My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-05-20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
TownOfReading
>
Public Access
>
Minutes
>
Zoning Board of Appeals
>
2010-2019
>
2010
>
2010-05-20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/28/2010 4:51:15 PM
Creation date
7/28/2010 4:07:39 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ewa CLE 2K L <br />Town of Reading r <br />ZONING BOARD OF APPEjAJ S <br />Minutes of May 20, 2010 <br />2019 JUL 20 35 <br />Members Present: <br />Members Absent: <br />Clark Petschek, Chairman <br />John Jarema <br />Robert Redfern <br />Damase Caouette <br />Jeffrey Perkins <br />John Miles <br />Peter Tedesco <br />A meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room of the <br />Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts, at 7:00 P.M. Also in attendance was Glen <br />Redmond, Commissioner of Buildings. <br />Case # 10-01 <br />A Public Hearing on the petition of Vadaione, Inc. who seeks a Variance/Special Permit under <br />Sections 5.1.2/6.3.11.2 of the Zoning By-laws in order to construct an addition and handicap <br />ramp on a non-conforming building on the property located at 244R Ash Street in Reading, MA. <br />The proposed addition is located 4.4' from the sideline and relief from parking is required. <br />Attorney Josh Latham reviewed the detailed memo he had submitted to the Board a week ago for <br />their review-in support of his argument as to why the requested variance was warranted. He <br />reviewed the four criteria that supported his case using detailed plans that explained how the <br />proposed plan was the most logical and efficient use of the property. <br />Mr. Redfern did not think there was any uniqueness to this lot. He also thought the 4' setback <br />requested could set a precedent for other similar requests in the future. The Chairman did think <br />there was some uniqueness present after hearing Attorney Latham's explanation. Attorney <br />Latham also said every single property in this industrial area encroaches on the setbacks. <br />Mr. Damase said it was an awkward property and this should be taken into account. He said if <br />the Town plans on extending Pond Meadow Drive it would not make sense to put the addition on <br />the other side from the proposed plan. He did not have a problem with the proposal and said it <br />was a distinct improvement to the area and might. encourage other owners in the area to improve <br />their properties. <br />Mr. Jarema agreed with the Chairman, Mr. Redfern and Mr. Caouette. He also thought that <br />changing the proposed location of the addition would cause the loss of parking spaces if Pond <br />Meadow Drive were to be extended into the industrial district. Mr. Jarema said the increased- <br />ZBA Meeting, May 20, 2010 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.