HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-12-05 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 0&1
Town of Reading RECEIVED
Meeting Minutes TOWN CLERK
READING, MA. `}4-`
soard - committee - commission - council: 2819 MAR I I AM 11. 18
Zoning Board of Appeals
Date: 2018-12-05 Time: 7:00 PM
Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Select Board Meeting Room
Address: 16 Lowell Street Session:
Purpose: Public Hearing Version:
Attendees: Members - Present:
John Jarema
Robert Redfern
Cy Caouette
Erik Hagstrom
Nick Pernice
Kyle Tornow
Members - Not Present:
Others Present:
Eileen Gorham, David McBride, Sara and Ton Burkilacchio, Joshua Latham,
Ken Hart, Matthew Langis, Dennis Dorandi, Jim DlBurro, Pamela Adrian
Minutes Respectfully submitted By: Kristen Grover
Topics of Discussion:
Mr. Jamma called the meeting to order at 7:07 PM.
Case 818-15-28 Green Street
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a continuance of a Public Hearing in the Selectmen's Meeting Room at Town
Hall, 16 Lowell Street,Reading,Massachusetts on Wednesday,December 5,2018 at 7:00 PM,on the application of
Thomas and Sarah Brukilacchio,pursuant to M.G.L.Ch.40A§8 for an appeal of an enforcement action from the
Building Inspector;and pursuant to M.G.L.Ch.40A§10 for a Variance under Reading Zoning Bylaw Section 5.3
Table of Uses,to allow the continuation of a non-conforming multi-family use at the property located at 28 Green
Street in Reading,Massachusetts.
Attorney McBride was present on behalf of the applicants.
Mr.Jarema read the case into the record and asked if the applicants had found new information.
Mr. McBride presented a document from former Building Inspector Mr.Leclair and passed out copies to the
Board. Mr.McBride stated the issue before the Board was if they would overturn the decision of the current
Building Inspector. Mr.McBride summarized MGL Chapter 40 Section 7 pertaining to grandfathering,stating
he thinks the letter from Mr. Leclair were issued and included a 3r°habitable unit. He noted the dwelling has
been used as a 3 family dwelling since 1986. He said the applicants purchased the dwelling in 1992 as a 3
family. Mr. McBride discussed use versus structure. He commented that the distinction is if the property is
being used as permitted,and that after 6 years from enforcement even if it was permitted incorrectly,the Town
is barred from issuing a violation.
Page 1 1
Mr.Jarema asked Mr. .MwNichol for feedback from Town Counsel and asked him to inform the Board. Mr.
M=Nichol explained the information from Town Counsel subject of structure is safe after 10 years but the use
isn't. Mr. MacNichol said he wasn't sure if further statement from him was needed or if the Board felt this
was sufficient.
Mr.Jarema asked if the Community Planning staff discussed the matter between themselves. He discussed
formal documentation,the possibility of granting a Variance,previous permits,and the discrepancy in the
description of"office space"not a"third unit".
Mr.Tornow questioned when the office space was added;noting when the Applicants bought the house it was
already set up as a 3'd unit. He asked what pretext it was sold as.
Mr. Redfern stated that the question to tonight's testimony if he understands correctly from Town records is
that this 3rd space was to be used as office space. He said the question is—whose office? Mr. MacNichol said
he was not sure;the building permit was issued for dormers,windows,siding,and renovations to the 1"Floor.
The building permit says it is a 2 family and office. They discussed the question of whose office and for what
reason as being ambiguous and that the former building inspector approved permits that included a 3rd
habitable unit on the 3`d floor. Mr.Redfem stated it is still ambiguous but in light of these statements,he feels
since 1986 it has been used as a 3r°rental unit. He said in light of that he would say a Variance is not needed
because it's been in use longer than 6 years,whether permitted or not,and would be grandfathered. He said
given how he feels now,his tendency is to overturn the current Building Inspector's decision and approve the
application based on the State statute.
Mr.Penrice said he would tend to agree based on the signed statement from the former Building Inspector.
Mr.Penrice and Mr.McBride commented on the use being protected for 6 years.
Mr.Tornow asked from the Town's perspective if this sets an example for other cases and cause for concern.
He questioned if there was a concern for this setting a can study. He commented that given it is used as a 3
family there is a need to straighten out paperwork for the next owners to avoid these problems and ensure
safety aspects are covered as well as being up to code.
Mr.Jarema directed these concerns to Mr.MacNichol. Mr.MacNichol said that staff can't answer if they will
approve or not because each case is unique so there is no setting precedence. He said the Building Inspector
has not mentioned anything as far as code and safety.
Mr.Hagstrom addressed the Mullen Rule. He opined that the challenge the Applicants and Mr.McBride face
is the Section of 40 A they are relying on and discussed different aspects. He stated with the affidavit,they can
use that as the license and therefore it also safeguards against potential future abuses.
Mr.Caouehe said he still feels this is the worst piece of documentation of a property,noting that a lot of the
existing documentation states this is a 2 family but also that same documentation states a 3 family use. He
stated whether the permit is deemed lost or not,he agrees with Mr.Hagstrom that the affidavit provides the
wherewithal to move forward affirmatively. He stated the affidavit is sufficient.
Mr.Jamma stated that any decision that this Board gives is not going to he indicative of other situations or
properties that come before this Board. He said there is also a discrepancy among some of the documentation,
particularly the Town Assessing. He noted the Assessors assess on what they see,and there is no credence to
Zoning or use. He opined the Applicant purchased the property in good faith and bears the weight of
investigating that what was being presented was the truth. He commented that before tonight's documentation
he would have thought there was very little chance of moving forward. He said he also agrees with Mr.
Hagstrom and that this Board's decision is based on the merits that are presented in front of it. He noted he
hasn't seen a situation like this before in his tenure on the Board. Regarding Mr.Tomow's safety concerns,
Mr.Jarema said they don't know what will happen when the property is sold again.
Mr.Jarema asked Mr.McBride if he had any other comments to make. Mr.McBride commented that what
made this unique is that they were able to contact Mr.Leclair,discussed the court case pertaining to 40A
Section 7,and the Building Inspector could confirm in 1986 he was approving a permit for a 3 family.
Page 1 2
Mr.Jarema opened the meeting to Public comment.
Penn Adrian,Ash Street,said she has known the Applicants for a long time and supports their request before
the Board.
Mr.Jarema closed the Public portion of the meeting.
on a motion made by Mr.Redfern,seconded by Mr.Hagstrem, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
overturn the Building Commissioner's decision to Cease and Desist as a three family residential unit
based on State statute in light of the former Building Commissioner's affidavit that he issued permits in
1986 for Case#18-15.
Vote was 5.0-0(Jarema,Redfern, Caouette, Hagstrom, Penrice)
On a motion made by Mr. Redfern,seconded by Mr. Hagstrom,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
grant the Applicant's request for a Withdrawal Without Prejudice for Case#18-15.
Vote was 5.0.0(Jarema, Redlem, Caouefte,Hagstrom,Pemice)
Mr.Jarema informed the Applicants that it is the Building Inspector's job from here forward to inspect for
safety,etc.and to get something in writing with his approval for a livable habitable unit for the file.
Case#18-21 -87 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,December 5,2018 at 7:00 PM on the application of Josh Latham,on
behalf of Eileen Gotham and John Bugden,pursuant to M.G.L.Ch.40A§9 for a Special Permit under Reading
Zoning Bylaw Sections 5.3.2&5.4.7 to raze the existing attached garage and construct a two-story accessory
apartment attached to the existing single-family dwelling at the property located at 87 Franklin Street in Reading,
Massachusetts.
Mr.Jarema read the case into record and swore in the Applicants.
Attorney Latham and the Applicants were present on behalf of the application.
Mr. Latham mentioned that Ms.Gorham and the architects on the project were present. He presented the case
for an accessory apartment and discussed the details of the demolition and proposed plan. He stated there will
not be a front entrance but a side entrance on the Easterly side.
Matt Landers,architect,discussed the proposed plan and cohesion between the two components. He described
the interior floor plans,stated the entrance will be on the Easterly side,and discussed the exterior elevations.
Mr.Latham asked to submit a memo to the Board then addressed the performance standards,describing how
they are met.
Mr.Jarema opened discussion to the Board.
Mr.Hagstrom stated he had no questions.
Mr. Caouette said he had just one question. He asked how many people will be occupying the accessory
apartment. Mr.Latham replied there will be only one but the limit is three.
Mr.Redfern commented that most everything has been met but questioned the parking. He asked if the
existing driveway is going to be maintained for all outside parking and there was not going to be a garage. Mr.
Latham said that was correct;there will be 3 cars and enough room for 2 cars to be tandem.
Page 1 3
Mr.Caouette stated he walked by and agree 3 cars would fit. The Board discussed the ability to fit enough
cars in the driveway.
Mr.Redfern stated that's all he was concerned about and other than that feels the performance standards had
been met.
Mr.Penrice asked how the additional front door functioned if the entrance was on the side. Mr.Landers said if
it was a single family home,the door would be and entrance to a mudroom.
Mr.Tornow said that given all the questions already,his concerns were not with Zoning and offered to speak
afterward about adequate circulation.
Mr.Jarema agreed that he found the layout odd but wasn't going to discuss that. He stated he has a problem
with the aesthetics pertaining to the 2nd door and maintaining a single family appearance. He said he feels the
2m door does not meet the performance standard or maintained the appearance of a single family dwelling.
Mr.Latham commented that where 2 or more entrances already exist one would appear to be the principle
entrance and the other a secondary. He noted the 2i°entrance is new the current garage and is already the
secondary. Mr.Jarema commented that where the appearance is concerned they had to adhere to the Sections
of the Bylaw.
Mr.Pemice said he tends to agree. He commented that the door does look like it is an entrance to another
dwelling. He said it wasn't until he looked at the plans when he was surprised to learn it went to the primary
dwelling.
Mr.Tomow stated that in addition,he questioned wheelchair ability without a ramp.
Mr.Redfem stated he did not have an issue with the 2nd door as it's already there. He said he tends to agree it
could be a mudroom door.
Mr.Pemice stated he also normally wouldn't have an issue but this is a substantial rehab and the size increase
of the primary dwelling is to accomplish the size of the accessory apartment. Mr. Landers explained prior plan
options and that the staircases didn't work out. Mr.Pemice said he feels that the door stands our more now.
Mr.Caoueue said he agreed with Mr.Redfern in that the door was already there.He asked if the accessory
apartment was for a person in need of a wheelchair. Mr.Landers replied not yet,that is a plan for the future if
needed.
Mr.Tornow commented on one perspective as being a corner lot with one entrance visible to the street. He
said he is not sure if that is a concern and suggested moving the side door from the comer of the dwelling to
the center.
Mr.Jarema opened the discussion to Public comment.
Greg Ryan,Pearl Street,stated the architects and homeowners have done a great job and he highly
recommends approval by the Board.
Mr.Jarema closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr.Jarema stated he does have a concern with that doorway and agrees with Mr.Pemice that this is a major
remodel of the structure with new construction giving another dimension to accessory apartments. He stated
he does not have a problem with accessory apartments but in how to keep it with the appearance of a single
family dwelling.
Mr.Latham commented that they could build this entire project without an accessory apartment and it would
look the same. He stated it becomes personal to subjective analysis,but because it already has 2 existing front
entrances,he hopes the Board can look at it that way.
Page 14
Mr.Tornow opined there is a uniformity between the 2 dwellings,that they work in harmony together. He
stated he felt that most people driving by would look at this as a mudroom. He suggested simplifying and
taking away some detail to not draw as much attention,and embellishing the 10 doorway to tie it in more.
Mr.Penrice commented that the design almost looks like 2 townhouses. He stated it looks like an entrance to a
secondary unit and that he was still uncomfortable with it.
Mr.Tornow commented that the entirety of the 2nd unit could be dropped back to the rear by 4 feet and still
stay within the boundaries of the property which would make it look more like an addition,but was not sure
what it would do to the 2"d floor plan.
Mr.Redfern stated the Board is not there for an architecturalreview but for Zoning and the Applicants have
met the criteria. Mr.Tornow agreed. Mr. Redfern stated he believed they met the criteria for the Zoning
Bylaw. Mr, Jarema said he and Mr.Penrice have problems with the same 2 criteria: D&F. He opined it did
not meet the intent and purpose of the bylaw. The Board discussed how the door is being relocated. Mr.
Redfern commented that if someone drove by tomorrow and the door was moved 2 feet one way or another,
nobody would notice—it has 2 doors now. Mr.Caouette said he would like to go on record as agreeing with
Mr.Redfern.
The Board and Mr. Latham discussed the interpretation of the criteria and bylaws. He stated they can't use the
existing secondary door for the accessory apartment and had to figure out where to put it on the side. Mr.
Penrice said it is not sitting comfortably with him because the 2"d door is more pronounced.
Mr.Jarema stated it appears the Applicants are in a conundrum and asked if they would like to discuss
anything. Mr. Latham said he will meet with his clients in the hallway.
Mr.Latham asked about removing the overhang to the secondary door as a condition by the Board. Mr.
Lenders discussed the approach pertaining to aesthetics,offering to use the existing door that is there now and
eliminate the overhang,noting it will look like a utility door to a garage.
Mr.Tornow asked if by keeping the existing door they meant keeping it in the same place. Mr.Lambert said
they will remove that door and relocate that same door.
Mr.Penrice said that would make him more comfortable,noting taking the mass down a bit and using a utility
door would alleviate a lot of his concerns.
Mr.Jarema said what would move him is the aspect of utilizing that entrance for disabled access. However,if
Mr.Penrice feels comfortable moving in that direction,he believes he will have to be in the negative to send a
message to other parties in the future. He said the Board cannot ignore things that are in the bylaw.
On a motion made by Mr.Pernice,seconded by Mr. Caouette, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
grant a Special Permit with conditions for modifications as discussed for Case 018-21.
Vote was 4-1.0(Redfern, Caouette,Pernice, Tornow)(Jarema)
Minutes
1013118
On a motion made by Mr.Redfern,seconded by Mr. Caouette,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
accept the minutes as amended.
Vote was 6-0-0(Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Pernice,Hagstmm, Tornow).
10124/18
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 6-0-0(Jarema,Redfern, Caouette, Penrice, Hagstrom, Tornow).
Page 1 5
W7/18
On a motion made by Mr. Caouette,seconded by Mr. Tornow, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
accept the minutes as amended.
Vote was 6-0-0(Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Pernice, Hagstrom,Tornow).
Adiournmen[
On a motion made Mr. Caouette,seconded by Mr.Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
adjourn the meeting at 9:19p.m.
Vote was 6-0-0(Jarema,Redfern, Caouette, Penrice,Hagstom,Tomow).
Page 1 6