We're going to go ahead and get started. Those of you who are here this evening, we would ask that you please just sign in. If you uh right next to the door over there, um we can hopefully get through the agenda
relatively quickly. Uh we can start with case number 2601526 Summer Avenue. Uh the zoning board of appeals will hold a continuence of a public hearing in the select board's meeting room in town hall 16 street reading Massachusetts on Monday April
6th 2000 uh sorry 2026 at 7 p.m. on the application of O design and build on behalf of the property owner pursuant to MGL chapter 40 section sections 9 and 10 for a special permit and a variance under writing zoning bylaws section
4.5.2 7.0 7.3 and 7.4 four uh to construct a two-story addition that extends an existing non-conforming sideyard setback and that results in the structure exceeding the maximum allowed lot coverage on the property located at
526 Summer Avenue map 8 lot 116 in Reading, Massachusetts. Uh before moving forward with this particular matter, we did receive uh correspondence from the petitioner from a Mr. Michael Gomez regarding this
property at 526 Summer Avenue uh stating please accept uh it's to address to Amanda Beatatric who is present. Please accept this email as formal notification that I would like to withdraw without prejudice the application for a variant special permit regarding the property
located at 526 Summer Avenue reading >> and they ask that this matter be removed from tonight's agenda. um >> to accept the withdrawal with no presence. >> Second. >> And all in favor?
>> I. So the application for 526 Summer Avenue, application number 26.01 is to be is withdrawn and dismissed without prejudice. So moving on to the next matter on the
agenda that is case number 2602 107 Wuburn Street. The zoning board of appeals will hold a public hearing in the select board's meeting room at Town Hall 16 L Street, Reading, Massachusetts on Monday, April 6, 2026 at 7 p.m. on the application of
attorney Joshua Laam pursuant to Mass General Laws chapter 4A section 9 for a special permit under Reading Zoning bylaws section 7.0 and 7.2 2 andor pursuant to Mass General Law Chapter 4A section 10 for variance under Reading
Sections 5.3.2, 6.3, and 7.4 to convert an existing non-conforming medical office use into a new non-conforming multifamily residential use in a single family district on the property located at 107
Wuburn Street, Assessor Map 16, lot 36 in Reading, Massachusetts. Unless there is an objection, I will dispense with the reading of the abutters list except to say that the abuters were notified as were the following. The select board, town clerk,
police department, fire department, building department, conservation commission, health department, assessor's office, engineering division, CPDC, members and associate members of the board of appeals, as well as the planning boards of Wakefield, Lynfield, North Reading, Stonem, Wuburn,
Wilmington. Uh now ladies and gentlemen, testimony given before this board is taken under oath. So if you think you may want to speak, we would ask that you please stand and raise your right hand. So please stand and raise your right hand. I swear that the testimony given by me
before this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The response is I do. >> I do. >> Thank you. You can have a seat and we'll get to you in just a minute. Attorney Leam. >> Good evening. Attorney Josh Leam here tonight on behalf of the applicant. Um I had submitted a presentation. I don't
know if it's possible to bring that up um to the >> the presentation for 122. John, >> I I submitted one for each. >> Oh, okay. Um I was having issues with open go. So sorry
>> have the ability to open. So it's not it's not those two because I don't think I sent these ones over. >> So if you go to Z >> click on In the meantime, I can quickly introduce the case. So, I'm here tonight on behalf
of 107 Ruben Street LLC. It's an LLC that purchased the property just late last year from Dow Medical Group. Um the principal of this entity is a Michael Sullivan. He is a longtime Reading um local resident, graduated in 1992 from
the high school. Um to kind of give you a sense of other projects he's done in town, he did the schoolhouse commons project over at St. Agnes. Um, I think that's a really nice testament to the quality of his work that he does care greatly about the community and inclusionary housing opportunities. So, we can always reference that is if we're
thinking about what would this look like at the end of the day, that's a really nice reference point. Um, so to continue, why don't I talk quickly about the property itself. So, the property is located in the S15 district. It's at the intersection of Wuburn Street and High
Street. Um, I think it's pretty well-known intersection right across from the depot. Uh the lot itself is 18,13 square feet. It is conforming for that district. The existing structure is also conforming.
>> Sorry. >> Sorry. I don't have a problem. Is also conforming with with regard to all setbacks, um height requirements, lot coverage requirements, and so forth. The only thing about this property which is unusual is the use. So originally it was
single family constructed in about 1906. In 1971 the Dow medical group Dr. Dow actually purchased the property at that time obtained a variance from this board to convert the use from single family to
professional offices. Then again in 1984 they went and got another variance to do a sizable addition to the rear of the building. So the building you see today is not the single family home that was built in 1906. it was almost doubled in size, which if we get to the photos, I
can show you where that addition was. So, for over 55 years, it's been used for commercial purposes. Um, essentially at this point, what we have is that it was no longer usable for this purpose. You know, medical demands have
significantly increased over the years. This is an old building. It was very segmented. It was two stories, so you couldn't have patients going up and down the stairs with ease. There is no elevator. Uh, as a result, that's why the Dow Medical Group moved. They're now
located on Washington Street in Wuburn in a newer office building with multi-levels, elevator, and so forth, laboratories, etc. So, bring it up. This left this property no longer really usable for the medical offices it was originally intended for in 1971 and
really no longer usable for single family use because it's been so substantially altered over the years that it simply is not to that absent >> for some reason it just unmuted itself. >> Sorry about that. Great. So, thank you.
So, here's the presentation itself. This is just, you know, a quick photograph. It always helps to have a good visual of what the property is itself. If you could slide down to the next slide and then for context, this is where we are. Um, you'll see that we're right near the business district, the downtown smart
growth district across from the railroad tracks. It is the blue outlined lot um that's shown roughly middle center. And if you go to the next slide and if you could go one more. Great. And this is just meant to give some perspective from the v various views you
get through the public thorough affairs. So top left is just the view if you're looking right at the intersection on Wuburn Street at the front of the building. Then if you look on the top right side, that's the view from High Street. Then you look at the bottom left, that's the view as you go north on
Wuburn, the high street intersection. And then the bottom right is when you're facing uh easterly on Wuburn Street at the intersection. You can see it to the left there. And if we go to the next slide. So when it comes to the zoning perspective of the property, here's our
plot plan. Uh you'll see that it does conform in every regard. And we I've put a table over here to the right. You know, we do have frontage, we do have lot width, everything. Uh the only thing being the use and that it's existing conditions is commercial and as noted we're proposing to convert this to
multif family. Uh next slide please. This is just the architectural rendering of what the property would look like post conversion. I think the real takeaway for me to for you to have from this is that it's not changing. We're not looking to do any exterior
alterations except the withdrawal or removal of about four windows. And that's just to provide some symmetry and to have it be more appropriate for a residential use. And I can point those out as we go forward. Next slide, please. So this is the proposed front view if you look at the architectural
drawing to the bottom left comparing it to the existing front. And then there's the proposed side view on the right comparing it to the actual current uh view. You can see there is a line that runs vertically. You can very vaguely
see it if you're looking at the the side view. That is where the foundation you can see that's where the addition was done in 1984. So the original home was that line to the right and everything to the left of that line was part of that
addition in 1984. That addition in 1984 was purposeuilt for medical. It was never actually used in any way for single family residential. Next slide please. So then what we have is the existing commercial layout. And what I'd ask you to take away from this is that you'll
see if you look at the both the first floor and the second floor. It's a series of small clinical rooms for patients. Every room has its own sink. Uh you'll see that there's a series of medical storage closets and med medical storage areas. We have waiting rooms,
reception rooms, offices. None of this is built towards single family purpose anymore. Next slide, please. This is the applicant's proposal to convert the property into six apartments and it would be three apartments on each floor. It complies in every single
regard with handicap access with fire code everything would be actually brought up to code so it's it's appropriate for residential use. Next slide please. So this turns to the variance criteria and just to summarize really what I think are long explanations of those
standards. It really comes down to uniqueness, hardship, no substantial detriment to the public good and it will not deriggate from the intent of the zoning bias. Next slide please. So that first standard and this is the specific language taken right from um 4A
section 10. So essentially the point is are there unique circumstances relating to soil conditions, shape, topography of the land, structures especially affecting such land or structures not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located. I would pose to you that this property is incredibly
unique. It's in a very unique location. It is configured with two with frontage on two major roads in town, High Street and Wuburn Street. And then when you look at the character of the property has been so uniquely and substantially changed over the last 55 years. It does not really have any semblance of single
family purpose that it originally had back in 1906. Um, you'll also see that it's across from the MBTA commuter rail station, parking, tracks, uh, and then the current building. When you consider UK uniqueness, it's not just the lot itself. It's the lot or the structures
that's in the statute and in the town bylaws. So, regardless of the configuration of the lot, the location of the lot, and so forth, the building itself is extremely unique. It was a single family home substantially altered then with a large addition all towards
medical purpose for over five decades. It is not purpose-built anymore for single family use. Um I will also point out that from a unique perspective this board has weighed in twice to determine that this was a unique property for this
exact same basis when it wasn't single family. was converted from single family to medical office in 1971 and again in 1984 because the property was found to be so unique and that single family use was a hardship that it warranted a
variance on two prior occasions. Next slide please. So then the second standard is that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the bylaws would involve substantial hardship financial or otherwise to the applicant. Now hardship what it means is that you can't reasonably use this
property for what the conforming uses are. In this case, this property is simply not viable for medical and that's why Dowed Medical left. If it was still viable, they would have stayed. So, we have proof positive that it's just not useful for that purpose anymore. Well, then we consider the cost of converting
this property from medical offices to single family use. The cost of renovation would exceed $1 million. The assessed value as is $954,600. When you put these values together and the only resale property we would
reasonably anticipate would be about 861,000. It is a substantial economic deficiency. I actually have a print out if it would be helpful to show if I may approach the board.
This is just a 12 month print out the recent sales within this neighborhood. And that's where I came up with the numbers that you see up there today. And I simply took an average of what those sales were to get to the
$861,500 resale price if this was converted to a single family. So when you consider there'd be a delta of over a million dollars just to convert it to single family, I think that's a pretty substantial economic hardship. Next slide, please.
And really the last standard I I merge three and four from the town's uh criteria. Really what it is is that relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying or dergating from the intent or purpose of the bylaw. So in this case, I would post you that a variance will not harm the public good,
nor will it substantially derate from the intent of zoning. Use for residential apartments maintains the existing aesthetic. We're not changing any exterior view of this building. It would reduce traffic. Just inherently, medical office traffic generates a
higher volume count both in total count and at peak hours than any residential use for six apartments. Um, it would provide critical resident, you know, rental housing. It would maintain property values and all resulting in a net positive. And then I also want to
point out the property is not located in a homogeneous single family area. If you could go to the next slide, please. Really, what we have is a diverse mix of uses. Even though we're in an S-15, we're at the the edge of the business. We're right within the commuter rail
area. This is a vibrant part of the downtown. What I've done here is I've put a yellow marker on every single multif family property within this within this map. If you go to the next slide, now I'm overlaying all of the two family properties within this map. Next
slide, please. Now I'm showing all the commercial properties within this map. Next slide. And now I'm showing all the institutional uh uses within this map. The takeaway I'd like to have you from this is is simply that we're not really
in this homogeneous single family district conversion to a multif family use six one-bedrooms apartments. It's a very reasonable use. It's actually consistent with the neighborhood. Um and it would be an appropriate use when you consider all of the other diverse uses within this area. Next slide please.
So then the last standard being again that desirable relief can be granted without detriment to the public good or nullifying or substantially dergating from the intent or purpose of the bylaw. I would pose from a neighborhood perspective this is a transition zone. It's the edge of the S15. It adjoins the business B and the DSDG. We're right
near the MBTA station with significant commuter benefits. And this use is consistent with other existing uses. When you look at the use itself, residential is inherently more conforming than office than business. This is a residential district and if we want to anchor this in how is this
somehow conforming? Well, at least it's going to be a residential use that we're proposing. We're not looking to do retail. We're not asking for restaurant. We're going back to a residential purpose. Multif family is consistent with other uses and the significant reduced traffic impact. The aesthetic will not change. We are actually
prepared to reduce the parking lot size. This has 18 parking spaces. Even if only one and a half spaces are required per apartment and we did two instead just to ensure there was no traffic or parking issues, we could still eliminate six parking spaces. And the applicant is
very prepared to do that. And I think it might be a way to help kind of, you know, take it from that commercial look and make it even more residential feel. And lastly, we would argue this is consistent with zoning. If you look at section 1.0 of the zoning bylaws, it lays out all of the intent and purposes
of zoning. These are three that I've specifically pulled from our own zoning bylaws. Number one, to encourage the most appropriate use of land. Two, to conserve the value of land and buildings. And third, to encourage housing of all incomes. Next slide, please. So, that concludes my uh presentation. And I'd be happy to answer
any questions you might have. >> So, just first question, are you requesting a use variance? Because I see special permit on the denial letter. Correct. So ultimately, if you read the original 1971 zoning decision, it was a
variance, but the way the decision was written by the board, it it was couched as a special permit. >> Yeah. Okay. >> And so I had put that on there initially and I think that's what the town was also looking at. It was originally a special permit, but on deeper dive I realized I can't go before you in good faith and say this is special.
>> Yeah. So it has to be a use variance. One of the arguments your relative made in the previous n way back 1971 here um just says their uniqueness argument was that it wouldn't be able to be sold as a
residential use. Um it looks like maybe that's changed since then. Is that kind of what we're saying? No, I guess what I'm saying is that it's almost the same argument as it was in 1971 and 1984 that we could sell it for single family use at a significant financial loss. Yeah.
And it just the cost of converting it to single family use exceeds the actual property value >> in terms of uh affordable housing and the use and things like that. How is that going to be addressed for
uh your clients in terms of being able to create those affordable units for folks particularly given the proximity to the uh trade station as well. >> So what they proposed to do and and we did meet with Andrew um early on in the process is is he's inclined to propose
dedicating or restricting two of the units to 60% area media income. That is a significant benefit to the town. That's actually what he also did at schoolhouse commons and that's something that we understand as a need as a gap. 80% AMI is the traditional what we what what landlords and property owners will
offer. He recognizes in in his own business he can make that work and it's worked very well for him and he thinks that's something he could offer here and you have the power of this board to make conditions on any approval you grant and we'd be very happy to offer a condition that they would restrict at least two of
these units to 60% AMI. >> Two of these units to 60% AMI. Okay. And then in terms of any sort of environmental impact uh just of the change from that commercial to residential where where does that sit in
terms of things along the lines of storm water in terms of uh sewer water use things like that? How how does this affect the property that in comparison to the commercial use that's being used right now? >> Yeah. So I believe that converting to
the six apartments, onebedroom each, would require perhaps INI fee be paid. But when he go if if approved and he goes forward with building permit application, it would certainly be all part of that scope and to ensure that the appropriate fees are paid that might be applicable to any increase in water
sewer usage. Is there any sort of infrastructure that's required in terms of the modification from that commercial use to a uh to that multif family use >> internally? Yes. Um right now all of the
plumbing I mean it's two half baths are all they have and then a series of sinks that are dispersed throughout the entire property for all the clinical rooms. So the truly that's why it's a million-doll plus rehab because they have to gut this entire property, put in the appropriate installation, put in all the appropriate
firewalls, all the things that didn't have to happen over the buildup over years for this to have been used as medical offices. So there will be a substantial um I would almost call it an interior reconstruction. >> Yeah.
Today they have just passed also much more regulations in the medical industry where they if he would lease it they'd have to upgrade the whole place. That's just actually through my
experience with my >> And then you said that it would be entirely uh ADA accessible, ADA compliant. Um would that include a separate uh
elevator for ADA purposes for folks on the second floor, things like that at all? >> Well, I'll clarify. So the architect has done an analysis as to what to ensure that it would be accessible where it needs to be accessible. Okay. >> So as a conversion rather than new construction, I think there are certain exceptions that would allow the second
floor not necessarily to have to comply with full ADA. >> But the first floor would be um I think what's the term ADA >> ADA ready or something like that? >> Yeah, it's like ADA ready or ADA um something. >> Yeah. >> Okay. But from an exterior perspective,
I know I didn't point it out. I probably don't really need to, but um there's only on on two exterior views would there be a reduction in windows. So it actually we're not really doing any other exterior work. Um the fire escape is already there. Um I think if you look
at it, it's more a beautifification. Trying to say like we're going to put in window boxes. I mean things like that to make it feel a little bit more like that that residential aesthetic. Does the board have any other >> Did you reach out to MGH or anyone? Just kind of curious. It doesn't seem practical anyways, but who
>> MGH or TPS are? >> Um, no, they haven't. So, when we purchased it, it was in a lot of discussion with Dow um and why they were leaving. >> Yeah. >> And it was pretty clear um that the level of effort that would be required to continue using this in any kind of a medical way was so significant they were
not going to invest in it. >> Doesn't seem practical. Um, one of the other questions on our list here is whether your client would be open to restrictions for future additions and expansions to accessory uses. >> Yes, in fact, we'd be open to both that
and a condition that this is really only while this building stands. I mean, we're not looking to buy this, get an approval for use, and tear it down and do an end around. I mean, this is to say this client, he's a local guy. I mean, he wants it to be a lasting reputation that he cares about. He would take this
property. He's going to convert the interior and he's going to continue to rent it for that purpose. He has no intention of doing anything else in the exterior other than site improvements. So like landscaping, uh maybe screening or or something like we already have some good screening between this property and the Church of
the Good Shepherd. We could always add that as well if that would be useful to other sides and to try to reduce the parking. You know, if it's the board saying, "Hey, we don't need 18 spaces." It would make a lot of sense to take some of that pavement out of there. What is the screening between
uh this property and the abiding property on High Street? >> There really is none. I mean, what we have now is the the way Dow had set up the parking cars pull right into the lot line. >> Okay. >> And yeah, you can see it in the top right and then there is a chain length
fence and that's it. So part of what we're looking to do, we're proposed to do is is to really remove as many of those spaces as we can, still maintain probably 12 that are more set back and then build that into a buffer area.
>> You mentioned rent things was an intention for the owner to maintain ownership and rent it out from condos. >> So he's going to rent them. >> Yes. The only suggestion I would put in is u uh if he I don't know if he allows pets
or in the u in his rentals. >> Traditionally he does. >> Yeah. Maybe have a section for >> outside. >> I just seen it. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> No one has respect. >> You know, good management is is critical in that >> for other tenants.
>> Yep. >> And would the owner be managing the property himself or would he be >> Yes. Okay. So if it helps they also manage schoolhouse commons um the Met and uh the Rise building. So there are
three other examples that he's managing now and he's very very familiar with affordable housing. I mean all all of them are have affordable components to anything else from the board. Okay. Uh, general, we can actually open this up just to the public and I can
just ask members of the public if you'd like to come up and speak. >> And Sarah, if I could just ask you to please tell us your name and address for >> uh my name is Mark Tucker. I live at 77th High Street. What ups the old uh medical building. >> Okay.
>> Uh little nervous here, but uh anyway uh I've been in this town over 60 years. Uh my kids grew up in this town. We my family grew up in this town. We all went through the reading system. I seen a lot of changes in this town and stuff here. Uh my actually my wife Barbara, she
worked at D Medical and my mother-in-law for over 20 some odd years. I was in good connections with D Medical because we have bought the property. At one point D actually because of the parking that was one of their biggest problems is because people were parking all over
the place. They asked if they could rent part of our land in the back and put it into a driveway at one point and then we were going back and forth through it and we didn't feel that it was actually going to be, you know, help out and stuff there. Uh then as we we were doing
stuff at the house and stuff there, come on. It was just uh I had so many concerns because there was someone that actually approached before wanted to buy this place and actually convert it and they were told no. And this was from the realator or something. So the realator
came over and he was because we said, "Okay, we'll actually maybe we'll do our property too and put it as a package deal." Uh my biggest concerns are is that I work for a property management company now. I've been there for 34 years. I know what apartments are. I
mean, he might be great with his apartments and stuff there, but right now, I mean, we had Dell Medical that we could during the day there were cars, not at night. the weekends, hardly anything there. So, we weren't getting the flow of cars. If he puts six units
in there, that's 247 that people are going to be coming in and out. We have no privacy. I mean, I'm like I said, we've been in Reading for all these years and stuff. And I want to retire in Reading. I mean, my mother passed in Reading. My mother-in-law
passed in Reading. I mean, Reading is my home. I've done all the sports. I did baseball. I did football. I coached them all and stuff to have this next door. I mean, yeah, it it's going to be 24/7 noise all the time. I mean, I I've
seen apartments. I mean, we manage them in all around and stuff and I can see what happens and stuff there. I just feel that I mean, we're in the corner. We have nowhere to go. We put up with the train all the time. We got used to that. I mean, they shot down putting that extra thing in for the train, the
turnaround. Now, you want to put a six units next to my house. I said, I have nowhere to go. I have there's going to be noise all over the place and privacy. I mean, you're going up, you're building up, you're going two floors, at least with doubt. I mean, they they looked out. They closed at night. Now, there's
going to be, like I said, 24/7 people coming in and out, lights, noise. I mean, it's it's just I mean, yeah, it's good for the town, but the town's actually has so many places putting up. I mean, they just did the big complex uh on Main Street. They're condos all over
the place. I mean, this is my home. I'm not out to make money. I'm not doing anything. And the value of my house, if I ever want to sell it, who who's going to want to buy next to a six, you know, six family home that's rented out?
No one's going to want to do it, you know? And there's just there's so many concern water storage that backups all that. I just see it and I just I I mean I'm so against it and I I called uh uh Mike Sullivan. I I talked to him
stuff there. I came to the last meeting thought I'd meet him here wasn't here and then it's coming up. I mean he sent me a note saying you know he wanted to keep a clear thing. There's nothing. The last note I got was from Lean Leam saying if I wanted to, they'd contact them and
they'd actually get me the uh the developer and he would show me this. So, I mean, it's it's just ridiculous. It's it's not going to be my home anymore. I mean, my my grandkids come over there and stuff there in the yard and stuff. I said,
"Yeah, you know, and to cut it down." I mean, but biggest thing is it's to me it's just I I could go on and on and but I mean it's it's just my home, my family. We grew up here. I have a lot of ties in the town
of Reading and I just don't think it's a place there. Yeah, it's the train station, stuff like that there, but there's a lot of other places, Main Street, all that. It's it just, you know, it's it's almost like drawing us out, pushing us out of
our home, you know, and down the line is, you know, he says now that it's going to be apartments. Down the line is a condos. I've seen them. We've done it. We've turned them over. It's just Yeah. I mean, I I don't think anyone really wants to live next to apartment building.
So, >> I completely understand the train issues. I sympathize with that. Um, what since it's not entirely practical to have a medical facility here anymore, what would you rather see there?
>> I'd rather see something else. It doesn't have to be medical. You want to bring businesses into this town. You're drawing people. We got enough places, condos. >> Would you rather see there? >> What? There not six. Not six. Uh, uh, >> but what would you rather see there?
>> Something besides that. I I don't know. Maybe >> if it was if it was a restaurant that was open till 10 11 o'clock at night with even more people. >> I'd be up here telling you the same thing. No, I don't want a restaurant. I I think I think something like you could find a law office, a management office.
There's other things out there that you could do. What I what I want I don't want to have six apartments next >> single bedroom. >> Still it's six single bedroom. You got two people each time. It it's it's all hours of the night. I mean, no
disrespect or anything there, but I mean, >> I'm confused. I don't understand what you're saying. >> Just I don't want six apartments. >> Six onebedroom. >> I understand. Still >> there's more people during the day with the I would ra I >> No, there's not. I live next door there. There's not.
>> My kids went there. I know exactly. >> Yeah. I lived there. My wife worked there. My mother-in-law. You're >> right. You couldn't park in the parking lot. There was so many. >> They were coming over and they approached us. I think I think attorney l mentioned they open to doing more screening with like a fence or like tall trees or
anything um help at all or you know it's just having it there. I mean you you can do well there. I mean the mind is up it's it's going to you know I I'm up here. I wasn't even going to come here because I know it's just going to be a
fight and you know I I just had to stay because now the value of my house. That's the biggest thing. You're not going to get a lot of people that don't want to buy next door uh apartment complex. Even though it's one bedroom, you still got one bedroom, two
cars, two people in it. What happens if they have a kid? >> They wouldn't live in a one bedroom. Uh >> they do. I'll differ on that because I see it. We have them. I mean, this is a profession that I do. >> I also I see it
>> and I see it all the time. >> So, you live adjacent to that? >> Yeah. I'm right next right Yeah. >> What's on the other side? >> There's my house, the church. >> The church.
>> And then Yes. Yeah. So about how much distance is there between your prop between the property line uh the two properties and the structure of the house itself? >> I haven't measured that. I don't I don't know that off hand.
>> The parking lot is on your side, right? >> Yeah. >> So I I did hear Josh mention that they were open to taking out part of this parking lot and maybe erecting some sort of sound barrier. Is is that something you would be open to discussing with him
and his client? >> I'm open to discuss anything just to make it it easier for me to live. >> Mhm. >> I mean, this is this is to me I mean it's I I'm going to have to go through noise all night. My windows right there.
I have the cars pulling up and down had a thing telling the people to shut their lights off because when they pull up to my house, you got lights. >> Okay. So, we we definitely heard your concerns. We we also need to something has to go here. We can't be
unreasonable. So, I think I'm going to let Josh respond to you through the public and then if we decide maybe they want to have a conversation before he whether he decides to vote or not or you know wants to take a vote today. >> I think that's good. >> Okay.
>> So, ask thank you for thank you for g >> just addressing some of those concerns for us. >> Certainly, I completely understand them. Um just to clarify, I I had sent a letter to Mr. Tucker and I I just wanted to I don't want it to be opposition at all. I really was hoping we could talk and see if there's anything we could do
for you that might allay some of your concerns. And if you see the parking certainly as as Dow did it, it goes right facing into their house. >> Yeah. >> And so one thing that we've been brainstorming and I was going to propose if we were able to meet beforehand was
removing those parking spaces. So it just becomes the throat of a driveway in with the parking really as geared away from their home as possible in the back. Um that's that's one major thing. The other is that creates more landscaping area which we can then put in, you know,
natural greenery, shrubbery, buffer that would help, you know, eliminate noise pollution, eliminate any kind of light pollution. I totally understand the concerns about having this convert to residential. But I think from what I'm hearing, I think a lot of these are things that we can do a lot to to really address at the
same time, and we would like the opportunity to do that. Okay. So, um, just out of curiosity, is your client, did you ever discuss like a duplex condo where he could sell it as opposed to renting it?
>> Um, so his entire >> Sounds like he wants to rent. Is there really like a rental approach to it? Um, >> but I guess one other point I'll make is that the topography of the site, it actually goes from 110 at the intersection up to 130 in the rear
corner. And so by directing more of the parking against the back, it's really facing only into significant upgrade. Um, so that's one way that we'd be able to do some of that. What I'd propose tonight, we're not looking to push anything quickly. I mean, we'd be happy to request a continuence. We'd love an
opportunity to speak and see if we can give you some options. We've already got Jack Sullivan. We said, "Hey, can you be available with us so we can look and see what we can do to make this as the best it can possibly be to address your concerns?" That's really what we want to do. Um, so would that I mean I would request a continuence if that works.
>> That sounds reasonable. >> I think that is something that the board would certainly be more appropriate would find would find appropriate just to allay some of Mr. Tech's concerns to try and figure out a way that we can make this something that'll work for everybody involved.
>> Absolutely. So I guess with that, unless you have anything else, I would formally request a continuence to your next available hearing date if that's possible. I move to accept the continuence request until May 4th. Is that what you said? >> Is it May 4 or May 11th?
>> 4th. >> Okay. >> May 4. >> Does that say 11? >> Yeah. >> Do we run into town meeting? >> Oh, I do have May 11 on on my schedule. >> That one might be. >> Sorry. >> But May 4th is the first Monday. I want
to say you had another meeting that day or something. one of the months you changed. >> Yeah, I I have the 11th in mind. >> So, is it actually the 11th? It's the next hearing date. >> I think the trust I think we trust Amanda with uh all logistics here.
>> I think the original one I sent had a town meeting date. Yes. So, May 11th actually. >> It is May 11th. >> Yes. Cuz town meeting is May 4th. Can I request I'm sorry it would be two months because I'm actually I have to um I have military duty overseas on that date so I
can't be here for the 11th >> with June 1st. >> June 1st would be fantastic. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. >> I second June 1st instead of May. >> Okay. >> So all in favor of continuing this
matter until June 1st. That is unanimous. Thank you Mr. Tacker. Thank you attorney Le. and we'll make sure that you guys have an opportunity to speak beforehand. I know Mr. I know Attorney Leam has another matter on the agenda though tonight. >> So he may ask you just to be patient
briefly while we uh address this other matter. So attorney then we'll have to go with case number 26 death 03122 John Street. The zoning board of appeals will hold a public hearing in the select board's meeting room at Town Hall 16 LOL Street
Reading, Massachusetts on Monday, April 6, 2026 at 7 p.m. on the application of attorney Joshua Laam on behalf of the property owner pursuant to Mass General Laws chapter 40 section 9 for a special permit under Reading Zoning bylaw section 7.0,7.3
and 7.3.2 two to demolish and reconstruct an existing non-conforming structure that will maintain non-conforming front yard setbacks on a property located at 122 John Street, assessor Map 17, lot 235 in Reading,
Massachusetts. Unless there is an objection, I will dispense with the reading of the abutters list except to say that the abutters were notified as were the following. Select board, town clerk, police department, fire department, building department, conservation commission, health department, assessor's office,
engineering division, CPDC, members and associate members of the board of appeals, as well as the planning boards of Wakefield, Lynfield, Northring, Stonem, Wuburn, and Wilmington. Now, testimony given before this board is taken under oath. So, if you would think you may would wish to speak on this
matter, we would ask that you please stand and raise your right hand. >> Thank you. Uh, I swear that the testimony given by me before this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And the response is, I do. I do. >> Thank you. You can go ahead and have a
seat and we'll ask attorney Leam to go ahead and present for 122 Down Street. >> Good evening. Attorney Josh Leam here tonight on behalf of Flagstone Realy Group Incorporated. Uh, we are before you tonight with regards to an application for a special permit pursuant to section 7.3.2 of the zoning
code. With me this evening is Susan Mahoney. is the principle of the applicant. Um, next slide, please. So, again, just want to give you a context of where we are. Uh, what you'll see, it's the green outline property is the one that we're discussing. Uh,
you'll see that we are located off uh, village and where you can see some of the apartments. The Lake View Apartments and then Walkers Brook Drive. Next slide, please. So to give you perspective of if you're viewing the property as you're driving either down John Street or John Street
Court um the property is on the corner of John Street and John Street Court and the first view obviously from John Street as you're approaching. One on the right top right is the view from John Street as you're coming to John Street Court. The next view is turning right onto John Street Court. And in the
bottom right quadrant is the view from John Street Court as well as we're passing the property. Next slide please. I think it's also useful to take a perspective down the streets um to get a sense really of the neighborhood because that's the critical component of your determination today is is this something
that's appropriate for the neighborhood. And so I think what I'd say it's a really nice neighborhood. You have these really great houses that have been built over the years. A lot of them are circa 1920. Um some context for this zoning district. So this is an S15 district. It
was originally the S10 district and in 1994 the town wholesale changed Suh 10 to S15. As a result, it rendered pretty much this entire neighborhood non-conforming for lot size and further it rendered a lot of the homes
non-conforming for setbacks. So that's kind of an important piece to keep in mind as we discuss the property. Next slide, please. So this is the existing conditions plan. I've high or I've circled two points where you'll see the front yard setback. Now, because we are on a corner, the
town interprets zoning to require that we have two front yard setbacks. So, if you look at the one on John Street Court, not only does it not have any setback, it actually encroaches into the private way. Then, when you look at the setback from John Street, it's uh just
over 12 ft, which doesn't comply with the current requirements of zoning. Next slide, please. What the client is proposing to do is to tear down the existing home to center the lot center the property uh the new home on the lot
conforming with setback requirements. I do want to point out one piece of it and that's essentially note one to the zoning table. So whereas the S-15 district requires a 20 foot front yard setback which would essentially render this property almost unusable. There is that footnote which is listed
at the bottom right which makes clear that what you can do in situations where the houses on either side of you have less than a 20- foot setback. You can take the average and then you can apply the greater of 10 ft or the average of
those two setbacks. In this case uh we have a setback average of about 9 and 1/2 ft. So that results in a 10-ft setback requirement. Hence, the proposal shows conforming front yard setbacks on both John Street Court and John Street.
The reason that we need to request a special permit under 7.3.2 is because we don't qualify under 7.3.1. And that's because we are not only non-conforming for lot size or frontage, we are also non-conforming for lot width. So, we only have 50 foot lot
width. 60 feet is required. If you read 7.31, uh, next slide, please. Actually, this just is meant to show what the proposal will be. Um, really more of a a centralized home and a more modernized home. Next slide, please. So, 7.3.1
requires really you can apply it only when you are either non-conforming for area or frontage, but in our case, um, we're also a lot width, so we can't do it. So, that kicks us to 7.3.2, two, which requires that if we are going to do this project, it requires a founding
by the board that the reconstruction would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming building or structure. Next slide, please. So, I would pose to you that this proposal is consistent with the neighborhood. The neighborhood is characterized by single family homes
located on undersized lots. As mentioned, most homes date to the 20s. The conversion of this district rendered a lot of these properties non-conforming. We actually did a survey um of all of the single family homes shown on the assessor's map and 86% of them are non-conforming for lot size.
Most homes are also non-conforming with regards to setbacks and there are several other homes that were granted zoning relief to allow them to do similar projects or additions with their other setback issues. Next slide, please. So, where I'm going to go with this is we're looking again the properties, the
one outlined in green. And I'm going to highlight, if you go to the next slide, all the properties that are non-conforming for lot size. And then the next slide, all the properties that are non-conforming for setbacks. So, when you consider the
character of the neighborhood, this home is really consistent with every other home. And if you actually go back one side, if you don't mind, the properties with the red star are other properties that were granted zoning relief to do either additions or reconstructions on their property. So there is precedent that would be
allowable for this type of a proposed reconstruction. Uh next slide, please. And the next slide. So again, going back to that standard that the board is is uh to adhere to, the question is, will this project be substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood than the existing non-conforming? It will be substantially more beneficial to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming. Number one, we will establish conforming setbacks, which is probably better than the majority of other properties in this district. Number two, it eliminates the
encroachment under John Street Court. We will now be entirely within our lot lines. Number three, it's actually more conforming than the majority of other single family dwellings. It will beautify a property which is run down and dilapidated. The existing house is only about 862 square ft. It is a 1 and
a half story home. Um I have a series of supplemental slides at the end if you're interested to see what it looks like inside right now, but it's pretty brutal. Um so it's really I think would be an appropriate safety and health and and beautifification to do this new project. And lastly, wouldn't have an increase on property values. Uh, next
slide, please. So, that closes my presentation. Um, if you are interested in seeing what the interior of the property looks like, there are a series of slides after this. >> Okay. So, yeah. So, with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.
The plot plan we're using is um March 6, 2026, right? That's the most recent. >> That's correct. Yes. And that's the one where we made sure to add the setbacks with two properties. >> Actually, I've got a question about the law coverage. It seems like the math isn't adding up. I'm getting that we're
over 25%. do 23 * 55. That's more than 25% of 50 by 100. >> Well, I will >> Sorry. Let me get to the >> Okay. Sorry. Yeah. Glasses.
>> Better version. So to clarify your is the the math for the proposed lot coverage is the question. Okay. Well, I will admit I'm deferring to the engineer. >> Yeah, I mean, yeah, it's kind of a little bit of funky angle, but just like
rough numbers. >> He says at 21. I think it should be more than 25% if not much closer. Okay. >> Yeah.
So 55 by 20 >> 23. >> Yeah. 23 x 55 I come to 1265 by 4952 and I have a 25.54%. >> Oh, is that the total lot area? But the
Okay, maybe I said the math wrong. I was doing 50 by 100 for total lot area. So 5,000. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. I take it back. >> So slightly over 25%. >> Oh, so it is over. >> Okay. Yeah. And yeah, it says 21 on a
plot plan. So it's like definitely not. >> Yeah. 25.5%. >> I was going to say we have to >> Yeah. Come on now. >> Yeah. I can do that. >> Patrick and I are sitting here like,
"Wait, what's going on?" >> Lawyers doing math. Wait a minute. That's >> the reason we went to law school. >> Exactly. >> So, what I would I would suggest is that we could submit a corrected plan that ensures that we reduce the necessary
square footage to get to less than 25%. >> That would be acceptable. >> Yeah. Thanks. Sorry, I just I just looked. No, >> it's always a good lesson that I not that they really want me double checking the map, but
>> other than that, I don't have any >> public I just from a precedent thing uh from a precedent standpoint I'm trying to remember uh if you raise a property are you there by creating a new
nonconformity by building within that within a separate setback? >> I don't think so. That's that's my Yeah, that's that's my only that's my only >> uh issue is that by by raising the property is it
>> basically just >> you start at zero and then suddenly with the property that's being built is that going to be a new nonconformity that creates another issue. I didn't know if there's any precedent or any sort of information that you can certainly let us know.
>> Sure. So there is the ability to build within the same footprint which we don't want to do. And then in granting the special permit, it's kind of wholesale and that's saying that we're allowed to relocate the structure, a new structure on a different footprint, which is another key distinction from other parts
of zoning. >> Yeah. >> Centralized to the lot. What I can say is the lot is going to comply with every single setback. >> So we actually will be conforming. So we're taking a non-conforming situation, we are making it fully conforming on a setback basis. >> Okay.
Well, particularly and given the circumstances and given the the footnote in section one, I would imagine as well. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Says reconstruct or structurally change. >> Yeah. So, just some of the language just Yeah. >> If you see the other house encroaches
over the lot line >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. >> Oh, yeah. No, I I absolutely I'm just trying to make sure that everything is set in terms of the language. Um,
okay. So, it would no longer be non-conforming in those circumstances at that point. Then >> the lot remains non-conforming. for width and area. >> The the structure itself, the structure itself >> would be conforming at >> fully conforming at that point. >> Was there >> Yeah.
>> Was there not a road there once before? They Oh, someone who built that house just went over the line. >> I I think Well, it's a private way and I just have to It's about 30 foot private way and I have to assume that on both sides, you know, there's probably just kind of like it wasn't fully paved
through and people just I don't know. 1920s beauty of the paper roads. >> All right. Uh did we want to open it up for public if we could ask you just to please take a seat and
>> uh if we could have folks if you'd like to speak please come forward >> and please state your name and address for the record sir >> Tony DZo 13 John Street. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Uh, I have a request. According to the plot plan that is being
provided, the house will actually be at an angle to John Street. >> Okay. >> To meet all of the requirements if possible. And this board would like to grant whatever variances or special permits. If you could extend it such
that the house could be parallel to John Street, I think would be a benefit to the neighborhood. In what way, Mr. J? Just from an aesthetic standpoint or >> From an aesthetic standpoint, it would uh as you're walking along John Street, you would actually see the houses would line up nicely and straight as opposed
to this kitty corner one that kind of uh brings your eye and detracts from everything else around it. >> Then it'll be off on the other street. It would be off on the private way which is basically traveled only by the five
or six >> John Street >> as opposed to John Street which is a major well it's not a major thoroughfare but it is a highly used street in town and even then if it's Kitty Corner it's
still going to be better than today where it's actually into the Have you mentioned any of this to >> Mr. Leam or Flagstone? No, I have not. >> Okay, it's appreciated. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. >> If they do it at the angle, isn't it
going to line up with all these? >> This is going to be all hand be nonconforming. And I feel like it's >> Are there any other members of the public who would like to speak on this matter? >> Okay. And attorney Lam, if you wanted to
just respond. >> Thank you. Um, we just hadn't evaluated that in any way. I I don't really have a good answer. Um, I suppose if it's something the board would be inclined to consider if we could ask for an approval
that allows us to stay within the envelope and then it would be subject to submitting with the building permit to the building department. I I don't really know how else to to do it. Um, at this point
we don't want to create a new non-conformity. We don't we just because it has future ramifications for property owners and everything. So, we really want to stay in the building envelope. We just >> I don't know that we have a lot of room to give um to adjust the dimensions of where the house is within that very small envelope
that we have given the size of the lot. >> And I fully understand what you're talking about. I have a question just to understand the res uh point. Are you talking about shifting the whole house over or just
extending the front as an angle? >> Thank you. Um my original intent was to shift the whole house over. Um I don't know if just shifting the front would solve the problem. >> It might actually. >> Yeah. Construction wise, it won't.
>> If the applicant needs to change the dimensions of the house to meet the 25% coverage, this might be an opportunity. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, the other way would make it non-conforming again. >> I think it would it would >> I think Yeah, I think maybe you might be
able to shift 6 in one direction, but the roof line, everything won't work construction wise. I may think leave it as is. >> Mr. Chair, may I speak again, please? >> The inside of the house would be
>> uh very quickly, Mr. Yeah. >> This is simply a request. >> Has nothing to do I think putting up a new building is better than the one that exists. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you for the clarification. >> I'm inclined to grant the special permit
and let them handle the request outside. >> Yeah, I think I'm saying agree. >> Are there any other members who would like to speak of members of the public? Okay, we will close public comment.
Uh I believe is there any other questions or concerns among the board? No. Is there a motion? >> I move to grant the petitioner's request
for a special permit under 7.3.2 of the writing zoning bylaw um for the violation of the S15 single family district setback lot size is what I guess we're
calling it. It's just all lot coverage. >> Yeah, I think for the non-conforming lot. >> Yeah, for the for the non-conforming lot. >> Um and approving the new structure um after raising
what's there and in conformity with the updated certified plot plan here for 122 John Street, Reading dated March 6, 26. Um, who is this prepared by?
Prepared for Flagstone Realy Group Incorporated. This is Oh, by Boston Survey Incorporated. >> Would we want to make sure that it is subject to the reduction of the space so that it fits within that 25 within the
25%. >> Lot coverage. Yeah, >> lot coverage. >> And then you have those additional Oh, you got them. >> Petitioners shall submit to the building inspector a certified plot plan of the proposed construction and proposed foundation plans prior to the issuance
of a foundation permit for the work. Petitioner's final construction plans for the new structure shall be submitted to the building inspector along with the asbuilt foundation plans prior to the issuance of the building permit. As will plan showing the completed construction shall be submitted to the building
inspector immediately after the work is completed and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. >> Is there a second Frank? And all in favor? >> Hi. That is unanimous. >> Thank you very much. We appreciate your time.
>> Thank you, Nathan. All righty, folks. Thank you very much for your patience this evening. We appreciate it. Uh, the next matter we have is case number 26-04 90 John Carver Road. The zoting board of appeals will hold a public hearing in
the select board's meeting room at Town Hall 16 LOL Street Reading, Massachusetts on Monday, April 6th, 2026 at 7 p.m. on the application of Brett Jackson pursuant to Mass General Law Chapter 48 section 9 for a special permit under Reading Zoning bylaw
Section 7.0 and 7.3 and pursuant to Mass General Law chapter 48 section 10 for variance under reading sections 4.5.2, 2, 6.3, and 7.4. to demolish an existing non-conforming singlestory garage and construct a
two-story addition extending the exi the existing nonconformity construct a deck extending the existing nonconforming year rear yard setback and a wraparound covered porch creating a new front yard nonconformity on the
property located at 90 John Carver Road assessor's map 32 lot 80 in Reading Massachusetts unless There is an objection. I will dispense with the reading of the abutters list except to say that the abutters were notified as were the following. The select board, town clerk,
police department, fire department, building department, conservation commission, health department, assessor's office, engineering division, CPDC members and associate members of the board of appeals as well as the planning boards of Wakefield, Lynfield, North Reading, Stoneham, Wuburn, and
Wilmington. Now, testimony is given before this board. The testimony given before this board is taken under oath. So if you think you may want to speak, we would ask that you please stand and raise your right hand. Uh I swear that the testimony given by me before this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And
the response is I do. >> I do. >> Thank you. And if you please go ahead and give us your name and address for the record. >> Great. My name is Brett Jackson, 90 John Carver Road. >> Thank you, Mr. Jackson. Why don't you tell us what's going on? >> Yeah, great. Good evening, members of the board. Um Brett Jackson along with
my wife Margot are the owners of 90 John Carver Road with our two little boys. Um I'm here tonight uh requesting a special permit um and two variances in connection with a larger home uh renovation that we've been planning with our architect uh Christopher Cloer. Um,
I'd like to briefly walk you through uh, you know, each of the three requests, explain why we view each of them as necessary, and show you that, uh, the project as a whole, uh, is is a net improvement to the property, um, the neighborhood, and the zoning compliance
uh, with some of the the revisions that we're making um, to the the rear deck of the home, which I'll describe. Um, I'm just given I'm asking for three things, would it be helpful for me to walk through everything and then open it up to questions? Is that the easiest way to go forward?
>> Yeah, probably the easiest. >> Okay, great. Um, so really to give you a lay of the land, um, the first item that I'd like to describe is the special permit for the increased height of a non-conforming attached singlestory garage. Um, we're proposing to rebuild
the existing garage structure with a more structurally sound foundation. um and to replace that structure with a two-story addition um in a Cape style uh consistent with the other homes in the neighborhood. Um importantly, the footprint of the garage in question here
does not change at all in this design. We're keeping entirely within the existing footprint and not uh expanding outward in any way. And the height of the uh existing structure is 21 feet 1 in with the increased um with the new
plan being 25 feet 2 in. So essentially the purpose is to create uh a living space um that's consistent with you know our family we're increasing the conditioned space from 2400 ft² to 3300 ft² and the space above the garage will
serve as a primary bedroom to be on the same level as the two other bedrooms in the home. so that we're able to be on the same level as our two young boys, which is critical for us just with a young family. Um, I'd also like to draw the board's attention to a very similar project that
was approved at 102 John Carver Road, which is uh not next door to us, but the house uh next to that, that was approved in August of last year. Um, in that case, uh, the applicant Sarah and John brought a special a similar special permit request for a similar garage to
build a master bedroom over theirs. Um, in that instance, the permit was approved uh, unanimously, noting that our project uh, or that project did not extend the nonconformity and improve the home's functionality. Our request in
this instance is materially the same. same footprint, updated foundation, um upward expansion only and improved functionality for our family as we grow. Um so I did deliver some design plans. I don't know if you guys have access to
them. >> Yeah. >> So you can see in the elevation drawings, um it's A4 and A5. Um we were purposeful and trying to maintain the consistency of the home and keep a cape style um view. So you can see that uh
it's shingle style uh proportions you know similar to the rest of the house and that of the surrounding neighborhood was really a critical component for us. Um the second request is a variance request for a front uh front covered
porch um that wraps around the the front corner of the home uh adjoining John Carver and Woodland Street which is the dead end there on the >> with a garage. Correct. Yep. Um so, uh the second item, you know, that we
want to, uh I just want to give you a sense of the property. Um 90 John Carver Road and Woodland Street. And our property, you can see, is is a triangular corner lot. So, it's not a typical, you know, interior rectangle lot, right? Um and because it's a corner
lot, it's subject to two front um setback requirements of 20 ft. Um that alone significantly reduces the billable envelope for us to make any modifications to the front of the house. But there's also a second constraint um
that's really challenging us as we're trying to figure out ways to improve and expand the home. Um in the back corner um we're there's also conservation land um that we're working with. So we're essentially constrained by three different kind of areas. is we have the
two front back front setbacks on the on the street side and then um on the rear side we have um the conservation land um the rear deck that you see proposed there in the back for uh the right side there I did um meet with Chuck in the
conservation commission and was able to obtain a minor permit uh minor minor projects permit but we were right up against that buffer of the 100 ft. >> Yeah. So, we really don't have any option to go any further out to the back, right, or make any other changes
because so much of our property, even though we're, I think, 12% um of the the lot is currently covered. We're going to 14%, but there's really not a ton of area on the property that is buildable for us to make any types of expansion.
Um, so what we're dealing with, right, property squeezed from two or three directions really, right? um John Carver Road, Woodland, and the the back uh is where we're kind of at. Um so to answer the four questions uh laid out uh for
these first criteria, whether there's special circumstances of the soil, shape, and topography um that affect the property specifically, but not the zoning district generally. Um I think here it's pretty clear. Um we have a triangular lot at at an intersection subject to two front yard setbacks. That
alone is unusual in this area. But add to that the conservation buffer at the rear um which was you know formally recognized by by Chuck and the the special permit. Um that combination I feel is not um you know common and is
specific to this parcel of land. On the second criteria, the the the hardship from literal enforcement, um our goal with this wraparound porch that you see on the front here, um is to create a side side covered entry that we could
use to store everyday items. So, think like strollers and bicycles. And given John Carver Road is a is a fairly busy road at times during the day, it's a cut through from 28 to 129. We really wanted a place that we could store those items
out of public view for security purposes and just the aesthetics of the neighborhood. So, you know, um having our inability to create a side covered area, we would have to essentially rebuild the entire property, right? given there's really nowhere else for us
to do that given the setback requirements that we're dealing with. So, we haven't really been able to figure out a workable alternative outside of just ripping that that side piece off and just going with the front entry and trying to figure out where to store those things elsewhere.
Um, the third item, no substantial detriment to the public good. Um first from our perspective I I I think we have two specific reasons um that we don't think it it it's contributing to the uh public detriment. Um first from
our perspective the encroachment on that front porch is minimal. So it's 2.1 ft um is the calculation and it's not um the majority of the porch or a wall or anything. It's a the corner of the porch where it meets those two areas. a single
point um is that setback. Um this is not a situation where it's an entire addition or an entire wall. Um and the second area is the property line and in some of the images that I I submitted and you can you can't really see it on
the corner of Woodland Street. Um our property line is is kind of created with a series of um six to seven foot shrubs um on top of a twoft stone wall. So along our property line along the corner
of the street is an 8ft wall of shrubs that kind of heat shields the side of our house um from the public to begin with. So our our perspective is that a a change of this would not be um accessible to drivers or pedestrians. It
wouldn't create visibility concerns or or sighteline issues with traffic given it's a dead end. Right. And the Yeah. And this is this image is from 2012 where the shrubs have grown quite significantly in the past 10 years. Um probably should do a better job
manicuring them, but it gives us some more privacy on that side. So, you know, as you can see, it's it's minimal in terms of what what the impact would be from the street. Did you you looking Did you have a question there or >> Oh, no. I was just trying to get the little >> Oh,
>> image there so you can see what you >> I appreciate it. Thanks. Yeah. Okay. Um I'd also So, I'd also like to enter into the record um I do have a letter of support from our closest of Butters um the Johnson Hulahans. um happy to give
approach to all. So they are the closest of butterers to us. If you look at the property there >> to the left. >> Yeah. They're these guys right >> kind of directly behind. >> Yeah. So our property line, the existing
deck that we have in the back is 10.7 ft from from their property line. We become close neighbors in that. you can see inside their house into their living room where feels like we live with them sometimes. Um so um they are fully supportive. We've consulted with them
throughout the process to make sure that they're comfortable with the design and it doesn't interfere with kind of their lifestyle as they're uh quite often in the backyard and we you know uh spend a lot of time together. So um happy to let
you guys uh review that for a moment. Okay. All right. So, the fourth criteria um ask whether granting relief would take away from the purpose of the zoning ordinance. Uh we believe in this instance it would not. Um my understanding of the setback requirements is that they exist to
maintain spacing between structures and roadways, preserve the neighborhood's character, and protect sight lines for drivers and pedestrians. Um the minor relief in this instance for 2 ft from, you know, a property that is already shielded from mature shrubs and trees um
and uh assists with uh our security as a family. uh we believe um does not um does not uh dergate the intent of that. Um I also do want to highlight something that I think is worth the board's
attention. I think it's uh applicable as well to the the third variance request or the second variance request. Um while we are requesting the minor relief on the front uh two 2.1 ft um the plan in this in the the general plan for our
project is to remove the back deck which is as I noted earlier um and it's not on this one. I don't know if you have the old plot pan plan by chance. >> You do.
>> Yeah. So essentially it's on the other side of of our dining room right now that it is on top of uh the Johnson Hoolands right now 10.7 ft from um the property line. We intended to keep it but we thought this was a good
opportunity to improve the um conformity of the property given we're doing this project anyways and to provide some relief for our closest neighbors. Um so as part of this project while we are asking for that variance for 2.1 ft we are trying to reduce um how
non-conforming this property is currently. So the the last item is the variance for the rear deck. Um if you pop back to the existing plot plan. Thank you. Um so uh essentially the deck itself is
currently positioned to comply with setback requirements today. it's fully within there. Um the one area that it's not is you can see the stairs uh coming down the last stair is 1 ft uh the 1 ft corner of it uh passes into the rear
setbacks. Um the existing stair design that we came up with, we we absolutely could move it in towards the property and it would be within the setbacks. The reason that we chose to do it this way is and the the pitch of our property
goes down towards the conservation land. So the existing deck essentially covers up um a 5-ft exposed foundation. Uh so when we rip off that existing deck, our our neighbors are going to be staring
down 5t of concrete right off of their uh their porch. So, our intent was to be able to move the stairs just to the the outer edge of the deck to leave a three-foot bed for us to be able to put shrubs, flowers, something to pro to
essentially shield them from looking at a giant wall of concrete so that we could have stairs down with, you know, a pathway rather than um, you know, that that particular experience for them. So, that's the the logic for the design, you
know. We're happy to move it closer to the house if we need to comply with the setbacks, but we just felt it was better for for our neighbors in this instance. Um, again, from a a conservation perspective, um, we really can't put the stairs anywhere
else just given the buffer zone that we have and the topography of the land. It kind of drops off on the on the far side of the house. So, it would be giant sets of stairs down, which isn't great for our our family. Um, I think that's all I had. You know, in
summary, we're asking for three things. Special permit for the second floor edition over the garage. Uh, a minor variance of two and a 2.1 ft for the covered porch and a 1 ft for the deck stairs that are code uh code required element. So, taken together, we think
that improves the home, improves overall setback compliance um by removing that that large deck that's there today and is supported by our closest neighbors. Um, we feel that's consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Uh, improves the value of the home in our
our neighbors homes. Um, and we believe each of the requests is well grounded in the facts of the property and the criteria that you all apply in your decisions. So, I thank you for your time and uh, open to any questions from you all. >> Yeah.
>> I actually have a question for Brandon. Just going back to Yeah, Brendon. I'm sorry. >> Uh, it's Brandon Brandon. Brandon, thank you. Um, is a variance actually needed for the rear deck? >> No, the I believe the deck itself is not
in the U in a setback. So, the stairs uh per per Glenn Redmond actually that the stairs the egress stairs >> they're not included as part of >> they're not they're excluded from from setback requirements. >> So then that that would be that you'd be able to do that completely entirely.
It's up to you whether you'd wanted to move them over to be kind of in the middle of that that square. >> But as they are right now, >> as they are, they're okay. >> Oh, great. All right. In the denial letter, it said the stairs. So, I was just going off of what what the denial letter said. >> Yeah. Your proposal to build a deck of the rear house rear of the house extends
into the rear yard set back and would require a variance, but no, I don't believe Okay. >> Same thing with the bulkhead. >> Okay. >> As long as it's not covered. >> It's not. Yep. It won't. It won't be. And we're actually considering in the asbuilt plans or the the plans, we're
actually considering moving it over up against the house just so it's fully out anyways. But >> yeah, it doesn't >> required. Okay. >> So then yeah, I so that that variance isn't necessary. So I don't necessarily have an issue there.
>> Um I'm generally okay with the addition too with the special par for the addition. I believe it's all within the same footprint. I think it's >> just that front porch deck. Correct. Yeah. Covered porch. >> Front porch. >> Yep. >> See the corner?
>> So the circumstances with that corner of that of the front deck. >> Mhm. >> Is that looks like that will create a new nonconformity and that would require a variance. And
the tricky part with variances is that ultimately uh in these circumstances we are not allowed to grant them unless each and every one of those four criteria
uh are met. I think just obviously I understand it's two feet. I I get that. Um I think where I run into concerns is just where whether we can actually grant
a variance based upon those just from a presidential standpoint more so than anything else because folks will tend to try and uh say well you granted it for this but this is just going another foot beyond or another foot beyond or another foot
beyond and ultimately it just goes further and further. That's that's one of the concerns that we have to take a look at in terms of just presidential value in terms of those particular types of things. I don't know >> if you've had the opportunity to discuss
uh design or anything with that front port to do a wraparound so that it may be compliant. may be able to mark it so it is compliant rather than maybe doing a rounded a rounded uh ask.
>> No. Yeah, please. >> How about because you're talking about the >> the corner. >> Yeah, that corner is the only >> it wraps around the house, right? Yeah. >> And it goes to that outdoor shed or outdoor. >> It's like a lean tube. Yeah. >> That's within it's that's compliant storage.
>> Yeah. >> It's literally only that. >> I mean, at this case, he tells you legally what we're bound to. Sure. >> Um I you know it's a nice design. I mean if you just took the the front deck covered porch and just squared it
right to the um I looked it over here. It looks like you'll be in compliance instead of wrapping it around. >> Yes, we would. >> Because we we're held by certain law bylaws. >> Understood. Yeah. I mean we certainly could cut it off there. I think the the challenge that we would have is
>> Yeah. What is it why you wanted to go all the way around? >> Yeah. So aesthetic. So >> no, essentially I mean it's a it's a main a main road, right, that we would like to be able to, you know, at the end of a night when you take them for a walk, just throw the the stroller, right, to the side of the house where it's not on the front of the hall.
Right. >> Um and covered, right? And you know, with kids, you got bikes and all sorts of things like that, right? So throwing them on the front of the house wouldn't be um something that would be, you know, possible for us, right? We'd have to put it down in the basement or something
like that. So this was our our attempt to have something minimal, right, that allowed for us to put those things in those places um to avoid kind of the the hardship there of uh those activities. For me, my main concern is I don't
necessarily know if I would consider that design or this kind of those those design concerns as natural hardship. >> Okay, >> that's my only that's my only concern there. And again, we are
>> found I understand. >> Yeah. So I think it's it could be a design issue. It could be something where trying to figure out another way to address and kind of get what you are looking for. >> Yeah. through another method. That may
be something that may be more appropriate where a variance isn't necessary and something you could do by right rather than >> Yeah. >> requiring requiring just the presidential kind of change. >> Understood. I I think where we struggle
is just the the building envelope it where the amount of space that we have to actually build right with the conservation on the back like we can't build anything on the other side of the house. We can't build anything on the back of the home. there's just very very little space for us to to be able to do that. But I I
understand your your position. Um for sure. >> Any other >> So you could either redesign a request that you go or >> Well, one of the things I mean I think we can probably go forward. I I have no problem going forward with the special
permit request. >> Okay. >> Um I have no issues with that. And it may be something where if you were potentially interested in trying to figure out another way to address that issue without necessarily requiring the variance. >> Um
you can certainly ask for a continuence just for that for that particular issue >> and if you are able to figure out a design that will allow you to do it by right you can certainly withdraw at that point in time. >> I would talk to the architect. You never know. I I know you need certain distance
from the house. So >> yeah, that that's kind of what we're maybe he might be creative or >> Yeah, >> because I know you want to >> we've tried a lot. >> You don't want to hold this up just for a little corner. >> Yeah. Well, and that's kind of that's kind of where we're at. Uh we've been at it's like three months of back and forth
with the architect and it's we haven't >> attorneys to tell us what we're bound to. Yeah. >> As far as the substantial hardship, you need to try and prove that your situation is unique to all your other neighbors. And I get the topography. I
think you've cleared that perfectly. I mean, the shape with your conservation, too. Um, yeah. I mean, if if you maybe talked about with the architect whether you or him come back, you would only you still need four people no matter what.
Typically, we have five that you can vote. >> Yep. So, I mean, it sounds like you might not get it today, but maybe with a different board, five people, it's they all kind of differ. Um, just throwing that out there. >> Okay. Well, I appreciate your feedback. >> Of course.
>> Y um So, I'd be happy to request a continuence if you all would be open to it for the the variance. Um, >> so both have to be continued. >> Oh, they would both have to be? >> Yes. Because it's one application. So when the decision is posted, I only have
the one set of abunders envelopes. So they have to be voted on. >> Ah, and for logistical matters, I it looks like we may have to continue the >> Okay. May 11th. >> So the next meeting next meeting hearing date would is May 11th.
>> Okay. >> Or withdraw. >> Unless he just correct that. >> Did a correction. Um, you guys were >> unless he decided now to make a correction. >> You guys were draw after >> for the >> Yeah, unless you wanted to make a
correction now to it >> to >> you guys put language in there, right? >> Well, I think >> I'm just a little >> um if it was feel like we went round and round with them, so I'm just I'm not
sure that we're going to get there. >> But if you can wait another month, wait. I mean, I don't know. For me, it might be helpful to if if you had a letter saying this is why this is substantially difficult for you personally on this lot, >> that would easily that would convince me
at least for that issue. >> Okay. >> Um I could be only >> again generally it's a circumstance where obviously as Patrick mentioned there there's normally five people. >> Yeah. >> Uh and let me know that was four votes.
Yeah, understood. Okay. >> You don't want to crap out. >> Yeah. Okay. Well, then I guess if I could request a continuence uh to be considered for both then. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Uh anybody continuous case till May 11th? >> Second.
>> And all in favor? >> Thank you, gentlemen. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Good luck. Thank you. Appreciate it. looked a mess. Did we come in? We did. We did. >> All righty. And I guess that leaves
minutes as the only other Oh, yeah. I wasn't even here. Oh. Um, I forgot about that. You didn't see anything? >> Well, it was it was just continuing,
right? Yeah. Yeah. I remember I I was I was sick. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. It's a bad month. >> I don't see anything. >> Yeah, we just kind of rolled right through last motion.
I make a motion to approve the minutes. >> Can I even roll on it? Sure. >> It was pretty simple. >> A few minutes. >> Yeah. >> I'll be right. All right. And that I believe covers us for this evening. >> Move to
Is there a second? >> All in favor? I. All right.