Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-05-19 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesFRcJ, Town of Reading MIJ Meeting Minutes PFCFIVFD �90 IRCO'RQ°p Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Zoning Board of Appeals i;;b JJL- 3 P 3: 32 Date: 2016 -05 -19 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Selectmen Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Purpose: General Business Session: General Session Attendees: Members - Present: Robert Redfern, Chairman; David Traniello, John Jarema, Damase Caouett�e, Kathleen Hackett, Nick Pernice Members - Not Present: i Erik Hagstrom Others Present: Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Kim Saunders on behalf of Robert Redfern Topics of Discussion: Mr. Redfern opened the meeting at 7:02 p.m. Case # 16 -05 The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on the petition of Thomas & Cynthia Bats 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.p' required, on the property located at 18 Fairview Avenue in Reading, Massachusetts Mr. Traniello commented that Glen Redmond, Zoning Officer, provided a memo correcting sections of the zoning bylaw referenced. The correct section referenced should be 6.0, 6.1 a 6.3. Attorney Brad Latham represented the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Bates. He described the existing property and the proposed plan. He said the existing garage is a distance from the Applicants house. They would like to remove the existing and build an attached garage. He added the proposed garage will have the same architectural features as the home. He presented what he thought were the required criteria to obtain a Variance. He listed perceived positive outcomes i the garage is allowed. Mr. Latham read letters to the Board that favored the proposal. Mr. Redfern read the memo from Mr. Redmond stating his denial of the permit and why. Page 1 1 Mr. Traniello addressed the first Variance criteria. He said an undersized lot is not a basis for a Variance. Ms. Hackett commented that even though she understands the reason the Applicants would like an attached garage, she agrees with Mr. Traniello in regards to his concern with the first criteria. Mr. Jarema agreed with the other Board members, he stated the proposal is encroaching upon the immediate neighbor. He added once a Variance is granted it is forever. He made a suggestion to build a one car garage. Mr. Caouette commented that the proposal would infringe on the side setback a little more than the current garage. He stated he had no fundamental issue with the proposed attached garage. Mr. Pernice stated he had a concern with indefinite encroachment to the property located at 14, Fairview Avenue. Mr. Redfern commented on the first criteria. He stated he has difficulty agreeing the second criteria proved hardship since the garage has already been used for 80+ years. Mr. Redfern opened the meeting to the public. Mr. Eric Sutton of 14 Fairview Avenue stated the proposal has his blessing. Mr. Ray Young from 19 Fairview Avenue commented he was supportive of the proposal. Mr. Everett Blodgett from 99 Prescott Street gave his favorable opinion of the proposal. Mr. Redfern closed the meeting to public comments. Mr. Latham discussed with the Applicants their options before the Board voted. On a motion made by Mr. Traniello, seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals accepted the applicants' request to continue the public hearing until June 2, 2016. Vote was 5 -0 -0 (Redfern, Caouette, Jarema, Traniello, Hackett) Case # 16 -08 The Zoning Board of Appeals continued a public hearing on the petition of Dan & Rachael i McGrath who seek a Variance under Section 5.5 Accessory Buildings or Structures paragraphs a/b /d /e /f of the zoning bylaws in order to construct a two story addition to the rear within 5.3' and 5.6' of an existing garage on the property located at 85 Grand Street in Reading, Massachusetts. The required distance is currently 10'. i Mr. Dan McGrath introduced his wife. He stated why he would need a Variance to construct two story addition. He explained the proposal was started two years ago, but was put on hold due to an illness. He added the zoning bylaw has changed in those two years. Mr. Steven Baczek, the applicants' architect, provided plans to the Board showing the different radius proposed two years ago compared to the current zoning bylaw. Page 1 2 Ms. Hackett stated the Board has to follow the zoning bylaws. She asked if the applicant has thought of any other options. Mr. Baczek commented the 10' does not make an addition on the property lot reasonable. Mr. Jarema explained the 10' is necessary for the fire department to get around between the principal and accessory building.. Mr. Baczek asked if the Board could consider the illness as a hardship. He stated the addition would have been built if there was not an illness that halted the proposal two years ago. Mr. Redfern stated this is the first time the Board has seen this proposal. He added the first criteria would need to be met to achieve a Variance. Mr. Caouette agreed with the Board on their opinion about meeting criteria. Mr. Pernice had no comment. Mr. Redfern also agreed with the Board. Mr. Traniello stated the comprehensive rewrite of the zoning bylaws made the state law and fire code more compliant. He explained to the applicants their options before the Board voted. There were no public comments. After Mr. Redfern reiterated the applicants' options, Mr. McGrath asked the Board to withdraw their petition. On a motion made by Ms. Hackett, seconded by Mr. Traniello, the Zoning Board of Appeals accepts the owners request to withdraw their petition without prejudice. I Vote was 5 -0 -0 (Redfern, Caouette, Jarema, Traniello, Hackett). Case # 16 -09 The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on the petition of Keri M. Armstrong who seeks a Variance under Section 6.3 Table of Dimensional Controls of the zoning bylaws in order to add a 28' x 40' garage as per plans submitted on the property located at 56 Cross Street in Reading, Massachusetts. The proposed garage does not comply with the required side yard setback of 15.' Ms. Armstrong stated the Conservation Commission has issued their approval. She provided a revised plot plan to the Board. Ms. Armstrong said her existing driveway and garage area are inefficient. The garage does not fit vehicles and they had to park on their lawn during the winter. She described her property and added the entire lot is in the Conservation buffer zone. She reviewed the proposed three car garage. Mr. Jarema asked about the dimensions on the plot plan. He said he spoke to Mr. Chuck Tirone, Conservation Administrator about the delineation area. Mr. Tirone said the garage could be moved back 2' with a modification. Page 1 3 Mr. Jarema questioned the first criteria. He suggested changing the size of the garage to a two - car garage. Mr. Redfern read the memo from Mr. Redmond stating his denial of the permit and why. He corrected the memo stating the side setback should be 15' not 20' as noted. Mr. Caouette agreed with Mr. Jarema. He asked if the Applicant would move the garage to meet the 15' setback. He stated a 40' garage is very deep and questioned the use of the garage. Ms.!,, Armstrong answered the garage will store her families' vehicles and husband's work truck. The width will allow the vehicles to move around without incident. She agreed to verify with the designer if the attachment can still be used if the garage is moved. Mr. Pernice asked about a viable alternative. He questioned if the Applicant met the hardship criteria. Mr. Traniello questioned the new driveway and if a curb cut approval is needed. He asked a the Order of Conditions that Conservation issued. He commented he believes the Applicant the first criteria. Ms. Hackett agreed the Applicant met the first criteria. She questioned if the hardship criteria was met and if the Applicant has explored other options. Mr. Redfern said the proposed garage is very liberal, and the garage size could be changed to meet the 15' setback. He said two of the four criteria have not been met. Mr. Caouette said the original denial letter questioned the lot coverage. Ms. Armstrong said lot coverage was added to the new plot plan. Mr. Redfern opened the meeting to the public. Mr. Bob Grady from 65 Cross Street questioned the size of the proposed garage and if it was being built for a business. He said he has concerns with the proposed plans that show an in -la%v apartment. Mr. William Mc Cafferty of 62 Cross Street stated the proposed structure does not fit into the neighborhood. He stated he had concern about his loss of privacy. He questioned why a four member family would need such a big structure. Mr. Paul Hunnefeld from 71 Cross Street questioned if a business will be operated out of the garage. Mr. Redfern closed the meeting to the public. Ms. Armstrong said her husband's business is located in Malden. There is no intent to operate a business out of the residential home. Mr. Redfern said the Applicant should keep in mind them are bylaws in regards to running a business out of a residence. Ms. Armstrong asked the Board to continue the hearing until June 2, 2016. On a motion made by Mr. Traniello, seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals accepted the petitioners request to continue the public hearing until June 2, 2016. Page 1 4 Vote was 5 -0 -0 (Redfern, Caouette, Jarema, Traniello, Hackett). Case # 16 -10 The Zoning Board of Appeals continued a public hearing on the petition of Jack Sullivan who seeks a Variance under Section 6.2.1(b) Lot Shape of the zoning bylaws in order to create a buildable lot on the property located at 116 Van Norden Road in Reading, Massachusetts. Mr. Jack Sullivan, owner of Sullivan Engineering, represented the Applicants. He said the Applicants would like to subdivide the existing property. This would create a smaller buildable lot and a larger non - buildable lot. He said a Variance is needed for the lot shape. Mr. Redfern read the memo from Mr. Glen Redmond stating the proposal would not make the property more non - conforming. Mr. Sullivan said Mr. Redmond wanted the Board's opinion on the proposal. He confirmed th� previous issues the owner had with property taxes have been solved. Mr. Caouette agreed with Mr. Redmond's memo, the proposal will not make the property more non - conforming. Mr. Pernice questioned how the proposed lot would be accessed. Mr. Traniello and Ms. Hackett agreed with Mr. Caouette. Mr. Jarema questioned the Town procedure the applicants should follow. He asked if the CPDCC should approve the ANR first. Mr. Traniello agreed the lot should exist before the Board can vote on it. Mr. Redfern opened the meeting to the public. Mr. Greg Elliott of 19 Harold Avenue questioned if Lot A was going to be developed. Mr. Sullivan answered that the approval from the ZBA is the first step in the development process.) i Mr. Sullivan explained the proposed lot calculations to Mr. Bill Cowie of 110 Van Norden Road. Mr. Redfern closed the meeting to the public. Mr. Redfern agreed the Board could not vote until Conservation and CPDC has approved. Mr. Sullivan asked for the hearing to be continued to July 7, 2016. Mr. Redfern acknowledged a letter received from Alex and Stephanie Dubanowitz from 17 Harold Avenue. Due to the length of the letter he read the last paragraph. He said the original letter can be read in the Public Services Department. On a motion made by Mr. Traniello, seconded by Mr. Caouette, the Zoning Board of Appeals accepted the petitioners request to continue the public hearing until July 7, 2016. Vote was 5 -0 -0 (Redfern, Caouette, Jarema, Traniello, Hackett). Page 1 5 Minutes ➢ March 17, 2016 On a motion by Mr. Caouette, seconded by Ms. Hackett, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to approve the March 17, 2016 minutes. Vote was 6 -0 -0 (Redfern, Caouette, Jarema, Traniello, Hackett, Pernice). The Board discussed and agreed the reorganization will be done at the July 7, 2016 meeting. Adjournment On a motion by Mr. Jarema, seconded by Mr. Caouette, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Vote was 6 -0 -0 (Redfern, Caouette, Jarema, Traniello, Hackett, Pernice). Page 1 6