Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-11-03 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesI ownlLkRk "D t4 Town of Reading ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS r1 Ss. Minutes of November 3, 2005 LUG u t ;i A Q: Members present: Susan Miller Robert Redfern John Jarema Michael Conway Members absent: Mark Gillis Paul Dustin 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 # 05-25 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. Attorney Chris Latham represented the owners, Stephen and Paula Hughes, who also attended. Their house is in a Business A zoning district, has a rectangular lot sloped backward to one side that makes the topography a hardship. The lot is smaller than the surrounding lots with the house tucked into the side of Bear Hill. The home was built in 1900, has a fieldstone foundation, and is very small with a total of five rooms. There are severe geographical contours and the house is surrounded on three sides by ]edge. The Applicants want to expand because they have a new baby and they want to remain in Reading. They want to add an addition that would have four bedrooms and two full baths. In the basement underneath there would he a two-car garage and space for an office. The structure is presently crammed into the setbacks and they can't put an addition on the rear. On the southerly side they are too close to the lot-line. Their contractor said they couldn't build upwards without expensive structural changes. The only practical side on which to expand is the northerly side because there is no ledge there except at the rear. This would cause them to violate the front yard setback by placing the addition 19.6' from the front of Main Street. Mr. Hughes said the present driveway is very sloped and when it snows their car slides right into the roadway. The new configuration reduces the access to Route 28 to just one driveway on the November 3, 2005 right side of the property. He said he would like to have his own law office some day and the office in the addition would give him that potential. Attorney Latham said his interpretation is that site plan review would not apply to this situation because it concerns a single-family dwelling. However, the Building Inspector and Attorney Latham thought it should be brought before the Board. The Board discussed that if it was a home occupation then it would be allowed by right but the Building Inspector said the Applicant did not want it considered a home occupation. Mr. Hughes would want an employee eventually and therefore it would not meet the home occupation category. Since there is not a home office presently in the dwelling then it would be a change of use. If the Variance was granted there should be a condition that this structure was for residential use only and not to be used later for commercial use because the minimum front setback for the Business A District is greater than 20'. John Jarema said if the Board was looking at it as a residential use in a .Business A district, then the standard residential 20' front and 15' side setbacks should apply. If it then met all the residential setbacks it would be a home occupation use and that would exclude airy employees other than people who live in the house. The house was built prior to zoning so whatever is there now is grand-fathered in but the Applicant wants to make changes. The Building Inspector said this particular dwelling is a non-confoinning structure because of the front setbacks. of the deck. Mr. Hughes said the deck would be removed. The Building Inspector asked if this Variance is for a commercial use or should it be restricted to a residential use. The Board discussed that if a Variance were granted without being conditioned on a continued residential use of the property, a fast food restaurant could offer the Hughes two million dollars for their property and then put a restaurant 19.5' from the property line. The only solution would be spot zoning and the Board would not want to get into that. If the Applicant put a covenant on the property then it would be a condition on the Variance and it would be separate and voluntary. It was mentioned that Avellino Well had restricted the second floor use of their property to be only residential,. The Board said they would like to get an opinion from Town Counsel. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to continue the hearing to December 8, 2006 for the purpose of getting Town Counsel's opinion. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Jarema). Case # 05-26 A Public Hearing on the petition of Thomas Bringola who seeks a Variance and a Special Permit under Section(s) 5.1.2/6.3:17 of the Zoning By-laws in order to demolish an existing non- conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot and to construct a new single.family dwelling that November 3, 2005 does not comply with the current setbacks required in an 5-15 District on the property located at 19 Track Road. The Applicant said he wants to tear down the present dwelling and build a new dwelling on the non-conforming lot that will not meet the side setbacks. The present dwelling was originally a mobile home with a few additions added. It is set back 80' from the street so the dwelling is even with the back yards of the houses it abuts. The lot is 9,200 square feet with 50' frontage. Most homes in the area do not conform to the zoning setbacks. The Applicant wants to build a modular colonial home with 1,700 square feet of living space and the neighbors would prefer it to be brought forward so it is more in line with their houses. The Applicant has appeared before the Conservation Commission and they have given their approval. There will not be any shed, deck or porch. Perhaps in the future a small 10' x 10' deck might be added that would be exactly in the middle of the back and would not encroach into any setbacks. John Jarema said the shed and deck presently there do not meet the current setbacks and it was unclear as to how long they had been there on the property. He said in a situation like this one, different things could be done so that abutters are not encroached upon. He said the house could be 27' feet wide and could go back farther on the lot. The Applicant said he did not know if he could find something that size that would be usable. His intent was to put in ahouse that would fit the neighborhood and fit into the zoning as best possible. John Jarema said there is a mixture of dwellings in that area and he wondered if Mr. Bringola had looked at any other possibilities for dwellings. Mr. Bringola said he was trying to keep the resale value of the dwelling around $450,000 because he thought that would be affordable for a family wanting to move into Reading. The Building Inspector said a standard small house is 24' wide. He said 27' wide is not a narrow house but it may be narrower than what Mr. Bringola would like to have. The Applicant then submitted another certified plot plan that showed the same house set back so it would conforn to the current zoning requirements. He said he would like to change the pitch of the roofline on this house to front to back because he did not care for the side to side roof on the plan. On a motion by Jo1m Jarema, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to grant the Applicant a Special Permit under Section 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws to demolish the current dwelling and accessory shed located at 19 Track Road and to construct a new dwelling with a 30' x 28' two-story dwelling as shown on the second plot plan submitted showing a 61.3' front setback from the street and a 15.5' setback on both side yards. The resultant structure may have a.front setback of less than the 61.3' described so long as the side set backs are no less than 15', the front setback is no less than 20' and an amended plot plan be submitted to the Building Inspector along with the following three conditions: 1. The Applicant 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 pennit for the work; November 3, 2005 2. The Applicant's final construction plans for the 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, Jarema). On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Jarema, Conway). Respectfully submi I Maureen M. I ight Recording Sec etar 4 November 3, 2005