Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-08-17 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesOFq� / Town of Reading a Meeting Minutes Board - Committee - Commission : Council: Zoning Board of Appeals Date: 2017-08-17 Building: Reading Town Hall 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: Time: 7:00 PM kE U l i IL TQV-1Hi�tt.Cl ERS F-,.61NGI- M. SS 201.1 Z A 8: '1 , i Location: Selectmen Meeting Room Session: Attorney William Crowley, Thad Barry, Steve. Davey, David Jamieson, Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Kristen Grover Topics of Discussion: Chairman Traniello called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM Mr. Traniello acknowledged Ms. Kristen Grover as the recently hired Administrative Specialist. She will be the Zoning Board of Appeals contact at the Town Hall. Mr. Traniello brought forward his work relationship with Attorney William Crowley. He said he contacted the Town Clerk and has signed a Disclosure Statement stating Attorney Crowley is a colleague. Mr. Traniello added he has no interest in the outcome for this application. Case # 17-06 - 364 Lowell Street The Zoning Board of Appeals continued a Public Hearing in the Selectmen's Meeting Room at Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts on the application of William F. Crowley on behalf of Jamieson Properties, LLC, pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 40A §6 for Variances from Reading Zoning Bylaw Section 6.3 under Required Side Yard in the S-15 Zoning District, for an existing house and a proposed garage relative to a lot line created by an approved Definitive Subdivision Plan, on property located at 364 Lowell Street in Reading, Massachusetts. Attorney William Crowley representing the applicant Jamieson Properties introduced himself and the others in attendance: Mr. David Jamieson, Mr. Thad Barry from Barry Engineering and Mr. Dodge, the builder. Mr. Crowley provided the Board history of the property. He said in 1800, Mr. Barrows owned a large parcel of property which extended to both sides of Lowell Street. He subdivided the lots and.sold a parcel to the Lyle Family. The existing dwelling at 364 Lowell Street was built in 1920. Mr. Crowley continued and described to the Board how the wetlands that currently exist at 364 Lowell Street were created. He said the Town installed a drainage ditch in 1930 on the easterly side of the property. The catch basin on Lowell Street gathers up water and runs unfiltered into the ditch. Since the ditch has not been maintained either by Page 1 1 the Town or the previous owner of 364 Lowell Street, the water backed up creating a wetland. The wetland is not a natural wetland, but the result of decades of neglect. Mr. Crowley said the Applicant held several meetings with the Conservation Commission, and the Notice of Intent has been approved. As part of the mitigation, in order to preserve the wetlands, the Applicant will clean up the drainage ditch, remove evasive species, clean up yard waste along Dustin Road, and clean up a culvert. Mr. Crowley said the Applicant is proposing to renovate the existing dwelling and construct a 24x24 garage in back of the property. The applicant worked with the Community Planning and Development Commission to create the subdivision lot dimensions that are sensitive to the wetlands. The CPDC granted waivers to allow the 44' right-of- way and the 24' paved roadway. The 44' right-of-way created and 11.7' side -yard setback on the corner of the existing structure. He said the CPDC will not sign the plan until the Zoning Board of Appeals grants a Variance for the setback not meeting the required 15' side -yard setback. Mr. Crowley described how the roadway will visually appear. He stated the restrictions from the Conservation Commission and CPDC approval have created a hardship for the Applicant. The CPDC was generous on granting the waivers, but the Applicant still needs ZBA approval. Mr. Crowley stated the location of the paved road which is offset from the center line, was to satisfy Conservation and the wetlands. Mr. Crowley said the proposed 24x24 garage will be built on'the same fagade as the existing dwelling. It will not encroach further into the 15' side -yard setback than the existing dwelling. The wetlands restrict the garage from being moved back on the property. In the opinion of the builder, the garage can't be made smaller. Mr. Crowley opined the proposed garage is not a substantial detriment to the neighborhood or public. He stated consideration for the wetlands, soil, shape of the lot, narrow entry from Lowell Street, Right of Way, paved drive, and the existing structure force the decision to ask for a variance. The proposed is a significant improvement to the structure and entire parcel, and will be consistent with the other proposed dwellings that meet zoning. Mr. Crowley concluded the Applicant has met the criteria required for a Variance. Mr. Traniello read the email from Mr. Glen Redmond, the Zoning Officer and opened the meeting to questions from the Board. Mr. Redfern asked if the CPDC signed the final plan, and questioned Finding #9 and #10 of the Definitive Subdivision Decision. Mr. Crowley explained at the CPDC meeting, the Applicant confirmed they were going to keep the 364 Lowell Street address, and not seek and address on Lyle Estates. The Decision was not edited to reflect no change in the address. He said the CPDC won't sign the plan until approval from the ZBA. Mr. Redfern expressed his concern with the proposal. He said the Applicant self-created the need to seek a Variance. The access roadway and the proposal on the existing dwelling created a non-compliant structure. He suggested reducing the size of the garage. Mr. Thad Barry from Barry Engineering further explained the wetland restrictions on the property. He said the existing gravel is in a critical Conservation area, and falls within the 25' No Disturb, No Structure regulation. The garage can't be moved, the structure has to say out of the 25' area. He further explained the roadway turnaround' was expanded for fire vehicles. The Conservation Commission and CPDC were involved in the garage location. Mr. Barry stated the area will be restored, and its placement is to allow for the interior flow of the house and off street parking. Mr. Crowley confirmed there is 12' from curb to property line, and 11.7' from the property line to the main dwelling. He said CPDC did not require sidewalks to be installed. Mr. Pernice'questioned why the existing garage that is below grade is being abandoned. Mr. Crowley explained the existing gravel driveway is not appealing and is in nasty condition. The area will be restored to natural habitat and seeded. Mr. Barry informed the Board if the proposed garage is not approved, the gravel and existing garage will remain. Mr. Pernice asked why the Conservation Commission would prefer a paved driveway over gravel. Mr. Barry explained to restore and improve the property, the Conservation Commission agreed to the paved driveway since the existing septic system will be abandoned and the 25' No Disturb, No Structure will be upheld. He pointed out the location of the septic system at the back corner of the house. Mr. Jarema said he had questions, and met with Julie Mercier the Community Development Director and Ryan Percival the Town Engineer. He now has clarity on the process the Applicant has gone through the last three years. Page 1 2 He agreed the proposal is an improvement, but stated he has concerns with the proposed garage. He said Mr. Percival explained why a Variance under Section 6.3 of the Zoning Bylaw is required. Mr. Jarema said the proposed garage Variance is under Section 7.4 of the Zoning Bylaw. He questioned if the Applicant should be seeking two Variances, or a Variance and a Special Permit. Mr. Jarema questioned if the hardship criteria has been met, since the Applicant is renovating the existing dwelling for profit. Mr. Jarema expressed his concern that if the Variance is granted for the side -yard setback and then address is changed to Lyle Estates. He confirmed with the Town Engineer that an address change request could be granted because this is a corner lot. Mr. Crowley replied a buyer would know the address is 364 Lowell Street. He stated financial hardship was not the sole, criteria expressed in his earlier presentation. The property has Conservation restrictions and physical challenges. Mr. Barry spoke again of the concerns regarding the drainage at the back of the property and at this time mentioned the gas line that was constructed years ago has been disconnected, the swale has been impacted on both sides, and stated there has been no maintenance of the swale. He informed the Board that the Applicant will be cleaning the drainage swale by the train tracks as part of mitigation from Conservation. He added the Applicant will be contacting the MBTA to have them clean the drainage on their property. Mr. Caouette questioned if the second criteria has been met. He agreed the proposed change is an improvement, but asked if the Applicant considered a smaller structure by tearing down the existing dwelling so a Variance would not be required: He agreed this is a very difficult piece of land. Mr. Barry stated the garage size was decreased from 28' to 24' at the request of CPDC and the Conservation Commission. He explained the connection from the existing dwelling to the proposed garage. Mr. Crowley said the rendering appears to make the dwelling larger than what really is proposed. Mr. Barry added that the proposed connection to the garage is the most practicable. Mr. Hagstrom stated the existing garage could be repurposed, and suggested reducing the length of the proposed garage. He agreed the proposal is attractive, but questioned if the performance standards that governs from a Special Permit to a Variance have been reached. Mr. Traniello said there are two issues, the legal standard and how to procedurally move forward. He gave his opinion and listed how the Applicant has met the criteria for a Variance. Mr. Traniello discussed Finding #9 of the Definitive Subdivision Decision. Mr. Crowley confirmed the Applicant abandoned the plan to have the lots legal frontage on Lyle Estates. Mr. Traniello said the CPDC Decision should be amended. Mr. Traniello opined the first criteria was met due to the limitations of the wetlands, roadway, and subdivision posing such unique circumstances to the property regarding the location of the addition to the structure and garage in the current proposed configuration. He stated the case law was clear on the second criteria that theoretical use was not grounds for a Variance, but the hardship would be more time and effort for the Applicant in making revisions and appearing before multiple boards again. He stated the question of the plan being detrimental has been met - this in an improvement; Conservation, the CPDC and Engineering has somewhat approved the plan and are'in agreement that is an improvement to the neighborhood. He stated procedurally, there may need to be changes to the verbiage in the application and plans. After a discussion, the Board agreed the Definitive Subdivision Decision will need to be revised. The Board members gave their opinions to what relief the Applicant should be seeking from the ZBA. Mr. Jarema suggested removing the 3.3'. encroachment to the lot line. The Board discussed if the proposal extends the legal non -conformity or creates a non -conformity. Mr. Traniello opened the meeting to public comment, and then closed with no comment. The Board discussed how long they are allowed to render a Decision. Mr. Traniello requested the Applicant have the CPDC amend their Decision, and clarify what relief they will be seeking. The meeting was originally posted as two Variances. Page 1 3 Mr. Crowley confirmed the CPDC will sign the plan once the Variance is noted on the plan. He requested a continuance, and stated if necessary the Applicant will grant an extension of time. Mr. Barry agreed the hearing should be continued, and said he will contact Conservation to change the proposed garage location. Mr. Crowley requested the public hearing to be continued until September 21, 2017. On a motion made by Mr. Redfern, seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to continue Case #17-06 to September 21, 2017 Vote was 5-0-0 (Traniello, Jarema, Redfern, .Caouette, Hagstrom) The Board clarified they have 100 days after an application is filed to make a Decision or an extension of time is required. Minutes August 3, 2017 On a motion made by Mr. Caouette, seconded by Mr. Hagstrom, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to approve the August 3, 2017 minutes as amended Vote was 5-0-0 (Traniello, Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Hagstrom). Other Business Mr. Traniello informed the Board the Town will hold an Economic Development Forum at the Town Library on October 4`j'. He requested the meeting be posted since three members stated they will attend. Mr. Traniello said starting October 4.`h the Zoning Board of Appeals meetings will be held on Wednesday night. The next meeting in October is on October 18, 2017. Adiournment On a motion made by Mr. Redfern, seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:04 p.m. Vote was 6-0-0 (Traniello, Jarema, Caouette, Redfern, Hagstrom, Pernice). Page 1 4