Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-09-18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Town of Reading 9 Meeting Minutes E E i V t a° N CLERK Board - committee - commission - council: Zoning Board of Appeals 211100 17 PM 1: 57 Date: 2019-09-18 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Select Board Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Session: Purpose: Public Hearing Version: Final Attendees: Members - Present: John Jarema Robert Redfern Cy Caouette Erik Hagstrom Nick Pernice Hillary Mateev Members - Not Present: Kyle Tornow Others Present: Building Commissoner Mark Dupell, Nancy Twomey, Steve Napolitano, Greg Stepler, Heather Stepler, Peter S., Daniel Princic Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Andrew MacNichol Topics of Discussion: Mr. Caouette called the meeting to order at TOOPM. Case# 19-13—26 Green Street Mr. Caouette acknowledged that two cases on the agenda were about the application for 26 Green Street. He continued that the Applicant requested a continuance for both cases to be heard on the October 16"' hearing. The Applicant also requested an extension of time for the Decision filing. He read the letter from the Applicant requesting as such into the record. Mr. Redfern clarified that this was the fourth continuance for Case #19-13, which originally opened in June. Regarding Case 419-20 this is the second continuation of such application. lie asked if there is a limit to continuance requests that can be granted. Mr. Dupell replied continuances must be mutual consent of both applicant and the Board. The Board asked that the Applicant appear on the October 16"'hearing in order to provide any sort of update. On a motion made by Mr. Redfern, seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to continue the hearingfor Case#19-13 to October 16, 1019 at the request of the Applicant. Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema, Caouette, Redfern, Hagstrom,Pernice) Page I 1 Case#19-20—26 Green Street On a motion made by Mr. Redfern,seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moveda, continue the hearing far Case#19-20 to October 16, 2019 at the request of the Applicant, on a condition the Applicant appear before them on such date. Vote was 5-0-0(Redfern, Caouette, Hagstrom, Jarema, Pernice) Case 019-21 —61 Summer Avenue 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, September 18, 2019 at 7:00 PM on the application of Daniel Princic, pursuant to M.G.L.Ch. 40A §10 for a Variance under Reading Zoning Bylaw Sections 6.3 and 7.4, as may be determined by the Zoning Board, to approve the previous construction of a non-conforming deck with a non-conforming side yard setback on the property located at 61 Summer Ave in Reading, Massachusetts. Mr. Caouette read the case into record and swore in the Applicant and any members of the public wishing to speak on the case. Mr. Daniel Princic was present of behalf of the application. He stated the dwelling had a previous deck that was in disrepair and their family wanted to rebuild the deck on their own. He added they extended what was previously there when they built in 2016. Mr. Princic added that the resulting deck had a 9' setback where 12' previously existed. He continued that had he known of the requirements he would have built in the other direction where there is now a garden. Mr. Caouette read the Building Commissioner's Letter of Denial into the record. Mr. Penrice asked to clarify what size deck currently existed. Mr. Princic replied that the 12' X 12' deck exists, which replace the previous deck, and the separate 10' X 16' deck existed as well. The decks have been completed now for three years. Mr. Redfern asked if Mr. Dupell had any further comments. Mr. Dupell replied this came up because the Applicant had applied for another project which resulted in this finding of the illegal deck. lie added he would issue the newly applied for permit as the Applicant is now seeking relief for the existing deck. Mr. Princic stated the second floor addition is currently under way. Mr. Redfern noted the Variance Criteria weren't completed. An after effect request for a Variance must be looked at like the deck does not currently exist. He stated he found that the Applicant did not meet criteria one of a variance. He added that the hardship presented for criteria two was created by the Applicant and the cost to remove is not a defensible case. Mr. Princic stated he built the deck in its location due to his children and fear of the retaining wall on a slope. He added he did not know it was an issue to build to the side of his yard because his neighbors had a shed very close to the property line. He mentioned he is on very good terms with that neighbor. Mr. Redfern clarified the previously existing deck was actually 10.5' X 12'. Mr. Princic replied in the affirmative and that the previous owners or someone before had built it and it was in bad condition when he bought the house. He continued that he was not aware of the regulations and stated he will abide them as the current project moves forward. He stated he would be happy to condition the deck not be extended at all. Mr. Redfern replied that any future neighbor could complain about the deck and have it removed. Mr. Caouette clarified that even if Mr. Princic were to move the Variance would exist so this is a significant decision. Page 12 Mr. Hagstrom asked for clarification on the plot plan. He asked Mr. Dupell if the previous deck was permitted, Mr. Dupell replied in the affirmative. Mr. Hagstrom stated if he was simply replacing what previously existed it would be more in favor but the fact that he extended it is an issue. He continued that the Applicant worked with a contractor and they should have known a permit was needed for the deck. Mr. Hagstrom agreed the hardships provided were created by the Applicant himself and that to grant such a Variance would set a precedent for others to do so as well. Mr. Jarema concurred with the other Board members. He reviewed the history of the dwelling on the Property Record Card provided. He stated that without a permit it is even unsure if the deck is built to code and is safe. He agreed with Mr. Redfern's statement that the variance must be viewed as if the deck does not exist. He stated the extension of the deck was quite an extensive percentage increase from the original structure. Mr. Jarema stated the Variance Criteria are state law and are currently unmet as presented. He noted that the deck was not viewable from the street. Ms. Mateev asked why both decks were not on the plot plan submitted. Mr. Princic replied it was due to elevation and the 2D map could not show it. Ms. Mateev noted a lot of work has been done to the dwelling. Mr. Princic agreed that they have tried hard to beautify the dwelling and there is still more work he would like to get permitted. Mr. Caouette stated the Applicant was in a tight situation due to the criteria of a variance not being met. He asked if the deck were to be removed to comply with zoning would it affect his current construction for the addition. Mr. Princic replied that work was commencing on the patio to support the structure. Mr. Caouette clarified he was asking if the deck were to be reduced in size to that of the previous could the addition still be supported. Mr. Princic believed if the yard was flat than yes but due to some sloping he was unsure. He continued that it would definitely slow down the project at a minimum. Mr. Caouette opened the hearing to public comment, hearing none he closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Caouette noted that it is the Boards job to enforce the Town's regulations even if it presents problems for the Applicant. Mr. Redfern added ways the Applicant can proceed and Should look into the differences of removing the deck or modifying it. He was doubtful if a variance would have been granted in the past either. Mr.Jarema asked Mr. Dupell if the Board voted in the negative when the Applicant would need to remove the deck. He continued further that if the Applicant withdrew without prejudice would he still need to come back before the Board at some point in time. Mr. Dupell stated the deck would need to be removed before final approval of the current construction. He continued that if the Applicant built to the original structure he may not need to come back before the Board. Mr. Princic stated he did not want to modify in any way. He added that he believed the he would not need to remove the deck if he applied. Mr. Dupell replied that was not the case and he explained that he issued the Building Permit because he believed the Applicant was in good faith appearing before the Board. He added that how the Board voted was separate from the addition. Mr. Dupell stated any modification to the deck would need to be done before the current addition is completed. Mr. Princic was concerned about timing due to his roof being removed. Mr. Dupell replied that he would ensure things are weather tight before winter. Mr. Redfern added the Board is trying to provide other options for the Applicant. Mr. Princic questioned why his lot was so small and asked if he purchased land from his owner to conform would that suffice. Mr. Dupell added that if that were done the neighbor's property could not be made non-conforming in any way. The Board reviewed how the Applicant can proceed. Mr. Dupell added he can extend the timeline to work things out and is happy to work with them if things were shown to be moving forward. The Board also reviewed future hearing dates that are open. There was concern of extending the hearing too long into the future. Page 1 3 Mr. Princic asked to continue to the November 201^ hearing in order to work with Mr. Dupell on a solution. Mr. Pernice questioned if the deck would need to be removed in order to be built safely with permits. Mr. Dupell replied they have done after-the-fact permits if inspected and found safe but must comply with zoning and code. Mr. Jarema asked if the current addition was over the deck. Mr. Princic replied in the negative, that the addition is going up and not out. On a motion made by Mr. Pernice,seconded by Mr. Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to continue the hearingfor Case#19-21 to November 20, 2019. Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema, Caouette, Hagstrom, Redfern, Pernice) Case 419-22—77 Mineral 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, September 18,2019 at 7:00 PM on the application of Greg and Heather Stepler, pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 40A §9 for a Special Permit under Reading Zoning Bylaw Sections 7.0, 7.3 and 7.3.2,to remove an existing non-conforming single story structure and replace it with a new two-story addition with a non-conforming side yard setback, to an existing non-conforming dwelling on the property located at 77 Mineral Street(Assessors Map 20, Lot 113) in Reading, Massachusetts, Mr. Caouette read the case into the record and swore in the Applicant and members of the public wishing to speak on the application. Ms. Nancy Twomey was present on behalf of the applicants and was the architect of the project. She started with the fact that the house was built around 1916 and had a solid foundation but the fact that it was made of stone was not conducive to build a second story addition on. The current den was non- conforming with a 10' side yard setback. The project was to build over the den but due to the foundation it would need to be removed and rebuilt as a two-story structure. She added the project would get longer but not any wider or non-conforming. She continued that a Special Permit was needed to extend the structure. Mr. Dupell had no comment at this time. Ms. Mateev also had no questions at this time. Mr. Jarema clarified the existing structure was to be removed. Ms.Twomey replied in the affirmative. Mr.Jarema found the criteria for the Special Permit were met and this was a standard request. Mr. Hagstrom agreed. He found it was a legal non-conforming lot and structure and reiterated was Ms. Twomey had presented. Mr. Hagstrom found the plans looked great and noted the non-conforming aspect was being slightly improved. Mr. Redfern found the project not being substantially any more detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Pernice agreed with the Board. He noted the project was still under the 25% lot coverage. Ms. Mateev asked if neighbors were concerned about tree removal. Mr. Caouette opened the hearing to public comment. Mr. Steve Napolitano of 81 Mineral Street was the abutter in questions. He stated that he and the applicant discussed preserving as many trees as possible and there were no objections to the plans. Page 14 After no further public comment Mr. Caouette closed he public comment portion of the hearing. On a motion made by Mr. Hagstrom,seconded by Mr. Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a Special Permit for Case#19-21. Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema, Caouette,Hagstrom,Pernice, Redfern) Other Business Mr.Jarema asked for a copy of the standard conditions the Board issues, he was given such. Mr. Caouette reviewed the issues surrounding Case#19-14— 104 Salem Street. He continued that the item is not on the agenda and the Applicant had not submitted new plans. He then stated the Applicant submitted a continuance request the day prior. He was concerned that if it was not found prior it would have resulted in a problem of a decision. Mr. Jarema noted this was the second time the application was not on the agenda. Mr. Caouette confirmed they can continue the application regardless because there would be no discussion. On a motion made by Mr. Redfern, seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to continue the hearing for Case#19-14 to Ochiher 16,1019 at the request of the Applicant. Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema, Caouette, Hagstrom, Redfern, Pernice) The Board reviewed issues surrounding members missing meetings and that Mullen Rule forms would need to be signed and submitted. Minutes 7/17/19 On a motion made by Mr. Redfern, seconded by Mr. Hagstrom, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept minutes as amended. Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema, Caouette, Hagstrom, Pernice, Red(ern) 8/7/19 On a motion made by Mr. Pernice, seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Bored of Appeals moved to accept minutes as amended. Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema, Cmiuelle,Hagstrom, Pernice, Redfern) 8/21/19 On a motion made by Ms.Moteev,.seconded by Mr. Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept minutes as amended Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema, Caouette,Hagstrom, Pernice, Redfern) Adjournment On a motion made Mr. Redfern,seconded by Ms. Mateev, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:52 p.m. Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema, Caouette,Redfern,Hagstrom, Pernice) Page 1 5