2008-01-10-ZBA-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

January 10, 2008 ZBA Minutes 22 Submitted by: Dianne Cornaro, Administrative Clerk Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen's Meeting Room, Lexington Town Hall January 10, 2008 Board Members Present: Chairman — Arthur C. Smith, Nyles N. Barnert, John J. McWeeney, Judith J. Uhrig and Carolyn C. Wilson Staff present: David George, Zoning Administrator and Dianne Cornaro, Administrative Clerk. Petition Address: 440 Bedford Street The relief sought is for a special permit in accordance with sections 135 -12, 135 -16B, 135 -77 (3) 135 -75A of the Code of the Town of Lexington to authorize new signage and to authorize the demolition of existing retaurant and rebuild a same use structure at 440 Bedford Street. The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:34 PM by reading the legal notice and described information received from the petitioner relative to the petition. Prior to the hearing, the petition and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Health Agent, Board of Selectmen, Zoning Administrator, Planning Board, the Historic District Commission and the Design Advisory Committee. Comments were received from the Building Commissioner, the Health Agent, Selectmen's Office, the Zoning Administrator and the Design Advisory Committee. George Johannesen of Allied Engineering Associates, presented the petition for Jameson Hotel Management. Mr. Johannesen gave the Board an overview of the project and the Boards and Committees they have met with. The Town of Lexington's Zoning Administrator, David George spoke of his conversation with the Fire Department and that they had given the okay with the project. Mr. Johannesen had just received the Design Advisory's comments and had not had the chance to go over them in detail to be able to respond to their recommendations. The Board questioned the lighting, the set back from Bedford Street and the curb cut. They also wanted to see a picture of the building. They commented they were unaware it would be a 99 restaurant until the last page of the plans when they saw the signage. The Board felt the petitioner needed to give them more detailed information before they could give a final judgment.