the motion. Voted: 3-0. Mr. Larkin made a motion to approve a variance under Section 4.4.5 of Zoning By- laws in order to construct a roadway and single family dwellings, yards and driveways on the property located at Melendy Drive/Pleasant Road in Reading, Ma. consistent with topographic plan Melendy Drive, Reading, Ma. created by Hayes Engineering, dated 12/18/98, last revised 5/23/99. Mr. Jarema seconded the motion. Voted: 3-0. Mr. Larkin made a motion to adjourn at 10:00 PM. Mr. Jarema seconded the motion. Voted: 3-0. Respectfully submitted by Kathleen Morgan, Recording Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Signed- 2 Date: X/ /9 Y Approved: