Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-04-04 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesTOWN OF READING ZONING E0A` OF APPEALS MINUTES AP _IL 4 1991 Members Present: Stephen Tucker, Chairman john Coote 1': meeting o the Zoning Board o Appeals was held in the Selectmen's Meeting room of the mown Hall, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, M at 7:00 P.M. was c s continuance .,>f tt1 ~'lqg of r`T4c"ie first Hearing l the ryea' Henry -=iggoT_t a __r. Coleman stated that they had talked with the ; rev'=toLTs owners of the i"=G''use 'a;?~:5 they ~.vud not '=°~e-_m crew `'?he`?' the porch had been enclosed. He also stated that 2 more Board "7iiers had looked at the property. At o"t tc'~ P.M. M re r _~:,,e t.~6h ~kr _G at t.. meeting. ~ e _1 4J ; ry E'1 _a arrived ro Colermen the states= that the best he co lc' offer was that was e:C1C:loseCki around the the porch 'v^Jcr«~ 1942. The 'C'ia_['C-` then discussed the s'leU.'iing system and how old .it was. The Bard also discT'.ras''?Cs` how many rooms `d1E.'re on t' n assessors car The car showed that there were room on the first floor, ,i 3 rooms yo Lz`1.: aet'..C?nd floor, and 3 rooms in the 1'E'.1-o e °`.r a Colt'men stated that he would like to rely on what is in t,.s.le h:?'v"_se right o.7g for <aa,t<7: `fi'g c..5"la g... of the windows and dank on the windows. Mr. Lei re ttctt~'. that it ~ was his opinion that t€'~.<~ere were c_1 u. t l~.':.. r Rooms in 1942, The Board then discussed how the rooms needed to be divided. z,_m Coleman state? that `ctr'xey wanted to have the back addition as one unit c"a.'$3d the original dwelling as the other unit. `r. iggott stated that the permits for the work were granted that way. Mr. Tucker questioned whether some part of the 3 rooms should be used in the second unit a Mr. Coleman again stater that it would make sense to divide as one T'.nZt and the o;€::#.ginca.l dwelling as using the addition the second unit. At 7:20 P.M. John Mares"=a moved to close the hearing. Ard th 4-Tiew srka r!:NcC:,;2ded an the motion passer with a vote of 3--0 Mr. Jarema stated that he was having difficulties without having 1 the actual faces an dates. He stated that he had trouble with the a rooms before 1942. He felt that the split of the u pa'rch did not justify 2 more rooms. He also had problems with not utilizing the origin? se as of t se r`~. n . He also stated that the By-Laws could d use some work make them more clear. Ms. Wiewo.}.ka stated that she did question the G rooms before 1942, but since the Building inspector has stated that there were she coin get by that point. u;_';e did have trouble with the interpretation o! htJL•vT the Cit%.1ell.,_f).fj s'zouic`.t be 5plite of Mr. C C3vte stated 7. ,.ie _ elt- ~ that the intent .a. of J- the B that f ._:y_!_€a'1 as to slit: 't"_he original 8 rooms. He also stated that Mr. Hi g otyt. had not done anything in `dad faith. He didn't see any benefit to the Town or he neighborhood to make an unnatural split in the house. He felt that the Droblem would be to set a precedent for other ho=':e owners to do 'C.?`3e same. Hr. Tucker also stated .''3.at he had trouble with the interpretation of the By-Law. Mr. Hig fit. stated that he had 2 electrical ,:'nits and was being billed for them both. He stated tL..a'1 '_ar-1 t h also had 2 heating systems-one for the from and one for the back-- the plumbing has been split and is waiting to take in second meter. He _:1a>zCJ stated that his intention from the beginning was i: ~G make a two family and that the `.'`own was aware of that. Mr. Coote discussed that he felt that there were unique circumstances in this case. Clearly, the addition was built s :a long before Mr. HiC$gC',1°-.• wanted to make r. 2 family. ~ There is a natural split in the house. He ,"-Mated that he `t,°Jei,`-a still concerned about= setting a precedent I Mr. J r'em awain stated that he p=elt ta"_'_ar?t vJ2.r of the 8 or ninal rooms s buld be part c the second dwelling. '_`it. Tucker stated t?`1tom.',` the applicant had also requested a Variance and maybe this would be a better way to go. Mr. Coleman then stated tr't"?at he property was certainly unique. He also stated that Mr. trig ott has made a substantial investment into his property. it ~'7`>W?uld be s~ hardship to have to rearrange the rooms of the house. it would not be a detriment to the public good. Mr. Coleman stated !'-hat a Variance would be proper it the Boards felt that a Special Permit was not. M Tucker stated that a Use-Variance under Section 7.4.2.2 ttvt©uld be needed. Mr. harem stated that only 6 or 7 requests o a Use Variance have been made, and only i or 2 o them have been in his s ~.7atsi t the granted n ! ~ S • ye~_~r . ~ -`_°-z':,oar.....~ -t. 2 Ardith Wieworka stated that she felt very applicant but questioned whether the hous sale as soon as the request was granted. two-family could be limiter to ownership. sympathetic to the would be put up for She wondered if the Mr. Coleman states ha the Hig o is have no present intention to sell the 'buss", but he would not want restrictions prat on the rouse. Mr. rare ma stated that this would be one waif to .:protect the `"o~•Jn. He felt that the Board the _ should not o not mold L.~ By-Laws fit this situation. The Boars discussed that this was an Appeal of the Decwwion of the Building inspF'.C;`fu"'or, who felt that part of the E7s:'1.g_inal house should be part of the second unit. Mr. Coote asked about using 1 bedroom from the original house in the second unit. y Mr. Higgott stated that it would destroy the front unit if 'C'fley have to use one bedroom for the second unit. they Mr. jarema stated that he felt that the the Decision of the Building Inspector. not be up tBoars; should uphold portion of te the original al house v should be she recision o what in the second: unit would At 8:25 P.M. Ar€ ith Wieworka moved to uphold the decision or the Building inspector and his interpretation of Section 4.3.1.1 of the Reading Zoning By-Laws o pr C3Derty located at 533 Summer Ave and that we deny the petitioner Henry 'ui g ott in his Appeal of the Building inspector¢s decision and in his application for a Use-Variance. Mr. Conte seconded and the m C.'tiC~xl. passed with a vote of -0. Members Present: Stephen Tucker, Chairman. John Dare ma Ardith Wiewors a John Coote* Sally Ni tssche * indicates non-voting Member The next Dellasan~ 6.3.1-.3. Dwelling Reading, Public 'pro who of the on lot MA. Hearing was on were seeking ,a Zonings By-Laws 5.2 Reading the petition o Frank and Mildred Special Permit under Section to allow for /pa Single Family essor Map 130, Lawrence _~'Woady 3 Mr. Brad Latham, representing the applicant, stated that they wanted a Special Permit to allow for a single family dwelling as»~a y =_cro has s o:anC~~ on a undersized lot. He stated tR ~ at Mr. ? `_-'l1 e d the lot for 25 years. He stated that the. lot existed in 1942. He stated that the Dellasan?_ro ° s own both sot 42 and the adjoining lot and that they L'eG..G r did f on February lq 1978. He al ~ stated t:inuert ~ all _11 adjoining v._ He ...r lots have at least 5L V0 square feet and are qtr-`a 1t uy.,ot"r.. Mr. Latham submitted inf=ormation showing that a substantial number of lots in the area have area and frontage similar to that of lot 42. The Board discussed the lots within the 300 square feet. :..r. _..aa:..rfai'lltstd ed that s.aot^` 43-46 lna'4Je been merged and are one lot. It was discussed, though, that Jot 49 has the mouse on it and is it1- separately. e..€,.~ Sally zs that Lots 'S ~y ~3-~z~6 is not ' built upon. o s-~.:' t :3c,ne stated ty:lc 1n. Also riot 42 does not have ~ v(, ~ of rr~., µsr of the frontage required. if lots 43--46 are not 'wilt upon that means that lot 42 does not meet the criteria for a Special Permit. At this time Mr. Latham asked to withdraw this application without prejudice. The Board felt that after taking this much time on the application the applicant should not be allowed to withdraw the application without prejudice. At 9230 M' Sally T f'3it c moved to grant a Special Permit to rank and Milc'rec ().el i aSat dro under Section 6.3.1.3 of the Zoning By-Laws for the purpose of a single family dwelling on Lot 42 Assessors map 130 e Lawrence Road. ''°r. jarC3`r<;cn seconded and the motion as denied with a vote of 0--3. The next Public Hearing was Corporation who was seeking s yarn" setback-Zoning By-Laws for the construction of a c. Street, Reajinr 1' ~1. on the petition of Mobil eFaw°~1u.nce under Section n v c.~er i.?.-E= the Town of Reading, ~.:tnopy on property located Oil 5.2.3 front to allow 178 Main Mr. e. awes Senior, representing Mobil (ail Corporation, gave c ':.:grief history of the ;property. He discussed the elan, stating that the lot had 30,000 square feet and 173.19 'met of frontage. The pumps are now located 24 feet from the lot line. The property abuts a residential area in the rear. Mr. Senior discussed would be 50 "feet fro the ' _ and t~n canopy would the proposal stating that tile.. building - the lot lines ts`?'v LJL?=fth?S would be 40 feet, also be 40 feet from the lot line. 4 rt.s Senior stated that they had met with C_ C who had reservations of the canopy, but they were mainly concerned with the residential area in the t rec"Zre They asked i,ht. he tanks be moved closer to the street and away from the residential area e Mr e Senior stated that ~ therefore, they would also be asking for relief for the building as they would have to move that forward a lsoe He discussed, also, that the canopy is not a structure. He stated that the, could make the canopy an building conform but they would have to move everything closer to the _es Wen t ial afea e He then as ked the Board for relief for the canopy, building, and the pumps. Mr. Tucker then stated that the building "t:'rc.as not part of the advertisement aY.2C3 the Board €:?ould be uncomfortable to discuss ite 'ire Senior they: stater that the hardship was the shape of the Lot and the traffic flow that was needed. The Board discussed the trucks that would be delivering fuel and t'_:'?e turning radius. .re Senior, F ated that there would be 3 service bays servicing 12 cars. There would be one way in and one way exiting. He also stated that there i'7C3'.?ld be c small snack shop of about 600 square feet and restrooms. The proposed building would be 960 square feet. The Board expresser) co=ncern of discussing the building when it was no't,adverti see e r"x`?ey felt that the hearing should be continued to give the applicant and the CvPDC time to come up with definite plans e At 10:30 P.M. Sally Ni tzsche mover to continue the hearing for Mobil Oil Corporation until May 30, 1991 at 7:00 P.M. Ardith Wieworka seconded an the motion passed with a vote of 3-0. At 10>45 P.M. a motion was r?ac?e an seconded to adjourn and the Boars voted unanimously to do so. Respectfully submitted by eared Saporito, Recording Secretary to the Zoning Board of A ? yea l se n., Signed... Y A~i'vA Approved: 0:060 5