Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-03-04 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTOWN OF READING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES-MARCH 4, 1993 Members Present: rd.ith ' ieworka Stephen Tucker John Jarema meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held in the Selectmen's Meeting of the Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, A at 7.00 P.M. The Scheduled Public Hearing was on the petition, of Dorothy M. Jones et al who was seeking a Special Permit under Section 6.3.1.3 of the heading Zoning By-Laws and/or an appeal from the decision of the Building Inspector on a lot with 0 feet of frontage located at lots 198 and 213 between Harvest and Tracy, Road, Reading, MA. Ms. Wieworka stated that the legal requirement for advertisement for a hearing is 14 days. Because of an error by the Reading Chronicle, the advertisement did not appear on Thursday, two weeks ago, but on Friday. Wherefore, there had been only 13 days notice. She also stated that the applicant was aware of the notice problem. She stated. that the Board had consulted with Town Counsel who felt that the 13 days was adequate. The applicant had also waived any rights to object. She also asked the public present if anyone objected to the 13 day notices There was no response. Ms. .Munn. s, representing the applicant, then discussed the Loot numbers, She stated that it was a little confusing, as the Lot Numbers shown on the Zoning Map were 49 and 32 She also discussed that there was a drainage easement on the property. She stated that the Loot is undersized given the district but that there are a number of single family residents within the 300 foot area that are similar. She stated that s. Jones would like to get a Special Permit to sell the Lots as buildable. She went on to say that the plan dates back to 1921 which predates zoning and should be grandfathered.. She also discussed that the Lots are held in common ownership. Mr. Jarema then read an affidavit from Dorothy M. Jones discussing the property. Ms. Munnis discussed that .fibs. Jones would life to sell each lot separately, but would consider one Special Permit for both lots, and selling it that way. The abutters were concerned that the lots were not really 50 feet wide. The were also concerned that the water way h deteriorated the land n the gully was getting bigger. They also questioned about sewer and water and trucks coming and going on the private ways during building. Ms. Munnis stated that the builders would have to worry about those problems. She again stated that her client was only looking to sell sa ieworka explained to the public present that normally in this area you would need 80 feet of frontage and. 10,000 square feet of property. She also discussed that the by- law had provisions to seek a Special Permit which is what s. Jones is seeking it discussed that the Town owned the drainage ditch. Ms. unnis discussed that within the 300 feet there were about 13-15 lots that are similar. Mr. slarema discussed that because of the easement, a house could not be built on Lot 32. There would not be enough room. The easement on Lot 32 (213) took. 6.79 feet. can Lot 49 1198) the easement took, 1.53 feet The Board expressed a concern that the Lots needed to have 5 feet of frontage. .s. .unnis discussed that the easement was minimal on lot 49 and that the Board should have some discretion.. ,r. Jarema stated that he was not sure that the Board had that discretion. sa Sunnis then discussed some lots that had less than 50 feet, She also stated that the two lots met the literal requirements of 50 feet. She also stated that they would, be willing to combine the two lots to get one buildable lot. It was also discussed that all abutting lots needed to be built upon. The Lots owned by the gown were not built upon. sd Mun.n.is argued that the lots were not buildable, as they were a drainage ditch. The Board then discussed how many of the Lots within the 30 foot area were similar. The Board stated that in the past they had looked at greater than 50% as being similar. .After much discussion it was agreed that 21 out of 44 Lots (145`x) may be similar. The Board discussed that it was having a problem getting by requirement C, which is having 50 feet of frontage They also discussed that 45% was not substantial, as they have used greater than, 50% as substantial in past cases. They also discussed that the applicant was asking for an appeal from the decision of the Building Inspectors Ms. Munn.is stated that they were really seeking a Special Permit and asked to withdraw the appeal from the decision of the Building Inspector. .At :02 P.M. Mrs Jarema moved to accept the applicants request to withdraw their appeal from the decision of the Building Inspector. r> Tucker seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 3-0. t 9:03 P.M. Sir m Jarema roved to grant a Special Perot under Section: 6.3.]..3 of the Reading Zoning By-Laws on the petition of Dorothy M. Jones et al for the purpose of creating one building lot referred to as lot:: 198 and 213 between Harvest and. Track Road also known as Dots 32 and 49 on Assessors Map 79a Mr. Fucker seconded, and the motion failed with a vote of 0-3. At 9010 P.M. Date, a motion was made and seconded to adjourn, and the Board vo- Resectfully Secretary to Si ned° :ed unanimously to do so, submitted by Dairen Saporito, Recording the Zoning Bard of Appeals. Approved: 3 !6 1