HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-07-15 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes M OPR
Town of Reading C E IV E 1
5 . 3 Meeting Minutes TOWN CLERK
e - "fro REALiP.ir
'AA . �
�`'a•,��oaaa
Board - committee - commission - council: 2021 MAR -8 AM 11: 36
Zoning Board of Appeals
Date: 2020-07-15 Time: 7 PM
Building: Location:
Address: Session:
Purpose: Version: Final
Attendees: Members - Present:
Robert Redfern
Cy Caouette
Nick Pernice
Jamie Maughan
Members - Not Present:
Other Present:
Andrew MacNichol - Staff Planner, Mark Dupell - Building Comissioner,
Rebecca Taubman, Jon Taubman, Angelo Salamone, Richard Griffin, Evelyn
Sideropoulas, Judi Basten
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Amanda Beatrice
Topics of Discussion:
Mr. MacNichol briefly explained the protocols for tonight's meeting that is being held virtually. He
presented the Zoom Meeting information to the public for those wishing to join and 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.
34 Orange Street—Case#20-04
Mr.Caouette read the legal notice for Case#20-04-34 Orange Street into the record.
Mr.John Taubman and Ms.Rebecca Taubman, homeowners,were present on behalf of the application.
They introduced themselves and explained that they would like to remove the existing barn in the rear
of the property and rebuild it to the same dimensions.They continued that they were not looking to use
it as an accessory apartment but as a secondary space for the family to utilize.Ms.Taubman noted that
they have a picture of the existing structure that they wanted to rebuild to make safe.
Mr. Pernice asked if the applicant could confirm that they were looking to rebuild the structure with the
same dimensions.The applicants stated that they were in fact looking to be rebuild to the same height
and dimensions as the existing barn,the square footage will not be increased.
Mr.Redfern asked for clarification on the special permit for an accessory apartment that was advertised
and the variance for the height that is requested. Mr.MacNichol clarified that the proposed height of
1B'exceeds the current zoning requirements.The applicant stated that because the plans proposed
include a bathroom and small kitchenet it was classified as an apartment.They reiterated that they did
not intend on using it as an accessory apartment.
Page 1 1
Mr.Caouette asked what is meant by using the area as a 'habitable space'.Ms.Taubman replied they
are looking to use it as an art studio and creative space. Mr.Maughan added he had the same question
and that habitable would refer to being safe for use not directly as a living area. Mr. Redfern agreed.
Mr.Caouette asked when the barn was built.The applicant stated it was built around the same time as
the house in 1888.
Mr. Redmond stated that there would be nothing'grandfathered' if the existing structure was torn
down.This requires the new structure to meet all new dimensional requirements.
Mr. MacNichol stated that there was a bath and a kitchenette and Mr.Redmond stated he would
consider this as an accessory apartment. Mr. MacNichol agreed.
Mr. Maughan asked if the Applicants left the existing foundation would it then be able to rebuilt without
ZBA approval. Mr.Redmond replied in the negative.
Mr. Maughan asked what the structure is currently used for. Mr.Taubman replied that it is currently
used for storage of material. Mr.Maughan asked if the structure currently has water and electrical
running to it. Mr.Taubman replied in the affirmative and informed the Board that the structure does
have spickets for the use of a hose and electrical connections. Mr.Redmond stated this was expected
and is not the same as plumbing for a bathroom use.
Mr. Redfern asked if a stove was being installed. Ms.Taubman replied no stove is being proposed and
the loft area would be used for storage. Mr. Maughan asked if a driveway is being added. Ms.Taubman
replied in the negative.
Mr.Caouette asked who would be using the space. Ms.Taubman replied the entire family will use it for
creative space. Mr. Maughan asked what makes the current structure legally non-conforming.Mr.
MacNichol shared the plot plan on screen and noted it has a non-conforming side-yard setback.Mr.
Maughan asked if the relocation of the structure was considered.Ms.Taubman replied that it has not
and that the principal dwelling is also being modified and it could impact such.Mr.Caouette questioned
if the side-yard setback would require a variance.Mr. MacNichol replied the structure can be built to the
same foundation, Mr. Maughan agreed. Mr. Redmond opined that if the use of the structure is changing
it would require additional approvals. He continued that it is within the Board's jurisdiction to decide if
the proposed use is not any more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing storage use.
Mr.Maughan asked if a future owner would be eligible to use the structure as an accessory apartment.
Mr. Redfern replied only if approved as such and conditions would still need to be met. Mr. Maughan
was in favor of not approving it as an accessory apartment so that future owners who would want such
would need to come back to the Board.
Mr.Caouette asked if the Applicant looked at bringing the new structure to conforming height. Ms.
Taubman answered they have but it would not be as functional and the character of the site would be
reduced as well.
Mr. Pernice stated that he was not comfortable approving this application as an accessory apartment
because it does not meet the standards and that the Applicants are not trying to have an accessory
apartment. He questioned if the structure is in such disrepair that it needs to be completely demolished
and if the variance criteria are met. Mr.Redfern also asked if the structure was reviewed and if any
aspects are being saved. Mr.Taubman stated some questionable repairs have been done to keep it
standing and saving portions leads to complications.
Pap 12
Mr. Redfern and Mr.Maughan confirmed their opinions that this is not an accessory apartment. Mr.
Maughan opined a new structure is a better result than a deteriorating one.
Mr.Caouette opened the meeting up to public comment.With no public comments made, Mr.Caouette
closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Mr.Caouette stated that the Board unanimously agrees that this application is not an accessory
apartment but is a habitable space.The height will still require a variance and the change of use will
require a Special Permit determination.
Mr. Pernice agreed that he believes that the height will require a Variance. He and Mr. Maughan agreed
a Special Permit is not needed for the structure.
Mr. Redfern stated that he agreed with Mr.Caouette that the Variance for height the special permit for
change in use was needed.
Mr. Redmond stated that the current location of the barn is in the set backs which triggers the height
issue, if the barn were to be relocated it may not need a Variance. He also noted he would like the
applicants to wait until he has a chance to do a little more research since he was not the one to
originally deny the building permit application. Mr.Caouette opined that a Special Permit for the use
will not be detrimental and that there is sufficient information to decide the case. Mr. Maughan opined
that if the Applicants need to come back for any further approvals it would result in a separate
application.
On a motion made by Mr. Maughan,seconded by Mr. Pernice,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
grant a grant a Special Permit for change in use from storage to habitable%reative space, and to
grant a Variance to allow 18'in height,for Case#20-04—34 Orange Street.
Vote was approved 4-0-0(Pernice, Redfern, Caouette,Maughan)
45 Beacon Street-Case#20-05
Mr.Caouette read the legal notice for Case#20-05-4S Beacon Street into the record.
Mr.Salamone gave a brief description of what was going on at the property.He explained that a
Comprehensive Permit was issued in the past and site work for such has commenced. He presented
plans of the work done in-so-far. He believed that a substantial amount of work has been completed.
Mr.Salamone stated that a stop work order was issued due to the belief that the permit has expired. He
continued that 40B language does not include provisions for expiration once site work has commenced.
Mr.Caouette asked Mr. Redmond if he had any comments. Mr. Redmond stated that there were no
building permits issued for any construction work to be done and that there was a condition placed
requiring certain work to be approved by the Engineering Department before a building permit could be
issued.This was all discussed as far back as 2005.
Mr. Redfern stated that a few years ago this project was before the Board as Other Business and the
Board had determined,with Town Counsel opinion,that there was no Comprehensive Permit currently
in effect and that the permit had lapsed. He believed that the Stop Work Order was valid.
Mr.Pernice opined that there were at least two to three reasons why the Stop Work Order was valid. He
questioned if Section 7.9 of the Zoning Bylaw,Abandonment of Use,applied to this. Mr. MacNichol
replied the project falls under state legislation and must follow Chapter 40B regulations.
Page 1 3
Mr. Maughan asked if a Comprehensive Permit was issued for the site. Mr.Redfern replied in the
affirmative but added in 2010 it was determined that the permit had lapsed.The permit was originally
for a 40B multi-family development. Mr. Maughan asked what work was being done that triggered the
stop work order. Mr. Redmond replied it was site work and grading.
Mr.Caouette stated that this project goes back almost 19 years and the permit was determined to lapse
in 2010.A building permit was denied in 2010 and the Board upheld that denial as well in 2011.Mr.
Caouette stated that believes that there is no comprehensive permit at this time and that Mr.Salamone
would have to start from the beginning if he wished for such. He clarified any decision tonight will be to
uphold or to reverse the stop work order that was issued.
Mr..Pernice stated he agreed with Mr.Caouette.
Mr.Caouette opened the meeting up to public comment.With no public comments made, Mr.Caouette
closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
On a motion made by Mr.Pernice,seconded by Mr. Redfern,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
uphold the Building Commissioners Stop Work Order,for Case#20-05—45 Beacon Street.
Vote was 4-"(Pernice,Redfern,Caouette, Maughan)
21 Lincoln Street—Case#20-06
Mr.Caouette read the legal notice for Case#20-06-21 Lincoln Street into the record.
Mr. Richard Griffin, project architect,was present along with the home owner to present the
application. He explained the site maintains an existing two-family dwelling and renovations have been
considered for some time now.The second floor of the building is proposed to be expanded and the
proposal also includes to expand the existing deck below. Mr.Griffin also explained that the existing
shed does account towards lot area coverage and it was going to be removed to reduce such in order to
comply with the zoning regulations.
Mr.Griffin reviewed the images submitted depicting the existing structures that are to be re-built. He
then reviewed the floor plans submitted which highlighted areas to be removed or expanded.Building
elevations were also presented.
Mr.Redmond stated that he has discussed the plan with the Applicants prior to the hearing. He added
that the garage was removed in order to decrease the lot coverage and that there was a 10' separation
requirement that would have been required between the dwelling and the garage. Mr.Griffin agreed.
Mr. Pernice stated that he believes the applicant was complying to the regulations and that he does not
see this as being any more detrimental to the neighborhood.
Mr. Redfern agreed with Mr. Pernice and believed that the proposal would be an improvement to the
area.
Mr.Maughan asked if the existing structures exceed 25%lot coverage and what the current non-
conformality is.Mr.Griffin confirmed the existing structures do exceed 25%coverage and the non-
conforming aspect is the rear yard setback.He added that the non-conformality will not be increased.
Mr. Maughan asked why a Special Permit is required for the application. Mr.Griffin clarified the
proposal includes work that matches to the nonconforming setback but does not increase it.Mr.
Maughan found that the project is not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood.
Mr. Caouette stated that he supported the project as well.
Page 14
Mr.Caouette opened the hearing to public comment.With no public comments made, Mr.Caouette
closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Q
on a motion made by Mr.Redfern,seconded by Mr. Pernice,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
grant a grant a Special Permit for Case#20-06—21 Lincoln Street.
Vote was 4-0-0(Pernice,Redfern,Caouette,Maughan)
259-267 Main Street—Case#20-07
Mr.Caouette read the legal notice for Case#20-07-259-267 Main Street into the record.
Mr.Latham was present on behalf of the application. He explained that last year the Zoning Board
approved a Special Permit to allow for multifamily residential parking in the rear of the site.The original
approval granted the multi-family parking in a single-family zoning district. He stated that the design
plans have changed due to conservation requirements and the Applicants are requesting modification of
the permit to allow twenty-one(21)parking spaces in the rear,which is an excess of nine(9)additional
spaces than was previously approved. He continued that the use can be expanded if it is found to be not
substantially detrimental to the neighborhood.
Mr. Redfern stated he had no issues with the new proposal. He found the conservation requirements to
be an acceptable reason to modify the approval. Mr. Redfern asked to clarify the total number of
outdoor spaces. Mr. Latham responded that there are twenty-two(22)spaces located outside but one
(1)space is located within the Apartment A-40 District and does not require relief.
Mr. Pernice found it not to be more detrimental due to the amount of natural screening in the area.
Mr. Maughan asked if the site will maintain the same number of units as originally proposed even with
the reduction in footprint. Mr.Latham replied in the affirmative that twenty-four(24) units are still
proposed and informed the Board that the building now includes an additional level thus raising the
height.The height does not exceed zoning requirements. Mr. Maughan asked if impervious area was
reduced or increased. Mr. Latham replied he is unsure of the entire site but the impervious area within
the S-15 District did increase. Mr.Joe Peznola, project engineer,confirmed the site did see an increase
in impervious area which has been accounted for in the stormwater system.
Mr.Caouette commented that the project is not substantially detrimental to the area.
Mr.Caouette opened the hearing to public comment.
Ms.Judy Basteri of 271 Main Street asked what type of impact construction would have on her adjacent
business. Mr.Latham asked Mr.MacNichol to pull up the plans and explained that there are not any
changes that would affect her business as the changes are directly behind the building and not closer to
her business. -
Ms.Basted ask what the impact would be on her business. Mr.Latham stated that was a hard question
to answer because they were before the Board on one specific request but he is happy to answer any
specific questions.
Mr.Caouette stated that the Special Permit was previously approved and he did not believe that this
change would affect her anymore than the previous approved project.Mr.MacNichol stated that this
project will still be in front of the Community Planning and Development Commission where site impacts
are more appropriately discussed.
Page 1 5
Ms. Basteri asked how long the building would take to be built as it is a big concern due to the number
of animals she cares for at the business. Mr. Peznola stated it could take 12-18 months in total.
Seeing no further public comment Mr. Caouette closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
On a motion made by Mr. Pernice,seconded by Mr.Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
grant a modification to Condition R1 of the previously granted Special Permit on Case#19-19 to now
allow 21 spaces in the 5-15 Zoning Districtfor Case#20-07—259-167 Main Street.
Vote was 4-0-0(Pernice,Redfern, Caouette;' laughan)
Other Business:
ZBA Reorganization
Mr. Caouette suggested that Mr. Redfern or Mr. Pernice be chair or vice chair since he is stepping down
from the Board. Mr. Pernice stated he would be ok with being Vice Chair if nominated. Mr. Redfern
stated he would be happy to take over Chair duties for the next year and agreed that Mr. Pernice as Vice
Chair would make sense due to his experience. Mr. Pernice agreed.
On a motion made by Mr. Caouette,seconded by Mr. Maughan, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to nominate Mr. Redfern as Chair and Mr. Pernice as Vice Chair.
Vote was 4-0-0(Pernice, Redfern,Caouette, Maughan)
ZBA Schedule
Mr. Maughan asked the Board members about changing the ZBA meeting days due to changes in his
online teaching schedule. Mr. MacNichol sts—d he would need to talk to Town departments about such
but would look into drafting a new schedule. Mr. Redfern stated that the Board used to meet on
Thursdays but about a year ago the Town decided they would prefer to change the meetings to
Wednesday nights.
Adjournment:
On a motion made by Mr.Redfern,seconded by Mr. Caouette, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
adjourn the meeting at 9:03PM. Vote was 4-0-0(Caouette, Redfern,Pernice,Maughan).
Page 1 6