Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-01-20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 35 Town of Reading Reading, Massachusetts 01867-2693 (617) 942-0500 ZONING BOARD of APPEALS ,6 LOWELL STREET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS READING, MA MINUTES - JANUARY 20, 1988 Members Present: -Catherine Quimby Stephen Tucker Ardith Wieworka Chairman Quimby opene;0 the meeting at 7:30 PM, January 20, 1988 in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 6 Lowell Street, Reading, MA. The meeting began with general business being discussed. Discussion included the reading of a memo from Jonathan Edwards requesting the Zoning Board of Appeals annual report be complete and submitted to his office no later than February 1. Catherine Quimby stated her plans for what would be included when compiling the report and also mentioned Jonathan Edwards' intentions to streamline the administration procedures for his department in the upcoming year. Chairman Quimby noted this may not be totally possible, as the budget was voted for the department as it now exists. A letter was also read from Beth McKillop to Catherine Quimby requesting the ZBA meeting on the first and third Thursday of the month rather than Wednesday, as Wednesday better suited the schedules of the Conservation Commission members. After discussion by the Board, it was decided that Thursday was an acceptable night for all Board members with the exception of Sally Nitzsche who would be contacted to confirm her availability. If it met with her schedule, meetings would be officially changed to Thursday evenings beginning in February. Another letter was then read by Chairman Quimby.pertaining to FafZard and how they intended to meet the requirements of the Special Permit which was granted previously. There was also a request to increase parking to 69 spaces from 63. The Board felt this may need to be decided in a public hearing. This would be reviewed and.., d-i-tprcu ed--by t-h"o-ar-d and if necessary scheduled for February 18. z - January 20, 1987 "i ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Page 2 At 7:45 PM, the Board moved on to open the scheduled public hearing, a continuance for Mr. Joseph Machnowski, seeking Special Permit for an access apartment at 227 Woburn Street, Reading. The hearing was continued to allow the Building Inspector to determine the acceptance of the Petitioner's plans for emergency access and two means of egress to the apartment as required by law. Mr. Machnowski after being informed of this requirement had adjusted his construction plans to reflect these laws. Stephen Tucker again questioned the door leading into the garage and whether it met state fire codes. Catherine Quimby stated that she had been informed that this would be allowable if the door was a fire door. Stuart. LeClaire had informed'Mr. Machnowski that this door was not allowable by law. Mr. Machnowski then stated he would like to submit a final plan for approval by the Board to eliminate the chance of further problems with the Building Inspector at the time of construction. The Board stated they felt he would not run into further problems as long as there were no additional dimensional changes to the plans. Ardith Wieworka then stated she felt he was fully justified in wanting to submit final plans, and the Petitioner then requested another continuance to allow him time to give a final look at the construction plans. Stephen Tucker then moved for a continuance to February 18, Ardith Wieworka seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously to continue the hearing for a Special Permit at 227 Woburn Street to 7:45 on February 18. Catherine Quimby then read a memo from Ted Cohen to the effect that all applications coming before public boards be stamped in at Town Clerk's office. The Board noted they felt this should always have been the procedure followed. Catherine Quimby then opened the next scheduled public hearing at 8:15 for Mr. Michael Flynn seeking Variance and/or Special Permit for the property located at 61 Summer Avenue for the purpose of constructing a deck too close to side.lot line. It was stated by conducted a site been constructed Mr. Flynn spoke construction, he Catherine Quimby that members of the Board had inspection to view the deck which has already on the dwelling. Lot is a non-conforming lot. on his own behalf stating that at the time of was unaware that he had a non-conforming lot or January 20, 1987 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ' Page 3 that he was in any way encroaching on side lot line. The property was recently sold, and upon inspection of site, the buyer's bank questioned the deck and discovered it to be encroaching on the northwesterly lot line. The Petitioner is still living on the premises and has been residing there for the past 8 years. The deck was constructed two years ago. The Board informed Mr. Flynn that due to the fact that his was a non-conforming lot and deck would encroach further on existing lot lines, a Special Permit was not in order. This issue would have to be pursued by means of a Variance. It was then discovered that in attempting to satisfy the requirements of the bank, the original building permit for the structure could not be located by the Building Inspector but a receipt for payment for the building permit was located. At this point Catherine Quimby informed the Petitioner that if the lot met the criteria of 6.3.1.2., there would not be a problem with the bank's requirements, as the house itself is legal. Mr. Flynn then stated the fact that the 10,000 square feet zoning by-law came into effect prior to the building of the house (ZBL effective 1942), yet a building permit was issued for construction. It was the feeling of the Board that if subdivision of the lot was recorded, it was most likely covered by the grandfather clause of the law, as Reading had no zoning by-laws prior to 1942 and lot seemed to have been in existence prior to that date. It would be up to the Petitioner to research these facts. The Board made him aware of the routes he may follow to uncover this information and then moved on the discuss the deck itself. Stephen Tucker read the four criteria necessary in the granting of a Variance, and Mr. Flynn commented that he felt he could not meet the criteria. His ignorance of the zoning laws was the sole reason it was necessary for him to appear before the Board tonight. The Board then explained that perhaps a Special Permit could be pursued if the portion of the deck further encroaching was removed. Stephen Tucker then requested to view a copy of the plot plan which was originally used when Mr. Flynn purchased the property eight years ago (Exhibit A). Upon its review, Mr. Tucker noted the statement printed on the plan which stated subdivision was done in 1889. As previously stated, there was no zoning in effect at that time which qualified the lot as a legal lot. Catherine Quimby then read a statement received via telephone from a Mr. Radlow of 57 Summer Avenue stating the deck was a nuisance to him and his family as immediate abuttors. Given these facts and Mr. Flynn's willingness to reduce the dimensions of the deck, January 20, 1987 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Page 4 Ardith Wieworka moved to grant a Special Permit to Michael Flynn for the modification of a deck at 61 Summer Avenue so that the deck came no closer than 15 feet to side yard lot line. Stephen Tucker seconded the motion of granting the Special Permit under 6.3.1.3., and before the Board could take a final vote, the Board determined that the Petitioner also had a non-conforming structure per the plot plan they had viewed (garage too close to side lot line, 6.3.3.) Further discussion then ensued regarding the confirmation of the legality of the structure, and the problems that could likely come about for the Petitioner if a non-conformance was to be identified as an outcome of this hearing. As of yet, the bank had noted no non-conformance in the plot plan of the structure. The Board was attempting to assist the Petitioner in this hearing and not further complicate things with the lending institution involved in the request. With this in mind, Ardith Wieworka then made a motion to withdraw her original motion for a Special Permit, it was accepted, and the Board unanimously accepted her withdrawl. Following a lengthy discussion by the Board regarding the best way to comply with the law as well as assist the Petitioner, Stephen Tucker moved to grant a Variance for the property located at 61 Summer Avenue for the purpose of constructing a deck too close to the northwesterly side of the dwelling;~Ardith Wieworka seconded the motion, (let it be noted that both the Board and Petitioner agreed that the conditions required in the granting of a Variance could not be met), the Board then voted unanimously to deny the granting of a Variance for the property located at 61 Summer Avenue. It was felt by the Board, that by denying a Variance to the Petitioner, the bank could then come back to him and tell him he must decrease the dimensions of the deck to comply with zoning. He had already agreed that this would be an acceptable way to solve the problem of encroachment. This would allow the Board to focus on the deck and not further complicate the Petitioner's problems by bringing a non-conforming structure into the issue--no doubt causing the bank to start the process all over again. Following a brief discussion regarding the way in which a decision on this case should be written, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 PM. Respectfully submitted by Pamela A. Spang, Recording Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Da te: Signature: