My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1989-01-05 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
TownOfReading
>
Public Access
>
Minutes
>
Zoning Board of Appeals
>
1980-1989
>
1989
>
1989-01-05 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/23/2010 1:28:21 PM
Creation date
11/9/2010 3:40:27 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS <br />MINUTES-JANUARY 5, 1989 <br />Members Present: Stephen Tucker, Vice Chairman <br />John Jarema <br />Ardith Wieworka <br />Mr. Tucker opened the scheduled public hearing at 7:30 PM in the <br />Selectmen's Meeting Room, 6 Lowell Street, Reading, MA. <br />The continued public hearing was on the petition of Paul F. Cas- <br />sidy who was seeking a variance under Section 5.1.2 of the Zoning <br />ByLaws of the Town of Reading for the purpose of obtaining two <br />buildable lots which will have less than the required 80 foot <br />frontage on property described as Lot 4, Oak Street, Assessors <br />Map 23, Reading, MA. <br />Mr. Dennis Cronin, representing Mr. Cassidy, stated that he had <br />submitted copies of the drainage reports as the Board had some <br />concerns over this matter in the last public hearing. <br />There was discussion of the Community Planning and Development <br />Commission's involvement in this matter. Mr. Jarema stated that <br />he had called the Town Planner who had told him that CPDC had <br />taken no action. <br />Mr. Cronin then addressed the criteria for obtaining a variance. <br />He stated that the shape of the lot along with the wetlands <br />issues created unique circumstances. The hardship issue was that <br />it was not economically feasible to develop this property in con- <br />7unction with the underlying zoning (5-10) that is there. He <br />also stated that this would not be detrimental to the public <br />good. Many of the abutters had expressed that they preferred <br />this plan as opposed to the three lot subdivision. He stated <br />that they had submitted the data that was sought and that this <br />proposal makes a great deal of sense. <br />The Board then asked about the costs that are involved that would <br />make it economically unfeasible to build the approved three lot <br />subdivision. <br />Mr. Cassidy then stated that the cost of the roadway and the <br />small sizes of the houses would detract from the neighborhood and <br />would reduce the sale price's. He felt it would be a detriment to <br />the public to have a roadway in this area. With this proposed <br />plan there would be more green space and there could be better <br />positioning of better quality homes. He stated that if he were <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.