HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-09-16 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesVAA~ /a
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
READING, MA
MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 16, 1987
Members Present:
John Jarema
Sally Nitzsche
Stephen Tucker
Vice-Chairman Tucker opened the scheduled public hearing at 7:30 PM in the
Selectmen's Meeting Room, 6 Lowell Street, Reading, MA.
The first appeal to be heard was on the petition of Francis M. Keane and
Patricia L. Keane who were seeking a Variance under Section 5.1.2. of the
Zoning By-Laws and/or an appeal from the decision of the Building
Inspector to allow for construction of an addition to their home too close
to the side lot line for their property located at 105 King Street,
Reading, MA. Stephen Tucker read the list of those persons who received
notice of the hearing and requested the Petitioner state her reasons for
the request before the Board. Patricia Keane was present, but counsel for
the Keane's spoke on their behalf regarding an addition on the property on
the westerly side of the house. The counselor presented the Board with
plgt plan of dimensions and a small-scale model of the home showing
planned construction.
House is already on a non-conforming lot, and construction proposed would
make lot lines even closer. There is substantial ledge to the rear
portion of the dwelling which makes construction to this area virtually
impossible. The house was built 85 or 90 years ago, and the back yard is
very small. To attempt to build to the rear would also block any sunlight
coming into the backyard or house. Counsel also stated that he felt the
four points necessary in the granting of a Variance were met by the
Petitioner. A letter was then presented to the Board from an immediate
abuttor, the Hadleys, stating they had no complaints against the
construction being done. Mrs. Keane's abuttor to the opposite side, Ms.
Theis Winkler, was present at the hearing and spoke in support of the
granting of a Variance.
John Jarema then spoke of the small lot size and it being one of several
lots in the area with similar non-conforming lots. Mr. Jarema expressed
his feeling that this type and size of an addition would greatly reduce an
already small lot, although he felt the addition was very attractive and
agreed with abuttors that it would only be beneficial to the neighborhood.
It was also noted there may be even further reduction in lot line due to
overhang shown on model. Sally Nitzsche also expressed that with the
small amount of land to either side of property, this type of structure,
if allowed, would be more than a substantial encroachment. And although
Minutes - September 16, 1987
Zoning Board of Appeals
Page 2
both abuttors approved of the construction, future abuttors and other such
requests must also be considered in the decision of the Board.
Mr. Jarema stated his agreement that points #1 and #2 of Chapter 40A
regarding a Variance were met by the Petitioner, but he felt the standing
on points #3 and #4 in this case were really stretching what the law was
meant to do--you must draw the line at some point. Counsel noted there
was no foot traffic or windows on that side of house, but Mr. Jarema
stated the fact that this could change with time and different owners.
After some discussion by the Board, each member felt that not all
requirements were met in granting a Variance, and the addition in its
presently intended form would be too substantial an encroachment. A 50%
stretch in the Zoning By-Law was too much. The idea was then mentioned
that perhaps the abuttor to the westerly side, the Hadleys, would be
willing to sell the Petitioners a portion of land. Stephen Tucker noted
his feelings that even a small purchase of land would not be enough to
keep things legal and in conformance with the by-laws.
The Board then informed Mrs. Keane of the procedures to be followed if
such a route were to be taken in the attempt to gain enough land to allow
for the Variance. After further discussion, Mrs. Keane requested to
withdraw without prejudice. John Jarema moved to accept the withdrawal,
the motion was seconded, and the Board unanimously agreed to accept
withdrawal without prejudice for a Variance for the property located at
105 King Street, Reading, MA. This hearing was then adjourned at 8:25 PM.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
The next hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals was on the petition of
Suzanne E. Clewley and Margaret Loring, seeking Special Permit under
Sections 6.3.1.2., 6.3.1.3., and 6.3.3.4. to allow for a replacement
dwelling on property located at 56 Vine Street, Reading, MA. After
reading of list of those persons who received notice of the request and
the swearing in of those in attendance who wished to speak to the Board,
Stephen Tucker requested the Petitioners give an account of why they were
before the Board this evening. Margaret Loring spoke to the Board stating
that the house was very small, too close to lot lines for any additional
living space to be added, and in severe disrepair (i.e., roof sagging,
walls rotting, floors sloping). The intention of the Petitioner's was to
sell the property, and upon the passing of papers, new owner was to
demolish existing structure and completely rebuild. Stephen Tucker noted
the granting of a prior Variance on the structure granted in 1974 with
condition of no habitation at which time the garage was built. with prior
i,-,review of plot plan and other documents presented to the Board, the
question still remained--where exactly would new structure be placed on
land? John Jarema stated the need for a certified plot plan showing
Minutes - September 16, 1987
Zoning Board of Appeals
Page 3
structure and distance to lot lines before decision could be made. It was
also noted that Section 6.3.1.3 would not be considered in decision as it
did not apply in this case. The specific information requested would
safeguard against any further/future problems. The intended new owner
commented on his need to expedite the decision as soon as possible due to
financial aspects of this proposed purchase, and his cooperation in
placing house on lot wherever it best met the Zoning By-Laws. Mr. Jarema
again stated the need to see actual final plot plan. The structure
intended was a 26 X 30 Garrison Colonial with no garage. Petitioners then
asked if the Special Permit could be granted this evening if special
conditions were included to cover any uncertainties. The Board felt this
was not possible on a "new" structure as opposed to an already existing
structure, and they expressed their need to make a clean-cut decision with
all the facts presented before them.
After hearing from the abuttor at 14 Vale Road and his approval of any
construction to improve the property at 56 Vine Street, Stephen Tucker
moved to continue the hearing to September 30 at 7:30 PM in the
Selectmen's Meeting Room. The motion was seconded, and the Board then
unanimously voted to continue the hearing pending more specific
information in order to avoid any future problems. This hearing was then
adjourned at 9:00 PM.
At 9:05 PM Stephen Tucker opened the hearing of Edward J. Cunningham,
seeking Special Permit of Variance under Sections 5.1.2. of the Zoning
By-Laws to allow for the replacement of an existing non-conforming
structure (open deck) on the property located at 11 Canterbury Drive,
Reading, MA. After the reading of names of those who received notice and
the swearing in of participating attendees, Mr. Cunningham spoke on his
own behalf concerning the replacement of an existing deck of approximately
9' X 12 ' with a slightly larger deck and a variation of the staircase.
Stephen Tucker read into the record a letter dated July 29, 1987 from
Stuart LeClaire, Reading Building Inspector, to Edward Cunningham
regarding denial for request of permit. Mr. Cunningham stated lot line to
side where deck was being built would not be effected by new deck as it
would have same width as old deck. Also, the old deck had been torn down
in June. This deck had been on the house for approximately 8-10 years.
Cunninghams have owned property since November of 1982.
As no prior permit could be obtained for a deck on
11 Canterbury Drive, John Jarema stated a Variance
f, .."....E,to a Special Permit. Special Permit was proper if
"~_rv.J legal at time of construction--if not legally cons
changes. Mr. Cunningham noted that at the time of
the property located at
was required as opposed
initial structure was
tructed, criteria
application,
Minutes - September 16, 1987
Zoning Board of Appeals
Page 4
Mr. LeClaire personally informed him that a Special Permit was required.
At this point in hearing, the floor was opened to abuttors. Mrs. Spataro,
an abuttor on Vine Street, angrily expressed her dissatisfaction with the
inconsistency of the granting of permits in the neighborhood. She then
explained her frustration with her having to remove an existing structure
on her home due to a wetlands law. This removal was going to be
expensive, but what was really the issue was the fact that structures,
such as a two-car garage, were being built on the same block. She
expressed much confusion as to how these decisions are reached. She noted
she had no problem with the Cunningham's getting approval for their deck,
but felt that the lack of consistency was a great problem.
After hearing from Mrs. Spataro, Stephen Tucker read into the record a
letter to the Board from Beth MacKillop dated September 16, 1987 regarding
the request by Mr. Cunningham and his need to seek a hearing before the
Conservation Commission regarding a permit to build in a wetlands
district. Mr. Cunningham expressed his frustration with the building
inspector and the board, at which time John Jarema tried to clarify the
Board's stand on the problem facing them. He also suggested to Mrs.
Spataro that she formally write a letter to the building inspector to
which he would have two weeks to respond. This would be her first step in
clarifying the confusion she and her husband were feeling. Mr.
Cunningham's neighbor, who had lived in the neighborhood at the time of
construction in 1966, stated there had been a 5' X 5' deck on the house at
time of construction. Mr. Jarema informed Mr. Cunningham that this
neighbor could be of much assistance to him in searching for original plot
plan or other information which might make the granting of a
Variance/Special.Permit possible. Mr. Cunningham then formally requested
a continuance, and the Board unanimously voted to continue the hearing to
September 30, 1987 at 8:00 PM. This hearing was adjourned at 9:55 PM.
After the close of the public hearing, the Board discussed issues
including the upcoming hearing on the 23rd of September for Daniel's
Nursing Home. The meeting was then adjourned at 10:15 PM.
Board of Appeals
Reading, Massachusetts
Notice of a Public Hearing
The Board of Appeals will hold a Public Hearing in the Selectmen's
Meeting Room, 6 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts on Wednesday,
Sept me ber l6, 1987 at 8:00 p.m. on .`the petition of Suzanne E. Clewley and
Margaret Loring who will seek a Special Permit under Sections 6.3.1.2,
:3x3, 6.3.3.3, and 6.3.3.4 of the Zoning By-laws and/or an appeal
from the decision of the Building Inspector to allow for the construction
of a single family (replacement) dwelling on property located at 56 Vine
Street, Reading, Massachusetts.
RECEIVED t
BOARD OF APE'EAt.S
T:)WN CLERK
• READING, MASS.
APPLICATION FOR HEJXFING
Auc 19 2 jo PH '87
( jns tr uct ons are on the reverse s: de)
c_ ~-C u'/-ty ~t - y y -o ~9y
Applicant _ G ~ L' _ ~!-`c Rl;Crp ,F-zs~~`(1
Name or "
App 1 i c an t s Address:__-, -
Location of
D1iCaei: iS (Circite one,' ~r7er.Tenant L..ce'-i'ee Frospeari%re Purchaser
Add e s s :
Application is or (check one) :
Pho-ne
Appeal from decision of Building lnspecLOr
variance (see Chap. 400 sec. 10)
11 ' spe _ gal permit
.aczeszary ap titles- _-c l v?rmlt
~cn :.-a xS - awY *
N re and :-:_t_flca _cn _wr requees.. _`ac.. le:-Zra s ne`s't ' :"lcCeSS~.. _
IZ L7 X,
/
n
U'lI-fk 2~l1 C ~L ~ K"Ll S1`
T ^te_ ore i ^ 3 GO*~ -Oa i•d of Apyy`~ i c
i i1er'e -v reCueSt c hearing _
with re-e:ence to the above application.
i
S i ar..ed :1 c-~~~
S S i aned :
Title:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(OFFICE USE ONLY)
Received from the applicant, the sum of Date:
_ Sianed
P hereby cm-Ofy ota,
uds 010 cwftmms,
riv
00
S~ kA39 41L ti. a7 1,'~ ~'3~C'. T' .
11 b$
NOTE: ' WIS 10 .C TAP$ VUZV%V
NOT TO 09 Utitt) FOR EATkOLISKINO
P94OPERTY LIWIS, 1di"0a9* , G 1% ANY
PuftposE OTme 1' THA14 Jre onle1 al. 1$fi'J'(Ib'a
THIS PL A 14 WAS DRAWN N04 tr(s& glaAsa
PUppoSE3 OnLY. ma r yCi Me ts2VlaVkall,0.
11i~
t°
1
113
}i
i
ARE NOT LOCATED WiXIN rNE r4.000 f'':AZAPD WIVNE
AS DEUNEAT 3 ON THE MAP dr- COMkILRN Y
MASS. EFVt-.-,CT,VE-
GY THE CC, PARTMIENT 0'.-- 'HOUSING AND UPSAI'l
mmc*mEnr FED.ERA . t,N'SL , NCE AD M'11419 MKfi: M.
tirvy~yteau.yvyy~yyw,ar.-~auwia~'a~: w'=avaacu5 ~a~,i9.~::~
..a-C.. ..__..~,-J W I4 G i N E E. I `'O W'-.- G I i iC W 19'20
PLAG`d OF Pi+'s OPER T Yi IN. _ vs:1t~ PL&H.l CZ T `A
Molt), Ql1lK~T.•1~ - _ . - By
i a~ ~~^G~'.'✓ ,~~R-~'.
v .p~0 2260 4 ~0 ~
~a 5Ufq~ L.. G. 'BRAC KETT M I NC.
WINCHESTER- MASS.
DATE'. OF
PLAN:
-
Zeae7 .
a
co
a
J
a
r
H0 1H
i s S f Z "4.:~
133H V _ f: N
C\j
be O Q 0
d J M Q
O
O di r 1 d' can ti r, g N m
.i N- N S o r n 0
S 9 Ji a s ~ ~
Lo
O LU
CC)
Go m N I N c ~ m. • O
133a1S a N 0 e
-'-'o o <t
S D, h
f
I N S o Yr
m CO co co f n I f 0 N
O AIn
61
O S ~
O 0 J
N Q/ d N 8 -
2 ~ S tD •°t : wf' z
tu" co
co .1 -
a) i~ to w n s d N N m (Mp N^. ~I 'I- r.'o ~ d c• (D + ° N n~ o A P J
- a m m e d tDe r N T V s a
(D t if+ r S
13381S 33"1 o
o (D N 7
m
Lo 0 IQ 0
r N N N O
U
N o 0
n.O ..--O .0.
N
tl $ O (D O f ti o t a >o, o r
00
C'j
S O, Q' O r Y r cj• Y_ i ~
VINE
5
1338 1S 1NnH
z > N a
f) o c tM
°Q 0 'r) CT) r r e N m '°C o OD 07
A , y
ct fn N r W I M n. rh c M+ m v a o 3 \ m
'c
Cs Er Zr. 54? 'IC' ~ 0 8,n~'9
N r.
M S
r>
- ~ , M p~Nti
8~5~ ON
0
a
J
d
J
a
= BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
Plans and Specifications must he Submitted and Approved by this Department
before a Permit for Erection will be Granted
CHARLES H. STAMATIS. INSPECTOR OFFICE OF INSPECTOR, 9. COMMUNm CENTER
Application for Permit to Build or Alter a Building
Reading, Maas., _ 19
To the Inspector of Buildings:
The undersigned hereby applies for a permit to build according to the provisions of the By-Lags and the
follo
1
wing specifications:
W & 4JD AA,-A&1r
\
'
O
.
s name
wner
V Al Sr c...~.C ,
~
'
. 2.
s address
Owner
3.
Architect's name _
e.
~
4.
#
Mechanic's name ..................n_.__......._......_.••--•__..... L
~~pzwG
~
-
L
8
(
f~
'
5.
_
.
. _
.
s address
Mechanic
6.
Stone mason's name .
7.
What is the location? No.........' 1/...:/..ZK. : .............S /R`~'
8.
Distance to nearest building _ _
9.
Distance from street
ZO
10.
Distance from lot lines Left Side Right Side Rear
11.
If a dwelling, date lot-plan or deed was recorded
12.
Lot frontage on street `1G........._......_._ _
13.
Area of lot .......7...~. ..7. zr
Depth of lotG..'.... ?#.0 ....J?._=......7
14.
Is building new, addition, or alteration? ~t'
15.
f= . L 1-~~~~:~s...•
What is the purpose of building? .....5.4,v~ l..................._{.
"
16.
Material of building ............1 M- ~..e .
17.
If a dwelling, for how many families? ./Y/...........
18.
Is there to be a garage under, in or connected to buildin ?
19.
If a dwelling, how many bedrooms? a'..-..... , 7!a. -Z
20.
Size of building: No. of feet front 7.4?........... ; No. of feet rear, ?..la......___. ; No. of feet deep, aL.1u.._........
21.
No. of stories ..........a . ?T!vG7
22.
No. of feet in height from the level of the ground to the highest part of roof ..-',....~~,r...._...._
23.
Size of floor joists or beams 1st, Z~. V ; 2nd, ..,2X../.P.; 3rd, G_.'t.c~r....; 4th, ; 5th,
24.
Greatest span ...U Distance on center ........./Z.........r~..L.....
25.
Size of rafters Distance on center ....../..li........:C..........
26.
'Dimensions of sills, ...NXl 'posts, • irders, .t ' irts, ..flt plates,:.- .
27.
Dimensions of studding ........aZ. ( Distance on center ....../G....~~.. ._L..............
28.
Will the building be erected on solid or filled land?..........
29.
What is the material of foundation? ..~`co.1GY?C!t Depth below grade 1....._ _
30.
Thickness at top .......-/.lx Thickness at bottom ........I..IJ............
31.
Width of footing 20 : Thickness of footing Material of footing
32.
Is pitch of any roof 4% inches or less to a foot? 4,.V..e........
$3.
Will the building be heated by steam, hot water, furnace, or stoves? .&r.r..._~ 2'er Fuel?
34.
Will the building conform to the requirements of law? e'_5...._....
35.
If a 'new building, elevation of center of roadway
36.
If a new building, elevation of sill
37.
Estimated coati S`O oao
REMARKS
cf.
Signature of owner or authorized ag t..
Address p....V..lt2-'
/
'M
. _
ust be solid stock.