Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-04-15 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes -rq o ��tCcl\ Town of Reading TOWN C ' x' Meeting Minutes H I GY 24 PM 3: 23 Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Zoning Board of Appeals Date: 2021-04-15 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Location: Address: Session: Purpose: Version: Attendees: Members - Present: Robert Redfern, Nick Pernice, Hillary Mateev, Cynde Hartman, Jamie Maughan, Chris Emilius Members - Not Present: Alex Normandin Others Present: Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol. Building Commissioner Brett Bennett, Building Inspector Glen Redmond, Steven Cicatelli, Nathan Jang, Donald Green, Naomi Kaufman, Timothy Mello, Rick Nazzaro, Bill Penny Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Andrew MacNichol Topics of Discussion: Staff Planner Andrew Machlichol briefly explained the protocols fortonight's meetingthat 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. Redfern called the meeting to order at 7:OOPM. Case#21-03—46 Woburn Street Mr. Redfern read the legal advertisement for case N21-03-46 Woburn Street into the record and swore in those wishing to speak on the application. Mr. Steven Cicatelli was present on behalf of the application along with business owner Nathan Jang. He begun by stating his client is looking to convert the first-floor medical office space to that of a dental office.The site is located in a residential zoning district; however, it has been a mixed-use building of commercial and residential since 1916.The site was allowed two separate units as well as a medical office by variance and is deemed a legal non-conforming use.The original decision was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals in 1958 and Mr. Cicatelli opined that there are three separate routes the Board could potentially take. Mr. Cicatelli opined a new variance could be granted,the use could be allowed by amending the existing variance or a special permit under Section 7.3 of the Bylaw could be granted. Mr. Cicatelli stated that a dental office is defined within the Medical Facility definition within the Bylaw and could be seen as no change of use. Mr. Cicatelli continued that there are no changes Page 1 1 to the interior nor exterior of the building proposed. Mr. Cicatelli stated that Section 7.3 of the Bylaw allows the extension of non-conforming uses if not more detrimental to the neighborhood. He opined that the dental use is no more detrimental than that of a medical. Mr. Redmond stated that the site is not a mixed-use building because there is not a variety of uses allowed on-site. He stated that the previous variance was granted to a specific owner and for a home occupation at the site,with a new owner and business a modification to that language is needed. Mr. Redmond confirmed that the dwelling is a single-family dwelling. Mr. Cicatelli replied that he agreed and only labeled it as mixed-use due to the commercial and residential uses at site. Mr. Redfern asked if the new business owner would live in the dwelling. Mr.Jang replied that when the current lease expires he does plan to move into the second-floor unit. Mr. Redmond clarified that a mixed-use building is defined as a building with two or more principal uses allowed,which this site does not exactly fit this definition as the primary use is a single-family residential. Mr. Redmond opined amending the existing variance language would ensure no mix of uses are allowed at the site. Mr. Redfern asked if the nearby dentist offices are also home occupations. Mr. Redmond replied he was unsure if such were the case. Mr. Maughan confirmed that the dentist at the corner of Summer and Woburn does live on-site. He added that the dentist once sought relief from the Board to rent the apartment and maintain the business but the request was denied. Ms. Hartman asked if an increase of patients is expected from the existing use which result in an impact to parking in the area. Mr. Cicatelli answered that the space will not increase. Ms. Hartman asked how many employees will be on-site. Mr.Jang replied that an assistant will be there as well as two hygienists to begin. Ms. Hartman questioned if this was more than the existing use. Mr.Jang replied it would be less as the site currently employs multiple nurses, doctors and more. Current business owner Dr. Donald Green confirmed such. He added that the medical office can see up to forty people per day and there have been no parking issues on- site. Ms. Hartman appreciated the new information and opined that the site being on the edge of the residential district is helpful as well. Mr. Pernice stated that a variance was previously granted and that the use has not been abandoned. He continued that if the business owner is occupying the residential portion than it is substantially similar to the previous variance granted. He opined that an amendment or finding to the existing variance is the cleanest way forward and felt the use is not any more detrimental to the neighborhood. Ms. Mateev agreed with the Board and felt the use of the site was not being intensified. Mr. Maughan stated that if the business owner is living on-site the use complies with the variance. Mr. Maughan presented some research that dental is found to be a medical use no more impactful than that of a doctors office. He opined that a new variance is not needed or it would result in the need of a new variance for every new medical practice that may eventually occupy the site. Ms. Hartman and Mr. Redfern agreed that the Bylaw was not clear in separating the use of dental versus doctor. Page 1 2 Mr. Redfern stated that he also felt the use was not changing due to the Bylaw language. He continued that there have been substantial changes to the Bylaw since the original decision. Mr. Redfern opined that he would like to see a plot plan of the site that includes the parking available on-site. He opined that between residential owners, employees and customers parking will be hard to come by. Mr. Redfern opined that a modification to the existing variance is virtually granting a new variance but is happy to proceed with what is best for the Applicant. Mr. Cicatelli stated that the application states if the building is not changing than a plot plan is not required. He added that if a modification is granted the site should be conditioned as the single unit. Mr. Redfern opined the site is constrained in terms of on-site parking. Mr. Green answered that there is on-street parking available and the neighboring church also informally allowed customer parking. Mr. Green added that Linden Street,which is adjacent to the site, also provides on-street parking. Mr. Redfern stated that the Bylaw does require on-site parking and he is unsure how to approach such. Mr. Redmond agreed that a plot plan was not required for the application but would be helpful. He continued that the owner-occupied unit was a condition of the original decision and should continue. Mr. Redmond found that the site was not required to increase parking if the building was not being modified or changed. Mr. Maughan asked if a variance is granted for use of a site and runs with the land or if it is granted to a specific applicant. Mr. Redmond answered that the language was specific to the doctor who has has since left the site but a variance runs with the land and not an owner. He stated he wanted the Board's opinion on the application and to answer the questions discussed tonight. He stated he has no objection to the application but wanted to ensure the use was allowed by the Board before issuing occupancy. Mr. Emilius opined the discussion in-so-far has helped him reach the conclusion that the use is not changing. He continued that in his engineering profession, when looking at trip generation a dentist and doctors office use the same numbers to determine impact. Mr. Redfern stated an update to the original decision would be viable. Ms. Hartman suggested a modification is not needed if nothing is changing but reaffirming the decision on a finding is a better way forward. Mr. Maughan agreed. Mr. Redfern opined updating the existing language due to its language regarding the specific doctor. Mr. Redmond agreed with Mr. Redfern and updating would be best. He stated new language would be more beneficial to future medical uses. Mr. Redmond clarified that the original variance granted two residential units but the site now maintains just one unit. Mr. Redfern opined conditioning it to a single tenant. Mr. MacNichol asked to clarify if the site would be conditioned for one unit that will not need to be owner occupied.The Board felt comfortable with such. Mr. MacNichol asked if a finding can be conditioned. Mr. Cicatelli replied in the affirmative. Mr. Redfern opened the hearing to public comment.Seeing none Mr. Redfern closed the public comment portion of the hearing. On a motion made by Ms. Hartman,seconded by Mr. Pernice,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a finding on Case#21-03.46 Woburn Street that a dental use is considered Page 1 3 that of a medical use and professional service which is allowed on premise.The Board agreed to reaffirm the existing variance with the condition that the site be limited to one residential unit. Vote was 5.0-0 (Pernice, Redfern, Mateev, Maughan, Hartman). Case#21.04—120 Howard Street Mr. Redfern read the legal advertisement for case#21-04-120 Howard Street into the record and swore in those wishing to speak on the application. Mr. Bill Penny, project contractor,was present on behalf of the application along with homeowner Mr.Timothy Mello. He begun that the homeowner was seeking work for a new master bedroom and a garage due to family moving in from Texas.Mr. Penny stated the existing garage is very narrow and cannot fit a vehicle within. He continued that the lot is non- conforming in size which limits the locations such an addition can go. He stated that if the addition conformed to the front yard setback requirements the side yard setback would be majorly impacted. He opined that the current application is a medium between the two. Mr. Penny opined that the abutting property fencing separates a paper road. He continued that a hardship exists due to the lot size and shape. Mr. Penny informed the Board that many neighboring properties also do not meet zoning requirements. Mr. Redmond opined that the application is straight forward in terms of zoning and the relief required. Mr. Mello agreed and stated that he has tried to improve the property as much as he can since its purchase in 2008. Mr. Pernice agreed that shape of lot is irregular which could meet criteria one of a variance application. He found that the hardship was valid and that lot coverage is less than maximum allowed which is beneficial. Mr. Maughan opined the side yard infringement is detrimental. He stated that if the neighboring lot is non-conforming allowing further non-conformance is not viable. Mr. Maughan found that not having a two-car garage is not reason enough to justify a hardship. Ms. Mateev questioned why the existing garage is not being renovated. She presented concern with bringing the addition in front of the existing dwelling as it changes the character of the site. Mr. Penny replied that in order to create a master bedroom the new addition must be attached to the dwelling. He stated that he designed the addition to not impose on the existing character. Ms. Mateev replied she had concerns establishing a new non-conforming front and side yard setback while the adjacent side is also non-conforming. Mr. Mello added that the left neighbor to the lot has a structure right on the lot line and they did not want to impose on such. Ms. Hartman asked about the existing location of the fence on the property. She asked if the fence is owned by the Applicant and if it is found along the property line. Mr. Mello replied in the fence is his own but it is not located on the property line due to existing trees in the area that were preserved by the previous owner. He added that the tree area has since been cleaned. Ms. Hartman stated she was concerned with the application due to the crowding of the area. Mr. Mello agreed a number of dwellings on the street are in close proximity to one Page 14 another. He stated he has had communication with the neighbor who is in support of the application. Mr. Emilius opined the addition is fairly large in nature and impacting two setbacks is not ideal. He opined moving to the addition to the rear where the lot is deeper and has more room. Mr. Redfern agreed that the addition is imposing. He was not in favor of creating a new non- conformality. He questioned if the addition could be reduced in size or if an alternative of a longer garage could be explored in order to allow double parking. Mr. Redfern also asked if the existing garage would be kept. Mr. Penny replied in the affirmative and that the existing garage would be kept for storage. He continued that the width of the addition could be reduced but it would still require a variance. Mr. Redfern opined that the variance request should explore other alternatives. Mr. Mello replied that a number of alternatives have been explored including locating the addition to the left side of the lot. He continued that he has an eleven-year-old child at home and a dog so working to keep the backyard is preferable. Mr. Redfern asked if any letters of support were submitted for the application. Mr. Mello replied he does not have anything in writing but could getsuch. Mr. Pernice opined that even an addition reduced in size would be as impactful. He felt due diligence was done and that no neighbors have raised concern. He opined that the location is good for the addition due to the lack of available uses in the area. He acknowledged that he was speaking as just one member as the Board. Mr. MacNichol asked if the existing driveway would remain and if a new driveway would be created. Mr. Mello replied there were no plans to change the existing driveway and access would be needed to the addition. Mr. MacNichol stated that the Engineering Departments Driveway Regulations do not allow two driveways on a site unless they are at least 125-feet apart. Mr. Penny replied that the lot only has 88-feet of frontage. Mr. Maughan stated that because the lot has less than the required 120-feet of frontage it was not eligible for two driveways. Mr. Mello stated there is no curbing in the front of the site. Mr. Maughan stated that a curb cut is still needed to provide access to and from the street. Mr. MacNichol stated that the Board should not approve any second driveways unless Engineering Department endorses the concept. Mr. Penny replied if required to remove the existing driveway they can do such. Mr. Redfern reviewed the options available to the Applicant.They can go forward with a vote, continue the application to a later date in order to revise or provide new information, or withdraw the application without prejudice. Mr. Penny asked what a continuance date would be. Mr. MacNichol stated May 6 is available as well as May 20 if more time is needed. Ms. Mateev noted that Annual Town Meeting could potentially impact the May 6 meeting date. Mr. Mello asked if a letter of support would be beneficial or if the Board would rather see revised plans. Mr. Maughan stated the neighbor today may not be the neighbor next year. Mr. Mello agreed but stated any future owners would be aware of what they are getting into. Mr. Maughan agreed with the statement. Mr. Penny recommended a continuance request to the next meeting date. Page 1 5 Ms. Hartman made a motion to continue Case#11-04 -120 Howard Street to May 6, 2021. Mr. Pernice seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0. Minutes The Board elected to review the meeting minutes of 11/05/2020 and 12/17/2020 at a later hearing date. Adjournment On a motion made by Ms. Mateev, seconded by Ms. Hartman, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:38PM. Vote was 5-0-0 (Pernice, Redfern, Mateev, Maughan, Hartman) Page 16