Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-01-05 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES-JANUARY 5, 1989 Members Present: Stephen Tucker, Vice Chairman John Jarema Ardith Wieworka Mr. Tucker opened the scheduled public hearing at 7:30 PM in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 6 Lowell Street, Reading, MA. The continued public hearing was on the petition of Paul F. Cas- sidy who was seeking a variance under Section 5.1.2 of the Zoning ByLaws of the Town of Reading for the purpose of obtaining two buildable lots which will have less than the required 80 foot frontage on property described as Lot 4, Oak Street, Assessors Map 23, Reading, MA. Mr. Dennis Cronin, representing Mr. Cassidy, stated that he had submitted copies of the drainage reports as the Board had some concerns over this matter in the last public hearing. There was discussion of the Community Planning and Development Commission's involvement in this matter. Mr. Jarema stated that he had called the Town Planner who had told him that CPDC had taken no action. Mr. Cronin then addressed the criteria for obtaining a variance. He stated that the shape of the lot along with the wetlands issues created unique circumstances. The hardship issue was that it was not economically feasible to develop this property in con- 7unction with the underlying zoning (5-10) that is there. He also stated that this would not be detrimental to the public good. Many of the abutters had expressed that they preferred this plan as opposed to the three lot subdivision. He stated that they had submitted the data that was sought and that this proposal makes a great deal of sense. The Board then asked about the costs that are involved that would make it economically unfeasible to build the approved three lot subdivision. Mr. Cassidy then stated that the cost of the roadway and the small sizes of the houses would detract from the neighborhood and would reduce the sale price's. He felt it would be a detriment to the public to have a roadway in this area. With this proposed plan there would be more green space and there could be better positioning of better quality homes. He stated that if he were 1 to put one house on the lot it would have to be a $750,000.00 house to recapture the costs that he had put into the lot from removal of the greenhouse and boiler. Bill Redford then stated that he felt that one house would be the best solution. He also said that he was at this meeting to reaf- firm his letter of December 6, 1988 and also to answer any ques- tions pertaining to the subdivision process. The Board had some concerns with the hardship criteria. Mr. Cronin then presented the plans to the Board stating that this is what the neighborhood wants and that this plan has less impact on the neighborhood. The Board felt that although the neighbors preferred this plan and there would be more green space and less congestion, it was a toss up between the letter of the law and what is trying to be done. The Board asked Mr. Redford about the conditions on the approved three lot subdivision. He stated that they were not unusual. Mr. Cronin stated that Mr. Cassidy had requested waivers for a reduced roadway but had been denied by CPDC. At 8:20 PM Mr. Jarema moved to approve the request for a frontage variance resulting in a 50.0 foot frontage on one lot and a 50.41 foot frontage on the other lot, both lots having a common drive with plantings, buffers, and drainage adjustments as defined by a plan of land for Paul F. Cassidy by Hayes Engineering with a revision,date of 8.23.88. Ardith Wieworka seconded but was con- cerned because she felt that the shape of the lot was only unique because a square was chopped off and sold. She also had concerns with the hardship aspect. Mr. Jarema felt that the intent of the portion of the lot sold was not to create uniqueness. He also felt that the use of the property as a three lot subdivision would be a hardship to the neighborhood. There was more discussion on the hardship issue. Mr. Cassidy stated that he had benefited the Town by clearing the land and he had enhanced the area. At 9:00 PM a vote was taken on the previous motion and the variance was denied by a vote of 2-1 with Ardith Wieworka oppos- ing. At 9:05 PM Mr. Tucker opened the scheduled public hearing on the petition of. Salvatore Santorelli as trustee of Santor Realty Trust who was seeking to appeal to the decision of the Building Inspector on the Parking Requirements/ 1349 Main Street. Mr. Brad Latham, representing Mr. Santorelli stated that they were there on an appeal. relating to a determination made by the Building Inspector. He felt that the appeal was very precise relating to a question of interpretation of language existing in the Reading Zoning By Law. The language in question is contained on page 6-2 of the By Law that relates to the calculation of required parking spaces for retail stores, offices, and consumer service establishments. The language states that "One space for each three hundred (300) square feet of enclosed floor area used for such purpose". Mr. Latham stated that all the words must have some reason there- fore, he felt that the use of the word "enclosed" clearly indi- cated that gross floor area is not utilized but floor area resulting after the walls are installed would be the proper measure. He also felt that the area to be included in the cal- culation is further limited by the words "used for such purpose". Those words exclude from the calculation those portions of the floor area that are not used for retail stores, offices, and con- sumer service establishments. Excluded would be corridors, elevator shafts, stairwells, mechanical rooms and other areas not actually a part of the store or office. He also stated that during his examination he did not find any Massachusetts case that would say this language in the Reading Zoning By Laws could be construed as gross floor area. He then submitted a memo that outlined their beliefs and comments and also added that the ByLaw had been changed and this would be the only time the Board would be confronted with this situation. He then requested that the Board determine that the words in the Zoning By Law should be construed as using net square area as calculation for required parking for retail, offices, and con- sumer services establishments. The Board then asked for some background of this case. Mr. Latham explained that in the process of site plan review the question came as to what was the required number of parking spaces. The Building Inspector determined that gross floor area should be used, therefore the site plan review was denied because of inadequate parking Mr. Jarema then read a letter from the Somerset dated January 5, 1989 stating that they would like' Main Street fixed up and would support the plan. 3 Nursing Home to see 1349 Ardith Wieworka then read a letter dated January 5, 1989 from Stuart LeClaire stating that the use of "gross" square footage has been used consistently for all new construction and renova- tion within the Town and asked that the Zoning Board of Appeals support this decision. Mr. Fallon from 41 Gavin Circle then stated that anything to im- prove this property would benefit the area. He was a little con- cerned with the parking and traffic problems. The Board expressed the wish that Mr. LeClaire had been at this hearing to testify. Mr. Latham asked that the Board give judgement on what they see before them. The Board then discussed what areas of the building would be used to calculate net floor area and also what impact their decision to overturn the Building Inspector's interpretation would have. Mr. Latham then stated that Town Meeting had changed the By Law to read Gross Square Footage, therefore, there would be no other cases of this type. Mr. Latham then stated that elsewhere in the By Laws the word "enclosed" is not used-implying that there must be walls and measurements would begin inside of those walls. The Board then discussed the words "used for such purpose" and also that they would have to decide if the Building Inspector made the correct interpretation. They again stated that they would have liked to have the Building Inspector at the public hearing. Ardith Weeworka felt that the By Law did not mean gross but also felt, that it did not mean net. There was discussion on if it was not net either, what was it. Mr. Jarema then explained that if the Board overturned the Build- ing Inspector's decision, the applicant would have to go back to CPDC and start all over again. The Board then discussed what is "net" and agreed that they did not have to decide on this issue. Mr. Jarema and Mr. Tucker also agreed that the By Law did not mean gross square footage. At 10:40 PM Ardith Wieworka moved to uphold the decision of the Building Inspector with regard to the interpretation of Section 6.1.1.3 of the Reading Zoning By Laws concerning the interpreta- tion of required parking spaces for property described as 1349 Main Street, Reading, MA.- Mr. Jarema seconded and the motion failed with a vote of 0-3 therefore overturning the Building Inspector's interpretation. 4 At 11:00 PM a motion was made and seconded to adjourn and the Board voted unanimously to do so. Respectfully submitted by Karen Saporito, Recording Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Signed: Date: Approved: 5