HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-12-18 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesoaN �Fq�a'
Town of Reading
15 :: �a Meeting Minutes
^e�?rs: ixcoar°�
Board - Committee - commission - council:
Zoning Board of Appeals
Date: 2019-12-18
Building: Reading Town Hall
Address: 16 Lowell Street
Purpose:
Attendees: Members - Present:
John Jarema
Robert Redfern
Cy Caouette
Nick Pernice
Erik Hagstmm
Hillary Mateev
Members - Not Present:
iiECEIVED
TOWN CLERK p�
R'''EADING, MA. Y
2022 JUN -7 PM 3:24
Time: 7 PM
Location: Select Board Meeting Room
Session:
Version: Final
Others Present:
Building Commissoner Mark Dupell, Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol, Select
Board Member Vanessa Alverado, Select Board Member Anne Landry
oocnectfuliv submitted By: Amanda Beatrice
Topics of Discussion:
104 Salem Street - Case #19-14
Mr. caouette read the letter from the applicant asking to withdraw their application without
prejudice.
Mr. Redfern asked Mr. Dupell could share any new information with the Board. Mr. Dupell
stated that the applicants were about ready to place the existing house on the new foundation.
On a motion made by Mr. Redfern, seconded by Mr. Pernice, the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to grant a Withdrawal without Prejudice in regards to the appeal of the Decision of
the Building Inspector for Case #19-14.
Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema, Caouette, Pernice, Redfern, Hagtsrom)
Other Business:
35 Lincoln Street - The Met
Mr. Zucker stated that they went back to their plan, they had a lot more shrubs total but not as
many trees. Since then, they planted a few more trees and were able to find the Japanese tree,
which was planted as well. They updated their comparison chart; they went from 35 to 26 trees
Page I 1
and from 3 shrubs to 50 in total. The landscape architect calculated that they now have 6,200
instead of the original 5,900, most being on Lincoln Street.
Mr. Caouette asked how the abutters felt. He stated that one abutter emailed him thanking him
and he has not heard from them since.
Mr. Jarema believes the fence was a great addition.
Mr. Zucker stated that the as built lighting plan has less foot candles at the property line. He
believed that some of the issues were the lights being left on in the vacant units at night. Mr.
Zucker believed that the light poles are brighter than the candle lights.
Mr. Jarema stated he was in favor of it.
Mr. Redfern stated he did not have an issue with it.
Mr. Pernice also agreed. He also asked if they planted any trees on the abutter's property. Mr.
Zucker said they went door to door asking the abutters and planted 7 trees total.
Mr. Caouette asked about the lighting settings. Mr. Zucker stated that they are on motion
sensor. Mr. Caouette believes that these changes were insubstantial.
Mr. Heep stated that they are approving the amendment of the lighting and landscaping.
Mr. Caouette opened public comment.
Mr. Caouette closed the public comment.
On a motion made by Mr., seconded by Mr., the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to decide
the lighting and landscaping changes are insubstantial changes to the comprehensive permit.
Vote was 5-0-0 (Mateev, Caouette, Pernice, Redfern, Hagtsrom)
Mr. Heep and the Board briefly discussed how to handle the request for additional signage to
35 Lincoln Street.
Mr. Zucker stated they did talk about what kind of guidelines that they did have to follow. He
also said that CPCD did approve one of their signs. Mr. Zucker briefly described the guidelines.
Mr. Zucker stated that they proposed a non -lit sign and if they hang it under the second -floor
sill then it would meet all the requirements. What they were proposing is less than what was
allowed. He also noted that the sign they designed he believed was a tasteful sign but not
imposing. What they are specifically asking for is a waiver to hang the sign from the second -
floor sill.
Mr. Dupell asked for clarification because the application said the sign is to be externally
illuminated. Mr. Zucker said that they decided not to do that.
Page 1 2
Mr. Dupell stated that he issued a denial letter back and June and that it was up to the
applicant to supply the measurements.
Mr. Pernice stated that he did not believe that going up one more floor isn't an issue but the
size to him would matter and does not believe they have that information.
Mr. Redfern stated that he believes that there should be a public meeting on this because
signage is a big thing in Town. He likes the signage but still believes he needs a Public Hearing.
Mr. Jarema agreed with Mr. Pernice.
Mr. Hagstrom believed that the Public should be given notice because this decision could be
impactful. He also stated that he did like the signage.
Mr. Heep believed that if the Board wanted to have a Public Hearing for the signage then there
should be something mentioned about the signage being a substantial change to this project.
Ms. Mateev agreed about the sign proportion but she is worried about the sign being lost on
the brick facade due to the coloring. Mr. Zucker said that's a point well taken.
Mr. Caouette stated that he liked the sign and thought that they were tastefully done and
believes that its almost an insubstantial change.
Mr. Heep stated the decision they need to make tonight if the sign is going to have an impact
on the residence of the project the surrounding neighborhood or the people driving past it
every day. If all the members find that it is not going to really have an impact on others then it
is within their jurisdiction to decide it is an insubstantial change.
Mr. Caouette stated he could not think of anyone that would have an issue with the sign
because it is not light and tastefully done.
Mr. MacNichol asked if it was an insubstantial change to allow the height would they need to
go back to CPDC. Mr. Heep said not.
Mr. Jarema stated that he could not see how the sign would impact the neighborhood with no
light, you have to drive by to see it.
Mr. Pernice asked about the Public Hearing. Mr. Heep stated that they first would need to
determine substantial or insubstantial. If it was a substantial change they would move forward
with a Public Hearing. Mr. Pernice believes that the signage would be in insubstantial change.
Mr. Redfern stated that he agreed with everyone. He also noted that the Agenda shows that 35
Lincoln Street was on for discussion.
Mr. Hagstrom believes it's a substantial change.
Mr. Caouette asked how they would go about it if the Board found this a substantial change.
Mr. Heep stated that a notice would have to go out to the abutters. Mr. Caouette asked if the
opposite happens. Mr. Heep stated they could hang the signage.
Ms. Mateev would like to hear what the public has to say.
Page 1 3
Mr. Caouette opened the public comment.
Mr. Caouette closed the public comment.
On a motion made by Mr. Redfern, seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to decide the signage change is an insubstantial change to the comprehensive permit.
Vote was 5-0-0 (Mateev, Caouette, Pernice, Redfern, Jarema)
On a motion made by Mr. Caouette, seconded by Mr. Pernice, , the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to adjourn the meeting..
Page 1 4