No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-03-05 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes.0 OF READING ZONING WARD OF APPEALS MINUTES _`A?CH 5, 1992 J`?ei"PcI7°rS PreS'=Y1`L A'^d' t.'7 Wieworka, Chairman John Jarema Stephen Tucker* Carol Scott* John Coote indicates non-voting member fA meeting of the 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. The scheduled Public Hearing was on he petition of John and Rosetta Barry who were seeking a Special Per3:C°.i't, any/or Variance under Section 5.1.2, The Table of Dimensional Controls of the Reading Zoning By-Laws to allow for a family room over a garage on the property located at of 16 Fairchild Drive, Reading, MA. . The Board discussed and decided that a Variance would be required to get relief. The Hoare also 6iscus:sec if the setback for a garage should be 10 or 15 feet. Ms. Wieworka stated that she had spoken to Ted Cohen who's best interpretation was 10 feet whether it is an attached or detached garage. The Barry's requested to amend their application to ask for a Variance. At 7:25.P.M. Mr. Jarema moved to change he petition before Section 5.1.2, Table of Dimen feet on the side setback. Mr passed with a vote of 3-0. to accept the petitioners request the Board to a Variance under sionral Controls, to encroach 5 . Tucker seconded and the motion ''>1:. Bca y then stated that they wanted to stay in Reading and have their children remain in the same school He showed the plans of the proposed house. He stated that there are wetlands on the lot an that they had moved the house times to try to make it fit. He stater:': that his wife's mother would eventually live with them and she would have the room downstairs with a full 'math. Therefore, they wanted to put a f'a'mily room over the garage. They felt tx at the line of the house Z+Toul not look right if the garage was 1 feet from the lot lime but the family :coo:: above was 15 feet from the lot line. Mr. Foote suggested that the house be moved forward one foot 1 as there is a 21 foot_ setback. Then the encroachment would be less. Mr. Barry stated that this is tr?'`?e`-,tt the engineer had come up with. He wasn't sure if the plan could be changed or not. Yip'. Barry when discussed the criteria for the Variance. He stated- that the lot was unique due to the wetlands. Only 4900 feet of the land is buildable due to the wetlands. Mr. Barry also stated that the house would be more appealing built this way. He also stated that the house would not be detrimental to the public and it would not overcrowd the neighborhood. _'-'Es. Scott asked if the Barry's had considered reducing the main portion of the house. . Barry stated that they had, but were trying to fit in the bedroom and full ;bath for his mother-in- law. ..'s. "?ieworka stated that this was an unusual case but she was having difficulty with the hardship aspect of the case. Mr. Barry states": that the Building Inspector told him that he could. 'guild he addition with the additional five feet but could of inhabit the area.. He also stated thai=, if the five feet were there they would live to use the area Mr. Jarema stated that he also was having difficulty with the hardship aspect of the case. He also felt that it would be derogating the by-law by causing a non--Conformity when starting fresh. He also stated that he had a roblem with th the e garage coming within 10 feet of the lot line. Mr. Tucker asked about building a smaller house. Mr. Barry stated that he couldn't see a way to do that. Ms. Scott stated that she didn't feel comfortable issuing a Variance on the lot when nothing is on it. Mr. Tucker questioned the uniqueness of the lot when many other lots in the area also are affected by the wetlands. Mr. Coote still felt on the lot without a possibility Mr. Barr prejudice. tars €w there Variance. y asked to could Af ter with be a way to fit the house more discussion of this raw his petition without Ms. Wle aorka stated that 't had C. ~ 1ef'< with through ~r0,'.1 sitting ~a~. jai a two hour hearing and then the petitioner asks to withdraw. Mr. Tucker and Mr. jarema felt that it should not be held:: against the applicant if they choose to continue the hearing instead of withdrawing at the start of the hearing. At 8:55 P.M. Mr. Jarema moved to accept the petitioner's request to withdraw without prejudice his request for a Variance under Section 5.1.2 on Lot 1 Fairchild. Drive. Mr. Coote seconded. 2 and the motion passed with a vote of 3-0e Mr. Tucker i'ove6 to c`3.CC:C',pcd".he minutes of June v, 1 991 > Mr. Jarema seconded an the motion passed with a vote of 5-0 Mr. Jarema roved to accept the minutes of September 5, 1 a 01 Ms a `:"j i evsorka seconded and the :motion passed with a vote of 5_0 Mr. Tucker moved to accept the minutes of September 19, 1911 Ms o Scott seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 5-0 Mr. Tucker moved to accept the minutes of October 3, 1901 Mr. Coote seconded any the motion passed with a vote of 5-0. Mr. Jarema move' to accept the minutes of January 3, 1 001 Mrm Tucker seconded and the motion passeO with a vote of 5--0 At 9:15 P.M. Ms. Wi eworkwa stated that she would write to Ter Cohen to clarify about the 10 feet vs. 15 feet for an attached or detached garage. At 9a27 P.M. a motion was mace an seconded to adjourn and the Board voter unanimously to do so Respectfully submitted by Karen Saporito, Recording Secretary to the %onin board of Appeals ti i ned. ; , CO Dated 10 - C S n pproved a `I e 4J s v 3