The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019-04-17 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes O� 01 RFgO Town of Reading \e� }, �• Meeting Minutes REGriv i) �p TOWN HERKF READING, MA, Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Zoning Board of Appeals 2619 JUN -6 PM 3: 07 Date: 2019-04-17 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, Heather Dudko, Robert Ferarri, Nick Safina, Anne and Marie McLeod, Radoun Marmount Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Kristen Grover Topics of Discussion: Case#19-07—357 Main Street,Burger Icing 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 17, at 7:00 PM on the application of Patrick Gaughn, pursuant to M.G.L. Ch.40A §10 for a Variance under Reading Zoning Bylaw Sections 7.4 and 8.6 Table of Signs Permitted by Zoning District- Business A, as may be determined by the Zoning Board,to add additional signs on the property located at 357 Main Street (Map 17, Lot 23) in Reading, Massachusetts. Mr.Jarema called the meeting to order, read the case into record and swore in the Public. Mr.Jarema asked Mr. Dupell to discuss the denial letter he wrote. Mr. Dupell explained the denial letter and elaborated on the history of sign permit applications from Burger King since 2001. Mr. Jarema asked if had gone through CPDC for a site plan review. Mr. Dupell stated he asked Mr. MacNichol for his opinion and read an email from Mr. MacNichol that agreed with some but not all of the criteria. Mr.Jarema asked the Applicant to speak. Ms. Dudko,the representative of the sign installer described the proposal to install 4 wall signs and explained they would help to identify the 2 entrances, that the business was open and attract potential customers from the back. She stated the proposal would allow adequate identification and lighting on the building for customers to notice. Mr.Jarema asked what the status was for the free-standing sign. Ms. Dudko stated they were waiting for parts to be replaced. Page I 1 Mr. Jarema opened the meeting to the Board for questions or comments. Mr. Hagstrom commented that the Applicant was seeking a Variance and needed to meet all criteria. He stated he was having a little trouble getting all four. He stated he did not know why in 2001 some signs were granted but not all, but the current Zoning requires a Variance. He opined that he was not sure if signs would demarcate entrances and discussed potential complications for future petitioners. Ms. Dudko said the argument could be how the building is situated on the lot and discussed how entry points from different streets creates its own need to have signage on the building that is lighted—to show entry ways and for safety. Mr. Hagstrom stated their competitor McDonald's also shares multiple entry points from different streets and asked if she could comment to a hardship. Ms. Dudko stated she did not research that, and she is here for her client. Mr. Caouette stated that he also went through the criteria and has a hard time with#2 justifying four signs. He stated he can rationalize some signs and questioned how critical certain signs were to business, if some were part of the Brand. The Applicant confirmed they were part of the Brand. Ms. Dudko asked if the Application needed to be voted on as is or if they can discuss different options for different amounts of signs. Mr. Jarema opined that was an option. Mr. Dupell stated as long as they asked for less than what was advertised it should be okay, not if the proposal was increased. Mr. Redfern said he tends to agree with the other Board members and asked how long the business has been closed. The Board and Mr. Dupell discussed the closing and opening of the business,the various signs, violations, a corner lot scenario, and square footage. Mr. Redfern pointed out that frontage could be considered on 2 streets but granting 4 signs would be derogating. He opined a smaller logo or sign on Ash Street might be acceptable. Mr. Pernice discussed the size of the free-standing sign being an advantage since he couldn't think of another business with one that large. He agreed with other Board members that 4 signs would be too much for that location and district. He opined to keep the free-standing sign and possibly 2 signs that ft into the bylaw. Mr.Jarema opened the meeting to the Public. Mr. Ferrari, Crosby Street, stated the back of his house overlooks the Burger King property and wanted to voice his objection on the basis of the issue of illumination over residential property. He described red LED lighting on the business, and how much illumination comes from other businesses. He stated it was too much for that area. Mr. Safina, South Street, CPDC member, noted he was not here on a CPDC capacity and stated that Mr. MacNichol did not speak for the CPDC. He opined on the 4 criteria,the free-standing sign,the drive thru menu board, renovations and other issues with the property. Mr. Jarema asked Mr. Safina to discuss the menu board. Mr. Safina stated it was functional and excluded from the sign count. Ms. Dudko discussed various options for different sign combinations with the Board, Mr. Jarema closed the public portion of the meeting. Mr. Jarema confirmed with Ms. Dudko that the Applicant would like to modify their request. The Board offered suggestions and advised that asking for a Continuance was also an option. Ms. Dudko requested to continue the hearing to 5/15/19. On a motion made by Mr. Caouette,seconded by Mr. Redfern,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a continuance for Case#19-07. Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema,Redfern, Caouette,Hagstrom,Pernice) Page 1 2 Case#19-05—12 Winter 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,April 17,2019 at 7:00 PM on the application of Kathryn McLeod,pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 40A §9 for a Special Permit under Reading Zoning Bylaw Sections 7.3 to construct a deck to an existing non-conforming dwelling on the property located at 12 Winter Street(Assessors Map 23,Lot 73)in Reading, Massachusetts. Mr.Jarema called the meeting to order, read the case into record, Mr. Jarema asked Mr. Dupell to discuss the denial letter. Mr. Dupell explained the denial letter and commented on exceeding the 25% lot coverage. Mr. Jarema opened discussion to the Applicant. Ms. McLeod stated she was present on behalf of Katherine who was away on vacation. She presented the case and explained that the patio comes to the edge of the yard where is slopes down. Mr.Jarema opened discussion to the Board for comments and questions. Mr. Pernice asked if Ms. McLeod could elaborate more. Ms. McLeod explained that where the patio is, it cannot be extended because the ground slopes and they would like to add a deck to be able to use the rest of the yard. Mr. Pernice asked if they would reduce the square footage. Mr. Dupell provided calculations and explained the subject to Ms. McLeod. Mr. Redfern offered a suggestion of cutting back on the deck to meet side yard setbacks and reduce the lot coverage. He explained this option wouldn't require them to come before the Board and that leaving it as is doesn't create a new nonconformity but does require them to be before the Board. The Board discussed opinions and options and how each member might lean toward denying the application. They discussed an option for a Continuance so the Applicant could watch the meeting on RCN and decide on how to proceed. Mr. Pernice and Mr. Redfern explained that the patio does not count as lot coverage but a deck is considered a structure and is included in lot coverage. Mr. Caouette stated that his opinion is to be within lot coverage, and he agreed with Mr. Pernice that as long as the setback remains as it is now, he does not have an issue with it. Mr. Hagstrom commented that his issue would be with the lot coverage,that he wouldn't have an issue with a Special Permit, but would with a Variance. Ms. McLeod requested a Continuance to 5/15/19. On a motion made by Mr. Redfern,seconded by Mr. Hagstrom, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a Continuance for Case#19-08. Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema, Redfern, Caauette,Hagstrom,Pernice). The Board and Mr. Dupell discussed different situations for Special Permits and Variances, and the need for clarification. Adiournment On a motion made Mr.Redfern,seconded by Mr. Caouene, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:36pm. Vote was 6-0-0 (Jarema,Redfern, Caouene,Hagstrom,Pernice, Tornow). Page 1 3