Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-17 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes(/fw CORK
Town of Reading
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of August 17, 2006
Members present:
Members absent:
Robert Redfern
Susan Miller
John Jarema
Paul Dustin
Michael Conway
Peter Tedesco
A meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room of the
Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts, at 7:00 P.M. Also in attendance was Glen
Redmond, Commissioner of Buildings.
Case # 06-09
Continuation of a Public Hearing on the petition of Kevin Fulgoni who seeks an appeal from a
decision of the Building Inspector under Section 7.4.2.1 of the Zoning By-laws in order to
construct a single family dwelling on a non-conforming lot on the property located at Lot A,
South Street in Reading, MA.
Since the last hearing the Board received a letter from Town Counsel stating that in her opinion
Lot A is not entitled to protection as a grand-fathered lot and therefore the Building Inspector's
decision was valid in denying a Building Permit. The Board also received a letter from Attorney
Lisa Mead, the Applicant's attorney, rebutting that opinion.
Attorney Mead said although she did not agree with Town Counsel's opinion, they do agree on
some things and she cited the areas in which they agreed. She said it was really important to look
at Zoning By-law 6.3.4 because Lot A was a lawful lot before the Town zoning changes.
Attorney Mead said Town Counsel does not agree with this opinion. Attorney Mead said this
case fits within the definition of a legal lot and therefore, in her opinion, a Building Permit
should be issued.
Mr. Redfern said what is before the Board is the appeal of the Building Inspector's decision and
that is what the Board will discuss at this meeting.
Mr. Conway thought the Board should rely on Town Counsel's opinion and err on the side of
caution. Attorney Mead disputed this argument and said she did not understand Town Counsel's
August 17, 2006
argument. Attorney Mead said this lot was lawfully created and therefore met the requirements at
the time of the taking. Ms. Miller said in Town Counsel's opinion the lot was never a residential
development. Attorney Mead said it was grand-fathered because of the dimensional requirements
and it is very clear in the Planning Board report that this was to be a residential lot.
Ms. Miller said she agrees with Mr. Conway and the bottom line is that due to the fact that there
is so much argument that she also thinks the Board should defer to Town Counsel's opinion.
Mr. Redfern said they could continue to go back and forth but he was prepared for a vote.
On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by Michael Conway, the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved that the decision of the Building Inspector, dated June 15, 2006, denying the Applicant a
Building Permit for the property located at Lot A, South Street, be overturned and that the
Building Inspector be instructed to issue the Applicant a building permit upon receipt of plans
that otherwise comply with zoning requirements with the exception of lot size and frontage.
The motion was denied by a vote of 0-3-0 (Redfern, Miller, Conway)
Case # 06-16
Continuation of a Public Hearing on the petition of Eugene & Mary Cookson who seek a
Variance under Section 5.1.2 of the Zoning By-laws in order to construct a detached two-car
garage in the required front yard setback of 20'. The proposed garage is 6.8' from the front
property line on the property located at 18 Reading Terrace in Reading, MA.
Mr. Redfern read a letter from the Applicants asking that their request for a Variance be
withdrawn.
On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by Michael Conway, the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to accept their request for a withdrawal without prejudice of their petition for a Variance.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Conway)
Case # 06-17
Continuation of a Public Hearing on the petition of Daniel Aretusi who seeks a Variance under
Sections 5.0/5.1.2 of the Zoning By-laws in order to construct a single family dwelling on an
undersized parcel of land (Lot 6 - 9,389 square feet) located at 15 Nelson Avenue in Reading,
MA.
The case had been continued so that Town Counsel could give her opinion to the Board. The
letter from Town Counsel was read by Mr. Redfern and summarized. It was Town Counsel's
opinion that Lot 6 is not entitled to the protection of c.40A as a pre-existing nonconforming lot
and therefore the Building Inspector's decision was valid.
2 August 17, 2006
The Applicant, Mrs. Aretusi, gave her reasons why this lot should be deemed a build-able lot and
she presented her criteria for a Variance. She said again that they must sell their present home in
order to build this second home on Lot 6.
Mrs. Aretusi said the garage staddling both lots most likely was built at the same time as the
house when there was one owner of both lots. The owner probably just built the garage slightly
over on Lot 6 because he owned both lots anyways.
Ms. Miller explained how the Applicant must meet the four criteria that are required in order to
grant a Variance. Mr. Dustin said by building a house on this empty lot they would be improving
the neighborhood. Mr. Conway said by removing the garage that is halfway on both lots and
building a house on this Lot 6 then they are in effect making the lot less non-conforming.
Mr. Redfern noted that there were a number of letters from neighbors who were all in favor of
the new house on Lot 6.
On a motion by Paul Dustin, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
grant to the Applicant a Variance for Lot 6 in order to allow the construction of the proposed
dwelling as shown on the Certified Plot Plan dated May 30, 2006. The Variance is granted
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.
4. The garage straddling the two lots is to be removed. .
The motion was approved by a vote of 4-1-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Conway).
Other Business
The Building Inspector discussed with the Board a house located at 93 Pinevale Avenue that was
damaged by fire. The owner thinks that by right he should be able to rebuild without getting a
Special Permit (Zoning By-law 6.3.16) because it is totally destroyed. But the owner wants to
demolish and then rebuild a larger structure. The Building Inspector thinks they need to apply for
.A., a Special Permit because they are not building on the same footprint. The Board agreed with the
Building Inspector that because the owner is increasing the footprint he must obtain a Special
August 17, 2006
Permit. The Building Inspector said he examined the house and he feels that it could be repaired
but he did not know if it would be worth it.
Minutes
On a motion by Paul Dustin, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
accept the minutes of June 1, 2006.
The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0-2 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Conway,
Tedesco).
On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
accept the minutes of June 22, 2006 with changes.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-3 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Conway,
Tedesco).
On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
accept the minutes of July 6, 2006.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-1 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Conway,
Tedesco).
On a motion by Michael Conway, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to adjourn the meeting.
The motion was approved by a vote of 6-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Conway,
Tedesco).
Respectfully
Maureen M.
Recording S
August 17, 2006