HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-01-06 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTOWN OF READING
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES JANUARY 6, 1994
Members Present: John Jarema, Chairman
Carol Scott
John ca to
Stephen Tucker
A meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held in the
Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, A
at 7:00 pc .
The first hearing was on the petition of Steven Clark who
was seeking a Variance from 5.1.2 Table of Dimensional
Controls of the Zoning By-Laws to allow for a rear yard
setback for a two----car garage for the property located a
536 Haverhi.le l Street, Readisng, MA,.
Mrs. Clary then discussed that they had built the garage a
few years ago and knew that they needed to be 5 feet from
the lot line. Recently, they had tried to refinance and
discovered that, in fact, one corner of the garage was only
4.74 feet from the lot line She explained that at the
time it was the only place to pit the garage and it world
be a hardship to have to remove it now. She felt that it
was not detrimental to the neighborhood and did not
derogate from the by-law.
The Board discussed that this case should be heard under
Section 5.2.3.6 and the petitioner agreed.
Carol Scott then moved to grant a Variance to Steven F.
Clark under Section 5.2.3.6 of the Zoning Bar--saws for
property located at 536 Haverhill to allow for a :tear yard
setback for a two car garage which is located 4.74 feet
from the rear property line. Stephen Tucker seconded and
the motion passed with a vote of 3-0.
The next hearing was on the petition of Alfred, Ceorgs who
was seeping a Variance from. Section 5.1.2 "able of
Dimensional Controls of the Zoning Bar--Laws to allow for a.
side yard setback for a new addition for the property
located at 409 Haverhill Street, Reacting, MA.
The Georgs were represented Mr. Bill Wagner. He first gave
a brief history of the property. The Ceorgs bought the
property in 1985. Late last year the Ceorgs applied for a
building permit for an addition to their homed They had
lengthy discussions with Mr. LeClair regarding setbacks
but were told they were fine a When the addition was about
80% built problems began to arise regarding the sideyard
setback. He then discussed that they had three plans and
all of them had different sideyard setbacks, The
applicants, therefore, are unsure if they comply or not
They are also uncertain if they need a Variance or a
Special Permit.
re Wagner then discussed the criteria for a Variance. He
stated that they had a pie shaped lot with a house that did
not si.t. squarely on it a There was a drainage ditch can one
side and conservation land in the rear. He then discussed
that it was a hardship because they had man discussions
with the town before starting the addition and they have
already put $30,000.00 into the addition. He also discussed
that it was not detrimental to the neighborhood as the
closest abutter was 66 feet away. He felt that it did not
derogate from the By-Law as the house has been there for 40
years o He then discussed, that the house encroached only 16
inches
Mar avalaro, representing the Roberts, who abutt the
property, then discussed that the house not only encroached
on the side lot line but did not conform to the height
requirement under Section 2.2,1,6 of 35 feet. He also
discussed that on the application the cost of the addition
was listed as $10.000. He wondered how it had tripled and
the amount was now being used as a hardship. He asked that
the Board deny the Variance and, uphold the by-laws. He
also submitted the signatures of 13 neighbors in the area
opposed to the Variance.
The height was discussed and a letter was submitted from
Benchmark stating that the height was 33, feet from the
top of the founda.ti,on
f=ro elaire then stated that the problem was that there
were too many plot plans. When this was first started he
did not require a certified plot plan because the building
was going straight up, ra Le Claire then stated that he
was satisfied: with the letter from Benchmark pertaining to
the height-,
Mr. > Faval aro then asked that the Board ask Benchmark to
submit a new letter showing the height from grade. He also
stated that a certified plot plan should have been required
because of the overhangs The building was not going only
straight up. He also stated that the neighbors should not
bear the brunt of the errors, It should be the applicant.
Mr m Wagner stated that his applicant did nothing without
confirming and verifying with the Building Inspector.
Mrs Jarema stated: that four members of the Boar had been
at the site. He stated that he did not have a problem with
the height as the grade level appeared to be the same as
what. Benchmark referred to as "the sill"
The Board discussed where the actually lot line was e There
had bee . plot plans made. The Bendchmar plan was the
first d,Ei with an instrument survey which showed at the
closest p lnt the building encroached to 11.9 feet from the
foundation and 10,1 including the overhang.
r 4 Roberts stated that his privacy has invaded by the
building of the addition, He stated that would like the
third floor gone from the addition. He liscussed how
his fence had, come to be where it is
Mrb a.rema asked if he would be interested in selling the
land on the other side of the fence to Mrs Georges so that a
Variance would not be required
".•~y1_ of the public present felt that this would not solve
w. robl.em. They felt the main problem with the addition
w:.s the height of the additions It was described as "the
wall of white". They felt. it was offensive.
Mr. Jarema explained that the height was not an issue. The
only issue was the encroachment on the lot line. The
neighbors requested that they get together with the eorgs
to discuss what could be done about the site.
Mr. Jarema suggested a 15 minute recess in order for the
parties to discuss this proposal. motion was made and
seconded: to recess for 15 minutes.
When the meeting resumed Mr a Wagner stated that the two
parties had not come to any agreement.
-:-d discussed briefly that a Special 'hermit could
pos•-;i'lty be used instead of a Variance but that they would:
like- to discuss it with 'own Counsel
.fir: Fucker them moved to continue the subject matter of the
hearin_ until. January 20, 1994 in order to clarify from
`l?owr. C Ansel the direction of relief sought e ter e Coote
secon.("' l and the motion passed with a vote of 3-0.
- to ti on was made and seconded to adjourn and the Board
•l unanimously to do so.
` YY ase minutes were transcribed from tapes. Recording
Secretary was not present at greeting.
Respectfully submitted by Karen ar c;rit , Recordin
Secret---- jolt~he on, -iBoa'
Signed
Date: 5-19-94
Approved: 3-0
f~