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.
🏛️ Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Summary
📅 Date: July 1, 2025
🕖 Time: 7:00 PM
📍 Location: Select Board Room, Town Hall
👥 Board Members Present: Andrew Grasberger (Chair), Patrick Houghton (Vice Chair), Cynthia Hartman, Frank Capone, Taylor Gregory (Associate)
🧾 Staff Present: Amanda Beatrice (Administrative Specialist)
📌 Case #25-04: 39 Summer Avenue – Continuance Request
🕒 6:59–7:14
📝 Request: Applicant requested a continuance.
✅ Outcome: Motion to continue was approved unanimously.
📌 Case #25-08: 57 Pearl Street – Front Portico Variance
🕒 7:20–25:15
📣 Speaker: Neighbor representing applicant Ian Smart (homeowner unable to attend due to travel)
📝 Request: Variance to construct a front portico and entry bump-out with a non-conforming front yard setback.
🔑 Key Points
- The proposed addition includes a covered front portico and a small bump-out to create a mudroom and improve closet space.
- The addition would encroach 4.6 feet into the required front yard setback.
- The lot is legally non-conforming, measuring approximately 14,259 sq ft (below the 15,000 sq ft minimum).
- The representative noted that the addition would provide shelter at the main entrance and improve functionality for the family.
🗣️ Public Comment and Board Discussion
- Board members expressed concern that the application did not meet the four legal criteria required for a variance under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A, Section 10.
- Specifically, the application acknowledged that there was no unique hardship related to the shape or soil conditions of the lot—one of the required findings.
- Board members emphasized that variances cannot be granted unless all four criteria are met, regardless of the perceived reasonableness or aesthetic improvement of the project.
- An abutter at 88 Pearl Street opposed the project, citing concerns about the addition’s proximity to the sidewalk and the potential for setting a precedent.
- The abutter also noted that the stairs would extend nearly to the sidewalk and questioned whether the lot’s non-conforming size should trigger additional scrutiny.
- Tensions rose during the discussion, with the abutter expressing frustration that the applicant was not present and that the hearing might be continued.
- The board clarified that continuances are a routine part of the process and allow applicants to revise plans based on board feedback.
- The applicant’s representative requested a continuance to allow the homeowners to attend and potentially revise the application with their architect and contractor.
✅ Outcome
- Public Comment Closed
- Motion Passed to continue the hearing to the next meeting on August 5, 2025.
- The board encouraged the applicants to return with a revised application that better addresses the variance criteria and to appear in person with their design team.
📌 Case #25-09: 111 Pleasant Street – Deck Special Permit
🕒 25:23–43:32
📣 Speaker: Taylor Gregory (Applicant and ZBA Associate Member)
📝 Request: Special permit to construct a deck on a non-conforming structure with a non-conforming side setback.
🔑 Key Points
- Taylor Gregory disclosed their role as an associate ZBA member and explained the timeline of the application.
- The proposed deck would not increase the existing non-conformity; it would be built further from the side property line than the existing house.
- Gregory stated they were on the deed when directly asked and were applying as the homeowner.
🗣️ Public Comment
- Amanda Haley, a neighbor and co-owner of this site, raised concerns about a potential conflict of interest, arguing that Gregory should have recused themselves entirely from the process.
- Haley alleged that Gregory filed the application under their own name one day after being interviewed and reappointed to the ZBA and did not disclose it during the process, whereas previous applications had been filed under Gregory’s spouse’s name.
- Haley also claimed that Gregory was not listed on the property deed, directly contradicting Gregory’s statement during the hearing made under oath.
- Board members affirmed they had no prior knowledge of the applicant’s identity when reviewing the case and emphasized that the application would be judged solely on its merits.
- Another neighbor, Steven Crook, spoke in support of the project, noting it did not increase the non-conformity and was visually consistent with the existing structure.
Reading Recap fact check: we were sent the deed in question below by a resident after the meeting concluded and Taylor Gregory was in fact, not listed.
✅ Outcome
- Special Permit Granted under Sections 6.3 and 7.3.
- Conditions:
- Submit certified plot and foundation plans before foundation permit.
- Submit final construction and as-built foundation plans before building permit.
- Submit as-built plans after completion and before occupancy permit.
🧭 Board Commentary
- The board emphasized that the special permit process differs from a variance and that the proposed deck did not increase the non-conformity.
- Members reiterated their commitment to impartiality and transparency, noting that no off-record discussions had occurred regarding the application.
🗂️ Administrative Notes
- Minutes: June meeting minutes were not approved due to pending edits.
- Board Reorganization: Postponed to September due to member absences.
- Next Meeting: Scheduled for August 5, 2025.
- Adjournment: Meeting adjourned by unanimous vote.
