Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-05-19 Zoning Board of Appeals Minuteso�or Town of Reading /?r`, %Nly,�f V�v ° C(E x Meeting Minutes ?13'"'fIrt�, �/( n��''',.w<aw.�" SEP -66r Board -Committee -Commission -Council: y h 35 Zoning Board of Appeals Date: 2022-05-19 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, Alex Normandin, Andrew Grasberge, Ryan Bourque and Patrick Houghton Members - Not Present: Hillary Mateev Others Present: Staff Planner Andrew MacNlchol, Building Inspector Bret Bennett, Monica McCarthy, Sean McCarthy, Wayne Coffill, Patricia Coffill, Nancy Twomey, Bill Crowley, Stephen Weynicz Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Amanda Beatrice Topics of Discussion: Mr. Alex Normandin called the meeting into order at 7:01 PM. Case #22.06.57 County Road Mr. Normandin opened the continuance for Case #22-06 - 57 County Road. He read the legal notice into the record and swore in members of the public wishing to speak. Attorney Mr. Bill Crowley stated he hoped to convince the Board that this particular case does not need a Variance as the Reading Zoning Bylaw does not define a corner lot as having two front yards, which was the reason for the denial. He noted that many other municipalities have that definition in their Bylaws but Reading does not. He went on to read his supplied memo for the people who did not get a chance to read. The overall conclusion was that there is no definition of a corner lot having two front yards and that the applicants should not need a Variance for this project. Mr. Crowley also referred to Mr. Glen Redmond's letter stating his opinion that all comer lots have two front yard setbacks, with which he disagrees. He asked that the Board consider issuing a Decision that no Variance is required. Ms. Cynde Hartman stated that she understands his argument regarding the interpretation of the bylaws. She believes it is just as reasonable to interpret it in a way that makes both front yards, and she looks to the purpose of the setback requirements. She asked if he could address the purpose of having a larger distance setback from the street. Mr. Crowley stated that he did not know the reasoning behind the drafters of the bylaws for the difference between the front yard or side yard. His point was that many municipalities have included corner lot definition in their Bylaws. He noted that there is one front door, one back door and two sides to the house. The front door faces County Road and the side of the Page I I house faces the other side street. He noted that in contract law, ambiguity is construed against the person who drafted it. Mr. Patrick Houghton asked Mr. Crowley if he had done any research into case studies. Mr. Crowley stated he had not done any research on any use studies. Building Commissioner Mr. Bret Bennett stated that they all agree that there is no definition of a corner lot. He read the definition of frontage and front yard and stated that he based his decision on the fact that they had frontage on both County and Howard streets. He also noted that part of his job description notes that he needs to interpret Bylaws. Mr. Crowley stated that his argument is about setbacks and not the frontage. Mr. Normandin asked Mr. Crowley to clarify his thoughts on setback and frontage. Mr. Crowley stated that the definition of frontage is where the line of the property meets the right of way and there is only one front. Mr. Normandin noted that based on this definition of frontage, this house has frontage on two streets. Mr. Caouette stated that at the last meeting they were looking for more information showing that the homeowners looked into all of their options. He noted that there was no clear-cut information from anyone. Mr. Caouette also noted he agreed with most of the memo Mr. Crowley read. Ms. Hartman stated that she agrees with the Building Commissioner's decision and believed that Variances are difficult to get but in this particular case should be granted. Mr. Normandin opened the meeting up to public comment. Ms. Nancy Twomey stated that the definition of frontage is simply to determine when picking one side or another as the front in order to meet lot requirements. She also noted that there are at least 4-5 similar Variances that were granted with no issue. She also noted that there are other towns that define a corner lot, as well as many other towns that do not, Woburn being one of them. She also brought up that if you did determine that a lot has two fronts then you would need to determine if a lot has two rears or two sides. Ms. Hartman asked Ms. Twomey how a lot with more than 4 sides are looked at when determining the sides. Ms. Twomey noted that anything that is less than 90 degrees opposite the front she considers the rear and anything that touches the front she considers a side, with one street determining the frontage. Ms. Hartman made a motion to make a Finding for Case #22-06 - 57 County Road. Mr. Caouette seconded and it was approved 5-0-0 (Hartman, Grasberger, Caouette, Houghton, Normandin). DEFINE FINDING Mr. Grasberger asked if there was a formal procedure to make changes to the Bylaw and definitions for a corner lot. Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol stated yes and briefly explained the process to the Board. Case #22-07 -10 Grand Street Mr. Normandin opened the public hearing for Case #22-07 -10 Grand Street. He noted that the applicants requested to withdraw their application without prejudice. Mr. Caouette made a motion to accept applicants request to Withdraw without prejudice. Mr. Grasberger seconded H and H was approved 5-" (Hartman, Grasberger, Caouette, Houghton, Normandin). Page 1 2 Case #22-08 - 31 Park Ave Mr. Caouette opened the public hearing for Case #22-08 - 31 Park Ave. He read the legal notice into the record and swore in members of the public wishing to speak. Mr. Normandin recused himself as he is a direct abutter to the property. The applicant Ms. Patti Coffill stated that they were looking to add a two-story addition to their home including an accessory apartment for her mother as she is elderly and needs more help. Ms. Hartman stated that she thinks the addition will fit in the neighborhood and has no issues with it. Mr. Andrew Grasberger agreed. Mr. Caouette went through the Accessory Apartment Standards with the applicants and had no issues. Mr. Caouette opened the meeting up to public comment. Mr. Stephan Weynicz, stated that he supports his neighbors' project. Mr. Caouette closed the public comment. Mr. Houghton made a motion to approve the Special Permit for Case #22-08 - 31 Parke Ave. Mr. Grasberger seconded the motion and it was approved 4-04) (Hartman, Grasberger, Caouette, Houghton). Other Topics Mr. MacNichol then briefly had a conversation with the Board about reorganizing. Mr. Houghton made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:35pm. Mr. Grasberger seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0. Page 1 3