Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-07-17 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes o� orx� Town of Reading ey Meeting Minutes PaCEIVED "7,° TOWN CLERK ^'..,^ READING, MA. Board - committee - commission - council: Zoning Board of Appeals 2113 SEP 19 PM 3: 22 Date: 2019-07-17 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Select Board Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Session: Purpose: Version: Attendees: Members - Present: John Jarema Robert Redfern Cy Caouette Erik Hagstrom Nick Pernice Hillary Mateev Kyle Tornow Members - Not Present: Others Present: Building Commissoner Mark Dupell, Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol, Nagel Stone, Al Perry, Brian McGrail, Rose Preece Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Amanda Beatrice Topics of Discussion: Case #19-08 - 12 Winter Street 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, July 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 opened the meeting Mr. Jarema stated that the applicants submitted a letter dated July 10`h, 2019 asking to withdraw their application without prejudice. On a Motion made by Mr. Redfern, seconded by Mr. Caouette, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a withdrawal without prejudice for Case *19-08. Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema, Caouette, Redfern, Hagstrom, Pornice) Case #19-14 - 104 Salem Street 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, July 17, 2019 at 7:00 PM, on the application of Brian McGrail, on behalf of H.B. Development Page I 1 Corporation, pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 40A 48, for an appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector regarding the applicability of Zoning Bylaw Section 5.3.2 Footnote 1 at the property located at 104 Salem Street in Reading, Massachusetts. Mr. Jarema read the legal ad for 104 Salem Street and swore in members of the audience. Mr. Jarema stated that this is an appeal from the decision of the building inspector. He asked that Mr. Dupell speak first about his decision and why the application was denied. Mr. Dupell explained that his explanation would consist of three parts; a brief summary of how they got to the current point, comments about the Applicants'Exhibit A' that was submitted and his closing statements. He continued that on or about April 23, 2019 that the Applicants Attorney, Mr. Brian McGrail, met with him to submit the building application to demolish the existing single family dwelling and replace it with 2-family dwelling. On that date Mr. McGrail provided Mr. Dupell with an opinion letter from Building Inspector Glen Redmond dated 3/27/18. In the letter, Mr. Redmond stated that he believed the single family home qualified to be converted into a 2 family under Footnote 1 of Section 5.3.2 in the Town Zoning Bylaw. Mr. Dupell stated that he reviewed the letter and informed the applicant that Mr. Redmond's letter only gave them the ability to apply for the building permit. Mr. Dupell said that the Applicant made the case that Section 7.8 of the Bylaw address that the voluntarily demolishing and reconstruction was the section that allows him to proceed with this project. Mr. Dupell stated that he had the Applicant apply for a demo permit first. He then informed them that he would review the proposed construction and get back to them. He stated that Mr. McGrail asked that he let him know right away and that he did indeed call him right away. After the phone call Mr. Dupell followed up with a formal denial letter for the application. Mr. Dupell read Exhibit A, provided by Mr. McGrail, into the record. Mr. Dupell commented that Section 7.8 of the Bylaw referenced in the denial letter is related to the voluntary demolition and reconstruction and permitted by right as is this case as asserted by the applicant on 4/23/19. Mr. Dupell explained he did not find this section of the Bylaw applicable to the application. Mr. Dupell mad 'number two' from Exhibit A into record. Mr. Dupell commented that the Applicant is correct that Footnote 1 does not contain the word conversion. In Mr. Dupell's opinion, the word 'alter' within Footnote 1 refers to the use of the existing home as in the alteration definition in Section 2 of the Bylaw. His opinion was that alter is a conversion of the use and dwelling from a single-family home to a two-family home not a complete tear down and rebuild. He noted that Footnote 1 does not contain the word conversion but in the Bylaw definition of alteration you will not find the words remove, demolish, destruct, level or raze. Attorney McGrail Introduced himself and the representative of the applicant Ms. Rose Preece. He stated that Mr. Dupell was receptive, helpful, cooperative and time efficient; he also stated that he appreciated the fast resolution. He stated that he has a disagreement with the language in the zoning bylaw. He stated that they were appealing Mr. Dupell's denial letter and asking the Board to overturn the denial letter. Attorney McGrail read Footnote 1 and Mr. Redmond's letter. He stated that Section 7.8 only applies to nonconforming lots and that the house is on a lot is a legally compliant with the current zoning bylaws and that the proposed building plan conformed as well. What they applied for was under Section 5.3.2 and they are not looking for relief or any findings and that it is not required. He noted that under Footnote 1 conversion is not mentioned but the word alter is. Attorney McGrail said that the definition under the bylaws is extremely broad and can be interpreted differently. He believed that alteration is a broad term and it allows their proposed plans to demolish and rebuild due to the fact that the definition of alteration included the word 'reconstruction'. He stated that is clear what the bylaws intent is. Attorney McGrail brought up that CPDC had a hearing to change the Footnote 1 language in the bylaws and voted to present the amendments to the November Town Meeting. Mr. Jarema stated that this did not have bearing on the current meeting although the Applicant Page 1 2 believed that it did - to the extent on how people look at the terms and how the Planning Department plans to change that terminology. Mr. Jarema asked if they were seeking relief or had questions about the hearing to change that section of the bylaw. The attorney said no they were only looking for the Board to overturn Mr. Dupell'a decision. Mr. Jarema asked for clarification about the Section 7.8 mentioning. Attorney McGrail said he disagreed with Mr. Dupell but does not believe it is relevant with what is before the Board. Mr. Jarema stated that he had a letter from Town Counsel from a year ago reviewing the clarity of Footnote 1. Mr. Redfern sated that the letter reiterated what the Bylaw sates and gave the opinion on Footnote 1 interpretation. Mr. Redfern read the opinion from Town Counsel which stated that if an original pre-1942 single family home no longer exists than Footnote 1 will not be available for use and that the Table of Uses forbids two-family dwellings in SSS, S20 and S40 Districts. He also read number six of the letter which stated that there is only limited expansion authorized by Footnote 1 and that Footnote one allows conversion of existing interior space. Attorney McGrail replied that the Town Counsel's letter is all based on his opinion/what the person who wrote it believed. Mr. McGrail stated he believes that the bylaw Is clear, there is no mention of conversion and that the alteration definition is clear. He added that the Board must go by what the Bylaw states in black and white not on intent. Mr. Jarema asked is there are any questions or comments from the Board. Mr. Hagstrom clarified the Applicant's interpretation is that because alter is in the Bylaw and not conversion, that it is a fair reading. He added that a high number of dwellings could apply Footnote 1 by-right and would be eligible to alter the home into a two-family home. Mr. McGrail agreed but added that dimensional controls are hard to reach. Mr. Hagstrom reviewed Town Counsel's opinion that the existing dwelling must remain in order for Footnote 1 to be applied. He added that going against Town Counsel is not preferred but that the Applicant made a number of good points. Mr. Caouette stated that this was not the first time this issue has come up and if you look how the Bylaw is written people will wrestle with the word alter and that the definition of alteration muddies it up further. He believed that convert and alter are two very different words and that there is a lot of room for interpretation. Mr. Caouette stated from his stand point, if he took the by law literally, he has a hard time not agreeing with Mr. Dupell's denial. Mr. Redfern agreed with Mr. Dupell's decision. He stated that he believed that the intent of the Bylaw was to work with and maintain the existing structure; once you remove the home you would have a vacant lot in a single-family district which does not allow two-family dwellings. He added if that was the preferred route a Variance would be required. Mr. Pernice stated that he waivered back and forth on the application. He added that the Bylaw is not clear and questioned whether if conversion to a two-family came first would they then be allowed to demolish and rebuild as such. Mr. Tornow noted that from the looks of the footprint it looks like the Applicant has already added on to this dwelling. The Applicant verified that they have. Mr. Tornow asked if there are additions that were pre-1942. The attorney said Mr. Redmond looked at that property and that there were the 8+ original rooms from 1942. Mr. Tornow also asked for clarification that their intent was to demolish the existing structure and rebuild it. The Applicant confirmed. Mr. Tornow's interpretation of the Bylaw's intent is that if the building is removed then the current Bylaw regulations would need to be followed. Mr. McGrail asked if the biggest issue is the total demolition, razing and reconstruction. If the house was preserved and they put an addition, would that be a different scenario. Mr. Dupell said that would be more of how the Bylaw was Intended but could not provide a Page 1 3 definite answer. Mr. McGrail acknowledged such. Mr. Jarema reviewed the property record card provided. Mr. Jarema stated this has been an issue for Town Staff for many years. He agreed that a complete teardown and rebuild is not what is allowed by the Bylaw. He added that if a tear- down was done it would not be protected as a non-conforming use. Mr. McGrail argued that because Footnote 1 would be allowed by-right that the dwelling would be conforming. Mr. Jarema opened the meeting to public comment. Mr. Al Perry from 10 Spring Street stated that the house is over grown, infected with rodents and he wanted to know who was responsible for maintaining the property. Mr. Jarema stated he cannot answer that and that he would have to go to the Board of Health. Mr. Dupell said they did receive a complaint and that a letter went to the property owner addressing the potentially unsafe condition to the structure and he also addressed that they could get further information from the Board of Health for the outside conditions of the dwelling. The attorney stated they received the letter this day and that it was dated July 15�, 2019. Mr. Jarema closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. MacNichol noted Town Counsel's letter point four, that because Footnote 1 would allow the dwelling to be converted by-right it would not be protected under Section 7.8 If demolished. The new structure would have to be rebuilt with what is allowed by-right which is a single-family home. Mr. Jarema reiterated that Town Counsel's opinion and sequencing is clear. He added that the Board relies heavily on the Building Commissioner and Town Counsel's opinion. Attorney McGrail stated that the bylaw does not state if the house was demolished that they would lose the rights to rebuild it. He believed that people should be able to rely on the Bylaw and not people's opinions about the bylaw. He stated that the fact that CPDC and Staff are looking to change the language shows they are trying to put reins on the Bylaw. Mr. McGrail requested to continue meeting with Town Staff so that the Applicant can relook at a plan to reuse the property and to talk to Mr. Dupell and/or Town Counsel. The Board agreed that they had no issues, issuing a continuance following a formal letter. On a Motion made by Mr. Caouette, seconded by Mr. Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a continuance for Case #19-14 to August 21 ; 2019. Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema, Caouette, Redfern, Hagstrom, Pernice) Other Business The Board had a discussion on who would step up as Chair and Vice Chair. They agreed that Mr. Caouette would act as Chair and Mr. Hagstrom would act as Vice Chair. On a Motion made by Mr. Redfern, seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept Mr. Caouette as Chairman of the Board. Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema, Caouette, Redfern, Hagstrom, Pernice) On a Motion made by Mr. Pernice, seconded by Mr. Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept Mr. Hagstrom as Vice Chairman of the Board. Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema, Caouette, Redfern, Hagstrom, Pernice) Pdg, 1 4 Mr. MacNichol reviewed the proposed amendments to Footnote 1. If approved it would require the Zoning Board to grant a Special Permit for Footnote 1 applications. Minutes 5-22-19 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, Redfern) Adiournment On a motion made Mr. Redfern,seconded by Mr. Hagstrom, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema, Caouette,Redfern, Hagstrom, Pernice) Page 1 5