2018-03-22-ZBA-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen's Meeting Room March 22, 2018 Board Members Present: Chairwoman, Martha C. Wood, Jeanne K. Krieger, Edward D. McCarthy, David G. Williams, and Ralph D. Clifford Alternate Present: Norman P. Cohen Administrative Staff: David George, Zoning Administrator and Jennifer Gingras, Administrative Clerk Address: 0 Grant Street (Map 48, Lot 121 B) The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, and Plot Plan. Other information submitted was a letter from George Foote, dated November 28, 2017; letter from David George, Zoning Administrator, dated December 18, 2017; letter from the former Building Commissioner, Steven Frederickson, dated May 27, 1987; and case law for Berg, et al. v. Town of Lexington, dated April 9, 2007. Prior to the meeting, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Board of Selectmen, the Planning Director, the Historic District Commission Clerk, Historical Commission, Economic Development, and the Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from the Building Commissioner, Planning Office, and Zoning Administrator. The petitioner is requesting an ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section 135-9.2.2.3 to appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator, dated December 18, 2017, in reference to 0 Grant Street (Map 48, Lot 121 B) (building permit for a new single family dwelling). The Chairwoman opened the hearing at 8:08 pm. Presenter: George Foote, Esq. Mr. Foote represents Kevin S. Tait. They are appealing the determination made by Mr. George concerning the lot of Grant Street losing its grandfathered status. Mr. Tait purchased their lot on 21 Oakland St and his wife, Avis, purchased the lot on Grant St. She purchased the lot on Grant St with money from her retirement account. Avis Tait handled the finances on her own. When Mrs. Tait passed away, Mr. Tait inherited the lot from 121 B. He would like to sell the lot so he can retire and provide for his disabled son. In his statement of support, the main conclusion was that there was no affirmative act taken by Mr. Tait. Building on the lot was Mrs. Tait's plan, but she passed away before she could do it. Mr. Foote stated that the rules shouldn't be interpreted to penalize someone who acquired the lot thru no affirmative action of his own. Mr. Foote's memo details involuntary acquisition of the lot and he included references to a few cases. The Board has an option to rule that Mr. Tait's receipt of Page 6