Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-09-14 Zoning Board of Appeals Minuteso� rq Town of Reading RECEIVED Meeting Minutes TOWN CLERK READING, MA. '6�9IM(O0.o� Board - committee - commission - Council: 2822 APR 26 PM 12: 33 Zoning Board of Appeals Date: 2021-09-14 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Location: Address: Session: Purpose: Version: Final Attendees: Members - Present: Jamie Maughan - Chair, Hillary Mateev, Cynde Hartman, Alex Normandin Members - Not Present: Others Present: Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol, Building Commissioner Bret Bennett, Nancy Twomey, Andrew Grasberger, Bill Nolan, Josh Latham, Quinn Donahue, Keith Raymond, Kate Raymond, Lisa Gibbs, Rob Gibbs, Gregg Johnson, G. Donahue, Jay Tangney, Bruce Johnson Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Andrew MacNichol Topics of Discussion: Mr. Maughan called the meeting to order at 7:01PM. Mr. MacNichol explained the Zoom meeting features and how the remote meeting would be managed. He informed all that the meeting is being broadcasted and recorded by RCN. Case #21-11-9 Priscilla Road Mr. Maughan opened the continued public hearing for 9 Priscilla Road. He read the legal notice into record and swore in members of the public wishing to speak. Ms. Nancy Twomey, project architect, was present for the application along with the homeowners Lisa and Rob Gibbs. She summarized the changes made since the first hearing. The rear of the proposed addition was pushed from B' to 10' away from the eastern side lot line and the second -floor was stepped -back an additional 1'. She informed the Board that the homeowners have future desires of a pool and patio which were shown on the plot plan to indicate the limited space remaining on the lot. The length of the addition was lengthened by about 2 -feet to accommodate the loss of width. Ms. Twomey shared the elevations and floor plans on-screen. She described the proposed addition as a two-story at the front and is designed with a sloped roof. The rear of the addition will be one-story and maintain the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Page I 1 Ms. Twomey provided a number of sites with similar styled applications and which received a Special Permit. She stated that the ADU should not require a Variance as noticed if the Special Permit for the addition to the principal dwelling is granted. She reviewed the Bylaw language which had the standard of limiting the ADU size based on what is 'on the lot'. The building inspector interpreted this language as if the new addition does not yet exist, it cannot be included in the allowed size for the ADU. Ms. Twomey stated that if so, the owner could then build the addition under a Special Permit and then build an ADU by -right. She opined that this was not the intent of the Bylaw as it should not be a two-step process and the ADU should be noticed and discussed with the application. Mr. Bennett stated that the Variance was noticed for the application because if the Special Permit for the addition were to be denied, the Applicant could then look to still build the ADU if relief for the size were granted. Mr. Normandin clarified that the ADU square -footage is not to be used as principal dwelling footage, both stand separate. He also found that performance standard 'a' of the Bylaw may require a Special Permit for interior changes, which may alleviate the concern of by -right ADU applications. Mr. Normandin stated that a Variance is appropriate. Ms. Hartman stated that she disagreed with the Applicants interpretation and felt that the case requires a Variance. She found the changes proposed to be appropriate but would like to hear from the abutters. Ms. Mateev stated that a number of past cases have been interpreted as a Special Permit request. She ffelt such appropriate in this case and agreed that abutter input would be helpful. Mr. Maughan informed all that a Town Meeting motion was made proposing language requiring size be limited based on dwelling size of a certain date. This motion was denied. Mr. MacNichol stated that he reviewed Town Meeting minutes and warrants and could not find such a motion related to ADU's; however, there was a similar discussion on Footnote One. Ms. Hartman stated that if past ZBA members have interpreted such cases as Special Permits then she would maintain such for consistency. Mr. Normandin agreed. Mr. Maughan opened the hearing to public comment. Mr. Josh Latham, representing abutters Jay and Nina Tangney, stated that they had previously submitted written objection and provided concerns at the last hearing. Mr. Latham stated that the abutter found the new proposal to make no meaningful change from the original. The two- story addition still remains and infringes on the abutting property. He continued that his client demolished his home and rebuilt a conforming dwelling. Other abutting properties also met setback requirements. Mr. Latham found this to be the proper interpretation and thing to do when making large additions and change of uses. Mr. Latham presented concern with the change of use of the structure. He found the proposal to nearly double the size of the existing dwellings habitable space and to not meet the criteria of not more detrimental to the neighborhood. Page 12 Mr. Maughan stated the Board must clarify on how to proceed and then discuss the merits of what relief is sought. He continued that it seems the Board interprets such as a Special Permit and not a Variance and a finding should be moved. Ms. Hartman made a motion for a finding that applications for ADU's, in conjunction with additions to principal dwellings requiring Special Permits, require a Special Permit and NOT a variance for the allowable square footage. Ms. Mateev seconded the motion and it was approved 4-0-0. Ms. Mateev found the impact of the proposal on the direct abutter to be a detriment. Mr. Maughan asked if any letters of support were submitted. Mr. MacNichol replied that no new letters of support or opposition were submitted. Mr. Gibbs stated abutters have given verbal support of such. Ms. Tangney stated a neighborhood poll was created and a number were not in favor. Ms. Hartman clarified that her concerns comes from the proposed design in relation to the amount of land on the lot. Ms. Twomey replied that if conforming to setbacks the structure would still be two -stories or higher and much longer. A by -right structure may be more impactful than the proposed, be costlier and prohibit future home desires. Mr. Tangney stated that the proposed design is not consistent with the neighborhood and if setbacks were met he would have an easier time accepting the impact such. Ms. Tangney agreed and found more separation desirable. Mr. Normandin stated that he does not find the proposal to meet the requirements of a Special Permit. He found future home improvements desired such as a pool not enough to grant relief. Mr. Maughan asked what the closest setback is. Ms. Twomey replied the structure is 10' at its closest point and 12' at its furthest. Mr. Maughan stated that meeting setback requirements is always preferred but understood the merits of this case. He continued that at this time he is not in favor of relief. Ms. Twomey expressed concern as the interpretation of Special Permits applies to the entire neighborhood and not just direct abutter. She found that direct abutters are usually the most impacted and complaints alone should not be enough to deny. Mr. Latham responded that there is no by -right avenue to building within setbacks and the Applicant bears the burden of proving why relief should be granted. The burden is not to the abutter to prove why it shouldn't be built. Ms. Mateev asked if a Special Permit would be required if only the existing garage area were to be built on and increased in height. Mr. Bennett replied that staff has met internally and agrees that a Special Permit would be required for non -conforming structures to be increased in height. Ms. Twomey stated that the past two Building Commissioners have not interpreted as such. Mr. Bennett acknowledged such and stated a discussion was held with the previous Building Commissioner to ensure all were on the same page moving forward. Ms. Gibbs stated that the proposal is to help meet the medical needs of the family. The investment will help with future care that is expected. Her daughter is a competitive swimmer and a future pool would benefit her greatly. Mr. Maughan appreciated the insight as it meets the intent of the ADU Bylaw of expanding local housing stock. Mr. Normandin found that Page 1 3 limited concern is on the ADU itself but more the second -story of the proposal. He asked if basement levels have been explored. Ms. Twomey stated such was explored but was problematic due to needed headroom and grade change. A two-story structure would likely be needed regardless and the current proposal is in line with existing two-story areas. Mr. Latham agreed that the use of the ADU is not of concern. He continued that the two-story structure proposed is replacing a one-story garage in the front. Mr. Maughan asked the Applicants how they wish to proceed. A motion can be made to vote on or the Applicant may continue to revise the drawings. He continued that with only four board members a unanimous vote is needed for approval. Ms. Hartman stated the case is very tough but is leaning towards not being in favor as the Applicant has not yet clearly shown why it is not a detriment. Ms. Mateev stated she would be in favor of the application as the change of use from garage to habitable space is appropriate. Mr. Normandin stated that direct opposition alone is not enough to deny but found the application to be quite impactful and was not in favor of such. Ms. Gibbs stated that all previous requests have been met and more letters of support can be submitted. Ms. Hartman clarified that it is not a count of higher support or opposition. Ms. Twomey requested to continue the hearing to the next meeting date in order to discuss further with the homeowners. Ms. Mateev made a motion to continue the public hearing for Case #21-11 to Thursday October 14, 2021. Ms. Hartman seconded the motion and it was approved 4-0-0. Mr. Maughan thanked all for the civility of the discussion. Case #21-10 —129 Green Street Mr. Maughan opened the public hearing for Case #21-10, 129 Green Street. He read the legal notice into record and swore in members of the public wishing to speak on behalf of the application. Mr. Andrew Grasberger, homeowner, was present on behalf of the application. He began by informing the Board of his motivation for the project. The existing dwelling contains one small bathroom and he would like to increase to allow for a master bedroom and bath. One of the existing three bedrooms is also small in size and could be modernized. Mr. Grasberger stated that he would also like a ground -level workshop for his woodworking hobby. Mr. Grasberger stated that the proposed addition would be designed with a sloped roof to match the existing dwelling. The dwelling maintains a 13.5' front -setback on Green Street but the lot is a corner lot on Green Street, Village Street and Washington Street. He found that this results in a unique shape and circumstance. He continued that the second -story of the proposed addition would include a built -out terrace over existing space. Ms. Mateev asked if the proposal includes a garage or not. Mr. Grasberger stated that after discussion with the Engineering Department it was determined that a new driveway would not be allowed due to a number of reasons so it has been removed. Ms. Mateev stated that the neighborhood does contain a number of dwellings that are close to the street. Page 14 Ms. Hartman asked if the rendering is the material to be built as it looks more modern than the existing dwelling. Mr. Grasberger replied that he will be painting the proposed structure white in order to match the existing house. Mr. Maughan stated that aesthetic should match the neighborhood and is within purview of the Board. Mr. Grasberger stated that while it is a bit more modern, which is his preference, they have tried to apply more contemporary aspects to the design. Mr. Normandin agreed that the modern appearance does jump out but white paint would help. He asked what the connection to the existing house will be constructed of. Mr. Grasberger replied that it will be mostly glass. Mr. Maughan found the vertical panels on the proposed addition quite different from the clapboard siding of the dwelling. He questioned if the proposed addition were brought to the south could it comply with setbacks. Mr. Grasberger replied it is proposed at the required rear - yard setback already and any further south would require a Variance. Mr. Maughan opened the hearing to public comment. Ms. Mateev stated that a letter of support was submitted from an abutter at 243 Washington Street. Mr. Maughan asked where the abutter is located. Mr. Grasberger stated that they are to the southeast of him and he has had multiple discussions with them. Seeing no further public comment Mr. Maughan closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Ms. Mateev made a motion to approve the Special Permit request for Case #21-10 —129 Green Street as presented. Ms. Hartman seconded the motion and it was approved 4-0-0. Case #21-13 — 281 West Street Mr. Maughan opened the public hearing for Case #21-13, 281 West Street. He read the legal notice into the record and swore in members of the public wishing to speak on the application. Mr. Bill Nolan, project architect, was present for the application along with homeowners Keith and Kate Raymond. Mr. Bennett stated that the proposal results in a new non -conformity and thus requires a Variance. Mr. Nolan shared the assessing map on-screen. He highlighted the abutting lot on Fremont Street which cuts into the homeowners lot. He stated that the homeowners are requesting a modest addition at the rear of the existing dwelling in order to construct a new dining room and master bedroom. The addition would result in the removal of the existing sunroom. Mr. Nolan stated that the floorspace of the existing house would remain the same and the proposed addition would match the height of the existing house. Mr. Nolan presented the variance criteria and opined that the lot shape is a hardship. He stated that if the dining room were to be any narrower it would not be useable. He continued that the homeowner was weary to not encroach as much as possible. The rear yard does have grade Page 1 5 change which limits the buildable area. He added that the homeowners do wish to preserve as much greenspace as possible. Ms. Hartman stated that she has no questions. Ms. Mateev found the proposal an elegant solution and agreed that the dining room is at its minimum usable width. Mr. Normandin stated that he also has no questions and found the renderings helpful. Mr. Maughan agreed with the Board members and found the proposal complying. He asked if the Applicant has had discussions with the Fremont Street neighbor. Mr. Raymond stated he has discussed the proposal with the neighbor and they had no objections. Mr. Maughan appreciated and found the neighbors dwelling to be closer to Fremont Street than the Applicants home. Mr. Maughan opened the hearing to public comment and seeing none closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Ms. Mateev made a motion to approve the Variance request for Case #21-13 — 281 West Street as presented. Ms. Hartman seconded the motion and it was approved 4-0-0. Mr. Normandin informed all that he must excuse himself from the meeting. Minutes 6/17/21,7/l/21,7/15/21 Mr. Maughan made a motion to approve the meeting minutes of 6/17/21, 7/1/21 and 7/15/21 as amended. Ms. Mateev, seconded the motion and it was approved 3-0-0. Adjournment Ms. Mateev made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:16pm. Ms. Hartman seconded the motion and it was approved 3-0-0. Page 1 6