HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-15 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTown of Reading
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of April 15, 2004
Members present: John Jarema
Susan Miller
Paul Dustin
E
i
Al
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.
Case #04-06
Continuance of a Public Hearing on the petition of Better Living Sunrooms & Eleanor DeCarney
who seek a Variance under Section 5.0 (dimensional controls) of the Zoning By-Laws in order to
construct an 8'x16' sunroom on an existing non-conforming deck on the property located at 58
Track Road.
The Petitioners had requested a continuance. Since the last hearing the Board has received a
written request from the Petitioner, Eleanor DeCarney, indicating she is withdrawing her
application.
On a motion by Paul Dustin, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to
accept the request of the Petitioner for withdrawal of her application without prejudice.
The motion was approved by a vote of 2-0-1 (John Jarema abstained).
Case #04-01
Continuance of a Public hearing on the petition of Richard & David Zenga who seek an appeal
from a decision of the Building Inspector under Section 7.4.2.1 of the Zoning By-Laws in order
to construct a single family dwelling on the lot adjacent to 9 Gardner Road.
This case had been continued because all abutters did not receive notification of the meeting. It
was re-advertised and continued to this date.
Attorney Chris Coleman represented the Zengas. The Petitioners own Parcel 10 that consists of
5,871 square feet and there is no structure currently on the lot. The Zengas also own Parcel 11
that has a dwelling on it. In 1940 the Petitioner's uncle took title to Parcel 11. Also in 1940
Jeffrey Robbins took title to Parcel 10. Zoning was enacted in 1942 which made the lot size
requirement of 10,000 square feet. In 1965 Mr. Ellingwood purchased Parcel 10 (after the zoning
change). In 1990 Mr. Ellingwood came before the Zoning Board for a permit to build and it was
denied. He did not meet the requirement that all the abutting lots were built upon and had 50 feet
of frontage. The Zoning By-Laws have since been revised and the Zenga's now own those lots.
This property has separate assessments and has been taxed as a buildable lot. The Zengas think it
should be treated the way it has been taxed. A building on this lot would not be out of character
for this area and the proposed house would be smaller than others in the area and have no more
than three bedrooms. So Attorney Coleman said the Zengas are not asking for any relief other
than from the decision of the Building Inspector.
The Building Inspector said when a lot does not conform to today's requirements and also refers
to a past Zoning Board decision he turns it over to the Zoning Board. This proposal does not
meet today's requirements of 15,000 square feet. He also indicated he always asks for plot plans
and he did not know if these lots have been merged. Plot plans have not been submitted by the
Zengas because they did not feel they were needed. Attorney Coleman said they can provide plot
plans.
Philip LeBlanc of 14 Gardner Road said if the Zengas can build legally and the rules are the
same as were applied to him he had no problem. He would want to see the house be in character
with the neighborhood.
The Chairman explained the changes in the By-Laws were to replace what existed as Section 6.3
of the Zoning By-Laws with a more succinct by-law that was not as restrictive and did not limit
you to have the four critical requirements. If you meet the zoning setbacks then you can meet the
requirements.
The Building Inspector said the Board has to be satisfied that lot 10 was not held in common
ownership with any adjoining land in 1942. He always looks at all the adjoining lots to see if any
were held in common ownership and that is why this case is here before the Board. When Plot 10
was recorded who owned the adjoining lots?
The Chairman thought they do not need the deeds but just a search from the Assessor's Office as
to who the assessed owners were of those three adjourning lots.
Attorney Coleman said they would check the deeds and the Assessor's Office.
On a motion by Paul Dustin, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to
continue the hearing to May 20, 2004.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0.
2
Case #04-08
A Public Hearing on the petition of Kevin Hoag & Diane Simons who seek a Special Permit
under Section 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to demolish an existing single family
dwelling on a non-conforming lot and to construct a new single family dwelling on the property
located at 29 Winslow Road.
The Petitioners did not appear for the hearing. The Chairman did the usual preliminary opening
remarks and two abutters were sworn in. The Recording Secretary explained that Kevin Hoag
had changed his mind and was not going to sell the property to Diane Simons and therefore
neither one of them appeared.
The Chairman requested that the Recording Secretary mail certified letters to both Petitioners
advising them if they choose not to continue they must either appear at the next hearing and
request this or submit in writing their request to withdraw their petition without prejudice.
Otherwise the Board would have no other option than to deny the petition. The Petitioners then
could not appear before the Zoning Board for the period of one year for a Special Permit
regarding this property.
On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by Paul Dustin, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to
continue the hearing to May 20, 2004.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0.
Case # 04-10
A Public Hearing on the petition of Robert Brady who seeks a Variance under Section 5.1.2 of
the Zoning By-Laws in order to add an addition of 2'8"x17' and 12'3"x10' 11" plus a platform
and stairs with roof over in the required setback of 15' on the property located at 105 Prescott
Street.
Doug Hooker was the architect on the project. The Petitioners added a small kitchen addition
previously. The house, which was built in 1894, is tight to one side of the lot and he used plastic
models that showed various additions and how they would fit the house. The violation is only in
one corner and since it was so slight they thought they would come before the Zoning Board.
The Chairman explained the four criteria required for a variance and explained that they are hard
to get. The Board asked if there were any structural reasons they did not expand on the right side.
Robert Brady explained that they would have to go through a bedroom to get to a bedroom. The
right side is also the only yard, Prescott Street is busy, and this is the only area safe enough for
their children to play in. It also would be an architectural mess if they were to build on the right
side.
3
After hearing the petition, the Board determined that the former drainage ditch and resulting
location of the dwelling on the lot was a unique circumstance relating to soil conditions, shape
and topography not affecting generally the zoning district in which the property is located. The
Board further concluded that since adding to the right side would require rebuilding the most
expensive part of the dwelling, a literal enforcement of the side yard requirement of the by-laws
would involve severe financial hardship to the Petitioner. The Board also concluded that a
Variance would result in a more attractive structure with little or no effect on the neighboring
dwelling, and thus could be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. Finally, the
Board concluded that a Variance could be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating
from the intent or purpose of the by-law.
On a motion by Paul Dustin, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to
grant the Petitioner's request for a Variance from Section 5.1.2 of the Zoning By-Laws to add an
addition of 2'8"x29'3"x10'11" with a front side yard setback of 13.9' and a rear side yard
setback of 13.4' as shown on plans prepared by Clipper City Surveying Engineering & Mapping,
Inc., stamped by Edward Dixon, dated March 2004. The Variance is subject to the following
conditions:
1. A Plot Plan showing the poured foundation is submitted to the Building Inspector
prior to the issuance of a Building Permit; and
2. A Plot Plan showing the proposed construction is submitted to the Building Inspector
prior to 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.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0.
On a motion by Susan Miller, 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.
Respectfully submitted,
~f
Maureen M. Knight
Recording Secretar}
4
