Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-12-04 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes� �r FC,�O Town of Reading ,.`�,�k Meeting Minutes ''"KoaN Board - committee - Commission - Council: Zoning Board of Appeals Date: 2019-12-04 Building: Reading Town Hall Address: 16 Lowell Street Purpose: Attendees: Members - Present: John Jarema Robert Redfern Cy Caouette Nick Pernice Hillary Mateev Members - Not Present: RECEIVED TOWN CLERK READING, MA. 2022 JUN -7 PM 3: 24 Time: 7 PM Location: Select Board Meeting Room Session: Version: Final Erik Hagstrom Others Present: Building Commissoner Mark Dupell, Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol, Michael Palmer, Ken Chase, Tony D.Arezzo, Patricia Fannoush Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Amanda Beatrice Topics of Discussion: Mr. Heep talks with the Board briefly about substantial and insubstantial changes. Mr. Caouette reads the audience in. The Met -35 Lincoln Street Mr. Zucker stated the two changes Mr. Dupell brought to his attention; the landscaping and the lighting. Mr. Zucker stated that originally the egress path was supposed to go through the garage but the code reviewer determined that it would not meet the code for safety. He stated that due to the change of the egress path it shifted the building, which they came before the Board who ruled it as an insubstantial change. He stated that the landscape could no longer go there due to the path. They had a landscape architect come out for an as built plan. He also stated that there were three neighbors who asked about screening the garage in more. They added some fencing and landscaping to the as built. He stated that in general they kept to the plan but they had moved around a few things. Mr. Zucker stated that they submitted some lighting plans including a stamped letter from the electrical engineer which states they designed the lighting to the ZBA requirements and other requirements including safety and security. He also noted that some of the lights are on a motion sensor. Mr. Pernice asked the applicant what changed and the applicant stated the west side they could not plant there due to egress issues so they planted more landscaping by the fence and Page I I along Washington Street and some to the front area. Nick believed the applicant was being pretty responsible and he had nothing else to ask about the landscaping. Mr. Caouette asked Mr. Dupell about the code issue. Mr. Dupell stated that the code did not say you cannot egress through the garage but it is not a desirable egress if there are issues with the garage. He also mentioned that the code is not specific. The guy in blue stated that he did not disagree with Mr. Dupell and that this is a controlled project and that the architect had to sign off/stamp the plans which was a requirement to go forward by Code Red. Mr. Redfern asked about the shift in the building. Mr. Chase stated that there were two reasons for the shift. The first reason being the land surveyor closed the property differently making the angles different and second reason was so the egress path would fit. Mr. Redfern asked if they worked with the abutters and Mr. Zucker stated that he has and that they would add the fence and some landscaping after talking with the abutters. Mr. Chase told Mr. Redfern that they have not talked to the other abutter because he does not live there. He stated there were some issues with the pavement which seemed like an old ally with but they talked to the tenants and replaced the driveway rather than trying to fix it and just making it worse. Mr. Redfern questioned why they did work without talking to/having a contract with the owner. Mr. Roman stated they reached out to all the abutters and they were never able to get in contact with the owner directly but through the tenant who may be related stated they could replace the driveway per the owner. Mr. Redfern and the applicants discussed more about the egress and the landscaping on the east side. Mr. Heep asked for clarification about the tree and if it was on the landscaping plan it should have gone in. Matt stated that they had put in a tree but the abutters were not happy with it and asked for a different tree. Mr. Chase stated that sometimes they will have to substitute plants, due to their availability. Mr. Heep stated his concern that there were little things being tweaked without being brought up to the Town and that he was comfortable asking the Board to consider the amendment for no landscaping to comply with the code. Mr. larema expressed several questions he had over the landscaping and if there was something else that they missed or have not seen and if there is something else that can be done for screening. Mr. Zucker stated they per the decision they were working with abutters affected with screening on their own properties. Mr. Zucker asked the Board to look over the landscaping as a whole and see how much landscaping there was and how well it came out. He also noted that they worked with the abutters and gave them what they wanted. Mr. Zucker stated that the one strip they were talking about really only affected their property more than anyone else property in the whole scheme of things. He stated he is willing to continue working with the neighbors. Mr. larema stated that he could understand but believes that the abutter that they have not been able to get a hold of they should somehow track down. Ms. Mateev asked about the new egress path the applicants stated that it is paved. Ms. Mateev stated that they could always use a vertical planting that they could use instead of just the screening. Page 1 2 Mr. Caouette and Mr. Zucker discussed the landscaping and abutters a bit more Mr. Caouette asked the applicant if they thought any of the abutter concerns have any relation to the lighting. The applicant said no but believe the comment about the screening and fence that provided more screening than any of the landscaping would provide. A gentleman commented that the six direct abutters were very happy with the results and those were the people who were affected the most. Mr. Jarema asked Mr. MacNichol and Mr. Zucker if there was a colored plan that demonstrates the original landscaping plan that was issued by the Board that includes his additions. Mr. Heep stated that what the members currently had was what was originally approved and the as build which was submitted November 12th asking for the amendment. He also stated that there were more changes on the as built different from the original plan which could be better than the original but it could be possible it was not as good. The Board and applicants continued talking about the landscaping. Mr. Heep stated that if there are any concerns. about this project that is not part of the three scopes before the Board that should be properly raised outside of this discussion. Mr. Caouette opened the public comment. Mr. Caouette closed the public comment. Mr. Heep agreed with Mr. Jarema that it is difficult for non -landscape architects to evaluate the differences between the plans and may be useful for the applicant to provide more information on that. The gentlemen in blue stated that the Planning Department was out on a site visit. The only area that identified as different was the westerly boundary and were requested to add one tree along the Prescott side and asked if he was mis characterizing. Mr. MacNichol stated that they did not have the as -built at that time and could not compare side by side. Mr. Chase stated that the proposed plan was there and by definition that the only changes they were able to detect was in that one area so the changes are not substantial. He stated that the issues that resulted from a change came from three abutters who were not at the meeting but communicated over email with the chairman and their team. They have also been responsive to the abutters. Mr. Redfern and the applicant discussed adding the egress walkway and changing the landscaping plan without getting permission. Mr. Jarema asked Mr. Heep how to resolve the current issues about landscaping when they have two other issues for this case to discuss and two additional cases after. Mr. Heep stated the lighting and landscaping fall under one category. The applicants' original approved plans were different than what their current plans were. They were there to seek approval over what is substantial vs not substantial. Signage would be different because there were no samples and no discussion took place in the original application. With there being no original discussion about signage Mr. Heep believed that it could be a substantial change and a public hearing would be the proper way to go. Mr. Jarema agreed with Mr. Heep and believe thatthey needed more clarity on the landscaping to move forward. Mr. Caouette stated that he agreed that they needed more information for the landscaping Page 1 3 Mr. Pernice stated that since there was a slight change in the foot print which was not noticed at the time but it would imply that there would be landscaping changes. He also believed that the applicant made a good faith effort to work with this issue. He stated that there were no abutters at the meeting talking about landscaping, no outstanding issues with the daytime government. Nick stated that even though he was not happy with all of the changes made, that he did not believe the landscape changes were substantial changes. He also stated that the signage would be a substantial change but the lighting he was not sure of yet. Mr. Caouette asked Mr. Heep that if the Board felt they needed more information what would be the best way to go about it. Mr. Heep stated that if the board wanted more information on landscaping than they can ask the applicant one for two things. The first being an extension, then the applicant and the second would be to vote on the landscaping being a substantial change. Then they could have a public hearing 30 day from that time and they would be back to talk about it again. The applicant could then appeal the decision. Mr. Zucker stated that he understood the frustration from the Board and asked what specific information the Board would need to optically determine a substantial change. Mr. Jarema stated that they would want it all on one. The Mr. Zucker asked Ms. Mateev about her earlier suggestion. She proceeded to describe the vertical landscaping. The board and applicants discussed that if they will provide a written extension request by the next morning then they will meet at the upcoming meeting and that they will provide the applicants by the nineteenth whether or not the changes are considered substantial. Mr. Zucker stated that the lighting is more straightforward. The revised plan was approved during the process but the decision allowed the applicants to add lighting for safety and security in the garage. He also stated they have the stamped plan from the electrical engineer. Mr. Jarema asked how the motion sensors worked and if there is a time sensor. The applicants stated that it's a motion of people/cars and he believed that there was a 5 or 30 minute timer. The original plan assumed the lights would stay on. Mr. Jarema also asked about the abutter who was bothered by the light at night on the western side and if there was a way to diffuse the lighting from the garage. Mr. MacNichol stated he could clarify the issue the abutter had. The issue was with the outside balcony lights that were not dark sky compliant and that the applicants agreed to make them compliant. Mr. Zucker stated that they changed the lights and added more because these lights are not as bright. He believed that the photometric plan they had accomplished what they needed with minimal change and believed that the decision did allow them to add lights. Mr. Redfern stated he believed that the change was insubstantial. Mr. Zucker stated that part of the fence was to help with the lighting from the garage. Mr. Heep noted that the lighting plan and the garage lighting spillage was reviewed and approved by the Zoning Board. Page 14 Mr. Pernice stated that what the applicant is doing is less intense and asked if they changed the color temperature of the lights. Mr. MacNichol stated that the original approved specs was 3,000 to 5,000 and the current ones were 3,500 to 5,000. Mr. Heep asked if the applicants had the photometric plans for the outside to the property line. Mr. Zucker stated that he has requested one and has one although the Board does not have a copy. He stated that there is a recommended candle light for a space which is about 1 candle light. Mr. Heep asked the applicant if they could bring a copy of the plan for the new lighting. The applicant explained the previous specs and current specs of the outdoor lighting. Vanessa Alverado asked if the Board received an as -built plan so they could compare what was constructed and what the original permit was for. The Board stated they do not typically see the as -built plans. Mr. Heep stated that it would typically go to the Building Department and if there were changes that were not reviewed before, they would need to go back to the Board for review. Mr. Dupell stated that they do not have had the final as -built plan. The applicants asked for a temporary certificate of occupancy and the final as -built would be turned in for the final certificate of occupancy. Mr. Caouette asked the applicant to give a summary of how they control the lights at night. The applicant said '%shut off and on a motion sensor timer. The Board, Mr. Heep and the applicant discussed briefly the signage and if they should go over it tonight or in two weeks. Mr. Pernice stated that he leaned more toward a substantial change. The applicant stated they would like to review the signage in two weeks On a motion made by Mr. Caouette, seconded by Mr. Pernice, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant an extension for revisions to December 18, 2019. Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema, Caouette, Pernice, Redfern, Mateev) 107 Main Street — Case #19-25 A resident told Mr. Caouette that she had filed an appeal for this address through the Conservation committee and handed him the letter. Mr. Caouette reads the letter. Mr. Caouette opens the case by reading the legal notice and swore in the public. Jeffrey Brem introduced himself and stated that on October 16th there was a site inspection for the Conservation appeal, which did not have anything to do with the presentation for the night. Page 1 5 He also noted that they could not start work until they received the results from the inspection. Mr. Brem gave a brief history of the property. He stated that they were going for a Variance for 7 additional parking spots. Originally, they were looking for 9 additional spots but after meeting with other boards, they reduced the spots to 7. Mr. Brem stated that Fusillfs Restaurant has become successful but the lack of parking has posed a problem with customers. Since customers would pull into the parking lot, leave without coming in because there was no parking. They had asked their employees to park on Hopkins Street so that the customers could use those spots but now there are employees parking there for the day vs a customer for 1.5 hours. Mr. Brem goes over the four Variance Criteria. He stated that the shape of the lot was an issue. He also mentioned that the soil was an issue but they have already been approved by Conservation, although there was an appeal made. After passing out a handout, Mr. Brem stated that there were several other businesses that have a similar issue and explained how the lots were used. He stated by adding parking, this would be improving the Town by alleviating the street parking. CPDC has a draft decision but withholding it until the applicants met with the Zoning Board due to this being in the S15 zone. Ms. Mateev noted that this property was brought up during the Town meeting during public comment about the Business District. Mr. Brem stated that the parking would be for employees only. Mr. MacNichol briefly explained to the Board about the Town meeting. Mr. Jarema asked if there was parking allowed on Hopkins Street. Mr. Brem stated he heard that therewere complaints to the Select Board Members and believed that the Board said Hopkin Street could be used for parking. Mr. MacNichol stated that he believed only one side if the street was and any member of the public could park there. Mr. Palmer stated he remembered that when they first opened, there was parking allowed on both sides of the street, which quickly caused issues causing the parking to become restricted. Mr. Jarema asked how many staff, the applicant stated there were 10. Mr. Palmer stated that the additional spaces would help resolve the parking during some of the weekdays and that having 7 additional parking spots on site would make it better for the on -street parking vs having no additional onsite parking. Mr. Jarema asked if the applicant looked at other means for staff parking. The applicant stated that they have looked into several options including leasing other properties. Valet parking would pose a problem because parking would more than likely be across the street so you would be transporting across 4 lanes of traffic at night. He also noted that making an agreement with other property owners could always be a liability issue. Mr. Redfern stated he supported the additional parking and that it would be beneficial to the neighborhood. Mr. Pernice stated that he is in between and would like to hear from the abutter. Mr. Caouette opened the public meeting. A Hopkin Street abutter stated that the original approved site plan included 8 employee parking spots that were supposed to have employee only signage but the applicant never installed the signs. She stated that the parking was originally addressed and that most of the time employees Page 1 6 park on the street regardless of how many open spots are available in the lot. The abutter also mentioned previous issues with the applicant related to other Boards. The applicant responded to the abutters issues that there was an Order of Conditions and that some of the trees were planted, which some were killed by the plows. They still need to wait on the appeal before they can proceed doing any work. The Hopkin Street abutter stated that she did not go to the inspection because she was unaware she was able to attend. She also noted she knew that some of the spots were used for snow storage. Mr. Brem stated that they are proposing a fence and landscaping. The Hopkin Street abutter stated she would rather see trees than a fence. Mr. Brem also stated they went from the 9 to the 7 space to account for trees and the snow storage. Mr. Redfern clarified that they were there at the Zoning Board to review the additional parking spots. On a motion made by Mr. Pernice, seconded by Mr. Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a Variance for Case #19-25. Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema, Caouette, Pernice, Redfern, Mateev) 374 Main Street — Case #19-27 Mr. Caouette read the legal notice. Due to the applicant not being present, the Board decided to grant a continuance to January On a motion made by Mr. Redfern, seconded by Ms. Mateev, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant a continuance or Case #19-27 to January 15, 2020. Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema, Caouette, Pernice, Redfern, Mateev) On a Motion made by Mr. Caouette, seconded by Ms. Mateev, the meeting was adjourned Vote was 5-0-0 (Jarema, Caouette, Pernice, Redfern, Mateev) Page 1 7