Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-08-04 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTown of Reading Meeting Minutes Q'6Jg'IHCOFpO�P� Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Zoning Board of Appeals Date: 2016-08-04 Building: Reading Town Hall Address: 16 Lowell Street Purpose: General Business Attendees: Members - Present: David Traniello, Chair Damase Caouette Nick Pernice John Jarema Kathleen Hackett Members - Not Present: Robert Redfern Others Present: T0v;ti C! F;K READING, M A CSS. 1011 RPR I q P 4.- 26 I Time: 7:00 PM Location: Selectmen Meeting Room Jeff Dorenfeld, Mike Newhouse, Brad and Rita Bridges, Robert Buckley, Kim Saunders Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Caitlin Saunders, Recording Secretary Topics of Discussion: Case 16-14 Michael Newhouse was present as council for CJM Builders, Inc. He noted this lot is in the S15 district and is conforming. One non -conforming garage encroaches on two properties. The property has 8 habitable rooms and was constructed before 1942. The property is in a unique state of disrepair. He believes this property meets the criteria for a variance. This lot is significantly larger than the two directly abutting lots. The property is in such a state of disrepair the owner cannot afford to keep up with repairs. There are 16 different two family dwellings very close to the property and only three of them have bigger lots than this one. If the plan moves forward the building will be compliant in all aspects. Mr. Traniello acknowledged a letter from Building Inspector Glen Redmond and a letter from the applicant explaining her circumstances. Ms. Hackett asked Mr. Newhouse to explain how the application meets requirement number one. Mr. Newhouse noted when you couple the size of the property with the disrepair; those things together satisfy the criteria. Mr. Jarema noted the architectural plans do not match the square footage when converting. He asked if the new frontage will be on Johanna and Mr. Newhouse noted it will be. He asked about a basement and Mr. Newhouse noted the plans have not gotten that far. Page 1 1 Z. ' Mr. Caouette noted the variance requires you to keep the new structure looking like a single family home and asked if that was the reasoning for putting the garages on Johanna. Mr. Newhouse explained they put the garages on Johanna to meet the setbacks and because that was more economically viable. He asked about the height of the new building to see how it would compare to the current structure and Mr. Newhouse noted they do not have an exact number but it will comply. Mr. Caouette pointed out dimensional discrepancies with the plot plan and architectural renderings. Mr. Pernice noted he does not see how the only way to fix this structure is to demolish and rebuild. Mr. Newhouse explained the owner has talked to contractors to see if there were any other options and it is economically viable to tear down and rebuild. He asked if they had any estimates for rehabbing the property and Mr. Newhouse noted they did not. Mr. Traniello noted this case is similar to the case on Washington Street they approved in the past. The plans need to more specific and conforming. He noted the proposed hardship criteria seems like this is just better for the contractor to profit more from and he is struggling with that. Mr. Jarema noted the property on Washington Street was in extreme disrepair which was the main reason for voting that project to move forward. He wished the builder was present to help touch upon the detrimental good of the neighborhood because we don't have the height of the building or what's happening with the retaining wall. Changing the address of this property now raises a number of other questions. Mr. Traniello asked if the new driveway will require new curb cuts and if it does have they spoken with the Board of Selectmen about those. Mr. Newhouse noted they will need new curb cuts and noted they have not been to Selectmen yet because they thought that would be step two if the variance is granted. Mr. Traniello noted he is not comfortable stamping a plan with a new driveway that the road commission hasn't seen yet. He noted it may be best to come back after we get some questions answered. Mr. Jarema noted the plans need a lot more work and detail in them before we can approve. Mr. Traniello opened the hearing up for public comment. Jeff Dorenfeld from 1 Arrow Circle asked where the new structure will be on the property compared to where it is now if the new structure will front a new street. He also asked what is happening with the retaining wall. Mr. Newhouse noted the structure will be back off of Salem Street about 45 feet and the back setback would be 30 feet at its closest point. The structure would be set off Johanna 42 feet. Brad Bridges asked if there are copies of this plot plan that the neighbors can see. Tony D'Arezzo noted the condition of the building is not a condition for a variance. Robert Buckley asked if the public will be able to comment on new plans if this continues and Mr. Traniello said yes. Kim Saunders of 18 Union Street explained the quality of the house is in such disrepair. The owner, her mother, has explored all her options and got quotes from four different contractors. They all had the same opinion to tear it down and rebuild. Mr. Traniello noted for the record that Kim works for the Town and her experience is greatly appreciated and taken into consideration. Mr. Dorenfeld felt the changing of addresses should be looked at. Page 1 2 Mr. Traniello suggested continuing the hearing due to all the questions they have for the builder and the plot plans that don't make sense. The applicant requested to continue until September 1St Mr. Caouette made a motion to accept the applicants request to continue the hearing until September 1St, second by Mr. Jarema and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Ms. Hackett made a motion to adjourn at 8:15 PM, second by Mr. Caouette and approved with a 5-0-0 vote. Page 1 3