HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-06-05 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes r Town of Reading RECEIVED
^ sl Meeting Minutes TOWN CLERK
READING, MA,
211! SEP -9 PM 3: 07
Board - Committee - Commission - Council:
Zoning Board of Appeals
Date: 2019-06-05 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
Cy Caouette
Erik Hagstrom
Nick Pernice
Kyle Tornow
Members - Not Present:
Robet Redfern
Others Present:
Mark Dupell - Building Commissioner, Kristen Grover, Kim Plourde, Carolina
Pedrosa, Bob Goober, Nick Safina, Hillary Mateev, Perter Sandorse, Paul
Sweeney, Michael Carpenter, Tony D'Arezzo, Vanessa Alvaraso - Select
Board
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Amanda Beatrice
Topics of Discussion:
Mr. Jarema called the meeting to order. He introduced new Associate Member Hillary Mateev.
Case#19-07-357 Main Street
Mr.Jarema detailed the request for a continuance from the Applicant. The Applicant requested
the continuance due to the cancelled hearing prior and a scheduling issue with tonight's meeting.
They had requested to continue to the next hearing on June 19'",2019.
On a Motion made by Mr. Caouette,seconded by Mr.Tornow,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to grant a continuance for Case#19-07 to Wednesday June 19th.
Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema,Caouette,Hagstrom,Pernice,Tornow)
Case#19-09—55 Walkers Brook Drive
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a Public Hearing in the Select Board's Meeting Room at
Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts on Wednesday, lune 5, 2019 at 7:00 PM
on the application of Sign Design,pursuant to M.G.L. Ch.40A §10 for a Variance under
Reading Zoning Bylaw Sections 4.5.2 and 8.6 Table of Signs, as may be determined by the
Zoning Board,to install a new wall sign that exceeds allowable installation height on the
property located at 55 Walkers Brook Drive in Reading,Massachusetts.
Mr.Jarema read the case into record. He then swore in the Applicants and public.
Page 1 1
Mr.Bob Goober and Ms.Kim Plourde from Weston and Sampson,a tenant of 55 Walkers Brook Drive,
and Ms.Carolina Pedrosa from Sign Design were present on behalf of the application.
Ms. Plourde stated Weston and Sampson is the anchor tenant of the property and their Reading
headquarters employs over 200 people. She stated they negotiated as part of their lease to replace the
existing Keurig sign and was a major selling point in moving in.They were surprised when denied for the
sign application and notes it was due to the prior owner's renderings showing their name. Ms.Plourde
finds visibility from the highway very important for the growing firm and added they would only like to
place their brand/logo and nothing flashy.
Mr. Dupell added the application was denied due to the proposed height being above the lowest sill of the
second floor window,as regulated by the Bylaw. He added he could not find any prior permits issued for
the Keurig sign that existed prior to Weston and Sampson moving in. Mr. Caouette added a tenant prior to
Keurig also had a sign in that location.
Ms.Pedrosa stated the sign would be internally illuminated and be timed and dimmed. It would total 134
square feet and be mounted to the building.Coloring included silver lettering to complement the building.
She mentioned the timing details have yet to be finalized and was open to Board feedback on appropriate
times.
Mr.Goober reviewed the Variance Criteria and stated that mature landscaping in the front of the building
would block a sign below the proposed height and that they would like to clearly identify their
headquarters as they rely on name recognition and reputation for business,not convential advertisement.
No sign would impede their business and that the proposed sign did not deter from the Bylaw because a
sign existed in the location previously and would not impede anyone else's business or otherwise.A
single sign was not violating the bylaw as well.
Mr.Jarema asked the Applicant to review Criteria One once again. Mr.Goober reiterated that no
topography issues were on site but landscaping did create issues and their location to the highway would
be viewed better from the top of the building. Mr.Jarema added it was a unique situation with the
building placement.
Mr.Hagstrom questioned if the previous sign was installed prior to this zoning regulation. He also
questioned if landscaping could be modified.Ms. Plourde replied they do not own the building and that is
out of their control.Mr.Hagstrom added their proposed location would not be viewable from the highway
but only Walkers Brook corridor.Mr. Goober added when the building was marketed foliage was down
and the location was viewable from the highway and that was a significant financial factor in paying for
the space.
Mr. Caouette asked if they are the sole business in the building. Ms.Plourde replied they have roughly
half of the occupiable space, including the entire second floor. She added they are locked in to the
building for at least 11 years.Mr.Caouette stated it is a hard application to prove a hardship for and
added precedent may have already existed for this case and would not be created.Mr.Caouette stated if
they could prove that prior signage was permitted it would be a big help in the case.
Mr.Pernice added that though he felt bad the building was marketed to the applicants in such a way they
cannot vote on that premise.He felt the criteria were not met in this case.
Mr.Tornow asked how long the Keurig sign existed.Mr.Dupell replied he did not know but the business
was there for around 10 years or so.Mr.Dupell added even if it existed for 10 years only that sign would
be protected in some ways,not a new proposal.Mr.Tornow,stated precedent existed at other businesses
as it relates to signage that clearly identifies them from the highway and found it appropriate in size and
location.
Page 1 2
Mr. Jarema thought through the history of prior tenants.He stated that they would like to work with the
Applicant for the betterment of the community. He stated he would like to review the building history as
well.
Mr.Jarema opened the hearing to public comment.
Mr.Nick Safina,of 21 South Street,provided some institutional history on the building.He also felt bad
for the way the building was marketed. Mr. Safina added that Weston and Sampson's reputation far
exceeds their need for a sign.
Mr.Tony D'Arezzo,of 130 John Street,also provided some history. His wife worked for the prior tenant
in Task and he lives in the nearest residential zone. He added he has been vocal in prohibiting these signs
in the past due to the lighting on his dwelling. He proposed they could have a sign facing the highway
instead.Mr. Dupell replied there are certain criteria needed in order to do so.
Mr.Jarema then closed the public comment portion of the hearing. He reviewed the applicant's choices in
moving forward and added further study may be needed.
Mr.Tornow asked if they could provide lumen details for the signage.Ms. Pedrose replied they can
provide an example of the lighting but cannot provide exact lumen details as this type of signage does not
project in that way.
Mr. Pernice reiterated his thoughts that a Variance may not be the best route for the proposed signage.
Mr.Goober asked if the sign were to be facing the highway would it be by right.Mr.Jarema confirmed.
Mr.Goober then asked if denied would they be able to apply for a different sign. Mr.Jarema replied they
could not apply for the same sign.
Mr. Goober asked to continue the application to the September 4'hearing date in order to find more
detail on the building and signage.
On a Motion made by Mr.Caouette,seconded by Mr. Hagstrom,the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to grant a continuance for Case#19-09 to Wednesday September 4M,2019.
Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema,Caouette,Hagstrom,Pernice,Tornow)
Case#19-10—168 Walnut Street
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a Public Hearing in the Select Board's Meeting Room at Town Hall,
16 Lowell Street,Reading,Massachusetts on Wednesday,June 5,2019 at 7:00 PM on the application of
Paul and Donna Sweeney,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 a 2 story Accessory Apartment addition with an attached
garage to the existing single-family dwelling at the property located at 168 Walnut Street(Assessors Map
4,Lot 99)in Reading,Massachusetts.
Mr.Jarema read the case into record and swore in the Applicants and members of the public.
Mr.Brad Latham represented the Applicants. He started by stating the application is for an accessory
apartment for the owners who have been in the dwelling for over 30 years.As age increases and health
conditions worsen the need for an accessory structure is evident.Both children and parents would live in
the principal dwelling and the accessory apartment. Mr. Latham reviewed the waiver request and
dimensions for the application.He then reviewed the performance standards for accessory apartments and
added that the excess 184 square feet results in the waiver request but all other standards are met. Mr.
Latham also presented the Board letters of support from abutters.
Page 1 3
Mr.Dupell reviewed his Letter of Denial for the application. He mentioned the addition would require a
Special Permit and that the square footage and driveway standards require the Board's input.
Mr.Tomow,reviewed the design and square footage. He found it met the neighborhood but that the
additional 184 square feet would have to be weighed with the use.Mr.Tornow did find the need a
reasonable cause.Mr.Latham added the way the Bylaw is written requires a Waiver and not a Variance,
thankfully.Mr.Tornow added his biggest concern was with the garage and asked how exactly it is
accessible.Mr. Peter Samose,architect of the project,replied the garage did have steps but access for the
parents is at grade through additional access.He added the second floor addition would be accessed
through the accessory apartment as well.The mother,father and son would live in the accessory
apartment and the daughter in the principal dwelling. Mr. Tomow understood the challenges with
shrinking the proposal and found the waiver request acceptable.
Mr. Penrice added the Bylaw incorporates the health and safety of the residents and did not have a
problem with the application.
Mr.Caouette related to the situation.He asked if driveway access would be from both South and Walnut
Street. Mr.Latham replied in the negative.Mr.Caouette asked if wheelchair accommodations would be
needed.Mr. Samose replied that was taken into account already.
Mr. Hagstrom found the application thorough and complete and found the reason for the waiver request
acceptable.
Mr.Jarema asked if the additional space was designated or due to the layout of the architecture. Mr.
Latham replied the 184 additional square feet was the result of a prior redesign and was needed by the
applicants. Mr.Jarema asked if the master bedroom on the second floor was for the parents. Mr. Latham
replied in the affirmative. Mr.Jarema stated the additional square footage could be added to the dwelling
and not the apartment,making all conforming. Mr.Latham replied it was important for the accessory
apartment to maintain accessibility. Mr.Jarema reviewed Mr.Dupell's concerns of two driveways.Mr.
Latham added that will require a Special Permit from the Board of Selectman for two curb cuts.They
reviewed the existing and proposed driveways.Mr.Jarema added an abutter has two driveways as well.
Mr.Latham stated they are not seeking zoning relief for the second driveway as it is not the Board's
jurisdiction.Mr. Dupell added the Bylaw states the Board can waive performance standards but the Select
Board would need to authorize.Mr.Latham stated the second driveway be conditioned upon Select Board
approval.
Mr. Jarema opened the hearing to public comment.
Mr. Paul Sweeny,of 168 Walnut Street,opined the second driveway on South Street is the best
alternative for the neighborhood. He added they would protect landscaping as much as possible and more
so than if a second access is provided on Walnut Street.
Mr.Tomow asked clarification on the extent of pavement.Mr. Sweeny clarified any trees taken for the
driveway would be less than 3 inches in diameter,
Mr. Safina objected to the second driveway and opined it did not maintain the single family appearance
and may require a Variance. He added a second driveway application was rejected prior to this
application and that the area of the proposed driveway is the narrowest part of South Street and not a safe
location.He proposed the driveway could exist without the curb cut but instead a turnaround area.Mr.
Jarema stated the applications are different but future issues are taken into consideration.
Mr. Dupell confirmed the definition of floor area includes multiple floors, including finished basements.
Page 14
Mr. Latham asked for a conditional Select Board approval for the project. He did add that the Zoning
Board could reject the second driveway altogether but would appreciate going before the Select Board for
appropriate approval.
Mr. Michael Carpenter,of 174 Walnut Street,stated more trees are out there than shown on the plan and
that any pavement around the garage would remove a greater number of trees and was in favor of the
application as is.Neither him nor Mr. Sweeny wanted five or more cars entering from Walnut Street.He
also questioned what happens when the house and accessory apartments turnover.Mr. Dupell clarified the
bylaw and that future owners must abide by the same regulations.
Mr. Jarema closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Mr. Latham reviewed how the Board can proceed,conditioning approval or denial.
Mr. Pernice stated he saw the merits of a driveway on South Street but agreed the Select Board should
approve as such.
Mr.Cagnetta agreed with Mr.Pernice in that the Board cannot approve a curb cut but just the plot plan.
He was in favor of a conditional approval by the Select Board.
Mr. Hagstrom agreed and had no further comment.
Mr.Tornow also agreed with the Board.
Mr.Jarema noted if the Select Board did not approve a second curb cut that the Board would need a
modification.
On a Motion made by Mr.Pernice,seconded by Mr. Caouette,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to grant a Special Permit for Case#19-10.
Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema,Caouette,Hagstrom,Pernice,Tornow)
Minutes
1-16-19
On a motion made by Mr.Caouette,seconded by Mr. Hagstrom,the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to accept minutes as amended.
Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema,Caouette,Hagstrom,Pernice,Tornow)
1-24-19
On a motion made by Mr. Caouette,seconded by Mr. Pernice,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to accept minutes as appeared.
Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema,Caouette,Hagstrom,Pernice,Tornow)
2-20-19
On a motion made by Mr.Pernice,seconded by Mr. Tornow,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to accept minutes as amended.
Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema, Caouette,Hagstrom, Pernice, Tornow)
Page 1 5
2-28-19
On a motion made by Mr.Caouette,seconded by Mr.Pernice,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to accept minutes as amended.
Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema,Caouette,Hagstrom,Pernice,Tornow)
3-6-19
On a motion made by Mr. Hagstrom,seconded by Mr. Caouette,the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to accept minutes as amended.
Vote was 5.0-0(Jarema,Caouette,Hagstrom,Pernice,Tornow)
4-3-19
On a motion made by Mr. Caouette,seconded by Mr.Tornow,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to accept minutes as amended.
Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema,Caouette,Hagstrom,Pernice,Tornow)
4-17-19
On a motion made by Mr. Caouette,seconded by Mr.Pernice,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to accept minutes as amended.
Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema,Caouette,Hagstrom,Pernice,Tornow)
Other Business
Mr.Caouette states it is his intent to resign from the board when his term is over in July 2020.
Adjournment
On a motion made by Mr.Jarema,seconded by Mr.Pernice,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to adjourn the hearing.
Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema,Caouette,Hagstrom,Pernice,Tornow)
Page 1 6