Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-04-07 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes<.-Towd ct-Ek( ' Town of Reading . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes of April 7, 2011 Members Present: Clark Petschek, Chairman Robert Redfern Damase Caouette John Jarema Kristin Cataldo John Miles Members Absent: Jeffrey Perkins `RECEIVED TOWN CLERK READING, MASS. 2011 MAY 25 P 2: 40 f 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 P.M. Also in attendance was Glen Redmond, Commissioner of Buildings. Case # 11-05 A Public Hearing on the petition of David Haskell who sought a Special Permit under Section(s) 6.3.8 of the zoning bylaws in order to demolish an existing single family dwelling on a non- conforming lot, and to construct a new single family dwelling as per plans submitted for the property located at 76 Washington Street in Reading, MA. Jack Sullivan of Sullivan Engineering presented the Applicant's proposal to the Board. He said the lot is undersized and does not have the required minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet. The existing house is non-conforming in regards to the less than minimum rear yard set back. The proposed dwelling will meet all required setbacks. The proposed lot coverage is measured and noted as 15.32%. Mr Sullivan stated the existing dwelling is not suitable for rehabilitation. Mr Sullivan noted that the Applicant requests a change to the configuration of the attached garage from what is shown on the submitted Plot Plan. The garage will be a front entrance garage facing Washington Street and the footprint may change by 2 feet due to this but, Mr. Sullivan confirmed that the new configuration will still meet all setback requirements. The Building Inspector said this Application is for a typical tear down and rebuild and the reconfigured proposed garage should fit on the plot plan and meet all required setbacks. Following extensive discussion among the Board members regarding the proposed modification by the Applicant of the building configuration, the Board concluded that it would require the Applicant to submit a revised Certified Plot Plan depicting the proposed structure, including any modifications to the building configuration presented at the hearing, prior to the Board rendering a decision on the Application, and that the Board would not accept in lieu of such a revised Certified Plot Plan annotations to the previously-submitted Plot Plan made at the hearing by the Applicant. The Applicant, after a short recess, said he would adhere to the original plan, as reflected on the Certified Plot Plan, in the interest of time and at the request of the current property owners who wanted a decision made this evening. An architectural rendering of the proposed dwelling, matching the footprint depicted on Certified Plot Plan was introduced and submitted by the Applicant. The Board accepted and referenced this, newly introduced architectural rendering. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Damase Caouette, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted the Applicant a Special Permit under Section 6.3.8 of the zoning bylaws in order to allow the demolition of the current single-family dwelling on the lot and to replace it with a new single-family, colonial style, two-story dwelling with an attached two-car garage as depicted on the referenced Plot Plan dated March 10, 2011 submitted with the application and as shown on the referenced architectural rendering dated April 4, 2011 presented by the Applicant at the hearing. This Special Permit is conditioned upon the following: 1. The Petitioner shall submit to the Building Inspector a Certified Plot Plan of the proposed construction and proposed foundation plans, prior to the issuance of a foundation permit for the work. 2. The Petitioner's final construction plans for the new structure shall be - submitted to the Building Inspector, along with the as-built foundation plan(s), prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 3. As-built plans showing the completed construction shall be submitted to the Building Inspector immediately after the work is completed and prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit. The vote was 5-0-0 (Caouette, Jarema, Petschek, Redfern, Cataldo). Other Business Case #10-01244 R Ash Street The Applicants are requesting that the Board grant a six-month extension of the Variance granted on May 20, 2010. Attorney Josh Latham represented the owners and reviewed the history of the property. The winter delayed construction and the Applicant is requesting a six-month extension of the original Variance. The Board members were in agreement with granting the extension. 2 On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Kristin Cataldo, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted the requested six-month extension to the Case No. 10-01 Variance until November 20, 2011. Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema, Petschek, Redfern, Miles, Cataldo). Discussion of Special Permit Modification This modification relates to the ZBA Decision for Case 906-28, 215 Franklin Street. Town Counsel said this would need to be submitted as a modification and be advertised. Mr. Redfern stated Section 6.3.8.1 of the current By-laws was confusing. Section a. states that the Building Inspector may issue a Building Permit for the demolition and replacement of a single or two-family dwelling that is non-conforming with respect to lot size and/or frontage, if such reconstruction complies with all current dimensional controls. Section b. states that if the proposed replacement structure exceeds the volume or area of the original dwelling or if the proposed structure is located other than on the original structure's footprint, a Special Permit is required. It is Mr. Redfern's opinion these two sections of the By-law contradict each other. Minutes On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by John Miles, the Zoning Board of Appeals accepted the minutes of March 17, 2011 with changes. The vote was 5-0-0 (Caouette, Jarema, Petschek, Redfern, Miles,). Adjournment On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Damase Caouette, the Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned the meeting. The vote was 6-0-0 (Caouette, Jarema, Petschek, Redfern, Miles, Cataldo). espectful: h' JMt~' n 1V Recording 3