HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-07-20 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesoWN
Town of Reading
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of July 20, 2006
Members present:
Members absent:
Robert Redfern
Susan Miller
John Jarema
Paul Dustin
Michael Conway
Peter Tedesco
CLERK
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 # 06-16
A Public Hearing on the petition of Eugene & Mary Cookson who seek a Variance under
Sections 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.
Eugene Cookson said they live in a ranch and they need more space for storage as well as for
their cars. The Board asked if the Applicants understood what was required for a variance . Mr.
Jarema explained what the criteria were and also how difficult it is to obtain a variance.
Mr. Cookson said they have a pie-shaped lot on a cul-de-sac that is unique to the neighborhood.
Mrs. Cookson said they could not build an attached garage because they do not have the space.
Mr. Jarema spoke of some options they could consider.
The Building Inspector said the rear yard is the yard that is behind the house so their rear yard is
the triangular area behind the deck. The Applicants are trying to create a 10' side-yard setback
for the proposed garage because they do not have a rear yard. They have a front yard and two
side yards but no rear yard.
Mr. Jarema said it is a uniquely shaped lot but they could relocate and downsize the proposed
garage. It could be moved 5' back and more westerly but they might need to meet again with
their architect. He said the Applicants could then return and the Board might be able to work
with another alternative prepared by their architect. Mr. Conway said the information presented
is not sufficient to obtain a variance so the Applicants should present additional information.
July 20, 2006
The Board thought if the Building Inspector can determine if the Applicants do have a rear yard
lot line, they could possibly build the garage by right and not need a variance. The Board
recommended the Applicants meet with the Building Inspector to discuss options. Mrs. Cookson
submitted a letter of approval from Mr. & Mrs. Mulkern, 21 Reading Terrace, who were in favor
of the project. Another abutter, Albert Pariante, 22 Reading Terrace, was present and he also
voiced approval for the project.
The Applicants requested a continuation of the hearing in order to further research the siting of
the proposed garage.
On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
continue the hearing to August 17, 2006.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Conway).
Case # 06-17
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.
Daniel Aretusi said they want to build a dwelling on the 9,389 square foot vacant lot next door to
them that they also own. His parent's home also abuts this vacant lot. He said his neighbors
support this project and their letters were included with the application.
Ms. Miller wanted to know if they had thought about combining the two lots and building on
that. The Applicant said they had invested so much in their present dwelling that they must sell
this home in order to build the new dwelling. Mrs. Aretusi said they always assumed that they
could use this second lot and build a bigger house on it. They bought the two lots at the same
time. Mr. Jarema asked when was the garage erected that straddles both lots and Mr. Aretusi said
he thought 1942.
The Chairman said it appears the two lots have been owned in common ownership since 1985.
The Building Inspector said he did not think this was a build-able lot and he was not sure it was
held in common ownership. The Applicant presented the ownership history of these lots back to
1932 and they were always recorded separately although some years they did have common
ownership.
The Building Inspector said the question is was it held in common owner when it was recorded?
Mr. Jarema said it was a sub-division so it was all owned at that time by one individual. The
Building Inspector said they needed to know if the building of the garage straddling the lot lines
made it one lot instead of two.
July 20, 2006
Mr. Conway wanted to know if any similar cases with structures built over lot lines had been
submitted to Town Counsel in the past. Mr. Jarema said he thought there might have been such a
case back about 15 years ago but he did not remember the details.
The Chairman said if the Applicants' demolished the garage the situation would be reduced to
whether the lot is a build-able lot. The Building Inspector said if the garage was not there and
they now wanted to put a pool in that space, the building permit would not be granted until they
eliminated the property line.
Mr. Jarema said the Board should have Town Counsel review this case and give her opinion
because it is similar to another case before the Board that Town Counsel is presently reviewing.
Frances Aretusi, mother of the Applicant, said she hopes it can be possible for them to have
permission to build on this vacant lot.
The Applicants requested a continuance to August 17, 2006 so that Town Counsel can review the
case and give an opinion regarding the legal status of Lot 6.
On a motion by Paul Dustin, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
continue the hearing to August 17, 2006 so that they may request Town Counsel's opinion.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Conway).
Case # 06-15
Continuation of a Public Hearing on the petition of Joseph & Kristen Shutt who seek a Variance
and a Special Permit under Sections 5.1.2 / 6.3.11.1 of the Zoning By-laws in order to construct
an addition on a non-conforming lot on the property located at 70 Forest Street in Reading, MA.
The proposed two-story addition encroaches into the required side yard setback of 15'.
Attorney Chris Latham spoke for the Applicant. He submitted architectural renderings of the
proposed structure as requested by the Board at the last hearing. Prior to the meeting the
Building Inspector reviewed the renderings. The interior layout is a preliminary draft and there
might be changes. Attorney Latham said he also spoke with Fran Fink, Conservation
Administrator, who will make a site visit in August upon her return to determine what may be
required for the Conservation Commission.
Attorney Latham said they did not need the Special Permit but did need the Variance. He asked
that the request for the Special Permit be withdrawn.
On a motion by Michael Conway, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to grant the request to withdraw the application for a Special Permit.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Conway).
July 20, 2006
On a motion by Michael Conway, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved
to grant the Applicant a Variance from Section 5.1.2 of the Zoning By-laws in order to construct
an addition on a non-conforming lot on the property located 70 Forest Street. The proposed
addition is to be built in accordance with plans drawn by Al Amoroso of Amoroso & Associates
for the addition, and shown on the Certified Plot Plan with the following conditions attached:
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.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Conway).
Other Business
178 Main Street Mobil canopy lighting design;
The Building Inspector said the CPDC is looking for a general answer regarding whether a
lighted canopy at a gas station is an illumination device to light up the pumps or is it an attention
getting device and therefore a sign. They are not referring to a specific gas station but rather all
canopies in general. The Building Inspector thinks it must be taken on a case-by-case basis. The
Board discussed the situation and the Chairman will speak with the Town Planner. The Board
felt it was not appropriate for them to give an opinion because they would be defining the by-law
and that is not their domain. The Board function is rather to interpret the by-law.
Modification to Maplewood Village Comp Permit:
The Dubuque Family of 243 Salem Street, Unit 1, has requested that they be allowed to extend
the pavement on the ground level at their entrance under the 2nd level deck. They want to pave
this 12 square foot area in order to provide more area for Mr. Dubuque. There is mulch and a
potted plant there at this time. The Dubuques have removed the lip from the doorway so Mr.
Dubuque's wheelchair has easy access. The area in question is under the deck above so it is
impervious at this time anyway. Mr. Jarema also mentioned that the two gazebos that were built
on the grounds are not handicapped accessible and there is no designated handicap parking in the
Maplewood Village development.
4 July 20, 2006
On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals determined
that putting a 3' x 4' area of asphalt at the side entrance of 243 Salem Street, Unit 1, Maplewood
Village, that is located under the overhead deck, is a minor modification to the Special Permit.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Redfern, Miller, Jarema, Dustin, Conway).
Modification to Maplewood Village Comp Permit:
It was deemed a minor modification to allow three units to have parking spaces in front of their
doors. Mr. Jarema said the developer had placed granite curb stops in front of the entrances of
the three affected units addressed in the motion made on May 18, 2006. The Board will vote on
this when they receive written notification from the Fire Department and the Building Inspector
that they approve these parking spaces.
Minutes
On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by Michael Conway, the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to accept the minutes of April 20, 2006.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Jarema, Dustin, Conway).
On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to
accept the minutes of May 18, 2006.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Jarema, Dustin, Conway).
On a motion by Michael Conway, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals
moved to adjourn the meeting.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Jarema, Dustin, Conway).
July 20, 2006