HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-19 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTown of Reading
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of August 19, 2004
Members Present: John Jarema
Paul Dustin
Robert Redfern
s
r
rn
Members Absent: Susan Miller
3
Mark Gillis
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. Also present was Glen
Redmond, Commissioner of Buildings.
Robert Redfern chaired the meeting in the absence of Susan Miller.
On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to
move the review of previous minutes to September 2, 2004.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. (Redfern, Jarema, Dustin)
Case # 04-20
A Public Hearing on the petition of David & Kathleen McCarthy who seek a Special Permit
under Section 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to remove a non-conforming structure and
to construct a new mud room and porch within the required rear yard setback on the property
located at 19 Sunnyside Avenue.
Architect Nancy Toomey presented the case for David & Kathleen McCarthy. They have an
existing bulkhead with a roof over and an existing covered porch. They would like to remove
those structures and construct a new one that would extend their small kitchen and add a mud-
room. By right they are also going to add an addition on the side that will conform to the zoning
requirements.
The Building Inspector said that 30 square feet is allowed for an open platform for egress and
would be exempt from the zoning setbacks. The existing structures are not exempt because they
have roofs and are fully enclosed. Doghouse style bulkheads will always be considered as having
to meet the zoning setbacks. He explained that any access covered by an extension of the roof of
the main structure then adds to the total dimensions of the main structure thus rendering it
subject to dimensional controls.
On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to
grant to the Petitioner a Special Permit under Section 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-Laws to remove
the two appendage structures and replace them with a enclosed porch and mud room consistent
with the documents presented with the usual three conditions.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. (Redfern, Jarema, Dustin)
Case #04-21
A Public Hearing on the petition of Carolyn Boviard who seeks a Variance under Sections 4.2 /
5.1.1 / 5.1.2 / 5.2.1 / 5.2.3.5 / 5.2.8.1 / 6.3.3 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to request same
relief previously granted Case #98-26 to convert an existing barn into a single family dwelling
on the property located at 42 Chute Street.
Attorney Chris Latham presented the case for the Petitioner. He stated that his client had
received this relief previously in 1998 under Case # 98-26 but was unable to do the project
because of financial problems and the health of her father. In 1999 she was granted a six-month
extension but due to a divorce and the continued illness of her father she was again unable to do
the project. At this point in time the Petitioner would additionally like to add a vestibule.
Attorney Latham said the carriage house (called a barn in the application) needs significant
repairs and is used now for storage. It would be a substantial investment to repair. The Petitioner
would like to restore the carriage house and convert it to a single family dwelling for her parents.
He presented what he thought were sufficient criteria that would qualify the Petitioner's request
for a variance.
A discussion was held regarding what is the definition of a carriage house as opposed to a barn
or garage. The following opinions were offered. There was an article in the Boston Globe that
defined a carriage house as a structure separate from the original dwelling that was used for the
storage of carriages and hay with more architectural flare than a barn. A barn would be used to
house livestock and store harvest crops as opposed to storage of carriages and wagons. Barns
were utilitarian and carriage houses were architectural statements and denoted prosperity.
There was also a discussion regarding how many carriage houses presently existed in the Town
of Reading as well as how many properties in the town have more than one primary living
facility on it. The Community Planning & Development Commission is studying the issue at this
time and has estimated there might be fifty carriage houses of some type within the town.
It was clarified that the Petitioner was requesting a second principal habitable building on one lot
in the side yard and a vestibule with a 14' x 6' addition. If granted the Petitioner stated that, as in
Case # 98-26, she was willing to forgo her right to convert the main house into a two family.
r'^
2
The Board felt uncomfortable setting any precedents relating to carriage houses at this time.
They wanted to determine the difference between a barn, garage and carriage house as well as lot
coverage. They felt that if the CPDC was considering criteria regarding carriage houses it would
be inappropriate for the Zoning Board to consider the issue at this at this time since the question
basically is whether it is a legal use to have two separate homes on the same lot.
The Building Inspector said the Petitioner has the right to remodel or repair the carriage house in
accordance with the bylaws and maintain the historical significance without making it a dwelling
unit.
The Petitioner, Carolyn Boviard, said she knows she can renovate the carriage house but she
cannot do it financially unless her parents sell their house and move into the renovated carriage
house.
Don Young of 50 Chute Street said it is one lot without access or frontage for a second unit on
the property.
The Petitioner was told that should the Board vote at this time and turn the request down there is
a two year moratorium before they can come back before the Board. It was suggested the hearing
be continued while all parties seek additional information.
On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to
continue the hearing to October 7, 2004.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. (Redfern, Jarema, Dustin)
Case #04-22
A Public Hearing on the petition of Paul McDonald who seeks a Variance under Section
5.0/Table 5.1.2 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to construct a deck within the required setback
on the property located at 72 Charles Street.
Paul McDonald said he was seeking a Variance on the side setback of 15' in order to construct a
deck off his kitchen. He presented what he felt were the criteria necessary to grant the Variance.
The deck has to be right off the kitchen because it is the only suitable location and if it met the
setbacks it would not be wide enough. Two years ago they renovated the kitchen with the
expectation that they would be able to add a deck off the kitchen. The deck is visible to only one
abutter and they have no issue with it being there. The deck would not be a detriment to the
public good.
John Jarema said he had visited the property and the Petitioner had shown him around. He said
the kitchen is very nice and there is access but it goes down 18' so this would be a high deck. It
is a unique parcel that rises to a crest and drops off at the rear. In order to stay within the
setbacks the deck would have to be 7'. They could do a substantial deck to the rear of the house
but there are outcroppings of rock. What they are requesting, because of the shape and
topography, is unique in that neighborhood. Besides access and frontage limitations this is
crested property and the others in the area are flat.
It was explained to the Petitioner that if he gets a Variance for this deck the house becomes a
non-conforming house and he must come before the Board for any changes in the future.
On a motion by Paul Dustin, seconded by John Jarema, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to
grant the Petitioner a Variance under Section 5.0/Table 5.1.2 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to
construct a deck within the required setback on the property with the following four conditions:
1. The width of the deck shall be reduced so that the side yard setback shall be increased
from the 10.5' shown to 12.0' (minimum).
2. The deck shall be constructed without a roof.
3. The Petitioner's final construction plans (including a certified plot plan) shall be
submitted to the Building Inspector prior to issuance of a building permit.
4. An as-built plan showing the final construction shall be submitted to the Building
Inspector immediately after construction is complete.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. (Redfern, Jarema, Dustin)
Case #04-23
A Public Hearing on the petition of Ronald Surette who seeks a Special Permit under 6.3.11.1 of
the Zoning By-Laws in order to construct a 20' x 32' two-story addition to the rear of the
existing dwelling within the required sideyard setback on the property located at 37 Belmont
Street.
Ronald Surette said when he purchased the house in 1975 it needed a lot of work and had only
one bathroom. He still has 2 children at home and they need extra room. His son does not drive
because he is learning disabled. He works at Atlantic Supermarket so he has to be close to work
because he walks. He will always live with his father and they need to expand the house.
The proposal is a 20' x 30' (as shown on the plot plan) two-story addition. The existing porch
will be taken down and reconstructed on the back of the addition and the stairs will be changed
to the rear. It is well within the lot coverage and it meets the criteria of Section 6.3.11.1.
On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to
grant the Petitioner a Special Permit under Section 6.3.11.1 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to
construct a 20' x 30' rear addition to the dwelling as shown on the Certified Plot Plan with the
usual three conditions.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. (Redfern, Jarema, Dustin)
On a motion by John Jarema, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to
adjourn the meeting.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. (Redfern, Jarema, Dustin)
Respectfully submitted,
Maureen M. Knight
Recording Secretary
w ,