Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-01-18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutesc, W! TOWN OF READING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF JANUARY 18, 1996 MEMBERS PRESENT: JOHN COOTE, CHAIRMAN ARDITH WIEWORKA CHRISTOPHER VACCARO SUSAN GASKELL 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 a continuation on the petition of Sharon & Michael Enright who seeks a variance of the Zoning By-Laws Section 5.1.2. The existing deck is 16.32' from the rear property line and the by-laws require 20.0'. The location of the property is 40 Longwood Road, Reading, Massachusetts. (Case #95-24) Mr. Michael Enright stated that he is looking for a variance for a rear setback on a rear deck that was built five years ago. At that time, he stated it was unknown to him that the builder did not obtain a building permit for the deck. This property was sold on December 15, 1995 and he has put $1800. in escrow to reconstruct the deck if this variance is not granted. Mr. Coote explained to Mr. Enright that according to Massachusetts General Laws 40A, Section 10, there are very specific requirements that need to be met. Mr. Enright stated that he was aware of this. He stated that his property backed up to wetlands, which slopes down in the back to a running brook. He also stated that there would be no access to the house from the deck, if it was built on the side of the house. The new owner of the house stated that the location of the deck was part of his decision in buying the house. The deck had been waterproofed every year and is in great shape. He also stated that you exit from the dining room onto the deck, which he feels is an ideal location. The Board noted that the shape of the lot was rectangular and there did not appear to be any circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape, or topography of this property which would make it unique as compared to other properties in the area. The petitioner did not offer convincing evidence that the property had any uniqueness and agreed that the property is level and that it did not have an unusual topography or shape. The petitioner did not offer any information regarding unusual soil conditions on the property. At 7:45PM, a motion was made and seconded to grant Sharon & Michael Enright a variance under Section 5.1.2 of the Zoning By-Law in order to allow a deck which had been previously constructed at the rear of the building, which is 16.32' from the rear property line and the by-laws require 20.0'. VOTE 1- 2 (denied) The next Public Hearing was a continuation on the petition of Calareso's who seeks a modification of a variance granted under Case #94-4 on the property located at 122 Main Street, in Reading, Massachusetts. (Case #95-22) Mr. Jim Fitzgerald, Calareso's architect, began by explaining to the Board that he had a landscaping solution to cover the rear wall facing Hopkins Street. He distributed information on a plant called "evonymus" which grows similar to English Ivy, a climbing vine. He stated that this evergreen lasts through both summer and winter. It would blend with the New England barn look presently at the property. He would be able to use a wooden box to enclose the electrical service. Rhododendrons already have been planted in that area. The Board noted that Town Counsel stated that it is unwise to modify previous decisions, because the abutters are not aware of the modifications. However, in this case, all abutters have been notified. The Board requested that a document be prepared by the landscaping archichect to show what exactly is proposed to be done and what to expect, such as what the plantings would look like at maturity, obligation to maintain them, what if any seasonal change to the plants, etc. The petitioner requested to withdraw his request for a modification of his variance. At 8:15PM, a motion was made and seconded, to grant the petitioner his request to withdraw, without prejudice, the modification of a variance previously granted under Case #94-4 on the property located at 122 Main Street, in Reading, Massachusetts. VOTE 3- 0 (passed) At 8:20PM, a motion was made and seconded, for the petitioner to express his intent to modify rider #1994-4, dated 1-5-95, with regard to the rear elevation concerning the fieldstone wall. The new elevations and plantings should be submitted after preparation by the landscape - architect, showing proposals which should be directed at being visually compatable with the adjacent house. Also winter and summer changes to the plants should be shown. In order to allow enough time to get plans ready, this would be presented on or about the March 7, 1996 meeting. VOTE 3-0 (passed) The next Public Hearing was on the petition of David Gentile who seeks a variance from Section 5.1.2. or Special Permit Section 6.3.1.3. of the Zoning By-Laws in order to remove an existing structure and to construct a single family dwelling on the property located at 26 Eaton Street, in Reading, Massachusetts. (Case #95-23) Attorney Mark J. Favaloro represented the petitioner and began by explaining to the Board that the petitioner is seeking to construct a new dwelling on a 9,900 sq. ft. lot. The petitioner intends to remove an existing old house on the lot which is in a dilapidated condition. The new single-family house will comply with all zoning requirements. On December 12, 1995, the Building Inspector denied a building permit application on the grounds of inadequate lot size and suggested that either a special pemit under 6.3.1.3 would be required or in the alternative that the petitioner show evidence of compliance with Section 6.3.1.2. of the Zoning By-Laws. Attorney Favaloro stated that he did a title search of the property and certified "that no owner of the land known as and numbered 26 Eaton Street, Reading, Massachusetts as further described on the attached deed, held any land in common ownership therewith in or after 1978." He also stated that the property is described on the deed exactly as it exists today. The Building Inspector stated that he would have to consult Town Counsel before making a decision. At 8:55PM, a motion was made and seconded to continue the hearing to February 15, 1996 to allow time for Town Counsel to review documents submitted by the petitioner. VOTE 3-0 (passed) At 9:OOPM, 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: CoGt.,( Date: a Approved: L4_I $ q(c