HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-10-03 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTOWN OF READING
ZONING RD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1991
Members Present:
Ardity 5,,.-rie'wor!>a, Chairman*
Stephen Tucker
;ally Nitzsche
John'; C°oote
*Indicates non-voting member
A meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held in the
Reading, Selectmen's Meeting Room of the Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street,
MA at 7:00 P.M.
?-`a public meeting was held on the petition of Reading Gymnastics,
172 Woburn Street; Reading, M for a review of the existing
limited Use-Variance.
nk a
it was stated for the i"~.'c~3rC~ t.~ai~ i'..s, Leslie ~`='CE~+~naGiC.' had pa1C.z
for the public advertisement for this meeting in the Reading
Chronicle.
it was discussed that Reading Gymnastics Lim ted. Use- Variance
must be reviewed by the Board on or before October 1 of each
~ year.
;z~vA ..~C: ~ ~ g. n f.le stated ~aL.. she has had the building ainspected
iz`C_~.c^s ~ ~::G~. ....and is in no violation. She stated that she has just had the
parking area re-lined an sainted. She also state' that she
would be putting up a six or eight foot fence along the lot
line and that the hours of operation were still the same.
At 7:15 P.M. Carol Scott joined the quorum.
At 7:20 P.M. Stephen Tucker ?"'stove to extend the Limited Use-
Variance for one year for Reading Gymnastics Academy locate
at 172 Woburn Street, Reading, MA. Sally Nitzsche seconded
and the otion passes; with a vote of 3-0
.
Members Present: ArcYith Wieworka, Chairman
Stephen Tucker
John Coote
Sally Ni tzsc le*
Carol Scott*
* indicates a non-voting member
The next public hearing was on the petition of Michael L'''.+icciche
who was seeking a Variance under Section 5 ®1 , 2 and also a request
r
1
for a repetitive petition to allow for the construction of a
family and bedroom addition on property at 22 Sorinrval e Road,
Reac inr , ''''Aa.
it was discussed that this was a continued hearing, ~
Mr. ~I_cc cne
stated that n went before the C ~zy_,'-s_ C i^ Jn September 19, 1591 and
1
they had vote unanimously to allow him to come back before
the Zoning Board of Appeals for repetitive petition.
Mr. Tucker read: a letter from 3oflatt ?an Edwards sfall"a'2G i thc.: ~
t
stating
the C' DC had 'Noted unanimously to allow Mr. Micciche to come
back before the Board.
Mr. Micciche then discussed the reasons `s by he :C=olt that € e
should be a11C3's°'e c`3 ro3etii°..?Vy petition® He stated that while
looking at all the options for the addition he had discovered
that there was a septic tank in t't1-e rear yard. He also
discovered that the rear yard sloped in from both sides and
he would have to back fill his yard to keep the runoff from
settling at the foundation, thus, causing water problems for
his neighbors.
He stated that if he built the addition in the rear yard he
would have to have the septic system removed.
Mr. Micciche stated that these additional discoveries -fade his
property somewhat unique
The ?hoard discussed that there was definitely new testimony
that was not wrought up at the previous hea.rir'..g
~t R
: 4~~' P.M.
'S_1_'"0 `?'LO''ser xd€iC.'Ved to c'C:Ct.'pt th" rotsuost from the
;petitioner to rehear his request or a Variance previously denied
for 22 prin vale RoaC"r.. Cue to the evidence of a septic system
in the rear of the house and drainage not brought up in previous
testimony. ern Coote seconded and the motion h~a ssed with a
passed
vote of 3--4 4
Ms. i%'aiewor ka stated that the Board di not have to rehear
testimony on the criteria that the property had met but would
like Mre Micciche to address the issue of uniqueness of the
-
property.
Mr. Micciche then stated that he was asking for a 5 foot Variance
on the east side of his property to build a 15 by 23 foot
addition. He then submitted pictures of the septic tank cover
and pictures of the land sloping. He also submitted pictures
of the yard after a rainstorm. He also submitted an estimate
that stated it would cost between $900 and. $1304 to remove the
septic tangy.. He also stated that he was told that they could
not guarantee that the foundation would not be cracked in the
process.
2
Mr. vo e2aC', a L.t=vr from 't..ne fire department stating that
i the addition was only 10 feet from the lot line it would
not be a problem for the 'wire department.
Mr. Micci the
the house th
his case and
and put in a
stated that his dire could not do
s size that it is. He then read a
told the Board that he planned to
new walkway when the addition was
daycare with
letter stating
plant a new lawn
finished.
Jim Davis, a neighbor, states.' that he would like to keep the
Micciche' s in the neighborhood.
Mr. Coote stated that he felt that having a septic tan in the
yard was not unique. Most of the neighbors probably had the:
also. He felt that the topography of the ground had more
relevance. He stated that he had looked at the property and
the slope was not dramatic. He didn't see anything special
about the property that the house next door didn't have.
Ardith Wieworka and Carol Scott also felt that the septic tank
was not unique.
Mr. Coote stated that
elevations of the lan
drainage figures. He
and could be fixed by
Mr. Micciche should
d and presented more
stated that the lan
grading somehow.
have taken some
information on the
d was basically flat
Ms. Wieworka stated== that she felt that this was one of the most
sympathetic cases that has come before the Board.
At 9:10 ` Mr. Fucker ;.loved to grant to Michael F. Micciche
Jr. a setback Variance for the ;property located at 22 Springvale
Road for the purpose of a 23 ii 1 ~ h foot two story ~ '~.on with
ory addi~,~?
'
fall basement for the Northeastern side of the property. The
addition will be at no point, including the chimney, closer
that ten feet to the northeast lot line. Mr. Coote seconded
and the motion failed by a vote of 0-3.
At 9:30 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 £ oning Board of Appeals
Date: 3 -,5 - ,
Approved:
3