HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-16 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTown of Reading
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of October 16, 2003
Members: John Jarema
Susan Miller
Robert Redfern
Paul Dustin
Mark Gillis
U
, fir ~S.
CID
iLuj 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. Also present was Glen
Redmond, Commissioner of Buildings.
Case # 03-21
A Public Hearing on the petition of Angelo Ciano, Trustee of ONAIC Realty Trust who seeks a
Special Permit/Modification of Special Permit under Section 6.3.11.2 of the Zoning By-Laws in
order to modify the existing Special Permit to use the second floor as a residential dwelling
rather than office space as the permit presently authorizes on the property located at 143 Main
Street.
Josh Latham spoke on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner would like a modification for the
second floor to use this space as a single residential unit. They will use this for family but they
do not want to rule out renting as a future possibility. The demand has changed for business
space and the CPDC has approved this space for residential use.
The Building Inspector did not have a problem with this as it is an allowed use. It would be for a
one family unit on the second floor with office use on the bottom floor.
Attorney Latham said the parking was sufficient because they only need 2 for the residential
space but there are more spaces as well as the garage which will be used for large equipment.
The modification is just a request for a change of use for the second floor as a residential
dwelling. The Board need only amend the use portion of the Special Permit for the second floor
from office to residential.
On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted
to grant the Petitioner a modification to the Special Permit issued on December 6, 2001 in Case #
01-26 for the subject property to allow the second floor to be used as a single residential
dwelling, subject to all the terms and conditions contained in the original Special Permit.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0.
r
Case #03-20
Continuance of a Public Hearing on the petition of Jon Aldrich & Karen Morgan who seek a
Variance/Special Permit/Appeal from a decision of the Building Inspector under Sections
5.1.2/6.3.11/5.2.3 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to construct a front porch on a non-
conforming structure on the property located at 40 Prescott Street.
Board Member Mark Gillis excused himself from the case because the Petitioners were clients
and family friends.
The Building Inspector denied the building permit application because the front setback would
be 18'2" and it would be a violation of the Zoning By-Laws. Looking at the Plot Plan the
adjacent lots would abut this lot directly. The Petitioner wants to use the lot across the street and
both the Building Inspector and the Town Planner say this is not an adjacent lot.
The Chairman said what. is before the Board is an interpretation as to "adjacent lots." A strict
interpretation is that the By-Laws mean abutting properties are adjacent properties, touching the
subject lot on each side. A property across a street is not addressed in the By-Laws so the
Petitioner will be held to the two properties adjacent on either side to his lot. The question is
whether the Board will uphold the decision of the Building Inspector.
Ms. Smith asked what the Board's interpretation is because she wants to use this particular issue
again and again. The Chairman said the Board is not going to give her an interpretation because
she is asking for something that will change the entire community. The By-Laws refer to two
adjacent lots on either side and do not say anything about a corner lot or across the street. If the
re-wording for the Special Permit is approved at the upcoming town meeting the Petitioner could
have what he is are looking for in three months time. The Petitioner would have an extremely
difficult time asking for a Variance and the Board does not have the time to prove what the intent
of the By-Law was in the past.
The Building Inspector said the question is not the intent but rather his decision that the adjacent
lots are on either side and that the lot across the street is not adjacent. That is the way it was
written, adopted and approved. If you had a simple corner lot you would take the house to the
left and to the right and average between and you would not jump across the street. If the house
to the left has a 10' setback and the house to the right has a 20' setback then the middle property
can have a 15' setback.
The Petitioner asked if they could continue the hearing until after the town meeting. The Board
said they would need a letter in writing from the Petitioner asking for a time continuance of 90
days and the Petitioner produced one at the hearing.
2
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted
to continue the hearing for Case #03-20 until January 8, 2004.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0.
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted
to adjourn the meeting.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0.
Respectfully sub tted,
N"i
G_ li g
~q
Maureen M. ight 11,
Recording Secr taryl