2019-06-27-ZBA-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

proposed was needed. The Board found that the spill-over light into the adjoining residential parcels should be reasonably controlled and the light should be time-controlled so that it does not activate when not in use. The Zoning Administrator's decision was therefore reversed. Driveway location The Board stated that although this is may be a dangerous situation, there is little they can do about this because the driveway connects the parcel to the easement. The owner of the easement would only be able to enforce the screening issues and this driveway location was in place prior to this project. The Board recommended that the abutters bring their concerns to the Traffic Advisory Committee and contacting their Town Meeting Members. On a Motion by Nyles N. Barnert and seconded by Jeanne K. Krieger, the Board voted 5-0 to find that the Zoning Administrator's decision was proper in consideration of this aspect citing that traffic safety is not a zoning issue that can be considered because the location of the easement "ROW" is a pre- existing condition rather than a new construction. The Board found that the easement for ingress and egress was not limited as to purpose of the ingress and egress and, therefore, could be used to move cars between Concord Avenue and the subject parcel. Screening/Landscaping/Noise The Board discussed that more screening should be put in place to prevent headlight glare onto the abutting properties. Noise also falls into this category, as more landscaping and screening could potentially buffer the noise. The Board also discussed potential hardscape, such as a combination of fencing and plantings. Overall, the Board decided that there needs to be more density, height, and composition of the screening and landscaping. On a Motion by Jeanne K. Krieger, and seconded by William P. Kennedy, the Board voted 0-5 to find that the Zoning Administrator's decision was proper in consideration of this aspect citing that more density, height, and composition needs to be considered for the screening, landscaping, and noise considerations between the parking lot area and the adjoining residential parcels, but not for screening along the easement "ROW." The Zoning Administrator's decision was therefore reversed. Conclusion On a Motion by Jeanne K. Krieger and seconded by William P. Kennedy, the Board voted 5-0 to overturn the Zoning Administrator's decisions dated March 27, 2019 and May 1, 2019 only for the reasons specified above in accordance with § 135-9.2.2.3 of the Zoning Bylaw, Ch. 135 of the Code of the Town of Lexington.