Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-07-10 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTopics of Discussion:
Case # 14 -12
A Public Hearing on the petition of Thomas Wise who seeks a Variance and a Special Permit
under Section(s) 4.3.2.8.2.b / 4.3.2.8 of the zoning bylaws in order to add an addition to the
existing single family dwelling and to create an accessory apartment as per plans submitted on
the property located at 181 South Street in Reading, Massachusetts.
Attorney Michael Conway presented the case for the Applicants and reviewed the past hearing
for a proposal that was presented and then withdrawn without prejudice by the Applicants.
Attorney Conway said a new plot plan was submitted and the addition now meets all setbacks.
The addition doorway has been moved to the side and is now not visible and the addition now
looks just like just part of an ordinary home in this neighborhood and is not significantly larger.
Attorney Conway said he did not think a Variance was required. He also discussed areas he
thought were misinterpreted areas of the bylaws by the Board as they related to his client's
previous application. He discussed 2 (two) previous cases that he thought set precedence for his
client's application. Attorney Conway said he thought the proposed zoning changes, if they went
through, would make this application not necessary.
The Building Inspector said the apartment is supposed to be part of the existing dwelling and in
this case the accessory apartment is being put into the new addition. But the addition complies
and they can build that without an accessory apartment but they want it in the new addition. The
addition can have as many bedrooms and baths but not a kitchen that triggers the accessory
apartment bylaws.
Mr. Traniello asked how this petition differs from the earlier petition submitted
Page i 1
LRa
Town of Reading
,
a
Meeting Minutes
'-RECEIYED
�P�"�`°`
TOWN CLERK
"
FADING. MASS.
_0
Board - committee - commission - council:
Zoning Board of Appeals
1aIM Ali 12 P Olt 1
Date: 2014 -07 -10 Time:
7:00 PM
Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Selectmen Meeting Room
Address: 16 Lowell Street
Purpose: General Business
Attendees: Members - Present:
Chairman Robert Redfern, Damase Caouette, Erik Hagstrom, David
Traniello, John Jarema
Members - Not Present:
Kathleen Hackett
Others Present:
Building Inspector Glen Redmond
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Maureen Knight
on behalf of Damage Caouette
Topics of Discussion:
Case # 14 -12
A Public Hearing on the petition of Thomas Wise who seeks a Variance and a Special Permit
under Section(s) 4.3.2.8.2.b / 4.3.2.8 of the zoning bylaws in order to add an addition to the
existing single family dwelling and to create an accessory apartment as per plans submitted on
the property located at 181 South Street in Reading, Massachusetts.
Attorney Michael Conway presented the case for the Applicants and reviewed the past hearing
for a proposal that was presented and then withdrawn without prejudice by the Applicants.
Attorney Conway said a new plot plan was submitted and the addition now meets all setbacks.
The addition doorway has been moved to the side and is now not visible and the addition now
looks just like just part of an ordinary home in this neighborhood and is not significantly larger.
Attorney Conway said he did not think a Variance was required. He also discussed areas he
thought were misinterpreted areas of the bylaws by the Board as they related to his client's
previous application. He discussed 2 (two) previous cases that he thought set precedence for his
client's application. Attorney Conway said he thought the proposed zoning changes, if they went
through, would make this application not necessary.
The Building Inspector said the apartment is supposed to be part of the existing dwelling and in
this case the accessory apartment is being put into the new addition. But the addition complies
and they can build that without an accessory apartment but they want it in the new addition. The
addition can have as many bedrooms and baths but not a kitchen that triggers the accessory
apartment bylaws.
Mr. Traniello asked how this petition differs from the earlier petition submitted
Page i 1
Town of Reading
Meeting Minutes
'rmvoxv��
Mr. Wise said the families each wanted their own space and he presented the changes that they
made in the new application that they thought would accomplish this.
Mr. Traniello reviewed what took place at the hearing for the first application and he also talked
about what the intent of the present bylaws were in regards to accessory apartments and that was
to limit the number of multi -unit buildings in the town. This may or may not change in the future
but at the moment the present bylaws are still in effect. Mr. Traniello also had questions about
Mr. Wise's reference to some of the assessor's field cards. He asked Mr. Wise to clarify some
statements he made referring to the bylaw.
Mr. Jarema said there have not been any two cases that were alike with the exception of tear-
downs and rebuilds. He said precedence does not determine outcome in any case. In 1982 the
purpose of the bylaw was to not create an open market on turning homes into two - family
dwellings in single- family zones. He also had questions about the validity of the equations that
were submitted for the petition.
Mr. Caouette commented on the large amount of work put into this application. He also asked
Attorney Conway why he thought this house was eligible for an accessory apartment. Mr.
Caouette also questioned the information that was just submitted this evening to the Board by an
abutter's attorney that the Board did not have the opportunity to review.
Mr. Hagstrom had questions about the square footage and commented that the basement area
was not included in the area calculations even though the basement was livable area.
The Chairman said the bylaw criteria states the area of the house for the accessory apartment
shall have been legally occupied prior to 1982, and in this case, the accessory apartment is a new
addition. Once the 10% affordable housing goal for the Town is reached no more accessory
apartments will be allowed.
Attorney Kenneth Demount, representing direct abutters Michael and Lee Ann Webb, presented
his client's objections for a Variance or a Special Permit to be granted because they oppose the
new driveway and the taking down of a tree that their house directly abuts. He presented his
client's arguments to the Board for why these permits should not be granted.
Attorney Conway responded to the remarks made by Attorney Demoura.
Gary Juffre, an abutter, gave his approval of the project.
Mr. Wise reviewed gross and net calculations and how they differ and he reviewed these
calculations for his proposal. Attorney Demoura disputed Mr. Wise's calculations and
interpretation as to how area is to be calculated.
Page 1 2
iR 40
Town of Reading
Meeting Minutes
RJ9 +IMfOR�
Mr. Jarema said the only person who can really determine area is the Building Inspector and that
is done by his actual inspection and resultant calculations.
The Building Inspector said the enclosed porch would be counted and he would have to see the
basement to determine how much of the basement area was livable space. He said this issue is
minor compared to other areas of the proposal.
Mr. Traniello reviewed the area of the bylaw regarding parking requirements for an accessory
apartment and said he thinks it applies to additional parking and not the parking that has always
been there.
Attorney Conway asked for a brief recess so he could have a discussion with the Applicants and
then they returned to the meeting.
Mr. Caouette reviewed exactly what the Board should be considering and not considering
regarding the proposal so everyone is clear.
There was considerable discussion regarding relief from Subsection E of the Accessory
Apartment Bylaw and the Building Inspector wanted the Board to specifically address this
because he had a valid concern that maybe this was not addressed.
Attorney Conway asked for another brief recess so he could have a discussion with the
Applicants and then they returned.
Attorney Conway said his client wanted to withdraw his application without prejudice.
On a motion by Erik Hagstrom, seconded by David Traniello, the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to withdraw the motion for a vote that was on the floor.
The vote was 5 -0 -0 (Hagstrom, Redfern, Caouette, Traniello, Jarema).
On a motion by David Traniello, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to accept the Applicants request to withdraw without prejudice.
The vote was 5 -0 -0 (Hagstrom, Redfern, Caouette, Traniello, Jarema)
Minutes
On a motion by Damase Caouette, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to approve the minutes of May 15, 2014.
The vote was 5 -0 -0 (Hagstrom, Redfem, Caouette, Traniello, Internal.
Page 1 3
�y OiR
° Town of Reading
.i� Meeting Minutes
On a motion by David Traniello, seconded by Erik Hagstrom, the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to approve the minutes of May 22, 2014.
The vote was 5 -0 -0 (Hagstrom, Redfem, Caouette, Traniello, Jarema).
On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by David Traniello, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to approve the minutes of June 19, 2014.
The vote was 5 -0 -0 (Hagstrom, Redfem, Caouette, Traniello, Jarema).
Other Business:
ZAC Report
David Traniello said the recent draft section was changed significantly so we will have his report
on the next scheduled meeting on August 17 and he will make sure the Board receives this
update very soon. The draft will be presented to the BOS next Thursday but the ZBA will have
time to make any comments before it is finalized.
Adjournment
On a motion by David Traniello, seconded by Damase Caouette, the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to adjourn the meeting.
The vote was 5 -0 -0 (Hagstrom, Redfem, Caouette, Traniello, Jarema).
Page 1 4