HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-04-18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes OFR fy '
:� ��. Town of Reading
EEll
Meeting Minutes i�. ttE� i'CLOYi7ERK
i �y pp > f�
,sJ9tlsCO44p4P�� R E it i F i N r
Board - Committee - Commission - Council: 2010MAY 17 Ate I I: 10
Zoning Board of Appeals
Date: 2018-04-18 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
Erik Hagstrom
Members - Not Present:
Others Present:
Keith and Kathleen Tyler, Leonard Porier, Nancy Andersen, Matt Zuker, Josh
Latham, Vin Shanley, Peter Sampaio, Kerri Martell, Daniel Martell, Michael
and Leah Monteiro, Scott Melching, and Andrew MacNichol - Assistant
Planner
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 will hold a continuance of a Public Hearing in the Selectmen's Meeting Room at
Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street,Reading,Massachusetts on Wednesday,April 18,2018 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.
Vincent Shanley was present on behalf of the Application.
Mr.Traniello introduced the case and read it into the record. He stated that the Applicant had submitted an
acceptable plot plan and elevation drawings with the discrepancies worked out. He mentioned that the Board
queried the criteria for an accessory apartment and the only considerations were a vote for approval on matching
drawings. He reminded the Board that Mr.Hagstrom wasn't part of the original deliberation and will not take part
in tonight's vote. He then asked Mr.Latham if he had anything to add. Mr. Latham mentioned that at 991 sf,the
Application is under the allowed 1/3 total or 1000 square feet.
Mr.Traniello asked the Board if they had any additional question. Hearing none,he then if a member of the Public
wanted to speak. Hearing none,he asked the Board for a motion.
Page 1 1
On a motion made by Mr. Redfern,seconded by Mr.Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
grant a Special Permit for Case#18-02.
Vote was 5-0-0(Traniello,Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Pernice)
Case#17-01—School House Commons 40B 172 Woburn Street
Determination of Substantial or Insubstantial Change to Project.
Mr.Latham was present on behalf of the Application.
Mr.Traniello discussed that the case was before the Board tonight to determine if the changes to the plan were
substantial or insubstantial,and that Mr. Hagstrom will not take part in the vote tonight.
Mr.Traniello discussed that the Applicant was asked to bring back plans that further represented the changes being
made which involved the utility pad and moving the HVAC equipment to the roof.
Mr.Latham mentioned that in the original plan change they were requesting a cut out,but now decided not to do
that.
Mr.Redfern asked Mr. Latham if they have coordinated with RMLD. Mr. Latham said yes, it has been approved for
both locations and the final location will be determined in the field,that if this plan is approved and RMLD wants it
in the other location,they will come back.
Mr. Jarema asked if there will be visual buffers to the HVAC equipment on the roof. Mr.Latham said that was
correct,it will be entirely covered by shielding,and as a substance of caution,there will also be a sound blanket.
Mr. Latham handed the Board paperwork regarding the sound blanket to be submitted for the record.
Mr.Traniello summarized the changes as the pad staying where it is,the addition,and the transformers being moved
to the roof,and how it is the Board's duty to determine if the changes are major or minor. He further explained if
the changes are minor,the Applicant can work with Town staff,but if they are major there will have to be another
hearing.
Mr.Traniello asked the Board if they had any questions and if they feel they should have a vote with conditions.
Mr. Jarema stated that since this technically isn't a hearing,they can make a motion for the benefit of the Applicant.
Mr. Jarema then suggested they make a motion to recognize that the updated proposals to Case#17-01 are not
substantial and does not need a hearing, on the condition that the changes that are being made which include adding
a sound proofing blanket, slightly enlarging the addition at the rear of the building, and the rest to be determined in
the field.
On a motion made by Mr. Redfern,seconded by Mr. Caouette, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
deem the changes to Case#17-01 as Insubstantial.
Vote was 5-0-0(Traniello, Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Hagstrom)
The Board then confirmed the plans do not need to be stamped, as the date and plan referenced the revision
and that the Vote will stand on its own.
Case#16-02—The Met at Reading Station 40B—Lincoln/Prescott Street
The Met at Reading Station(formerly known as the Reading Village 40B)—Lincoln/Prescott Streets
Acknowledgement of Mass Housing's Regulatory Agreement for the project.
Mr.Zuker was present on behalf of the Application.
Mr.Traniello explained that the Board's task tonight was to execute an acknowledgement of the Regulatory
Agreement between MA Housing and DCHD has been entered into.
Page 1 2
Mr.Traniello asked Mr.Zuker if the acknowledgment has been signed by his client. Mr.Zuker stated he was not
sure,that he was told to have it acknowledged first.
Mr..Jarema explained that most of what is in the 31 pages of the agreement are protocol from MA Housing and that
it doesn't necessarily include a portion for the ZBA. Mr.Zuker stated that he went over the document with Town
Counsel and he.didn't think MA Housing signs the agreement until the Town signs it. Mr.Traniello stated that it
makes sense to have the acknowledgment—acknowledging the existence of the agreement even if not signed by the
Developer or MA Housing.
Mr. Redfern questioned what the Board is signing,noting there is no agreement yet because there are no signatures.
Mr.Traniello stated that Town Councel approved the agreement,and the Board can rely on Town Counsel, The
Board agreed and moved to sign the agreement.
Traniello,Jarema,Redfern,Caouette,Pernice signed.
Case#18-03—73 Libby Ave
The Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a continuance of a Public Hearing in the Selectmen's Meeting Room at
Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street,Reading,Massachusetts on Wednesday,April 18,2018 at 7:00 PM on the application
of Kathleen and Keith Tyler,pursuant to M.G.L. Ch.40A §9 for a Special Permit under Reading Zoning Bylaw
Section 5.3.2&Section 5.4.7 to add a kitchen area in order to create an accessory apartment in the dwelling that is
currently under construction on the property located at 73 Libby Avenue in Reading,Massachusetts.
The Applicant,Keith Tyler was present on behalf of the application.
Mr.Traniello read the case into the.record and swore the Applicant in.
Mr.Tyler presented his application and outlined the reasons why the accessory apartment would benefit his in-laws
and allow them to continue living independently.
Mr.Traniello read a memo from Glen Redmond,Building Commissioner into the record. He explained that the
reason for the denial letter was due to the requirement for a Special Permit.
Mr.Traniello opened up the discussion to the Board for comments or questions.
Mr. Pernice stated he feels'the performance standards have been met and that the design is consistent with looking
like a single family home.
Mr.Redfern stated he looked at the plans and the property. He mentioned the residence is in the S20 District and is
a legal nonconforming lot that was grandfathered prior to zoning. He stated that 1/3 of the total square footage was
allowed and this plan falls under the maximum allowable square footage. He stated his only question was where the
cars will be parked. Mr.Tyler stated they plan to put a driveway on the Libby Street side with a paved walkway,
and only will need one curb cut. Mr.Redfern stated the way he sees it,the performance standards appear to be met.
Mr.Jarema raised the question of basement access and advised the Applicant that there cannot be direct access
through the primary residence;the accessory apartment is supposed to be independent and not accessible to each
other,that the door leading from the in-law to the main residence needs to be a solid fire wall between the two
residences...
Mr.Caouette mentioned that other than what has already been brought up,his only concern was if Conservation
approval was needed. Mr.Tyler stated that he didn't believe it to be an issue and the contractor mentioned
Conservation had signed off.
Mr. Hagstrom stated he had nothing new to add.
Mr.Traniello opened the meeting for Public discussion. Hearing none,he closed that portion of the meeting and
asked if the Board had any other questions or comments.
Mr.Caouette questioned if in granting a Special Permit, if the Board should add a condition as subject to the
Building Inspector's approval and consistent with the Bylaws regarding accessory apartments.
Page 1 3
On a motion made by Mrs Caouette,seconded by Mr. Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
grant a Special Permit for Case#18-03.
Vote was 5-0-0(Traniello, Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Hagstrom)
Case#18-04—13 Wenda Street
The Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a Public Hearing in the Selectmen's Meeting Room at Town Hall, 16
Lowell Street, Reading,Massachusetts on Wednesday,April 4,2018 at 7:00 PM on the application of Leah and
Mike Monteiro,pursuant to M.G.L. Ch.40A §10 for a Variance from Reading Zoning Bylaw Section 6.0 for the
construction of an addition that does not conform to the required rear yard setback on the property located at 13
Wenda Street in Reading,Massachusetts.
Applicants Leah and Mike Monteiro,and architect Scott Melching were present on behalf of the Application.
Mr.Traniello read the case into record and swore in the Applicants.
Mr.Melching discussed the Application,stating the Applicants and he had created more than five designs and came
up with this design to move the garage—to attach and add a bedroom above it. He explained they already moved
the kitchen when they moved in and given that the neighbors are the School House Commons project heard earlier,
they feel it is an understandable request. He stated the yard is incredibly small and difficult to build on.
Mr.Traniello read a memo from Building Commissioner Glen Redmond into the record. He then opened up the
meeting to the Board for questions and comments.
Mr.Hagstrom stated he really like the project and if the Applicants were seeking a Special Permit,he would really
get behind it but when seeking a Variance,all the performance standards need to be met. He stated with the shape
of the lot,the issue became self-inflicted when they did the kitchen. He stated that this is where he is at initially.
Mr. Caouette agreed that the lot ties the Applicant's hands and limits flexibility. He stated he likes the approach but
it did not comply with the setback. He agreed with Mr.Hagstrom that the Applicant could have avoided needing to
come before the Board if they didn't want a window. He noted that there would be cost incurred in taking a
different approach, and that points 3 and 4 of the Performance Standards seem to be met but the only hiccup is that it
does not create a category for a significant hiccup.
Mr.Jarema discussed the plans and stated he did not have issues with seeing the first and second criteria as being
met,noting that the house is very small. He commented that the Board doesn't often endorse Variances but this plan
appears to make the best use of what the Applicant has been given, improves what is there now,and meets the intent
and purpose of the bylaw. He stated that in this case he has no qualms about this particular Variance,that it has
credence to meet the criteria.
Mr. Redfern stated he agrees with the other Board members and meeting the criteria,that this is a tough lot. He
mentioned the house was built before zoning, and is a nonconforming dwelling as far as setbacks and that he feels
they would be improving the setbacks by demolishing the existing garage. He further stated he feels this plan is an
improvement in regards to allowing for better access to the 30 inch drain that runs through the yard,which the
owners didn't put in. He said that all in all he felt this was an improvement to the area.
Mr.Pemice said he echoed the other Board members. He mentioned in meeting the third and fourth criteria,that he
did not feel it would be detrimental considering School House Commons. He stated he struggled with the second
criteria and although he agrees with Mr.Hagstrom that this is a self-inflicted issue,he didn't think the Applicant had
that consideration when they did the kitchen;therefore,he does not have an issue with this proposal.
Mr.Traniello stated he feels differently from the rest of the Board. He stated the Board does not take opinions of
neighbors into consideration. He stated that pertaining to the first criteria, a small lot does not satisfy the criteria,the
case law is clear where an undersized lot is not a basis for a Variance,and he cautions the Board. He told the
Applicant he felt they did the best they could and he applauded their attempt. He further stated that he thinks the
Application passes on the second,third, and fourth criteria but fails on the first per the case law. He said he
understands the Town caused an encroachment regarding the drain.
Mr. Redfern stated the drain is there but they do not know if an easement exists,noting it is 30 inches and the
outside is three feet,noting it is a large pipe.Mr.Jarema reminded the Board that the drain was discussed in length
Page 1 4
in the School House Commons case, and they can say there is topography that is inhibiting use for the owner. Mr.
Traniello stated that is a fair argument but was not sure if it would change his mind.
Mr.Traniello read a letter from neighbors stating their support dated 2/22/18 into the record then opened the
meeting to Public comment. Hearing none,he closed that Public portion of the meeting.
On a motion made by Mr. Hagstrom,seconded by Mr.Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
grant a Variance for Case#18-04.
Vote was 4-1-0(Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Hagstrom) (Traniello)
Case#18-06—153 Bancroft Street
The Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a Public Hearing in the Selectmen's Meeting Room at Town Hall, 16
Lowell Street,Reading, Massachusetts on Wednesday,April 18,2018 at 7:00 PM on the application of Brian
Anderson,pursuant to M.G.L. Ch.40A §9 for a Special Permit under Reading Zoning Bylaw Sections 6.3 and 7.3.2
for the construction of a deck within the required rear yard setback on the property located at 153 Bancroft Ave,
Reading,MA.
Nancy Anderson was present on behalf of the Application.
Mr.Traniello read the case into record and swore in Mrs.Anderson.
Mrs.Anderson explained that she was Brian Anderson's mother and he was on vacation this week. She explained
that they were asking for relief from being 11 inches short on the rear yard setback.
Mr.Traniello read a memo from Glen Redmond, Building Commissioner into the record. Mr.Traniello then opened
up the discussion to the Board for questions or comments.
Mr.Pernice said he only had one question and that was why those 11 inches were needed. Mrs. Anderson said it
was maybe because of the door,that her son had a reason,but she wasn't sure what it was.
Mr.Redfern stated the residence is in the S 15 District,the lot meets all the requirements except for the rear yard
setback. He reiterated the only question is the reasoning—asking if there were any doorways, stating there is not
addition being added, only a deck. He mentioned they couldn't ask the Applicant but it is less than a foot and not a
detriment. He further stated that other than that it meets all setbacks and he didn't see a substantial detriment to the
neighborhood.
Mr. Jarema stated this is another unique situation;this is a corner lot which makes it complicated.Mr.Jarema also
questioned if there was to be a door. Mrs.Anderson stated there was to be a slider installed. Mr.Jarema stated that
the Board can decide on this but it is difficult without supporting documentation and advised an option would be to
continue until Brian Anderson could come back and provide the documentation.
I
Mr. Redfern said he could see Mr.Jarema's point.
Mr.Caouette stated that under Section 7.3.2 of the Bylaw, it state a permit may be granted if it is not substantially
detrimental. He further stated that he felt the documentation the Board had was sufficient for determining if this was
a substantial or insubstantial detrimental change—yes or no. He stated he did not feel it was substantial or
detrimental.
Mr.Hagstrom said he agreed with Mr. Caouette,that he feels they had enough information to make a ruling. He
explained simply that the Applicant has a reason for asking for the relief and in his opinion this was neither
substantial nor detrimental, especially when it can't be seen from the road.
Mr.Traniello said he has a question for the Board. He asked if what was being proposed will create a new
nonconformity. Mr.Redfern mentioned it is clear in the bylaw where encroachment can be allowed if there is no
new nonconformity. Mr.Traniello stated he looked at it from the reverse. Mr.Jarema added that in recent bylaws
there are two sides of this case,that there are gray areas where the Applicant could have filed for a Variance instead
of a Special Permit. The Board further discussed the option for a Special Permit versus a Variance and the
difference between creating a new nonconformity or increasing an existing nonconformity.
Page 1 5
Mr.Traniello opened the meeting up to Public comment.
Daniel Martell, 16 Longfellow Road stated he had a good idea about where the deck is going but wanted to see the
plans. He stated Mr.Anderson had been a good neighbor and that his only concern is that the 11 inches encroach to
the side where his bedroom is and feared if'in the future if Mr.Anderson moved out then new neighbors might be
loud. He.asked about privacy and buffering sound. Mr.Traniello advised Mr.Martell to speak with Mr.Anderson
or future owners in person,that noise is not something the Board deals with but his point is well taken.
Mr.Traniello closed the Public portion of the meeting.
The Board took an informal poll to determine if the Application creates a new nonconformity with a vote up
requiring a Variance and a vote down requiring a Special Permit. Motion by Mr.Redfern, seconded by Mr.
Hagstrom., Motion fails.4-1-0(Jarema,Redfern,Caouette,Hagstrom)(Traniello).
On a motion made by Mr. Redfern,seconded by Mr. Caouette, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
grant a Special Permit with special conditions other than the requirements of the Building
Commissioner for Case#18-06.
Vote was 4-1-0(Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Hagstrom) (Traniello)
Minutes
February 21,2018
On a motion made by Mr. Redfern,seconded by Mr.Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
approve the February 21, 2018 minutes with not changes...
Vote was 5-0-0(Traniello,Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Hagstrom).
March 7,2018
On a motion made by Mr. Caouette,seconded by Mr.Hagstrom, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
approve the February 7, 2018 minutes with as amended...
Vote was 5-0-0(Traniello, Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Hagstrom).
Adiournment
On a motion made Mr.Jarema,seconded by Mr. Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
adjourn the meeting at 8;56p.m.
Vote was 5-0-0(Traniello,Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Hagstrom).
Page 16