2010-12-09 ZBA-Min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 BOA Meeting, December 9, 2010 Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen’s Meeting Room, Lexington Town Hall December 9, 2010 Board Members Present: Chairman - Nyles N. Barnert, John J. McWeeney, David G. Williams Martha C. Wood and Associate Member Ralph D. Clifford Staff Present: Dianne Cornaro, Administrative Clerk and David L. George, Zoning Administrator Petition Address: 7 Carville Avenue, Map 14, Lot 40 Petitioner submitted the following with the application for hearing: nature and justification of request; topographic plan; plot plan; photographs and a request from the applicant requesting to waive the requirement for a certified plot plan with proposed additions. 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 the Historic Districts Commission Clerk. Comments were received from the Building Commissioner, the Conservation Administrator, the Health Director and the Zoning Administrator. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:37 pm by reading the legal notice and described information received from the petitioner relative to the petition. Architect Robert Gulla presented the petition for the owners of the property, Brian and Susan London. The applicant is requesting 2 variances from section 135-35, Table 2 of the Dimensional Controls to allow a front yard setback of 16 ft. 5 inches instead of the required 30 ft and to allow a rear yard setback of 3 ft instead of the required 15 ft and a special permit from section 135-29A to alter an existing non-conforming structure. At the hearing the applicant presented a letter of support from Catherine R. Gill and Tobias H. McElheny of 6-8 Carville Avenue and a petition of support signed by 6 abutters. One of the Board members asked about the additional yard space the applicant was seeking and asked if the design of the addition was the best use of space. The Chairman asked what criteria for the variance was the applicant using. Mr. Barnert explained the obligation of the Board to approve variances. A discussion followed as to options the applicant may take. The applicant requested the application be withdrawn without prejudice.