Below is a summarized version of the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, organized by timestamps and speakers, focusing on key points raised during the discussion in Reading, Massachusetts. This summary condenses the discussion into major themes, speaker contributions, and decisions, avoiding excessive detail while retaining the essence of the conversation. Timestamps correspond to the video linked at the bottom.
Start Time: 7:00 PM
Location: Select Board Room, Town Hall
Key Participants: Amanda Beatrice (Staff member providing procedural guidance)
Chairperson Andrew Grasberger, Board Members: Includes Patrick Houghton, Cynthia Hartman, Frank Capone, Taylor Gregory (Associate)
Call to Order
Meeting Start and Procedural Notes
- Timestamp: 2:42 – 3:07
- Speaker: Andrew Grasberger
- Details: The meeting is called to order at 7:00 PM. The Chair confirms a quorum is present and outlines the agenda: Case #25-02 – 80 Minot Street– Applicant requests a continuation to 6/3/25
39 Summer Avenue
Case 25-04: (Steven Chehames)
Description: Application for a variance and special permit to construct a two-story addition and a two-car garage with non-conforming front and side yard setbacks at 39 Summer Avenue, Reading, MA.
Key Points and Timestamps:
- 3:37–4:12: The zoning board opens the public hearing for Steven Chehames’s application, pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A, Section 10, for a variance under Reading Zoning Bylaw Sections 4.5.2, 6.0, 6.3, 7.4, and a special permit under Sections 7.0, 7.3, 7.3.2. The proposed project includes a two-story addition and garage with non-conforming setbacks.
- 4:22–4:33: Notifications were sent to abutters, town officials, and neighboring planning boards. Testimony is under oath.
- 5:08–6:33: Steven Chehames presents the project:
- On the westerly side, an existing addition (granted in the 1980s) will be extended to include a master bedroom.
- On the easterly side, a two-car garage and family room are proposed, with a two-story addition for two children’s bedrooms.
- A 9-foot side variance is requested due to the lot’s shape, which widens significantly toward the rear, and topographic challenges (ledge on the right side).
- Moving the driveway improves safety for backing out.
- 6:39–7:56: Board questions Chehames:
- Board Member: Asks if building toward the back was explored to avoid the variance. Chehames explains that the steep contour and ledge make it infeasible.
- Board Member: Confirms the ledge location (back left and right) and notes the current one-car garage is small and unusable.
- 8:02–9:04: Discussion on tree removal and curb cuts:
- Chehames has discussed tree removal with the town’s engineering department, who indicated it would be approved if the variance is granted. Chehames would cover costs.
- The engineering department found no issues with moving the curb cut, assuming part of the driveway is closed.
- 10:01–13:55: Discussion on neighboring property (47 Summer Street) and variance criteria:
- Chehames notes a special permit was granted in 2014 for 47 Summer Street to build over an existing deck with a 12-foot setback, arguing his 6-foot variance request is less impactful.
- Board Member: Explains that variance criteria (hardship, unique lot circumstances, neighborhood impact, zoning ordinance intent) are stricter than special permits. The board struggles with justifying hardship and non-detriment to the zoning ordinance.
- Chehames argues the lot’s shape (widening at the back) and the house’s misalignment create a hardship.
- 15:37–18:06: Board evaluates variance criteria:
- The lot’s shape and topography (ledge) meet the unique circumstances and hardship criteria.
- Concerns arise about neighborhood impact, as the neighbor’s existing non-conforming structure (47 Summer Street) could make the area feel “doubly crowded” if Chame’s variance is granted.
- Chehames counters that his variance is at the front of the lot, far from the neighbor’s mid-property setback, reducing crowding concerns.
- 18:13–19:04: Discussion on a “paper street” (Prospect Street):
- Chehames notes no one claims ownership of this street, and a fallen tree damaged his property, for which he bore costs. He argues this reduces the argument that building on both sides is detrimental.
- 19:33–24:27: Board suggests redesigning to avoid the variance:
- Board Member: Proposes shrinking the addition by 6 feet to meet the 15-foot setback, retaining the garage and bedrooms but with smaller dimensions.
- Chehames explains that this would require removing a bathroom, making the layout unfeasible (e.g., no communal bathroom for the new bedrooms).
- 24:33–25 25:58: Consequences of denial:
- If the variance is denied, Chehames must wait 2 years to reapply with the same project. Continuing the case avoids this restriction.
- 25:22–27:30: Steven’s Father (Harus) speaks:
- Notes the current garage is unusable and explains that shrinking the addition affects room proportionality and requires losing the garage or reconfiguring the bathroom.
- 27:36–30:18: Board clarifies options:
- The special permit and variance are separate. The special permit (right side) is less contentious, but the variance (left side) faces hurdles.
- Chehames could proceed with the special permit and continue the variance or keep them together.
- 30:26–35:05: Chehames opts to continue the application:
- Chehames plans to consult his architect to explore redesign options and return with revised plans.
- He confirms he’ll be unavailable in June due to travel, so the case is continued to July.
- 35:58–43:46: Jack Williams (46 Summer Avenue) speaks in opposition:
- Emphasizes the neighborhood’s character (small capes, historic trees) and argues the project is too large and out of scale, with a “banal” elevation lacking articulation.
- Requests preserving a significant oak tree, noting its size makes relocation infeasible.
- Questions the architect’s credentials, which Chehames confirms is Jeffrey Allen, a registered architect.
- Suggests building behind the house, claiming no hardship exists.
- 41:38–43:46: Peter (46 Summer Avenue) and Chehames respond:
- Peter defends his house’s size (1,600 sq ft) and disputes Chehames’s elevation comparison.
- Chehames counters that his proposed addition aligns with the neighbor’s existing structure and clarifies the exterior design is subject to change.
- Chehames reiterates tree-related safety and damage issues (sap, blind spot).
- 43:59–45:23: Board finalizes continuation:
- Motion: Moved to continue application 25-04 to the July meeting due to Chehames’s unavailability in June.
- Outcome: Unanimously approved.
Key Outcome:
- The application was continued to the July 2025 meeting to allow Chehames to revise plans with his architect, addressing variance concerns. The special permit appears less contentious, but the variance requires further justification, particularly regarding hardship and neighborhood impact.
26 Riverside Drive
Case 25-05: (Chris Loiselle)
Description: Application for a variance to construct a deck attached to an existing pool with a non-conforming side yard setback at 26 Riverside Drive, Reading, MA.
Key Points and Timestamps:
- 45:46–46:22: The zoning board opens the public hearing for Chris Loiselle’s application, pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A, Section 10, for a variance under Reading Zoning Bylaw Sections 4.5.2, 6.3, and 7.4, to build a deck with a non-conforming side yard setback.
- 46:27–46:44: Notifications were sent to abutters, town officials, and neighboring planning boards. Testimony is under oath.
- 47:03–53:09: Chris Loiselle presents the project:
- An 18-foot above-ground pool was permitted and installed in October 2024, conforming to setbacks.
- The proposed deck, not physically attached to the pool but adjacent, would provide access for Le’s family, enhancing convenience and privacy.
- The deck requires a variance due to a 10.2-foot side yard setback (vs. required 15.4 feet) where the pool encroaches.
- Loiselle consulted abutters, who support the project, including a video testimonial from direct abutters (22 Riverside Drive). A signed letter from multiple neighbors was submitted.
- Le was advised by the building department to seek a variance, not a special permit, but is unsure of the distinction.
- 53:15–54:54: Board questions Loiselle:
- Cynde: Confirms the deck is separate from the existing deck and asks about moving the pool.
- Loiselle explains moving the pool would be costly and undesirable, as it was recently installed for thousands of dollars.
- The pool’s location wasn’t planned with a deck in mind, complicating the setback issue.
- 54:53–59:23: Discussion on deck placement and bylaws:
- Board Member: Asks why the deck can’t extend toward an existing shed instead of the pool.
- Loiselle notes the deck is designed to end at the foundation line (15 feet), with stairs at a 45-degree angle, not impeding the neighbor’s property.
- The deck’s proximity to the pool raises concerns about whether it’s “attached” under bylaws, potentially making the pool non-conforming.
- 59:31–1:08:07: Legal analysis of bylaws:
- Board Member (Cynde) cites Bylaw 5.51.3, allowing pools to infringe setbacks if not exceeding 25% of the principal structure’s size, suggesting the pool is partially compliant.
- Bylaw 9.5.1 states accessory structures (e.g., garages) within 10 feet of the principal structure are “attached.” Debate ensues on whether a pool is an accessory structure.
- The bylaws define structures as including swimming pools, but the board questions if an above-ground pool is “fixed.”
- The deck is 10.9 feet from the house, exceeding the 10-foot threshold, and not physically attached to the pool, leading to debate on whether it creates a non-conformity.
- 1:08:42–1:12:39: Board concludes no variance is needed:
- Loiselle: Argues that since the deck is not physically attached to the pool and the pool is over 10 feet from the house, the pool isn’t legally “attached” to the deck or house, making the deck conforming.
- Amanda: Initially questions this but agrees after discussion.
- The board references past cases where variances were deemed unnecessary due to bylaw interpretation.
- 1:13:05–1:15:55: Motion and neighbor support:
- Motion: Moved to find that no variance is necessary, as the pool is not attached to the deck or house, and the deck conforms to bylaws.
- Amanda: Reads neighbor support:
- Video testimonial from Valerie and Michael Walsh (22 Riverside Drive), fully supporting the project.
- Signed letter from neighbors: Joe and Dolores Pello (32 Riverside Drive), Matt and Justina (29 Riverside Drive), Tim and Chris Kelly (56 Sunnyside Drive), Chris and Maria Cole (25 Riverside Drive), and Valerie and Mike Walsh (22 Riverside Drive).
- 1:15:55–1:17:40: Administrative details:
- Outcome: Motion unanimously approved, with the condition that the deck not be physically attached to the pool.
- Amanda: Explains the process: A finding will be drafted within 14 days, posted, and subject to a 20-day appeal period. Loiselle must register the decision with the registry of deeds, then work with the building department to amend the denied permit.
- Loiselle confirms understanding and appreciates the outcome.
Key Outcome:
- The board determined no variance is required, as the deck is not physically or legally attached to the pool (over 10 feet from the house), and the deck itself conforms to bylaws. The decision requires registration and permit amendment after the appeal period, likely finalized by June 2025.
Other Business
- 1:17:53–1:18:44:
- Amanda: Notes a spelling correction in the previous meeting’s minutes (Everett’s last name, removing an extra “E”).
- Motion: Moved to adjourn the meeting, unanimously approved.
Key Takeaways
- The meeting demonstrated thorough discussion of zoning bylaws, with significant focus on interpreting “attachment” and setback requirements.
- Case 25-04 was continued to July 2025 to allow redesign, reflecting stricter variance criteria and neighborhood concerns.
- Case 25-05 was resolved without a variance, leveraging bylaw interpretation and neighbor support, streamlining the process for Loiselle.
