Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-03-06 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes OFNt�.O/ Town of Reading & Meeting Minutes RECEIVED TOWN CLERK '''a^• READ IYG, MA. Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Zoning Board of Appeals 2019 JUN —6 PM 3: 07 Date: 2019-03-06 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 Erik Hagstrom Members - Not Present: Others Present: Mark Dupell, Nancy Twomey, Nathan Chesley,Dana McKeal, Laura and Paul Reynolds, Jill DiMare, Daniel DiMare, Judy Swanson Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Kristen Grover Topics of Discussion: Mr.Jarema opened the meeting. He explained the Board will be signing the Decision for the 40B hearing tonight after it was reviewed a last time by Town Counsel. He stamped and signed the control documents and architectural plans. The Board members signed the Decision. Case#19-03—35 Chute 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,March 6,2019 at 7:00 PM on the application of Laura Doherty and Paul Reynolds,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,to construct a second story addition to an existing non-conforming dwelling on the property located at 35 Chute Street in Reading,Massachusetts. Mr. Jarema called the meeting to order, read the case into record and swore in the Public. Ms.Twomey,architect for the project,presented the case narrative. She passed pictures of the property and a memo to the Board. Ms.Twomey explained that the house looks larger in the front than it actually is. She noted the house is only 4 rooms,the project will not be more detrimental or be a drastic change to the neighborhood,and removing the side porch will allow privacy for the neighbor. Mr.Jarema opened the case to the Board for questions or comments. Mr. Pemice asked Ms.Twomey to describe more about the topography and retaining wall. Ms.Twomey explained that Chute Street angles downward,the lots are flat but the retaining wall holds back the property. Page I 1 Mr.Redfern asked to clarify that the side entry way is coming off. Ms.Twomey said yes,the side porch is being removed. Mr.Redfern asked if the existing garage in the back is being used and staying. Ms.Twomey replied it is for now, it is very old. Mr.Redfern questioned if the property fell under Historical jurisdiction. Ms.Twomey said is was not on the Historical register. Mr.Redfern commented this appears to be legal nonconforming,it won't encroach any farther,it won't create further non-compliance,won't be seen from the street,and will remain within lot coverage. He stated he had no further questions and would support the request. Mr.Cacucue stated he feels it is a very straight forward nonconformity and won't create more,therefore he has no problem with the application. Mr.Hagstrom said he has no questions,no comments and no problem with the application. Mr.Jarema asked for clarification regarding the bulkhead. Ms.Twomey explained it was metal and not counted in the setbacks. Mr.Jarema asked who was using the driveway on the South side. Ms.Twomey stated the driveway for the Southern neighbor is on their property. They discussed the fence,easement and the fence being in the middle of the driveway. Mr.Tomow asked if there were any questions regarding the property line and it being surveyed because of the rock wall. Mr.Jarema stated he didn't see any reason why they couldn't honor this request. Mr.Jarema opened the meeting to the Public. Mr.Chelsey, Woburn Street,stated there were no comments from the Southside neighbor. They had a full survey in 2015 at the time of purchasing the house. He discussed the easement,stone wall and property line. He said he had no issues and no other comments. Mr.Jarema asked if the easement was rocorded someplace.Mr.Chesley said he would have to check. Mr.Twomey advised it was found on the Doherty's deed not on Mr.Chesley's deed. Mr. Jarema explained that this Decision should be recorded with all property documents for the future. Mr.Jarema closed the Public portion of the meeting. On a motion made by Mr. Caouette,seconded by Mr.Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a Special Permit for Case #19-03. Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema,Redfern, Caouette,9agstrom,Pernice) Case#19-04—77 Summer Avenue 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,March 6,2019 at 7:00 PM on the application of Daniel A. DiMme,pursuant to M.G.L.Ch.40A§9 for a Special Permit under Reading Zoning Bylaw Sections 5.3.2,5.4.7 and 7.3.2,to ram the existing screen porch in order to expand the kitchen,add a new screened porch and create an accessory apartment attached to an existing non-conforming dwelling on the property located at 77 Summer Avenue in Reading,Massachusetts. Mr. Jarema called the meeting to order, read the case into record and swore in the Public. Nancy Twomey presented the case on behalf of the Applicant. She described the proposed plan, highlighting the request to add a screened porch to the back and expanding the main house. She explained the main entrance will be on the side in the back,a secondary entrance will be from the screened pomh,and there will be no main entrance in the front. She passed out pictures of the property to the Board. Page 1 2 r comments. Mc Jarema opened the case to the Board forquestions o co e P Mr. Hagstrom asked to clarify that the Applicant is asking for 2 Special Permits. Ms.Twomey informed him they were. They discussed setbacks,performance criteria,the apartment,both driveways,the elevation change, a lack of easement,working the shared driveway issue out with the neighbors,and how the proposal won't create a negative impact to the neighborhood. Mr.Caouette stated he feels the same as the previous case in that it is pretty straight forward, seems to comply with all requirements,doesn't create a new nonconformity and having no further questions feels comfortable with this application. Mr. Redfern said similarly to the previous case,the proposal won't be seen from the street. He questioned if the apartment resident will have a car and if they will park on the left side. Ms.Twomey replied yes. They discussed a condition that the car should be completely on the property owner's lot and how the apartment resident will pull around back parallel to the road. Mr. Redfern commented that from the front elevation it appears to be a single-family home,wasn't detrimental to the neighborhood,and met the criteria. Mr.Pernice stated he agreed with everything thus far and had no issues. Mr.Tornow questioned the entrances and Ms.Twomey explained the function of all entrances,one being a mudroom entrance. Mr. Tornow shared his concern that to him the design appears to be a duplex. Mr. Jarema agreed that many houses on that street have a second entrance. Mr.Jarema discussed parking and the driveways,being a factor in the criteria and not being sure how to word that in the final decision. He commented how this decision will carry on into the future,and with future owners. Ms.Twomey explained where the calculations were located and how they were factored in. Mr. Redfern stated he did not have a problem with the calculations. Mr.Hagstrom said he understood what was being proposed for the driveway and suggested restricting parking to a certain area of the house. Mr. Redfern agreed that would be a good condition and let the neighbors straighten it out. Mr.Jarema asked Mr. Dupell to opine. Mr. Dupell said he understood the Board's concems but doesn't have a problem with how this is proposed. He agreed something needs to be for the future. Mr. Caouette stated he didn't have any hang-ups over the front entrances and agreed with Mr.Jarema that there are a lot of other houses on that street that have 2 entrances. Mr. Jarema opened the meeting to the Public. Hearing no comment,he closed that portion of the meeting. On a motion made by Mr. Redfern,seconded by Mr. Pernice, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a Special Permit with conditions for an addition for Case#79-04. Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Hagstrom, Pernice) On a motion made by Mr. Redfern,seconded by Mr. Pernice, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a Special Permit with conditions for an accessory apartment for Case#19-04. Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema,Redfern, Caouene, Hagstrom, Pernice) Page 1 3 Case#19-05-352 Summer Avenue 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,March 6,2019 at 7:00 PM on the application of Integrity Building and Design Inc.,on behalf of Rich and Judy Swanson,pursuant to M.G.L.Ch.40A§9 for a Special Permit under Reading Zoning Bylaw Section 7.3.2,to construct a new second story addition with a nonconforming side yard setback to an existing nonconforming dwelling on the property located at 352 Summer Avenue in Reading, Massachusetts. Mr. Jarema called the meeting to order, read the case into record and swore in the Public. Mr. MCKeal, Integrity Building Design,was present on behalf of the Applicant and presented the case narrative. Mr. Dupell stated this was a typical extension of a nonconforming structure. Mr. Tornow said he had no comments. Mr. Penrice stated he didn't think it was more nonconforming and was ok with the application. Mr. Redfern said this is already nonconforming and it is not increasing the nonconformity, he didn't feel is was substantial or more detrimental to the neighborhood than what already exists. Mr. Caouette concurred with Mr. Redfern and said he had no problems with the application. Mr. Hagstrom commented if the house was built in 1930 and Zoning came into effect in 1942 he has no problems with the project as planned. Mr. Jarema concurred with other members of the Board and said he did not have any major problems with the application. Mr. Jarema opened the hearing to the Public. Hear no questions or comments, he closed that portion of the meeting. On a motion made by Mr. Hagstrom,seconded by Mr. Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a Withdrawal without Prejudice for the appeal for Case #19-05. Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Hagstrom, Pernice) On a motion made by Mr. Hagstrom,seconded by Mr. Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a Special Permit for Case#19-05. Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema, Redfern, Caouefte,Hagstrom,Pernice) Minutes 12-5-18 On a motion made Mr. Redfern,seconded by Mr. Caouette,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept minutes as amended. Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema, Caouette, Redfern, Hagstrom, Pernice). 12-12-18 On a motion made Mr. Caouefte,seconded by Mr. Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept minutes as amended. Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema, Caouefte,Redfern, Hagstrom, Pernice). 1-16-19 On a motion made Mr. Pernice,seconded by Mr. Hagstrom, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept minutes as amended. Page 14 Vote was 6-0-0 (Jarema, Caouette,Redfern,Hagstrom,Pernice, Tornow). Adjournment On a motion made Mr. Redfern,seconded by Mr. Caouette, the Zoning Board ofAppeats moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:16pm. Vote was 6-0-0(Jarema, Redfern, Caouette,Hagstrom,Pernice, Tornow). Page 1 5