HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-29 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTown of Reading C L
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of May 29, 2003
--b 4: 50
Members Present: John Jarema
Edmund Balboni
Robert Redfern
Paul Dustin
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 in attendance was Glen
Redmond, Commissioner of Buildings.
Case # 03-03
Continuance of a Public Hearing on the petition of Gayle Yotch who seeks a Variance under
Section(s) 5.1.2 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to construct an addition within the required
setbacks on an existing non-conforming dwelling on the property located at 173 Lowell Street.
The architect for Gayle Yotch presented the reasons they felt the Variance should be granted and
the four conditions required by MGL, Chapter 40A, Section 10 . These were submitted to the
Board in a letter. He explained that the addition will consist of a family room, bedroom and some
porches. The new construction is separate except for the linking portion to the existing house. He
explained that they were trying to design an addition that looks as if it was always part of the
house. The proposed width was 24 feet which is only four more feet than what is allowable.
The Board discussed the fact that the petitioner was not encroaching on the setbacks any more
than the existing dwelling. The petitioner easily met the last three criteria. The Board discussed
in detail the first criteria and whether the petitioner met it. The lot itself is a unique shape and
only allowed a 20 foot structure which is not a normal width structure. The 24 feet they are
requesting is a more normal width and by conforming within the footprints of the existing
structure it does not encroach more than what is there. The Board felt a Special Permit under
Section(s) 6.3.17 was more appropriate.
On a motion by Edmund Balboni, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals
voted to grant the Petitioner a Special Permit under Section 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-Laws for the
reconstruction of a single-family dwelling after voluntary demolition of the existing dwelling, as
described on the Plot Plan of Land prepared by O'Neill Associates of North Reading,
Massachusetts, dated November 7,2002, and the accompanying ten-page set of drawings
prepared by J. Saia Jr., subject to the following conditions:
1. The Certified Plot Plan showing the proposed reconstruction is submitted to the
Building Inspector prior to the issuance of a building permit; and
2. An as-built plan(s) submitted to the Building Inspector prior to issuance of an
Occupancy Permit.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0.
Case #03-09
A Public Hearing on a petition by Ken Shaknites/Charts Remodeling and Richard and Darlene
Johnson who seek a Variance and a Special Permit under Section(s) 5.1.2/6.3.17 of the Zoning
By-Laws in order to allow a portion of the existing dwelling constructed without building
permits to remain on the property located at 340 Lowell Street. This portion of the dwelling was
constructed without permits and does not comply with the zoning setbacks for the Town of
Reading.
Attorney Josh Latham spoke on behalf of the Johnson's. He stated that the Johnson's had hired
Ken Shaknites who had received Conservation Commission approval and then began the project
assuming he was all set although he was not issued a building permit. The purpose was to build a
garage, a third bedroom and a bathroom on the second floor. The Conservation Administrator did
visit the site and it drops sharply in elevation into a wetland area with only 30% of the property
usable. The petitioners were requesting either a Special Permit or a Variance and were requesting
permission to complete the project.
The contractor said it was an error on his part and that he had mostly only done interior work or
additions off the back of houses. He stated he had been in the industry for seven years and this
was not typically a project he would work on. The contractor said he thought that if the
Conservation Commission approved then he was free to begin building even though he had not
been issued a building permit. The Board asked if he has needed permits in other towns and he
said yes.
The Building Inspector said we do not know what the exact footprint was but it appears the new
construction has gone beyond that. He did not know how the Board could issue a Special Permit
for something that had been taken down and rebuilt because there could be serious issues
regarding the building that had taken place to date.
The Board discussed the fact that the footprint was increased within the side yard setback. and
there were two Plot Plans with different dimensions. It was decided that a new Certified Plot
Plan by a new surveyor was necessary in order to get accurate dimensions as to what exactly was
built without building permits. The Board also requested any photos that may be available that
show what was there previously before demolition.
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Edmund Balboni, the Zoning Board of Appeals
voted to continue the hearing to June 19, 2003.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0.
Case # 03-08
A Public Hearing on a petition by James & Michelle Iantosca who seek a Special Permit and an
appeal from a decision of the Building Inspector under Section(s) 6.3.17 of the Zoning By-Laws
in order to demolish the existing single family dwelling and to construct a new single family
dwelling on a non-conforming lot on the property located at 38 Dividence Road.
Attorney Christopher Vaccarro spoke on behalf of the Inatoscas. He stated that they were
requesting that the Building Inspector's decision be overturned so they can demolish the existing
dwelling and rebuild a new dwelling. The co-owner of the dwelling is Mary Doucette, Mrs.
Iantosca's mother. The proposed dwelling will comply with all the current zoning setback
requirements but they cannot conform regarding the lot size and the frontage.
The Building Inspector said they would not need a Special Permit if they were to rebuild exactly
the same footprint but since it is larger they do.
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Edmund Balboni, the Zoning Board of Appeals
voted to grant the petitioner a Special Permit for the voluntary demolition of the existing
dwelling and the construction of the reconstructed dwelling under Section(s) 6.3.17, subject to
the following two conditions:
1. The Petitioner's final construction plans (including a Certified Plot Plan) be
submitted to the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
reconstructed dwelling, and
2. A final as-built Certified Plot Plan be submitted to the Building Inspector before the
issuance of an Occupancy Permit for the reconstructed dwelling.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0.
On a motion by Robert Redfern, seconded by Edmund Balboni, the Zoning Board of Appeals
voted to accept the withdrawal of the request to have the decision of the Building Inspector
overturned.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0.
Old Business
The Building Inspector stated that Latham, Latham and Lamond need a modification of a Special
Permit for 143 Main Street. They want to make the upper level residential instead of office space
as they had originally requested. This is a business A zone and the permit has special language
for a business use.
On a motion by Edmund Balboni, seconded by Robert Redfern, the Zoning Board of Appeals
voted to require that Latham, Latham and Lamond come back before the Board to request a
modification to the Special Permit they were previously granted because of the use change.
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0.
On a motion by Edmund Balboni, 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 submitted,
Maureen M. Knight
Recording Secretary