Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-03-04 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes pqN OrgrgO Town of Reading a Meeting Minutes 4i 19'llv<OPOOPP4 2021 MAY 24 PM 3: 20 Board - committee - commission - Council: Zoning Boardof Appeals Date: 2021-03-04 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Location: Address: Session: Purpose: Version: Attendees: Members - Present: Robert Redfern, Nick Pernice, Cynde Hartman, Jamie Maughan, Alex Normandin, Chris Emilius Members - Not Present: Hillary Mateev Others Present: Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol, Building Inspector Glen Redmond, Rod Rivera, Jaykiran Teraiya Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Andrew MacNichol Topics of Discussion: Staff Planner Andrew 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. Mr. Pernice called the meeting to order at 7:0313M.The Board welcomed new Associate Members Alex Normandin and Chris Emilius. Mr. MacNichol and Mr. Maughan briefly explained the differences between full members and associate members.Associate members are eligible to vote if needed for a quorum. Mr. Maughan stated that associate member with the longest standing would be the one designated to vote and complete the quorum. Mr. MacNichol agreed to determine which new associate was the first one appointed. Mr. MacNichol stated Chair Robert Redfern is having technical difficulties joining the Zoom meeting but will hopefully be able to join in soon. Case N21-01—31 Randall Road Mr. Pernice read the legal notice for Case 1121-03, 31 Randall Road into the record. He then swore in any members of the public who wished to speak on the application. Mr. Pernice asked if Building Inspector Glen Redmond had any preliminary comments. Mr. Redmond replied that the existing lot coverage for the site is already over the 25% maximum Page I 1 and the proposed work slightly increases such,thus a need for a variance to allow the project to continue. Mr.Jack Sullivan, project engineer,was present on behalf of the homeowners Peter and Patricia Shields. He stated the dwelling has an existing platform staircase that becomes icy in the winter and can make access difficult. Both homeowners have had health issues and because of such they are looking to slightly increase the staircase size and provide a roof over such. Mr. Sullivan explained that the front and side yard setbacks are met it is a variance from the lot coverage that is needed. Mr. Sullivan reviewed the variance criteria for the project. He stated the lot does not actually have any topography restraints but the lot totals just 8,800sf of land which is 41%smaller than the minimum lot size requirements in the S-15 Zoning District that the property is located in. Mr. Sullivan continued that they did look at purchasing additional land from neighbors in order to avoid a variance for lot coverage but because the abutting lots are also non-conforming they were not eligible to transfer land as it would result in a worse non-conformality. Mr. Sullivan opined that the lot size is hardship as it relates to lot coverage requirements and not setbacks. Mr. Sullivan stated there is a drainage easement on site but it has no impact to the project. He reiterated that the existing lot coverage of 25.4%is already over the maximum allowed and they are proposing to increase it by.5%for a total of 25.9%coverage. Mr.Sullivan continued that another hardship placed on the owners is safety and access concerns as it relates to the existing stairs. He stated that the new stairs and portico is in the same location as the existing stairs so it will not negatively affect the neighborhood. Mr. Sullivan opined that the proposal does not derogate from the intent of the Bylaw due to the minimum addition requested and due to the fact that it increases safety for the homeowners. Mr. Emilius asked to confirm that the existing lot coverage is 25.4%. Mr. Sullivan replied in the affirmative. Mr. Emilius followed by asking if a handrail is proposed on the stairs. Mr. Sullivan again replied in the affirmative. Mr. Normandin asked if the new stairs are in the same footprint. Mr. Sullivan answered that they are slightly larger but in the same general location. Ms. Hartman noted that the stairs extend to the side where they are not covered.She questioned if these were any safer if they could still be covered in ice during the winter. Mr. Sullivan replied that a small portion is uncovered but by covering a portion it will help the owners with direct access. He agreed that some maintenance would still be required. Mr. Sullivan added that the platform is needed due to the doors elevation. Mr. Pernice asked to clarify is there was enough adequate clearance to safely install a footing on the door. Mr. Sullivan answered in the affirmative. Mr. Maughan stated that if the lot was conforming to area requirements the owners could build a much larger dwelling. He felt that due to such the proposal does not degrade from the bylaw's intent. Mr. Maughan asked if the drainage easement is within both the lot in question and the abutting lot. Mr. Sullivan replied in the affirmative. Mr. Maughan asked if the area of Page 1 2 the easement on this lot is calculated when measuring lot area. Mr.Sullivan again replied in the affirmative. Mr. Maughan stated he is in support of the application. Mr. Pernice agreed with the calculations of the lot size and that it is a hardship as it applies to this specific application. He felt that the proposal was not detrimental to the neighborhood. He reminded the Board that Section 1.0 of the Bylaw states the intent of the Bylaw is to promote health,safety and welfare of the inhabitants which he feels it meets. Mr. Pernice opened the hearing to public comment.Seeing none Mr. Pernice closed the public comment portion of the hearing. On a motion made by Mr. Maughan, and seconded by Mr. Emilius, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the variance request as discussed on Case#11-01—31 Randall Road. Vote was 5-0-0(Pernice, Maughan,Hartman, Emilius, Normandin). Case#21-02—18 Henzie Street Mr. Pernice read the legal notice for Case#21-02, 18 Henzie Street into the record. He then swore in any members of the public who wished to speak on the application. Mr. Rod Rivera, construction supervisor and designer, was present on behalf of the application. He stated the purpose of the application is to expand the existing front deck and stairs. He stated under the current proposal the width of the deck meets requirements but the depth encroaches on the required front yard setback. Currently the deck is proposed at an eight-foot (8')depth which encroaches the required twenty-foot (20')front yard setback by two-feet(2') for a total setback of eighteen-feet (18'). He continued that before reducing the deck to a compliant six-foot (6')depth the homeowners wished to apply for the variance as they feel it will increase the usability of the deck and the curb appeal for the dwelling. Mr. Rivera reviewed the variance criteria for the project. He stated that there are no land impacts from the project nor any real constraints for such. He continued that there is also no hardship but the proposal would increase any future value of the house. Mr. Rivera opined that the proposal does not negatively impact the neighborhood nor degrades from the Bylaw's intent. Mr. Maughan asked if making the deck wider instead of deeper was considered. Homeowner Jaykiran Teraiya replied that there is a garage to the right of the deck and to the left is utility meters thus restricting the width. Mr. Maughan opined that the need for a six-foot (6') deep deck versus a four-foot (4') deep deck does not meet the variance criteria. He was concerned of setting a precedence in the neighborhood and thought that more alternatives should be explored. Mr. Redfern joined the meeting. He suggested that since he missed the beginning of the discussion he would not vote on the application but is happy to provide comments after the rest of the Board. Ms. Hartman also questioned the need for a larger deck when a second deck exists on the side of the property. She asked what the need was for such a large front deck. Mr. Rivera replied the Page 1 3 intent was to make the ranch style home more modern in appearance. He added that the addition two-feet (2')would allow for small furnishing to be placed on the deck so it could be more usable. Ms. Hartman stated she does not see a need to impede on the setback requirements. Mr. Normandin stated he agreed that there was no hardship that required this variance. He also opined extending the deck in another direction if a larger area is desired. Mr.Teraiya reiterated that the deck cannot encroach further to the sides due to existing structures. He stated the desired front entry would help provide enough room for their children. Mr.Teraiya continued that the existing sunroom cannot be used in the winter. Mr. Emilius agreed that setting a precedence is not ideal. He agreed that a mudroom is desirable but the variance criteria are based on hardships and that he is having a hard time justifying such. Mr. Pernice agreed that the variance criteria do not appear to be met. He stated that the topography of the lot is not prohibitive nor is there a financial hardship related to this need. He agreed that in many cases Board members may not have a problem with the want for such but enforcing the Bylaws requirements is part of the Board's job. If even one criterion is not met a variance cannot be granted. Mr. Redfern agreed with Mr. Pernice that personal enjoyment and desire is not enough to grant a variance. He stated he was not in favor of making a fully compliant dwelling non-compliant. He continued that two-feet(2')of relief is a 10%encroachment of the required front yard setback which is unfavorable. Mr. Redfern found that a compliant six-foot deep deck would be a 50%increase of the existing three-foot(3')deck. He stated he was not in support of a variance for the application. Mr. Pernice opened the hearing to public comment.Seeing none Mr. Pernice closed the public comment of the portion. Mr. Pernice reviewed the options available to the Applicants. He stated that they could move forward with a vote,for which approval requires four out five votes to be approved. He continued that they could also request a withdrawal of the application without prejudice instead.This would allow the Applicants to revise the plans to bring into conformance or try again with the variance application at a future date. Mr. Pernice informed the Applicant's that if they move forward with a vote and it is not approved they will not be eligible to apply again for two-years. Mr.Jaykiran stated he would like to withdraw the application without prejudice. On a motion made by Ms. Hartman, and seconded by Mr. Maughan, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the withdrawal without prejudice request as discussed on Case#11- 02—18 Henzie Street. Vote was 5-0-0(Pernice,Maughan, Hartman, Emilius, Normandin). Page 1 4 Minutes 7/15/20 On a motion made my Mr. Redfern, and seconded by Mr. Pernice, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to approve the 7/15/20 minutes as amended. Vote was 5-0-0(Pernice, Redfern, Maughan, Hartman, Emilius) 10/8/20 On a motion made my Mr. Redfern, and seconded by Mr. Pernice, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to approve the 10/8/20 minutes as amended. Vote was 5-0-0(Pernice, Redfern, Maughan, Hartman, Emilius) Other Business Mr. MacNichol informed the Board that a zoning amendment is going forward at Annual Town Meeting in April 2021. The amendment would allow businesses to utilize their private land for outdoor dining or other outdoor uses. Review of such applications would be done by the Community Planning and Development Commission (CPDC) so it should not impact the Zoning Board much but of course they are welcome to provide input. Mr. Maughan asked if it was for private land only. Mr. MacNichol replied in the affirmative and any businesses looking to utilize public land would need Select Board approval. Adjournment On a motion made by Ms. Hartman, seconded by Mr. Pernice, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:12PM. Vote was 5-0-0 (Pernice, Redfern, Mateev, Maughan, Hartman) Page 1 5