HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-09-17 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTOWN OF READING
ZONING BOARD C7 APPEITT
MINUTES Sa PT 17, d
Members Present: ..i h ..iewCsr'kan Chairman
Stephen Tucker
Sally Nitzsche
Carol Scott*
indicates a non-voting member
meeting of he Zoning Board of Appeals was held in the
Selectmen's Meeting Room of the Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street,
Reading, MA at 7:00 P.M.
first public h
on the petition of
in existing garage
Reading.
caring was a continuation from July? 16$ 1992
Patrice Pullo to install a stove and sink
on the property located at 435 West Street,
<S,.t. W? e:JE3rxia stated that one of the members (John Coote) who
had sat on the first hearing had been called out of `'own and
could not be :sere. She stated that a new member would be sitting
the changed ~ ti~
on cased and as circumstances a c ~es had ~g<veC in the case ~"1.C3
felt it =Would not prejudice the applicant at all.
Mr. Tucker briefly explained what had occurred at he lase
hearing. He stated that the applicant wanted to operate a home
occupation from the garage. The only problem was that the
applicant did not live at the property. The continuation was
granted to give he applicant time to decide if she t:Tante to
go ahead with the application and move into the property.
He also stated that this would be a wholesale bakery.
Ms. 3_'ullo stated that she would 'pare wedding{ cakes ect. at her
house and deliver them . She also stated that she had changes
her residence and had moved into her mother's home at 435 West
Street. She submitted a. copy of her Voter's Registration as
proof. She stated- that she had moved on August 21.
The Boars' discussed how to handle this. It was decided that
it was an =peal to the decision of the Building inspector.
, business had turned down a ~'G1itCs~.~"-. jeCai.lv't.:' the applicant did not
live at the property. Now that Ms. Pullo had moved into the
property it would clearly be a home occupation and would be
allowed.
it was discussed that Ms. Hullo had also requested a Use-Variance-
as she 't+Tas unsure 'a'3ow to et relief. At this time she asked
to withdraw her petition for a Ilse-Variance.
1
At 7:25 P.M. a motion. was ;:Crane and seconded to delete the request
for a Use-Variance and just retain the Appeal to the Decision
o accept
of the Building inspector. The Board voted unanimously
t the motion.
At 7.26 P.M. Ms. Nitzsche € owed to uphold the decision of the
Building inspector on the petition of Patrice ?ullo to deny
sink z in i~'7 on ,:'pror~e_rL.
use of c stove and s.t.T. the existing garage i~ y
located at 435 West Street under Section 4.2.2, Business and
Service Uses of she Reading Zoning By-laws. Mr. Tucker
seconded can t'.:ae motion failed with a vote of 0-3.
The next Public Hearing was on the petition of Leslie Sidelinker
who was seeking a Variance under Section 5.2.3.5 of the Reading
Zoning By-Laws in order to build a garage on the property located
at 326 Pearl treet s Reading, MA.
Mrs. Sidelinker then stated that they wanted to build a garage
on their property. She stated that they had consulted a landscape
designer. This was one of the only locations where the garage
could be located. Mrs. Sidfelinker t.'ive stated that her ''21.asS7an:d
is a licensed carpenter'builder recently disabled due to a
serious knee injury. As cu result $ he is permanently limited
in his functional capacity and restricted in the type of work
he can perform causing financial hardship. His greatest
difficulty is with stair climbing and lifting. pools and
equipment are presently stored at the far end of the property
in the basement requiring simultaneous lifting and stair climbing
via a bulkhead door. A garage would allow safe, closed storage
of tools and equipment on level ground allowing her hus'.'" and
to perform his vocation in a less restrictive capacity.
She also state?: that a precedent has already been set in the
neighborhood and submitted photos of area homes with garages
close to the lot lines. The plot plan submitted showed that
the garage would be 4 feet from the rear lot line. She also
submitted signatures from the neighbors supporting their
application for e' Variance. She stated that one abutter was
opposed to the garage but that their house was up for scale at
this time.
Mr. Tucker read into the record a letter from the Building
inspector denying the Building Permit for the garage.
Mrs. de~ en stated that they had 1ive~.~'er , in :.vi~i _.n 1er then _ac- the house
or 19 years. She also stated that the left corner of the lot
has high rocky ledge and the garage could not be built there.
Mr. Tokaze oy the abutter next to where t":'.;e garage would be
opposed the location of the garage stating that it would be
only 4 feet from his front lawn. He felt that the garage should.;
2
Y
be '~'r?veG~ 'ir~C~C. 20 or ,Jv E~.or-_. feet Ut into the backyard.
backyard.
be the side yard
The BC,JCr{r) v t.~.°ei discussed if this area would a. _
or the rear yard. Ms. Nitzsche stated that she had seen the
property and felt that it was clearly the rear yard. The Board
unanimously felt that it would be the rear yar6, therefore,
the garage would only have to be five feet from the lot line.
Mrs. Sidelinker stated that they would gladly reduce the size
of the garage by one foot in order to conform to the By-Laws.
She then asked. to withdraw the peti t✓_on without prejudice.
At 8:14 P.M. 4'1r. `Fucker moved to accept she withdrawal of the
petitioner Leslie Si deli nker, for a Variance under Section
5.2.3.5 of the Reading Zoning By-Laws for property located at
326 ?earl St, Reading MA on the basis of the Boards finding
that the proposed garage is located in the rear yard not the
side yard, therefore, it would be inappropriate to hear this
case under Section 5.2.3.5. Ms. Nitzsche seconded and the motion
sussed with a vote of 3-0.
At 020 P.M. a motion was made and seconded to adjourn, and
the Board voted unanimously to do so.
Respectfully submitted by Karen Saporito, Recording Secretary
to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Signet ii /
Date-. /0 i : ~d"
Approved: 5-:o, o
3