HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-06-02 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesFR
c Town of Reading
+ Meeting Minutes
M� �p
J6J9e /NCOR�PF
Board - Committee - Commission - Council:
Zoning Board of Appeals
Date: 2016 -06 -02
Building: Reading Town Hall
Address: 16 Lowell Street
Purpose: General Business
Attendees: Members - Present:
I EIVI D 6r!
I!iz. MASS.
Jalb J'J'- 13 P 33
Time: 7:00 PM
Location: Selectmen Meeting Room
Session: General Session
Robert Redfern, Chairman; David Traniello, John Jarema,
Damas Caouette, Erik Hagstrom, Nick Pernice
Members - Not Present:
Kathleen Hackett
Others Present:
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Kim Saunders on behalf of Robert Redfern
Topics of Discussion:
Mr. Redfern opened the meeting at 7:01 p.m.
Case # 16 -11
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on the petition of Arborgreen Inc. who seeks
a Variance /Special Permit under Section 6.3 / 7.2 / 5.3.2 / 5.4.7.2 of the zoning bylaws in order
to demolish the current multi - family structure as per drawings and plans on the property located
at 90 — 92 Green Street in Reading, Massachusetts.
Mr. Redfern stated that the Board had received a written request at the request of the petitioner
from Attorney Brad Latham requesting the Board withdraw the application without prejudice.!
On a motion by Mr. Jarema, seconded by Mr. Hagstrom, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
withdraw without prejudice the petition of Arborgreen Inc. for the property located at 90 -92
Green Street.
Vote was 5 -0 -0 (Redfern, Caouette, Jarema, Traniello, Hagstrom).
Case # 16 -05
The Zoning Board of Appeals continued the public hearing on the petition of Thomas & Cynthia
Bates who seek a Variance under Sections 5.0, 5.1, Table 5.1.2 Dimensional Controls of the
zoning bylaws in order to construct an addition (garage) 8.1' from the side lot line, rather than
the 15.0' required, on the property located at 18 Fairview Avenue in Reading, Massachusetts.
Mr. Redfern stated that the Board received a written request from the petitioner to continue the
hearing on the property located at 18 Fairview Avenue to July 7, 2016.
Page 1 1
On a motion by Mr. Traniello, seconded by Mr. Caouette, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to grant the petitioners request to continue Case # 16 -05 to July 7, 2016.
Vote was 5 -0 -0 (Redfern, Caouette, Jarema, Traniello, Hagstrom).
Case # 16 -09
The Zoning Board of Appeals continued the public hearing on the petition of Keri M. Armstrc
who seeks a Variance under Section 6.3 Table of Dimensional Controls of the zoning bylaws
order to add a 28' x 40' garage as per plans submitted on the property located at 56 Cross Str
in Reading, Massachusetts. The proposed garage does not comply with the required side yard
setback of 15.'
Mr. Armstrong, the husband of the petitioner, briefed the Board about the proposed garage an c�
why a Variance is being sought.
Mr. Redfern asked Mr. Armstrong if any other options for the location of the garage were loop
into as discussed at the last meeting.
Ms. Armstrong answered there are no changes to what was originally proposed. Changing the'
attachment point from the garage to the main structure would be a significant cost.
The petitioner agreed to move forward on the original appeal.
Each Board member stated reasons why they believe the petitioner did not meet the four criter�a
that are needed for a Variance.
After Mr. Redfern stated options to the petitioner, Ms. Armstrong asked for her application to be
withdrawn.
i
On a motion by Mr. Traniello, seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved o
grant the petitioner's request to withdraw Case #16 -09 without prejudice.
Vote was 5 -0 -0 (Redfern, Caouette, Jarema, Traniello, Hagstrom).
Mr. Traniello recused himself and left the meeting.
Case # 16 -12
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on the petition of Chris Barcikowski who
seeks a Special Permit under Section 7.3.2 of the zoning bylaws in order to construct a rear deck
14' x 12' with a sideline setback of 10.8' rather than the required setback of 15' on the property
located at 27 Woodward Avenue in Reading, Massachusetts
Mr. Redfern reviewed the previous petition that was denied in April. He stated the petitioner has
filed another application. At the guidance of Town Counsel, the Board will vote to find if the
new proposal is specific and has material changes before hearing the new proposal.
Mr. Jarema clarified that two Boards will need to come to the same conclusion. The petitioner
would need to go to the Community Planning and Development Board (CPDC). The vote will
require a super majority, which means four out of five members would need to vote in favor.
Page 1 2
The Board discussed if the petitioner should go to the CPDC for their approval first. They agreed
they could vote on the Finding first, and then hear the proposal. The vote will not be official until
the CPDC hears the case.
Mr. Barcikowski said the proposed deck was reduced by 40 %. The deck will not extend beyond
the addition in the back. He gave his opinion why the property has significant improvements.
Mr. Redfern answered Mr. Walsh's concern that the deck would not be increasing the non-
conformity of the property.
Mr. Barcikowski stated why he is requesting a Special Permit. If he followed the 15' setback
allowance the door panel would not be flush to the house.
Mr. Jarema summarized the decision from the previous denied case. He said at the previous
meeting Mr. Walsh, the immediate abutter, shared his concern about loss of privacy and the
noise level the deck would create.
Mr. Jarema said he did not find the new proposal had specific and material change.
Mr. Redfern said he read the first decision. He stated he believes the new proposal shows
substantial reduction than what was original proposed.
Mr. Caouette stated the previous 14' x 20' deck was reduced to 14' x 12.' He said this should
considered a standard deck.
Mr. Hagstrom said the proposed deck is a substantial change.
Mr. Pernice commented the proposed deck has an elevated platform. He is concerned about
neighbor having no recourse for privacy. He added the concern should be about the Use and
the square footage of the deck.
Mr. Redfern commented that the new proposal is a substantial change. He stated the
could build a patio without Town approval.
Mr. Baricikowski took a small recess to discuss if he wanted the Board to vote tonight on the
Finding. After the recess, he added he would plant shrubbery to separate his property from tl
abutter if he did build a patio. He said due to the small neighborhood the noise from the
neighbor with the pool can be heard.
Mr. Redfern asked Mr. Baricikowski if he wanted the Board to vote on the Finding. Mrs.
Barickowski stated the new proposal shows the changes that were discussed at the last meeting.
She believes the proposal shows specific and material change. Mr. Baricikowski asked the
Board to go forward with the vote.
Mr. Caouette asked the Board what kind of deck could be built that would not require the Zoni g
Board of Appeals to approve. Mr. Jarema said if the proposed deck complied with the setback
On a motion by Mr. Hagstrom, seconded by Mr. Caouette, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to make a Finding for Case # 16 -20 that the new proposal represents a specific and material
change than what was presented and denied in April 2016.
Vote was 3 -2 -0 (Redfern, Caouette, Hagstrom in favor; Pernice and Jarema opposed).
Page 1 3
Adjournment
On a motion by Mr. Caouette, seconded by Mr. Pernice, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
adjourn the meeting at 8:12 p.m.
Vote was 5 -0 -0 (Redfern, Caouette, Jarema, Hagstrom, Pernice).
Page 1 4