The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2025-02-04 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesRECEIVED Cyµ orX�S By Town Ckrk GP at 12:31 prn, Mar eS 2025 Town of Reading Meeting Minutes N(OPPN�h Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Zoning Board of Appeals Date: 2025-02-04 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Berger Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Session: Purpose: Version: Final Attendees: Members - Present: Andrew Grasberger, Patrick Houghton, Frank Capone, Taylor Gregory, Chris Cridler Members - Not Present: Cynde Hartman Others Present: Eleanor Shonkoff, Adam Shonkoff, Jonathan Weber, James Gallagher, Marjorie (May) Gallagher, Mary Ellen Downey, Ken Downey, Brian MCGrall, Steven DeFuria Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Amanda Beatrice Topics of Discussion: The February 4, 2025, Zoning Board of Appeals hearing was originally scheduled for the Conference Meeting Room but was moved to the Town Hall Berge Room due to the Select Board's need for the room. ZBA Case s14-20 - 229 Winthrop Ave Andrew Grasberger opened the public hearing for case #24-20 -119 Winthrop Ave by reading the legal notice into the record and swearing in members of the public wishing to speak. Homeowner lames Gallagher presented the project. He and his wife, May Gallagher, are seeking a variance for the side -yard setback to build an addition to their home, which includes a two -car garage with a primary suite above. Their current home only has two bedrooms, and they are lacking space for their two young children who share a bedroom, as well as overall storage. Building an addition is more affordable than moving in the current housing market. They are located within a floodplain and face restrictions on where they can build due to conservation land and a Town easement. J. Gallagher believes the project would not have any detrimental impact on the neighborhood, but rather enhance both their property and the surrounding area. He mentioned speaking with several neighbors, some of whom were in support of the project. Chris Cridler asked if they had spoken to their immediate abutters at 113 Winthrop Ave. J. Gallagher confirmed they had spoken with them, but the neighbors were not present. They had no issues with the project. Cridler expressed concern about reducing the property line setback from 30 feet to about 5 feet, explaining that there are several factors the Board must consider when reviewing a variance request. J. Gallagher pointed out that two properties in 2023, 22 Pase 1 1 Small Lane and 544 Summer Ave, were granted variances for setbacks. Cridler explained that the statute requires the Board to deny a variance request unless the applicant meets four variance criteria, noting that the application meets most of those criteria. Frank Capone asked if this would be a full renovation. J. Gallagher clarified that they would be changing the roofline but would not be doing any additional interior work. Capone also inquired about the possibility of building at the back of the house. J. Gallagher showed the plot plan, which indicated a wetlands area and a 35-foot no -build zone that restricts their ability to build in that direction, along with a drainage easement. Patrick Houghton asked how the wetland affects the neighbor. J. Gallagher explained there are two wetlands: one behind the baseball field and another directly behind their fence, but it doesn't extend as much toward the neighbors. A map showing the impact was included in their packet. Andrew Grasberger asked if the house was currently a full two stories. 1. Gallagher explained that the house is built on a hill, so the back of the house is two stories, with a walkout basement. Grasberger acknowledged the unique situation with the wetlands but expressed concern about the 5-foot setback. He asked if they had explored a 10-foot setback. 1. Gallagher responded that it would be difficult because a minimum 22-foot depth is required for a two -car garage, and anything smaller would not accommodate two cars. Capone asked if the abutters at 113 Winthrop Ave could provide a letter. May Gallagher noted they had asked, but the neighbors, who are not in good health, did not want to put pressure on them. Grasberger opened the meeting to public comment. Abutter Kenneth Downey expressed support for the project Johnathan Webber, a neighbor, also voiced support, stating that the Gallagher family cannot use half of their property due to the wetlands, and this would be the only direction available for the project. He also believed the garage would act as a buffer, preventing sand and salt from reaching the wetland area, and that the project would improve the neighborhood. Grasberger closed the meeting to public comment. Capone noted that the only feasible option for the addition is to build to the right of the house, but his main concern is the 5-foot setback. Cridler asked if there was a family member who could be contacted regarding the neighbors' health. J. Gallagher mentioned that their daughter lives with them, and Cridler suggested that they may want to speak with her. Grasberger agreed with Cridler, expressing concern about supporting a 5-foot setback. Taylor Gregory asked about reducing the garage size. J. Gallagher responded that the contractor mentioned 22 feet as the minimum for a two -car garage, and shrinking it further would make it very tight. Page 12 Capone noted that he believed an additional 2 feet would not significantly affect the setback His concern is that if a new house were built on the neighboring property, a 15-foot setback would leave sufficient space, though it would be tight. Abutter Mary Ellen Downey shared her support for the project, recalling a similar situation with her own children sharing a bedroom and considering moving from a good neighborhood. She noted that she supports the Gallagher project. Cridler asked about a potential deck extension. J. Gallagher explained that it was originally part of the plan, but the wetland restrictions make it unlikely. Bennet mentioned that, according to the GIS map, the current setback of the abutters house is approximately 37 feet. There was a brief discussion that the new addition would be build right up to the edge of the driveaway which would be 5 feet from their property line that would leave plenty of room unless the neighbors build a new house or addition. Grasberger noted that the Board has mixed opinions and explained the next steps for the Gallagher's: they can continue the to the next meeting, withdraw without prejudice, or proceed to a vote. If the vote is unfavorable, they would not be able to bring a similar project to the Board for two years. Capone pointed out that, other than the garage, there is ample space on the existing two floors He suggested the Gallagher's might want to consider redesigning the addition, but it is ultimately up to them. Cridler reiterated the request for a letter from the neighbor at 113 Winthrop Ave. Capone and Cridler agreed that the Gallagher's may want to explore redesigning their addition with the architect. Chris Cridler made a motion to accept applicants request to continue their hearing for Variance Case M24-20-119 Winthrop Ave to March 4, 2025. Taylor Gregory seconded the motion and it was approved 5-". Vote was 5-0-0 (Grasberger, Houghton, Capone, Gregory, Cridler) ZBA Case #25-01— 32 Harvard Street Andrew Grasberger opened the public hearing for case a25-01— 32 Harvard Street by reading the legal notice into the record and swearing in members of the public wishing to speak. Attorney Brian McGrail presented the project on behalf of property owners Eleanor and Adam Shonkoff, who are seeking a Special Permit for a two-story addition. The addition includes a screened -in porch and deck, which do not comply with the setback requirements, and a farmer's porch, which does comply with the setback. Phoenix Design Architect Steve DeFuria presented the architectural drawings. He explained that the left portion of the house sits on a failing block foundation. As they build upward, they will pour a new foundation and square off the back of the home while maintaining its existing width. The addition involves a complete renovation of the first floor, which will include a new kitchen, pantry, mudroom, and screened -in porch. The second floor will be dedicated to the bedrooms. Page 1 3 McGrail noted that the property contains wetlands, which required a filing with the Conservation Commission. The Commission voted to issue an Order of Conditions on January 8, 2025. Currently, the left side yard setback is 9.8 feet, and after the work is completed, it will improve to 10.6 feet. MCGrail also submitted signed statements from neighbors in support of the project. Grasberger read the names of the neighbors who signed the support statement; Ryan & Andrea Parsons, Jack & Ilia Fisher's, Thomas Kllbride and Ashley & Pat McGowan. There was no public comment to be made. The Commission added a condition that the petitioner shall abide by all Order of Conditions set forth by the Conservation Commission Chris Cridler made a motion to approve a Special Permit for Case VZS-01— 32 Harvard Street Patrick Houghton seconded the motion and it was approved 54)-0. Vote was 5-0-0 (Grosberger, Houghton, Capone, Gregory, Cridler) Minutes 1/7/25 Taylor Gregory made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Andrew Grasberger seconded the motion and it was approved S-". Vote was 5-0-0 (Grosberger, Houghton, Capone, Gregory, Cridler) Motion to Adioum Andrew Grasberger made a motion to adjoum the meeting. Chris Cridler seconded the motion and it was approved 5-041. Vote was 5-0-0 (Grasberger, Houghton, Capone, Gregory, Cridler) Page 14 Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street, Reading, MA 01867 Zoning Board of Appeals Ph: 781-942-6654 or Fax: 781-942-9071 madingma.gov/zoning-hoard-of-appeals CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO G.L.c. 39, SECTION 23D OF PARTICIPATION IN A SESSION OF AN ADIUDICATORY HEARING WHERE THE UNDERSIGNED MEMBER MISSED A SINGLE HEARING SESSION Note. Can only be usedformissing one single headngsessiM connotbe used for missing more than onehearbig session. inquiries, concerning dus form and yourab by toporthipate in a matter where you missed a singleheonng session shouldbe addressed to Town Counsel. (name), hereby certify under the pains and penalties of perjury as follows: 1. 1 am a member of said board. 1 /- C 2. 1 missed a hearing sessyi n on the matter of �� W r��s/oP l � which was held on oZ -c�.5` 3. 1 reviewed all the evidence introduced at the hearing session I missed, which included a review of (initial which one(s) applicable): a. audio recording of the missed hearing session; or b. � video recording of the missed hearing session; or c a transcript of the missed hearing session. This certification shall become a part of the record of thg dings in the above matter. {Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this day of R5 fS "n1l-i-r✓`��. m Received as part of the record of the above matter: Date: 3 2S By: — Position;