1987-09-16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes

Home Browse Search

VAA~ /a ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS READING, MA MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 16, 1987 Members Present: John Jarema Sally Nitzsche Stephen Tucker Vice-Chairman Tucker opened the scheduled public hearing at 7:30 PM in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 6 Lowell Street, Reading, MA. The first appeal to be heard was on the petition of Francis M. Keane and Patricia L. Keane who were seeking a Variance under Section 5.1.2. of the Zoning By-Laws and/or an appeal from the decision of the Building Inspector to allow for construction of an addition to their home too close to the side lot line for their property located at 105 King Street, Reading, MA. Stephen Tucker read the list of those persons who received notice of the hearing and requested the Petitioner state her reasons for the request before the Board. Patricia Keane was present, but counsel for the Keane's spoke on their behalf regarding an addition on the property on the westerly side of the house. The counselor presented the Board with plgt plan of dimensions and a small-scale model of the home showing planned construction. House is already on a non-conforming lot, and construction proposed would make lot lines even closer. There is substantial ledge to the rear portion of the dwelling which makes construction to this area virtually impossible. The house was built 85 or 90 years ago, and the back yard is very small. To attempt to build to the rear would also block any sunlight coming into the backyard or house. Counsel also stated that he felt the four points necessary in the granting of a Variance were met by the Petitioner. A letter was then presented to the Board from an immediate abuttor, the Hadleys, stating they had no complaints against the construction being done. Mrs. Keane's abuttor to the opposite side, Ms. Theis Winkler, was present at the hearing and spoke in support of the granting of a Variance. John Jarema then spoke of the small lot size and it being one of several lots in the area with similar non-conforming lots. Mr. Jarema expressed his feeling that this type and size of an addition would greatly reduce an already small lot, although he felt the addition was very attractive and agreed with abuttors that it would only be beneficial to the neighborhood. It was also noted there may be even further reduction in lot line due to overhang shown on model. Sally Nitzsche also expressed that with the small amount of land to either side of property, this type of structure, if allowed, would be more than a substantial encroachment. And although