Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-09-28 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesN OFR O r 4 a Town of Reading r VI�w Meeting Minutes ,639�lNCORQO� Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Zoning Board of Appeals Date: 2017-09-28 Building: Reading Town Hall Address: 16 Lowell Street Purpose: Public Hearing Attendees: Members - Present: David Traniello, Chairman John Jarema Robert Redfern Cy Caouette Nick Pernice Members - Not Present: Erik Hagstrom Others Present: r>fa:IfAIPI9u'1 TOWN :CLERK READING,-HAS'S 81.1 NOV.-2 P :%,10W 1 Location: Selectmen Meeting Room Session: Kristen and Joe Shutt, Angelo Salamone, John Joyce Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Kristen Grover Topics of Discussion: Chairman Traniello called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM Case # 17-06 — 364 Lowell Street The Zoning Board of Appeals held a continuance of a Public Hearing in the Selectmen's Meeting Room at Town. Hall, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts on Thursday; September 28, 2017 at 7:00 PM 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 5-15 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. Mr. Traniello introduced the case and then announced the Applicant requested a Withdrawal without Prejudice. He then turned the matter to the Board for a vote. On a motion made by Mr. Redfern, seconded by Mr.Caouette, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a Withdrawal without Prejudice for Case #17-06. Vote was 5-0-0 (Traniello, Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Pernice) Case # 17-10 - 70 Forest Street The Zoning Board of Appeals held a Public Hearing in the Selectmen's Meeting Room at Town.Hall, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts on Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 7:00 PM on the application of Kristen and Joe Shutt, pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 40A §9 for a Special Permit under Reading Zoning Bylaw Section 7.3.2 to extend an existing nonconforming structure built pursuant to a prior Variance, on the property located at 70 Forest Street in Reading, Massachusetts. . Applicants Kristen and Joe Shutt were present on behalf of the application. Page 1 1 Mr. Traniello read the case and invited the Applicant to speak. Ms. Shutt addressed the Board and presented her history and case, which is an application for an extension to the existing family room addition that originally required a Variance in 2006. Mr. Traniello reviewed the application with the Applicant. He then opened the meeting to the board for discussion and questions after reading the memo and addendum from Building Inspector Glen Redmond dated September 27, 2017 outlining the proposed plans and setbacks, and stating a Special Permit is required under Section 7.3.2. Mr. Redmond further wrote he had no concerns with this proposal and corrected the information in his original Letter of Denial regarding the dimensions of the proposed addition. Mr. Redfern said he reviewed the case and believes there is no new non -conformity being established, and also would not be more detrimental to the property than what is already existing. Mr. Redfern stated he fully supports a Special Permit. Mr. Redfern referred to the Plot Plan as well as the Variance issued in 2006 and described that the property is a very narrow and long lot being approximately 50'x400'. Mr. Redfern stated the homeowners are essentially handcuffed by the property size and shape, and fully supports the plan. Mr. Pernice stated he agrees with what has been stated so far, and that he feels there is not much the property owners can do with the property within the setbacks and supports this application. Mr. Jarema stated that initially looking at this application, it seemed like a ho-brainer, but then something about the situation occurred to him. Mr. Jarema clarified that they are being asked to extend the previous Variance by virtue of a Special Permit and that he is not sure if the Board can allow that: He mentioned he thinks there are Court cases pertaining to that. He stated the Applicant is asking to alter the original Variance and feels they should be asking for another Variance. Mr. Jarema stated he is not opposed to the proposal, but is not sure the request for a Variance is the appropriate means of getting to that endpoint. Mr. Traniello said they will discuss that issue further.. In response to Mr. Jarema's statement, Mr. Caouette said it was an interesting thought and that his initial reaction to this application was also that it was a no-brainer, and this was a pretty straightforward case. Mr. Caouette said he is not sure if a Variance is required. After the Board discussed the request for a Variance v. a Special Permit, Mr. Caouette stated he is not against approving the application as requested. The Board further discussed the original Variance and the possibility of needing to extend a Variance with another Variance. Mr. Traniello stated the point that should be made and clarified, is that the original Variance was approved and made the non -conformity legal, so this is an existing no - conforming use; this application is not asking for a new non -conformity, but extending the already approved, legal non -conformity. The Board discussed whether the proposed plan is actually further encroaching on the setbacks or not. Mr. Jarema said he believes there is litigation stating that a Variance could not be extended without another Variance and that a Variance could not be extended with a Special Permit. Mr. Jarema opined that this plan is an extension of the front yard dimension to the rear. Mr. Traniello mentioned the Variance runs with the land and a Special Permit runs with the use of the property. He reasoned the use will be recorded, and recorded as a Special Permit which essentially proves an extension of an already legally permitted non -conformity. Mr. Traniello then opined that he did not think in order to extend this Variance it would be required to add an additional Variance because the encroachment into the side yard has already been approved. He added that he felt granting this application would be by Special Permit because the matter is not of one that requires a Variance because a Variance has already been granted. Mr. Traniello then mentioned he is not aware of the case law Mr. Jarema was speaking of and mentioned if the Board granted the Applicant's request and they ran into a legal issue that they come back before the Board. Mr. Traniello addressed the Applicant and advised that if another legal entity challenged the Decision by Special Permit, they would have to come back to seek relief. Mr. Redfern agreed with Mr. Traniello that the Applicants would be able to come back before the Board for relief. Mr. Traniello said he doesn't feel that would be necessary and that the Board felt this case seemed fairly standard as previously being called a no-brainer. Mr. Traniello stated the Board would need to require the normal conditions attached to the Special Permit. He stated he is not aware of a Variance being applicable in this situation and feels it is appropriate to vote on a Special Permit. Mr. Caouette contributed that in reading Section 7.3.2, he feels the Board has the authority to vote on the application under a Special Permit and is comfortable in proceeding in that manner. Mr. Caouette said he agreed also that if something came up it would be dealt with, but doesn't feel it would. Page 1 2 Mr. Redfern agreed with ,Mr: Traniello, that this application seems like common sense and a new non -conformity is not being created. He recognized that 98% of this addition is in the building envelope which is very difficult and creative with the restrictions. Mr. Jarema asked Mr. Pernice if he was in the same opinion. Mr. Pernice stated he agrees strongly with Mr. Caouette's statement pertaining to Section 7.3.2 in that it is applicable to what the applicant is requesting to be granted a Special Permit, even without the background regarding the Variance. The Board agreed if more time for research was available, they might be able to obtain more information, but will vote on a Special Permit tonight. Mr. Traniello then opened the meeting to public comment and closed the meeting without any comments. In discussing the motion to grant a Special Permit under Section 7.3.2 to the Applicants Kristen and Joe Shutt, Mr. Caouette reminded them to submit any necessary documents to the Building Department, and Mr. Jarema stated he will vote in the negative due to the procedural aspect. On a motion made Mr. Caouette, seconded by Mr. Redfern., the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a special permit for Case #17-10. Vote was 4-1-0 (Traniello, Redfern, Caouette, Pernice), (Jarema) Case # 10-04 — 45 Beacon Street, Beacon Court 40B Mr. Traniello brought forward the next matter on the Agenda, Case #10-04, stating that it is an old case that is requesting an extension on a Comprehensive Permit for Beacon Court 40B. Mr. Traniello asked the public if the Applicant was present to address the Board regarding their request to discuss an extension for Beacon Court. The Applicant was not present. The Board then discussed the procedure in this scenario given nothing was being presented to vote on, and invited the public to speak regarding this case. An abutter, Mr. John Joyce of 890 Main Street stated that he was told the permit expired and asked the Board how the Applicant would be able to get an extension if the permit expired. Mr. Traniello told Mr. Joyce his statement was well taken, but the Applicant was not present to even make the request. The Board discussed the fact that the Applicant is not present to make a formal request and will close the hearing with no discussion or action; furthermore stating if the Applicant would like to be on Other Business at another meeting he will have to discuss that with Town Staff. The Board agreed the case concerned an expired Comprehensive Permit and will remain as such. Mr. Joyce asked when the next Board meeting will be and if he will receive notification. The Board told Mr. Joyce if the Applicant's case is on another meeting's agenda, it will be posted. The Board discussed how they have never had an Applicant not show up. They discussed previous meetings regarding this case, how the Comprehensive Permit had already been extended twice before, and the email from the Community Development Director, Julie Mercier where the Applicant stated he would be at the meeting to discuss that he wishes to continue work to the location at his own peril while he sought Appellate review. . The Applicant, Mr. Salamone then walked in. The Board discussed that the hearing was closed and the public has left. Mr. Salamone asked if this was a public hearing, and The Board informed Mr. Salamone the meeting had been closed. Mr. Traniello explained to Mr. Salamone that the Board called the hearing and Mr. Salamone was not there and they closed the hearing after hearing and dismissing the public. At that time, Mr. Joyce walked in and Mr. Traniello announced that the member of the public returned. Mr. Traniello opened the matter of re -opening the meeting to the Board for discussion, and asked if there were any objections. Mr. Redfern said he did have an issue with re -opening the meeting, it was against his better judgment and that he felt the Applicant should have been present at 7:00 but he will go along with what the Board decides. Mr. Pernice said he would agree either way, but given that the member of the public came back in and would have the opportunity. to Page 1 3 speak, he felt re -opening the meeting would be okay. Mr. Jarema stated he was okay with re -opening the meeting, and Mr. Caouette stated he agreed with Mr. Redfern but will agree to re -open the meeting. Mr. Traniello opened the meeting up to Mr. Salamone to present his case. Mr. Salamone stated that last month his contractor obtained a permit through the Engineering Department to open trench and install infrastructure which was revoked once that work was completed and inspected. Mr. Salamone stated that is when he was told the permit expired in 2016, and that was the reason for revoking the permit. W. Salamone told the Board he was in the process of filing a request`for a reinstatement with the HAC, and that he wanted the Board to be formally informed. He apologized to the Board for being late. Mr. Salamone stated he would like to continue the improvements to the private way in front of his house. Mr. Salamone discussed how the drainage has been an ongoing problem and part of this project was to capture the runoff. He let the Board know that catch basins and piping have been installed and it is all on private property. Mr. Salamone further told the Board that the capture and infiltration is not tied into public drainage. Mr. Salamone stated he has a well-designed plan and had intentions of improving the private property regardless of 40B plans. W. Traniello confirmed with the Applicant he is presently perusing an appeal with the Housing Appeals Committee. Mr. Traniello asked W. Salamone what he wanted the Board to do with that understanding. Mr. Salamone replied that he wanted the Board to be aware of the chain of events and to keep the Board in the loop. Mr, Salamone added that, he would like to build the street in front of his house. Mr. Traniello implied that what Mr. Salmone wanted was not before this Board and asked the Applicant if he was looking for permission from the Board to continue work on an expired Comprehensive Permit. He then asked the Applicant what exactly he is looking for from the Board at this meeting tonight, adding that the Board appreciates the information the Applicant provided tonight. The Applicant reiterated that he wanted to advise the Board of what was going on and said he is not asking for an extension because believed it was not possible if the permit had expired, but wondered if it could perhaps be re- instated. Mr. Salamone told the board again that he would like to improve the private way in front of his house, and he wasn't sure if the Board could or could not approve that. Mr. Traniello told W .Salamone that the Board could not. Mr. Traniello stated it is not the Board's jurisdiction or authority to give him approval to do any work in town, that that is daytime government's job, pointing out the Building Department, Community Development, and Engineering that would approve any applications he sought — new, old, or otherwise. Mr. Traniello told the Applicant his 40B permit has expired and the Board is not inclined to grant him an extension on an expired permit. Mr. Traniello informed the Applicant that to the extent that the notice that has been published requests a permit extension, the Board can certainly vote on that if he would like, but he notified the Board he is seeking and appeal through the Housing Appeals Committee, and that is his right. Mr. Traniello told the Applicant that regarding what he wants to do with the property with an expired 40B permit, the Board is not privy to any of his construction plans, drawings or otherwise outside of the 40B Comprehensive Permit that has expired. Mr. Traniello told the Applicant the Board will not grant him any permission, and does not have the authority or jurisdiction to grant him any permission to do anything with that property, either pursuant to a 40B permit, Compressive Permit or otherwise. Mr. Traniello stated that to the extent that the Applicant has informed the Board that he is going to appeal, he wished the Applicant luck and advised him to consult with the Building Department and Community Development Department with any of his other questions, comments, expectations, or plans with regards to that project. Mr. Salamone asked if he needed a denial, if he should come back. Mr. Traniello told him he could have one now but why would he want to come back. Mr. Redfern interjected questioningly quoting "a denial?" Mr. Jarema interjected that he can't have a denial on something nonexistent. Mr. Traniello agreed and explained that they would have to deny an application. The Board members stated that the Applicant does not have an application. Mr. Jarema discussed the original case, outlining that the permit lapsed, and extension was granted and that lapsed, and then another extension was granted which also lapsed then the case was closed down. Mr. Jarema opined that this does not apply, that Case #10-04 is nonexistent. Mr. Traniello discussed with Mr. Jarema that it wouldn't be appropriate to vote on anything without an application. Mr. Traniello asked the Applicant to apply through the Town for an application. Mr. Jarema addressed the Applicant telling him the Board has nothing in hand before them to vote on therefore they cannot give him a Decision. Mr. Redfern agreed that the case is expired and there is nothing to extend. Mr. Joyce told the Board about a fence on the property that he heard the Town told the Applicant where to put it. Mr. Joyce told the Board he has a right of way at the back of Mr. Salamone's property that he can't access because Page 14 of the fence. Mr. Joyce said he heard the Town told the Applicant to take the fence down. He asked if the case is expired, how he can get the Applicant to take the fence down. W. Traniello stated the Board does not give legal advice and that Mr. Joyce should seek counsel. Mr. Joyce then asked if the Town is going to have the Applicant get rid of the large piles of dirt on the property, to which Mr. Traniello suggested he speak with daytime government. Mr. Traniello thanked the Applicant and Mr. Joyce and told them to have a good night. Mr. Salamone and Mr. Joyce left the meeting. Minutes August 17, 2017 On a motion made by Mr. Caouette, seconded by Mr. Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to approve the August 17, 2017 minutes as written. Vote was 5-0-0 (Traniello, Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Pernice). September 7, 2017 On a motion made by Mr. Redfern, seconded by Mr. Caouette, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to approve the September 9, 2017 minutes as written. Vote was 5-0-0 (Traniello, Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Pernice). Other Business Mr. Traniello reminded the Board that the October 4th meeting will be held at the Economic Development. Symposium at the Library and the meeting has been posted. Adiournment On a motion made Mr. Jarema, seconded by Mr. Pernice, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:49p.m.' Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Hagstrom, Pernice). Page 1 5