Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-09-01 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesoFR�, Town of Reading e Meeting Minutes 'ffJ . 1xt0a4°�� Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Zoning Board of Appeals Date: 2016-09-01 Building: Reading Town Hall Address: 16 Lowell Street Purpose: General Business Attendees: Members - Present: David Traniello, Chairman John Jarema Damase Caouette Robert Redfern Kathleen Hackett Erik Hagstrom Nick Pernice Members - Not Present: None Others Present: ouJ� &R(< EIVED TNi C! ERK REf'ABING, Mi,SS. 1011 APR 19 P 4. 26 Time: 7:00 PM Location: Selectmen Meeting Room Public Present: Tom and Tamara Cantillon, 17 Dunbar Road AnnMarie & Gary Goodspeed, 155 Wakefield Street John J Callan, 86 Bancroft Road Michelle McKenna, 38 Autumn Lane Tony D'Arezzo, 130 John Street Anne Crosby, 83 Bancroft Avenue Kelly Malin, 77 Bancroft Avenue Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Kim Saunders, Recording Secretary Topics of Discussion: Mr. Traniello opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Traniello announced Case #16-14 will be heard first since the petitioner requested a continuation. Case # 16-13 The Zoning Board of Appeals continued a public hearing on the petition of Steven L. Cicatelli, Esq. who seeks a Variance under Section 6.3 & 7.4 of the zoning bylaws in order to add onto the existing non -conforming 3 family dwelling and to connect it to a detached structure on the property located at 86 Bancroft Avenue in Reading, Massachusetts. The use will remain as a 3 family dwelling. Attorney Steven Cicatelli agreed the Zoning Board of Appeals should hear Case #16-17 before Case # 16-13. Page 1 1 a P —INC R? Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Mr. Traniello reminded the Board this hearing is continued from July 7, 2016. He questioned if the petition should be heard since Case #16-17 did not pass. Attorney Cicatelli requested the public hearing go forward as if the structure is a legal three family unit. He said the applicant would like to connect the accessory structure to the main dwelling. He added the connection would improve the property and address some building code issues. He gave his opinion how the request meets the four criteria for a Variance. The Board discussed the Variance request to allow the accessory structure to be connected to the main dwelling. Mr. Redfern expressed his concern if the Variance is granted the dwelling would become non -conforming. The accessory structure setback is 10' and once attached the 20' setback requirement will not be met. Mr. Jarema stated if the Variance is allowed, the use would remain as a three family dwelling. He suggested the Building Inspector issue occupancy for a two family and then come back to the Board for approval for the connection. Attorney Cicatelli asked the Board not to consider the number of units, just with the connection of the accessory structure to the main dwelling. He added if the connection is allowed the number of units will not increase. He reiterated the building code issues will be addressed. Mr. Redfern agreed the Building Inspector should clarify if the dwelling is a legal two family. After the discussion, Attorney Cicatelli requested the petition be withdrawn without prejudice. On a motion made by Mr. Caouette, seconded by Mr. Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept the petitioner Paul E. Ferrazi request to withdraw Case # 16-16 without prejudice. Vote was 5-0-0 (Traniello, Jarema, Caouette, Redfern, Hackett Case # 16-17 The Zoning Board of Appeals held a Public Hearing on the appeal by Steven L. Cicatelli, Esq., pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 40A, §8, of the July 5, 2016 determination by the Building Inspector that the property is not a grandfathered non -conforming three (3) family dwelling, and his denial of the building permit application. As may be needed, the Applicant requests such other relief under M.G.L. Ch. 40A §6 and any Variances and/or Special Permits required under Sections 7.0 and 6.3 of the Zoning Bylaw to allow use of the property, located at 86 Bancroft Avenue in Reading, Massachusetts, as a three (3) family dwelling. Attorney Steven Cicatelli represented Mr. Ferazzi the property owner. He said he filed two appeals, one disagreeing with the Building Inspector's determination that the property is an illegal non -conforming three family dwelling and the other to allow the use of the property. Attorney Cicatelli stated Mr. and Mrs. Ferazzi purchased the property in 1969 as a three family. He provided previous years of the Town census and a chart showing past and current tenants. He opined since the property has been assessed since 1975 as a three family the property should be O� Of R - pi Town of Reading r- Meeting Minutes WCORQO P� considered grandfathered status due to the 10 year period. Attorney Cicatelli brought forward the memo from Town Counsel that gave their opinion on what the Board could grant. He requested the Board overturn the Building Inspector's determination. Attorney Cicatelli provided reasons why he thought the four criteria have been met for the Variance to be granted. He summarized, the request will conform and legalize the property. Mr. Redfern asked if there was any evidence that the property was a multi -family dwelling when zoning was adopted in Reading in 1942. He commented the property could be considered grandfathered if there was evidence, not just because of the years it has been illegal. Ms. Hackett acknowledged the difficult situation but agreed with Mr. Redfern. Mr. Jarema concurred with Mr. Redfern. He questioned how did a single family become a three family dwelling? He said the Board does not have legal justification to accept a three family in a single family zone. Mr. Caouette stated the petitioner would need to prove how a 1966 building permit that was issued converting the property to a two family allowed the property become a legal three family. Mr. Hagstrom said the 1975 assessor's card is inconsistent. The card noted the mother-in-law in the back had not kitchen or bathroom, but stated it was a three family. He said there is no permit or conversion allowing the unit. Mr. Pernice questioned if the property was owner occupied when purchased. He asked if there was proof from the appraiser when the property was purchased that it was a three family. Mrs. Ferrazi described the circumstance how the real estate broker sold them the property as a three family. Mr. Cicatelli said there was no proof from the appraiser. Mr. Traniello questioned if the 1966 permit that was issued for a two family was completed since there is no occupancy on file. The Board discussed under what section of the zoning bylaw they have authority to grant the relief. Mr. Traniello opened the meeting to public comment, and then closed hearing no comments. There was discussion if the petition qualified for a Variance or a Special Permit. The Board clarified the two motions they would need to vote on. On a motion made by Mr. Caouette, seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the petitioner Paul E. Ferrazi his appeal on the Building Inspectors determination at the property located at 86 Bancroft Avenue is not a grandfathered 3 family dwelling. Vote was 0-5-0 (Traniello, Jarema, Caouette, Redfern, Hackett) Q� OFR i Town of Reading Meeting Minutes /63g'lNCO4pO�P� On a motion made by Mr. Caouette, seconded by Mr. Hagstrom, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the petitioner Paul E. Ferrazi under section 6.3 of the zoning bylaw to allow the use of the property located at 86 Bancroft Avenue as a three family dwelling under plot plan depicted with case #16-13 as it relates in case #16-17 Vote was 0-5-0 (Traniello, Jarema, Caouette, Redfern, Hackett) Case # 16-15 The Zoning Board of Appeals held a Public Hearing on the petition of Gary & Annmarie Goodspeed who seeks a Variance under Section 5.5 Accessory Buildings of the zoning bylaws in order to construct an in -ground pool and accessory building on the property located at 155 Wakefield Street in Reading, Massachusetts. Mr. Goodspeed said he is requesting a Variance on an existing cabana. He explained when he submitted an application for an in -ground pool the Building Inspector questioned the cabana that was depicted on the plot plan. He said the cabana was built 2-1/2 years ago without obtaining a building permit. He added the cabana met the setback requirements 2-1/2 years ago, but not under the current zoning bylaw. Mr. Traniello questioned if the petitioner has met the four criteria to issue a Variance. Mr. Pernice had no questions. Mr. Hagstrom asked if the proposed pool could be moved to the front of the property and be fenced in. Mr. Goodspeed said there are two easements on the property and he is not able to build on them. He maintained the pool location is the only place it can be located. Mr. Caouette questioned if the pool could be a smaller to meet the setback requirements. Mr. Goodspeed said the Variance is for the cabana only not the pool. Mr. Jarema disagreed with Mr. Goodspeed. He said the Building Inspectors denial letter mentions both the pool and cabana. He questioned the proposed shed. Mr. Goodspeed stated the shed is not part of the Variance and should not be on the plot plan. The Board discussed how the Building Inspector determines the setback of a pool. Mr. Jarema said the plot plan presented is what the Board considers. After Mr. Traniello stated the petitioner's options, Mr. Goodspeed requested a continuation until October 20, 2016. On a motion made by Ms. Hackett, seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the petitioners Mr. and Mrs. Goodspeed the request to continue Case #16-15 until October 20, 2016. 4 FR Town of Reading � •I b Meeting Minutes 9 �C 639: INCORp��P Vote was 5-0-0 (Traniello, Jarema, Caouette, Redfern, Hackett) Case # 16-14 The Zoning Board of Appeals continued a public hearing on the petition of CJM Builders, Inc. who seeks a Variance under Section 5.3.2 of the zoning bylaws in order to demolish an existing single family and to construct a new two family dwelling as per plans on the property located at 183 Salem Street in Reading, Massachusetts. Mr. Traniello said the Zoning Board of Appeals received a request on August 29, 2016 to continue the public hearing until October 6, 2016. On a motion made by Mr. Redfern, seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the petitioner CJM Builders, Inc. the request to continue Case # 16-14 until October 6, 2016. Vote was 5-0-0 (Traniello, Jarema, Caouette, Redfern, Hackett) Mr. Traniello recused himself from Case #16-16 and left the meeting. Case #16-16 The Zoning Board of Appeals held a Public Hearing on the petition of Thomas & Tamara Cantillon who seek a Variance and/or a Special Permit under Sections 6.3 & 7.3.2 of the zoning bylaws in order to construct an addition to the front and an addition to the rear on the property located at 17 Dunbar Road in Reading, Massachusetts. The proposed Plan A requires a Special Permit and a Variance from Sections 7.3.2 and 6.3. The Proposed Plan B requires a Special Permit from Section 7.3.2. Mr. Thomas described the property and what he proposed. He said the dwelling currently is a bungalow and he would like to build a cape style home with a farmer's porch. The Variance will allow the foundation and property to be straight. Mr. Jarema explained a Special Permit does not need to meet the four specific criteria. Mr. Cantillon said the property line is the issue and shape of the home jags; he would like to have it even. Mrs. Cantillon read the description of the property and how they believe they meet the four criteria. Mr. Caouette commented on Plan A and how tight the farmer's porch will be to the stone wall. He questioned if the petitioner is meeting the first criteria. Mr. Hagstrom stated the property has a lot of space. He commented if the Variance is approved, people with the same situations would expect the same relief. He questioned if there are architectural plans for the proposed project. OFRpgOi 4, M . f 1 ,63s''NCO4QOPP� Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Mr. Pernice asked how much time is spent on the right side of the property. Mr. Cantillon explained the jag would be noticeable inside the home. Mr. Pernice questioned if the Variance is allowed would it open Pandora's Box. Mr. Redfern asked Mr. Cantillon what Plan he would like the Board to consider. Ms. Hackett questioned if the farmer's porch is the same in Plan A as in Plan B. Mr. Cantillon answered it is. Mr. Jarema asked if the Building Inspector reviewed the architectural plans. He stated a stoop does not need to comply with the setback requirements, but a farmer's porch and 2nd level would increase the encroachment on the setback. He questioned why the Building Inspector would consider a roof over the stoop a porch. Mr. Jarema commented it is his opinion a Variance would need to be granted. Mr. Redfern agreed with Mr. Jarema, and suggested Mr. Cantillon get clarification from the Building Inspector. Mr. Caouette commented the finished product would bring the dwelling closer to the property line. Mr. Jarema opened the meeting to Public Comment. A resident tried to explain the front of the dwelling should not be considered a two story. Mr. Jarema closed the meeting to Public Comment. After the discussion, Mr. Cantillon requested the hearing to be continued to October 6, 2016. On a motion made by Mr. Redfern, seconded by Mr. Caouette, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the petitioner Mr. Cantillon the request to continue Case #16-16 until October 6, 2016. Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema, Caouette, Redfern, Hackett, Hagstrom) Other Business Minutes • July 7, 2016 On a motion made by Mr. Redfern, seconded by Mr. Hagstrom, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to approve the minutes dated July 7, 2016 Vote was 4-0-2 (Jarema, Redfern, Hagstrom, Pernice; Caouette and Hackett abstain) Adjournment Ll FR O'� r Al 0 r. b l� �a 4's39�INC04404P� Town of Reading Meeting Minutes On a motion by Mr. Caouette, seconded by Ms. Hackett, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Vote was 6-0-0 (Jarema, Caouette, Redfern, Hackett, Hagstrom, Pernice). 7