Laserfiche WebLink
"104 ~LCRK k-- <br />Town of Reading CLERK, <br />ZONING BOARD OF <br />Minutes of May 7, 209 <br />P° <br />Members Present: Paul Dustin, Chairman <br />John Miles <br />Clark Petschek <br />Robert Redfern <br />John Jarema <br />Peter Tedesco <br />Members Absent: Jeffrey Perkins <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. <br />Case # 09-05 <br />A Public Hearing on the petition of Lisa Mead, Blatman, Bobrowski & Mead, LLC; who seeks a <br />Variance under Section 5.1.2 of the Zoning By-laws in order to allow the owner (Kevin Fulgoni) <br />to construct a single family dwelling on the property identified as Lot A, South Street in <br />Reading, MA. <br />Attorney Lisa Mead represented the owner, Kevin Fulgoni. She said plans were provided to the <br />Building Inspector on March 15 but they were not in the sets distributed to the Board. Copies <br />were made and distributed to the Board and the abutters present. <br />Attorney Mead said they have appealed the denial of the last petition submitted to the Board that <br />was appealed in Land Court, and which decision was upheld by the Land Court. It is now slated <br />for a hearing before the Superior Court. She reviewed the history of this lot and the relief Mr. <br />Fulgoni was seeking from the Board. <br />Attorney Mead presented arguments that she thought fulfilled the four criteria required for the <br />granting of a variance and sited various cases she thought supported Mr. Fulgoni's petition. <br />The Board asked questions of Attorney Mead about the rezoning, compensation provided at the <br />time of the State land-taking, ages of other dwellings in the area, what had changed that caused <br />the owner to submit a new case for this lot, the location of the proposed deck, why they were not <br />attempting to meet the setbacks or lot coverage, why had they not considered putting in a smaller <br />house, and the square footage of the proposed house. <br />It was also determined by the Board that the Applicant actually needed variances the proposed <br />construction; a variance for the actual lot and a variance for the dwelling proposed for the lot. <br />The Board opined that there is no uniqueness to this lot regarding shape, topography or soil <br />conditions. The lot was this size when the Applicant purchased it, the applicant knew a variance <br />ZBA Meeting, May 7, 2009 <br />