Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-06-19 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes � rq Town of Reading RECEIVED 7 JiREADIN , MA. Meeting Minutes TOWN CCLERK Board - Committee - Commission - Council: 2119 SEP -9 PM 3 07 Zoning Board of Appeals Date: 2019-06-19 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Select Board Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Session: Purpose: Public Hearing Version: Draft Attendees: Members - Present: John Jarema Robet Redfern Cy Caouette Erik Hagstrom Nick Pernice Kyle Tornow Hillary Mateev Members - Not Present: Others Present: Krista Reis, Surrey Reis, Isefi Reis, Adena Reis, Scott Rumley, John Nicholson, Lroraine Willworth, Wade Willworth, Kevin Jack, Anne Jack, Dirk Peterson, Bill Burditt, Carol Gaughn, Dennis Doranol, Pamela Adrlal, Heather Dudko, Nancy Graham, Sara Brukllacchio, Brian Powderly Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Andrew MacNichol Topics of Discussion: Mr. Jarema opened the meeting. Mr. Jarema addressed the correction to the Scrivener's Error for Case #19-10, 168 Walnut Street. The Decision was corrected to reflect the correct address and reposted with the Town Clerk. Case#19-11—79-81 Salem 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 19,2019 at 7:00 PM on the application of Brian Powderly—HCR Construction,pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 40A §9 for Special Permit under Reading Zoning Bylaw Sections 7.3.2 and 7.8 to remove the existing 2 family dwelling and construct a new 2 family dwelling at the property located at 79-81 Salem Street in Reading, Massachusetts. Mr.Jarema read the case into the record and swore in members of the public. Mr. Powderly presented the case and described the proposed plans including setback changes and grading design. He explained the intent to demolish the existing 2 family dwelling and build a new one and noted that they had been through the steps with the Historic Department. Page I 1 Mr.Jarema read the Building Commissioner's memo and relevant Zoning Bylaw sections into the record and opened the meeting to the Board for questions and comments. Mr. Hagstrom stated he had no questions at the moment. Mr. Caouette questioned access from the driveways and Mr. Powderly explained the design. Both driveways will still be maintained and provide access to the proposed garage. Mr. Redfern stated he went to look at the property and commented it had gone under a lot of rehab since being built around 1820. He confirmed with the Applicant that they were in touch with Historical and that the Commission was satisfied. Mr. Powderly said he had 3 meetings with the Historical Commission and their plan did not require the 6-month demolition delay, and Historical was fully satisfied. Mr. Redfern asked if there were any issues with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Powderly stated no,they were well away from the setbacks and the Do Not Disturb area. Mr. Redfern commented that this will still be a nonconforming structure but it will improve the existing nonconformity. Mr. Redfern discussed the height of the existing and proposed structure. He stated he would recommend approving the Special Permit and that the proposed plan is not more detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr.Pernice stated he concurred with what has been discussed so far pertaining to the setbacks and lot coverage and that he would support this application. Mr. Tornow said he didn't see any objections. Mr. Jarema asked the Applicant if they met with Conservation and was informed that there were no issues. Mr. Powderly explained there wasn't a need to meet with Conservation at all since the plan was outside the 100 foot setback and Do Not Disturb area. Mr. Jarema opened the meeting to public comment. Hearing none, he closed the public portion of the meeting. The Board had no further comment. On a motion made by Mr.Hagstrom,seconded by Mr. Caouette, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to make a finding that the proposed plan is not more detrimental to the neighborhood and grant a Special Permit for Case#19-I1. Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema, Caouette,Redfern, Hagstrom,Pernice) Case#19-12-29 Holly Road 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 19, 2019 at 7:00 PM on the application of Sammy and Krista Reis,pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 40A §9 for Special Permit under Reading Zoning Bylaw Sections 7.3.2, 5.4.7 and Table 5.3.2 to construct an accessory apartment to the existing single-family dwelling at the property located at 29 Holly Road (Assessors Map 7, Lot 235)in Reading,Massachusetts. Mr.Jarema read the case into record then swore in the Applicants and public. Page 1 2 The Applicants presented the case with Mr. Reis explaining the plans and the need for the accessory apartment. Mr. Jarema read the denial letter from the Building Commissioner into the record. He commented on being able to meet the requirements for an accessory apartment and noted he had a problem with the plan due to a lack of calculations. Mr. Jarema opened the meeting to the Board for questions or comments. Mr. Tornow asked if there is a plan to use a handicap ramp, noting he only saw stairs on the plans. Mr. Reis stated that the entrance to the accessory apartment is through the garage and there will be no steps from there. They discussed the decision to not use a long ramp due to water issues. Mr. Tornow commented that in terms of the overall plan,he did not have any issues. Mr. Penrice stated they certainly met I of the performance standards in keeping the appearance of a single-family home, and it appears the other performance standards were met as well. Mr. Redfern commented that this appears to be a nonconforming lot due to lot area and is grandfathered based on when it was built. He noted the existing structure does meet all setbacks and the proposed structure does not as well. He stated he did not have any issues with how things are laid out in the plot plan and architectural renderings. They discussed the square footage of the main house. Mr. Redfern stated it appeared to meet the requirements and he didn't have any issues with the application. Mr. Caouette gave his opinion on calculating the square footage, adding that he didn't feel there was a need for a waiver. He stated he had no problem with the application. Mr. Hagstrom stated he didn't have any issues. Mr. Jarema read the memo from the Building Commissioner into the record. Mr. Jarema opened the meeting to the public. Kevin Jack, 51 Walnut Street,asked if an accessory apartment can be rented based on Zoning. Mr. Jarema explained the bylaw for accessory apartments and the requirements. He further explained that the Zoning Board is not an enforcement authority, adding that issue might need to be addressed with the Community Planning and Development Commission (CPDC). Mr.Jack added that he wasn't concerned at this moment, but for the future,noting problems with a rental down the road. Mr.Jarema explained that tonight the Board is being asked to vote on a waiver and on a Special Permit and to follow up those concerns about other properties with the appropriate avenues. Nancy Graham, 26 Holly Road, offered her support stating she had no problem with the plan and supports the applicants. Bill Burdett, 35 Holly Road, stated the applicants were great neighbors and he supports the plan. The Board discussed the option for a waiver or for two Special Permits. The topic debated whether the Applicant could account for additional square footage to the accessory apartment based on a portion of the project that must still be constructed, but can be done by-right. Mr. Caouette stated he didn't think a waiver was needed. Mr.Hagstrom stated he thinks if they can build by right, then that should be able to be used in the calculation instead of coming back again Page 1 3 for the accessory apartment, creating an absurd process for the Applicant. He stated he sees no reason not to go that way. Mr.Redfern said he would have to agree with Mr. Hagstrom's way of thinking,adding they could certainly get a building permit for the office then come back for the accessory apartment,but he sees no need for that. He added it just wouldn't make sense for the contractor to come back twice but to instead get it all done at once. Mr. Pernice said he agrees with what has been said so far. He noted that if the certified plot plan and architectural drawings show sufficient square footage then he didn't see a need for a waiver. Mr. Tornow,stated he agreed and didn't see the need for a waiver. On a motion made by Mr. Caoaette,seconded by Mr. Redfern,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a Special Permit for Case#19-12. Vote was 4-1-0(Redfern, Caoaette,Hagstrom,Pernice) (Jarema) Case#19-13—26 Green 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 19, 2019 at 7:00 PM on the application of Wade and Lorraine Willwerth,pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 40A §9 for a Modification to the Special Permit granted in Case#11-11 or a new Special Permit under Reading Zoning Bylaw Sections 7.3.2 to convert storage space above the garage into a master bedroom with%bath to the existing single-family dwelling at the property located at 26 Green Street(Assessors Map 16,Lot 315) in Reading, Massachusetts. Mr. Jarema read the case into record. He then swore in the Applicants and public. Ms. Willwerth explained the Special Permit obtained in 2011 and the storage space above the garage. She also explained her meeting with Mr. Redmond to enclose the deck and convert the storage space to use as a master bedroom. She stated they were asking for an amendment to the existing Special Permit or if necessary, an additional Special Permit. Mr.Jarema read the memo from the Building Commissioner. He then opened the meeting to the Board for comments or questions. Mr. Hagstrom commented that is seems like the only reason the applicant is here tonight is because in 2011 the Board put a condition to not use the space above the garage for anything other than storage.He noted that the aesthetics of the dwelling would be improved and he didn't see anything that prevented him from supporting the application. Mr.Caouette said his only comment is that in converting this space to a bedroom, it will still look as it does from the outside. He added that enclosing the porch will add to the appeal. Mr.Redfern agreed with other Board members adding that the owners have done a great job with the lot. He stated the issue he has is with the Zone being Business B which allows no residential. Ms. Willwerth explained the Board's 2011 concerns about the dwelling becoming a 3 family home as the only issue at the time. Mr. Redfern presented his concern that this application is the `extension of a non-conforming use' which would require a Variance;he also requested a plot plan from the Applicant. Page 14 Mr. Jarema noted he shared the same concerns as Mr. Redfern. He expressed concern of expanding living space and conversion of the dwelling. Mr.Jarema asked the height of the storage space above the garage and noted the plans did not note some of these details. Ms. Willwerth asked if the deck is presently considered living space,the Board responded that it is not. Mr. Jarema expressed he did not disagree with what the Applicant is proposing but that the expansion may require a Variance. Mr. Pernice noted the merits mentioned by some Board members, but does not find this application detrimental to the neighborhood. He added that another bedroom may lead to an increase in parking,and even more so in the future. Mr. Tornow asked if the proposal would affect the third floor of the dwelling. The Applicant responded in the negative and the roof will not be modified. Mr. Caouette noted that the previous Decision referenced a part of the bylaw that has since been changed or relocated. Mr. Jarema opened the meeting to public comment. Heather McClain,20 Green Street, offered support for the application as the direct abutter to this discussed garage. Pamela Adrian, resident of Green Street, also offered support for the proposal. Sarah Brukilacchio, 28 Green Street, noted the Applicants have improved the neighborhood since moving in 27 years ago. Dennis Raymond, 32 Green Street, expressed the neighbors have never been any trouble and expressed support for the application. After seeing no further public comment Mr.Jarema closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr.Jarema noted that due to the concerns of the Board on how to move forward requested direction from Town Counsel and gave the Applicant a chance to decide on how they would like to proceed. Ms. W illwerth elected to continue the application to a later date. On a motion made by Mr. Redfern, seconded by Mr. Pernice,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a Continuance jar Case#19-13 to August 7. 2019. Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema, Caouene, Hagstrom,Pernice,Redfern) Case#19-07—357 Main Street,Burger King The Zoning Board of Appeals held a continuance of a Public Hearing in the Select Board's Meeting Room at Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts on Wednesday,June 19, 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- Page 1 5 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. The Applicant noted they revised the application to consider now one additional wall sign along with the free standing sign. The Applicant handed out renderings of the proposal.The freestanding sign would be maintained and the Variance request would be for one logo above the main entrance to the property.The wall sign is proposed at 16 square feet. It is also proposed to be internally illuminated. Mr. Caouette asked if all entrances were safely lit,the Applicant responded in the affirmative. Mr. Redfern noted the Variance criteria have been modified as well. Mr.Jarema noted that CPDC was involved in the original application and did not allow any signage on the building but that before reconstruction they have been approved for multiple wall signs. He noted that further detail on this should be provided. Mr.Jarema asked if the red lighting around the building was approved by CPDC,the Applicant responded in the affirmative. Mr.Penrice argued the Variance criteria still applies no matter the number of signs proposed. He clarified that does not mean he agrees with the hardships presented. Mr. Redfern agreed with Mr. Pernice. He agreed a business competitor close by has abided by the sign bylaw so the hardships are difficult to agree with. Mr. Caouette mentioned the only time he has trouble seeing the free standing sign is when coming down Ash Street towards Main Street, but can see it from all other angles. He also agreed with the other Board members on the criteria.Mr. Caouette did not want to appear business unfriendly but noted he was not in favor of a variance for this application. Mr. Hagstrom stated he had trouble noting the prior signage was legally allowed and if so the Applicant should present materials in order to prove such. Mr.Tornow agreed with the Board members. After hearing their options from the Board the Applicant requested to Withdraw the application without Prejudice. On a motion made by Mr. Redfern,seconded by Mr. Hagstrom, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a B dhdrawal without Prejudice for Case#19-07. Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema, Caouette,Hagstrom,Pernice,Redfern) Minutes 5-15-19 On a motion made by Mr. Caoueae,seconded by Mr. Pernice,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept minutes of 5-15-19. Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema, Caouette,Redfern,Hagstrom,Pernice) Page 1 6 i Other Business Mr. Jarema confirmed that he will step down after September. Mr.Tomow advised he accepted a teaching position and may not be able to sustain the Zoning Board schedule. Adiournment On a motion made Mr. Caouette,seconded by Mr. Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:37p.m. Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema, Caouette,Redfern,Hagstrom,Pernice) Page 1 7