The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005-01-06 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTown of Reading ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes of January 6, 2005 Members Present: Susan Miller Robert Redfern Michael Conway Mark Gillis (left meeting at 9:00 PM) Paul Dustin. Members Absent: John Jarema N C= 7~ c= 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 # 04-30 A Public Hearing on the petition of Wendy Robinson who seeks a Variance under Sections 4.0/4.2,2 of the Zoning.By-laws in order to allow open storage in front of a retail store during regular business hours on the property located at 6 Linden Street (The Corner Closet). The Petitioner said she wanted an 11' x 11' x 12' space in front of her shop in which to display items outside her consignment shop so people can see what type of wares she sells. The items would not be large and would be things she can carry in and out on, a daily basis. The area would take up one of the two parking spaces in front of the building. There is no formal sidewalk in front. The goods would be displayed Tuesday through Saturday from 10 AM to 5 PM. Among the comments by Board members was: it was a pre-existing custom to display items outside this building and had it been a thrift store for many years; there are sidewalk sales during the year and this was a similar practice, perhaps this was an omission in the Zoning By-laws since it was allowed in other zoning districts, unless the town puts a limit on open storage and then the local sidewalk sales are clearly illegal; the grandfather argument could be compelling; a certified plot plan would make the resolution easier. It also was noted that the application was from the renter of this store and not the owner. The Petitioner said this could be remedied by having the owner, Ann Stinchfield, who was present, sign the original application at the Town Clerk's office. The Board wanted to know who had given them the right to say these two parking spaces in front belong to them exclusively for their use. Ann Stinchfield is the owner of the building that the Corner Store is in. She said the store was in existence for 27 years. She displayed goods every day five days a week for 27 years. The town never took any enforcement action against her. The Petitioner said she was not prepared to argue for a Variance because she did not have any knowledge of what is required for a Variance. The Chairman explained to her what the requirements were. The Board will speak with Town Counsel and get back to the Petitioner. If they do pursue a Variance they will be required to present a certified plot plan. On a motion by Mark Gillis, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to continue the hearing to February 3, 2005. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Gillis). CASE #04-31 A Public Hearing on the petition of John Pember who seeks a Variance under Section 5.0 (side yard setbacks) of the Zoning By-laws in order to construct a three season porch (12'3" x 18') and an open deck (6' x 17'9") as indicated on the plan dated August 12, 2004 on the property located at 7 Heritage Drive. This proposal does not conform to the side yard setback of 15.' John Pember said they want to build a three-season porch and a deck that will not meet the side - yard setbacks. It is a sideward-placed small ranch on a narrow, long lot at the end of a dead-end road with no close neighbors. The house was built side-wards because the lot was so narrow. They would only have a 3' setback on one side but that side will abut conservation land and the Conservation Commission has given their approval to the entire project by granting an Order of Conditions that must be met. The farmer-style porch would give the house a more attractive front fagade. The access would still be on the side and there would be no stairs in the front. There is a walkout on the back but there is a steep drop in the topography and they would be unable to build in the back. The Board thought the proposed three-season porch and deck would not be a problem because there were no neighbors and the Conservation Commission has given their approval with conditions. On a motion by Mark Gillis, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to grant a Variance under section 5.1.2 of the Zoning By-laws to allow the building of an addition as shown on the plans no closer than 6.2' on the northwest corner of the proposed screened porch and 3.6' on the southwest corner of the screened porch and 8.4' on the southwest corner of the proposed first floor wood deck on the conditions that the Applicant provide a certified plot plan prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Gillis). CASE # 04-32 A Public Hearing on the petition of William & Lisa Scherber who seek a Special Permit and a Variance under Section 4.3.2.8 of the Zoning By-laws in order to create an accessory apartment within an existing single family dwelling on the property located at 63 Dana Road. Steve McCullough spoke for the Scherbers. They want to build the accessory apartment for her mother who is single and elderly and who wants to live with the Scherbers. She also helps out with the Scherber children and it would be easier for her if she lived there with them. The Conservation Commission has already approved this project. There is adequate off-street parking for all vehicles. There will be a separate entrance off the back for the proposed accessory apartment. Also, once someone is in the main dwelling they can go down the stairs and through the utility area to a door that enters the apartment. He said you could not extend off the back of the house because of the slope of the lot that would not be suitable considering the mother's medical conditions. Mrs. Scherber submitted medical documentation and letters from her mother's doctors as to why her mother would be better off with a larger accessory apartment. She might, in the future, need to use a wheelchair or a walker and require a whirlpool walk-in shower. Plan A would provide more space for these needs than Plan B. Both require that the foundation be pushed out and both use most of the existing basement. The Board reviewed the requirements for an accessory apartment and concluded that all the requirements were met with the exception that the floor plan of Plan A would occupy more than 1/3 of the gross floor area of the dwelling. The Board then discussed the requirements for a variance and concluded that the requirement regarding circumstances unique to the property is not applicable to this situation and the other requirements were met. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to grant a Special Permit under Section 4.3.2.8 of the Zoning By-laws to construct an accessory apartment with the floor plan shown as "A", within the existing single family dwelling. 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 grant a Variance because Plan "A" exceeds the maximum floor area of one-third the gross floor area of the one family dwelling by less than 1% (stated to be 34%). The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Dustin). 3 CASE # 04-33 A Public Hearing on the petition of Lawrence F. McHugh who seeks a Special Permit under Section 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws in order to remove a portion of an existing non-conforming structure and to construct a new structure on that same footprint on the property located at 205 Summer Avenue. Lawrence McHugh said he is seeking a Special Permit to demolish the left part his home and using the existing footprint, which is non-conforming in the front, build a new structure extending it further out in the back, allowing for future one-floor living if necessary. They also want to make sure there is room for a handicap ramp in the future. The Board said that the petitioner is to maintain the present 13.4' setback and the project is to conform to the current zoning requirements. They feel comfortable with the plans that will cause no further encroachment and be the maximum extent practicable. On a motion by Paul Dustin, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to grant a Special Permit under Section 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-laws in order to remove a portion of an existing non-conforming structure and to construct in its place a new structure on the same footprint on the property as shown on the certified plot plan with the usual three standard conditions. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0 (Miller, Redfern, Dustin). On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Michael Conway, 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. Kr~ght Recording Secr tary 4