The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014-08-21 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTown of Reading Meeting Minutes .. ��T9-7YC6liY0�4. —Cow� CLERk, DECEIVED i OWN CLERK ",DING. MASS. Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Zoning Board of Appeals iu14 OCT 20 P 2156 Date: 2014 -08 -21 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Selectmen Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Purpose: General Business Attendees: Members - Present: Chairman Robert Redfern, David Traniello, John Jarema, Damase Caouette, Kathleen Hackett Members - Not Present: Erik Hagstrom Others Present: Glen Redmond, Building Inspector Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Maureen Knight on behalf of Damase Caouette Topics of Discussion: Case # 14 -15 A Public Hearing on the petition of Victor J. Silva who seeks a Variance and /or a Special Permit under Section(s) 5.1.2 / 5.2.3.6 / 6.3.8 of the zoning bylaws in order to remove an existing non- conforming detached garage and to construct a new non - conforming garage located 3.2' from the property line on the property located at 166 Woburn Street in Reading, Massachusetts. Mr. and Mrs. Victor Silva presented their proposal and explained what they were going to do with the new garage. Mr. Traniello asked if they were they seeking a Special Permit or a Variance. Mrs. Silva said they were seeking a Special Permit because that was what seemed to be required. They would not be increasing the non - conformity. Mr. Silva explained that the proposed new detached garage structure would better accommodate vehicles. He also said the request would not increase the rear yard non - conformity but would in fact decrease the non - conformity because the proposed detached garage would maintain a 3.2'rear -yard setback where the current garage had a 3.0' setback. Mr. Jarema asked questions about the setback and wondered if there was another way to place the garage and Mr. Silva said the placement of the driveway and the nearness of a special Copper Beech tree led to the placement of the garage. Mr. Jarema also explained to the applicants that it would be difficult to ask for a Variance. The Chairman said he thought what they need is a Variance and not a Special Permit. They should be building the new garage within the existing footprint in order to be eligible for a Page 1 1 Special Permit. The Building Inspector said if it met those criteria it could just be built by right without a Special Permit but it did not meet this and he thought it needed a Special Permit. Mr. Caouette said he did not think a Variance would be required but a Special Permit would be. The Chairman said he thought the 1.8' shift would make the garage meet the 5' setback required. They would be making the non - conformity less with the new garage and it would not be more detrimental to the neighborhood. The hearing was opened to the public. There was no public comment. The public comment portion of the hearing was closed. There was a discussion by the Board as to what section of the bylaws would be best. On a motion by David Traniello, seconded by Damase Caouette, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the applicant a Special Permit under Sections 6.3.3.2 and 6.3.8.1(b) of the bylaws in order to remove an existing non - conforming detached garage and to construct a new non- conforming garage located 3.2' from the property line on the property as reflected in and consistent with the Certified Plot Plan prepared and stamped by John D. Sullivan III, P.E., 22 Mount Vernon Road, Boxford MA, dated June 25, 2014 and Architectural Plans, pages 1 through 5, prepared by Middlesex Custom Carpentry, dated April 15, 2014. The Special Permit is conditioned upon the following: 1. The Petitioner shall submit to the Building Inspector a Certified Plot Plan of the proposed construction and proposed foundation plans, prior to the issuance of a foundation permit for the work. 2. The Petitioner's final construction plans for the new structure shall be submitted to the Building Inspector, along with the as -built foundation plan(s), prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 3. As -built plans showing the completed construction shall be submitted to the Building Inspector immediately after the work is completed and prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit. Vote was 5 -0 -0 ( Traniello, Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Hackett). Case # 14 -16 A Public Hearing on the petition of Robert & Denise Eaton who seek a Variance under Section(s) 5.0 & 5.1.2 of the zoning bylaws in order to add an 8' x 8' front entry way located 14.7' from the front lot line rather than the 20' required on the property located at 15 Parkview Road in Reading, Denise Eaton presented their proposal to the Board and also offered photos in her cell phone if the Board wished to review. She explained that the present stairs were dangerous and they needed to open up the porch area for safety reasons. The Building Inspector said in his opinion the front entry way was an addition to the house. Page 1 2 Mr. Caouette said that their hardship presentation was weak as the proposed addition would still not be handicap accessible. Mr. Jarema said the drawings that came with the application did not have any dimensions. He did not know how much of a Variance they really needed and it seems to be just covering of the platform. He also wanted to know where the handicap accessibility was coming from and he thought the request was a weak request. He wanted to know where the whole ramp assembly was that they were looking for. There also are four other homes in the neighborhood that have the same issues so he thought the idea of a Variance was not really possible. Mr. Eaton said there is no room for a walker to get through under the present conditions. The ramp would not be built now but they are planning ahead as far as they can. The Building Inspector said it is a proposed new project with a new foundation. Mr. Traniello said most of the applications for this relief are from people who just want to cover over the platform. But what the applicants are asking for is basically a new roof area. He said the Board is constrained by the requirements of the bylaws. This application is asking to extend the residence into the non - conformity. The Chairman said he thought they were adding an additional room to their house with the proposed front stair enclosure. He did not think their arguments for the required criteria were strong enough. He also thought the hardship for the future should be dealt with in the future if it was required. There was no public comment. Mr. Caouette said that to him the proposed garage gives them many opportunities for handicap accessibility. The Building Inspector said the 8' x 8' structure was an addition to the house. The Chairman explained the options available to the applicants and the applicants stepped out into the hallway to have a discussion. Upon their return they asked to withdraw the application without prejudice. On a motion by Damase Caouette, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept the applicant's request to withdraw the case without prejudice. Vote was 5 -0 -0 ( Traniello, Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Hackett). Minutes On a motion by David Traniello, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to accept the minutes of August 7, 2014. Vote was 5 -0 -0 ( Traniello, Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Hackett). Adjournment On a motion by Damase Caouette, seconded by Kathleen Hackett, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting. Page 1 3 Vote was 5 -0 -0 (Traniello, Jarema, Redfern, Caouette, Hackett). Page 14