HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-01-16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes oar ext:ro
Town of Reading
Meeting Minutes TOWCEIV V
�aaoo�r READ CL R
Board - Committee - commission - Council: 2019 JUN -6
Zoning Board of Appeals PN 3 06
Date: 2019-01-16 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
Nick Pernice
Kyle Tornow
Members - Not Present:
Erik Hagstrom
Others Present:
Chris Heep, Andrew MacNichol, Steve Cicatelli, Ms. O'Neil, Everett Blodgett,
Mr. Parks, Ms. Hart, Ms. Lusk, Vanessa Alvarado, Barry Berman, Mr.
Chase, Mr. Ross. Mr. Somoe, Attorney McGrail, Matt Zuker
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Kristen Grover
Topics of Discussion:
Mr. Jarema called the meeting to order.
Case#16-02 —Metropolitan at Reading Station (Reading Village)40B
Determination of Substantial or Insubstantial Change to the Project at 31-41 Lincoln Street and 2-12 Prescott
Street(Assessors Map 16,Lou 224,225 and 226).
Mr. Jarema discussed conducting the matter of Reading Station under Other Business and as if it
was a hearing. Mr. Jarema discussed protocol and swore in the Applicants as well as the Public.
Mr. Jarema discussed the differences between Ch. 40A and 40B,the differences between
substantial and insubstantial changes as well as what qualifies as changes under each category.
Mr. Heep summarized the Board's responsibility,timeframe, and options for responding to the
Applicant's request. He explained that by asking for a modification,the case does not get
reopened or reviewed,that only the modification is being heard and voted on. A member asked
if an abutter could appeal the Board's decision. Mr. Beep stated there were various ways it
could go.
Mr. Jarema advised that there were specific standards through MA Housing and in the end 1 of 2
things will happen: 1. the project will go forward and be built one way or another,or 2.the
Page I I
project will not be built because the Applicant withdrew and went back to MA Housing to
explore their options through them.
Mr.Jarema also advised that the topic of discussion was limited to what is presented to the Board
pertaining to what is on the Agenda for tonight. -
Mr.Jarema opened the meeting up to the Applicant.
Mr.Zuker stated the permit was obtained last year,the As Built matches the permit that was
issued and the changes included minor tweaks to the building location. He commented that an
egress path was put on the Prescott side so the building had to shift. He explained the way the
building is angled is not the same as the angle of the streets;therefore,the setbacks were thrown
off. He further explained that minor changes included things in a matter of inches, and addressed
other minor changes,noting that the parking ratio and number of units remained the same. He
advised they did not pick up on the discrepancy or it would have been addressed when the
building permit was picked up.
Mr. Jarema asked Mr. MacNichol if what Mr. Zuker presented was factual. Mr. MacNichol
stated he would have to agree,that it seems to be what was submitted.
Mr. Zuker explained that the firm changed surveyors and it took so long to get the As Built
because 18 properties had to be resurveyed.
Mr. Caouette commented that he was the member a year ago that did not vote for this project.
He added that it has become bigger than any of them envisioned, noting that isn't necessarily out
of the ordinary for a project of this size. He stated he didn't consider a matter of 2 or 3 feet to be
a big change.
Mr. Redfern commented that the changes in terms of percentages seemed significant and
substantial to him. He noted the developer can bypass Town bylaws and that the Decision was
made in good faith by the Town.
Mr. Pemice agreed with Mr. Caouctte and Mr. Redfern and was also leaning toward feeling this
was not a substantial change.
Mr. Tornow opined that the improvement to the neighboring lot and not having a major impact
to adjacent properties leads him to agree that this is a minor change.
Mr. Jarema explained that 40B permits are comprehensive which means everyone comes
together to tell the Board what can and can't be done within the bylaws. He commented that
another department caught a safety aspect causing a requirement to have a pathway around the
building, and that changes had to be done. He stated that he agreed with other Board members
that this is not a substantial change. He explained that the percentage looks large, but the actual
impact for the safety and wellbeing for the people and community is not,especially when the
Fire Department states it needs to be done. He further explained that balconies must be
accounted for in setbacks.
Mr. Zuker explained that the balconies were added at the request of the Building Department and
have to be certain dimensions. He noted his mistake was not picking up on it then.
Page 1 2
Mr. Heep stated that he felt all comments were well put and did not have much to add. He asked
if all sidewalks remained the same. Mr. Zuker answered yes,the sidewalk locations haven't
changed.
Mr. Jarema opened the meeting to public comment.
Ms. O'Neil, Summer Ave, said she agreed with Mr. Redfern that it was a good faith agreement.
She said the public doesn't have access to building plans and feels the bar should not be set so
low for other projects going forward. She also said she thinks there should be a fine and to keep
with transparency.
Mr. Blodgett, Prescott St, stated the walkability is tight there and thinks there is danger with
snow in the winter months coming from the roof or something falling off the railings. He opined
it is a safety issue for the Town.
Mr. Parks,Hancock St, commented that this is to do with compliance to a permit. He opined it
was not okay to come back after the fact and ask for forgiveness,that it is disgusting and
insulting to the Board.
Ms. Hart, Riverside Dr, stated the Board needed to set a precedent for any 40B project that
making changes after the fact is taking advantage of the Board and the community. She feels the
applicant has no respect for the community.
Mr. Zuker stated he understood,the plans were given to the Town, there was no disrespect and
they went through the Plan Review.
Ms. Lusk, Washington St,said she would argue that this is a substantial change, specifically the
overhang of the balconies. She said it was discussed at length and the residents expressed their
concern about ice and the amount of time spent talking about setbacks, noting she thinks that
would magnify the significance.
Mr. Zuker commented that snow is to be removed off site.
Ms. Alvarado, Grand St, questioned the timeline, commenting that 4 stories were already built
when they notice the shift was going to take place. She commented on snow removal,it being a
challenging intersection,the pedestrian traffic,and asked if perhaps a streetlight may be required.
She also commented on repercussions, stating the developer has known for months and is only
now bringing the matter to the Board. She opined a vote for an insubstantial change would set a
precedent for being easier to beg for forgiveness than ask in time.
Mr. Zuker admitted he only recently became aware of the issue and it should have been picked
up on last year. He stated he didn't feel what he is asking for is out of the ordinary,and he
could be asking for more units for example. He stated the plans are still the same. He stated he
didn't know about it for a year and it's not fun to have to explain this and retrace all the steps to
rectify it.
Mr.Jarema asked Mr. Heep to comment on substantial versus insubstantial modifications. Mr.
Heep explained that it is very common for a 40B project that has been approved to come back 6
months to a year later and ask for modifications. He said m a more general matter, it is common
for 40B projects to come back for modifications including the housing type i.e.: condo to a single
family.
Page 1 3
Mr. Jarema asked Mr. MacNichol about sightlines Mr. MacNichol stated there were no issues or
concems from peer review regarding sightlines.
Mr. Berman, Select Board, said there were a couple things that concerned him. He noted the
change in surveyors
It was questioned if there would have been an impact had it been in a timely manner. Mr.
MacNichol stated he didn't believe it would have affected it. Mr. Berman questioned if the
Town was to ask for something and didn't get it, should something be done. Mr. MacNichol
stated there were biweekly reports,the Building Department did site visits,they tried to do due
diligence,and acknowledged that it did take time. Mr. Berman stated that his other concern was
the 2-3 feet pushing in front of Lincoln St., and perhaps a path forward is to delay a Decision
until a traffic review can be done.
Mr. Jarema said he can certainly say they cannot delay a Decision. He advised the Board is 10
days away from making a Decision or the Applicant can go back to MA Housing and the
Decision is then out of the Town's hand. Mr. Jarema said the Board is trying to determine what
is best for the Town.
Ms. Alvarado said the inches in question equates to 2 feet. She said it would be helpful to have
more information, and asked if the Board voted that it was substantial,could construction
continue. Mr. Heep answered yes, it could. Mr. Jarema asked Mr. MacNichol for a timeframe
for traffic studies. Mr. MacNichol said he couldn't say for sure but most likely they are not done
in 30 days,that that is a short window. Mr.Jarema opined it would be more like 3-6 months for
reports to go back and forth to be reviewed by all parties.
It was noted that pertaining to line of sight issues, that the stop sign is in the same place as
before.
Mr. Chase discussed the difference between the old building and the new on explaining the
benefits of being further back than the previous buildings and that there are sightlines through
the windows also.
Mr. Ross, Kensington St, said if he was in the Board's position, he would want as much
information as possible to move forward and at the end of the day the building is going to be
there, but take into consideration the concerns of the community.
Mr. Somoe, Arlington St, said he very much appreciates the work of the Board, and hopes they
see the residents are acting in good faith. He stated the snow removal of the Town is a big issue
and feels these changes are really going to impact day to day life. He asked if the building has
gotten larger. Mr. Jarema answered no and explained the footprint was determined when the
foundation was poured. He further explained the building could not have increased in size
because the Engineering documents are what were approved,the first for the As Built when the
foundation is poured,the second is after and that is when the Occupancy Permit is concerned.
Mr. Jarema described the matter as a box on a lot that was shifted, and stated all other concerns
need to go to Town staff.
Mr. Jarema closed the public portion of the meeting. He then opened discussion to the Board for
comments.
Mr. Caouette reiterated that he did not vote in the affirmative for this project,that he thought it
was too big. He mentioned that 1 floor was removed from the plan, and imagine if it hadn't. He
Page 1 4
said he heard all the concerns tonight as he has heard them before. He stated this change will not
change their concerns. He commented that they strayed away from what they are being asked to
do which is not to review the project,they are asked to determine if there is a substantial change
or not.
Mr. Redfern said he was all set, he already made his statement.
Mr. Pernice said he agreed with Mr. Caouette and that he doesn't think it is going to make a huge
impact,that in looking at the whole scope, it is not a substantial change.
Mr. Tornow said he had no further comment.
On a motion made by Mr. Caouette,seconded by Mr. Pernice, the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to grant a finding that the request for change is insubstantial for Case#16-02.
Vote was 4-1-0(Jarema, Caouette,Pernice, Tornow)(Redfern)
Case#19-01 - Azalea Circle
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,January 16th,2019 at 7:00
PM on the application of Kay Street Reading Realty, LLC,pursuant to M.G.L. Ch.40A §9 for a
Special Permit under Reading Zoning Bylaw Sections 5.3.2& 5.4.7 to construct an attached
accessory apartment contained within new construction of a single-family dwelling at the
property located at 0 Azalea Circle (Assessors Map 23, Lots 125 and 126)in Reading,
Massachusetts.
Mr.Jarema read the case into record and swore in the public.
Mr.Jarema asked why the Applicants were asking for a continuance months out. Mr.
MacNichol explained that they understood the time frame and they had to open the case before
the ZBA but wanted to wait until after finishing the process with Conservation.
The Board discussed potential dates and decided on March 20. 2019.
On a motion made by Mr. Redfern,seconded by Mr. Tornow, the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to grant a Continuance to March 20. 2019 for Case#19-01.
Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema, Redfern, Caouette,Pernice, Tornow)
Case#19-02 -Meadow Brook Golf Club
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,January 16th, 2019 at
Page 1 5
7:OOPM on the application of Steven L. Cicatelli,Esq. pursuant to Reading Zoning Bylaw
Section 4.6.10 to appeal the Community Planning and Development Commission's Site Plan
Review Decision of Approval to raze and reconstruct the clubhouse on the property located at
292(aka 288) Grove St(Assessors Map 37, Lot 4) in Reading,Massachusetts.
Mr. Jarema read the case into record and swore in the Applicants.
Mr. Cicatelli passed packets out to the Board.
Attorney McGrail was present on behalf of the Applicant.
Mr. Jamma asked if the Applicant knew how long Meadowbrook Golf Club had been there. Mr.
Cicatelli said yes since 1898. Mr.Jarema asked how long the Applicant lived in the house and if
he was the original builder. Mr. Cicatelli replied 37 years and no he was not the original builder.
Mr. Jarema asked the Applicant to be specific in what they were asking of the Board. Mr.
Cicatelli stated he was here on an appeal due to an obscure section of the bylaw, and that a
Decision by the CPDC is appealed at the ZBA.
Mr. Cicatelli briefly surmised his case. He discussed nonconforming use; conditions that he felt
should have been contained in the Decision,the information in the ZBA packet,prior ZBA
Decisions, and the Decision of the CPDC. He noted there was information the public wasn't
privy to under client/attorney privilege that he felt the public should have knowledge of. He then
discussed residential and commercial uses,the Decision and raised arguments against it.
Mr. Jarema asked if Mr. Cicatelli would like the Board to review the site plan review. Mr.
Cicatelli said he would like the Board to affirm, overturn or modify the CPDC Decision or call
for a hearing on Section 6 use. He stated he felt the Zoning Board should have jurisdiction,not
CPDC.
Mr.Jarema asked Town Counsel to speak on the matters. Mr. Heep stated the Applicant needed
to have a comprehensive list of grounds he is seeking relief from. He noted errors from Section
6,references to not requiring a traffic study,parking mitigation, and expansion of private events
at the club and asked what other grounds the Applicant wanted to be considered. Mr. Cicatelli
said there were many complaints and that he was not going to box himself in to the limited list.
Mr. Heep stated that is before the Superior Court and Mr. Cicatelli would need to stats them here
in this meeting. Mr. Cicatelli said he only highlighted some of the issues,that the full list is in
the Complaint and the Town has received a copy of the Complaint. He said he wanted to
concentrate on why this matter wasn't put before the Board, and for that reason among others he
feels the CPDC Decision should be overturned. Mr. Heep said in response to tonight's
arguments, if something requires a Section 6 finding,then that is a 2 part finding. He discussed
the question being an administrative one usually handled by the Building Commissioner. He
discussed the history of the case, and the details of the use which led to the CPDC's
determination that there was not an expansion of use. He added that in the future if the hours of
occupancy changed,the Building Commissioner could have them come back then for a hearing.
Mr. Cicatelli said he could understand how Town Counsel and the CPDC came to their decision
but feels they were not given the full details and truth.
Attorney McGrail discussed how all parties testified at the CPDC hearing and that the CPDC
heavily weighed their testimony. He discussed how the new building will conform to setbacks
whereas the existing building does not,that CPDC put heavy conditions on the Decision and
Page 1 6
Meadowbrook agreed to them. He also discussed the Decision and conditions, noting that it was
vetted and looked into in detail by the CPDC and Town Counsel. He opined that the Appeal
should be denied.
Mr. Redfern stated that if there were any problems that arose from the Decision it would be
enforced by the Town not the Board.
Attorney McGrail stated the bottom line was the Applicant wanted the building pushed way back
on the property.
Mr.Jarema stated his major concern was the Board being asked to review many more site plan
reviews and he wasn't certain of the Board's jurisdiction here.
Mr. Heep added that was the reasoning for his question earlier regarding citing specific things
they think is wrong with the CPDC's Decision, and suggested not engaging in a full-fledged
review of the site plan.
Mr. Cicatelli stated he never saw a Decision by the Building Commissioner.
Attorney McGrail stated the proper procedure is to appeal the building permit.
Mr. Beep said that was correct and fair,that he wouldn't issue a Decision but would issue a
building permit. Mr.Jarema asked if a building permit has been issued. Attorney McGrail said
no because this is under appeal here and in the Superior Court. Mr. Beep stated he wasn't sure if
the Board needed more evidence for the Public Hearing,but it needed to instruct someone to
compose a short write-up. Mr. Jarema stated he felt Mr. Beep would be the person to write it
due to him knowing both sides of the coin.
Nick Bonano, Grove Street, said Mr. Beep based his Decision solely on information given to him
by Meadowbrook,that he requested the letter several times and repeatedly was told he was not
able to see it, and therefore has no idea how Mr. Heep came to make his Decision. He stated he
was a member of the Club, served on the Board,knows how the club runs and he doesn't have a
problem with the Club,only when it will end up outdoors. He stated they also don't have the
parking capacity, that people are parking all over the place.
Attorney McGrail stated if when the clubhouse operates, if Mr. Bonano thinks it is beyond
substantial expansion then he can file a complaint but it doesn't belong here at Zoning.
The Board further discussed the complications of the request,jurisdiction of the Zoning Board
and CPDC,the timeframe of why the matter is just being brought to the Board now,and the goal
for the evening. Mr. Redfern stated the Board needed a Decision to affirm, overturn or modify
the Decision. Mr. Caouette stated these matters were discussed at CPDC and should have been
addressed there and that he felt it should not be this Board's job. Mr. Tornow agreed.
Mr. Jarmema called for a motion.
On a motion made by Mr.Redfern,seconded by Mr. Caouette, the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to affirm the CPDC Decision and Site Plan Review as written for Case #19-02.
Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema, Redfern, Caouette,Pernice, Tornow)
Page 1 7
Minutes
On a motion made by Mr. Caouette,seconded by Mr.,Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to table approving meeting minutes. -
Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema,Redfern, Caouette,Pernice, Tornow)
Adjournment
On a motion made Mr. Caouette,seconded by Mr. Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to adjourn the meeting at.9.35pm.
Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema,Redfern, Caouette,Pernice, Tarnow).
Page 1 8