2009-12-10-ZBA-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

BOA Meeting, December 10, 2009 4 Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen's Meeting Room, Lexington Town Hall December 10, 2009 Board Members Present: Chairman Nyles N. Barnert, John J. McWeeney, Arthur C. Smith, Carolyn C. Wilson and Martha C. Wood Staff Present: Dianne L. Cornaro, Administrative Clerk and David L. George, Zoning Administrator Petition Address: 71 Bow Street, Map 20, Lot 90 Prior to the hearing, the petition and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Health Director, Board of Selectmen, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Administrator and Historic Districts Commission Clerk. Comments were received from the Planning Department, Engineering and the Zoning Administrator. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:58 pm by reading the legal notice and described information received from the petitioner relative to the petition. Letters of concern to save the footpath were received from Karen Thompson, 7 Albemarle Avenue and David Weissburg of 11 Rindge Avenue. Attorney Donna Jalbert Patalano, representing Dianne and Anthony Augustine, presented the petition. She presented the Board with letters of support for her petition from 8 Rindge Avenue, 77 Bow Street, 79 Bow Street, 83 Bow Street, 84 Bow Street, 94 Bow Street and 99 Bow Street. The applicant is requesting to modify a condition of a variance granted March 20, 1997. The board approved the variances subject to the condition, "... that a marker and cobblestone striping be installed on the footpath to clearly identify and delineate the area of the right of way." The `right of way' is located adjacent to the applicant's lot and is shown as 7 -ft. wide footpath on the plan of land submitted with the application. Attorney Patalano explained the history of the neighborhood development and concluded that, "... the locus does not abut or contain a right of way... [and] ... it is impossible to delineate a non -exist right of way or footpath." The applicant contends that the ZBA was in error in placing the condition and overstepped the bounds of its authority in placing the condition to the variance. To support their point, the applicant provided research conducted in 2007. Her conclusion was that no deeds exist that contain an easement allowing access to the paper street to any other party beside the direct abutters to the paper street. As a result, the condition should be removed.