Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-12-05 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTown of Reading Meeting Minutes low� �Lrw� DECEIVED i OWN CLERK :O NG, MASS. Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Zoning Board of Appeals Date: 2013 -12 -05 Building: Reading Town Hall Address: 16 Lowell Street Purpose: General Business Attendees: Members - Present: Damase Caouette, Chair Robert Redfern John Jarema Erik Hagstrom David Traniello Kathleen Hackett John Miles Members - Not Present: Glen Redmond Others Present: a L6 12 P 3- 22 Time: 7:00 PM Location: Selectmen Meeting Room Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Maureen M. Knight, Recording Secretary Topics of Discussion: CASE # 13 -12 A Public Hearing on the petition of Alice Beltran who seeks a Variance under Section 4.2.1 of the zoning bylaws in order to modify a Variance granted on December 17, 1957 in order to use the existing cottage for the use of a dwelling on the property located at 29 Gardner Road in Reading, Massachusetts. Attorney Michael Osbourne represented Alice Beltran. Attorney Osbourne summarized the 1957 variance that was granted the previous owner and that was limited to the owner's lifetime. From 1957 the cottage has been used as a secondary dwelling. Building permits have been issued for this cottage over the years. Ms. Beltran wants to continue the use of this cottage as a secondary dwelling. Her in -laws presently live in this cottage. Attorney Osbourne said it would be a financial hardship if Ms. Beltran could not use this structure as a secondary dwelling. He listed the reasons why he thought there was a simple solution and that was to determine that the 1957 variance was granted to the property and not the owner as was actually done. He then presented what he thought were the criteria needed to grant a new variance. Attorney Osbourne reviewed the history and granting of the variance, modification, and subsequent appeals. He asked for the discretion of the Board in order to resolve this issue. He Page 1 1 INCO VO Town of Reading Meeting Minutes low� �Lrw� DECEIVED i OWN CLERK :O NG, MASS. Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Zoning Board of Appeals Date: 2013 -12 -05 Building: Reading Town Hall Address: 16 Lowell Street Purpose: General Business Attendees: Members - Present: Damase Caouette, Chair Robert Redfern John Jarema Erik Hagstrom David Traniello Kathleen Hackett John Miles Members - Not Present: Glen Redmond Others Present: a L6 12 P 3- 22 Time: 7:00 PM Location: Selectmen Meeting Room Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Maureen M. Knight, Recording Secretary Topics of Discussion: CASE # 13 -12 A Public Hearing on the petition of Alice Beltran who seeks a Variance under Section 4.2.1 of the zoning bylaws in order to modify a Variance granted on December 17, 1957 in order to use the existing cottage for the use of a dwelling on the property located at 29 Gardner Road in Reading, Massachusetts. Attorney Michael Osbourne represented Alice Beltran. Attorney Osbourne summarized the 1957 variance that was granted the previous owner and that was limited to the owner's lifetime. From 1957 the cottage has been used as a secondary dwelling. Building permits have been issued for this cottage over the years. Ms. Beltran wants to continue the use of this cottage as a secondary dwelling. Her in -laws presently live in this cottage. Attorney Osbourne said it would be a financial hardship if Ms. Beltran could not use this structure as a secondary dwelling. He listed the reasons why he thought there was a simple solution and that was to determine that the 1957 variance was granted to the property and not the owner as was actually done. He then presented what he thought were the criteria needed to grant a new variance. Attorney Osbourne reviewed the history and granting of the variance, modification, and subsequent appeals. He asked for the discretion of the Board in order to resolve this issue. He Page 1 1 stated there would not be any tenants but only Ms. Beltran's in -laws who would live there. He felt that since the Town has continuously granted permits in the past that this would negate the Board's authority to disallow this request from Ms. Beltran. At the Chairman's request, Attorney Osbourne said contrary to Town Counsel's opinion, he felt the language used in Town Counsel's opinion does not support any authority of the Board to not allow this requested modification to the 1957 variance. The Chairman referred to the submitted memo by the Building Inspector who was not able to attend this meeting. Mr. Traniello said the Board was trying to recreate history of a 1957 decision and decide what the intent of that decision was. Town Counsel advised the Board that the Huntington case was what the Board could base their decision on. Mr. Traniello said the Applicant is asking for something that is not allowed so perhaps a new application for a variance might be the best course of action. Mr. Traniello said that the 1957 decision was not in effect at this time and he asked if this use would be allowable now and Attorney Osbourne said he could not answer that at this time. Ms. Hackett asked if Attorney Osbourne would speak more to what Town Counsel had said about the Huntington case. Attorney Osbourne did not agree with what Town Counsel said about the Huntington case and Attorney Osbourne did not support the reasoning. He wanted the condition of the variance removed and to change the variance to the property as opposed to the original owner's lifetime. John Jarema asked if all Attorney Osbourne was asking for was a modification of the variance and Attorney Osbourne said that was all he was asking for at this moment. He also said he did not know what the zoning laws were in 1957 and was unable to find out. Mr. Jarema said the condition was granted on personal hardship and did not run with the property. Mr. Jarema said the Board must have been aware that no one could have 2 residences on the same lot in 1957 and said that was probably why they granted the variance only upon the personal hardship of the owner, knowing the variance would end upon his death and not continue on for the property. Mr. Jarema said if they granted the modification the Board would just be creating even more of a problem. Robert Redfern said he agrees with Mr. Jarema and said most of the time the Board tries to find a compromise of some sort to assist the Applicant and the only thing requested tonight was just a modification to the 1957 variance. This variance was meant only to last the lifetime of the owner. It was the only tool at that time that the Board had to grant relief to the Applicant. And at this time there are no rules to grant a modification to this variance from 1957. Mr. Redfern said the Board looked to Town Counsel for guidance. Erik Hagstrom said the understanding is that in order to modify this variance it means that it must still be in effect and he did not think it was still in effect at this time, but instead died along with the owner. John Miles asked Ms. Beltran if the Building Inspector had advised her of the variance. Ms. Beltran said some type of letter had been sent to her previous attorney but she had not been sent any letter. Damase Caouette said they all wanted closure of some kind and since there were no abutters present this situation must not be a problem to the neighbors. This situation does not clearly fit Page 1 2 any criteria of an accessory apartment. He said there clearly was a feeling after the comments that the other members are reluctant to grant the modification. John Jarema said the Board should make a decision tonight because there is really nowhere else for the Board to go. There might be other alternatives and Attorney Osbourne could pursue them with the Building Inspector. Robert Redfern said they might consider requesting withdrawal without prejudice but Attorney Osbourne wanted a vote taken. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to unanimously deny the Applicant's request to modify the original Variance granted on December 17, 1957 in order to use the existing cottage as a separate apartment or accessory building to the principal dwelling on the property. This decision does not preclude the Applicant from submitting an application for a new Variance for an accessory apartment at the property. The vote was 0 -5 -0 (Traniello, Hackett, Jarema, Caouette, and Redfern). Case # 13 -22 A Public Hearing on the petition of Rex Ingram who seeks a Variance /Special Permit under Section(s) 4.3.2.8.2.A /6.3.8.1.B of the zoning bylaws in order to demolish an existing single family dwelling and propose to construct a new single family dwelling with an accessory apartment on the property located at 63 Whittier Road in Reading, Massachusetts. Rex Ingram is representing the Fields and their son Mark Fields and his family. Mr. Ingram reviewed what they are asking for and gave a description of the property and the history of the house. The Fields have lived in the house since 1969. Mark and his family want to move back to Reading with his parents and that is why they want to demolish the present dwelling and rebuild a larger one of 2,800 square feet that contains an accessory apartment. He said the new dwelling will meet all zoning bylaws and will fit well in the neighborhood. Mr. Ingram reviewed what he thought were sufficient criteria for the granting of this Variance. John Miles said five years from now they might all move away and now there is a rental unit within the dwelling. Erik Hagstrom said the Variance would not be needed if they just built an addition. Robert Redfern said the current dwelling does not meet frontage or area requirements. The new dwelling will meet all the current zoning requirements. The dwelling now encroaches into Town easements but the new layout will miss the easement and there would be no new conformities. John Jarema said first there would need to be a Special Permit to build the new dwelling. After that, the Board would need to consider a Variance. He explained the definition of accessory apartments and how you need ingress and egress for one. It also was decided in 1982 that from that time on, if you were building a new house you could not include an accessory apartment. The Chairman read the letter from the Building Inspector with his opinion: he did not have any concerns with the building of the new house, but the inclusion of an accessory apartment is not allowed in the zoning bylaws. John Jarema said a condition could be that if the property were sold, the purchaser would have to apply for a new Special Permit for the accessory apartment. Page 1 3 Joseph Fields, owner, said this would be helpful for the whole family. Marie Fields, owner, said this would be helpful for the family. Mark Fields, son of the owners, said the egress and ingress have been discussed with the Building Inspector and this would be very good for the family. Bruce Bennett of 59 Whittier Road voiced his approval of the project. Dennis DeBenedetto of 66 Whittier Road voiced his approval of the project. Barbara Mulvey of 77 Whittier voiced her approval of the project. John Jarema had questions about the tandem parking situation and how it might become an issue in the future. On a motion by Kathleen Hackett, seconded by David Traniello, the Zoning Board of Appeals made a motion to grant the Applicant a Special Permit under Section 6.3.8.1b of the zoning bylaws in order to demolish an existing single family dwelling and to construct a new single family dwelling on the property. 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 Redfern, (Traniello, Hackett, Jarema, Caouette, Redfern). On a motion by Kathleen Hackett, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals made a motion under Section 4.3.2.8.2a of the zoning bylaws in. order to grant the Applicant a Variance in order to construct a new single family dwelling with an accessory apartment on the property located at 63 Whittier Road as reflected and consistent with the Plot Plan and architectural drawings, AO through A7, prepared by Ingram Architects, 29 Carlton Street, Salem, MA, and stamped by Rex W. Ingram, Professional Architect, dated October 15, 2013. A condition of the Board's approval shall be that if there is a change in the occupancy of the accessory apartment, the Board must be notified. The vote was 5 -0 -0 Redfern, (Traniello, Hackett, Jarema, Caouette, and Redfern). On a motion by Kathleen Hackett, seconded by David Traniello, the Zoning Board of Appeals made a motion to grant the Applicant a Special Permit for an accessory apartment pursuant to the Variance granted by the Board on December 5, 2013 on the property located at 63 Whittier Road, Reading. Page 1 4 The vote was 5 -0 -0 Redfern, (Traniello, Hackett, Jarema, Caouette, and Redfern). Other Business — Report on the Zoning Advisory Committee David Traniello said the ZAC is making great progress and have scheduled 4 public forums and the first one was very successful. They met last night and went over the feed -back and incorporated it into what they will be working on. He said Jean Delios and Jessie Wilson have been a great help to the Committee. The members have asked the consultant to scale back the amount of information being sought in order to modify the master plan to take into account new accessory use that is becoming more common with different generations of families wanting to live together. They will continue to ask for feed -back from the community as well as the voices of town meeting. There is a link on the Town website to the consultant's website. Adjournment On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by John Miles, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting. The vote was 7 -0 -0 Redfern, (Traniello, Hackett, Jarema, Caouette, Redfern, Miles, and Hagstrom). Page 1 5