HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-10-05 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes-t t
RE0fE-1 -rs
A 15 1 2. 0 3
TOWN OF READ 'LTG
ZOND4G BOARD OF APPEALS
tilII\ 'iES - OCTOBER 5, 1995
MEMBERS PRESENT: 30IiN COOTS. CHs'UIi&1NT
ARDI7 •H WIEWORKA
CI-P21,TOPHER VACCARO
a+7 TS 1
av -k'~T GASiELL
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 7:04PM. Mr. Coote swore in, under
oath, those present that would be addressing the Board this evening.
The first Public Hearing was Case #95-10, continued from August 17, 1995 on the petition of
Dulverton Homes, Inc. who seeks a Special Permit under Section 6.3.1.3 of the Zoning ByLaws in
order to construct a singe family dwelling on the property, located at 23 Locust Street in Reading,
Massachusetts.
Mr. David McBride, Attorney for Dulverton Homes, 'Inc., presented what he found to be
variations from "lot" definitions and felt this was a un-tque situation differing from other cited
cases. He defined "lot" from "Milton's" definition versus "Reading's" definition.
Mr. Coote discussed the case today with Town Counsel and Town Counsel saw no way that this
deed could be distinguished from the "Collins" and. "Lindsay" cases.
Mr. McBride staged that to not allow this on a "technical" point, would disagree with what the
homeowner thought she always owned.. Coote stated that this case does not have
distinguishing factors from the "Collins case and therefore feels that this is one lot. The size is
diRerent but that is not significant to the Board's decision. Mr. McBride feels that the Board could
make a decision based on the size of this lot in question. Mr. Coote explained that they never
discussed "size" in the "Collins" case due to the fact that it was determined as "one" lot and size
was not a factor in the case.
Ms. Wieworka pointed out to Mr. McBride that there is a technical concern and as much as she
does not like to see a petitioner withdraw at the time of voting, she offered' TIV1r. McBride the
opportunity to withdraw his petition. v
N4r.tilci3ride requested a five-minute recess in order to discuss the possibility of a withdrawal with
his cfient-
Attorney McBride respectfully requests to withdraw his petition without prejudice.
At 8:03 )PM, a motion was made and seconded to allow the petitioner to withdraw his request
without prejudice for a Special Permit at 23 Locust Street.
VOTE 3-0 (passed)
The next Public Hearing was on the petition of Robert Caruso who seeks variance and Special
Permit under Section(s) 5.1.2 and 6.3.3.4 respectively of the Zoning ByLaws in order to raze
existing- non-conforming one-story house and build a non-conforming two-story house on the
property located at 20 Track Road, Reading, Massachusetts.
The petitioner was represented by Attorney Christopher Coleman who explained that the petitioner
had recently purchased the property and plans to demolish the existing one-story house and build a
new two-story structure. The new structure would not be built exactly on the same footprint.
The proposed location of the new structure would place it between 3 feet and 8 feet from the east
lot line, 27 feet from the west lot line, and between 22 and 25 feet from the front lot line. The
petitioner is trying to preserve access to his garage from the existing driveway.
x. Coleman stated that #13 and #15 Track Road have already, added a second floor consistent
with the neighborhood. He showed photographs of subject property in present condition and
neighborhood.
A list was also presented to the Board with signatures of abutters in favor of the re-construction.
'.:[r. Coote pointed out to Mr. Coleman that a variance would need to be granted and he would not
ii "d a Special Permit.
Discussion began about the present garage on the property and concerns were raised. \/h-.
Coleman stated that the present garage is the most valuable piece of the lot. The garage space is
needed t-or the owner's equipment and it would create a hardship for the owner to replace it.
Nir. Glen Redmond, Building Inspector, suggested that the left side lot line be increased to ten(10)
feet, to compromise, and it would still allow vehicle access to the driveway. Mr. Coleman stated
that an important factor of this case is the irnprovement of the area. The applicant has given great
care as to working around the garage which is too close to the easterly side of the lot line.
Nfs. Wieworka felt that the issue of working around an e~dsting garage has not been the standard..
She felt that the Board would be setting a precedent which would allow other homeowners to
reconsti act their homes around existing structures.
-`'ter n1ore discussion, the Board found that the existence.of this type of garage on the lot is a
ttalifz/ ng Uniqueness, and to g to loci to the house to avc>;d t side-yard set-back., olation would
co€nple.tely out off access to the garage or vehicles and ;would impose a hardship. The new house
will not be a detriment to the neighborhood and will not derogate from the intent of the Zoning
ByLaws. The present non-conformity of 1.25 feet will be improved to 7 feet on the easterly side
lot line.
Lt 9: "'PM, a motion was made, seconded and unanimously voted to grant a variance from Table
5.1.2 of the Zoning ByLaws to Robert Caruso in order to raze an existing one-story house and to
construct a two-story house to be located no closer than 7 feet from the easterly side lot line.
V07E 3-0 (passed)
The next Public Hearing was on the petition of Bruce Hakanson who seeks a Special Pen-nit under
Section(s) 6.3.2. and 6.3.2.1 of the Zoning ByLaws in order to use single fainiiy-residentially
zoned property as an acccounting office on the property located at 191 Main Street in Reading,
Massachusetts. (Case 4,95-18)
Nfr. Steven Cicatelli, representing 191 Main Street, addressed the Board by stating that this is a
less intcnse, more restricted use than that of a physician's office, which was the previous use. An
accounting offi cc would bring in a low volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, as most of the
accountant's business is done at client's homes, and there are very few employees. No additional
signage will be request":?.. Mr. Cicatelli proposed significant landscaping and driveway
improvements which would ii-ike the appearance of the property more consistent with the
residential nature of the district.
_N/Ir. Coote inquired as to what is the importance of the haadi()apped parking space chosen
location. Mr. Cicatelli is willing to relocate the handicapped space if the Board desires. itilr. Coote
suggested the handicap spot be relocated on the plan to where the bulkhead is.
1\/Ir. Hakanson also stated that no alterations are planning to be made to the exterior of the building
and minor alterations to the inside only may be done at a later date. Mr. Redmond stated that a
Special Permit had been issued to prior occupants for specified use. He also informed Mr.
Hakanson that he would need to apply for a Sign Permit to change his name on the current sign.
Mr. Coote made recommendations to allow multi-directional i. isibility for vehicles entering and
existing.
At 10:15P'_%4. a motion was made and seconded io find that under Section 6.3.2.2 of the Reading
Zoning ByLaws, the use of the property rv.5 an accounting office is more restricted than the current
use of the propeitz-, provided that the Petitioner construct the landscaping, parking and access
improvements consistent with the Plan, as modified and approved by the Board at the the hearing.
VOTE 3-0(passed)
The Zoning Board of Appeals received a request from Peter Hechenbleikner for chairpeople of
Boards to meet quarterly. Mr. Coote thought is was a good idea if "process" was discussed. The
Hoard was in agreement.
At I0:,'3PM, a mollion was nadid and scconaLd to a(tjoum, and the board voted 1i11aniiTi(3'.1,sl,17 i-)
do so.
j as cpl:ull swxlomutted it,,- Carolyn Walsh. Recordi~i!a Secretarv to the Zoning Board of Appeais.
Date: ~ G~ % 9n-C/,s