Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-09-04 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Pq Town of Reading Meeting Minutes �x,oaroar T r)1dt.(N C L E t Board - Committee - Commission - council: Zoning Board of Appeals AIS OCT 17 PM 1: 57 Date: 2019-09-04 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 Reber Redfern Cy Caouette Nick Pernice Hillary Mateev Members - Not Present: Erik Hagstrom Kyle Tornow Others Present Kim Plourde, Tony D'Arezzo, Josh Latham, Alex Katz, Joe Peznola Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Andrew MacNichol Topics of Discussion: Mr. Caouette called the meeting to order at 7:05PM. Case# 19-13&19-20—26 Green 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, August 7, 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. 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 4, 2019 at 7:00 PM on the application of Wade and Lorraine Willwerth, pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 40A §9 for a Special Permit under Reading Zoning Bylaw Section 7.3.2 to enclose the existing second-story deck, at the property located at 26 Green Street (Assessors Map 16, Lot 315) in Reading, Massachusetts. Taking action out of order Mr. Caouette opened the hearing for Case#19-20 by reading the notice into the record. He continued to state the Applicant had requested a continuance to the next hearing date of September 18"i. Mr. Redfern asked for clarification noting this was the second application for the address. Mr. Caouette reviewed the timeline of the application, noting Page 1 1 one application was for conversion of the garage and that this new application was to enclose the deck. He added both will require a separate vote. Mr. Jarema asked Building Commissioner Mark Dupell for an update on where the project is at. Mr. Dupell referred to Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol as he had been in contact with the applicants. Mr. MacNichol stated that new plans had been submitted for the application and have been given to the Board members tonight. He added this was the reason for the continuance request, to ensure that the Board had the proper amount of time to review before hearing the application. On a motion made by Mr. Redfern, seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a Continuance for Case 419-13 to September 18, 2019. Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema, Caouette, Pernice, Redfern, Mateev) On a motion made by Mr. Pernice, seconded by Ms. Mateev, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a Continuance for Case #19-20 to September 18, 2019. Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema, Caouette, Pernice, Redfern, Mateev) Case#19-09—55 Walkers Brook Drive 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, September 4, 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. Caouette read the case into record and swore in members of the public wishing to speak on the application. Ms. Kimberly Plourde from the office of Weston and Sampson was present on behalf of the application. Ms. Plourde stated that Weston and Sampson had asked their sign vendor, Sign Design, to review placing the sign facing the 128 highway, as per the Board's request. The vendor had let Weston and Sampson know that a sign in that location was not feasible nor worth the money it would cost to install due to the fact that the sign would not be viewable, even from the highway. Ms. Plourde added that the sign vendor opined that the sign was much more visible from the Walkers Brook side of the building. Ms. Plourde presented the Board with the Variance Criteria and reviewed her answers. Mr. Plourde stated that mature landscaping along the entrance of the building limits visibility of the sign if placed below the second floor windows. She added Conservation would need to approve as the property is on the waterline and that as an environmentally friendly firm Weston and Sampson preferred not to remove landscaping. She opined this was a unique situation and met the needs of Criteria One. Ms. Plourde continued to review the application. She stated that the business is looking to clearly identify their corporate headquarters and that they had already paid $7,700 towards the sign; which again their vendor informed them that the proposed location was the one that made the most financial sense and that was most viewable year-round. Ms. Plourde continued that Weston Page 12 and Sampson was now in Reading for at least the next 1 l years, and up to 21 years. Value is added when people identify the location as their headquarters and not just"the old Keurig Building". Ms. Plourde opined that this value cannot be quantified as they compete with a number of national firms. Ms. Plourde stated they are the anchor tenant of the building and spend $1.2 million dollars a year in rent. She stated other locations provided a cheaper cost but they chose Reading due to its location and growth. She continued that the proposed sign would not be any more detrimental to the Town as two previous tenants had signs in the proposed location. Mr. Jarema clarified that due to Board member absentees tonight that the Applicant would require 4 out of 4 votes if a vote was issued tonight. Mr. Caouette added that this is the first time the Board is reviewing the new answers of the Variance Criteria. He provided the Applicant with the options they could move forward with. Ms. Plourde asked the Board to provide comments so that the firm may review and amend the application if need be. Mr. Pernice commented that the Variance Criteria still required work in his mind and that his feelings had not changed much since the last hearing. Mr. Redfern stated he reviewed the previous video of the hearing and could sign the Mullen Rule form if need be. He found the application not detrimental to the neighborhood. He asked if the sign was illuminated; Ms. Plourde replied in the affirmative. Mr. Jarema asked the Applicant about the building's history as it relates to tenant signage; both previous tenants had signage in approximately the same location and size. He noted that it did appear neither tenant was permitted for the signs which did not help clarify the application. Mr. Jarema opined that the directory sign of the building was not sufficient for the business, as it only benefited those already going to the property. He continued that the sign bylaw does not accurately reflect the needs of industrial zoned properties. Mr. Jarema noted that variances are awarded for realistic justification and cautioned that the bylaws were too restrictive for such an application. Mr. Caouette stated that he felt some of the Variance Criteria were not strongly met. He added that in terms of common sense the application made sense but when lined up with the bylaw it could not be awarded. Mr. Caouette asked if a formal approval for previous signs were found. Ms. Plourde presented the Board with documentation of a sign permitted for TASC in 1987. Mr. Caouette added that the bylaws at the time may not have required a variance. Mr. Dupell clarified the proposed sign is 44 square feet larger than the previously permitted TASC sign. He added that the square footage is not a part of the application but simply the location. He continued to state the permit was awarded to face the 128 side of the building but was then placed facing Walkers Brook for some reason. He further clarified that the building was previously addressed as 55 John Street, Both Mr. Caouette and Mr. Jarema agreed that the TASC sign faced Walkers Brook Drive. Mr. Caouette added that this was the logical place to put the sign. Mr. Caouette asked if the square footage of the proposed sign conformed to the regulations. Mr. Dupell confirmed that it did and if not it would have been noted in the Variance request. Mr. Caouette opened the hearing to public comment. Mr. Tony D'Arezzo, of 130 John Street, stated that Weston and Sampson is only a tenant of the building and not the property owner and that if they cannot adjust landscaping then they should not be given a Variance which will run with the property, even if Weston and Sampson were to Page 1 3 leave. He added hardships should be with the building not the tenant. Mr. D'Arezzo noted he did file a past complaint on the previously existing Keurig Sign but did not pursue further so as to not reflect badly on the Town and that the sign has been down for over two years thus the building must comply with current zoning regulations. He stated the building was not permitted as a PUD so those regulations did not impact the application. Mr. D'Arezzo did state that the sign would only be allowed at that height due to the proximity of the highway but added the sign should not be viewable to residents which it would be. He continued that if on the 128 side of the building that sign would be viewable for a minimum of 6 months out of the year due to foliage being down. He opined the applicant did not meet the criteria for a variance. Mr. Caouette closed the public comment portion of the hearing. He asked the Applicant how they wished to proceed. Ms. Plourde requested a Variance to the next available hearing. Mr. Caouette added that members absent from tonight's hearing will need to watch the video of the hearing in order to vote on the application. On a motion made by Mr. Jarema, seconded by Mr. Pernice, the Zoning Board ofAppeats moved to grant a Continuance for Case#19-09 to October 9, 2019. Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema, Caouette, Pernice, Redfern, Mateev) Case 419-19—259-267 Main Street The Zoning Board of Appeals held a Public Bearing in the Select Board Meeting Room at Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts on Wednesday, September 4,2019 at 7:00 PM on the application of Stonegate Construction Corp., pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 40A §9 for a Special Permit under Reading Zoning Bylaw Section 7.2 to alter, reconstruct and/or extend a pre-existing nonconforming commercial use within the 5-15 Zoning District; OR, pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 40A §10 for a Variance to convert the commercial use area within the S-15 Zoning District into parking for a multi-family dwelling; OR, pursuant to Reading Zoning Bylaw Section 4.6.2.4, for a determination that the Special Permit application can be decided as part of the Community Planning and Development Commission's Site Plan Review process for the project, on the property located at 259-267 Main Street (Assessors Map 12, Lots 40 & 39) in Reading, Massachusetts. Mr. Caouette read the case into record and swore in members of the public wishing to comment on the application. Attorney Josh Latham was present on behalf of the applicant. fie submitted documents for review consisting of aerial photographs and summary of the history of the application to which he will be speaking of. Mr. Latham stated it was previously the site of Smith Oil Company but is now underway to be sold and converted into a multi-family property. He continued to add that the lot is split zoned between the A-40 District and residential 5-15 district; the A-40 zone is very thin and shallow to develop on. Mr. Latham showed neighboring properties and how they related to the site, including both commercial and multi-family uses. He then reviewed the zoning history of the site. Mr. Latham stated the proposal is to include the entire building within the A-40 district but the applicants cannot fit enough parking in that district. Because of that the Applicant is seeking zoning relief in one of three ways; being that the ZBA could grant a Special Permit for the Page 14 parking use, grant a Variance for the parking use or allow the Community Planning and Development Commission (CPDC) authority over granting the Special Permit. Mr. Latham added they will be before CPDC regardless due to triggering Site Plan Review and will be before the Conservation Commission due to the proximity of wetlands. Mr. Latham continued that the parking is the only aspect that requires zoning relief and without so the project would likely not continue. Mr. Latham reviewed the case and criteria for a Variance. He stated it is the largest piece of property along South Main Street but added this is deceptive due the significant wetlands and streams running through the site; this limits the developable portion of the lot. No multi-family aspect can be within the S-15 zoning district. He continued that the bylaw requires parking for multi-family properties to be located in the rear of the property and a significant amount be landscaped. Mr. Latham reviewed other properties in the area that did and also did not get zoning relief as it relates to parking. Mr. Latham stated that this project would differ because the parking will be screened by the natural vegetation thus not impacting residential abutters to the rear. He felt this application was a perfect opportunity to beautify South Main Street and met the criteria of a variance. Mr. Latham then reviewed the reasons why a Special Permit would be justified. Aside from the cases he had already presented Mr. Latham found that the parking use would be considered as an extension of a non-conforming use, as stated is Section 7.3.2 in the Zoning Bylaw. Ile reviewed the history of the site and how it was used for commercial parking in the past. Mr. Joe Peznola the engineer for the project was also present to answer questions. Mr. Caouette asked Town Staff if they had any input. Mr. Dupell had none. Mr. MacNichol stated the Applicant's had met with Town Planning Staff for review and that staff felt that the approach was appropriate. Mr. Interna asked what further relief was required for the project. He felt a Variance was not the safest way to go as the project had not even been permitted as of yet. Mr. Latham reviewed the Process would include Site Plan Review by CPDC and an Order of Conditions from the Conservation Commission. He added that they were before the ZBA first because the parking was an important threshold to the project and if they had gone through all others first and then were denied the parking relief it would have been a waste of both time and money for the applicants and staff. Mr. Jarema asked Mr. MacNichol how the Conservation aspects worked with the Site Plan Review aspects. Mr. MacNichol replied that typically both run concurrently but an Order of Conditions would be granted before final Site Plan Approval by the CPDC. Mr. Jarema asked how long the Conservation process would take. Mr. MacNichol could not provide an exact answer for such a question but added the Conservation Administrator was aware of the project and had conversations with the Applicants. Mr. Peznola added a site survey, geotechnical exploration, wetlands mapping and more were done to ensure issues were surmountable. Mr. Peznola stated they had met with the Conservation Commission on site to review potential impacts as well as remediation and enhancement to the wetland area. He felt the Conservation Commission would work well with the project due to the potential of trails, interconnectivity and remediation to the wetland area. He added that a full application is still needed including a Stormwater and Drainage Report. Page 1 5 Mr. Jarema confirmed with Mr. Peznola that a substantial amount of work had already been done. Mr. Jarema asked Mr. MacNichol how Site Plan Review started. Mr. MacNichol replied that it is simply based on the application and that the Applicants can file that whenever they feel ready. Mr. Peznola agreed and stated that CPDC can delay a Decision until the Conservation process is completed. Mr. Redfern asked the Applicants if the area proposed for parking is currently used as such. Mr. Latham answered in the affirmative. He stated Smith Oil uses it for service vans and equipment but no longer store oil trucks in the area. He added the Special Permit would be for the ability to use the area and not the exact I 1 spaces shown. Mr. Redfern questioned how a Special Permit applied to this case. Mr. Latham expanded that Section 7.2 of the Bylaw had language for `other uses' to be granted. He added the history of the bylaw used to state if'more conforming' a Special Permit can be granted, which he felt this new wording was referring to. Mr. Redfern questioned if a restriction was even in place for parking in a residential zone. Mr. Latham discussed another property which did not receive any relief but added some had received a Variance. Mr. Dupell added parking is not listed in the Table of Uses. Mr. Latham stated that they were seeking relief so as to not set precedent on similar applications and the project due to the level of investment. Mr. Redfern discussed potential conditions for such an approval but Town Counsel input should be advised. He agreed with Mr. Jarema that a Special Permit was favored over a Variance. Mr. Pernice echoed what other Board members had already said. He added that a Variance seemed to be justified in this case but asked for further Board comment. Mr. Caouette stated there seemed to be support for the application but questioned the best way forward. He added that he too would like to avoid a Variance. Mr. Latham replied that is okay as a Special Permit allows them to do what they need but a Variance was listed just in case the Board favored that route. Mr. Caouette stated he did not know how such a Special Permit would be structured. Mr. Latham requested a brief recess in order to discuss with his client, Mr. Caouette allowed such. Mr. MacNichol asked for clarification on the need for Town Counsel input. The Board replied that both the structure of language and what conditions would be included is of vital importance in this application. Mr. Caouette added this should be drafted before the next hearing if the Applicant requests to continue. Mr. Latham returned and asked to continue the application in order to work through the conditions relating to a Special Permit granting. Ms. Mateev agreed this was a good use of the site and all her questions have been previously discussed. Mr. Caouette opened the hearing to public comment. Mr. MacNichol provided the Board an email from a residential abutter. Mr. Caouette read the letter from Ms. Jennifer Caline of 12 Pinevale Road into record. Mr. Caouette closed the public comment portion of the hearing. On a motion made by Mr. Redfern, seconded by Ms. Mateev, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a Continuance for Case#19-19 to October 2, 1019. Page 1 6 Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema, Caouette, Pernice, Redfern, Mateev) Other Business Mr. Jarema addressed that he had to amend his previous motion regarding the continuance of Case #19-09-55 Walkers Brook Drive. The previous motion was to continue to October 9" and Mr. Jarema announced the date should instead be October 2"d. Mr. Caouette stated the Applicant should be made aware as well; Mr. MacNichol confirmed that he will do such. On a motion made by Mr. Jarema, seconded by Mr. Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to amend the previous motion and grant a Continuance for Case#19-09 to October 2, 2019. Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema, Caouette, Pernice, Redfern, Mateev) Ms. Mateev noted today was school open house and could be why Board members were absent. She asked that this try to be avoided next year. Minutes 6-5-19 On a motion made by Mr.Redfern,seconded by Mr. Pernice,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept minutes as provided. Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema,Caouette, Redfern, Pernice,Mateev) 6-19-19 On a motion made by Mr. Pernice,seconded by Mr. Redfern,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept minutes as amended. Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema, Caouette,Redfern,Pernice, Mateev) Adjournment On a motion made Mr. Redfern, seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board OJAppeals moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:1 7p.m. Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema, Caouette, Redfern, Pernice, Mateev) Page 1 7