HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-01-06 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesOPR
O i
Town of Reading
Meeting Minutes
e' JD'I.Y(OPr�
Board - Committee - Commission - Council:
Zoning Board of Appeals
Date: 2022-01-06
Building: Reading Town Hall
Address: 16 Lowell Street
Purpose:
Attendees: Members - Present:
Time: 7:00 PM
To ECLERK
MA.
21123 SEP -7 PH 3: 27
Location: Select Board Meeting Room
Session:
Version: Final
Hillary Mateev, Cynde Hartman, Cy Caouette, Alex Normandin, Ryan
Bourque and Patrick Houghton, Andrew Grasberger
Members - Not Present:
Others Present:
Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol, Building Inspector Bret Bennett, Brian
Currier, Mike Weafer, Amy Weafer, Matt Digby, David Decker, Matthew
McLeod, Michael Storti, Harry Lomas, Annette Lomas, Cliff Winsor
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Amanda Beatrice
Topics of Discussion:
Case #21-17 -470 Main Street
Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol gave a brief overview of how the hybrid meeting will work.
Case #21-17 - 470 Main Street
ZBA Chair Hillary Mateev opened the public hearing for Case N21-17-470 Main Street.
The applicant Brian Currier briefly explained the signage plan from the previous meeting.
ZBA Member Cy Caouette stated that Andrew MacNichol had done more research on the history of this
property, although the additional research did not provide enough information for him to come to a
resolution. He still believes a Variance would be required and he did not see a substantial hardship here.
ZBA Member Alex Normandin stated that he could see a hardship for a sign on the back of the building
(western side) but not an additional sign for the front. He also asked the applicant if there was ever a
sign on the north -facing side. Brian Currier stated that there was evidence of a sign being there.
ZBA Member Cyndee Hartman stated she agreed with Alex and that the blade sign made a difference
and that a hardship would not be necessary.
ZBA Member Ryan Bourque agreed with the other Board members that it did not meet the criteria.
Hillary Mateev went over the bylaws and stated they would need a Variance for the third sign. Cyndee
Hartman agreed.
Gage I 1
Brian Currier asked to clarify which signs they could get without approval. Cyndee Hartman stated that
one wall sign was allowed by -right.
Cy Caouette asked Andrew MacNichol how staff interpreted the bylaw. Andrew stated that he and Brett
Bennett, Building Commissioner interpreted the building as 1 tenant using table 8.6 as allowing two wall
signs and one blade sign. Cy and Andrew concluded that they could go to CPDC for a freestanding sign.
Building Commissioner Bret Bennett stated he also agrees with what everyone has stated.
Brian Currier asked if the best case of action would be to choose which sign to keep (side or back sign)
and would eliminate the need for a Variance for the third wall. There would be an option to get a special
permit for a direction sign to help direct the traffic in the back.
Bret Bennett stated that if they wanted a third wall sign they would need a Variance.
Hillary Mateev opened the meeting to public comment. With no comments to be made, closed the
public comment.
- Cyndee Hartman made a motion to grant a Finding that two wall -signs were allowed by right and no
relief was required for Case #21-17-470 Main Street as presented. Alex Normandin seconded the
motion and it was approved 5-0-0.
Vote was 5-0-0 (Mateev, Bourque, Normandin, Caouette, Hartman)
-Cyndee Hartman made a motion to accept the Variance withdrawal for Case #21-17 — 470 Main
Street as presented. Cy Caouette seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0.
Vote was 5-0-0 (Mateev, Bourque, Normandin, Caouette, Hartman)
Case #21-18 — 31-33 Village Street
ZBA Chair Hillary Mateev opened the public hearing for Case #21-18-31-33 Village Street. She read the
legal notice into the record and swore in members of the public wishing to speak.
The applicant Mike and Amy Weafer briefly explained their project was a two-story deck with an existing
and proposed side yard setback of 9 feet 3 inches. He also noted that his in-laws were in the other unit
and had no issues.
ZBA Member Cyndee Hartman asked the applicant to verify that the deck would be on the same
footprint and the applicant verified it would.
Hillary Mateev asked the applicant to verify that the setback would not project closer to the side yard,
the shed is being removed and they are adding a railing. The applicant referred Hillaryto plans to show
her the proposed deck and that they are vertically extending.
ZBA Member Alex Normandin asked what room the deck would be coming off of and what the use
would be. The applicant stated the kitchen and chairs, plants, etc. would be what is used.
ZBA Member Ryan Bourque stated that he is in favor of this project as it doesn't make a substantial
change to the neighborhood.
Hillary Mateev opened the meeting to public comment. With no comments, closed the public comment
Page 1 2
Ryan Bourque made a motion to approve a Special Permit for Case #22-18-31-33 Village Street as
presented. Alex Normandin seconded the motion and it was approved 5-".
Vote was 5-0.0 (Mateev, Bourque, Normandin, Caouette, Hartman)
Case #22-01-16 Winter Street
ZBA Chair Hillary Mateev opened the public hearing for Case 22-01-16 Winter Street. She read the
legal notice into the record and swore in members of the public wishing to speak on.
The applicant Matt Digby briefly explained the project was a two-story addition with an existing non-
conforming side -yard set -back.
ZBA Member Cyndee Hartman asked the applicant if they were going back on the existing non-
conformity by about twenty feet and they stated yes.
Cyndee Hartman stated that it was a large addition and substantial extension of the non -conformity and
does not feel as if she could support the project.
ZBA Member Alex Normandin asked if the applicant could provide the max height of the addition. Matt
Digby said the existing roofline is about 29.1 feet. Alex also asked if anything else on the existing
structure would be changed. The applicant stated no, the only thing that would be changing visually
from the driveway side staying within the 115 -foot setback. Alex stated he also agrees with what Cyndee
had said.
ZBA Member Cy Caouette asked why the addition was so big. The applicant stated that it was large to
accommodate the office space for the business, a master bedroom, and a great room. They currently
have no play space for the children to play in and also wanted to accommodate the other children in the
neighborhood who frequently come over. Cy also asked if the trees to the right of the house were on his
or his abutter's property. Matt stated it's possible they are on both lots. He does not believe that the
trees will be affected. Cy also asked if he had talked to any of the abutters and Matt stated he gave
them copies of the plans and he hasn't heard anything from them.
ZBA Member Andrew Grasberger asked if there was any thought about going backward instead of to the
side. Matt stated that the addition was going back so they did not have to have to go for a special permit
and a variance and they would still like to use the yard space.
ZBA Member Patrick Houghton asked the applicant if they would be willing to reduce the addition on
the deck side. Matt stated they used that layout in order to use the mud room and office room.
Hillary Mateev stated she also has some of the same concerns as the other Board Members. Some of
her concerns were the north/right side elevation, as they are big walls for the neighbors and she would
like to we it scaled down. Matt Digby asked what would be acceptable and that he thought the purpose
of the lot coverage was so that they could design their house within those. Hillary stated that his
neighbors also have large houses and she was divided if this was keeping with the existing
neighborhood. Matt Digby stated that they had purchased the home for $250,000 and there are no
homes on the street selling for $1.2 million dollars. Part of the reason they got the architect was to give
a design based on what he saw.
Hillary Mateev opened the meeting to public comment.
Abutter Mr. Decker stated that he is an immediate abutter and just found out about the hearing. He
noted that concerned about the setbacks because this was a big addition. He believed that the addition
Page 1 3
would hurt his property values as it's a 3 -story building on the northside and only eight feet from his
property line and about 20 feet from his home and that his home would lose a lot of sunlight and gain
more runoff from snow and rain.
When he had his addition put on, they had to move it back 8 inches. He also noted there would be a loss
of privacy, 3 of the trees were on his property, and excavating so close to the trees would comprise the
root structure. Mr. Decker stated that there would be plenty of room on the property that would follow
the setback. Matt Digby stated that the deck area was already excavated before without incident toward
the tree and understood everyone's concern. He also noted if he moved the addition to the back, it
would be like walking through a maze, which he believes could be a safety issue. Mr. Decker stated that
footings were not the same as putting a hole in the back and that there was no hardship and there is no
reason they should beagle to put the addition any closer than the 15 -foot setback.
Hillary Mateev stated that she believes both have stated their points.
Mike an abutter from 8 Winter Street stated he was one house down and that he has four girls that
spend time at his house and that he would hate to see them not get the space they need causing them
to make the choice to move.
Harry and Annette, abutters from 13 Winter Street, stated that the girls are preteens and when they
were little girls, sharing a room wasn't an issue but as teenagers they need more space. As parents, they
have already gone through this situation. They also stated that the Digbys have been great neighbors.
Cliff an abutter from 19 Winter Street stated that he did not have an issue with the addition. He also
said that they have been great neighbors and also would hate to see them choose to move.
Matthew McLeod is a direct abutter, stated that if they were to push their addition further back it would
create more shade.
Mr. Decker stated that their other neighbors would not be affected the same way as the other
neighbors due to their location. He stated that there was plenty of room for them to get what they need
without using the plan they have. Mr. Digby believes this application should be rejected.
Hillary Mateev closed the public comment.
Cy Caouette stated that it is a big addition but this is a grandfathered piece of property that is small in
size and when people want to expand, it is hard to do it without the space. They are not creating a new
non -conformity and are living within the existing nonconformity and he would technically not have a
problem and it would probably increase the value of the neighborhood. Though he is uncomfortable
with the size of the addition, it would not stop him from thinking positively about the project.
Cyndee Harman stated that she recognizes the need for the space and the neighbors' support. She also
noted that a hardship would not be required for this permit but she believes this is more substantial and
detrimental than the existing nonconformity. She believes that there is plenty of space for them to
achieve what they want without substantially extending the nonconformity. She would not support this
project.
ZBA Member Ryan Bourque stated he agreed with both Cy Caouette and Cyndee and thought they could
probably modify the project to a more workable plan
Andrew Grasberger stated he also agrees but also thinks there would be a benefit of everyone meeting
in the middle.
Alex Normandin stated that he understands everyone's thoughts. He believes that it is too much of an
extension and would request to see what modification could be to meet the requirements. Matt asked
Page 1 4
what becomes acceptable about the size of the structure and he is not sure what he should tell his
architect. Cynde stated there's no hardline rule as it is a case-by-case basis. Matt stated he is looking for
a clearer perimeter of what would/would not be acceptable so he can provide that to his architect.
Cyndee stated that for her it's not just the length of the structure, that it was the combination of the
length and the height.
The Board members agreed that they cannot give the applicant a specific number as they are there to
decide if the project is or is not detrimental to the neighborhood, which they do and he would have to
work with his team. If his design was to meet setbacks and lot coverage he would not need approval
from the Zoning Board.
Alex Normandin made a motion to continue Special Permit, Case 022-01-16 Winter Street to
February 3, 2022. Cynde Hartman seconded the motion to continue the hearing 5-".
Vote was 5-0-0 (Mateev, Bourque, Normandin, Caouette, Hartman)
Adiournment
Cynde Hartman made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:05PM. Cy Caouette seconded the motion
and it was approved 5-0-0.
Page 1 5