2018-09-27-ZBA-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Minutes of the Lexinqton Zoninq Board of Appeals Selectmen's Meeting Room September 27, 2018 Board Members Present: Chair— Martha C. Wood, Ralph D. Clifford, Jeanne K. Krieger, David G. Williams, and Associate Member William P. Kennedy Administrative Staff: Jennifer Gingras, Administrative Clerk Address: 18 Tucker Avenue The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Plot Plan, Elevations, and Floor Plans. Also received were five (5) letters of support from abutters. 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 Historical Commission, and Zoning Administrator. The petitioner is requesting a VARIANCE in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) sections 135-9.2.2.2 and 135-4.4.1, Table 2 (Schedule of Dimensional Controls) and Article 41 — Revised Definition Half Story (approved at Town Meeting March 8, 2017) to allow a 3-story structure instead of the required 2.5 story structure. The Chair opened the hearing at 7:07 pm. Presenter: Dan Hisel, Hisel Flynn Architects, and Josh Model, property owner Mr. Hisel presented the petition. The applicants are seeking a variance to allow a 3-story structure instead of 2.5 story structure due to the revised definition of a half story in Article 41. They are a family of 4 living in a 2 bedroom house. The attic currently has a walkup stairway and is used as a playroom. They would like to transform the playroom into a master bedroom. There is currently enough headroom to create a bedroom but there isn't enough floor area to fit a bathroom. Article 41 requires that the attic cannot be more than 40% of the 2nd floor, which they will be exceeding. The potential benefits for the home and family make it worth asking for variance. In reference to soil conditions, lot shape, and topography. The existing lot is very small at only 5,400 sq ft and the only open space is used for the children to play. The structure is existing non-conforming. Many of the adjacent houses are located on larger lots and have more opportunites to have an addition. Literal enforcement cannot improve the property. A by- right addition would make the cost more than double than by building the dormers in the attic. An addition in the yard would cost over 250K. Building a dormer on both sides of the ridge will allow the small house to have a master bathroom with full ceilings. There will be no detriment to the public good that would result from granting the variance. A modest home on a modest lot will maintain it's appearance in the neighborhood. Utilities, traffic flow and safety would be unaffected. They are holding the front dormers back from the front fagade, so they are barely visable from the front of the house. They will not be changing the height of the existing structure.