HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-03-06 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes� Clrn?�4
Town of Reading ((( (��� LER
Meeting Minutes
tkECEIVED
i OWN CLER�K``�C^
�DINGr MASS.
Board - Committee - Commission - Council:
Zoning Board of Appeals 1'I APR —Q P 5�
Date: 2014 -03 -06 Time: 7:00 PM
Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Selectmen Meeting Room
Address: 16 Lowell Street
Purpose: General Business
Attendees: Members - Present:
Chairman Damase Caouette, John Miles, John Jarema, Robert Redfern, Erik
Hagstrom
Members - Not Present:
Kathleen Hackett, David Traniello
Others Present:
Building Inspector Glen Redmond
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Maureen Knight on behalf of Damase Caouette
Topics of Discussion:
Case # 14 -05
A Public Hearing on the petition of Peter Gillies who seeks a Special Permit under Section(s)
6.3.3 / 6.3.3.2 of the zoning bylaws in order to renovate the third floor of a multiple family
dwelling on the property located at 17 Sanborn Street in Reading, Massachusetts. This property
is located in a Business "B" District and residential uses are not allowed.
Robyn Parker, Architect, presented the case for owner Peter Gillies. She presented the proposal
to the Board and explained they need to provide a second egress for the unit in the attic and put
in a dormer. They are keeping the setback requirements. They will keep the five units that
currently exist in the building and they are not adding another unit.
The Chairman asked how long the building had been a five unit building. Mr. Gillies said he has
owned the building for 2 years and it was five units when he bought it. He said when he heard
the attic unit did not have a second means of egress he did not rent that unit out due to safety
concerns.
The Building Inspector said a dormer was being added and that changed the roof line. Because of
this, approval from the Board for a Special Permit was required from the Board to determine if it
could be done. He said the proposed means of egress are better than what is there now. There is
an odd layout upstairs and you need to get in the stairway and step down to get to the bathroom
for the attic unit.
John Jarema said the assessor's card did not show how this building went from a one family to a
five family and there were a lot of inconsistencies. He especially wanted to know when it was
converted. He said he looked at the Assessor notes and it looked like it was some time after
Page I 1
1995. It was converted back in the middle 80's but there are no building permits taking the
building from a two to a five unit building.
Mr. Jarema asked the Building Inspector about the annual Certificate of Inspection and the
Building Inspector said three family dwelling should be getting this inspection but he said there
are a number of these dwellings that have not yet been receiving these inspections.
Mr. Jarema also said there is a voting list of who lives where and when you look through them
over the years it appears that all through 1995 there was only 2 people living at that address that
were registered voters. The assessor's card said it has been converted without building permits,
therefore an illegal conversion. The assessor's card also does not list anywhere that there are five
units in the building, only up to 4 units.
Mr. Jarema was concerned with when did all this happen and he wondered where the Board is
going with this. When dwellings are inspected by the Assessor's office all the assessor lists is
what they see upon inspection. They are not concerned about whether building permits were
issued. They tax on what they see. He thinks there are only 2 legal units regardless of what is
listed. He does not know how to legalize something that is not supposed to be there. He
questions the soundness of the structure and the electrical and plumbing that is in this building
and does not feel like he can put his stamp of approval on this proposal.
Mr. Redfern said listening to the Building Inspector it sounded like if the Applicant was not
putting in the dormer they would not need to get a Special Permit. The Building Inspector said
the construction on the top floor was very old and it might have been part of a lower floor unit
and they converted to a five unit later. There are discrepancies in the number of units throughout
the assessor's cards. Mr. Redfern said he did not really have an issue with the dwelling- being
considered an existing five unit building.
Mr. Hagstrom said when people buy a property he always advises them to check with
inspectional services to see what it is listed as and what is the use that has to be maintained on a
property no matter how it may have been used in the past. It raises a question whether the
proposal increases the non - conformity.
Mr. Miles asked if the town goes in to check if these units were built properly because they did
not take out permits and therefore no town inspections were done either.
The Building Inspector said people come to the building department and want a certificate
stating that the building is a legal two family or three or whatever. Often there is nothing
submitted to the Town in the way of permits. He said testimony from past neighbors sometimes
helps in a petition to the Zoning Board but it is not up to him to make a determination as to the
amount of units there are in a dwelling.
The Chairman said it is hard to go through the history of an older building. The Board is being
asked to determine if they can give permission to make alterations. If adding extra egress and the
dormer are going to make it better than what is there it is an improvement. Does it extend the
non - conformity is a grey area. He felt comfortable dealing with just what is being asked for by
the applicant.
Mr. Jarema said his concern is the apparent illegal conversion that took place without permits or
inspections. He did not think that the fifth unit was an appropriate unit. He also had questions
about whether there was sufficient parking for the building. There are only six parking spaces but
Ms. Parker said there is a green space that can be used to park one more vehicle.
Page 1 2
F�7
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Erik Hagstrom, the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to grant the Applicant's request for a Special Permit under Section 6.3.3.2 of the Zoning
Bylaws in order to permit the renovation of the existing non - conforming multi - family dwelling
on the property as shown on the Plot Plan and in general conformance wit4 the architectural
plans submitted.
The motion was approved by a vote of 4 -1 -0 (In favor: Caouette, Redfern, Hagstrom, Miles;
Opposed: Jarema).
Adjournment
On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to adjourn the meeting.
The vote was 5 -0 -0 (Caouette, Redfern, Miles, Hagstrom, Jarema).
Page 1 3