No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-04-21 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutesgrq�O ACy � � Town of Reading rc) w EjV E y e� ;, Meeting Minutes A,DjN E RE ! RK ,. r. MA. ?(:'SEP-6 AM7 36 Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Zoning Board of Appeals Date: 2022-04-21 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 Grasberger and Patrick Houghton Members - Not Present: Hilary Mateev Others Present: Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol, Building Inspector Bret Bennett, Sabina Seligman, Mark Mulligan, Nancy Twomey, Ashley Mulligan, Mark Mulligan Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Amanda Beatrice Topics of Discussion: Mr. Alex Normandin called the meeting to order at 7:00pm. Mr. MacNichol went overthe hybrid meeting procedures. Case #22-06-57 County Road Mr. Normandin stated that the applicant requested a continuance to the May 19th meeting for Case #22-06 - 57 County Road. Ms. Cynde Hartman made a motion to wntinue the Variance for Case #22-06 - 57 County Road to May 19, 2022. Mr. Andrew Grasberger seconded the motion and it was approved 4-0-0 (Hartman, Grasberger, Caouette, Normandin). Case #22-07 -10 Grand Street Mr. Normandin opened the public hearing for Case #22-07-10 Grand Street. He read the legal notice into the record and swore in the members of the public wishing to speak. Ms. Sabina Seligman, with Blackdog Design Build Remodel, briefly explained the project, highlighting that the most logical place for the addition would be the left side of the house as it would be the best way to avoid redesigning the existing house interior. Ms. Hartman asked the applicant if the existing porch encroached on the setbacks. The applicant stated it did not. Ms. Hartman asked the applicant to go over variance criteria 1—the circumstances of the topography and property. Ms. Seligman stated that the lot is a bit narrow for what they were trying to do. Mr. Normandin asked the applicant if there would be a new foundation and Ms. Seligman confirmed Page I 1 there would be anew one. Mr. Normandin asked about the proposed new door. Ms. Seligman stated that there would be two doors, a sliding door from the new living area and they would be adding another door. She also noted that the deck is more of an egress landing than an actual deck for people to sit on and use. Mr. Normandin asked if they explored all the opportunities to expand towards the rear of the property to keep the addition within the setbacks. Mr. Mark Mulligan, the homeowner, stated that their front porch is south facing which means that there is a very narrow window of time when there is sun in the backyard. This makes it hard to keep grass growing and if they were to build the extension in the back, there would end up being no sun and the backyard would turn into a mud pit. Ms. Seligman stated that she had explored that option but the issue was still the width of the room in the rear, the small size possible making the room difficult to furnish. Mr. Grasberger asked why the addition was not on the garage side or above the existing garage. Ms. Seligman stated that there would have been financially and logistically challenging to be able to get the garage to support a second floor based on its current construction and therefore would incur the cost of removal. Mr. Mulligan also noted that there is a breezeway in between the house and the garage. Mr. Caouette stated that their lot is one of several properties that is a very small plot and it is a problem, limiting the options. He asked what the garage was used for and Mr. Mulligan stated it is currently used for storage. Mr. Caouette stated he had an issue with variance criteria number 2—substantial hardship. Ms. Seligman stated that rebuilding the garage to add the addition would be roughly twice the cost. Mr. Mulligan stated that the current proposed design also gives them the ability to continue living in the home while the addition was being built, whereas the other option would require them to move everything out of the garage into some type of pod to hold it during construction. Ms. Hartman asked Ms. Seligman to clarify the size of the addition in regard to the bedroom. The conclusion was that the entire addition would be 1S'x16' but due to the attic space and closet the bedroom would be about 12'x12'. Ms. Hartman also noted her issue was also with variance criteria 2. The homeowner Ms. Ashley Mulligan stated that the small spare room could possibly turn into an office space when the children get a little older. She stated that she and Mr. Mulligan both work from home and since they do not have an office space, they are working out of the living room. She also stated that they love where they live but if they cannot get this addition either they would have to move or not continue with their plans to expand their family in the future. Mr. Normandin opened the meeting to public comment and with no public comment, closed the public comment. Mr. Normandin gave the applicants their options to move forward; continue the meeting or take a vote, which meant they need all four members to approve it. Ms. Mulligan brought up an issue where they initially believed that the existing fence was the property line which turns out that was not the case. She and Mr. Mulligan asked the Board if it was possible to get purchase some land from the neighbor to change the setback. Ms. Seligman stated that they would like to request a continuance to May 19, 2022. Mr. Grasberger made a motion to continue the Variance for Case N22-07-10 Grand Street. Mr. Normandin seconded the motion and it was approved 4-0-0 (Hartman, Grasberger, Caouette, Normandin) ZBA Minutes 9/14/21 & 11/9/21 Page 1 2 On a motion made by Ms. Hartman, and seconded by Mr. Grasberger, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept the minutes for 9/14/21 and 11/9/21 as amended. Vote was 4-0-0 (Hartman, Grasberger, Caouette, Normandin) The meeting adjourned at 7:56 PM. Page 1 3