HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-05-16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes OFI?
Town of Reading
5. Meeting Minutes rr
Board - Committee - Commission - Council: 2010 JUS 21 AM 10: 54
Zoning Board of Appeals
Date: 2018-05-16 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
Nick Pernice
Erik Hagstrom
Members - Not Present:
Cy Caouette
Others Present:
Andrew MacNichol - Planning Assistant, David Scott, Renee Sacks, Tim
Smith, Barbara Powers, Jean Thomson, Nancy Twomey, Peter Madden, Jack
Sullivan, Todd Ellis, David Mastronardi, John Cortese, Melanie Carlson, John
Gardner
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Kristen Grover
Topics of Discussion:
Chairman Traniello called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM
Case#18-05—119 Salem 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,May 16,2018 at 7:00 PM on the application of MBA
Building Group,pursuant to M.G.L. Ch.40A §9 for a Special Permit under Reading Zoning Bylaw Section 7.2 to
demolish the existing 3 family dwelling and to construct a new 2 family dwelling on the property located at 119
Salem Street in Reading,Massachusetts.
Mr.Traniello called the meeting to order. He read the case into record and swore in the Applicant.
Jack Sullivan and Keith Ferlizzi were present on behalf of the Applicant.
Mr. Sullivan presented the case. He explained they would like to raze the 3 family dwelling and construct a new 2
family dwelling. He told the Board the home was built in 1920,is on the Historical Register,was under demo delay
and has since been released. He stated the plans tried to incorporate design features that Historical was looking for.
Mr. Sullivan advised the Board that there will be a driveway to the back and a 2 car garage under as well as green
space in keeping with Historical landscaping,and each unit will have 3 bedrooms,be roughly 2200sf,and that the
existing dwelling is just under 2800sf,
Mr.Traniello opened up discussion to the Board for questions or comments.
Page 1 1
Mr.Pernice stated he had a question for the Board. He asked if based on the table of uses can a Special Permit be
granted for this application. Mr.Traniello said they don't know how far back it has been used as a 3 family. Mr.
Ferlizzi stated he believe it has been used as a 3 family since the 80's up to this day. Mr. Sullivan stated the present
dwelling has 11 rooms which allows for a 3 family use.
Mr.Traniello said to keep in mind the use of the property as it is today,and he looks at it as any use of this property
is nonconforming because of lot size and lack of frontage. Mr. Sullivan replied it is only nonconforming in relation
to the frontage. Mr.Traniello said it was still a nonconforming lot in that regard and Mr.Pernice brings up a valid
point for discussion. Mr.Pernice said that was all he had at the moment.
Mr.Redfern said in looking at the property,his thoughts were it was a legal nonconforming lot,the use is considered
to be grandfathered because after 10 years it becomes an accepted use. He also mentioned he did not feel it will be
detrimental in changing the property from a 3 family to a 2 family. He noted he did not see the proposed height and
asked Mr. Ferlizzi if it will be less than 3Oft. Mr.Ferlizzi replied that it will be just less than 28ft.
Mr. Jarema mentioned that on the Assessors card the property is listed as Historical and there was a demo delay. He
questioned the roof corners of the proposal as they seem to extend well over the porch area beyond the limits of the
actual house. He advised the Applicant if it does exceed dimensions,the building inspector will ask them to correct
that. Mr. Sullivan stated that typically the roof corners do not count in the setbacks. Mr.Ferlizzi stated the roof
corners will not exceed the front setback.
Mr. Jarema stated that in the Assessor's card it was a 2 family and somehow it-became a 3 family,but if Historical
gave their blessing to raze the dwelling then it must have met the criteria of the bylaws. Mr.Jarema mentioned the
property is neither a business nor industrial zone, and the Board should examine using Section 7.2 of the bylaw
closely.
Mr.Hagstrom said he thinks they can all agree the dwelling is at least a 2 family,so they have overcome the mutli-
family use,and in all respects, other than the frontage the nonconformity meets the setbacks. He stated he has no
objections with what the Applicant wants to do.
Mr.Traniello read the memo from Glen Redmond,building commissioner into record.
Mr.Traniello stated his thought was that relief under Section 7.2 is not the correct section,noting it's not in the
business district,but is in an S 15 district. He questioned-if a Special Permit was appropriate or if the Applicant
should be looking for a Variance from the Table of Uses. He mentioned the dwelling has essentially been existing
as at least a 2 family since the 80's and questioned if the Board needs to consider it as a grandfathered use even
though it is not allowed in that district.
Mr.Redfern stated he disagrees,explaining he sees only the I"paragraph as applying to business and industrial
zones. Mr.Traniello stated he does not know if it is consistently interpreted that way. Mr. Redfern mentioned that
in reading the building inspector's memo,he see it as Mr. Redmond reads it that way and that is why he references
Section 7.2.
Mr.Hagstrom said he reads that it is specifically for those uses, and Section 7.3 might apply in this case.
Mr.Traniello noted that Section 7.8 discusses voluntary demolition and reconstruction and if Section 7.2 pertains
only to business,the Applicant may not need to be here. Mr. Redfern stated he would agree with Mr.Traniello
there. Mr.Traniello said to keep in mind that they can offer the Applicant a continuance so they can discuss Section
7.8 with the building commissioner.
Mr. Sullivan opined that the confusion may come from where Mr. Redmond sees the dwelling as a 3 family,
therefore not considering Section 7.8. Mr.Traniello told the Applicant they are presenting the dwelling as a 3
family,but the last notation on the building card states a 2 family, and that reference may fit into the format of
Section 7.8. Mr.Jarema offered the Applicant can continue and come back. Mr. Sullivan.stated they would like to
continue so MBA Builders can talk to Mr.Redmond.
Mr.Traniello opened the meeting to Public comment.
Mr.Todd Ellis of Salem Street,\abutter to the property,stated he is happy something is being done with the property.
He asked why there was a demolition delay. Mr.Traniello explained it was a statutory procedure because it is on
the Historical Register, and the Applicant could work the Commission to preserve historical features. Mr.Ellis
Page 1 2
commented on the overgrown landscaping and said he assumed it will be removed. Mr. Ferlizzi replied yes—there
will be a complete overhaul to the property, and he would be happy to discuss trimming back trees etc.with Mr.
Ellis.
Mr.Jarema summarized the issues pertain to the use now and in the future,the demo&rebuild and location on lot,
as well as the Table of Dimensional Controls. He opined he feels it is easy to mingle those concerns,and that it is
his opinion that Section 7.2 is more for business. He suggested working with the building inspector and possibly not
having to come back before the Board.
On a motion made by Mr. Redfern,seconded by Mr. Hagstrom, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
grant a continuance to June 20, 2018 for Case#18-05.
Vote was 5-0-0(Traniello,Jarema, Redfern, Hagstrom, Pernice)
Case#18-01 3 Mount Vernon 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,May 16,2018 at 7:00 PM on the application of Timothy
Smith,pursuant to M.G.L. Ch.40A§9 for a Special Permit under Reading Zoning Bylaw Sections 6.3 and 7.3.2 to
construct a deck with a nonconforming rear yard setback, and pursuant to M.G.L.Ch.40A §10 for a Variance under
Reading Zoning Bylaw Sections 6.3 and 7.4 to exceed the maximum lot coverage permitted on the property located
at 3 Mount Vernon Street in Reading, Massachusetts.
Mr.Traniello read the case into record and swore in the Applicant.
Mr.Tim Smith was present on behalf of the Application.
Mr. Smith presented the case describing their proposal to add a small deck to the rear of their property. Mr. Smith
explained it is a small lot for a large house, and it appears to be over the allowable percentage of lot coverage. He
explained the lot is not flat,that there is a slope and the proposed deck would come out to meet the ground at the
slope. He advised the Board that he is not the builder but the owner and will answer their questions as best he can.
Mr.Traniello said he would like the Applicant to speak on record as to meeting the criteria for the Variance.
Mr. Smith said he will try to the best of his ability. He stated he did not believe the plan would be a detriment to the
public good, it will improve the look of the property, it's a deck so there is no structural change,and they have
looked into multiple options to try to improve the lot and the outside space and feel this is the best option to improve
the outside space without spending a fortune.
Mr.Traniello asked if the slope was due to ledge or if it was a hill. Mr. Smith answered that it was a hill. Mr.
Traniello asked Mr. Smith to speak more of the first criteria regarding the soil conditions, shape and topography.
Mr. Smith stated the yard slopes,is grassy and there is a concrete wall that would be better gone.
Mr.Traniello opened the meeting to the Board for questions and comments.
Mr.Hagstrom asked for clarification as to if the deck would cover the slope or not. Mr. Smith answered that it
would cover some of the slope. Mr. Hagstrom explained that with a Variance, it is a challenging threshold to meet.
He noted that the existing dwelling already exceeded.the 25%allowed lot coverage and adding a deck would
increase that. He stated that although the deck would add a nice outside feature,he was not sure if that was the
substantial hardship. Mr.Hagstrom asked why a deck was the option the Applicants explored. Ms.Renee Sacks
stated they looked into a patio but the cost was close to$6,000 more than the deck. Mr.Hagstrom stated that under
a Special Permit,he did not think it makes it more detrimental,but it is a challenge for their petition.
Mr.Jarema stated the house was built in the 1900's before zoning existed.He noted that as Mr.Hagstrom explained,
the Applicant had two hurdles to overcome:the first and biggest hurdle being increasing the lot coverage by 200sf.
He explained that the toughest criteria to overcome is the I"criteria and considers things such as if conservation
land is present,ledge,or something like a large tree that fell. He further explained the 2"d hurdle being the Special
Permit is not more difficult to overcome than the Variance.
Mr. Redfern stated he would have to agree with Mr.Hagstrom and Mr.Jarema in that there are a couple issues to
overcome. He explained the most difficult argument for the Variance is increasing already legal non-conforming lot
Page 1 3
coverage. He also said the 2nd criteria is hard to argue,in that the deck would be nice but it is not a necessity and
doesn't quite show a substantial hardship.He explained that the Applicants would have to be granted the Variance
and then the Special Permit. Ms. Sacks explained that they just want to make the area usable;the yard slopes and is
very damp. Mr. Redfem'mentioned that even though the patio may be more expensive,that might be the option to
go with.
Mr.Pernice said he echoed what the Board already said,explaining to the Applicants that they are basically asking
to build a structure and opined to go with the option for the patio. Ms. Sacks raised the issue that there would be a
long drop to the patio from the steps and the deck flowed better with the architecture of the house.
Mr.Traniello read a memo from Building Commissioner Glen Redmond into the record.
Mr.Traniello commented that an undersized lot is not grounds for a Variance but acknowledged a lot of the lot was
taken by the house. He explained the Board was looking for unique features and information about the lot to qualify
for the I"criteria. He advised the Applicants of their options: 151 that the Board can vote on their Application
tonight and there needs to be at least 4 members in favor to pass; if the Board does not vote in favor then they cannot
present another similar application for 2 years;2nd that they can withdraw their application without prejudice and
come back at a later date with new plans or presentation.
Mr.Traniello opened the meeting to Public comment. Hearing none,he closed that portion of the meeting.
Mr.Jarema mentioned he wanted to clarify one of the options for the Applicant. He explained that by withdrawing
without prejudice,this Application will be closed and the Applicants can go back to talk with the Building Inspector
to get more information and options. He advised the Applicant's that the Board is not trying to tell them they can't
do something but Chapter 40A is very specific on what is allowed and the Board has to go by the bylaws.
Mr.Traniello asked the Applicants if they had any questions on the options and if they would like to take a minute
in the hall to discuss them. Ms. Sacks asked how one could educate themselves on the laws for a Variance. She
noted they thought they had prepared enough and would not have come to the meeting if they knew they weren't
well enough prepared. Mr.Traniello said to consult a good lawyer. He also suggested that since Jack Sullivan
prepared the plan,to consult with him,and also to consult with Town staff.
Mr.Jarema stated the Town staff is very good and want to help,and it is worth a consideration to talk with them.
He suggested withdrawing without prejudice and talking with Town staff to see how else they could use the
property.
Mr.Traniello said it was little consideration and suggested they put a plan together that doesn't require them to
come before the Board. He then asked the Applicants what they would like to do with their Application tonight.
Mr. Smith said they would like to Withdraw the Application.
On a motion made by Mr. Redfern,seconded by Mr.Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
Withdraw the Application for Case#18-07 without prejudice.
Vote was 5-0-0(Traniello,Jarema, Redfern, Hagstrom, Pernice)
Case#18-08 53 Harrison 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,May 16,2018 at 7:00 PM on the application of Melanie
Carlson,pursuant to M.G.L. Ch.40A §9 for a Special Permit under Reading Zoning Bylaw Sections 6.3 and 7.3, or
pursuant to M.G.L. Ch.40A §10 for a Variance under Reading Zoning Bylaw Sections 6.3 and 7.4,as may be
determined by the Zoning Board,to remove.an existing garage and construct a new 2 story addition with a non-
conforming side yard setback on the property located at 53 Harrison Street in Reading,Massachusetts.
Mr.Traniello read the case into the record and swore in the Applicant.
Ms.Nancy Twomey was present on behalf of the Applicant.
Mr.Traniello stated he wanted to put on record that he and Ms.Twomey have served on committees together but
that does not make him impartial to the case.
\ Page 1 4
Ms.Twomey presented the case and stated the plan does not create any more non-conformity than is already there.
Mr.Traniello read a memo from Building Commissioner Glen Redmond into record and opened up discussion to the
Board for questions and comments.
Mr.Pernice said he would like to leave the request for the Variance aside for now. He said he liked the project and
as far as extending the non-conformity,he didn't see it as detrimental to the neighborhood.
Mr.Redfern agreed,saying it won't be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood.
Ms.Twomey stated she was under the impression this Application called for a Special Permit not a Variance.
Mr.Jarema said his only question was pertaining to the arch renderings and the relative size of the addition
compared to what is already there. Ms.Twomey stated they look taller because of a dormer to fit a window in the
bedroom.
Mr.Jarema commented that Section 7.3 of the bylaw addresses the Applicant's goal. Mr.Hagstrom also stated he
felt the correct performance standard was for a Special Permit under Section 7.3.2 and was not sure why Section 6.3
was called out. He further stated he did not feel the plan was indreasing the non-conformity or was substantially
more detrimental to the neighborhood.
Mr.Traniello commented that if the Board feels a Special Permit under Section 7.3.2 applies,then they don't need
to make a determination on a Variance called out in the posting and it can be disposed of by withdrawal.
Mr.Jarema suggested making a finding that the Board felt it was more appropriate under Section 7.3.2.
Mr.Traniello opened the meeting to the Public for discussion.
Mr.John Cortez of Harrison Street offered that he had no objection to the plan,and had supplied the Board with a
letter favoring the project.
Mr.David Mastronardi of Harrison Street also gave the Board a letter supporting the project.
Mr.Traniello added the Board also had a letter from other neighbors in support of the project.
Mr.Traniello closed the public portion of the meeting.
The Board discussed voting on a Special Permit and Withdrawing the Variance.
On a motion made by Mr. Hagstrom, seconded by Mr. Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
grant a Special Permit for Case#18-08.
Vote was 5-0-0(Traniello,Jarema, Redfern, Hagstrom, Pernice)
On a motion made by Mr. Hagstrom, seconded by Mr. Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
Withdraw the request for a Variance for Case#18-08.
Vote was 5-0-0(Traniello, Jarema, Redfern, Hagstrom, Pernice)
Minutes
March 29,2018
On a motion made by Mr.Jarema,seconded by Mr. Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
approve the March 29, 2018 minutes as amended.
Vote was 5-0-0(Traniello, Jarema, Redfern, Hagstrom, Pernice).
April 18,2018
Page 1 5
On a motion made by Mr. Redfern,seconded by Mr. Hagstrom, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
approve the April 18, 2018 minutes as amended.
Vote was 5-0-0(Traniello,Jarema, Redfern, Hagstrom, Pernice).
Other Business
Mr.Jarema updated the Board that he spoke with Ms. Delios on the current 40B project. He advised them there was
a meeting between the development team and the neighbors and that the development team rolled out a new
proposal with substantial change. He stated he asked for the Board to have access to proposals as soon as possible
and that.transparency should be extended to the Board as well. -Mr.Andrew MacNichol stated that there were no
official revised plans submitted yet and what was presented at the meeting was a rough draft. He advised there was
a 6/28/18 deadline for the new plans to be submitted and will send them to the Board as soon as he receives them.
Mr. Jareina notified the Board that the account has been funded for Peer Review and studies have begun. He
notified them there are actual and visual counts being conducted rather than using data from other sources. Mr.
Jarema reiterated that he expressed to Ms.Delios that the workshops being held are great but the Board needs to be
kept in the loop. He also noted that there is a difference between workshops and negotiations, and that negotiations
are for the Board,not the neighbors.
Adiournment
On a motion made Mr.Jarema,seconded by Mr. Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
adjourn the meeting at 8:58p.m.
Vote was 5-0-0(Traniello, Jarema, Redfern, Hagstrom, Pernice).
J
Page 1 6