Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-09-07 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes11 vj4 Lt-MK J Town of Reading ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes of September 7, 2006 Members present: Robert Redfern Susan Miller John Jarema Paul Dustin Michael Conway CP > C n .sj ¢n cry Members absent: Peter Tedesco A meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room of the Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts, at 7:00 P.M. Also in attendance was Glen Redmond, Commissioner of Buildings. Case # 06-18 A Public Hearing on the petition of Pam & James Borys who seek a determination from the Zoning Board of Appeals that their existing property is a three-family dwelling under Section 6.3 of the Zoning By-laws in order to determine if the existing structure and use (three-family) is a proper use and may be allowed to continue on the property located at 65 Harnden Street in Reading, MA. The Building Inspector said the building records jacket and computer files do not have any permits allowing this dwelling to convert to a three-family house. The Applicants wanted a letter from him stating that it was a legal three-family and he does not have the power to do this. The Building Inspector thought the Applicants should appear before the Board for a determination. Mr. Borys said the house is next door to a boardinghouse and another multi-family dwelling. The abutters submitted a letter saying that in their opinion Mr. Borys' house has always been a three- family. Mr. Borys said there have been three gas meters for many years so he assumed there must have been a permit to put these in. There are also three electrical meters. The man the Borys bought the house from told them it was a legal three-family. The previous Building Inspector made comments on a letter written by the former owner but what he wrote on the letter was undecipherable. The Borys contend that the Town has been aware of this structure as being a three-family, but the Assessor's office, according to Town records, considers this is a two-family dwelling according to their records and that is how the Borys have been taxed since they purchased it. Mr. Borys said if the Board determines this structure is a two-family they will lose money on this investment property when they try to sell it. The Building Inspector said the property would need 40,000 square feet to be classed as an apartment. The Chairman said this property came before the ZBA before and the petitions were ZBA Minutes, September 7, 2006 denied. In 1973 and 1972 the owner wanted to have an office in the structure and in 1976 they asked for the property to be considered a three-family and it was denied because it was not zoned for a three-family. From 1940 to 1972 it was a funeral home and then it was occupied as a two- family. Mr. Borys said he is unable to locate the permits for the meters so they must be lost. He also said that, in his opinion, the RMLD would not have installed the three meters without a permit. Mr. Borys said because the Building Inspector can't find any permits it does not mean that they were not issued. Mr. Redmond said there were not any permits in the building records jacket or listed in the computer system either. He also said most two-families have three meters because the third one is installed for the common areas and this is how most illegal three families are converted from two. Mrs. Borys said they never would have purchased this property if it was not a legal three-family. Their bank attorney accepted the letter from the previous owner stating it was a legal three- family. She said the previous Building Inspector said it was non-conforming but legal. Mr. Conway said the lot may be non-conforming but the use is not. The Building Inspector said if someone wanted to change a two-family to a three-family and they did not have the required lot size they would be denied. Mrs. Borys said this house has always been an income producing structure. If someone buys it and it is not a legal three-family they would not be able to get enough money to make it workable. Mr. Redfern asked if the Building Inspector or the Assessor has been inside the house and the Building Inspector said he had not since it must have been converted. Mr. Redfern wondered if the house met today's building code requirements and had the appropriate egresses. Mr. Borys said there are three separate units with full kitchens and one parking space per unit. Previous tenants used to park in the municipal lot before the police station was built. Mr. Redfern told Mr. Borys that the requirement is 1 %2 spaces per unit. Virginia Adams, Historical Commission, said the house was on 12, acres of land when it was built and was the first sub-division in the Town. She said it is an important house, is on the National Register and part of the common historic district. The Commission hoped the owners would keep its present appearance and they also hoped the Board would allow it to be kept intact and in use. Karen Herrick, Historical Commission, said she is a realtor and has no interest in this property but she does agree with the sellers that it is more marketable as a three-family dwelling. She said this property would be a likely candidate for demolition with new construction, of three townhouses. She hopes the Board will say it is a legal three-family so it will be bought by someone who will keep it as is. ZBA Minutes, September 7, 2006 Ms. Miller said they may not be convinced that it was converted legally to a three-family but if it can be proven that it has been in use over ten years as a three-family then they can make a determination. Mr. Borys said their buyer wanted a statement from the Town that this is a legal three-family. When the buyer went to the Assessor's office he was told it was a two-family. The Building Inspector said the Assessors bases their opinion on what they see when they inspect and this house has not been inspected in a very long time. Mr. Jarema said in 1967 the lot size was 6,900 square feet and since then the Assessor's cards say it is a two-family with two bathrooms. He said they need to know what the lot size was before zoning. Saying this is a three-family would be denying the records as they are now and the owner can put in as many electrical and gas meters as they want and it still does not denote anything. Ms. Adams said if the determination hinges on the lot size she can look at some of the old Assessor's books in the Historical Commission's office and find out what the lot size was in 1942. Ms. Herrick said there are lots of errors in the Assessors' system and many people are paying taxes that are too high. She said the Borys were probably paying what they would have been paying even if it had been listed as a three-family. Ms. Miller said it is evident that the ten year rule does not apply to illegal uses. The Borys would have to show that the renovations done in 1982 were done with the required building permits. Mr. Jarema said if the lot size was 6,900 square feet prior to zoning then it is a non-complying situation and the Applicants should be entitled to the zoning. But he said they must come back and meet certain requirements such as parking. He said if the 6,900 square feet was accurate at the time the zoning occurred in 1942 this would have been a legal lot at the time of the zoning and been classed a non-complying lot and non-conforming by the new zoning. Some Board members thought Town Counsel should review the case and give suggestions as to what the Board could do. Ms. Miller said even if Town Counsel gave her opinion she did not know how that would really help because the Board cannot influence the Assessor's opinion. The Chairman said the Board can probably agree that this property has been used as a three- family but it does not appear to be a legal three-family. Ms. Miller asked Mrs. Borys if she had asked the Assessor to make an inspection of this property and she said no. She said she had always assumed they were paying taxes on a three-family and did not know they were being taxed as a two-family. Mrs. Borys said she personally called Town Counsel to speak with her but Town Counsel said she could do this only at the request of the Board. The Building Inspector said it must be remembered that there were no permits for this conversion from a two-family to a three -family. ZBA Minutes, September 7, 2006 The Chairman said the Board needs to ask Town Counsel's opinion about the property as a three- family dwelling. Mr. Borys requested a continuation until October 5, 2006 so Town Counsel can review the case and submit her opinion to the Board. On a motion by Mr. Conway, seconded by Mr. Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to continue the hearing to October 5, 2006. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Conway). Case # 06-19 A Public Hearing on the petition of Kevin & Tracey Daley who seek a Special Permit under § 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws in order to remove a portion (14' x 16) of an existing non- conforming structure and to reconstruct a larger portion within the required side yard setback on the property located at 124 Pearl Street in Reading, MA. Kevin Daley said on the back of his dwelling there is a 14' x 16' room that is within the 15' setback. They want to demolish the entire 14' x 16' structure and rebuild but enlarge it slightly They will use the existing footprint but expand to the south. The replacement will match the house better than the existing structure. The Chairman read letters submitted from abutters in favor of this project. The Building Inspector said it is a simple reconstruction after voluntary destruction. On a motion by Mr. Dustin, seconded by Mr. Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the Applicant a Special Permit under § 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws in order to remove a portion (14' x 16") of an existing non-conforming structure and to reconstruct a larger addition within the required side yard setback on the property. The addition is limited to the required setbacks and those dimensions as depicted on the Certified Plot Plan, referenced in Paragraph Two of the decision. This Special Permit is conditioned upon the following: 1. The Petitioner shall submit to the Building Inspector a Certified Plot Plan of the proposed construction and proposed foundation plans, prior to the issuance of a foundation permit for the work. 2. The Petitioner's final construction plans for the new structure shall be submitted to the Building Inspector, along with the as-built foundation plan(s), prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 3. As-built plans showing the completed construction shall be submitted to the Building Inspector immediately after the work is completed and prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit. 4 ZBA Minutes, September 7, 2006 The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Conway). Minutes: On a motion by Ms. Miller, seconded by Mr. Dustin, the minutes of July 20, 2006 were approved. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Conway). On a motion by Mr. Dustin, seconded by Mr. Jarema, the minutes of August 17, 2006 were approved with changes. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Conway). Other business: Ben Tafoya The Chairman gave a report on his meeting with Ben Tafoya, Chairman of the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Tafoya just wanted to introduce himself to the Board and offered to help if needed with any issues. Mr. Redfern did mention to him the discussion the Board had regarding the licensing of kennels. Mr. Tafoya will find out why the applicants would be appearing before the ZBA for a kennel license. Mr. Dustin said he had emailed the Town Manager with the same question but did not get a response. Reading Land Trust Ms. Miller had received a call from Sandy Matathia of the Reading Open Land Trust regarding a lot of land that the Land Trust owns on Scotland Road. The Land Trust is concerned about it because it is an isolated vacant parcel one lot in from West Street and they would like to sell it. There may also be wetland issues connected with this lot. It is non-conforming lot, in regards to area and required frontage. It was reported that the Conservation Commission expressed informal approval of what the Land trust wanted to do but, the Land Trust wanted an opinion from the ZBA as to whether the relief that they would be seeking may be excessive. On a motion by Mr. Dustin, seconded by Ms. Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Conway). ~2ure pec en M. Recording SE ZBA Minutes, September 7, 2006