The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-08-05 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes r Town of Reading T f( G[_ Il -� i a'eV N Cl E R K x Meeting Minutes ^ r`. r, : ., - p, P-µ- °'""°" ?141DL ; 22 PM 12; 14 Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Zoning Board of Appeals Date: 2020-08-05 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Location: Address: Session: Purpose: Version: Final Attendees: Members - Present: Robert Redfern Nick Pernice Hillary Mateev Jamie Maughan Members - Not Present: Others Present: Andrew MacNichol - Staff Planner, Glen Redmond - Building Inspector, Jeff Aborn, Kristren Aburn, Nancy Twomey, Michelle Grappi, Dan Grappi, Miryam Becker, Guido Sabatella and Paola Santorol, Anitta Gottschalk, Brian O'Connell, Georgia Treibeck, Tara Kaberle, Jim Kaberle, Nancy Carroll, John Fevir Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Amanda Beatrice Topics of Discussion: Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol briefly explained the protocols for tonight's meeting that is being held virtually as all hearings throughout the 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. Due to Chair Robert Redfern having microphone issues, Mr. Penrice called the meeting to order at 7:07PM. Case#20-03—19 Auburn Street Mr. Pernice opened the continued public hearing for Case#20-03. Mr.Aborn stated that the typography of their front yard,from left to right of the house, slopes about 1 foot and levels off after about 4 feet.They stated that the quote for a French drain was about double the price of the proposed front porch. Mrs.Aborn stated that the cost of the French drain would be a hardship.The new document is an estimate for a French drain for about$19,000 and the porch is half the cost at about$9,500. Page 1 1 Ms. Mateev stated that she did not understand the 1-foot slope. Mr.Aborn stated that the land slopes about 1-foot from the left to the right of the house and from the street to the house about four feet before it levels off. Mr.Aborn stated that they took Mr. Dupell's advice and reviewed their neighbors existing front setbacks and unfortunately the clause was not helpful for their application. Mr. Maughan asked for clarification on where the steps would be located. Mr.Aborn stated that they would be on the side of the dwelling and not the front. Mrs.Aborn stated that the stairs will be exactly where the existing stairs are located. Mr. Redmond stated that stairs are exempt from the setback but the stairs should have been dimensioned on the plot plan. Mr. Pernice briefly reviewed the variance criterion. Mr. Maughan asked if the applicants neighbors were supportive of the porch. Mr. &Mrs.Aborn stated that their neighbors think that the project would give the house character and agree with the project. Mr. Redfern stated that he still has an issue because he did not believe that the porch was a necessity and would create a non-conformity. Mr. Pernice stated that he agreed with Mr. Redfern. He also stated that he does not believe that the application meets all pieces of the variance criteria. Mr. Pernice opened the hearing to public comment and seeing none closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Pernice and Mr. MacNichol briefly went over the applicant's options on how they could proceed. On a motion made by Mr. Maughan,seconded by Mr. Redfern,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a Withdrawal Without Prejudice,as requested by the Applicant,in regards to the Variance Application for Case 820-03,19 Auburn Street. Vote was 4-0-0(Maughan,Pernice,Redfern,Mateev) Case 020-08-23 Temple Street Mr. Pernice read the legal notice. Ms. Nancy Twomey, project architect, briefly explained that the homeowners were looking to add additional living space on the first and second floor of their home.She also noted that the applicants are currently working with the Conservation Commission due wetlands located at the rear of the property. Ms.Twomey stated that the addition is not substantially different in style than the existing homes on Temple Street. Mr. Redfern stated that he did not see an issue with the addition. Ms. Mateev, Mr. Maughan and Mr. Pernice also agreed with Mr. Redfern. Mr. Pernice opened to meeting to public comment and with no public comments made, he closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Page 12 On a motion made by Ms.Mateev,seconded by Mr.Maughan,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a Special Permit for Case#20-08,23 Temple Street. Vote was 4-0-0(Maughan,Pernice, Redfern,Mateev) Case#20-09—146 Summer Avenue Mr. Pernice read the legal notice into record. Ms. Miryam Becker, project architect,explained that the applicant team has already received approval from the Historic District Commission for the project.She also noted that the garage is a pre-existing non-conforming structure and that they are not looking to extend any non-conformalities any further. She continued that they were looking to connect an existing porch to the garage with a foot bridge. Mr. Redmond stated he had some concerns with the plans. His first concern was that the plot plan given is from 2005 and does not accurately depict what is being proposed. His second concern was that they were attaching the house to a detached garage. Ms. Becker stated that per the bylaws since the garage was less than 10 feet from the home, it was already'attached'to the dwelling. In Mr. Redmond's opinion, he believed that they should be in front of the Board for a Variance and that the connection is not shown on the plot plan. Mr. Pernice stated that he believes this case would be a special permit but he agreed with the concerns of the outdated plot plan. Mr. Redfern stated he agrees with Mr. Redmond regarding the plot plans lack of information. He stated that it appeared that this plot plan was from when the property was subdivided and a new certified plan should be submitted. Mr. Redfern agreed with Mr. Pernice that this case would require a Special Permit and not a Variance. Ms. Mateev asked if there was an existing breeze way and Ms. Becker replied one existed in the past but has since been removed. She also noted that there was an existing footbridge that did connect the house and garage as well. Ms. Mateev also agreed with the other Board Member about receiving an updated plot plan.She also stated she was in favor of this being a Special Permit. Ms. Becker stated that the team would be able to get a new plot plan. Mr. Maughan asked if the porch was also 10 feet from the garage. Ms. Becker replied in the affirmative. Mr. Maughan asked,that in addition to a new plot plan, images of the structure be submitted. Mr. Redmond stated that Mr. Dupell is no longer with the Town and the new plot plan would require a new building permit application as well as a new opinion letter from himself.The application would then proceed from there. Mr. Pernice suggested that they continue the meeting so that the applicant can submit a new plot plan. Mr. Pernice expressed concern of a new ZBA application which would further delay the applicant. Mr. Redmond asked if someone was saying that the house is connected to the garage. Mr. MacNichol stated that the garage is considered attached because it is less than 10 feet away and the applicant is not going beyond what is already there. Mr. MacNichol also agreed with Mr. Pernice. Mr. Maughan asked if the applicant or agent has talked to the neighbors about this project. Mr.Guido Sabatella, homeowner,stated that they had to go in front of the Historic District so all the neighbors were notified. Page 1 3 Mr. Pernice opened the hearing to public comment. Mr.Jim Kaberle,of 152 Summer Avenue,stated that that he would be able to see the roof deck from his kitchen and vice versa which he believed was an invasion of privacy. He also noted that another neighbor may have similar feelings. Mr. Pernice brought up Mr. Maughan's point about the change in use for this property which require a variance. He deferred to the rest of the Board for their thoughts. Mr. Redfern stated that he believed it would still require a special permit but it could be seen as a substantial detriment to the neighborhood. Mr. Maughan stated that if neighbors spoke up about this project, it would help him make his decision on the impact to the neighborhood. Seeing no further public comment, Mr. Pernice closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Pernice asked the applicants if they would like to continue the case. Ms. Becker stated that they would like to continue the case and would bring an updated plot plan for the next meeting. On a motion made by Mr.Pernice,seconded by Ms. Mateev,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to continue the hearing for Case q20-09 to September 2,2020,at the request of the Applicant. Vote was 4-0-0(Maughan,Pernice,Redfern, Mateev) Other Business: Mr. MacNichol and the Board briefly discussed exploring a Thursday schedule for the 2021 calendar. Adjournment: On a motion made by Mr. Redfern.,seconded by Ms.Mateev,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting.Vote was 4-0-0(Maughan, Redfern,Pernice,Mateev). Page 1 4