2011-04-28- ZBA-Min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

BOA Meeting April 28, 2011 10 The applicant applied for zoning relief under the applicable sections of the Zoning Bylaw to allow the proposed construction. Because two newly created lots would be developed through the lot split, the newly created lots need to meet the current minimum requirements. The applicant at 15 Rockville Avenue is requesting the following relief in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington): 1) VARIANCE to allow constructed frontage of 81 ft instead of the required 125 ft; 2) VARIANCE to allow a 975 ft length of dead end street instead of the required 650 ft; 3) VARIANCE for structure height of 44.58 ft and 3 stories instead of the required 40 ft height maximum and 2 ½ story requirements; 4) VARIANCE for lot area of 9,600 sq ft instead of the required 15,500; 5) VARIANCE for frontage of 60 ft instead of the required 125 ft and 6) VARIANCE to allow a side yard setback of 2 ft instead of the required 15 ft side yard setback. The applicant at 18 Rockville Avenue is requesting the following relief in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington): 1) Variance from section 135-35A, Table 2, Schedule of Dimensional Controls to allow constructed frontage of 92 ft instead of the required 125 ft and 2) Variance from section 135-93 C (1) (a) to allow a 975 ft dead end street instead of the required 650 ft. The Chairman asked Attorney Grant about changes in the Bylaw in the late 1990’s; how the run-off would be addressed and confirmed that the front driveway at 15 Rockville will meet building requirements. The driveway will have a 2 foot drop. Project Engineer Fred Russell spoke to the Board as to how the runoff would be handled. There was a discussion as to why the Planning Department had directed the applicants to the Zoning Board before they went before the Planning Board and they discussed the road improvements that needed to get approval from the Planning Department. Cathal McGlovin of 19 Birdhill asked if other variances would need to be approved and spoke of the impact the Board’s decision would have on his property. There will be another level of approvals before this project could be done. Paul Romangna of 17 Birdhill Road asked if there was going to be any blasting. The applicant was not sure at the time of the hearing. Attorney William Dailey of 114 Marrett Road and Philip Murphy of 25 Swan Lane spoke in favor of the petition. At the hearing a letters of concern were received from: John J. Hayden and Pamela Ford of 4 Davis Road; Bonnie Newman of 44 Moreland Avenue; Betsy Wilkinson of 46 Moreland Avenue and Francis Hau of 42 Moreland Avenue. Bonnie Newman of 44 Moreland Road spoke in opposition to the petition with a concern with the runoff. The Chairman closed the hearing at 8:29 pm.