2018-08-01 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes

Home Browse Search

explained that the Board can't approve and stamp plans that aren't explicit to what is proposed to be done. Mr. Reynolds stated they understood they will need to ask for a continuance to sort out more details. Mr.Jarema confirmed the Applicants are requesting a continuance to 8/15/18. On a motion made by Mr.Redfern,seconded by Mr. Caouette,the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to continue case#18.09 to 9(15/18. Vote was 4.0.0(Jarema, Redfern, Caouette,Penrice) Case#18-10 65 Longfellow The Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a Public Hearing in the Selectmen's Meeting Room at Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street,Reading,Massachusetts on Wednesday,August 1,2018 at 7:00 PM on the application of Michael Welch,pursuant to M.G.L.Ch.40A§9 for a Special Permit under Reading Zoning Bylaw Sections 7.3.2,and 6.3,to demolish the existing nonconforming dwelling on a nonconforming lot and to construct a new single family dwelling on the property located at 65 Longfellow Road in Reading,Massachusetts. Mr. Jarema read the case into record. Michael Welch was present on behalf of the application. Mr.Welch presented the history of the case and discussed meetings with the building inspector for the original plans leading up to how they came to apply for a Special Permit. Mr.Jarema read the memo from Glen Redmond into the record and commented that the property was a very unique parcel with several unique qualities including water and sewer easements and access through the school. He advised the Applicant that there are only 4 members of the Board present tonight and they have the right to continue to the next hearing for a 5 member Board. Mr. Redfern commented that the case was not advertised to include a Variance and if it was deemed needed then the Town would have to re-advertise. Mr. Jarema commented that the application had many issues that needed to be addressed. Mr. Jarema advised the Applicant of the options to proceed or continue. Mr.Welch stated he'd like to start with a continuance and asked if the public could speak. Mr. Jarema opened discussion to the Board first for questions or comments. Mr. Pemice asked 8 Mr.Welch knew when the addition was added. Mr.Welch said he did not know. Mr. Pemice commented that if it was older than 10 years,than that would make it a legal non-conforming structure. Mr. Dan Ensminger of Oakland Road spoke as an abutter and stated he could attest that the addition was there since 1978 when they bought their home. Mr. Redfern stated that it was pretty straightforward—they will need Variances for frontage, side yard setbacks, lot coverages, and undersize lot unless they take the existing footprint and build on that. He advised if they chose that route, they may not need to come back before the Board. Mr. Redfern explained that they will need at least 4 or 5 Variances and they will need arguments for them and have to present for them. Mr. Caouette commented on the strangeness of this case and how the existing structure violates all setbacks. He stated that the proposed plan would correct some of that but would increase the lot coverage. He opined the plan needed an update. Mr.Jarema opened discussion to the public. Mr. Dan Ensminger, Oakland Road, stated his support for this project. He discussed the history of the property and passed pictures to the Board to address his concern. He commented on the potential for infestation of rodents and asked for conditions to be added for the Health Agent to be part of. Ms. Kathy Young, Longfellow Road, stated she would love to see the structure demolished to avoid trouble with high school kids and families of small wildlife. She stated her only concerns were how the water table will be affected if the structure is on a slab citing concerns of water coming into her basement,and also concems of her property being in the shade for a good portion of the day based on the height of the proposed structure. Page 1 2