HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-11-03 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutesl,.
ZONING .6UAhD OF A1-.PEALS
READING, Alk
+iIIJUTES-NOVEjvl;j :R, 3, 1988
IV:embers Present: Catherine A. Quimby
Ardith Wieworka
Sally hTitzsche
Chairman Quimby opened the scheduled public hearing
Selectmen's Meeting Room, 6 Lowell Street, Reading,
hearing was the petition of Anthony E. and Patricia
seeking a Special Permit under Section 4.4.4 of the
the purpose of constructing a single family dwellin,
123-124 Norman Road.
at 7:37 yl., in the
MIA. This public
A. Crupi who were
Zoning By-Laws for
on Lot 121-122-
I+ir. Orupi explained to the Board that he wanted to build a 24x36 single
family dwelling on a lot of land that had the 100 year flood zone
running through it. The house would be a raised ranch with no basement.
It would be built on a slab with an elevation of 84.7 which iiIr. Crupi
said would be 3 feet above the flood line.e also stated that this
issue had been going on for 12 years.
Chairman Quimby then read a letter from Ruth L. Cogan from the Board of
:iealth dated October 24, 1988. The letter stated that the Board of
wealth had two concerns; Section 4.4.4.2 of the Zoning By-Laws require
that proof be submitted to the Board of Health that the land is neither
subject to flooding nor unsuitable for human occupancy; the applicant
must be aware that if application to the Board of Health demonstrates
that an individual subsurface disposal system would not be possible for
the lot, the owner would be required to connect to the municipal sewer
system;.
i,ir, Crupi then stated that the house would be hooked up to the municipal
sewer system.
The Board then asked 15,7;r. Crupi if he realized that he would have to
submit evidence to the Board of "ealth and the Hoard of Appeals t-lat
the land was not subject to flooding, ir:r. Crupi then stated that at
the Conservation 'Meeting the neighbors had stated that there was no
flooding.
Chairman Quimbv t'- i•EGd Section 4.4.4.2 of the ?,eading, Zoning by-Laws.
iv:r. Crupi still insisted that the land does not flood.
The Board then discussed the issue that in S-10 district 8000 feet must
be outside of floodline. This lot had 6960 feet outside of the floodline.
There was then discussion that i!ir. Crupi would need to seek a variance.
There was not enough evidence to prove that the land was not subject to
flooding. The hoard explained to lv:r. Crupi that they needed more
testimony- pictures and testimony from neighbors would help.
At 8:30 Pi, Ardith Wieworka moved to continue the hearin- on the petition
Zulidrlr"' isoard of Appe,!ls
November 3, 19P'M
Paj;e 2
of Anthony E. and Patricia A. Crupi to seek a variance of the Zoning
By-Laws to the date of December 15, 1988- Sally Nitzsche seconded and
the vote was 3-0 to continue the hearing.
4i 'J, * i' * 4. is * h ?c :b 3i tc # 3f ~F is it it
The second hearing was called to order at 8:32 P4r This hearing was
on the petition of pion and Phyllis Vedder who were seeking a variance
and/or Special Permit under Section 5.1.2 (Table of Dimensional Controls)
or ;special Permit under Non ConforminE Structure Section 6.3.3.4 to
allow construction of a family room at the rear of the house too close
to the side lot line at the property located at 133 Van Norden Road.
Chairman Quimby opened the hearing; with the statement that Sally Nitzsche
and herself had done a site inspection of the property.
'%r. Vedder then gave a brief history of the property. The Vedders had
bought the house 24 years ago. Six years after they bought the house
the bacl_ porch had collapsed. They then built the existing deck with
a building permit. The existing deck will now be removed to make room
for the family room addition at the rear of the house. He also said
that the porch had always been non-conforming.
The Board then asked why they didn't move the proposed addition over
to the middle of the house as there was ample yard in the back.
i,.r. ,redder explained that if they did this they would be blocking three
win6ows and also be in front of tl-ie bathroom.
T'ie Doard then discussed whether to hear this case as a Variance of a
Special Permit. 'hairman Quimby then explained the difference between
a Variance and a Special 'P'ermit to the Vedders. The Board decided to
':ear the case as a Special Permit.
't'here was then discussion of making the addition 15 X 15 instead of
15 X 16, but it was realized that this would only bring the addition 3
inches further away from the side lot line.
Chairman Quimby then explained to the Board how the Vedder's house was
set on the lot and how much open space there was in the back. Also
the house on the next lot was quite far from the Vedder's house.
There was then some questions on the plot plan and the distance from
the side lot line. I',r. Vedder then requested that there be a decision
tonight as the house needs a new,roof and it would depend-on the decision
whether they would have it done'at this time.
Sally Nitzsche then moved to close the Public -Hearing. Ardith idieworka
seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 3-0.
, c nisi t.oar:i of Appeals
i`oveml-er 3, 19~E~
~'~i>P 3
At 9:24 111x: Ardith 'ilieworka moved to grant a Special ?errnit under
Section ().3.3.4 of the Reading Zoning; by-law to allow for Vie
construction of a familyroom at the rear of the home located at
133 '.parr Norden toad on Vle condition that there be no encroac:riment
F-reater than seven feet to the side lot line on the easterly side of
the property. Sally iditzsche seconded and the vote was 3-0 to grant
a Special Permit.
Followin{, a discussion of ol^ and new business, a motion was made to
adjourn, and the Board voted unanimously to do so at 9:401,.
Respectfully submitted by Karen Saporito, Recording Secretary to t',re
Zoning; board of Appeals.
Signature:
Date: