2015-05-14-ZBA-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

BOA Meeting May 14, 2015 7 Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen’s Meeting Room May 14, 2015 Board Members Present: Chairwoman Martha C. Wood, Jeanne Krieger, Edward D. McCarthy, Leo P. McSweeney and David G. Williams Administrative Staff: Dianne Cornaro, Administrative Clerk and David George, Zoning Administrator Address: 41 Bartlett Avenue, Map 29, Lot 47 The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and justification; topographic plan, plot plan, floor plans; elevations; photographs, supplemental information and responses to staff comments. Prior to the meeting, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Board of Selectmen, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Director, Economic Development; the Historic District Commission Clerk, Historical Commission and the Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from the Building Commissioner, the Conservation Administrator and the Zoning Administrator. The applicant is requesting 2 SPECIAL PERMITS in accordance with the Zoning By- Law 135-4.3.4, 135-5.1.14 and 135-9.4 to allow 1) a fence to exceed the maximum in feet than otherwise allowed by right and 2) a driveway to be located closer to a lot line than otherwise allowed by right. The Chairwoman opened the hearing at 8:09 pm by reading the legal notices and described information received from the petitioner. Jeff Davis, owner of the property, presented the petition with his contractor, Mark Lodi. The Applicant is seeking to 1) Construct an approximately 10 ft. wall/fence on or near the right-side property line. The Wall/fence has already been constructed. The zoning relief is being sought retroactively; and 2) Install a driveway to within approximately 2 ft of the right side lot line. The driveway currently complies with the Bylaw. The Chairwoman asked if anyone was living in the house next door; (yes) and who put in the retainer wall. (The applicant did.) The applicant exlplained they were not aware of the fence regulations on the retainer wall. A Board member asked why a 6 ft fence and not shorter. (It was just the design they picked out.) The Board member felt it was intrusive to their abutter. Another Board member and the Chairwoman also felt a six-foot vynal fence was intrusive.