HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-12-03 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutescam, fRF,b
Town of Reading
Meeting Minutes
oavoa
Board - Committee - Commission - Council:
Zoning Board of Appeals
Date: 2024-12-03
Building: Reading Town Hall
Address: 16 Lowell Street
Purpose:
Attendees: Members - Present:
Time: 7:00 PM
Location: Select Board Meeting Room
Session:
Version: Final
Andrew Grasberger,Cy Caouette, Cynde Hartman, Chris Cridler, Patrick
Houghton, Tara Gregory, Frank Capone
Members - Not Present:
Others Present:
Building Comissioner Bret Bennett, Administrative Specilist Amanda
Beatrice, Andrew Valk, Dave Lautman, Dana Fowle, Karl Mentz, Beibhinn
O'Donoghue, Mike McCarron, Stephen Marflone, Richard Salvia, Joshua
Latham, Kyle Williams, Andrea Morelli, Jay Gallagher, Altin Korreshi
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Amanda Beatrice
Topics of Discussion:
Case #24-16 — 8 Gilmore Ave
Andrew Grasberger opened the public hearing for Case #24-16-8 Gilmore Ave by reading the legal
notice into the record and swearing in members of the public wishing to speak.
The Petitioner Karl Mentz explained to the Board he was looking to construct a two-story addition. The
construction of the addition would not create any new non -conformities and would only extend the
existing non -conforming rear and front -yard setbacks.
Cy Caouette stated that he has no issues with the proposed project as they are not creating a new non
conformity.
Tara Gregory asked if the foot print of the home would be expanding. Mentz confirmed he was and
referred to the plot plan to show the expansion.
Chris Cridler asked if the entryway was currently enclosed. Mentz confirmed it was. Cridler noted that
he had no issues with the proposed project
Grasberger opened public comment.
Mike McCarron, abutter from 2 Gilmore Ave shared he believed this project was a great addition to the
neighborhood and asked if the contractors could be courteous when they park in the area.
The public comment section was closed
Page 1 1
Cynde Hartman made a motion to approve a Special Permit for Case N24-16-8 Gilmore Ave. Chris
Cridler seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0.
Vote was 5-0-0 (Grasberger, Hartman, Houghton, Cridler, Coouette,)
Case N24-17 — 23 Oak Street
Andrew Grasberger opened the public hearing for Case 824-17 —23 Oak Street by reading the legal
notice into the record and swearing in members of the public wishing to speak.
The Petitioner Stephen Marfonie explained to the Board he was looking to construct a second -story
addition. The construction of the addition would not create any new non -conformities and would only
extend the existing non -conforming side -yard setback.
Cy Caouette stated that he has no issues with the proposed project as they are not creating a new non-
conformity.
Chris Cridler asked if he had been in contact with his neighbors. Marfonie stated that he has as he been
in contact with them and is neighbors have been supportive. All the neighbors are relatively new and
they have had the chance to became friendly with them between all the yard cleanups and projects
everyone has been doing in the neighborhood.
There was no public comment to be made.
Chris Cridler made a motion to approve a special Permit for Case N24-17 — 23 Oak Street. Cynde
Hartman seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0.
Vote was 5-0-0 (Grasberger, Hartman, Houghton, Cridler, Caouette,)
Case 824-18-214 Van Norden Road
Andrew Grasberger opened the public hearing for Case k24-18 —214 Van Norden Road by reading the
legal notice into the record and swearing in members of the public wishing to speak.
The Petitioner Attorney Josh Latham gave a brief overview of the family and their home and then
presented the proposed construction to the Board on behalf of the home owner.
The Valk's purchased the single-family home in 2019 where they continue to raise their 3 young
children. It's a ranch cape style built in 1949. Although it would be cheaper and simpler solution to move
they love the neighborhood that they are in. The existing lot is its over 6,900 sf which is three times the
size requirement of the 520 district's requirements.
Latham explained that the proposed project is to build a new single-family dwelling with a dethatched
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ACU). During the new construction, the Valk's are requesting to continue living
in the existing dwelling on the property until the new construction is complete. Once the new
construction is complete they would demolish the old home to receive the occupancy for the new
dwelling. Latham emphasized that this is an unusual situation where the lot size allows for this
arrangement, alleviating the hardship of relocating the family temporarily, as well as the associated
costs of living elsewhere during construction.
Latham also stated that the family seeks a Special Permit for the ADU, as allowed by the Board, provided
the performance standards are met. He confirmed that all applicable standards were met, referencing
the standards included with the application.
Kyle Williams presented the architectural plans for 241 Van Norden Road to the Board.
Page 1 2
Cynde Hartman asked if there were any plans to grade around the barn (location of future ADU) to bring
the main entrance up. Williams explained that they were trying to as be sensitive to the site as possible
and that the plans are to build the ADU into the hill using the existing topography, which would bring
the front entrance to grade level.
Latham clarified that the other relief they were seeking was permission for the homeowners to continue
living in the existing dwelling during construction. He acknowledged the historical "one dwelling per lot"
provision but could not locate it in the current bylaw. He suggested that while the provision may no
longer exist, it could be implied. He argued that the Board could decide to allow the family to stay in
their current home during construction. The Valk's would be willing to sign a covenant stipulating they
would not receive a second certificate of occupancy until the old home was demolished. Latham also
offered answers to the Variance Criteria, but he felt it might not be necessary to go over them in detail
since they were already included with the application.
Hartman brought up that the plans show the ADU square footage was denied because it was over 1,000
square feet but, on the plans, it shows the size of the ADU as 997 square feet and was looking to clarify
the correct size. Williams noted they had made some dimensional alterations which brought the size
under to max 1,000 square feet.
A discussion took place between Building Commissioner Bret Bennett, the Board members, Latham, and
Williams regarding the gross floor area and what it would include. Bennett noted that he had not
received the updated plans.
Bennett noted that he agreed with Latham regarding the one dwelling per lot provision. Though they
had a hard time finding it in the bylaw, he could not issue a permit for two dwellings on one lot by right.
He also added that by right. Hartman also agreed with both Bennet and Latham.
Cy Caouette believed that there should be a condition added so there is no way it could happen to have
two dwellings on the lot.
Andrew Grasberger noted that we did not want to end up in a future scenario where both dwellings
were occupied and proposed both homes are vacant and the existing dwelling is demolished before an
occupancy could be issued. Latham agreed and noted that no one would be living on the property at the
time of demolition.
Grasberger stated Community Development Director Andrew MacNichol submitted a recommendation
relating to conditions and a few letters of supports from abutters, Richard Salvia of 201 Van Norden
Road, Dana Fowle of 10 Swan Road, and David Lautman & Cheryl Storti of 205 Van Norden Road.
Grasberger opened the Public Comment.
Richard Salvia of 201 Van Norden Road stated he recently moved in and his children have become close
with the Valk's children and would hate to we them have to move while this project took place and fully
supported the project.
David Lautman of 205 Van Norden Road stated he was directly across the street and that he and his wife
are in complete support of the project.
Dana Fowle of 10 Swan Road stated that he agreed with the other abutters and that they are a great
family. He did not see any downsides of them continuing to live in the house while the new construction
takes place and would love to we them proceed without too much more delay.
Page 13
Altin Korreshi of 202 Van Norden Road also agreed that it makes sense for them to continue to live in
the dwelling during the construction and supports their problems.
Andy Valk stated that although it would have been cheaper to move, he enjoys his neighborhood and
has supporting neighbors and you never know what you're going to get if you move.
Bennett asked the Board to note that a Variance for the 1,000 square foot ADU was not required. He
interpreted the phrase "exclusive of any garage, unfinished basement, shed, or other accessory
structure" to apply only to the principal dwelling unit. A brief discussion followed between the Board
members and Bennett regarding Section 5.4.7.3(b). The Board clarified that they interpreted this section
to exclude the garage from the calculations, meaning a Variance was not needed.
Patrick Houghton made a motion to approve a Special Permit for an Accessory Dwelling unit for Case
#24-18 — 214 Van Norden. Tara Gregory seconded the motion and H was approved 5-0-0.
Vote was 5-0-0 (Grasberger, Hartman, Houghton, Cridler, Caouette)
Hartman made a motion in response the Petitioners Appeal of the Building Commissioners Decision
under section 5.2.4. The Board does not feel that this section applies as it a residential property and not
a commercial property. Therefor does not prohibit the application to stay in the existing dwelling as the
new dwelling is being constructed. The Board added a condition requiring a restrictive covenant to be
recorded before work begins. The covenant stipulates that, before the final occupancy permit is issued
for the new dwelling, the existing structure must be demolished, and no one shall occupy the new
structure until demolition is complete.
Cynde Hartman made a motion to approve the Appeal of the Building Commissioner Decision under
5.2.4 with conditions for Case #24-38— 214 Van Norden. Patrick Houghton seconded the motion and H
was approved 5-0-0.
Vote was 5-0-0 (Grasberger, Hartman, Houghton, Cridler, Caouette)
Minutes
11/6/2024
Patrick Houghton made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Chris Cridler seconded the
motion and it was approved 5-0-0.
Vote was 5-0-0 (Grasberger, Hartman, Houghton, Cridler, Coouette)
Motion to Adjourn
Cynde Hartman made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Chris Cridler the motion and it was approved
6-0-0.
Vote was 6-0-0 (Grasberger, Hartman, Houghton, Cridler, Caouette, Gregory, Capone)
Page 14