TOWN OF REDDING
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2005—8:00 P.M.
TOWN HALL HEARING ROOM
PRESENT: Philip Bronson, Chairman; Mike Cardillo; Beth Williams; Andrea Cotton; Heloise Fahan, Alternate for Robert Morton
The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m.
The following application was heard:
0205-01: Florio Osario, Owner, 7 Main Street—request variance of Sec. 4.6, reduce front yard setback from 5 feet to 6 inches for a terrace; Sec.4.6, reduce rear yard setback from 15 feet to 11 feet for mechanical equipment and exit stairs to basement.
Doug Macmillan, architect for Mr. Osario, presented his application to the board. The original variance for 5 feet was granted 6 years ago, to a different property owner. Mr. Macmillan began by explaining that a patio/planting bed area was planned for the front entrance area of the building. The distance from the building to the main property line is 4 feet 7 inches; this area is where the planting bed is proposed, taking up an approximate 2 foot area. This will afford enough room for sidewalk area as well.
Jerry Ross, from the Conservation Commission wrote a letter, which was read into the record, expressing concern over the construction’s impact on a recently acquired parcel of land intended for use as a park area, adjacent to this property, and separated by a brook, behind the building.
Mr. Macmillan is also planning for mechanical equipment (air conditioning unit, air compressor) to be installed. Location of 6 parking spaces and a handicapped access ramp limits putting the mechanical equipment next to the building. One suggestion was for the mechanical equipment to be installed on the roof area and boxed in. Because of their size, the pieces of equipment are considered structures and require a variance if they are located within any setback. However, if they are located on the roof, within the building’s existing foot print, no variance is required.
Jeff Andrews, a property owner in Georgetown, clarified some parking issues for the board.
Nancy Silverman, owner of the Georgetown Saloon located on Main Street, asked if the patio area would be a place where drinks could be brought out or a smoking area. Mr. Macmillan said that drinks would not be brought out and the smoking issue is something hard to control as it is an outside area near to a public sidewalk.
Mr. Ross expressed concern about the masonry wall located behind the building, and what additional screening or fencing would be installed to lessen the impact to the park area. Mr. Macmillan assured him that the wall will act as a barrier between the properties. Another concern is if the mechanical equipment is installed in that area that there be minimal noise and visual impact. The intention is to alter the topography so as to utilize it to hide the equipment, by either lowering the grade or making it higher. Some picket type fencing was suggested type install over the wall.
ZBA, 2/15/2005
Minutes, p. 2
The board had some concern with regard to the entrance french doors, and if there was sufficient clearance. Mr. Macmillan assured them that one of the doors will be a nonworking, fixed shut door. He also stated everything was according to code and approved by the building inspector.
There was a motion to enter deliberative session. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously at 9:09 p.m.
After careful consideration and discussion, the following motion was made:
Grant a variance on the raised planting bed no closer than 4 feet;
Grant front entrance variance no closer than 2 feet with platform and stairs without a patio;
Grant variance for rear setback no closer than 11 feet with a fence on top of the stone wall to be 12 inches higher than the tallest piece of mechanical equipment. The fence will wrap around for 8 feet to block the stairway from the pathway leading into the new park area, based on the unusual circumstances of the Georgetown Development Plan.
The motion was seconded and carried unanimously.
The motion to exit deliberative session was made, seconded and carried unanimously at 9:20 p.m.
The motion to adjourn was made, seconded and carried unanimously at 9:21 p.m.
These minutes have not been approved by the ZBA.
Submitted by vaz, 2/17/2005
| 
