Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-10-16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Orq�D a Town of Reading �; = Meeting Minutes r ' •ai'vEU OWN' CLERK oa.�P' PREACiNG, MA. Board - Committee - Commission - Council: roza FEB j 0 dM 10: 2aAAL. R Zoning Board of Appeals Date: 2019-10-16 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 Nick Pernice Hillary Mateev Members - Not Present: Kyle Tornow Erik Hagstrom Others Present: Building Commissoner Mark Dupell, Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol, Town Counsel Donna Roberts, William Marade, Carrie Burns, Mak Chabara, Lin Chabara, Neevaj Kumar, Mike Collins, Kim Cohen, Ivan Cohen, An Tao Ling Lin, Gine Molettieri, John Rinklin, Nevine Tewfik,Robert Hennesy, Ken Lafferty, Steve Chapman, Carol Chapman, Laura O'Neil, John Wilcox, Laura Villarroel, Jonathan Pollard, Jess Driscoll, Pat Driscoll, James Hickey, Karen artle, Sheila Clark, Matthew Galletta, Mark Vanderzouwen, Bonnie Vanderzouwen, Meghan Frey, Susan Broussard, William Broussard, Jim Burns, Brad Latham, Riley Abbott, Suzanne Abbott, Richard Croteau, Andrew Croteau, Karen Croteau, Liz Napolitano, less Swindell, Pat Iapicea, Frank Divito, Ulysses Gilchrist, Joy Kruppe, Damon Kruppe, Roger Kruppe, Ray Hanlon, Nannette Hanlon, John Webber, David Plnette, Kevin Walsh, Evin Guvendiren, John Barrows, Chris Latham, Kevin Neal, Frank Rizza, Pins Rizza, Chad Battaglia, Tim Higgins, Konstantinos Andrikopoulos, John Jenks, Pamela Jenks, William Trucker, Lorraine Willweth, Wade Willwerth, Bill Robichard, Jenn Robichard, Armando Villarreal, Cristina Collins, Corey Collins, Sarah Rambo, Kenneth Young, Steve Mirasolo, Rachel Fabiano Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Amanda Beatrice Topics of Discussion: Mr. Caouette called the meeting to order at 7:OOPM. Mr.Caouette notewaterd they will be taking a case out of order and will start the meeting by reviewing Case 819-24, 101 Willow Street. Case 819-24—101 Willow Street,Austin Preparatory School Mr. Caouette read the legal notice into the record and swore in members of the public who wished to speak on behalf of the case. Page 1 1 Mr.Redfern recused himself from this case stating he is friends with a direct abutter and did not wish to appear as partial to the case. Mr.Jarema asked if there were any consequences by having only four voting members.Town Counsel replied it will not be an issue as three votes are required. Mr.Caouette reviewed the background of the case.The reason it is before the ZBA is that the applicant has appealed a Decision issued by the Reading Community Planning and Development Commission (CPDC).This requires the Zoning Board to decide if the CPDC acted out of order and issue a decision on if the appeal is favored or not. Mr. Caouette also added that the Appellant had requested a continuance not long before this hearing. He continued to add that this was the first response from the Appellant after multiple attempts by Town Staff to contact them over the prior weeks. Mr. Cannella stated there is no guarantee that the continuance is granted in such a case,as was relayed by Town Staff. He asked if the Appellant was present,they were not. Mr.Caouette stated they would start by discussing the issue of the continuance fist and not the basis of the appeal. Mr.Chris Latham,on behalf of the Austin Prep School,stated he would need to comment on jurisdictional issues that relate to both the continuance and the appeal itself. He stated that his client, Austin Prep,is facing hardship due to the appellant and a continuance would further add to such hardship. Ms. Donna Brewer,Town Counsel,added the issue of standing of the appellant is not relevant in the continuance discussion. Mr. Latham introduced the members of the Austin Prep School. He stated the burden of proof is on the Appellant and that the school is not required to prove any more than they already have in their public process.Mr. Latham continued that the appeal seems to be a delay tactic to prevent the Austin Prep field work from happening. He stated the Appellant specifically requested the hearing be heard in October, later than what could have been,and the Town did abide by such request.Numerous citizens of Reading are here tonight and the Appellant is not nor were they at any of the multiple public hearings Austin Prep went through with the Town. Mr. Latham stated the Appellant is not a parry of interest in the project and thus has no standing on an appeal. Mr.Caouette asked the Board for comments. Mr. Pernice stated he would like to hear from the public before making comments but added the Appellant appeared to meet the time frames for an appeal. Mr. Jarema stated it is very rare to deny a continuance request and most are continued for specific reasoning. Mr.Jarema continued that it appears the Appellants status and justification is in question. He agreed with Mr. Pemice that he would like to hear more information. Ms. Mateev stated she was unclear as to how this process will work and reserved further comment. Mr.Caouette stated he found it quite odd that the Appellant was hard to reach and that they did not appear to any CPDC meetings in which they are appealing. He opined a sincere appellant would appear to comment at CPDC or now the ZBA. He feared a similar outcome if the case was continued. Mr.Jamma asked if Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol had any additional information to present.Mr. MacNichol responded that the Site Plan Application was filed on May 81°,2019 and a Decision was filed on August 13'h. He continued that an Order of Conditions was issued by the Conservation Commission on September 4'h,2019. Mr. MacNichol stated he had reached out to the Appellant multiple times with no response until the continuance request. Town Counsel opined they could issue a vote on the continuance now or hold the vote till a later time to receive more information. Page 1 2 Mr. Caouette opened the application to public comment. Mr.John Halsey, Reading resident and Select Board Member, reviewed the process that the Austin Prep School has already gone through and the number of public hearings involved in their application. He stated that public interest in this project is high,as evident by the many number of citizens here at this hearing, and that a continuance would be a disservice to the public. Mr. Latham asked to review the Appellant's standing in the case. Mr. Caouette allowed such. Mr. Latham stated that he and the defendant had no legal standing to appeal the case,that the appeal was not timely followed nor did the appeal follow adequate procedure. Mr. Latham reviewed the Town Zoning Bylaw language for appeals of a site plan review. The bylaw stated a person must be aggrieved by the Decision issued. Mr. Latham argued that the Appellant was not an aggrieved party;because the Appellant is not an abutter to Austin Prep,an abutter to an abutter, nor a party of interest or even a citizen of Reading. He reviewed the legal language of an aggrieved person. He opined the appeal was nothing more than personal opinion and was individually signed.No record of Citizens Environmental and Historic Preservation Society showed the nonprofit was an aggrieved party either. Mr.Latham reviewed case law of past recorded appeals. Mr.Latham found the appeal was not filed in a timely manner as required. The deadline would have been September Yd,2019.The defendants,Austin Prep, received a stamped and certified decision of no appeal filing from the Town Clerk on September 4",2019. Mr. Latham stated the Town Clerk was not aware of the appeal until Friday September 6"—well past the Monday deadline. He reviewed case law of Town Clerk filing. Mr. Latham also found that the Bylaw was not complied with. He noted that the appeal filed was not addressed to the Zoning Board of Appeals. He added that the Board and its members did not directly receive the appeal as required. Mr. Latham stated the continuance and the appeal should be denied. Ms. Sarah Rambo,Austin Prep abutter, stated that work has been done at Austin Prep for months now which has impacted the neighborhood. She stated she traveled for work and was not able to attend public hearings for the application. Ms. Rambo continued and stated that animal activity had increased dramatically since construction began. She wished that she had more information for the case and because that maybe others felt the same, she asked the application be continued as requested. Mr.James Hickey,Headmaster of Austin Prep School,stated they have appeared before many public boards, all of which required publication of the hearings. The school also held additional meetings with abutters and reviewed their concerns. Mr.Hickey was concerned that items and concerns that should have been discussed before these other public boards would now arise where it is not appropriate before the ZBA. Mr. Hickey reviewed the concessions given to the Town and Abutters from Austin Prep and opined the school is putting in great effort and monetary improvements to be good neighbors. Mr. David Pinetta of 22 Colonial Drive informed the Board he was a member of the town's Conservation Commission. He opined that other Boards have worked hard to reach a plan that was acceptable to move forward with. Mr. Pinetm stated the project should not be stalled any longer due to the public process and study already given. Mr. Steve Chapman of 66 Causeway Road noted he was a direct abutter to the project and that he was not an advocate for the plan itself due to its impacts.He was surprised of the turnout at tonight's hearing due to lack of involvement at CPDC and Conservation hearings. Mr.Chapman did state though he had these issues he was concerned that the appeal would neglect the process that has already been given to the project. Page 1 3 Mr.John Jenks of Reading stated that when a project went in around his neighborhood,they had to meet specific deadlines and requirements on a regular basis. He stated he and his group did so and it resulted in a better project. Mr.Junks was very concerned that the filing deadline for the appeal was not met by the Appellant. He stated if the rules and regulations of the deadline were not met than the appeal should not be heard. Mr. Steve Marisollo of 3 Pilgrim Road stated he has attended every meeting of the project.Though he also was not an advocate of the project, he felt the appeal was concerning. Mr. Marisollo did add that because there are so many residents here than maybe further discussion is needed. Mr.Kevin Neal of 31 Southridge Road opined that if the Appellant has no standing then the appeal should be denied. Mr. Ken Laffety of 35 Stewart Road stated he was a former Town Meeting and Bylaw Committee member. He opined that CPDC and Conservation exist for a reason and that the Board's approval shows requirements were met and a safe project was approved. He stated conditions of both approvals give the Town protection and oversight. Mr. Laffety stated that these Board's decisions should be supported. There was no evidence that the defendants did not follow regulations. Ms. Laura O'Neil,Reading resident stated most resident's here were in support of the project. Mr. Latham submitted the material discussed to the Board. Mr.Jim Bums of 27 Estate Lane stated that he supported denying the appeal. He added that he enjoyed hearing and seeing the local games from his property. Mr. Ray Harlin of 37 Middlesex Avenue supported the project and felt there was no legitimacy of the appeal. He questioned why nobody from the Appellant's organization was here on their behalf. Ms.Joy Krupa of 3 Whittier Road stated she was a parent of a student-athlete at Austin Prep. She agreed that nobody showing from the Appellant's organization was very concerning. She feared that continuing the hearing further would negatively impact students and student athletes. Ms. Karen Kroto,Reading resident, stated she also was a parent of a student athlete. She asked to show how many residents were in support of the project. She opined that other construction in the area can add impact to abutters and is not due to Austin Prep alone. Mr. David Krupa,Austin Prep student, stated he loved the support of the community and wished the appeal would not be delayed any further. Mr.Halsey asked if comments should be held to the continuance aspect or the entire appeal itself. Mr. Caouette replied that comments can now be on any item. Mr.Caouette stated it was not the ZBA's job to revisit the Site Plan Review aspect that CPDC went through. He closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Caouette asked if Town Staff had any additional comments. Mr. MacNichol stated the legal advertisement could not be billed to the Appellant's stated address and was returned to Reading stating this business was not located at the address. Town Counsel stated she reviewed the defendant's submitted material. She opined that a continuance and the justification of the appeal itself can be handled separately. She added no one in the audience has been in favor of a continuance request.Town Counsel stated the Appellant is required to submit material on the basis of a continuance request,which was stated as family emergency,and that this should be weighed against the impacts to the defendant. A vote on a continuance can then take place. Page 1 4 Mr. Pernice stated they would like to protect the zoning bylaw and public process of the Town. He added he did not want to make assumptions about the Appellant but it was clear that required deadlines were not met meaning the appeal should not be heard. Mr.Jarema stated that Mr. Latham made it clear on who has status to appeal any given project and it was also made clear that the Appellant did not have such standing. He continued that staff reached out numerous times to the Appellant and had no response;and that the additional information of the business address not being reached showed the Appellant did not have standing for an appeal. Mr.Jarema stated if there was standing that filing deadlines would need to be met which did not occur either. He agreed that any appeal would not go through the Site Plan Review Decision item by item and the Appellant has not given clear items to appeal.Mr.Jarema opined that the totality of these issues should not result in a continuance of the appeal. Ms.Mateev had no further comments. Mr. Caouette agreed with the Board's statements and felt the Appellant has not responded well or in a timely manner to support a continuation of this case. On a motion made by Mr. Pernice,seconded by Ms.Mateev, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a continuation for Case#19-24. The motion was denied. Vote was 0-0-4(Jarema, Caouette,Pernice,Mateev) Mr. Latham reiterated his points of standing for an appellant and opined that the Appellant did not have legal standing to appeal the project. Mr. MacNichol stated that the requirements of a Zoning Board Application were not fully met.Town Counsel opined the Appellant did not show they had legal standing as an aggrieved parry. Ms. Mateev asked why this is before the ZBA. Town Counsel replied it is within the Town's Zoning Bylaw that an aggrieved party can appeal a CPDC Decision to the ZBA. Mr.Jarema reiterated his opinion that requirements have not been met and that this is not a legitimate appeal. Mr. Pernice agreed that the appeal was not legitimate and the Board needed to protect the integrity of the process and felt this appeal should not move forward. Mr.Chapman asked if members of the public could submit evidence.Town Counsel replied it would be the Appellant who would need to call a public member as a witness and submit the material and it cannot be independent. Mr.Caouette found it had for the Appellant to be aggrieved by the CPDC Decision. He also was not happy with the way the Appellant has presented the process and the fact that they had not participated in any of the other public Forums. On a motion made by Mr. Jarema,seconded by Mr. Pernice,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant he appeal of Louise Millman regarding the CPDC Decision of 101 Willow Street—Lower Field Improvements dated 8113119. The motion was denied Vote was 0-0-4(Jarema, Caouette,Pernice,Mateev) Page 1 5 104 Salem Street—Case#19-14 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,October 16,2019 at 7:00 PM, on the application of Brian McGrail,on behalf of H.B. Development Corporation,pursuant to M.G.L. Ch.40A §8,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. Caouette read the case into record and noted this application has been continuing since July. Mr. Caouette read the continuance request dated October 15,2019 into record. It asked to continue the case to the second hearing date in November. The continuance request also included an extension of time to grant a Decision. Mr. Caouette asked for an update from Mr. Dupell. Mr.Dupell replied they are meeting with the Applicant in the following week and are hopeful that he will receive final plans at said meeting. Mr. Redfern asked if it was continued again and the Applicant finished work can they withdraw the application. Mr. Dupell replied in the affirmative. Mr.Jarema opined there was justification for the continuance since the Applicant is working with Town Staff. On a motion made by Mr. Redfern,seconded by Ms.Mateev,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a continuation for Case#19-14. Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema, Caouette,Pernice,Redfern,Mate") 26 Green Street-Case#19-13& 19-20 The Zoning Board of Appeals(the"Board")held a continuation of a public hearing on Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. in the Select Board's Meeting Room at Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street in Reading, Massachusetts to hear the petition of Wade and Lorraine Willwerth(the"Petitioner").The Petitioner sought a Modification of Special Permit, previously granted in Case# 11-11,to covert storage space above the garage into living space in an existing dwelling, located at 26 Green Street, Reading, Massachusetts(the"Property"), under Section 7.3.2 of the zoning bylaws. The Zoning Board of Appeals also held a continuation of a Public Hearing in the Select Board's Meeting Room at Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street,Reading, Massachusetts on Wednesday,October 16,2019 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. As the two applications were relevant to the same property Mr. Caouette read the legal notice of both cases into the record and swore in members of the public wishing to speak on behalf of either case. Mr.Caouette recalled that the first hearing discussed the proposal to enclose the deck but because it was not advertised properly it had to be re-notified. Mr. Brad Latham represented the Applicants and was present with the homeowners for the hearing. Mr. Latham stated he watched the tapes of the previous hearings to be up-to-speed on the discussions of the application. Mr. Latham revisited the idea of converting the storage space above their garage into living space. Because previous discussions presented concerns of said area becoming a bedroom and/or third unit they have changed the plans to request it as simply `living space' which would allow them to utilize the space Page 1 6 for more thanjust storage such as using it as a family room. Mr. Latham stated this could be done be amending the previously granted special permit condition and presented case law that allowed such. He added that the height of the garage space meets codes for living and that no change to the exterior would occur. Mr. Latham then reviewed why the Applicants would like to enclose their deck.The Applicants are a direct abutter to a soon to be four-story structure and they would like to enclose the deck for privacy. Mr. Latham presented photos and plans to the Board to see regarding the concern and the proposal. Mr. Latham also presented letters from abutters voicing support for the proposals. He submitted these to show the neighbors felt it met the requirement of`not being substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood'. Mr. Pernice opined the proposal was not detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Redfern agreed it was not detrimental and stated the previous discussions and concerns were on the `legalese' on how to reach such a Decision. He asked if a Variance was needed to expand a residential use in a business zoning district. Mr. Latham replied it is an expansion of a legal non-conforming use that was granted but conditioned the garage be storage—the Applicant is simply asking to remove that condition and will not be changing the use of the property. Mr. Caouette added that Town Counsel opined a Variance is not required. He continued that two votes would be needed,one for each proposal. Mr. Redfern felt the plot plan was not clear in what was being proposed and that a new plot plan may be needed. Mr. Latham replied that the architectural drawings show it more directly but agreed if a new plot plan was needed, it could be conditioned. Mr. Redfern agreed it was indicated on the architectural drawings. Mr. Latham stated that they would entertain a condition stating the dwelling remain a two-family. Ms. W illwerth added that the deck enclosure would not be heated and the bathroom proposal has been removed to help alleviate the three-family concern. Ms. Willwerth added that the amount of living space has been calculated and though the requirement is for the Business-A Zoning District the proposal is still well below said requirement. Mr.Latham added they are well below the lot coverage requirement. Mr.Jarema recalled the 2011 discussion was very similar to tonight's. He stated the deck was built on-top of what was approved and was not discussed in 2011. Mr. Jarema stated this is his concern with such proposals and that in time they can change with no knowledge of such change; this is why the condition was included on the original Special Permit. He agreed a condition on restricting a three-family dwelling is critical. Ms. Mateev asked if the 40R District reached the property being discussed. Mr. MacNichol stated yes it does overlay the Business-B Zoning District which this property is in. Ms.Mateev asked if it can become a three-family under 40R Zoning. Mr. McNichol replied it would need to meet 40R requirements and cannot be done without a public process. Mr.Caouette opened the hearing to public comment and seeing none closed the public comment portion of the hearing. On a motion made by Mr. Pernice,seconded by Ms. Mateev,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant an amendment to the Special Permit Decision as discussedfor Case#19-13. Vote was 5-0-0(Caouette,Jarema, Pernice, Redfern,Mateev) On a motion made by Mr.Redfern,seconded by Ms.Mateev, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a Special Permit for Case 419-20. Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema, Caoueae,Pernice, Redfern,Mateev) Page 1 Minutes 9/4/19 On a motion made by Mr. Redfern,seconded by Ms. Mateev, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept the September 4, 1019 minutes as amended. Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema, Caoueae,Redfern, Pernice,Mateev) 9118/19 On a motion made by Mr. Pernice,seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept the September 4, 2019 minutes as amended. Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema, Caoueue,Redfern, Pernice,Mateev) Other Business Mr.Caouette expressed concerns over the number of continuances the Board has been receiving. He stated he would like to see more reasoning behind any continuance request. Adjournment On a motion made Mr. Redfern,seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting. Vote was 5-0-0(Jarema, Caouette, Pernice, Redfern,Mateev) Page I a