2016-07-28-ZBA-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

BOA Meeting July 28, 2016 7 with the increase in traffic. The project does not meet the requirements of the Lexington Zoning Bylaw Section 135-8.4.1 which would allow the Building Commissioner to declare the project to cause no increase in nonconforming use. The existing structure on the lot was non-conforming. Section 135-8.4.1 deals with the reconstruction and alteration of houses. The new house on 14 Maple Street would be four times larger and on a completely different section of the lot. It also will have a new driveway to a different street. There has been recent Massachusetts case law that has clarified the use of non-conforming structures by showing that a house is more nonconforming than a pre-existing house, making the house exempt from the requirement of obtaining a Special Permit. Mr. Farrington stated that the streets meet the public access requirements. It was a safer determination to move the frontage for the property from Maple Street to Byron Avenue. He did submit an engineered plan showing that the driveway could be put on Maple Street but there is a plan for Maple Street to be expanded and widened in front of this property. It would be more dangerous to back out onto Maple Street. He does not agree with the petitioner that the new construction will be more detrimental to the neighborhood. That statement assumes there is a special permit in place. That language is from Section 9 of the Zoning Bylaw which states if a Special Permit is issued, they have to find it’s not more detrimental to the neighborhood. They are not under a Special Permit. They are not expanding a non-conforming structure. The structure meets all the dimensional requirements of Section 4, the non-conforming section of the bylaw. In order to get the final occupancy permit they will have to demonstrate that they meet the dimensional requirements. The Zoning Administrator, Mr. David George, read Section 135-8.4.1 of the Zoning bylaw. There is a table that sets forth what the side yard setbacks must be and what the frontage requirements are. The question is how the Town interprets this bylaw. The front yard setback must be 30 ft and because there is a secondary street so the side yard would be 20 ft. This structure conforms to the requirements so Section 135- 8.4.2 isn’t a question since the structure isn’t more non-conforming and is a by-right matter. The bylaw preserved exemptions from area and frontage. A Board Member, Mr. Nyles Barnert, asked the Zoning Administrator, Mr. George if Section 135-8.4.1 applies because they have a non-conforming lot, not a non- conforming structure (Mr. George responded that 135-8.4.5 states that you can add onto an existing lot to make it more conforming). A Board Member, Mr. Barnert, asked Mr. Farrington if they can meet the slope requirements to have the driveway go to Maple Street (Yes, they submitted an engineered plan showing they can meet the requirements). Mr. Clifford asked Mr. Neurath who is making the appeal (Mr. Neurath stated that he submitted a petition of supporters of the appeal he applied for which includes all of the neighbors on Byron Avenue). A Board Member, Mr. Ralph D. Clifford, asked Mr. Neurath how he has the right to bring the appeal to the Board of Appeals and how the project has injured him (there has been an increase in traffic. With it being a dead-end road, every service vehicle has to back out. Parking is also limited).