HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-06 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesOr Hr '
Town of Reading
Meeting Minutes
Board - Committee
Date: 2025-05-06
Commission - Council:
Zoning Board of Appeals
Building: Reading Town Hall
Address: 16 Lowell Street
Purpose:
Attendees: Members - Present:
11 r�1tQr79dl
.REC-EIVED
TOWN CLERK
REA �'G, MA.
202S JUg2 F91 4' 36
Location: Select Board Meeting Room
Session:
Version: Final
Andrew Grasberger, Patrick Houghton, Frank Capone, Taylor Gregory, Cynde
Hartman
Members - Not Present:
Chris Cridler
Others Present:
Amanda Beatrice - Administrative Specialist, Jack Williams, Pierpaolo
Polvrari, Steve Chehames, Chris Loiselle Eric Chehames
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Amanda Beatrice
Topics of Discussion:
ZBA Case #25-02 — 80 Minot Street
Andrew Grasberger opened the continuance of a public hearing for Case #25-02 —80 Minot Street by
reading the legal notice into the record. Grasberger stated that the applicant sent an email request
asking to continue the public hearing to the next meeting on Tuesday, June 3, 2025.
Cynde Hartman made a motion to gram a continuance the Variance for Case #25-02 — 80 Minot Street
to June 3, 2025. Patrick Houghton seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0.
Vote was 5-0-0 (Houghton, Capone, Hartman, Gregory, Cridler)
ZBA Case #25-04 - 39 Summer Ave
Andrew Grasberger opened the public hearing for case #25-04 - 39 Summer Ave by reading the legal
notice into the record and swearing in members of the public wishing to speak.
The applicant, Steve Chehames, introduced his project. He is proposing a 14' x 7'two-story addition to
the west side of his home, for which he is seeking a special permit, and a 24' x 32' two-story addition
with a garage on the east side, for which he is requesting a variance for a 9-foot setback at the front
corner of the lot.
Cynde Hartman asked if he had explored building toward the back instead of the side to avoid needing a
variance. Chehames noted that he had considered it, but due to the ledge and steepness at the rear of
the property, it was not feasible.
Frank Capone asked if the ledge was on the left side of the home. Chehames explained that, when
looking at the house, the ledge is located at the back -left side, with additional ledge present on the
right-hand side. Capone inquired about tree removal, and Chehames noted that he had been trying to
Page I 1
address the tree issue since moving in ten years ago. He explained that engineering and the tree warden
had stated that he would need approval for the special permit/variance. If approved, he would bear the
cost, and engineering would handle the removal.
Hartman asked Chehames about 47 Summer Ave in relation to variance criteria 4. Chehames noted that
47 Summer Ave is within the setback and argued that his request would not be more detrimental to
neighboring homes given this precedent. Amanda Beatrice clarified that 47 Summer Ave received a
special permit in 2014 to build an addition on an existing deck. Grasberger added that the setback at 47
Summer Ave was granted through a special permit as it appeared they added an addition in place of an
existing deck.
Grasberger pointed out that 47 Summer Ave serves as a good parallel for Chehames' proposed west -side
addition under the special permit but does not apply to the east -side addition requiring a variance.
Chehames agreed but maintained that the west -side addition, even with a 6-foot setback, would not be
more detrimental. Grasberger explained that variance criteria are stricter than those for a special permit
and that 47 Summer Ave already had an existing structure, the two projects should be considered
differently. The four variance criteria dictated by the state must all be met, and Grasberger found it
difficult to see Chehames satisfying all four, especially those concerning hardship and zoning ordinances.
Chehames responded that the existing layout of the house on the lot is part of the reason for the issue.
Hartman clarified that the first variance criteria relate to unique circumstances of the lot rather than the
location of the home itself. While the shape and typography could contribute to hardship, the
neighborhood context also plays a role. She noted that a neighbor received a permit for a project near
the lot line, meaning if Chehames were closer to the lot line, it would create even greater crowding.
Chehames disagreed, stating that his proposed encroachment would be at the front of his house,
whereas his neighbor's encroachment is at the rear.
Houghton acknowledged the neighborhood argument and agreed with the other Board Members that
the neighborhood case is more applicable to the special permit for Chehames' property rather than the
variance. He explained that the addition on the east side of the house creates a new nonconformity,
which necessitates the variance. He also agreed with Hartman, noting that while Chehames may satisfy
the first two variance criteria, he does not appear to meet the final two.
Grasberger added that having a nonconformity on both sides of the home would be more detrimental
rather than less. Chehames countered that there is a paper street on the west side that no one is
claiming ownership of and does not believe building on both sides would be problematic.
Frank Capone suggested that Chehames redesign his plans to meet the 15-foot setback requirement.
Chehames responded that doing so would require removing the communal bathroom in the middle of
the house. The Board members agreed that while the bedrooms are large, adjusting the closet layout
could preserve the bedrooms and bathrooms while removing the garage. Gregory explained the options
available: Chehames could continue the case to the next meeting to present additional information,
proceed with a vote, and —if the vote is unfavorable, he would not be able to bring the same case
before the Board for another two years.
Eric Chehames noted that the suggested changes would eliminate the garage, and the existing garage is
unusable. He emphasized that the proposed dimensions are necessary for the project to work.
Public comment was opened, and with no comments made, it was subsequently closed.
There was consensus among the Board that the special permit presented no issues, but they wanted
modifications to the east -side addition. However, since the special permit and variance were part of the
same application, both would need to be voted on at the same meeting.
Page 12
Jack Williams, an abutter from 46 Summer Ave, asked if Chehames would consider preserving the tree
He expressed concern that the project was too large and did not fit the neighborhood. Williams also
believed there was an alternative to build at the rear of the lot, which he argued was buildable.
S. Chehames noted that his neighbor at 47 Summer Ave sits at a much higher elevation than his
property.
Cynde Harman made a motion to continue the Special Permit and Variance for Case #25-04 -39
Summer Ave to June 3, 2025. Patrick Houghton seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0.
Vote was 5-0-0 (Houghton, Capone, Hartman, Gregory, Cridler)
Amended Vote: Cymde Harman made a motion to continue the Special Permit and Variance for Case
#25-04 - 39 Summer Ave to July 1, 2025. Patrick Houghton seconded the motion and it was approved
5-0.0.
Vote was 5-0-0 (Houghton, Capone, Hartman, Gregory, Cridler)
ZBA Case p25-OS — 26 Riverside Drive
Andrew Grasberger opened the public hearing for case #25-05 — 26 Riverside Drive by reading the legal
notice into the record and swearing in members of the public wishing to speak.
The applicant, Chris Loiselle, Introduced his project. He explained that the previous fall, he went through
the building permitting process and received approval to have the pool installed. He is now looking to
build a deck extending from the foundation to the pool, though it will not be attached to the pool. The
deck complies with the existing 15-foot side yard setback. However, the variance is required because the
pool, with the deck, will now be considered a new nonconformity due to a side yard setback of 10.2
feet.
Loiselle noted that he had spoken directly with his abutters about the project to see if anyone had
objections, and no concerns were raised. As part of his zoning application, he submitted a letter of
support signed by several abutters. Additionally, his neighbors Valerie and Michael Walsh, from 22
Riverside Drive, submitted a video testimonial in support of the project.
Cyndy Hartman asked if Loiselle was removing an existing deck or adding additional decking. Loiselle
confirmed that they were adding additional decking. Hartman then asked whether he had explored the
possibility of relocating the pool. Loiselle explained that they had not considered that option, as
removing the pool would require a complete reconstruction and cost thousands of dollars. Had he been
advised of this issue in advance, he would have factored it into his decision.
The Board engaged in a discussion regarding the definition of what constitutes an "attached" structure.
They also debated what is permitted concerning swimming pools, expressing confusion over the
wording of section 5.5.1.3 on Home Recreational Facilities.
Loiselle stated that had he been aware during installation that adding a deck would cause an issue, he
would have positioned the pool differently. He also explained that the deck's proposed location was
chosen for privacy, as a tree between the two yards provides screening, whereas moving the deck would
result in direct visibility into his neighbors' yard.
The Board concluded that, since the pool is just over 30 feet from the home, and as long as it is not
physically attached to the proposed deck, they would not consider it attached to the principal dwelling.
Therefore, a variance was not required.
Hartman read the transcription of the video testimonial, which was transcribed by Amanda Beatrice and
signed by Valerie and Michael Walsh.
Grasberger read the abutters' support letter, which was signed by multiple abutters
Page 1 3
Cynde Hartman made a motion to issue a Finding that a variance was not required and with the
condition that the deck cannot be attached to the pool for Case #25-05 — 25 Riverside Drive. Taylor
Gregory seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-0.
Vote was 5-0-0 (Grasberger, Houghton, Capone, Gregory, Hartman)
Minutes
4/1/25
Patrick Houghton made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Taylor Gregory seconded the
motion and it was approved 4-0-0.
Vote was 3-0-0 (Houghton, Capone, Gregory)
Motion to Adjourn
Cynde Hartman made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Taylor Gregory seconded the motion and it
was approved 5-0-0.
Vote was 5-0-0 (Grasberger, Houghton, Capone, Gregory, Hartman)
Page 1 4
IVI-
Town of Reading „ .; wpl.
16 Lowell Street, Reading, MA 01867 ' 1,
Zoning Board of Appeals _ .
Ph: 781-942-6654 or Fax: 781-942-9071 .. ,.. �' � 3
readingma.gov/zoning-board-of-appeals
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO G.L.c. 39, SECTION 23D OF
PARTICIPATION IN A SESSION OF AN ADJUDICATORY HEARING WHERE
THE UNDERSIGNED MEMBER MISSED A SINGLE HEARING SESSION
Note: Can only be used for missing one single hearing session; cannot be used for missing more than one hearing session.
Inquiries concerning this form and your ability to participate in a matter where you missed a single hearing session should be
addressed to Town Counsel.
I, AiviaAGkm _ (name), hereby certify under the pains and penalties of perjury as follows:
1. 1 am a member of said board. ,nt�
2. 1 missed a hearing session on the matter of �q S4(hl'flg.( Awl. which was held
on ml1U to `7(YJS
3. 1 reviewed ale 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. ,6F video recording of the missed hearing session; or
C. a transcript of the missed hearing session.
This certificatiorysha11 become a part of the record of the proceedings in the above matter.
Signed under a pains a d penalties of perjurythis day of _
tepart
Rof the record of the above matter:
Date: %S Z
Position: