HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-11-15 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesOWN OFR'
Town of Reading
a
n Meeting Minutes
W
4�s39'lxcoaa°4P�
Board - Committee - Commission - Council:
Zoning Board of Appeals
E i V E E
r-
`sa!�� y
0 1, :y
R.^� § t E.p 1 s.
2418 FEB ? PM 4' 34
.Date: 2017-11-15 Time: 7:00 PM
Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Selectmen Meeting Room
Address: 16 Lowell Street
Purpose: Public Hearing Session:
Attendees: Members- Present:
David Traniello,,Chairman
.John Jarema
Robert Redfern
Cy Caouette
Erik Hagstrom
Nick.Pernice
Members - Not Present:
Others Present:
Stephen Debelis, Kevin Kieler
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Kristen. Grover
Topics of Discussion:
Chairman Traniello called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM
Case # 17-12 —170 Franklin 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 Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 7:00 PM on the application of Kevin Kieler of
Brady Sunrooms on behalf of Stephen Debelis, pursuant to M. GI. Ch. 40A § 10 for a Variance under Reading
Zoning Bylaw Section 6.3 to construct a 13.0'x13.5'sunroom, with a proposed rear yard setback of 7.2' and to
exceed the lot coverage permitted in an Aquifer Protection District under Section 10.3.3.1 paragraph i, on the
property located at 170 Franklin Street in Reading, Massachusetts.
Chief Designer Kevin Kieler and Applicant Stephen Debelis were present on behalf of the application.
Mr. Kieler presented the case and hardships to the Board. He explained that he was hired by Stephen and Lucy
Debelis to design a sunroom with the intention to create an outdoor space for their 4 -year old son who is nonverbal
autistic and can't go outside. He further explained that the house itself is very small, and the yard is as well. Mr.
Kieler informed the Board that they tried to design a plan that did not require a Variance but because of the size and
;
features of the lotthe proposed plan was determined to be the only option'.
Mr. Kieler explained that this plan was chosen because the neighbors can't see into the back yard, the front yard
slopes sharply, and the sides of the house will still need a Variance, but be seen by the neighbors. He concluded the
most logical place for the sunroom is in the backyard where it will not be visible to the neighbors and there is no
ledge. Mr. Kieler presented to the Board and passed out letters from both neighbors stating they were in favor of the
proposed plan, that is was a logical spot for the sunroom, it won't be in. view and that they respectfully request the
Variance be granted to the Debelises allowing them to install the sunroom.
Page 1 1
Mr. Traniello discussed with Mr. Kieler that the application was for a Variance in regard to a rear yard setback and
the hearing notice mentioned an Aquifer Protection District Variance. Mr. Kieler told the Board, they did not seek
relief from that, and that Town Engineering recommended not seeking a Variance for that but install an engineering
recharge system instead. Mr. Traniello agreed.
Mr. Traniello mentioned that although Mr. Kieler discussed the proposed plan, for the record, he would like him to
address the statutory criteria with the Board.
Mr. Kieler mentioned that as he said before, the front yard slopes, the yard is ledge, he further describe the yard and
explained why the house is in the corner of the yard, and that any other location on the lot will not provide the
privacy they are looking for.
Mr. Traniello agreed that seemed to address the first criteria, but would like to hear discussion of the other criteria,
including financial hardship, and substantial detriment to the public, etc.
Mr. Kieler stated that not granting the Variance would create a hardship, lack of privacy, and that granting the
Variance would not be a detriment to the public because it would be in the back of the house out of view, it won't
decrease the property value or the neighbors' property values, and the neighbors are in support.
Mr. Traniello asked Mr. Kieler to advise the Board how far along they are with the Town Engineer regarding the
recharge system. Mr. Kieler stated they can have it finished in about a week.
Mr. Kieler stated the building inspector mentioned to stop the work until they came before the Board. Mr. Traniello
agreed.
Mr. Traniello read for the record, a memo dated today from Mr. Redmond, Building Commissioner.
Mr. Traniello opened the case to the Board for comments and questions.
Mr. Redfern said that in taking a look at the property and Tax Assessor's records,.the house appears to be built
around 1953 and maybe before Zoning, and also that it appears to be a legal nonconforming structure with
conservation land at the rear. Mr. Traniello mentioned he thinks the land might be town forest. Mr. Redfern stated
the land swings around both sides. Mr. Redfern said that he personally felt the arguments are valid per the criteria
given the sloping and ledge, and that he could see why the house was built where it was because of blasting. He
stated he feels they meet. the criteria, but his only question pertains to how much percentage over the allowable lot
coverage this would be.
The Board discussed the allowable lot coverage and determined the plan would cover a substantial amount.
Mr. Redfern advised the Applicant that this is something the Town Engineer will need to know in regards to the
recharge system.
Mr. Pernice said that he echoed what the Board has already said and that he feels that he sees this as a reasonable
accommodation and an accessibility issue, meeting the criteria, and that he supports the plan.
Mr. Jarema discussed the history of the property and details of the ownership of the conservation land, explaining
that that ownership will last until 2024. Mr. Jarema confirmed with Mr. Debelis that the house is a 2 bedroom and
that his son's bedroom is 6' x 12'. He stated most closets today are bigger than the discussed -bedroom and he can
see the usability of this plan, and feels. it supports the criteria and there is justification all the way around.
Mr. Traniello explained to the Applicant that what Mr. Jarema meant pertaining to the transfer of ownership=of the
conservation land in 2024 is that if he was interested, he could have a.conversation with the owner to see if they
needed all of that property. Mr. Jarema added that that option might allow them more flexibility in the future.
Mr. Caouette said the case has been made by the other 3 members; he has nothing'to add and supports the plan.
Mr. Hagstrom concurred.
I
Mr. Traniello read the letters from the Applicant's neighbors Nestor Eliatis, 162 Franklin Street, Reading, MA. and
Thomas and Martha Gardner, 182 Franklin Street, Reading, MA, stating their support into the record.
Page 1 2
Mr. Traniello then opened the meeting to the public for comment, and hearing none, closed that portion of the
meeting.
Mr. Traniello noted the certified plot plan and construction drawings, and stated he felt the application has been well
received. He mentioned that historically, the Board has been cautious in granting Variances and meeting the
statutory criteria is tough, but as the Board members have said, he agrees that there could not be a better use of this
property.
Mr. Redfern said he would like to point out that relying on mortgage surveys isn't always beneficial and is he
grateful the Board requires a certified plot plan with the Zoning Board applications.
The Board discussed which members will be voting and the conditions for granting the Variance. Mr. Traniello
discussed that the published notice made mention of the Variance from the Aquifer Protection District and that the
Board will need to take a second vote for the Applicant's withdrawal on that portion.
On a motion made by Mr. Caouette, seconded by Mr. Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
grant a Variance for Case #17-12.
Vote was 5-0-0 (Traniello; Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Hagstrom)
Mr. Traniello stated the hearing notice also requested relief from the Variance for the Aquifer Protection District,
and asked the Applicant if they mould like to withdraw. Mr. Kieler answered yes.
On a motion made.by Mr. Caouette, seconded by Mr. Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
grant a Withdrawal for a Variance for Case #17-12.
Vote was 5-0-0 (Traniello, Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Hagstrom)
Mr. Traniello explained the decision and appeal process to the Applicant.
Mr. Traniello stated that on the agenda, meeting minutes. were scheduled to be reviewed; but the Board will
postpone the review until the next meeting for further editing by Kristen Grover.
Minutes
No minutes were reviewed.
Adjournment
On a motion made Mr. Redfern, seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
adjourn the meeting at 7:39 p.m.
Vote was 6-0-0 (Traniello, Jarema, Redfern, Caouette; Hagstrom, Pernice).
Page 1 3