Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-05-20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes ��orarb Town of Reading RECEIVED Meeting Minutes TOWN CLERK iaJ'I r READING, MA. C�,-_ 2121 JUL -6 PM 1: 46 Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Zoning Board of Appeals Date: 2021-05-20 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Location: Address: Session: Purpose: Version: Final Attendees: Members - Present: Robert Redfern, Nick Pernice, Hillary Mateev, Jamie Maughan, Alex Normandin Members - Not Present: Chris Emilius, Cynde Hartman Others Present: Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol. Building Commissioner Brett Bennett, Building Inspector Glen Redmond, Timothy Mello, Bill Penny, Jack Hammond 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. Redfern called the meeting to order at 7:15PM. Case#21-04—120 Howard Street Mr. Redfern opened the continued Public Hearing for Case#21-04, 120 Howard Street. Mr. Bill Penny, project contractor,was present on behalf of the application along with homeowner Mr.Timothy Mello. Mr. Penny stated that a number of changes have been made to the proposal since the last discussion with the Board. Changes include relocating the addition so that the minimum front- yard setback is met,thus requiring a variance for the side-yard setback only. The addition does have a side-yard setback of 15-feet to the north, but its south corner is setback at just six-feet due to the lot shape. The garage concept has been removed in lieu of a study room and storage;this also removes the need for a new driveway. Mr. Mello added that neighbors have been reached out and submitted letters of support for the proposal. He continued that the direct abutter to the west is about twenty-feet away while Page i I the direct abutter to the east, where the addition is proposed, is about one-hundred-feet away. He found that the new design of the proposal is more appropriate to the existing dwelling. Mr. Redmond asked to confirm if a second curb cut is needed. Mr. Mello replied in the negative and confirmed that no new curb cut is needed. Ms. Mateev stated that the new design and proposal is an improvement.She continued that she felt comfortable that the application met all criteria due to the unique angles of the lot. Mr. Maughan agreed that the proposal has been improved. He asked what the new use of the addition is to be. Mr. Mello replied that the first floor will be an office space and the second floor will be used for storage. Mr. Maughan asked if the letters of support were submitted to the Board. Mr. Mello stated they have not yet been submitted as he has been away on travel. Mr. Maughan replied that if a vote were to commence he would like to condition the submittal of the letters of support. Mr. Mello answered he was comfortable with such and could submit the letter both electronically and send a hard copy to Town Hall. Mr. Maughan asked to clarify which the distance from abutters. Mr. Mello stated that the abutter to the east has a dwelling that is about one-hundred-feet away from the proposed addition.The addition is to be on the east side of the property. Mr. Redmond stated that a ramp is located at the rear of the proposed addition.This ramp is not shown on the plot plan and may need further relief if its setback is less than six-feet. Mr. Pernice found the angles of the lot lines to be unique. He appreciated that a new curb cut was no longer needed for the application. Mr. Redfern found the redesign of the proposal beneficial. He felt that the addition was in its best suited location due to the shape of the lot. He asked if a condition was needed to remove the existing curb cut. Mr. MacNichol answered that such a condition will no longer be needed due to the removal of the request for a new driveway. Mr. Penny stated that the ramp at the rear of the addition may not be required as the grade in the area is relatively flat. Mr. Redfern stated that if a structure is placed there and needs further relief the Applicant will need to come back before the Board. Mr. Penny agreed and stated that a condition requiring any structure to conform to the proposed six-foot setback, at minimum, would be welcome. Mr. Pernice stated that the Board should not vote on the ramp as it is not shown on the plot plan. If it needs further relief the Applicant shall come back to the Board. Mr. Maughan asked if the Applicant would need relief if the ramp were setback fifteen- feet from the property line. Mr. Redmond answered that no relief would be required if that were the case. Mr. Penny added that they could look at relocating the rear door to ensure any ramp meets setback requirements. Mr. Redfern opened the hearing to public comment. Seeing no new public comment, Mr. Redfern closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. MacNichol clarified to the Applicant that there are four voting members for the application, all of which must vote in favor for the variance request to be approved.The Applicant asked to continue with a vote for approval. Page 1 2 Mr. Penrice made a motion to issue a Variance for Case#21-04-110 Howard Street under the condition that the letters of support discussed be submitted to Town Hall. Ms. Mateev seconded the motion and it was approved 4-0-0. Case#21-05—14 Kingston Street Mr. Redfern stated that the application was originally scheduled to open on May 6, 2021 but was re-noticed to open tonight (May 20, 2021) due to impacts from Town Meeting. Mr. Redfern read the legal notice into record and swore in members of the public wishing to speak on behalf of the application. Mr.Jack Hammond was present on behalf of the application. He stated that he resides in non- conforming dwelling that is about one-hundred-forty years old. Mr. Hammond stated that he is looking to build an enclosed porch on-top of what is existing deck space.This deck was originally approved, however, previous owners built in excess of what was approved. By building this excess deck the site exceeded the allowable lot coverage of 25%; which results in the need a variance today. Mr. Hammond continued that the lot is small in shape,at about 6,500square-feet, and the 'excess' deck space built is not true useable deck. This area is mostly walkway and stairs. Mr. Redfern asked to clarify the need for a Special Permit and a Variance. Mr. Hammond replied that the Special Permit would be to allow the addition to be placed along an existing non-conforming side-yard setback and the variance would be for the excess lot coverage. He stated that the deck was built thirty-two years ago and the lot coverage has been exceeded since. Mr. Hammond stated that he is not increasing lot coverage as he is looking to build over existing deck space. Mr. Redfern questioned if a variance is needed due to the length of the time the deck has existed. Mr. Redmond found that a variance could be voted on or the Board may make a finding that the deck has existed for over a ten-year period and does not need zoning relief. Mr. Hammond clarified that even without the decking, a structure would be needed in order to access portions of the yard due to its grade changes. Mr. Redfern asked to clarify the coloring of the plot plan submitted. Mr. Hammond replied that the blue coloring is the area that exceeded the original approval.This is mostly stairs and walkways in order to access the pool and garage areas.The yellow coloring is the decking that was originally approved. Mr. Pernice stated that the Applicant must prove the deck has been in existence for over ten- years in order to not need zoning relief. He asked to clarify what changes the proposal is making to the area. Mr. Hammond replied that he could get an affidavit from the previous owners stating that the deck was built over ten-years ago, as he has lived on the property for just two- years now. He added that the building permit for the original deck is on file at Town Hall. Mr. Maughan asked to confirm that the footprint of the site is not increasing. Mr. Hammond replied in the affirmative as lot coverage would remain at 29%, as exists today. Mr. Maughan asked if the proposed porch would be roofed. Mr. Hammond again replied in the affirmative. Page 1 3 Mr. Maughan asked if the side-yard setback is proposed at less than existing. Mr. Hammond replied in the negative as the existing deck is setback at 8.7-feet and the proposed porch is at 9.1-feet. Mr. Maughan stated that he was in favor of the application as it did not increase lot coverage or encroach setbacks. Ms. Mateev found the proposal to be no more detrimental than existing. Mr. Normandin stated that the lot coverage calculations shown on the plot plan appear to be incorrect. Mr. Redfern stated that the Applicant has stated under sworn testimony the deck has existed for thirty-two years. He continued that the Board could make a finding that the deck has been in existence for over ten-years and does not require zoning relief due to this sworn testimony. The Board could then move forward with a vote on the Special Permit request. Mr. Redfern opened the hearing to public comment.Seeing none, Mr. Redfern closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Maughan asked if the pool counts towards the lot coverage calculation. Mr. Redmond answered that the pool does not account towards lot coverage. Storage areas such as sheds or garages do account for such. Mr. MacNichol agreed with Mr. Normandin that the lot coverage appears to be calculated incorrectly. He stated that the total comes to 2,214square-feet and not the 1,962square-feet shown.This would then total-33%lot coverage. Ms. Mateev commented that either the farmers porch or garage were excluded from the total square footage. Mr. Redfern stated that the Board should not endorse an incorrect plan. Mr. MacNichol suggested a new plot plan submittal,with correct lot coverage calculations, be conditioned before any building permits are issued. A continuance request could also be appropriate. Mr. Pernice stated that he is comfortable with such condition. Mr. Maughan agreed. Mr. Pernice made a motion to make a finding that the existing deck on-site has been in place for an excess of ten years and does not require zoning relief, based on sworn testimony given by the Applicant. Ms. Mateev seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0. Mr. Pernice made a motion to grant a Special Permit for Case#21-05—14 Kingston Street, under the condition that a new plot plan with correct lot coverage calculations be submitted to Town Hall before any permits are issued. Minutes 11/5/2020 Ms. Mateev made a motion to approve the meeting minutes of 11/5/20 as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Normandin and approved 3-0-0. 12/17/2020 Ms. Mateev made a motion to approve the meeting minutes of 12/17/20 as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Normandin and approved 3-0-0. Page 1 4 3/4/21 Ms. Mateev made a motion to approve the meeting minutes of 3/4/21 as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Normandin and approved 3-0-0. 4/15/21 Ms. Mateev made a motion to approve the meeting minutes of 4/15/21 as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Normandin and approved 3-0-0. Other Business Mr. MacNichol informed the Board that it is possible that the June 17Th hearing may be conducted in-person. He continued that he will have further updates on such in the near future. Mr. MacNichol stated that if a Board members term is expiring they should reach out to the Select Board's office with their intent on reapplying or not. Adiournment Ms. Mateev made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:39pm. The motion was seconded by Mr. Normandin and approved 5-0-0. Page 1 5