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.
- 📌 Case #25-04: 39 Summer Avenue – Withdrawal
- 📌 Case #25-18: 16 Elm Street – Two-Family Construction (Variance Request)
- 🔑 Key Points:
- ⚖️ Variance Criteria Discussion:
- 🗣️ Public Comment:
- 📌 Board Guidance:
- 🔄 Applicant Request:
- ✅ Outcome:
- 📌 Case #26-01: 526 Summer Avenue – Two-Story Addition (Special Permit & Variance)
- 🗂️ Administrative Notes:
- 🛑 Adjournment:
🏛️ Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Summary
📅 Date: February 2, 2026
🕖 Duration: ~46min
📍 Location: Select Board Room, Town Hall
👥 Board Members Present: Chris Cridler (Chair), Patrick Houghton (Vice Chair), Andrew Grasberger, Cynthia Hartman, Frank Capone, Anthony Fodera (Associate), Taylor Gregory (Associate)
🧾 Staff Present: Amanda Beatrice (Administrative Specialist)
📌 Case #25-04: 39 Summer Avenue – Withdrawal
🕒 0:05–1:23
📝 Request: Applicant requested to withdraw the application without prejudice.
Reason: Not specified, but formally withdrawn at applicant’s request.
✅ Outcome:
- Motion Passed to accept withdrawal without prejudice (allows future reapplication).
📌 Case #25-18: 16 Elm Street – Two-Family Construction (Variance Request)
🕒 1:30–28:33
📣 Speakers:
- Applicant: Nokkesh Gazeria
- Architect: J. Bradley Architects
📝 Request:
Variance to demolish an existing non‑conforming single‑family home and construct a new two‑family dwelling exceeding allowed lot coverage in an SR‑15 district.
🔑 Key Points:
- Existing single-family structure is non‑conforming (front & side setbacks).
- Original plan considered single-family with ADU; architect recommended shifting to a two‑family structure placed in the center of the lot.
- Revised calculations show 24.7% lot coverage, now compliant (max 25%), eliminating the original lot-coverage variance request.
- Remaining variance needed: use variance to allow a two‑family in a single‑family district.
⚖️ Variance Criteria Discussion:
Board reviewed the four required variance criteria.
- Applicant acknowledged no unique soil/topography hardship, failing criterion A.
- Without satisfying all four criteria, the board cannot grant a use variance.
🗣️ Public Comment:
Multiple abutters spoke:
- Questions about updated plans and how to access them.
- Concerns about neighborhood character (all single-family).
- Questions about property line accuracy.
- No explicit objections, but requests for clarity.
📌 Board Guidance:
- Explained that use variances are difficult and require meeting all four statutory criteria.
- Applicant asked whether single-family with ADU would be allowed under different rules.
- Board advised applicant must consult Building Department; ZBA cannot provide advisory opinions.
🔄 Applicant Request:
- Applicant requested a continuance to revise plans and explore other options.
✅ Outcome:
- Motion Passed to continue the case to March 2, 2026.
📌 Case #26-01: 526 Summer Avenue – Two-Story Addition (Special Permit & Variance)
🕒 30:00–42:36
📣 Speaker: Michael Gomez, Designer/Builder
📝 Request:
- Special Permit to extend existing non‑conforming sideyard setback.
- Variance for lot coverage increase (from 15.7% to 30.3%; max allowed 20%).
🔑 Key Points:
- Significant proposed addition: two-story structure with a large garage and workspace above.
- Lot has steep grades and conservation buffer area at the rear.
- Homeowners wish to remain long-term; current house too small.
- Coverage increase of 577 sq ft, triggering variance requirement.
⚖️ Board Discussion:
- Board acknowledged steep grade & buffer zone help satisfy criterion A (unique lot characteristics).
- Hardship argument: large garage & workshop essential to homeowner’s use — but board viewed much of the request as lifestyle preference, not legal hardship.
- Neighbors were informed but no written support provided.
- Board suggested reducing footprint, removing or shrinking shed, adjusting layout to meet 25% coverage limit.
🔄 Applicant Request:
- Designer requested continuance to revise plans after board indicated variance could not be granted as presented.
✅ Outcome:
- Motion Passed to continue both the Special Permit and Variance to March 2, 2026.
🗂️ Administrative Notes:
- Minutes from January 2026 were reviewed; corrections needed (motion makers/seconders).
→ Continued to March 2, 2026 for final approval. - No other business noted.
🛑 Adjournment:
- Motion to adjourn passed unanimously.
