HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-07-18 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTOWN OF READING
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF JULY 18, 1996
MEMBERS PRESENT:
JOHN COOTE, CHAIRMAN
STEPHEN TUCKER
CHRISTOPHER VACCARO
CEP ,
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:OOPM. Mr. Coote swore in, under
oath, those present that would be addressing the Board this evening.
The first Public Hearing was on the petition of Bruce MacKenzie who seeks a Special Permit
under Sections 6.3.1.3 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to build upon a nonconforming lot on the
property located as House Lot adjoining 29 John Carver Road, Assessors Map 112, Plot 14 in
Reading, Massachusetts. (CASE #96-09)
Attorney Mark J. Favaloro represented the petitioner and began by giving a history of the
property to the Board stating that Lot 14 was held in common ownership from March 16, 1946
by Floris P. and William A. MacKenzie, parents of the petitioner, Bruce MacKenzie. On July 19,
1974, Floris P., widow of William A., conveyed both parcels via separate deeds to herself and the
applicant, Bruce MacKenzie. On August 25, 1990, Floris MacKenzie died leaving Bruce
MacKenzie the holder of title to both parcels. On June 19, 1996, lot 12 containing the existing
house was sold to a third party. The lot is 6,083 square feet in area with frontage of 82 feet.
Mr. Bruce MacKenzie stated that he has held onto this property as an investment, always feeling
that this was a buildable lot. Last year when the zoning laws changed, he decided to sell. Mr.
John Edson, the proposed purchaser, spoke in support of a Special Permit, wants to purchase the
lot and live in the neighborhood that he grew up in. He had building plans, however, the Board
felt that it was premature to see the plans.
Several abutters were present at the hearing voicing their concerns. Mr. John Regan, 78
Winthrop Avenue, opposed the application, along with Gordon McPhee, 39 John Carver Road,
who was concerned about size, dimensions, setbacks, and future variances allowed in the town.
Scott Seeley, 33 Puritan Road, concerned about the integrity of the neighborhood, expressed his
concern over how this lot could hold a house.
The Board took some time to review the documents submitted by Attorney Favaloro. The Board
examined Assessor's maps and the analysis of area and frontage of lots within 300 feet of the
subject property presented. The lot closest in size to this lot was 7,850 square feet, all other lots
were 40% or more larger.
At 8: l OPM, a motion was made and seconded to grant Bruce MacKenzie a Special Permit under
Section 6.3.1.3 of the Zoning By-Laws to establish Lot 14 as shown on Assessor's Map 112 as a
buildable lot.
VOTE 0-3 (denied)
The next Public Hearing was on the petition of Giuseppe Fodera who seeks a Variance and/or an
appeal from a decision of the Building Inspector under Section(s) 2.2.13 and 7.4.2.1 of the
Zoning By-Laws in order to obtain a building permit for a parcel of land Map 213, Lot 23 on the
property located adjacent to 10 Franklin Street in Reading, Massachusetts. (CASE #96-10)
Mr. Bill Bergeron of Hayes Engineering, began by explaining that the petitioner is seeking a
variance to allow a common driveway easement over the frontage of Lot 1, to provide physical
access to Lot 2. Lot 2 has 212.40 linear feet of frontage along Haverhill Street, however it is
encumbered by wetlands and topographic features which prohibit direct physical access. The
petitioner was requesting a variance from the definition of "frontage" set out in Section 2.2.13 of
the Zoning By-Law, so that the portion of Lot 2 abutting Haverhill Street which is wetland, could
be included as "frontage" for purposes of complying with the minimum frontage requirement
under the by-law.
Mr. Douglas MacAllister, 601 Haverhill Street, agreed that this was the safest place to put a
driveway and questioned at what point does this become a street. Ms. Wendy Kinzler, 36
Franklin Street, concerned about three families being allowed to share a driveway.
Mr. Coote felt it showed the best use of this land. This property has a significant amount of
wetlands compared to other properties. If it were not for the wetlands, this land would allow for
more houses to be built.
The Board determined that the topography and soil conditions of the property were unique, in
that the wetlands along Haverhill Street entirely `separated the upland portion of Lot 2 from
Haverhill Street and felt that given the large area of the property, it would be a hardship for the
petitioner to be unable to construct both of the residences proposed for the property, and that
granting the requested variance to enable the construction of such residences would not derogate
from the purposes of the by-law or be detrimental to the neighborhood.
The petitioner noted that he was seeking a variance and did not need an appeal from a decision of
the Building Inspector, so a motion was made and seconded to withdraw the Appeal from the
Decision of the Building Inspector.
VOTE 3-0 (passed)
At 9:07PK a motion was made and seconded to grant a Variance under Section(s) 2.2.13 of the
Zoning By-Laws to Giuseppe Fodera so that the petitioner could construct the proposed houses
on Lot 1 A and Lot 2, with the proposed shared driveway, all as shown on the Plan, provided that
such shared driveway would not be constructed to access any lots other than Lot 1 A and Lot 2.
VOTE 3-0 (passed)
The next Public Hearing was on the petition of William P. Duffy who seeks a Special Permit
and/or Variance under Sections 6.3.3.4 and 5.1.2 of the Zoning By-Laws in order to construct a
second level on a nonconforming structure on the property located at 43 Line Road, Reading,
Massachusetts. (CASE #96-11)
Mr. William P. Duffy explained to the Board that he was getting married in October and the
house is not large enough for two people. This property does not have a cellar, and there is a
small crawl space for an attic. He does have a shed outside for storage items. This is presently a
non-conforming structure, and he is requesting a second story addition.
The Board discussed the variance requirements of 6.3.3.4 and decided to continue the hearing in
order to seek advice from Town Counsel and also to give the petitioner time to prepare testimony
concerning the thresshold requirements for a variance under Massachusetts General Laws,
Chapter 40A, Section 10.
At 9:50PK a motion was made and seconded to continue the hearing to September 5, 1996.
VOTE 3-0 (passed)
At 10:05PK a motion was made and seconded to adjourn, and the Board voted unanimously to
do so.
VOTE 3-0 (passed)
Respectfully submitted by Carolyn Walsh, Recording Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Signed: ~CR J
Date: q
Approved: g--! q -