2007-11-08-ZBA-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

November 8, 2007 Minutes 7 Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen's Meeting Room, Lexington Town Hall November 8, 2007 Board Members Present: Chairman — Arthur C. Smith, Nyles N. Barnert and Associate Members Leo P. McSweeney, David Williams and Martha Wood Staff present: David George, Zoning Administrator and Dianne Cornaro, Administrative Clerk. Petition Address: 39 Greenwood Street, Map and Lot 0058000226 The relief sought is for variance in accordance with section 135 -25, Table 2 of the Dimensional Controls of the Zoning By -law (CH 135 of the Code of the Town of Lexington) to allow a side yard set back of 10.28 -feet instead of the required 15 -feet side yard set back and a front yard set back of 28.34 -feet instead of the required 30 -feet front yard set back. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:04 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 and the Historic District Commission. Comments were received from the Conservation Administrator and the Zoning Administrator. Ray Kobs, owner of the property, presented the petition. Mr. Kobs seeks to replace the existing uncovered stairs on the eastern side of the lot with new covered stairs. The proposed stairs would not further encroach in the front yard set back than the existing stairs. The applicant also seeks to construct a garage on the southern section of the lot attached to a recent addition to the house and would be 10.28 -feet from the side yard setback. Mr. Kobs explained he was trying to keep with the cape style of the neighborhood. The Board asked Mr. Kobs what was unique about the lot that could be considered a hardship and explained without a hardship they cannot justify a variance. They also asked why a two -car garage rather than a one -car garage. Mr. Kobs stated that other houses in the neighborhood were of similar style, had two car garages, and that allowing garage as proposed would provide safety. The Board also commented that the garage addition, as submitted, would make the house look more like a ranch than a cape. Board members felt that the lot would be crowded if the garage was built as proposed. It could identify no lot characteristics that justified the hardship requirements. However, the Board saw no issue in granting a variance from the front yard setback to replace the stairs; the relief was thought to be minimal.