The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1988-02-11 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTown of Reading Reading, Massachusetts 01867-2693 1Y (617) 942.0500 ZONING BOARD of APPEALS .G LOWELL STREET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS READING, MA MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1988 Members Present: Catherine Quimby John Jarema Stephen Tucker Sally Nitzsche Chairman Quimby openend the meeting at 7:30 PM, February 11, 1988 in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 6 Lowell Street, Reading, MA. The meeting began with the Board discussing some unfinished business and the distribution of the Zoning Board of Appeals annual report to be submitted by Chairman Quimby. Discussion then moved on to briefly cover an upcoming appeals case continued to March 17. At 7:45 the public hearing was called to order. Tonight's hearing was intended as a forum for a transfer of a Special Permit granted in September 1987 to Reading Beech Tree Associates of Reading to Fafard & Sons Construction of Ashland. After names of those who received notice of tonight's meeting was read and attendees planning to speak were sworn in, Chairman Quimby made it clear that tonight's meeting was not meant as an opportunity to hear from those seeking to modify the Special Permit, but only to transfer the Special Permit and listen to the developer's plans in implementing said Permit. ,j Mr. Carl AXmon of 40 Scotland Road began by asking the Board if he would be allowed to ask questions regarding the placement of fencing on the land surrounding the development complex. Catherine Quimby clarified this to Mr. AXmon and those in attendance as to just what was to be covered at tonight's meeting. Reverend Alan Bond, Pastor at the First Congregation Church then asked when and where was the proper forum for addressing ~ questions pertaining to fencing and such matters. Chairman Quimby stated February 11, 1987 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Page 2 that such questions could be asked, but fencing and matters of the like were past the point of negotiation for the Board and would have to be taken up directly with the developers as the Special Permit has already been granted and the appeal period passed. Mr. Brad Latham of Latham & Latham, P.C. then'spoke on behalf of the developer. He stated that a Special Permit "runs with the land" unless otherwise stated in the Special Permit, and therefore, the transfer was common practice. When Beech Tree Assoc. declared the project to be economically unfeasible for them to pursue, Fafard agreed to take over the project. Fafard being a sizable firm with extensive experience in multi-family dwellings as well as financial stability was considered by Mr.-Latham to be an excellent alternative to Beech Tree. Mr. Latham then began addressing each condition and clarifying the means by which each would be met. When the parking issue was discussed (Condition #3) it was stated that Fafard had requested an increase in parking spaces to 69. After being informed that this would require the reopening of the hearing and terms of the Special Permit already granted, Fafard withdrew their request. Topics of discussion included the lighting to be used and the name of the development being changed from "Reading Beech Tree his,"6-zl~ to "The Schoolhouse at Reading." Mr. Latham also stated that he was aware of a problem with the First Congregational Church and their feelings that headlights from cars entering parking spots located directly across from their house would cause a nuisance. They felt that the screen of greenery as planned would not be sufficient in curtailing the problem. Mr. Latham stated that the developers were willing to enter into a written agreement with the Church whereby if after 12 months from the date of issuance of the occupancy permit the problem was still in existence, they would construct a fence to the outside of the greenery blocking out all lights. Reverend Bond then stated his feelings that the developer should install the fence before that time, but if there was no alternative to this written agreement, he would enter into such an agreement with the developers. He felt they should save themselves some work and install the fence now to avoid future problems, but Mr. Latham stated that the landscape engineer had determined the shrubs to be used would be more than adequate to do the job. Mr. George Shannon then spoke pertaining to the land abutting his property and whether there were plans to fill the earth and eliminate the slope of land now in existence. Mr. Alfred Warren of R.E. Dinneen Architects & Planners, architect for the project then stated that the intention was to fill the land. It was then _ February 11, 1987 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Page 3 noted to Mr. Shannon that Jonathan Edwards was the correct party to contact regarding the implementation of the site plan. Another attendee, Ms. Sharon Ofenstein then inquired as to why fencing was used on other boundaries, but not on the side abutting the church. She was informed that different terrain and coverage requirements dictated what was to be used. Mr. Shannon then added that in all fairness, the developers had offered the abuttors a choice in this decision at a past hearing. Mr. Hank Bardol, another abuttor, then inquired about the lighting to be used surrounding the complex, i.e., number of lights, wattage, location of''lights. Mr. Warren clarified this. Mrs. Judy Shannon then asked what the determining factors were in deciding which parking spaces to eliminate per the Special Permit. She was informed that the main factor was the attempt being made to keep as much open green space intact as possible. Mr. Warren then reviewed the interior plans for the complex. Plans included lofts with roof windows and open, airy living spaces. Mr. Bardol then inquired what the time frame was for the ground breaking of the project. He was told that pending some Board of Health issues, the project should begin some time in March. After determining there were no further questions by those in attendance or by the Board, John Jarema made a motion to recor-nize the transfer of the Municipal Building RE-Use Special Permit granted September 3, 1986 for the rehabilitation and utilization f~ the Community Center, 52 Sanborn Street, Reading for 40 residential units including conditions set forth therein, from Reading Beech Tree Associates, Inc., to H.A. Fafard & Sons Cosntruction, Inc. Mr. Jarema added that he hoped all outstanding issues would be ironed out prior to the project completion date. Stephen Tucker then seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously to grant the transfer of the Special Permit. The public hearing was then closed at 9;00 PM., The Board then began their discussion pertaining to a memo received from the Town Manager regarding Eric's Greenhouse and the proposed negotiated settlement in their appeal. The Board discussed this in detail stating it was contradictory to zoning in many aspects. In short, the Board was aghast at the proposed negotiated settlement on this issue. It appears to violate or contradict many of the zoning by-laws in place in the Town of Reading, as well as some state regulations, i.e., major holidays and open storage. It appears that for a businessman in the Town of Reading, the best method of operation is to disregard any and February 11, 1987 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Page 4 all regulations and then agree to a negotiated settlement after the fact. The wrong message is being sent in terms of future zoning violations. The ZBA felt that no board would have given Eric's what they were granted in the negotiated settlement. It was also noted that in his attempts to uphold the law and do his job, the Building Inspector had received no support from the Town in this case. These feelings would be,submitted to the Town Manger and Selectmen as requested. The meeting was then adjourned at 9:45 PM. Respectfully submitted by Pamela A. Spang, Recording Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Date: Signature: