2023-08-24-ZBA-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Mr. Kinger stated they have been living in Lexington for 13 years. They are doing this process to provide his brother living space so that he can spend time in a familiar environment. There is a non-conforming shed that was built in 2017. An audience member, Leonard Morse-Fortier at 20 Bernard St, stated he is a neighbor and a parent of a child with special needs. He stated his support for the proposal. There were no further questions or comments from the audience. The Hearing was closed at 7:31 pm (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Scott Cooper – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes and Nyles N. Barnert – Yes). Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, sated there is nothing in our Zoning Bylaw that allows for this and Variances are tricky. There is nothing in the proposal that fits within the normal rules of a Variance. Both Massachusetts Statutory Law and Federal Statutory Law require reasonable accommodations for disabilities. Things like handicap access ramps have to be allowed even if they are in the setback, but this is not an access ramp. It is a permanent change to the building. Mr. Barnert stated he sees no reason they can’t stay outside the setback for the family room and master bedroom. That has nothing to do with the ADA. Mr. Osten stated they could the same construction with a 10-foot setback. He stated at Town Meeting they passed very extensive re-zoning for multi-family units and apartment buildings, that would have him more in favor of giving them a variance for the accessory apartment. Mr. Cooper this is something as a community they would like to do. To some extent the Federal Law trumps the Local Law in this situation. He stated he is in favor of the proposal. Mr. Clifford stated the Boards obligation is first to determine if there is a disability and the letter form the doctor establishes that. The second is whether or not the requested accommodation is a reasonable request or not. The Variance does not need to run to the back of the house and can stop at the accessory apartment. The Board agreed they would want the Variance to stop at the back of the apartment. The Hearing was re-opened at 7:43 (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Scott Cooper – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes and Nyles N. Barnert – Yes). Mr. Clifford asked if they worked with an architect on the project (Yes). Mr. Clifford asked why the architect decided to continue the wall straight (There was no rational). Mr. Chair stated the Board would be happy to give the Variance to expand the accessory apartment but the Board will not allow the family room and the master bedroom to be expanded. The applicant requested an amendment to the Variance. An audience member, Michael McNeil from McNeil builders, stated they would be one of the contractors bidding on the job and looking at the house it would look nicer if they just left that foot. There were no further questions or comments from the audience.