Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-09-18 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTown of Reading ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - Minutes of September 18, 2003 Members Present John Jarema Robert Redfern Paul Dustin Susan Miller 4 P 4: r 'SS. 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 Chris Reilly, Town Planner. Case # 03-17 Continuance of a Public Hearing on the petition of Richard & Jillian Kenney who seek a Special Permit under Section 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to demolish an existing dwelling and to construct a new single family dwelling on the property located at 40 Harvest Road. The property they are purchasing consists of two lots, one of which contains a single family dwelling. Richard Kenney said the two lots have now been merged into one lot. The ANR will be recorded when they close on the property. The Town Planner told them to file as soon as possible. On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to grant the Petitioner and the owners (jointly) a Special Permit under Section 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to demolish an existing dwelling and to construct a single family dwelling, as shown on the plot Plan of Land dated July 14, 2003, prepared by John J. Russell of Stoneham, Massachusetts, subject to the following three conditions: 1. The Certificate of Action, Subdivision Approval Not Required (Form A) granted by the Town of Reading Community Planning and Development Commission on September 8, 2003 for 40 Harvest Road, is recorded within the time allowed by subdivision control law; and 2. A Plot Plan showing the proposed reconstruction 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 issuance of an Occupancy Permit. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. Case # 03-18 A Public Hearing on the petition of Ulysses & Julie Gilcrest who seek a Variance and/or a Special Permit under Sections 5.1.1/6.3.17 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to construct an addition within the required setbacks on the property located at 10 Lawrence Road. The Petitioners wanted to add an addition to the back of their house and construct a three step front porch instead of the handicap ramp presently there. A section of the proposed addition would not meet the required setbacks. In order to put the stairs in the addition where it would make the most sense they would go 2 feet beyond the side setback regulations. The Board noted that meeting the four criteria necessary for a Variance would be difficult. At the present time the Board would also not be able to grant a Special Permit because the Petitioners would not be able to meet one of the conditions necessary for a Special Permit under Section 6.3.11.1 of the Zoning By-Laws. The Board is hopeful this issue will be addressed at the next Town Meeting and the by-law will be corrected. The Board explained that the Petitioners could withdraw their application for a Variance/Special Permit without prejudice and come back at a later date with a revised plan. The Petitioners made this request. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to accept the request of the Petitioners that their application for a Variance/Special Permit be withdrawn without prejudice. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. Case # 03-19 A Public Hearing on the petition of W. Ryan Dwyer who seeks a Special Permit under Section 6.3.17 of the Zoning By- Laws in order to remove an existing non-conforming garage and to reconstruct a new garage with two rooms over it within the required setbacks on the property located at 43 Deering Street. The Petitioner wants to demolish the garage and breezeway and replace it with a one story family room with a cathedral ceiling. Since he would be exceeding the existing footprint the Board wanted to know why he could not make the room smaller and meet the footprint. The Petitioner wanted to keep the same footprint but could not figure how fit in the existing chimney. It would be easier not to change the front setback because of the chimney and he would rather compromise on the side. On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Susan Miller, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to grant the Petitioner a Special Permit under Section 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to demolish the existing garage and construct a new addition attached to the southerly side of the existing dwelling with the following conditions attached: 1. The proposed addition be no closer than 15 feet to the southerly side yard property line and, the front yard setback of the proposed addition be no less than 18.69 feet from the westerly property line (as shown on the Certified Plot Plan submitted). 2. The Petitioner's final construction plans (including Certified Plot Plan) shall be submitted to the Building Inspector prior to his issuance of a Building Permit. 2 3. As-built plans showing the final construction shall be submitted to the Building Inspector prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. Case # 03-20 Susan Sheldon Smith spoke for the applicant and said she wanted a definition of Zoning By-Law 5.2.3.1 from the Board. She said the Building Inspector was unfamiliar with this section. She indicated that she does not agree with the Building Inspector and how he defined adjacent lots. She said the Town Planner told her most other towns have two front yards on corners and that this was her most persuasive argument. The Board asked how was this related to what her clients want to do, what was the advantage in having two front yards, and how this was her strongest argument. Ms. Smith said she did not want Washington Park as an adjacent lot. She indicated the Town Planner would not go on record but her interpretation of their conversation was that he told her in any town other than Reading a corner lot would have two front yards. The Chairman said he did not know of any changes to Zoning By-Law 5.2.3 but Ms. Smith or her attorney could research the case law regarding this to get the two properties on the same street. He said she was talking about some major interpretations of the By-laws that may not have been used since 1942. Since Ms. Smith was trying to set precedent it must be clarified because the intent is as important as the written word. The Chairman said appealing the decision of the Building Inspector would be correct if she could prove that Zoning By-Law 5.2.3 has not changed since 1942. If something is likely to have other cases built upon it the Board wants to know beforehand and if repairs are necessary then they can be addressed. On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to continue the hearing to October 16, 2003. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. On a motion by Susan Miller, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0. Respectfully sub Maureen M. Kni _ Recording Secrq