##VIDEO ID:Q8xQAwyJEHM## 4 at 7 p.m. on the application of Brad Anderson return to Mass General Law chapter 4A section 10 for a variance under the reading zoning bylaw section 4.5.2 6.0 6.3 and 7.4 as may be determined by the zoning board to construct a new deck on an existing non-conforming lot this seeds a maximum lot coverage allowance on the property located at 34 Hancock Street CES map 20 lot 117 in Reading unless there's an objection I'll dispense with reading of the ab's list except to say that the butters 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 and members and Associate members of board of appeals as well as the planning boards of Windfield lake or Wakefield Wakefield Lindfield North Reading Sona mber wington um testimony given before this board is taken under oath so if you think you may want to speak please stand and raise your right hand are going speaking on this one uh yeah speaking for your yeah okay give you a stand up then um 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 and I response just I do I do great thank you um yes just want to give us a little bit about the case kind of goes an overview um yeah so you know my wife and I have lived here for well this house for about 10 years now and writing for 14 or so and we have a couple young kids now and our family is growing and one of our issues is we really can't have people other family over cuz our house is just a very small house uh and it's on a small lot so it was really difficult so we had this idea to put up put a deck on the back so we could house house more people like in the summer birthday parties and you know even you know other holidays I guess um so we went through the process and then it came back saying that the um it was it would put it over the 25% maximum coverage um so because of that that's why I'm here I've spoken with my neighbors I know one of my neighbors um my direct neighbor has written a letter um to the town saying that uh she's in favor um I actually thought a couple other people were going to show up but they didn't but that's all right um so it's outside of it it's um I think it's 80 square feet over the coverage um amount so it's 1 and half% which is 80 Square ft which is it's a 5,38 88t lot so it's a it's a very small lot um that's that's about it we're just trying to maximize our space for our family the best we can in this great town thank you um yeah it's what we do have one letter from one of your neighbors I think everyone got you email want to see it I enjoyed it yeah I like the that's nice um anyone Board of questions or want to start I have a few we had one of these I don't some couple years ago something like that where it's on a corner lot so now you got a house four-sided house with two fronts and two sides and no rear okay but the issue in that one was the front edge and which which line was the frontage well in this case it's the coverage one of the one of the things I looked at in the previous one I look at it again in this one is that if you go look at the property it's fairly obvious what the front of the house is it's fairly obvious and if you go look at the records in the town it's kind of obvious what the thing is too it's it's Hancock stre and so we we then looked at it from that standpoint and made our decisions on what we're dealing with in terms of that's the front and the back is the other side is the rear the two sides so if I did the same thing here I would conclude for the purposes of evaluating this thing that Hancock Street was the front mineral Street was a side and the other two are rear and another side okay but then I started to think about that one and uh I said well gee if you look at the Hancock Street as being the frontage then I was looking at the setbacks on the midal street side and that might suggest to me that you need another variance for setback correct on the other hand if uh and then if I then I I looked further at it and then uh if I looked at the rear with hcock as the front uh you're looking at uh a new setback of 167 which might suggest you need a variance on that one too uh so it's it's Food For Thought in terms of our discussion okay I know you got a lot here that's one of the smallest probably in town and it's a tough thing to do anything on that lot without having to deal with something like this yeah so I understand that completely I assume the lot coverage calculation that that obviously included the shed yes as part of the coverage yeah okay uh have you started this cont deck already no no okay I don't have any other comments at this point what are the allowable setbacks from the rear do you know H what are the allowable set Backs from the rear and side yards right now is it 15 ft side well it's not so much so we given them the setback of saying the two fronts for 20 and we were using that that as a side yard setback so yeah so the setback wouldn't be the setback wouldn't be the issue no it's it's just a lot coverage so we would give them the benefit of the cuz he's got the the 20 ft for the rear yard on the say right side he's got the 220 he get the two front yard setbacks which are non-conforming anyway so I was giving them the the side setback dimension on that one so it's just the lot coverage not the setbacks and I think if you look at the actual definitions that are included as part of the uh bylaws themselves this type of circumstance like you mentioned it is two separate uh to my knowledge it's two separate frontages two separate fronts two separate sides there is no rear so we don't have to worry about any sort of setback whatsoever with with the property you run into this with every corner line yeah yeah okay in the case of the last one we did we did make a determination in our finding that there was one front and there was two sides in a rear and we made our decision based upon that and and it it turned out that what the person was coming to us for when we made that decision he could do it by right yeah and then you have to show up so you know in this case that's not the case but I agree with Brett I think this is really basically a a coverage thing can I ask good question yeah um why does it have to be a deck as opposed to just having a space with a table on it lawn so that right now we have a space with a table on it and I I see where you're coming from as is it like what's the difference but what the deck will do is it's it's going to it it brings it up a little bit just it's I think two and 1 half feet maybe 3 fet but it brings it up a little bit and it helps us have a just a better visual of the yard with our kids out there and our dog out there as well um and it just makes it like having the railings makes it more of a cozy um more of a cozy setting um so you know with this project we'd also be um having an entrance put on from our dining room to go directly onto the deck as well so we have we don't have any access points to our backyard right now um you know from from the house of course um so this would give us our access point to the backyard um as well do we have any sort of ident idea of how big the shed is at this point I do not the shed that's there now yeah I mean if if this if this is proportional then it's about 6 by four something like okay I mean just looking at it compared to the size of the deck on the drive it's just a circumstance where if that's being incorporated as part of the percentage then it may be a either or type situation what do you mean if the shed is included in calculating the coverage getting rid of the shed would give you more play with yep okay I'm sure you don't want to get rid of your either right yeah it's going to also put us into a you another area of what do we do with our snow snow blower snow or lawn mower stuff like that the tricky part about trying to get a variance is that we are hamstrung by the statute and by the bylaws themselves obviously we are not as a board we're not permitted to actually Grant a variance unless the applicant is able to prove each and every one of those four separate categories there MH the difficulty we run into with some circumstances is creating a precedent where where we Grant a variance for certain aspects for one particular property suddenly we have to gra Grant a variance that same variance for every other property that is on that is on that street that is in that neighborhood M because it's a circumstance where we have to think of it in those in those terms because that's the what president basically indicates um the other issue I ran into and obviously your lot is definitely small mhm it is 5,300 uh 5388 ft I know that the lot immediately next to you uh I believe on Hancock is ballpark around 6,000 square ft uh there is actually a another property that is direct that is almost across the street from you that is less than 5,000 square ft yeah there are some other there I from what I saw when I was looking around at the neighborhood there were only two maybe three properties in the immediate vicinity that are big that were big enough that that that met that 15,000 that 15,000 foot uh threshold so it's a circumstance where this property isn't so unique where the size is different from everything else around you so that that creates one issue that you may run into as well so it's we have that precedent we also just in terms of have the size and it makes it very very difficult to prove that those two particular prongs of the bylaws and in order to Grant a variance I have a question the fact that we have MBTA communities coming up and some of those dimensional controls are going to change I recognize they're not in effect right now but would that play into it because I believe it's going to drop from 15,000 F feet to 5,000 not everywhere it wouldn't it also it wouldn't it wouldn't affect this particular property here because this is more about the coverage of the property so it because it's creating a new non-conformity I mean his lot is already non-conforming and that's okay so it's the creation it's the creation of a new new non-conformity that basically requires the variance itself my issue is in addition to that I mean looking at these um standards that we have to follow in order to allow a variance and we we historically have been pretty picky about complying with these standards it is you need to show that there are unique circumstances relating to the soil conditions shape or topography that specifically affect the land in question doesn't say size there it says soil condition shape or topography um a literal application of this rule to me means that we can't consider the unusually small size of your lot as a factor yeah I guess I might differ sorry yeah no that's okay I mean you you might differ but I'm just I'm reading the rule yeah you know I guess when I was looking through it I didn't I did see something about the the topography the soil condition stuff like that I didn't think that that was playing a a role when it came to um I I didn't think that was a requirement that had to be met I guess is what I was saying um in that case I guess there's very few variances that would be able to be allowed and I guess you know what I kind of what I'm interested in here is if that is a requirement and we don't take into account the size and I know like you mention Chris yeah Chris you mentioned that um you know there are other very small lots and I agree there is one across the street that's 4700 but um and that the block across the street is actually rather small my block is is definitely a bit larger like my neighbor is the lady who wrote the note hers is 16,000 squ ft uh my neighbor across the street across Hancock Street is also six part yeah Hancock Street is also 16,000 Square ft um so it's not that there aren't other normal size Lots out there um you know I I I don't know I guess I'm not quite sure what else to say as far as you know in in response to the the to topography the soil content the other aspect of that um you know I'm just I'm just somebody here trying to build a deck we make the best use of my land that I can for my family and to make you know the best situation that I can have in this town because obviously well I should say Obviously but you know trying to move into a larger place is extremely extremely expensive and you know got into town one at a good time thankfully so I don't know I know that doesn't answer any questions but in terms of design in terms of just the way things are done and in terms of just the definition for structure would a patio fall within that as well patio does not it could for like engineering and stuff like that but as far as the right the law coverage if we haven't been no okay it's more of like a covered structure or attached to the principal dwelling I think it says like use you know any structure used for storage covered structures attached to dwellings something like that but yeah we don't we we don't include patios and like Aqua protection districts they do for recharge systems and stuff like that but as far as zoning we don't we don't include them and that could that could be usually mitigated with certain types of papers or things like that yep yeah per pavers stuff like that some people put systems in just to catch you know capture the water that won't perate through it so there ways ways to do it for sure um yeah so I also want to mention one of the other criteria that we're required to consider is um hardship for it I think we've kind of heard about the first criteria but I think the other one is hardship and I think that um the I think an important thing to consider here is a substantial hardship and I think that um well I think that not having a deck is unfortunate it's not like a substantial hardship so I think proving that criteria also like patio might be less preferred option to poal option would introduce like a substantial hardship so um what what would a substantial hardship look like I I think the most compelling case that we've had which we also didn't unring a variance for several reasons but if someone who had like a severely disabled child needed like a separate dwelling so I have a quiet space um they wouldn't be bothered by the noises of the house and so you know I I guess you know I've looked at I've done some research about variances and variances going through and I I saw plenty of variances going through and I guess I didn't see any reason why you know that would separate the hardship at least from what I saw in the records hardship that those people had versus the hardship that we are facing um you know I guess this is the part that I just keep going back to is this is a non-conforming lot already um it's not taking away from the sides the side uh uh set setback yes thank you um for either of the sides um because it is considered the two sides uh it's not you know I I don't quite understand the difference between if it's a deck versus the patio and how that affects really anything as far as you know what's the difference if the space is being used so why would why is a patio allowed where a deck would not be allowed and with those circumstances it goes directly to the interpretation and definition of the language that's in the bylaws themselves so obviously there are circumstances where I can understand where you're coming from I can absolutely see it but we also have to follow the bylaws and the language that are in the bylaws themselves specifically as as as it pertains to what they require what they indicate and just the definitions that are used within those it's a circumstance where literally definition of a structure you know it's uh it's that type of circumstance that is what goes towards the B laws themselves and obviously we have to follow those MH that's not necessarily something that we can make a certain exception here for one person for one particular situation and not for everyone else I mean and it's a circumstance where we had us we had a uh the a legitimate hardship that we were not able to accommodate and with all due respect I'm less inclined to Grant if we weren't necessarily more inclined to grant for that particular hardship I'm less inclined to grant for a hardship here MH is the size of the deck something you're sold on or would you be willing to reduce the size of the deck um you know the size of the deck was a big part which is why we came the size of the deck is what s set it over the variance um that that's what we were if you made it about half that size it would be within the percentage Yeah it would have to be about seven s yeah 70 square feet yeah and if he took your recommendation getting rid of the shed he would be able to build the the big it would depend on the size it would depend on the size of the shed and you would be able to build a small deck still within the percentage with steps down to a patio so I mean I guess you know we come up with these different options I know it's not what you want to do it's not ideal but to me in interpreting the bylaws it goes more to the fact that there's no substantial hardship here because you've got other options as well okay yeah do have any other comments from the board anything else you want to say like we got a we can talk about next option too if you want to do that or anything else you want to say we can talk about what uh what we should do next or if there's other things you want to say before we do that we can uh discuss that too uh no I don't think I have anything else to say I don't I think I see where's where we are okay yeah um we are restrained by by yeah so ultimately there are circumstance I didn't know if uh and you okay if we were to consider the for a variance and then deny it then you wouldn't be permitted to bring another issue or another variant before us for two years that obviously is Draconian in some circumstances it can be really really difficult for a lot of people that because it would just create delays that may that may not necessarily fit with with it within your schedule uh we if you wanted to make a motion you could certainly uh make a motion to withdraw without prejudice and then maybe uh consider bringing back another uh another request for Relief at another point in time and I'm sure Amanda would be able to kind of help guide you through that process and the one thing that comes across there is that you would end up having to pay another fee uh and prepare another uh maybe it would get away with the same plot plan I would imagine for these but it would depend on just the size and the things along those lines the other option is if you could if you wanted to you could request a continue and see if there's any way that you can make any or or if you can work with your engineer or your contractor to try and find a way that can fit something that would be permitted uh kind of Within by right or within those within those those constraints okay so I guess where I'm getting confused and and apologies for my confusion but okay so if I continue the variance that means I can't come forth with another variance you said or or you saying it can't come if we vote on it and deny it yes you're precluded from trying again for two years yeah um but if I want to if I have some work that I want to have a permit done that I'm so I'm not over the 25% and all my um uh side then you shouldn't have to come to us at all it's by if it's by right then obviously BR would be better better uh informed to be able to uh kind of let you know where exactly you are and where you'd be with yeah I mean by right would just be you know construction plan reviews and just stuff like that it wouldn't zba at all okay and because I where I got confused is I it sounded like you're saying I to be able to fit it you know speak with my contractor see what we can do to kind of fit it in by right but I don't I feel like um I mean I don't if it gets denied the if it gets denied now that I don't know what I could do to get it through later on so the reason he told you that option is just because we tell that to everybody it may not specifically apply to you yeah yeah I got but but you know to some people it does so okay so we just want to kind we just kind of wanted to throw out those options for you so you would have uh yeah all the information all the information um yeah I and what would a the first option you mentioned was a just kind of I don't remember the terminology put it on hold for a moment so the continuance would just simply be asking to continue the hearing to give you an opportunity to meet with your contractor and maybe try to find a way to create something that is just as effective but would be within the parameters as set forth by the uh by the code okay and by the or theoretically to meet with your contractor or do some other planning or whatever and still need and decide you still need a variance but coming up with a argument that might be convincing um you know that might allow us to still comply um if that's potentially an option I don't know if it is or not but so that is that is certainly an option for you and obviously that's probably something I'd recommend to start cuz at any point in time you could you could do the the other option of which would be just to withdraw yeah your application at that point in time without prejudice without prejudice yeah because I believe you just heard we uh we granted uh a motion to for another for another property to withdraw without prejudice okay oh yeah so if I and if I go for a continuance that would okay would put it on the calendar for a meeting a month from now two months from now whatever it is and then you could still withdraw if you wanted to okay or you could come back then and and try again make an argument uh yeah I think I'll put it on for continuance or request a continuance I guess absolutely sounds good did you want to um continue to our next public meeting which would be December 3rd did you want to push not until like January um let's so my initial thought is to pushed out till January is there how much I so there's how much leeway is there to as we're leading up to say okay can I push it out another month um so there's an option if you want to put it on for December 3rd and if you're not ready for it like but weekend Advance if you send me an email asking me to continue to the next hearing I can submit that to the board they read it in and then we can continue to the next meeting okay and then would that mean um new letters would be no no um and what about um uh newspaper articles nope so as long as you continence you don't have to advertise it's if you decided to withdraw without prejudice and then come back with something else you'd have to re-advertise yeah okay but it's the same the same application that's just coming back another day you don't need to do any of that um I just you with the holidays in the month I don't think December 3rd would work um or the the the December 1s what date it was but um so yeah I'd like to do a continuance for January I don't know if anyone has the draft schedule for January on hand I just saw so it' be January okay and I would make a motion to continue this matter till January 7th second all favor I thank you you thanks I free to go sorry right so first other business is Brett sent us a letter saying that the pool is all squared away that we had a few meetings on um it's been moved to requireed setback nice there thank you and then meeting schedu for next year yes um I just provide in case you guys want to look at it in advance same schedule as we have it's first Tuesday yeah so unless something pops up like election you have to get Beed or something like that I'll go through all the legal nses I just I do the first until everyone confirms then I go back okay thank you uh then minutes from last time I think I have any comments on them not here okay what good to me all right they look good to me too looks good um can I have a motion to approve them then or uh so moved all second I never second anything um all in favor all right sounds good um anything else from anybody great motion to Second Great than [Music] everyone do we have anything on December yet yes so we have Gilmore we just got that last week I think it's up on the website I'm trying to as soon as I go through them all put them on the website um 24 van nordon just came in today and then I think we have one [Applause] for for