Laserfiche WebLink
-rq o ��tCcl\ <br /> Town of Reading TOWN C ' <br /> x' Meeting Minutes <br /> H I GY 24 PM 3: 23 <br /> Board - Committee - Commission - Council: <br /> Zoning Board of Appeals <br /> Date: 2021-04-15 Time: 7:00 PM <br /> Building: Location: <br /> Address: Session: <br /> Purpose: Version: <br /> Attendees: Members - Present: <br /> Robert Redfern, Nick Pernice, Hillary Mateev, Cynde Hartman, Jamie <br /> Maughan, Chris Emilius <br /> Members - Not Present: <br /> Alex Normandin <br /> Others Present: <br /> Staff Planner Andrew MacNichol. Building Commissioner Brett Bennett, <br /> Building Inspector Glen Redmond, Steven Cicatelli, Nathan Jang, Donald <br /> Green, Naomi Kaufman, Timothy Mello, Rick Nazzaro, Bill Penny <br /> Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Andrew MacNichol <br /> Topics of Discussion: <br /> Staff Planner Andrew Machlichol briefly explained the protocols fortonight's meetingthat is <br /> being held virtually. He presented the Zoom Meeting information to the public for those <br /> wishing to join and explained the features of the Zoom program and how to provide comments <br /> for any given application. He added that RCN is broadcasting and recording the meeting. <br /> Mr. Redfern called the meeting to order at 7:OOPM. <br /> Case#21-03—46 Woburn Street <br /> Mr. Redfern read the legal advertisement for case N21-03-46 Woburn Street into the record <br /> and swore in those wishing to speak on the application. <br /> Mr. Steven Cicatelli was present on behalf of the application along with business owner Nathan <br /> Jang. He begun by stating his client is looking to convert the first-floor medical office space to <br /> that of a dental office.The site is located in a residential zoning district; however, it has been a <br /> mixed-use building of commercial and residential since 1916.The site was allowed two <br /> separate units as well as a medical office by variance and is deemed a legal non-conforming <br /> use.The original decision was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals in 1958 and Mr. Cicatelli <br /> opined that there are three separate routes the Board could potentially take. <br /> Mr. Cicatelli opined a new variance could be granted,the use could be allowed by amending <br /> the existing variance or a special permit under Section 7.3 of the Bylaw could be granted. Mr. <br /> Cicatelli stated that a dental office is defined within the Medical Facility definition within the <br /> Bylaw and could be seen as no change of use. Mr. Cicatelli continued that there are no changes <br /> Page 1 1 <br />