Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-05-30 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesF Town of Reading h1: Meeting Minutes qn L'//y''IIcc`pj <o. lld �Ul rC AIA. Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Zoning Board of Appeals b qH 8' 3% Date: 2023-05-30 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Select Board Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Session: Purpose: Version: Final Attendees: Members - Present: Cynde Hartman, Cy Caouette, Andrew Grasberger, Patrick Houghton, Chris Cridler Members - Not Present: Others Present: Building Commissioner Bret Bennett, Community Development Director Andrew MacNichol, Ronald Iapicca, Thomas Bellini, Reid ✓k Bridget Summer, Kelly Jordan -Price, Thomas Val, Hai Nguyen, John Tedesco, Joanne Tedesco, John A Tedesco, Kelly McCarthy, Robert McCarthy, Jane Jolkovski, Dan Jacobs, Brenna Westover, Ernest Demaio, Josh Latham, Goetono Manganizllo, Jason Adams, Eric Dubrule, Neil Sumner Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Amanda Beatrice Topics of Discussion: ZBA Chair Cynde Hartman started the meeting at 7:03 PM and let all the applicants know that the agenda will be done out of order. First thing they will be talking about is the Eaton Lakeview 40B Extension of Time Request. Other Business— Eaton Lakeview 40B: Extension of Time Request Attorney Josh Latham stated that the 40B project approval was issued back in 2019 and there is a three- year window for a developer to exercise their rights to begin construction under a 40B comp permit. The construction is being done in phases. Phase one was the Townhouse portion which was completed. Phase two is now beginning and although they have exercised their rights, they wanted to proceed on the side of caution in case they need an extension. Cynde Hartman noted that none of the current members with the exception of Cy Caouette were on the Board back in 2019. Cy Caouette asked if they knew about how long the project would take to be completed. Josh Latham noted they submitted a construction schedule that is conservative and it is about two years. Chris Cridler stated that he believed they had already exercised their right and no extensions are necessary Chris Cridler made a motion to make a Finding that they have exercised their rights for Eaton Lakeview 40B Extension. Cy Caouette seconded the motion and it was approved 540-0. Vote was 5-0-0 (Houghton, Hartman, Grasberger, Caouette, Cridler) Page 1 1 Case #23-08 - 544 Summer Ave ZBA Chair Cynde Hartman opened the public hearing for Case #23-08 - 544 Summer Ave by reading the legal notice into the record and swearing in members of the public wishing to speak. John Tedesco, the homeowner, briefly explained that they planned to enclose the external stair area to create a mudroom. He noted that they have a drainage easement on their property which created a very limited amount of work they are allowed to do. Originally, they proposed all of the work to be in the back of the home and no mud room but after going before the Conservation Commission, they were told that the work was too close as the proposed patio work fell within the 25'-35' no build zone. In July of 2022 they went back to their plan and came up with the current plan that included the mudroom. John Tedesco stated that they looked into the cost of building up, which would have cost about $400,000-$500,000 when they looked and now could be around $600,000 which is about double the cost of their home and financially unaffordable. John Tedesco stated that they are looking for this to be their forever home and having the mudroom would give them more living space that they need. John Tedesco stated that they believe that the drainage easement creates a unique circumstance and their proposed mudroom is small and is not detrimental to the neighborhood. Cy Caouette asked if the platform on the side is tied to the side yard setback. Bret Bennet stated that the platform does not currently meet setbacks and would be creating a new small non -conformity. Cy Caouette asked if they thought about extending the mudroom so it did not exceed the current dimension. John Tedesco stated that they could not because there was a bathroom there and going further back they would have to close off the window. They tried to make sure the mudroom was as small as possible and went as far back as possible. He also noted that the existing stairs are very small. John Tedesco also stated that he talked to his neighbor about the project and the neighbor submitted a letter of support. The current plans before them are not the original plan as they had to revise them twice for the Conservation Commission which made it very difficult. The Conservation Commission has already seen and approved the plans before them. Chris Cridler asked if there would be new construction for the stairs. John Tedesco stated there would be. Cynde Hartman read the abutters' support letter from abutter Ronald and Nancy Stortz, 538 Summer Ave. Andrew Grasberger made a motion to grant a Variance for Case #23-08- 544 Summer Ave. Chris Cridler seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0. Vote was 5-0-0 (Houghton, Hartman, Grosberger, Caouette, Cridler) Case #23-10.55 Curtis Street ZBA Chair Cynde Hartman opened the public hearing for Case #23-10 - 55 Curtis Street by reading the legal notice into the record and swearing in members of the public wishing to speak. Thomas Bellini, one of the owners of 55 Curtis Street briefly explained his proposal. He noted that the deck at the back of the house and the shed (built about 20 years( were built by the previous home owner. After getting the plot plan and talking to the Building Inspector, it came to his attention that the shed was non -conforming as it is 11 feet from the neighbors yard and not 15 feet. His plans are to address both the shed and the deck during this project by adding an addition off the garage into the area of the shed while maintaining two levels and turning the deck into a three -season porch, since they already have to make repairs to it. Cy Caouette stated that the project was straightforward and he would not be exceeding to existing non- conformity of 10.6 feet Ronald lapicca an abutter from 257 South Street stated that he is happy with his neighbors plans as the existing shed/clubhouse was an eyesore. He also encouraged his neighbor to build the shed area to be Page 1 2 flush with the existing nonconformity as it would be more aesthetically pleasing and as a builder he noted there would be less issue with water damage having one flush wall. Cy Caouette made a motion to grant a Special Permit for Case #23-10 - 55 Curtis Street. Patrick Houghton seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0. Vote was 5-0-0 (Houghton, Hartman, Grasberger, Caouette, Cridler) Case #23-11-106 Prescott Street ZBA Chair Cynde Hartman opened the public hearing for Case #23-11-106 Prescott Street by reading the legal notice into record and swearing in members of the public wishing to speak. Ernest Demaio, the applicant's Architect briefly explained the proposal. He stated that they wanted to put a single -story addition that would extend the existing side yard nonconformity of 12.4 feet in the rear of the home. The only relief that they needed was the side yard setback, as all other aspects of the project meet the standards. Jane Jolkovsi, an abutter from 100 Prescott Street asked if the roof line was flat and Ernest Demaio clarified it was not. There were no comments from the Board. Patrick Houghton made a motion to grant a Special Permit for Case #23-11 - 106 Prescott Street. Alex Grasberger seconded the motion and it was approved S-0-0. Vote was 5-0-0 (Houghton, Hartman, Grasberger, Caouette, Cridler) Case #23-12 - 413 Main Street ZBA Chair Cynde Hartman opened the public hearing for Case #23-12 - 413 Main Street by reading the legal notice into the record and swearing in members of the public wishing to speak. Kelly Jordan, the attorney from Hinkley Allen representing McDonald's Corporation briefly explained the proposed work. She noted the location was in the Business B zoning District in the Downtown Smart Growth District and the existing building was built in 1963 and has been in continuous operations since. The 3,400 square foot restaurant currently has an outdoor play center which faces Main Street, an existing one -lane drive thru with a total of three menu boards (east side), and a pickup window (north side). She noted that McDonald's proposes to raze and rebuild the existing restaurant in approximately the same location, removing the play place. The exact construction date of the existing drive thru is unknown, but has been there since sometime around 1971, through 1994. Kelly Jordan stated that the Variances would be for a dual drive thru with three windows and four signs. The bylaw only allows three signs and does not allow the use of digital signs, she then went over the Variance Criteria questions. Criteria one she noted that they were not building a brand-new restaurant, that they would be rebuilding an existing restaurant, one that has existed since 1963. The drive thru is critical to the business and generates about 70% or more of the restaurant's revenue. The reconfiguration of the drive thru would be modernized to be aesthetically pleasing, remove the play place, have better traffic flow, better landscaping and a new storm water management system, they will be significantly reducing the overall impervious area on the site. The financial hardship faced is that the current restaurant needs upgrading and it would not make sense to put millions of dollars into a facility if they cannot have the drive thru, as the restaurant could not exist in this particular location without it. Page 1 3 Eric Dubrule briefly went over the site plans and renderings of the proposed building. He noted that the building is a very similar location and that there is an underground culvert which restricts the location. They would be using the existing entrance and exit off of Main Street, the site circulation will be one direction ratherthan two, the removal of the existing play area would allow for more landscaping (about 2,400 square feet for the total property), a recirculation lane, and better stormwater management which would meet all the state requirements. Eric Dubrule proceeded to explain the proposed drive thru. He noted that the issue with the current drive thru is the single order point and pick up window. The new proposal would have two order points, which would help avoid the stacking of cars and it will have three windows: payment, pick up and a pull forward window. Eric Dubrule moved on to the explanation of the menu boards. There would be 2 menu boards, one at each order point (20 square feet each) and 2 pre -menu boards (30 square feet each) which is to help customers who are waiting in line. He noted that the digital menu boards would be safer for staff and more environmentally friendly. The lighting to the menu boards would be ambient lighting like a cell phone, if it's bright out it's bright, if it's dark out it dips down. The point is so that the customer is two feet away and can clearly we. The speakers were similar in technology. He also explained that the parking was reduced from 43 spots to 32 spots and was still compliant with the zoning. Jason Adams explained the traffic review. He noted that they visited the site during a weekday peak point (11:30AM through 1:30PM), weekend peak point (4:30PM through 6:30PM) and Saturday midday peak point (11AM through 2PM). During this period the saw up to a 9 -car queue and it did back up to Main Street. The point of the upgrade is to serve the existing customers, though it could bring in a few more cars. The maximum number of parked cars at any time was 20 and the proposed 32 parking spots would take care of the parking. Cynde Hartman asked if the stacking would go towards Bolton Street. Jason Adams stated that the maximum stacking could be 13 vehicles and during their study they only saw a maximum of 9 at one time. The new set up is meant to help with efficiency which means the cars would not be there as long. Cynde Hartman asked what is the purpose of moving the order point away from the back of the building other than creating space for the two lanes. Eric Dubrule stated there were multiple reasons. There was not enough space to put the two lanes plus the bypass lane at the back of the building, and they wanted a certain amount of distance between the payment window and the order points. The distance they have helps pace customers from the order point to the payment window to the pick-up window, which should give staff enough time to have the order ready for them. Chris Cridler asked if the light on the new menu boards would be less light than the existing. Eric Dubrule stated that the existing board was lit internally and did not have dimming capabilities. Chris Cridler also asked if the current sound technology would be significantly reduced in the evening. Thomas Vail stated he was correct. Chris Cridler also asked if there was any additional screening they would be doing on the property. Eric Dubrule stated there was nothing proposed but they were open to suggestions. Cynde Hartman stated that the noise is more of an issue because you cannot control the volume of the individual ordering like you can control the light to the menu boards. Abutter Neil Sumner from 12 Bolton Street stated that he has lived here for 50 years and there has always been an issue with sound. Even with his windows closed he could still hear who was ordering what and had to work with the owner to get that fixed, which took a long time. Page 14 Thomas Vail, a direct abutter, stated that the sound has been an issue. Cynde Hartman read the abutter letter from Thomas Vail, stating that he strongly opposes the project as it would increase the noise level bringing it directly next to his house. Cynde Hartman asked Thomas Vail if the current location of the ordering disturbs him. Thomas Vail stated that he can still hear the ordering when his windows are closed and by putting the ordering closer to his house it would make it worse. Cy Caouette asked if McDonalds was trying to make this drive through configuration a standard for their location. Eric Dubrule stated that they were. Cy Caouette stated that his biggest issue is the need for four signs instead of the three signs allowed by the bylaw and would like to see them look into just the three signs. Eric Dubrule stated that their goal is efficiency, and that they could remove the pre -browse menu boards which would make the ordering less efficient. He also stated that they were allowed 100 square feet of signage, which they were trying to divide that square footage up to make it work for the site. The point is to make the existing operations more efficient, not to drive new customers to the property. Cynde Hartman stated her major concern is the impact to the residence by making it 20 feet closer to them Chris Cridler stated his concerns are the efforts to be made with the neighboring properties to see what changes could help reduce the current sounds/light concerns. Kelly Jordan asked if they could request a continuance to see what ways they can reconfigure things to help with the concerns and to even speak with the abutters. Cy Caouette asked if CPDC would have to approve the signage. Andrew MacNichol stated that they would have to conduct a full site plan review including a sign permit. Patrick Houghton stated that they might also have some issues with the proposed one-way causing backup. Cynde Hartman made a motion to grant a Continue for Case 823-12 - 413 Main Street. Patrick Houghton seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0. Vote was 5-0-0 (Houghton, Hartman, Grasberger, Caouette, Cridler) ZBA Minutes 3/28/23 Andrew Grasberger made a motion to accept the minutes. Chris seconded the motion and It was approved 5-". Vote was 5-0-0 (Houghton, Hartman, Grasberger, Caouette, Cridler) Chris Cridler made a motion to Adjourn the meeting. Patrick seconded the motion and it was approved 5-". Vote was 5-0-0 (Houghton, Hartman, Grasberger, Caouette, Cridler) Page 1 5