No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-06-16 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTown of Reading Reading, Massachusetts 01867-2693 (617) 942-0500 7 ZONING BOARD of APPEALS 6 LOWELL STREET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS READING, MA MINUTES - JUNE 16, 1988 Members Present: Zeterin A. Quimby John A. Jarema Sally Nitzsche* C. Nancy Scottf Stephen Tucker Ardith Wieworka* * Indicates non-voting member present. Chairman Quimby openend the meeting at 7:30 PM, June 16, 1988 in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 6 Lowell Street, Reading, MA. Opening discussion included mail received and distributed and the amending of minutes of April 21, 1988 which were unanimously approved as amended. As Jonathan Edwards was present for tonight's hearing scheduled for 8:30, the Board inquired as to his feelings regarding the process of notification to abuttors and the Board's intentions to change the existing practice. It was the feeling of the Board that by strictly adhering to the by-laws (abuttors and abuttors of abuttors within 300 feet), much time, effort, and dollars would be saved. Also, the applicant would become responsible for addressing envelopes to those abuttors as part of the application procedure. It was stated that 95 percent of applicants coming before the ZBA were homeowners, and notifying so wide an area of citizens was only inviting additional members of the public who would not actually be affected by the decision. The discussion then moved to the filing of applications with the town clerk and who should have final approval upon stamping in of the application. Following some conversation between Jonathan Edwards and the Board, it was decided that ultimate responsibility should lie with Jonathan, although he could designate another party to actually do the job if he so chooses. The Board also discussed advertising fees and whether to pass on this cost to the petitioner and reduce the application fee. This would be discussed further on July 7. It was then noted to the public.that the hearing advertised for 7:45 PM for property located on Haverhill Street was rescheduled due to incorrect advertising..':-New hearing date to be announced in the Chronicle. At this time, Ardith Wieworka left the meeting. Following a brief intermission, the next hearing was called to order at 8:40 PM for the CPDC appeal to the decision of the building inspector on the Trancoa Building (Fraen Corp.), 312-326 Ash Street, Reading.. All members of the CPDC were present for tonight's hearing as well as Town Counsel, Ted Cohen. Chairman Quimby read the list of those notified of tonight's hearing, and those wishing to speak were sworn in. Mr. Fuller, who was present with his attorney, then waived notice as not received and was sworn in. Discussion then began with Mark Favaloro of the CPDC summarizing the events leading up to tonight's appeal as stated in the "Procedural History" attached. Mr. Favaloro added that Mr. Fuller came before CPDC on four separate occassions with his site plan application. He also stated that CPDC had the following opinions regarding this case: 1) Present non-conforming use had been abandoned 2) Property use largely extends beyond or alters that of permit granted in-1957 3) Scope of work done on the property greatly exceeds that allowed under,permit for "make safe" alterations Mr. Jopn Milano of 275 Ash Street was then allowed to take the floor.to outline his feelings of what was taking place at the Trancoa Building. Mr. Milano spoke about his filing a formal complaint to the Town of Reading in writing in October after seeing many items of machinery going into the plant which, in his opinion, made it clear that the building was being used much more for manufacturing than for R & D or storage as was permitted. He also noted he had reviewed the records of the building inspector, town planner and town clerk. He stated the water and sewer department had received a letter in June of 1983 requesting the water be turned off and another in 1987 requesting the water be turned on. The 5rpec ermi issued in Febuary of 1957 al-lowed for 60 percen_ ligh nufacturing and 40 p cent o_ice. Building had been purchased in 1987 by Charles Fuller prior to securing any required permits to operate the business, and in September of 1987 the building inspector issued an occupancy permit and make-safe building permit. Following Mr. Milano's summary, Jonathan Edwards of 158 Howard Street spoke.regarding his accompanying the building inspector on an inspection of the premises on January 14, 1988. They were taken through the plant by John Sissell, Facilities Engineer of the building. Mr. Edwards noted much work being done to the building.which went beyond make-safe alterations. When Zoning Board of Appeals June 16, 1988 Page 3 questioned by Chairman Quimby as to what exactly was being done, Mr. Edwards stated new doors, walls, electric work, etc. which to him exceeded the "make-safe" (i.e., securing from the elements and vandalism) portion of the permit. Jonathan Edwards then drew a sketch of the interior set up of the building pointing out where various tasks were being performed by some of the 130 people employed by Fraen Corporation. He also noted hearing a large machine in operation and feeling the vibration from this area. It was also stated by Mr. Edwards that he had spoken with John Colburn, a custodian for the previous owner, who told him the building had not been used for manufacturing for two-to-three years. Catherine Quimby added that all members of the ZBA had toured the building the previous week It was unclear whether the building inspector was going to attend tonight's meeting as planned as he had not yet arrived. At this time, Mark Favaloro brought out three avenues.in which the permit issued could be revoked. They were as.followsz 1) use had been discontinued,'and per 6.3.2.4, should now be governed by present Zoning,By Laws. 2) use had been extended or altered beyond what was allowed in Special Permit 3) make=safe permit exceeded in scope of work done and presently in progress The issuance of permits was then taken up for discussion. It was discussed that a site plan review was necessitated due to the fact that over $30,000 worth of renovations were planned. Also, following the land court appeal, a building permit was not to be issued until the Special Permit was issued by ZBA, yet an occupancy permit (#18643) was granted by the building inspector for office/warehouse/enclosed storage. Dates of issuance were discussed by the Board along with the question of why more than one building permit application (3) and why different information on each. Mr. Fuller then spoke on his own behalf. He gave a brief summary of what he felt were the events leading up to this hearing stating the Town Engineer, William Redford, had told him to file for a site plan review. He had done.so and also followed other instruction given regarding procedures for obtaining the proper permits, etc. He felt he did,his best to comply with all town officials and zoning by laws. Mr. Fuller stated that,after some time, he needed additional space but that. the building was being used as was initially intended when purchased. Ted Cohen.then spoke briefly to Zoning Board of Appeals June 16, 1988 ?age 4 the responsibility of the Board here tonight to either overturn the building inspector's decision or uphold it. Basically, enforce the ZBL's as written. Chairman Quimby spoke at some length with Mr. Cohen at this time questioning how might the Board modify the building inspector's decision and still allow operation of the plant. Mr. Charles Arthur, attorney for Mr. Fuller then stated that his client was incorrectly informed by the building inspector as to what was required. Chairman Quimby then opened the meeting to the public. Mr. Milano again spoke inquiring as to which permit was the valid permit. Helen Dyer of 301 Ash Street then spoke. She began by stating she had been living on Ash Street since 1958 and was questioning the route to follow in ensuring her rights as an abuttor. She also stated the building had been abandonded for more than two years. At this time, Mark Favaloro requested the hearing be continued to allow the building inspector to attend as he had not yet arrived. It was felt he was the only person capable of providing the missing information. Carol Scott then questioned Mr. Fuller as to why so many permits applied for with conflicting information. It was also noted that one was an amended copy. eorge Hines, Chairman of CPDC, then spoke regarding confusion eing present through the entire process, He felt the owner's intent from the start was to by-pass the law regarding manufacturing and use the building inspector to accomplish this means. A Mr. Carlson of Reading then asked why the building inspector took this decision upon himself without consulting counsel? Ted Cohen stated he had spoken with Mr. Fuller's attorney and went over the legal aspects of Mr. Milano's letter with the building inspector. He felt the building inspector was responsible for making his own conclusions. The Board then discussed whether the Special Permit issued in 1957 would apply even if use of building had not changed. Jonathan Edwards stated he felt it would not apply as it was allowing only "manufacturing of chemicals used in electronics which was represented to be noiseless, odorless, and vibrationless." John Jarema then spoke regarding there being no attempt over the years in this industrial area to define what exactly is "light manufacturing." He also stated he had some outstanding questions for the building inspector as well. They are as follows: 1) Why multiple applications for building permit? Why conflicting information? 2) Why occupancy issued with no reference to light manufacturing? Issued for office/warehouse/enclosed storage. Zoning Board of Appeals :,June 16, 1988 gage 5 3) Under what premise did he grant occupancy permit? Did building inspector make a site inspection to validate his perception of what was in the permit? Mr. Jarema felt that the final issue was the question of use. Stephen Tucker then added the level of manufacturing seemed to have escalated with Trancoa. He questioned to what extent R & D disappeared and manufacturing took over as major use. He also questioned the inconsistencies in the permits issued. Thomas Stohlman of the CPDC then referred to Section 6.3.2.1. of the ZBL's (Alteration or Extension of Non-conforming Use) and how it effects this case. Catherine Quimby questioned whether a Special Permit or a Use Variance would be correct in attempting to rectify the problem. Mr. Fuller again stated he had followed all the proper channels and felt other operations were much larger without even attempting to secure proper permits. He felt it unfair that one year after occupancy this problem arose, and if he had simply not come before the CPDC in attempting to comply with the law would have had no problem in this regard. t was again discussed by the Board the difficulty in making a ecision based on inconclusive facts and what would be gained by continuing to allow the building inspector to attend in that he had made the decision as enforcing officer based on what was contained in his letter to Mr. Milano. To overturn his decision would mean closing down the operation. This was.of great concern to Chairman Quimby. She again questioned a modification and how it might be possible to allow the owner to come before the ZBA for a Special Permit during a set timeframe, i.e., alteration and use not to exceed what is currently in existence in the area. Charles Arthur then spoke to the Board stating the operation of the plant was the same as it had been previously. All areas of the building still used for the same purpose. The building inspector had based his decision on the by laws, and during the past 30 years, approximately 10 permits had been pulled on this building. Mr. Arthur then attempted to clarify that manufacturing is actually part of R & D. In order to do research, efforts must be made repeatedly to develop new procedures. This in itself requires some manufacturing processes be undertaken. Mr. Dan Ensminger of the CPDC then stated the area to the left of entranceway in front glassed area of the Trancoa Building had not been used previously for manufacturing, therefore making it expanded use. Mark Favaloro added that to uphold building inspector is to ratify the occupancy permit, i.e., approval only on office/warehouse/enclosed storage. He felt if a cease and desist ire issued allowing 60 days to seek Special Permit, a solution may .tee reached. Mr. Patrick Duggan of 32`3 Ash Street then spoke stating his feelings that the building inspector be present to clarify the outstanding issues. Mr. Arthur Zoning Board of Appeals June 16, 1988 Page 6 then stated that in view of all the requests before the Board to continue the hearing to allow the building inspector to attend, the Board should do so. Ted Cohen also voiced his feelings that this meeting be continued as a courtesy to those in attendance. George Hines added the CPDC had continued their hearings four times in an attempt to get the building inspector to attend. Jonathan Edwards added he would instruct Mr. LeClaire to be present at next meeting. John Jarema then made a motion to continue the hearing to June 23 for the purpose of hearing the rationale of the building inspector in this case. The motion was accepted unanimously, and the public hearing was adjourned at 11:15 PM. A motion was then made and seconded to adjourn for the evening, and it was voted unanimously to do so. Respectfully submitted by Pamela A. Spang, Recording Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals. DATE: SIGNATURE: 0