No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-04-03 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes ra Town of Reading i Meeting Minutes rtECEIVEU TOWN CLERK READING, MA. Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Zoning Board of Appeals 2613 JUN -6 PM 3: 01 Date: 2019-04-03 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, Suji Rodgers Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Kristen Grover Topics of Discussion: Case#19-06 —153 Bancroft Ave 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,April 3, 2019 at 7:00 PM on the application of George and Suji Rodgers,pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 40A §10 for a Variance under Reading Zoning Bylaw Sections 6.3 and 7.4 to allow an existing non-conforming deck to remain;or a determination under M.G.L Ch. 40A §7 to allow the deck,which was built without permits,to achieve legal non-conforming status, on the property located at 193 Bancroft Avenue in Reading, Massachusetts. Mr. Jarema called the meeting to order, read the case into record and swore in the Applicant. Mr. Jarema asked Mr. Dupell to discuss the information he provided and the denial letter from Mr. Redmond. Mr. Dupell stated the Applicant applied for a permit to build a 2 story addition which is when Mr. Redmond noticed the deck was in violation and no permits had been issued for it. He advised that the Applicant stated the deck was there when she bought the house and it should be grandfathered. Mr. Dupell stated Mr. Redmond wrote a denial letter for a Variance and in the meantime he has found aerial photographs from 2015 and 2008 that show the deck existing since then. He discussed the situations arising from this information. He stated the Building Department would have no problem with a determination of grandfathering for the deck but would ask that the retaining wall be removed. Ms. Rodgers stated the issue is simply with the deck and presented pictures from the appraisal at the time the house was purchased that shows the deck. She added that the neighbors support that it has been there for approximately 20 years. She stated is should be grandfathered since it was there for longer than 10 years, before they owned the house. Mr. Dupell reminded all that the 10 year statute does not depend on ownership; Page I 1 Ms. Rodgers supplied a copy of the appraisal from April 2010 showing a picture of the deck being in existence, as well as a property card from 2005. The Board, Mr. Dupell and Ms. Rogers discussed the issues pertaining to the retaining wall and that structures cannot be erected on paper streets. Ms. Rodgers stated she went before the Conservation Commission and had no issues from them. She raised the subject of a neighbor's driveway. Mr. Dupell explained that a driveway is not considered a structure and does not require a building permit but a retaining wall is considered a structure,requiring a building permit. Mr. Dupell reiterated the Building Department's attention was originally brought to the deck. Ms. Rodgers stated the retaining wall could be seen on the appraisal pictures as well. Mr. Penrice asked Mr. Dupell if he had the information showing the structure was 10 years old at the time the denial letter was written, would the Application still have been rejected. Mr. Dupell replied no, it would have been a different situation. Mr. Pernice stated he wondered if a 3rd option of withdrawing without prejudice was more appropriate for the Applicant and there being no need for a finding. He asked why the Building Department wanted to impose a condition if the retaining wall was older than 10 years. Mr. Dupell stated he didn't see a retaining wall on his paperwork and noted the Applicant's plot plan calls it out. Mr. Tomow stated the retaining wall looks like steps and asked the Applicant to confirm. Ms. Rodgers stated the wall was definitely made of steps and they were wood. Mr. Penrice stated if it was less than 4ft tall it wouldn't require a building permit. Mr. Dupell said with no disrespect that this is information the Building Departments wasn't given 2 months ago. Mr. Jarema commended Ms. Rodgers for the work she has done recently investigating the matter and providing documentation. He asked Mr. Hagstrom if the Board accepts the deck as grandfathered if it would come into play for resale. Mr. Hagstrom replied it would not. Mr. Hagstrom stated it was very easy for him to reach a conclusion that the deck has been there for 10 years. He reiterated Mr. Pemice's point that if the Board decided the Applicant didn't need to be before them, and then the permit can just be issued. He commented that if they do make a finding, it will be recorded and be available for any future needs. He stated that pertaining to the paper street and retaining wall;those are less of an issue for him. He stated Mr. Dupell is spot on with his interpretation of shared use and opined that it is a private thing between the Applicant and neighbors to litigate and resolve. He stated he didn't feel it needed to be policed and whether a structure or not is older than 10 years and therefore irrelevant. Mr. Caouette said he did not want to over simplify this but the Board needs to either determine the deck has been in existence 10 plus years or it has not—if not,a Variance is needed. If it has been, then it needs a determination that it has been grandfathered. He stated as far as the retaining wall, it is a discussion for another day,that the Board has to do what they are asked for tonight. He stated he shares Mr. Hagstrom's opinion. Mr. Penrice stated he felt okay with the Applicant asking for a finding or withdrawal. Mr. Tornow said he agreed with Mr. Pernice and it was the choice of the Applicant if she wanted an official document that the Board made a finding. Mr. Redfern stated he pretty much has the same mindset as the rest of the Board,that the Applicant is here for the deck and the evidence has been presented showing its existence for more than 10 years. He stated it should be a grandfathered legal non-conforming structure that does not encroach. He commented that the retaining wall was made from timber,not concrete, Page 1 2 could more easily be taken down and believed Mr. Dupell stated the Building Department was looking for conditions but he didn't believe conditions were issued on findings. Ms. Rodgers stated the only concern was the basis for denial being the deck not the wall. Mr. Redfern commented that he wasn't sure if they can even discuss it tonight if it was not properly advertised, noting the neighbors were notified of the deck. W. Dupell stated the condition was based on a Variance but if the Board makes a finding there would be no conditions. He reiterated he did not think it is the Building Department's responsibility to police paper streets. He said if the consensus of the Board is that it is not an issue,then it is not an issue of the Building Department and would withdraw the request for a condition. Mr. Jarema advised the Applicant of the choices for the options of a finding or Withdrawal without Prejudice and that down the road the issues could legally be addressed. He suggested letting the Board make a finding for clarity on that particular issue and that the Board's consensus on the retaining wall is that it wasn't addressed in the original request for relief. He advised the issue could come up at a later date. He also noted the Board makes a decision for the property and all future owners. Ms. Rodgers asked what the procedure for a finding entails and Mr. Jarema explained the timeframe and appeal period. Ms. Rodgers asked for the option of having the Board make a finding. On a motion made by Mr. Redfern, seconded by Mr. Pernice, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a finding that the deck in question is grandfathered under Chapter 40A Section 7 and being in existence in excess of 10 years, therefore not constituting a need for a Variance for Case#19-06. Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema,Redfern, Caouette,Hagstrom,Pernice) The Board discussed upcoming cases and Board business. Adiournment On a motion made Mr. Caouette,seconded by Mr. Pernice, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting at.7.50pm. Vote was 6-0-0(Jarema,Redfern, Caouette,Hagstrom, Pernice, Tornow). Page 1 3