Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-09-07 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutesof Hp iy^ :f• V' � ! C 6J9'lNfORQO� Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Board - Committee - Commission - Council: r� 1 �t ti5 Zoning Board of Appeals 2011 OCT —2 8' 49 I Date: 2017-09-07 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Selectmen Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Purpose: Public Hearing Attendees: Members.- Present: David Traniello; Chairman John Jarema Robert Redfern Cy Caouette Erik Hagstro Nick Pernice Members - Not Present: Others Present: Session: Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Building Commissioner Glen Redmond, Nancy�Twomey, Barry Greenwood, Alice Rodman, Noah Rodman, Judy Smith, Ed Sartell, Jack Sullivan, Mr. Maganzini Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Kristen Grover Topics of Discussion: Chairman Traniello called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM Case # 17-08 —142 Wakefield Street The Zoning Board of Appeals held a Public Hearing on the application of Dawn and Barry Greenwood, pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 40A §9 for a Special Permit under Reading Zoning Bylaw Sections 5.3.2 & 5.4.7 for a detached accessory apartment in the existing unfinished second floor space above an existing detached garage on property located at 142 Wakefield Street in Reading, Massachusetts. Architect Nancy Twomey and Applicant Barry Greenwood were present on behalf of the application. Ms. Twomey presented the history of the case and the proposed plan for the accessory apartment. Mr. Traniello introduced Mr. Redmond, Building Inspector and read his memo for the record. Mr. Traniello then opened the meeting to questions or'comments from the Board. Mr. Redfern commented he originally had many questions, but sees no issues with meeting the requirement. He questioned if there were any special considerations for storing a vehicle with housing above. Ms. Twomey answered yes; the bottom will still be used as a garage, and will have a 1 hour fire rating. She stated there will also be the appropriate smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors in the stairs, unit and garage. Mr. Redmond advised the plans will be reviewed by the Fire Department before the building permit is issued as is a standard requirement. Mr. Redfern then asked if the storage area on the second floor was accessible to the tenant to which Ms. Twomey replied it would not, it is for excess storage for the principal structure. Mr. Pemice offered that he felt the performance standards had been met. Page 1 1 Mr. Jarema said he concurred, stating his questions regarding the storage area were resolved. Mr. Caouette commended the applicants on a good job, and said he sees no problem with the application. Mr. Hagstrom said his only question was with Conservation. Mr. Redmond offered that all applications are forwarded to Conservation, and they will have to sign off on the building permit. Mr. Traniello stated he too concurred the performance standards have been met. He then opened the meeting to the public for comment, and closed it without comment. On a motion made by Mr. Caouette, seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a special permit for Case #17-08. Vote was 5-0-0 (Traniello, Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Hagstrom) Case # 17-07 — 29 Gardner Road The Zoning Board of Appeals continued a Public Hearing on the application of Alice Beltran Rodman, pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 40A §9 for a Special Permit under Reading Zoning Bylaw Section 5.4.7 for an existing detached accessory apartment (where the 1957 Variance .for said accessory apartment ran with the prior owner and has . expired), and pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 40A §6 for a Variance from Reading Zoning Bylaw Section 5.4.7.3b to allow the existing detached accessory apartment to exceed the current gross floor area minimum, on property located at 29 Gardner Road in Reading, Massachusetts. Applicants Alice and Noah Beltran were present on behalf of the application. Mr. Traniello invited the parties to speak. Mr. Beltran submitted a last minute plan change with official surveyed square footage of each unit to the Board members, as well as smaller copies of the amended plot plan that showed the 3 parking spaces (2 for the main structure, 1 for the accessory apartment). He then presented the history of the case, noting the main structure is 1,494 square feet and the accessory apartment is 640 square feet, which is 147 feet over the allowable square footage. He stated he confirmed with Mr. Redmond that setbacks have been met —it is more than 10' from the main house, and the height is 10' 10". Mr. Traniello mentioned senior town staff was present at tonight's meeting, and at the previous meeting specific questions for town staff were raised. Mr. Traniello noted that the memo from staff clarified some of the questions. He then opened up the meeting to questions and comments from the Board. Mr. Redfern agreed the questions have been answered. He stated that even though the variance lapsed, it has been in use for more than the past 10 years, and is grandfathered. He opined that the Board only needs to vote on the . variance for the square footage, and he is satisfied with the answers to the other questions. Mr. Pemice declined to comment and stated he was not in attendance for the previous meeting on this case. Mr. Jarema said he spoke. with Mr. Redmond regarding the justification for grandfathering. He stated the error was made in 1957 and the Board should look at how to clarify and correct that error. He mentioned the memo from senior staff was well done and agreed that from his discussion with Mr. Redmond, the structure is grandfathered and valid because of how it has been used. He opined that the Board might find it easiest to grant a special permit to correct this instead of issuing a variance on top of the variance — for what is probably a one in a million situation. Mr. Caouette stated he believes all this requires is a special permit — the structure has been there in its current form for decades: it's the same size, shape, and location as in 1957. In his opinion, this does not need a variance. Mr. Hagstrom stated he felt a variance for the square footage.was still required, even with the grandfathered use because they need the exception. Mr. Traniello stated he felt all the performance standards have been met except the issue of the square footage. Mr. Redmond offered that the square footage requirement in the bylaw was put into effect after the structure was built and in use; the existing square footage is grandfathered in because this bylaw was not in effect in 1957. He Page 1 2 added that the structure is in its original form, no additions have been made to it, and in his opinion the size is grandfathered because the current bylaw does not pertain to it. Mr. Traniello brought up the Superior Court summary judgement, and asked if both a special permit and variance would be required to fix this situation and make the title and record clear. Mr. Hagstrom stated he did not want to have to issue a variance, but he felt one was needed for clarification Mr. Redfern commented that after hearing this discussion he is now on the fence about whether.this even needs a special permit. He said it is a completely legal structure as it stands right now because it is grandfathered. He stated that potentially the Town.could just issue a letter saying it is grandfathered. Mr. Traniello mentioned they should follow the bylaw to provide clarity, that the uniqueness of this situation is that it is not a new apartment. He asked fellow Board members and staff for their opinions on whether the Board should vote on the special permit and the variance. Mr. Jarema, Mr. Caouette and Mr. Redmond all stated the vote should be for both. Mr. Redfern stated the need for clarity in how the decision was written. Mr. Jarema asked how to incorporate the Superior Court 2015 decision. Mr. Redfern suggested making reference to a legal non -conforming structure. Mr. Traniello stated the Board could make a finding in the decision that obviates the need for a variance and then have the applicant withdraw the request for the variance. He then introduced Julie Mercier, Community Development Director and asked for her comments. Ms. Mercier agreed it could be handled either way — the Board should either vote on both or make a finding that addresses the variance within the special permit decision. Mr. Traniello opened the meeting to the public. Ms. Judy Smith of 27 Gardner Road asked if one of the conditions was that the owner has to live in one of the structures. Mr. Redmond and Ms. Mercier replied yes. Ms. Smith then asked if the accessory apartment would have its own address, such as 29A or B — for safety reasons. Mr. Redmond answered yes, and explained that the Town Engineer and Fire Department will issue a separate address. Ms. Smith then stated the applicants have done all the work needed for this and opined that it should be granted. Mr. Traniello closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. Caouette asked the applicant if there was a for sale sign in front of the house. Mr. Rodman said yes. The Board discussed making a motion for a finding about the variance. Mr. Redmond stated he felt a variance was needed. After more discussion, Mr. Redmond stated the decision must be clear for the future because he won't be here forever to sort things out. Mr. Redfern made a motion that the Board grant the special permit predicated on the finding that the structure — including the square footage referenced on the plan submitted and dated 8/19/17 — is a legal non -conforming structure -that is grandfathered and thus no variance is needed for the excess square footage beyond what the new accessory apartment bylaw allows, and that the use is a pre-existing non -conforming. On a motion made Mr. Redfern, seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a special permit for Case #97-07. Vote was 5-0-0 (Traniello, Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Hagstrom) Mr. Traniello advised the Applicant of the need to withdraw the request for the variance, and the Applicant agreed and requested to -withdraw it. On a motion made Mr. Redfern, seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the withdrawal for a variance for Case #97-07. Vote was 5-0-0 (Traniello, Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Hagstrom) Mr. Redfern will write the decision to include the withdrawal. Case # 17-09 — 236 Ash Street Page 1 3 The Zoning Board of Appeals held a Public Hearing on the application of Edward Sartell, pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 40A §9 for a Special Permit under Reading Zoning Bylaw Section 5.5.1.1e to allow a non-residential accessory structure within the side and rear setbacks, and pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 40A § 10 for a Variance under Reading Zoning Bylaw Sections 5.5.1.4a to allow the accessory structure to exceed the 12 foot height limit, on the property located at 236 Ash Street in Reading, Massachusetts. Mr. Traniello informed the Board that the applicant is a client of his and recused himself from the case and left the meeting. Mr. Jarema chaired the case. Applicant Ed Sartell and Jack Sullivan, P.E. were present on behalf of the application. Mr. Jarema read the memo from Mr. Redmond and asked if he,would like to make further comment. Mr. Redmond answered no. Mr. Sullivan of Sullivan Engineering presented the history of the owner's business, described the existing buildings on the site and identified the property constraints. He then explained the proposed accessory structure and indicated that it would not deviate much from other accessory structures in the area. Mr. Sullivan handed out an exhibit highlighting the actual buildable area on this lot. Mr. Sullivan explained the location chosen for the proposed garage is where Mr. Sartell currently stores his vehicles and materials outdoors. Mr. Sullivan stated that the proposed location of the garage takes into consideration the drainage ditch, maintaining access to existing buildings, and allowance for required on-site parking. He stated that the proposed garage is consistent with and comparable to the area and other buildings, and would not be a detriment to the neighborhood. Mr. Jarema opened the meeting to the Board for comments and questions pertaining to the issue of the special permit for the side and rear setbacks. Mr. Hagstrom said most of his questions relate to the variance and he will withhold comment for now. . Mr. Caouette stated he had no fundamental questions with the special permit, but his concerns were also with the variance. Mr. Pemice stated he will also wait until the discussion of the variance. Mr. Redfern agreed with the other Board members that his questions could wait for discussion of the variance. Mr. Jarema concluded the special permit poses no concerns. as it is consistent with the current uses and structures on the property. Mr. Sullivan addressed the request for the height variance. He informed the Board that Mr. Sartell needs 14' high doors for the type of trucks and equipment being stored — similar to Reading Municipal Light Department whose building is 20' tall, and New England Cutlery whose building is 27'-3" tall. Mr. Sullivan opined that the 12' maximum allowed in the bylaw is really meant -for residential accessory structures, but that Mr. Sartell's property is in an industrial area. He commented that if the garage were attached, a 60' height would be allowed in this district, and how even in a residential district, a 35' height is allowed for an accessory structure that meets setbacks. The applicant, Mr. Sartell added that the 14' height was primarily to allow for enough clearance for bucket trucks, and the garage is to store product that he receives for customers in order to keep it out of the weather and prevent corrosion. He added that the structure will also provide storage for a fork truck for pallets, a bobcat for snow removal, a,scissor lift, and the storage racks currently located outside. He mentioned he is not adding to the storage footprint, only trying to enclose where the storage is currently on the property. He noted that he also has a full-time employee that maintains the buildings, tools and materials. Mr. Sullivan addressed the four variance criteria by presenting arguments describing the hardships. In reference to the first criteria, he mentioned how the lot is rectangular and flat with a high groundwater table — leaving no possibility to put in a basement, so the only way to attain the storage is to build up. He also reiterated the need for 14' doors to accommodate clearance for bucket trucks. Regarding a financial hardship, Mr. Sullivan again made note of the size of the equipment, saying the literal enforcement of 12' is severely limiting and 27' is well below the 60' allowed for the primary structure. He noted the applicant has a good relationship with the abutters, and there is no opposition to the proposal. Lastly, he stated the proposal won't derogate from the intent of the bylaw because the garage fits in with other uses in the industrial district, and noted again the 12' restriction was intended for residential districts. Page 1 4 Mr. Hagstrom stated if the issue was only a special permit, he would have no issues, but having to weigh the variance criteria is difficult and he will withhold his final judgement for now. He mentioned that the argument for criteria 1 is more related to what the applicant wants, not necessarily the challenges with the lot. Mr. Caouette mentioned he typically has trouble with criteria 1, 3, & 4, and questioned the size of the building. He said given the description of how the building will be used, that 30' x 50' doesn't seem that big. Mr. Sartell said they make that footprint work outside, and will inside as well, by moving stuff around and being organized and tight. Mr. Caouette asked what the minimum height needed would be. Mr. Sartell mentioned the doors and described the plan for the mezzanine and a fire -rated wall down the center to create 2 bays, each of which will include a small office and bathroom. Mr. Sartell noted the growth of his company as well as one of his tenants' companies, and mentioned he will use one of the bays, and a tenant will'use the other. Mr. Sartell mentioned one of the tenants may need to leave if this proposal can't be accomplished, but because they have such a good relationship, he really wants this to work out for everyone. Mr. Caouette stated that in order to do what he wants, the applicant will need a variance, so the question is really is what height to.allow. Mr. Sullivan referenced lot coverage, stating they are only at 40% of the 60% allowed, and the existing building adds to the hardship because of the need to leave enough access to the existing bays. He reiterated the height can't be 12', so they will need a variance, and the applicant originally wanted- a higher building, but chose to be consistent with surrounding buildings. Mr. Pernice told the applicant he made good arguments, but asked why he needed the additional 7' in height beyond what the Reading Municipal Light Department has, and if the basement were possible would that reduce the height. Mr. Sullivan agreed that a basement would give the applicant other options for an office, bathrooms, and storage, but due to the high water table it is not an option. Mr. Sartell mentioned the height of the bucket truck, clearance, framing, ceiling; allowance for recessed lighting, the standard office height, as factors in coming up with the needed height on the proposal. Mr. Redfern stated he had an issue with the height, and that he thinks the request for a variance is a stretch -because it is over 100% relief, which derogates from the intent of the bylaw. He also mentioned the Board doesn't write the bylaws, they only enforce them. Mr. Redfern questioned other options including evicting tenants, modifying existing buildings, or moving the business elsewhere. Mr. Sullivan stated that 12' for an industrial district is too small, to which Mr. Redfern agreed and stated the bylaw does not differentiate between residential or industrial. Mr. Sartell stated he is a lifelong Reading resident and would like to stay here even though it would be easier to move to a surrounding town. After more discussion regarding other options for the building location that would still require variances, Mr. Redmond pointed out there is little difference in asking for setback variances versus a height variance, noting that some of the suggested options would obstruct access to the existing building. Ms. Mercier stated that it is likely that the Board will continue to have this conversation with other applicants given that the height limitation is an oversight in the bylaw and doesn't make sense in an industrial area. She offered that if the applicant feels strongly that his proposal is the only one that will work for him, the applicant could continue the hearing or withdraw the application without prejudice, and work with Town staff on a potential Zoning Bylaw Amendment for April 2018 Town Meeting. Mr. Jarema asked the applicant if he would like to withdraw, or ask for a continuance, work with Town staff and potentially withdraw at a later date. Mr. Sartell said he would like to continue the hearing and meet with Town staff to discuss options for amending the Zoning Bylaw in the meantime. He noted that he probably was not going to install the building until late next year anyway, so the delay is okay with him. On a motion made Mr. Caouette, seconded by Mr. Hagstrom, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to continue Case #17-09 to October 18, 2017. Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Hagstrom, Pernice) Minutes No minutes were reviewed. Other Business Page 1 5 Ms. Mercier informed the Board that it was brought to Town staffs attention that the 9/21/17 meeting falls on Rosh -Hashanah and will need to be rescheduled. She asked if moving it to 9/28/17 would work for the Board, and they agreed. She noted two options for handling the postponement. Mr. Jarema suggested she follow up with Mr. Traniello on how to handle the postponement. Adjournment On a motion made Mr. Redfern, seconded by Mr. Caouette, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Hagstrom, Pernice). 0 Page 1 6