The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005-12-08 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTown of Reading ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes of December 8, 2005 Members present: Susan Miller Robert Redfern Michael Conway Paul Dustin Members absent: Mark Gillis John Jarema S S. 3: 4 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. Case # 05-25 A continuation of a Public Hearing on the petition of Christopher Latham, Attorney for Owner, who seeks a Variance/Finding under Section(s) 5.0/5.1.2/5.2.3.4 & 4.3.3a of the Zoning By-laws in order to construct an addition to a single-story one-family home on the property located at 157 Main Street. The Chairman gave a brief history of the case and explained that the Board had continued the hearing so they could confer with Town Counsel regarding whether site plan review would be required. Town Counsel said a condition could be put on a Variance tied to the property and the Board can limit the amount of office space allowed in the residence. The main concern is whether the by-laws allow two principal uses on the same lot, such as an office and a single- family residence. Town Counsel said in her phone call to the Chairman that in her opinion the by-laws do not allow the two mixed uses but a single-family residence is allowed by right Attorney Chris Latham said there is no provision in the by-laws that says you cannot have a mixed use and Business A allows both residential and office use for this property. He said there is Town precedence: Haven Junction, the Depot, Laschi building, Gregory's Deli, M.F. Charles building, Tambone building, Triangular building, Bryant building, Wine Shop block, Perkins building, Registry of Motor Vehicles building, Nigro building, and the Avilleno Well Company building. The Board discussed what Attorney Latham had presented as well as the recommendations of Town Counsel who said certain conditions could be imposed. Attorney Latham said Town Counsel told him there was a compromise that could limit the number of employees. The Board members discussed whether they could just treat it as a Variance and not involve the other issues. If the Board does not deal with the use issue and the Applicant agrees to certain restrictions then it can be treated as just a Variance. Other members said the future business use December 8, 2005 is not before the Board at this time. The Chairman said it was because the plans are referencing the business portion (even if planned for the future). Other members said it should be considered as just a residence because that is what is there now and Town Counsel said they can add conditions regarding their concerns now to allay their fears for the future regarding this property. Attorney Latham said that in tenus of the uniqueness he did a comparison with other properties in Town. The Hughes' property is unique in Business A and is like no other property. There are four properties that are relevant in Reading's Business A. Three are divided between residential and business zones. The fourth property abuts a single-family structure and has a structure within 20' in the front. The Hughes' lot is shaped like a square and they have the only property in their area with less than 10,000 square feet. Attorney Latham said there is also the structural hardship because the old foundation is a combination of poured concrete and fieldstone that would have to be removed which would create a financial hardship. He said this hardship would face anyone who owned this house and they would have to come before the Board for relief if they were going to do anything to it. The Chairman thought the Applicant met the topography hardship. Attorney Latham said the proposal would not be detrimental to the public good. He said looking at all the facts clearly points out that the dwelling has it's own unique hardships. Board members also pointed out that as you go down Main Street there are numerous buildings that are relatively close to the street. Attorney Latham said the square shape of this lot is clearly a detriment. On a motion by Michael Conway, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the Applicant a Variance under Sections 5.0/5.1.2/5.2.3.4 of the Zoning By-laws in order to construct an addition on the north easterly, front side of his home within the 50' front yard setback required in a Business A District. The proposed addition is to be built in accordance with the following: floor plans by Luna Design Group (2 pages) dated April 7, 2005, Site Plan of Andover Engineering, Inc. (Drawing No. 04168) dated April 19, 2005 and signed by Vernon LeBlanc, P.S.L. on September 7, 2005. The office space at ground level shown on the Site Plan of Andover Engineering shall be restricted to 564 square feet or less. The Variance is subject to the following conditions: 1. A Certified Plot Plan showing the prepared foundation is submitted to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of a Building Permit; and 2. A Certified Plot Plan showing the proposed construction is submitted to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of a Building Permit; and 3. An as-built plan is submitted to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit. 4. The office space at ground level shown on the Site Plan of Andover Engineering, Inc. (Drawing No.04168) shall be restricted to 564 square feet maximum. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Conway) December 8, 2005 Case # 05-28 A Public Hearing on the petition of Richard Maggio who seeks a Special Permit under Section 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws in order to demolish an existing dwelling and to construct a new single family dwelling on a non-conforming lot on the property located at 12 Baker Road. Richard Maggio spoke on behalf of the Applicant, Jody Maggio, who is his wife. He said she wants to demolish the present dwelling and construct a new dwelling on the property that has approximately 2" less than the required 100' frontage. The new two-story dwelling with attached garage will conform to the required setbacks. Most of the houses in the neighborhood have had additions or second levels added. The Applicant is demolishing the existing home because it has not been updated since the 40's and it would have to be entirely gutted-out and rebuilt. The Chainnan said what was being proposed meets the by-laws and no one on the Board had any additional questions. Fred Alexander, 172 Wakefield Street, said the proposed house would fit in well in the area. Brenda Leahy, 259 Pearl Street, said she had no objections. Noreen Delai, 18 Baker Road, asked if there would be a new foundation as she was worried about blasting. Mr. Maggio said they are laying the foundation in approximately the salve location and blasting would not be required. Ms Delai also had concerns about the leaching line. Lloyd Donald, 263 Pearl Street, said he was in favor of the project. He had concerns about a shed that he thought was on his property but Mr. Maggio said the Certified Plot Plan clearly showed that the shed was on the Applicant's lot but they planned on removing it. Mr. Leahy asked if they had plans to get rid of any of the trees that are in the back of the lot and Mr. Maggio said they would fully landscape the lot. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals made a motion to grant the Applicant a Special Permit in order to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new, two-story single family dwelling as shown on the submitted Certified Plot Plan with the following conditions attached: 1. The Applicant shall submit to the Building Inspector a Certified Plot Plan of the proposed construction and proposed foundation plans, prior to the Building Inspector's issuance of a foundation permit for the work. 2. The Applicant's final construction plans for the new dwelling and addition (including Certified Plot Plan) shall be submitted to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of a Building permit. 3. As-built plans showing the completed construction of the new dwelling 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 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Dustin). December 8, 2005 Case #05-29 A Public Hearing on the petition of Robert Marl-, who seeks a Variance/Special Permit under Section(s) 5.0/6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws in order to construct a one story addition on a single family dwelling on the property located at 14 Fairview Avenue. The proposed addition is to a non-conforming structure. Attorney Josh Latham represented the Applicant. The right side of the dwelling is non- conforming and has a 10'6" - 9'3" setback along that side. It has five rooms and they want to construct an addition off the kitchen that would contain a master bedroom with a bathroom. It would extend back about 24'. There is a driveway between the property and the abutter on that side. They will not be encroaching any further and the one-story addition matches the house and the neighborhood. Cindy Bates, 18 Fairview Avenue, said she had no problems with the proposal. Tom O'Brien, 10 Fairview Avenue, said he thought it would be a plus for the neighborhood. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals made a motion to grant the Applicant a Special Permit under Section 6.3.11.1 of the Zoning By-laws in order to construct a one-story addition to the single family dwelling as shown on the Certified Plot Plan. The Special Pen-nit is conditioned by the following: 1. The Applicant shall submit to the Building Inspector a Certified Plot Plan of the proposed construction work and proposed foundation plan prior to the issuance of a foundation permit for the work; and 2. The Applicant's final construction plans for the new dwelling shall be submitted to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of a Building Permit; and 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 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Dustin). On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Dustin, Conway). Respectfully Maureen M. Recording S 4 December 8, 2005