HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-02-21 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 0ee�'+o,,y
c .Town of Reading
Meeting Minutes a CE 1 V � y
�4� •• a� �� tt-TOWN Citi..Lm ii�m r'i
Gag.01co ��P `T�. i�D 1, 114 Gi, I A.
Board -Committee - Commission - Council: 2016 APR 19 AM 9: 34
Zoning Board of Appeals
Date: 2018-02-21 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
Nick Pernice
Members - Not Present:
Erik Hagstrom
Others Present:
Attorney Brad Latham, Ann Hale, Ken Hale, Paul Lucerto, D. Pothier, Maria
Schellenbach, Bill McIsaac
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Kristen Grover
Topics of Discussion:
Chairman Traniello called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM
Case# 18-02—32 Whitehall Lane
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 February 21,2018 at 7:00 PM on the application of Attorney Joshua
Latham on behalf of Vincent and.Kimberly Shanley,pursuant to M.G.L. Ch.40A §9 for a Special Permit under
Reading Zoning Bylaw Sections 5.3.2 and 5.4.7 to construct an addition to the existing single family dwelling and to
create an attached accessory apartment on the property located at 32 Whitehall Lane in Reading,Massachusetts,
Mr.Traniello introduced the case. Attorney Brad Latham was present on behalf of Vincent and Kimberly Shanley.
He introduced the case and explained the proposed plan and details. He discussed how the property is located in an
S 15 district, is larger than required for that district, and that the plans fall within the limits of the Zoning guidelines.
He stated that the owners will continue to reside in the property. He explained that the main dwelling will not
change,and the addition will be in the back and behind the main dwelling. He discussed the topics of the driveway,
water,lot coverage,and setback requirements. He then read a letter from Vincent Shanley Sr.that explained his
heart condition and his desire to join his family in Reading. Mr.Latham presented the letter to the Board.
Peter Sandorsi,the architect presented the building plans and explained the proposed addition,adding that it will
match the existing dwelling and all of the connecting area belongs to the main dwelling. He further explained the
living area of the accessory apartment is on the first story and the bedroom and bathroom are on the second story.
Mr. Jarema asked to review the calculations. He also asked for clarification on the porch—if it was an open porch
and had been considered in the calculations. He raised the concern that if the porch has a roof,that possibly in the
future walls could be added,enclosing it which would exceed the allowed square footage. Mr.Latham stated he was
willing to have a condition added to the Special Permit to acknowledge the porch cannot be enclosed without going
Page 1 1
before the Board again. Mr.Redfern stated that the Board needed to look at the application that was here before
them tonight and not worry about something that could happen down the road.
Mr.Traniello opened the meeting to the Board for discussion. He read a memo from Glen Redmond Building
Commissioner into the record.
Mr. Pernice stated he had no questions,the plans were very complete,and the explanation of the finished basement
made sense.
Mr.Redfern said that as Mr.Latham stated,the property as it sits now meets all Zoning requirements,and as
proposed is within the building envelope. He further stated that the applicant met all the requirements for the
accessory apartment. His only question was if Conservation was going to be involved; if Conservation approval was
required. Mr.Latham stated if it was jurisdictional they would absolutely comply. Mr.Redfern summarized his
view of the application and stated he was satisfied with it.
Mr.Jarema stated he had no additional concerns,but he spotted Conservation approval also. He advised Mr.
Latham that it will need to be taken care of for the building permit. He further stated that he can't see where the
requirements have not been covered. He mentioned the tie in of the design was good and it didn't give the
indication of an accessory apartment.
Mr. Caouette said he didn't really have a problem at all with the application, and they fit something very nice into
this property that meets the requirements. He said he didn't feel Conservation would really be an issue but to make
sure. He advised the applicant that regarding the porch they would need to come back if they were to enclose it,but
it was not a problem tonight.
Mr.Traniello made a point for clarification,being that the plot plan versus the building drawings didn't match and
he can't stamp incorrect plans. Mr.Latham offered that the Board could make a condition for architectural
conditions. Mr.Traniello explained that he would still have to stamp incorrect plans. Mr.Latham suggested a
continuance to the next hearing to submit a corrected plan. Mr.,Traniello said that is what he would be most
comfortable with and discussed the option for the March 7,2018 hearing that was set aside.for the 40B application.
Mr.Traniello opened the meeting to the public.
Paul Lucerto of 34 Sherwood Road inquired how far back the accessory apartment would extend. Mr. Sandorsi
explained that in total it would extend 14 feet.
Mr. Jarema explained that the certified plot plan showed the edge of the addition to the back property line is 91 feet.
Maria Schellenbech of 12 Whitehall informed the Board that the applicant runs a business out of his house and that
he has trucks with plows that he leaves in the driveway. She asked why there was an extra garage in the plans. Mr.
Traniello asked if it was a pick-up truck. Ms. Schellenbech stated it was a big truck with a plow and used to do
yardwork,and that maybe they can run the business someplace else.
Bill Mcisaac of 17 Whitehall asked if the accessory apartment was going to have a kitchen area. He was told by
Mr. Sardorsi that yes, it is very small. He asked about governance to prevent the house from becoming a two family
house, and keeping it just an accessory apartment. Mr.Traniello mentioned that was a matter of semantics. He
advised that this part of the Zoning bylaw allows property owners that meet the performance standards to add in a
separate living space that could include a kitchen,and that it needs to maintain the appearance of a single family
home,but is essentially two separate residences. Mr.Traniello reiterated that as long as it looks and measures
correct and meets building code standards it is allowed.
Mr. Lucerto asked if in the future they could rent the apartment,if any bylaws prevented that. Mr.Traniello
informed him that once a Special Permit is granted,the only requirement is that the owner has to live in one of the
residences on the property:He further advised that there is no guideline in the bylaw that states if it required that it is
a family member or not. Mr.Lucerto said he hoped this doesn't open a can of worms,and asked how to prevent the
possibility to rent to non-family—he didn't want this neighborhood to become two family homes.
Mr.Traniello explained that the bylaws were amended to allow this;the population is growing such that the Town
wants to foster and encourage aging family members to live with family,and the Town also wants to keep track of
applications to determine if there is increasing regularity. He mentioned there have been 3 or 4 accessory
apartments in a year and that he did not feel that was an unreasonable number of requests. He assured the public
that the Town will keep track of the number of applications. He told Mr.Lucerto his concern was well taken. Mr.
Page 1 2
Lucerto asked again if the homeowner can rent to a non-family member to which Mr.Traniello told him yes. Mr.
Jarema added that safeguards are in place—citing that the accessory apartment can't be more than 1/3 of the total
square feet of the principle residence, it has to meet all the requirements of the Town and Board pertaining to a two
family structure,that there are a lot of building code and safety requirements,and that the only intangible element is
who you can give the accessory apartment to. He further added that only up to two bedrooms are allowed in an
accessory apartment and that there is also a need for affordable housing and housing in general.
Mr.McIsaac asked if there is restrictions on commercial enterprise in that area,such as regulations that guard
against something like and Air B&B. Mr.Traniello stated the discussion is getting off topic from the application at
hand,but the Zoning bylaws have table of allowable uses in residential areas explaining what can and can't be done
in residential districts.
Ken Hale of 26 Whitehall asked for clarification of the plot plan versus the architectural plan. Mr.Traniello
explained that there is a discrepancy in the total"square footage on each document;the total square footage on the
elevation drawings is correct but the applicant has to go back to the architect and engineer to update the drawings to
match. Mr.Hale asked if the plot plan is the historical plan. Mr.Traniello informed him this is a new plot plan.
The Board discussed upcoming hearing dates and scheduled cases. The Board and applicant agreed to continue the
hearing to March 7,2018 to be heard first on the agenda before the 40B application.
On a motion made by Mr. Redfern,seconded by Mr.Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
grant a Continuance to March 7, 2018 for Case#18-02.
Vote was 5-0-0(Traniello,Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Pernice)
Case# 17-01—Schoolhouse Commons 40B—172 Woburn Street
The Zoning Board of Appeals weighed on a determination of Substantial or Insubstantial change to the project.
Mr.Traniello opened the next item on the agenda explaining that the request for determination of whether there was
a major ominor, substantial or insubstantial change to the project. The hearing was closed,d,the Decision was issued
but the Applicant wants to make some changes to the project.
Mr. Latham discussed the changes.to the project which include extend the width of shed at the back of the building
to allow electrical facilities to be inside the building and for inside bicycle storage,moving the air conditioning
condensers to the roof of the shed to the back,and moving the transformer from the back of the site to the side of the
building.
Mr.Jarema asked if the material being used will be sound absorbing. Mr.Latham stated it could be if that was a
condition. Mr. Jarema commented that by raising the condenser to the roof,the sound may push on to the
neighbors. He added they are willing to agree to a condition to inspect and repair periodically.
Mr.Traniello asked if Reading Municipal Light Department weighed in on the subject of the pad. Mr.Latham
stated they not yet had.
Mr.Jarema commented that the combination of these things make this a questionable situation. He further,
commented that they had spent a lot of time on this project which makes it a critical issue and he expected they
would have something from RMLD.
Mr.Redfern discussed the before and after dimension of the pad,and stated he didn't see anything in regards to
what the new requests were on items 2 and 3.
Mr.Traniello stated the question today is whether this is a major or minor modification.He commented that there is
not enough information to make a decision,but in the interest of time management they are going to need the
Applicant to come back with more information. .
Mr. Caouette asked to clarify what information they will need.Mr.Traniello suggested RMLD weigh in on the
location and size of pad.
Page 1 3
Mr. Caouette commented that he looks at it differently—as the Board is being asked to determine whether the
substance of the change is a significant change to the total project or is it not,and that he didn't feel it was a
significant change to the overall project where the nitty gritty details need to be heavily discussed.He reiterated that
he did not feel the changes the Applicant wanted to make were significant to the overall project.
Mr.Jarema told Mr. Caouette he disagreed with him but they had a 3rd option and mentioned withdrawing at this
time to come back with the information.
Mr.Traniello stated they did not need to withdraw due to tonight's request not'being a hearing,but he was not sure
if the Board agrees based on the information in front of them if they can make a determination whether it is a major
or minor change. He stated he felt it was a minor change,not large enough to trigger major modifications,but they
will have to come back with more information,especially from RMLD.
Mr.Redfern discussed the fact that they will have to write up a decision and reference it to a plan,so they will need
a plan with the revised date and showing the changes.
The Board and the Applicant discussed which date to hold the continuance on,and decided on the April 4,2018
meeting. Mr. Latham agreed.
Minutes
November 1,2017
On a motion made by Mr. Caouette,seconded by Mr.Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
approve the November 1, 2017 minutes as amended.
Vote was 5-0-0(Traniello,Jarema,Redfern, Caouette, Pernice).
November 15,2017
On a motion made by Mr. Redfern, seconded by Mr. Caouette, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
approve the November 15, 2017 minutes as amended.
Vote was 5-0-0(Traniello,Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Pernice).
Adiournment
On a motion made Mr. Caouette,seconded by Mr. Pernice, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
adjourn the meeting at 8:21p.m.
Vote was 5-0-0(Traniello,Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Pernice).
Page 4