No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-06-20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes o�N OFR �i Town of Reading Meeting Minutes REGEiVrzu Yom` }N� g j;_ .)NCO VO [-d /'s'F C✓F ! f' 5 Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Zoning Board of Appeals 2910 AUG -8 PH 12'. 03 Date: 2018-06-20 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Reading Public Library Location: Community Room Address: 64 Middlesex Avenue Purpose: Public Hearing Session: Attendees: Members - Present: John'Jarema Cy Caouette Nick Pernice Erik Hagstrom Members - Not Present: Robert Redfern Others Present: Keith Forlizzi, Tom O'Connor, Atty. Josh Latham, Daniel Reynolds, Mary O'Connor, Dennis Torpen, Paul Dodge, Mary Ellen Killian Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Kristen Grover Topics of Discussion: Mr. Jarema called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM Case#18-05-119 Salem Street 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,June 20,2018 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.Jarema called the meeting to order. Mr.Josh Latham and Mr.Keith Forlizzi were present on behalf of the Applicant. Mr.Jarema read the case into record and informed the Applicants and public that 3 members sitting tonight were present at the original case and that Mr. Caouette has viewed the disk of the original meeting,has signed the Mullen Rule document and it has been entered into public record. Mr.Jarema then asked the Applicants if they would like to go forward with the 4 voting members or continue to the 8/1/18 hearing. Mr.Latham answered that they would like to continue. Mr.Jarema spoke a litany of correspondence with Town Council,reviewed the original hearing—discussing Section 7.2 of the bylaw, and asked Mr.Latham if he had additional information. Mr.Latham recapped the case and project,and reiterated that their argument is that it makes the property more conforming and less detrimental to the neighborhood. He said he reads Section 7.2 as being able to grant Special Permits for 2 family use if it is not more detrimental. He said the project will be fixing the front yard setback and in every other way will conform with Zoning except for the frontage. He notes improving structural change under Section 7.2 and it not being more detrimental. Page 1 1 Mr.Jarema opened the meeting to the Board for comments and questions. Mr.Hagstrom stated all previous letters state a legal nonconforming property,therefore he tends to agree. He stated he feels a 2 family use is more in line with the district. Mr.Caouette advised the Applicants that he was not present at the original hearing. He stated he echoes Mr. Hagstrom,thinking the existing 3 family is essentially grandfathered and based on the video he watched,and what he heard,he does not have a problem with the Application. Mr.Pernice said he echoes the other Board members and doesn't feel it will be more detrimental. Mr.Jarema discussed the 2 or 3 family use and that the Assessor Card does not look at Zoning,but instead looks at use at the time for Assessing. He opined that in terms of Zoning, Special Permits, Section 7.2 a 2 family is a use and that it seems appropriate to remove the present structure. Mr.Jarema opened the meeting to the Public for discussion. Hearing none,he closed that portion of the meeting. On a motion made by Mr.Hagstrom,seconded by Mr. Caouette, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a Special Permit for Case#18-05. Vote was 4-0-0(Jarema, Caouette,Hagstrom, Pernice) Case#18-09—41 Lewis 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,June 20,2018 at 7:00 PM on the application of Mary O'Connor,pursuant to M.G.L. Ch.40A §9 for a Special Permit under Reading Zoning Bylaw Sections 7.0,7.3 and 7.3.2,and also pursuant to M.G.L. Ch.40A §10 under Sections 4.5 and 6.3 for a Variance to construct a two story addition to an existing non-conforming dwelling that exceeds the 25%allowed lot coverage on the property located at 41 Lewis Street in Reading,Massachusetts. Mr.Jarema read the case into record and swore in the Public. Mr.Daniel Reynolds and Ms.Mary O'Connor were present on behalf of the Application. Mr.Jarema asked if they would like to proceed with 4 voting members instead of 5. He explained they could continue tonight with 4 members or continue the case to 8/1/18 with 5 members. Ms. O'Connor said she would like to proceed tonight. Mr.Reynolds presented the details of the Application and plans. He provided the details of other options they explored before settling in this plan. He explained that they tried to add features the home originally never had while making compromises to meet some of the setbacks. He further explained the intention and purpose of the proposed plan was to keep Ms.O'Connor in the home long term, and therefore looking into the Special.Permit. Mr.Jarema stated this case is another unique situation and that it would require a Variance also. He asked Ms. Grover to comment on why the case was re-advertised for both a Special Permit and Variance. Ms. Grover stated the Variance was needed because the plan exceeded the allowed lot coverage. Mr.Jarema advised the Applicant that the Variance is harder to overcome and discussed the 4 criteria. Mr. Reynolds told the Board that the lot is extremely small and he doesn't feel what they are requesting is too much considering what the lot is like. He stated obviously it is a difficult case and even proposing a functional garage is difficult. He noted the lot being 75ft wide and restricting options with setbacks. Mr.Jarema opened the discussion to the Board for comments and questions. Mr.Pernice stated he had a few questions and asked for reference to the criteria.Mr.Reynolds commented that due to the size of the rooms and furniture that if someone needed assistance in future years it would be difficult. Mr. Page 1 2 Pernice asked if the home was particularly smaller than the rest in the neighborhood. Mr.Reynolds stated that most are bigger. Mr.Pernice asked if the existing garage was moving location or just getting bigger. Mr.Reynolds stated that the current garage doesn't function for opening car doors. Mr.Pernice asked Mr.Reynolds when they were creating the floor plan, if there was anything besides the shape of the lot—like the soil,that restricted options. Mr. Reynolds stated the width of the lot with respect to the neighbors. Mr.Pernice asked if it was possible to remove a mudroom or shrink anything to get below the 25%square footage,noting the size of the home is increasing by 3 times. Mr.Reynolds said to allow Ms. O'Connor to stay in the home they considered the door swings,a 1st floor laundry,etc. Mr.Pernice asked if the Variance was not granted,how would it be a hardship. Mr.Reynolds replied that Ms.O'Connor wants to stay in her home long term and not being able to stay is the hardship. Mr.Caouette followed up on the hardship aspect,asking if they had to make an adjustment in lot coverage to comply,if they have figured out costs. Mr.Reynolds commented that the actual construction cost is minimal compared to moving out of the community. Mr.Caouette said he is familiar with Lewis Street and the lots being small. He said he has no problem with the first Variance Criteria and does not feel that it would affect the neighborhood in any way. He said his only concern was with the hardship of the second criteria,and suggested taking a couple feet either way, if necessary,could be done. Mr.Reynolds mentioned they talked a lot about the functionality of the space. He stated this is a matter of function that the Board needs to look at. He noted the quirkiness of the lot and added they are not asking to add a monstrous home but a functioning home for a homeowner looking to be able to stay in her home for many years to come and stay in the community. Mr. Caouette asked if the expansion into lot coverage was to make the garage bigger. Mr.Reynolds replied it would be bigger but in order for it to function. Mr.Reynolds commented that the sizes of the decks were reduced to accomplish the goal. Mr. Caouette advised the Applicants that Variances are very hard to get,further stating that he did not have a problem with the Special Permit portion of the Application. Mr.Hagstrom said he likes the Special Permit aspect of the Application,adding that it's a nice project and under those performance standards there is no argument from the Board. He expressed the difficulty of getting a Variance, noting in order to get a one it's not that the Applicant isn't making a compelling emotional argument but that is not what the statute looks at. He explained the 1 st criteria considers conditions such as ledge and suggested converting the deck into a patio to reduce the lot coverage. He stated that he did not feel the request rises to the level of requiring a Variance. Mr.Jarema said he had similar issues that Mr.Hagstrom discussed. He explained that the problem that exists in 40A is the 1st and 2nd criteria are the most difficult to justify,and the Board needs to adhere to that in the event of being required to go to court and prove something. Mr.Jarema stated he feels the Application falls short on the 15L and 2nd criteria,and like the rest of the Board has said,he has no problem with the Special Permit. He suggested shaving some area off the garage and laundry. He advised the Applicant if they are unable to get a Variance passed, the Special Permit can't pass either. Mr.Reynolds said he worked with Mr.Redmond to reduce as much as possible and get the dimensions accurate on the plot plan. He advised the Board Ms.O'Connor invested a lot in engineering and they will work in a tighter footprint than what is actually being presented. Mr.Jarema informed Mr.Reynolds the Board needs to vote on a set of plans that are presented and can't vote on something unless it is accurate to what will be done. Mr.Reynolds asked what the next step would be without closing out the Application. Mr.Jarema offered the option to continue in order to come up with modifications on the architectural renderings. He explained if the Board denies the Variance they won't be able to go forward any further or come back for 2 years. He noted the options are to Withdraw without Prejudice or continue to the next hearing. Mr.Jarema asked to hear the Public . before the Applicant decided. Mr.Jarema opened the meeting to the Public for comment. Mary Ellen Killian of Lewis Street commented that Ms. O'Connor's house and the next house are 2 of the smallest on the street. She explained how small the I"floor was and stated that the garage is very tiny. She noted the lot slopes from the west to the east and that there is a striking distance. She said she wanted to make the Board aware of that as well and make sure Ms.O'Connor knew that. She stated she doesn't feel the proposal is detrimental. Paul Dodge of Wentworth Street commented that the house is so small that the resale value is almost nothing. He said as is having 2 people in that house is impossible. He expressed disagreement with the 25%lot coverage issue, noted the size of homes being squeezed into lots,the Applicants are being up front and honest with their intentions where other residents my do unapproved projects. He also commented that the proposal would only improve the neighborhood and property values and that in this town you can't downsize to a ranch because of the cost and he feels that is the hardship. He noted that Ms.O'Connor just wants to make it so she can live out her life in that neighborhood and he doesn't feel that 2%over the lot coverage is too much to ask for. He stated numbers can make a case but the purpose of the plan is reasonable. Page 1 3 Mr.Jarema informed the Public that the Board can only react to what is presented to it and if people are going beyond what they are legally able to do there are repercussions. Mr. O'Connor—Ms. O'Connor's brother,told the Board this process began years ago. He described how the project started as high as 33%coverage,Mr.Redmond advised them lot coverage will be a problem,and then reduced the plan to 31%,29%and 27%. He told the Board if they reduce down to 25%it will make the rooms too small for a wheelchair if that becomes necessary. He commented on the decks and landings being included in what is considered and said they gave an honest effort to make this as small as possible while making it functionally usable. He said he hoped the Board could be lenient with the 2%. Mr.Jarema asked if the Board had any other questions or comments. Mr.Pernice asked if in reading the plans if he saw 2 dining areas. Mr.Reynolds said the plan shows that it is one continual room and explained the challenges of sitting at the table in the 15`room. Mr.Pernice commented that he also saw a family room and living room. Mr.Reynolds explained there was a staircase and chimney stack that would need to be removed to alternate plans. Mr.Pernice asked about the 4 season and 3 season porches as well as the deck. Mr.Reynolds said they would be used. Mr.Jarema told the Applicants they need to tell the Board what they want them to do:move forward and take a vote,opt to continue,or to withdraw. Mr.Reynolds said they choose to continue. Mr.Jarema commented that 2%doesn't seem like a lot but in Chapter..40A, it is. He further explained that it is so critical because it goes beyond the Applicant's ownership and into ownership in the future. On a motion made by Mr. Caouette;seconded by Mr.Hagstrom, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to continue Case#18-09 to the August 1, 2018 hearing. Vote was 4-0-0(Jarema, Caouette, Hagstrom, Pernice) Minutes 05-02-2018 On a motion made by Mr. Caouette,seconded by Mr.Pernice, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept the minutes as amended. Vote was 4-0-0(Jarema, Caouette, Hagstrom, Pernice) 05-16-2018 On a motion made by Mr. Caouette,seconded by Mr. Hagstrom, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept the minutes as amended. Vote was 4-0-0(Jarema, Caouette, Hagstrom, Pernice) Other Business Mr.Jarema asked to reduce the number of pages in the Abutters Packet to the few pertinent pages. The Board discussed Mr.Traniello's leaving,new full members and one associate member. Mr.Caouette discussed his term expiring in 2020 and that he was not thinking of renewing at that time. Mr.Jarema discussed complications staffing the ZBA,noting the 40B applications run about a year long. Mr.Caouette commented that he heard there were changes to be discussed'at the 7/18/18 hearing and he hoped the Board did not get that documentation too late for review. Mr.MacNichol advised the Board he has not received anything new from the developer,but expects to receive it within the next 2 weeks. Mr.Jarema reiterated that the Board is the official entity making decisions,not the neighborhood and cautioned against closed meetings. Mr.Mac.Nichol commented that the neighborhood has requested changes to the new modifications. Mr.Jarema noted the Board has a responsibility to the Town as a whole and would like that message to be clear. Mr.Jarema discussed keeping comments to a minimum at the next 1 . Page 14 hearing in order to tackle objectives,including discussing the peer review,and to move things along. Mr. MacNichol stated he will pass along the Board's concerns. Adiournment On a motion made Mr. Caouette,seconded by Mr.Hagstrom, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:32p.m. Vote was 4-0-0(Jarema, Caouette, Hagstrom Pernice). Page 1 5