HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-06-03 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Town of Reading t J v E p
Meeting MinutesCLERK
Board - Committee - Commission - Council:
21f
Zoning Board of Appeals
Date: 2020-06-03 Time: 7 PM
Building: Location:
Address: Session:
Purpose: Version: Final
Attendees: Members - Present:
Robert Redfern
Cy Caouette
Erik Hagstrom
Nick Pernice
Hillary Mateev
Jamie Maughan
Members - Not Present:
Others Present:
Andrew MacNichol - Staff Planner, Mark Dupell - Building Comissioner,
Nancy Twomey, Steve Nazaro, May Moscorello, Peter Moscorello, Cathy
Dunn, Mr. Reynolds, Chris Codie, Mr. Codie, Ms. Aborn, Mr. Aborn
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Amanda Beatrice
Topics of Discussion:
Mr. MacNichol briefly explained the protocols for tonight's meeting that is being held virtually
as all hearings throughout summer have been. He presented the Zoom Meeting information to
the public for those wishing to join. He explained the features of the Zoom program and how to
provide comments for any given application. He added that RCN is broadcasting and recording
the meeting.
Mr. Caouette called the meeting to order.
61 Summer Avenue—Case 19-21
Mr. Caouette opened the continued public hearing for Case N19-21.
Mr. Caouette stated that the applicant Daniel Princic asked to withdraw his application without
Prejudice. He read the request sent by email into the record.
Mr. Dupell stated that he was called to the site and they had removed the portion of the deck
and submitted a new plot showing that they are no longer in violation and that a variance is no
longer needed.
Page 1 1
On a motion made by Mr. Hagstrom, seconded by Mr. Pernice,the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to grant a Withdrawal Without Prejudice in regards to the Variance Application for
Case#19-21, 61 Summer Avenue.
Vote was 5.0-0(Caouette, Pernice, Redfern, Hagstrom, Mateev)
30 Vale Road—Case 20-02
Mr. Caouette read the legal notice and swore in audience members who wished to speak on
the application.
Nancy Twomey, project architect, introduced herself. She briefly explained the current addition
and the plans to hopefully turn a portion of the house into an accessory apartment. Ms.
Twomey stated that once the construction was finished the house would be about 3,260 gross
sf of habitable space and the accessory apartment would be about 968 gross sf, which would be
less than the 1,000-sf allowed and under than 1/3 of the principal dwelling. She stated that the
McCormick family will be living in the main part of the home.
Mr. Redfern questioned the site access and driveway being over an existing easement. Ms.
Twomey stated parking will be supplied in the driveway. Mr. Redfern replied that he believes
the application meets the criteria of a Special Permit and Accessory Apartment standards.
Mr. Hagstrom stated he felt the application met the intention of the bylaw.
Mr. Pernice stated it appears all performance standards are met and had no issues with the
application.
Ms. Mateev agreed with the board.
Mr. Caouette stated he did not see any problems with this project either.
Mr. Maughan asked if the principal structure could be increased before constructing the
accessory apartment. Mr. MacNichol replied it could be done as long as all zoning requirements
are met.
Mr. Caouette opened the hearing to public comment.
Mr. Steve Nazaro, stated abutter, stated that his only concern would be the parking. He felt it
would be hard to get multiple cars in the driveway.
Ms. May Moscorello of Woodword Avenue stated she had an issue with the sewer line and the
parking. She stated that she had an issue with the accessory apartment because she believed it
was a fancy name for a two-family and there are many people in the neighborhood had an issue
with it.
Ms.Twomey clarified that there would be enough for 4 cars to park.
Mr. Peter Moscorello asked for clarification about the by-laws and selling the house and the
new owners being able to rent the accessory apartment. Ms. Twomey clarified the difference
Page 1 2
between the accessory apartment and a two-family home, which is that a two family the owner
does not have to live in either space but with the accessory apartment the owner must live in
the house.
Mr. Moscorello stated a concern about a new family moving in and renting the accessory unit
to a non-relative. Mr. MacNichol stated that this was something the Town is already trying to
stay ahead of and it would be a case by case review.
Mr. Caouette stated what the applicants are currently doing is in full compliance per the
existing bylaws but understands the concerns presented.
A residential abutter stated he grew up in the area and disagrees with this application.
Mr. MacNichol stated that this accessory apartment could not be turned into a two family as
the standards and codes between the two are different.
Ms. Cathy Dunn of 17 Vale Road asked Ms. Twomey if the utilities were all through the main
home. Ms. Twomey confirmed that the utilities were all part of the main house,which is part of
the bylaw. Ms. Dunn also asked clarification on how to have an accessory apartment. Ms.
Twomey briefly explained how you could have an accessory apartment.
Ms. Chris Codie of Vale Road asked for clarification that once the house was sold that the
apartment could be rented to anyone. Mr. MacNichol responded that it cannot be guaranteed.
Ms. Twomey clarified for this project it made more sense to add an addition rather than trying
to figure out how to relocate the stairs.
Mr. Reynolds of Vale Road agreed with the other abutters and had some additional points. He
stated that there was also issues with flooding in the area, he believes that the work on the
house was just finished and he also noted his issue with the future chance the accessory
apartment could be rented.
Mr. MacNichol stated that the Town would like to continue the meeting to another date for
others who did not get a chance to attend since it is the first meeting being held remotely.
Mr. Caouette closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Mr. Maughan asked Mr. MacNichol to clarify the continuance and Mr. MacNichol stated it was
per the Planning Department and that they wanted everyone to have an equal opportunity to
provide input.
Mr. Hagstrom stated that he appreciates the Towns decision to continue the hearings but he
believed that if the applicant wants a vote than the Board should vote.
Mr. Redfern stated he agreed with Mr. Hagstrom.
Mr. Caouette stated that based on the discussion, he also agreed.
Page 1 3
Mr. Maughan asked if it is required by the State or Town that zoom meetings be continued to
at least two hearings. Mr. MacNichol stated it was not required and only something that staff
discussed.
Mr. Caouette asked if it was a policy from the Town. Mr. MacNichol stated it was a
recommendation and if the Board wanted to vote they could.
Mr. Caouette stated he is still in favor of moving forward with a vote.
Mr. Pernice stated he agreed with the rest of the Members on voting. He also stated that this
meeting meets open meeting law, was advertised and that there are plenty of ways people
could submit comments. He understood the concerns about this becoming a two-family home
and urged the abutters to look a Zoning Regulations that would address some of these
concerns.
Mr. Caouette did a roll call vote as suggested by Mr. MacNichol.
On a motion made by Mr. Redfern, seconded by Mr. Pernice,the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to grant a Special Permit for Case#20-02.
Vote was 5-0-0(Caouette, Pernice, Redfern, Hagstrom, Mateev)
19 Auburn Street—Case 20-23
Mr. Caouette read the legal notice and swore the audience in.
Mr.Jeff and Ms. Kristin Aborn, homeowners, were present on behalf of the application. They
stated that that the current front staircase needed to be replaced and that he would like to put
a porch on the front of their house. He explained that their project would not affect the
typography or soil condition and that there is no other location on the lot to put the farmers
porch. He added that the farmers porch should help protect the foundation from heavy rains
and ice and that it would give the home more character and not be subdistally detrimental to
the neighborhood. Mr. Aborn continued that they are seeing a 4-foot relief for the front
setback.
Mr. Hagstrom stated he saw two potential problems on the first two variance criteria.
Mr. Aborn asked about the 20 feet set back because he has noticed several other homes in
Reading do not meet that requirement and that he did not know there were issues until he
applied for a permit. Mr. MacNichol and Mr. Caouette both briefly referred to the current
bylaws.
Mr. Hagstrom stated though he did understand the want for a porch it did not meet the criteria
of a variance.
Mr. Pernice agreed with Mr. Hagstrom and stated that they may not disagree with the project
but they have to follow the bylaws. He also stated that he does not believe the first criteria has
been met as of yet.
Page 1 4
Mr. Maughan asked for clarification on the steps. The applicants clarified the existing steps and
their size. Mr. Maughan asked if the proposed porch would come out to where the current
steps were located. Mr. Aborn replied in the affirmative. Mr. Maughan asked the Town Staff if
they were able to put a roof over the current stairs without having to see a Variance. Mr. Dupell
stated that steps do not count towards setbacks unless you put a roof over it,then it would be
considered a structure.
Ms. Aborn stated the porch was something they wanted to put on the house to enjoy and give
the home character.
Ms. Mateev pointed out that she understood how the protection of the roof would help protect
the house but does not see the answers justifying the variance criteria.
Mr. Redfern stated he did not see the criteria being met for the typography and though he did
not believe it would really impact the neighborhood he found it would not meet all four criteria.
Mr. Caouette asked if the applicants currently experienced any seepage. Mr. Aborn stated that
with heavy rain he would get water in the basement, which he has to spend time vacuuming it
out. Mr. Caouette asked if they thought of just putting a roof over the deck. Mr.Aborn stated
yes,they were looking for the farmers porch first but was not sure if the four feet would change
the issue. Mr. Caouette stated he also agreed with the rest of the Board.
Mr. Dupell stated that the applicants had already answered his question about the adjacent
property's setbacks. He stated that if they were able to get certified plot plans of those
neighbors and find the average set back was 16 feet,they would not need a Variance. He
referred to a footnote in Table 6.3 that would allow such.
Mr.Aborn stated they would like to continue their application to a further date in order to
explore the footnote Mr. Dupell referred to above.
Mr. Caouette opened the meeting to public comment.
Two neighbors stated that they were in favor of their neighbors project.
Mr. Caouette closed the public comment.
On a motion made by Mr. Redfern, seconded by Ms. Mateev,the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to continue the hearing for Case#20-03 to June 17, 2020, at the request of the
Applicant.
Vote was 5-0-0 (Caouette, Pernice, Redfern, Hagstrom, Mateev)
Other Business:
Mr. Caouette asked the members who terms expire this yet, if they would be renewing or not.
Mr. Hagstrom and Mr. Caouette stated that they would not be renewing. Mr. Maughan was
undecided and Ms. Mateev stated she would be.
Page 1 5
Mr. Caouette stated he would be willing to continue for 3 more months while they look for new
Members. He also stated that the next agenda should include the selection of a new Chair and
Co-Chair.
Adjournment:
On a motion made by Ms. Mateev, seconded by Mr. Hagstrom,the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to adjourn the meeting. Vote was 5-0-0(Caouette, Hagstrom, Redfern, Pernice,
Mateev).
Page 1 6