Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-06-19 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesZBA Meeting 06 -19 -14 Members Present: Damase Caouette Robert Redfern John Jarema Erik Hagstrom Kathleen Hackett David Traniello Glen Redmond Members Absent: John Miles Case # 14 -09 [um CLeRv, RECEIVED IOpING. MASS. 1014 JuL Is P0 33 A Public Hearing on the petition of Dr. Fred Ravens who seeks a Special Permit under Section(s) 6.3.3 / 6.3.3.2 of the zoning bylaws in order to add a one story addition to the existing non- conforming structure for use as a dental office, as per plans submitted, on the property located at 198 -202 Ash Street in Reading, Massachusetts. Nancy Toomey presented the proposal to the Board for this commercial non - conforming project that needs a Special Permit. It is a conforming addition to be added on the side of the building. Dr. Ravens is looking to expand the first floor to increase patient and staff space. He has been granted a site plan review by the CPDC. The Building Inspector said if the building was conforming they would not need to come before the ZBA. It was a very typical addition otherwise. Mr. Traniello asked if they have combined two parcels and Ms. Toomey said it was granted by site plan approval and the CPDC approved the merging of the two lots as an ANR. Mr. Jarema had some questions about the setbacks that Ms. Toomey explained from the site plan. Mr. Redfern said it doesn't create any new non - conformity and was not detrimental to the neighborhood. He had no issues with the proposal. Mr. Caouette said he had no issues with the proposal either. There were no comments from anyone present. On a motion by Kathleen Hackett, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the Applicant's request for a Special Permit under Sections 6.3.3/6.3.3.2 of the zoning bylaws in order to add a one story addition to the existing non - conforming structure as a dental office on the property as shown on the referenced Plot Plan of Land and Architectural Drawings. The 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 (Hackett, Traniello, Jarema, Caouette, Redfern) Case# 14 -10 A Public Hearing on the petition of Michael & Tammy Tine who seek a Special Permit under Section(s) 4.3.2.8 of the zoning bylaws in order to continue the use of an accessory apartment in an existing single family dwelling on the property located at 337 Ash Street in Reading, Massachusetts. Mike Tine and his wife were present and he presented the proposal. They purchased the home from his parents and they did not know one of the apartments was not a legal accessory apartment and that is what they are asking for: to continue the same use with no changes to the dwelling. Erik Hagstrom said they seem to have occupied this dwelling for a long time but the accessory apartment should not exceed 1/3 of the total dwelling. The Board discussed what the requirements were and that the building inspector would determine the overall space involved by inspecting the actual dwelling. The Building Inspector said he inspected the property and the basement is a finished area. He questioned what existed before 1982 and it is not known when the basement was finished. There was never anything granted whether by him or previous Building Inspectors. Mr. Tine said the basement was finished at least 35 or so years ago by his memory and photographs. He said he vacated the tenant that was there so they could get zoning board approval for the legal use of this unit. Mr. Jarema said there were no accessory apartments back in the 70's so there should have been approval back then by the Building Inspector to change the one family dwelling to a two family dwelling and this was not shown on documents. Mr. Tine said the basement has very old asbestos green and white tile for flooring that he has just covered over with carpeting. Mr. Tine said he wanted to have his cousin move in but he wanted to be sure it was legal before he did that. There was a discussion as to whether a certified plot plan should be submitted. Mr. Redfern agreed but the Building Inspector said he did not always think it was required. Mr. Tine asked his previous tenant to leave and when he did this tenant notified the Town that this was not a legal accessory apartment. The Building Inspector said with a Building Permit they could make the basement part of the original one - family dwelling again and use the smaller area that meets the area requirement off to the side as an accessory apartment. He said he did not know when the remodel to two units was done. He also said he thought it was up to the Applicant to present plans with measurements by an architect. There was also a discussion about how engineering determines street addresses for a one family dwelling with an accessory apartment. The Building Inspector said he told the Applicant he was not happy with the plans that he submitted. Mr. Redfern said the question is: does the unit meet the requirements for an accessory apartment. If the Building Inspector is satisfied with the criteria as an accessory apartment then he would support that. There were no comments from the public. On a motion by Erik Hagstrom, seconded by David Traniello, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to approve the petition for a Special Permit under Section 4.3.2.8.2 of the zoning bylaws in order to recognize an existing accessory apartment located within a single family dwelling on the property. The Special Permit is conditioned upon the following: 1. The Petitioner successfully passes a final inspection by the Building Inspector for the conversion of the second accessory apartment located in the basement back to a singlr family dwelling space/ The vote was 4 -1 -0 (Hackett, Traniello, Caouette and Redfern in favor; Jarema opposed). Case # 14 -11 A Public Hearing on the petition of Pierpaolo Polverari who seeks a Special Permit under Section(s) 6.3.3 / 6.3.8 of the zoning bylaws in order to remove an existing non - conforming 13' x 14' one -story structure and request permission to construct a new 14' x 29' two -story structure located 12.6' from the property line on the property located at 47 Summer Avenue in Reading, Massachusetts. Pierpaolo Polverari presented his proposal to the Board for the demolition of a non - conforming one -story structure and the building of a new two -story structure. The Applicant explained that the proposed new two -story structure would contain a family room on the first floor and a master bedroom on the second floor. He explained that the request for a Special Permit would not increase the non - conformity as the proposed structure would still maintain the existing 12.6' side yard setback. The Building Inspector said Special Permit approval is needed to build the new structure. But other than the 12.6' setback it will be conforming in all ways. The Board reviewed the history of the property as shown by the assessor's cards. Mr. Redfern said the two -story addition is more detrimental to the abutters than the one story. He thought perhaps the applicant could reconfigure the design. If he met the 15' setback he would not need a special permit from the Board. He said he could not support this request. The Applicant said they need to install stairs and that caused the necessity for the 12.6' setback instead of the required 15' setback. He said the neighbor's house is probably about 20' from this proposed structure. Mr. Traniello said he does not see anything in the drawings that gives any height measurements and they need to be sure that the structure does not exceed the height restriction. He did a rough estimate and said it is well within the height restriction. Mr. Redfern said it is going from something 9' tall to something 23' tall. Mr. Hagstrom said based on the drawings it appears to be in line with the rest of the house. And he said there was no one here to question the proposal. Mr. Jarema said the second floor height appears to be much higher but the Applicant said it is 8 feet. There was no public comment. The Board offered options to the Applicant that would enable him to meet the 15' setback so he would not even require a Special Permit. The Board spent a considerable amount of time examining the voting and appeals process as well as board members abstaining and how that affects the chain of command in the voting process. All members felt they had enough information to proceed with the vote except for Mr. Jarema. He outlined the additional information he felt was necessary in order for him to vote. Mr. Traniello explained clearly to the Applicant what his rights and options were. The Applicant said he wished the Board to continue with the vote. On a motion by David Traniello, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the Applicant a Special Permit under Sections 6.3.3.2 and 6.3.8.1(6) of the zoning bylaws in order to remove the existing non - conforming 13' x 14' one -story structure and to construct a new 14' x 29' two -story structure located 12.6 from the side yard property line on the property. The 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 4 -1 -0 (Hackett, Traniello, Jarema, Caouette in favor, Redfern (opposed). Other Business Board Reorganization On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Damase Caouette, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to elect Robert Redfern as the new Chairman of the Board. The vote was 6 -0 -0 (Hackett, Traniello, Jarema, Caouette, Redfern, Hagstrom). On a motion by Kathleen Hackett, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to elect David Traniello as the new Vice Chairman of the Board. The vote was 6 -0 -0 (Hackett, Traniello, Jarema, Caouette, Redfern, Hagstrom). Comments The Board thanked Mr. Caouette for his dedication to the Board for the last two years as Chairman. Mr. Caouette thanked John Miles who was leaving the Board for all his hard work as a member. Discuss "Findings" The Recording Secretary and the Board discussed `findings" and how they were handled. All were in agreement that the proper procedure was being adhered to. Adjournment On a motion by David Traniello, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting. The vote was 6 -0 -0 (Hackett, Traniello, Jarema, Caouette, Redfern, Hagstrom).