Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-27-ZBA-min MINUTES of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals April 27, 2006 Present: Chairman — Judith J. Uhrig, John J. McWeeney, Maura L. Sheehan, Arthur C. Smith and Daniel A. Lucas Petition Address: 30 Fuller Street The relief sought is for a Special Permit from Section 135 -29A to allow an overhang over the steps with a front set back of 20.4 -feet instead of the required 30 -feet. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:50 PM by reading the legal notice and described information received from the petitioner relative to the petition. Prior to the hearing, the petition and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Health Director, Zoning Enforcement Officer, Planning Board and Selectmen's Office. No comments were received. Lisa McIlrath, owner of the property, presented the petition. Ms. McIlrath explained the 5 -foot extension of the entry was present when they bought the house in 1994. The original steps had been replaced but the railings were never added. They are seeking a Special Permit to add the railings and an overhang over the steps to stop ice build up on the stairs. The Board had no questions. There were no questions from the audience. No one spoke in favor or in opposition of the petition. The hearing was closed at 7:54 PM. Discussion: The Board felt the request was reasonable. Decision: On a motion by John McWeeney and seconded by Arthur Smith, the Board voted 5 -0 to APPROVE a SPECIAL PERMIT to allow construction of an overhang over the front steps with a front set back of 20.4 feet instead of the 30 -feet required. April 27, 2006 Minutes 2 DRAFT MINUTES of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals April 27, 2006 Present: Chairman — Judith J. Uhrig, John J. McWeeney, Maura L. Sheehan, Arthur C. Smith and Daniel A. Lucas Petition Address: 73 Allen Street The relief sought is for a variance from 135 -35, Table 2, Dimension Control of the Town of Lexington Zoning By -laws to allow side set back of 12.5 -feet to the front left corner and 7.5 feet to the rear left corner instead of the required 15 -feet to construct a garage. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:55 PM by reading the legal notice and described information received from the petitioner relative to the petition. Prior to the hearing, the petition and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Health Director, Zoning Enforcement Officer, Planning Board and Selectmen's Office. A comment was received from Conservation saying that a permit was obtained for a second story and front porch only. It did not include permit for a garage. They will need to file with conservation to construct a garage and will need to control run -off with a dry well or other engineered detail. Mary Trudeau presented the petition for the owners of the property, Eric and Joyce Wu who also attended the hearing. Ms. Trudeau said the petitioner planned on going to conservation if they received the Variance. They felt the hardship was the shape of the buildable area and the conservation issues with the property. The garage will be set back to meet the conservation's 55 -foot set back requirement. The Board had the following questions: 1. Is there a residence area over garage? First floor will be for parents and the area of the garage will be a bonus room. 2. What is the present use? It is a short-term rental. They are 9 month to a year from being able to move there so they will rent it until they can move in. 3. There is a one -car garage there already? The current garage will be incorporated into living area. 4. Have they considered extending current garage? The current garage is already non- conforming to the wetlands. 5. Have you talked with your immediate neighbors about garage? Their garage would be next to the proposed garage. John Hopkins of 69 Allen Road asked to clarify the design of the garage. April 27, 2006 Minutes 3 No one spoke in favor or in opposition of the petition. The hearing was closed at 8:03 PM. Discussion: The majority of the Board felt that the garage was too much of an encroachment and didn't see the need for another garage. They could not justify a hardship since the petitioners knew of the conservation constraints when they bought the house. Decision: On a motion by John McWeeney and seconded by Daniel Lucas, the Board voted 2 -3 to DENY the VARIANCE with Maura Sheehan and Daniel Lucas for; John McWeeney, Arthur Smith and Judy Uhrig against. A 4 to 1 vote was needed to pass the motion. Submitted by: Dianne Cornaro, Clerk April 27, 2006 Minutes 4 DRAFT MINUTES of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals April 27, 2006 Present: Chairman — Judith J. Uhrig, John J. McWeeney, Maura L. Sheehan, Arthur C. Smith and Daniel A. Lucas Petition Address: 443 Lincoln Street The relief sought is for an extension of a variance granted accordance with Section 3.2.2. to allow continued parking of motor vehicles on a temporary basis within a fenced area on the property in conjunction with a grandfathered nonconforming use (body shop) and the towing of disabled cars. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:04 PM by reading the legal notice and described information received from the petitioner relative to the petition. Prior to the hearing, the petition and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Health Director, Zoning Enforcement Officer, Planning Board and the Design Advisory Committee. Comments were received with concerns from the Building Commissioner, Conservation and Health. At the hearing a memorandum from Karen Mullins was read advising the Board that the Development Review Team, comprised of staff from Planning, Police, Fire, Engineering, Health, Building, Conservation, Recreation and Social Services recommends not to grant any further extensions of a variance for this property because there continues to be violations of the conditions of the variance and violations of the Conservation Commission's Order of Conditions occurring on the site. Albert Piantedosi, owner of the business, presented the petition. He said he had not received any notification of violations from the town. The City of Cambridge had tested his water a couple weeks ago and found no problems. He said he is trying to clean the place up and will do anything the Board asks of him. The Board had quite a few questions regarding the vehicles, landscaping materials, stacks of wood and junk found on the property. There were no questions from the audience. Robert Bates of 12 Hayward Street spoke in favor of the petition. No one spoke in opposition of the petition. The hearing was closed at 8:02 pm. April 27, 2006 Minutes 5 Discussion: The Board discussed the letter from Karen Mullins and the history of violations that are still apparent. The general feeling was that the use is inappropriate for the area. The grandfathered auto body business can continue but nothing else can be on the property. Decision: On a motion by John McWeeney and seconded by Daniel Lucas, the Board unanimously voted to DENY the extension of the variance at 443 Lincoln Street. April 27, 2006 Minutes 6 DRAFT MINUTES of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals April 27, 2006 Present: Chairman — Judith J. Uhrig, John J. McWeeney, Maura L. Sheehan, Arthur C. Smith and Daniel A. Lucas Petition Address: 2 Hunt Road The relief sought is for a variance from By -Law Section 135 -35, Table 2, Dimensional Control to allow front set back of 28.8' instead of the required 30 -feet to construct second floor window overhang. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:21 PM by reading the legal notice and described information received from the petitioner relative to the petition. Prior to the hearing, the petition and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Health Director, Zoning Enforcement Officer, Planning Board and the Design Advisory Committee. Comment was received from the Building Commissioner stating the applicant was allowed to proceed at his own risk. Overhang can be removed if variance denied. The applicant will be coming before the Historic District Commission on May 4 No other comments were received from any board or commission. Contractor Bruce Hughes presented the petition for the owner of the property, Stephen Lamoretti. Mr. Hughes explained they had been before the Board for a special permit previously but are now asking for a variance for a bump out on the second story front window. The set back would be 28.8 -feet instead of the required 30 -feet. Mr. Hughes presented three letters of support from numbers 1, 4 and 11 Hunt Road. One of the Board members questioned if it was the window over the garage that needed the variance. There were no other questions. There were no questions from the audience. No one spoke in favor or in opposition. The hearing was closed at 8:25 pm. Decision: On a motion by John McWeeney and seconded by Maura Sheehan, the Board voted 5 to 0 to approved the variance to allow front set back of 28.8 -feet instead of the required 30 -feet. April 27, 2006 Minutes 7 DRAFT MINUTES of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals April 27, 2006 Present: Chairman — Judith J. Uhrig, John J. McWeeney, Maura L. Sheehan, Arthur C. Smith and Daniel A. Lucas Petition Address: Metropolitan Parkway Relief sought is for the renewal of the Variance granted to the Applicant by the Town of Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals on October 14, 2004, which was filed with the Office of the Town Clerk on November 23, 2004, was recorded with the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds on December 15, 2004 in Book 44300, Page 153, was extended until May 23, 2006 by the Board on November 10, 2005, and is related to parking and access for a three hundred eighty -seven unit multifamily housing development on approximately 22.51 acres of the Metropolitan State Hospital, located primarily in Lexington, Massachusetts, and rezoned RD under Article 13 of the 2004 Annual Town Meeting. The Applicant submitted the following materials in connection with the original application for the hearing (the "Original Variance Hearing ") associated with the granting of the Variance: (i) a Definitive Site Development and Use Plan (the "DSDUP "); and (ii) a certified copy of the Revised and Restated Preliminary Site Development and Use Plan dated March 22, 2004, as amended by a letter from Edmund C. Grant dated May 12, 2004 (as so amended, the "PSDUP "). The Board received and reviewed the following prior to the Original Variance Hearing: (i) a Letter from the Planning Department dated October 12, 2004; and (ii) a Letter from the Design Advisory Committee dated October 8, 2004. Prior to the Variance Renewal Hearing, the petition for the renewal of the Variance, and all supporting data, were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation, Engineering, Health Department, Planning Board and Zoning Enforcement Officer. The following individuals were present at the Variance Renewal Hearing: Attorney Steven Schwartz and David Kelley of Kelly Engineering Group. Attorney Steven Schwartz made the presentation. No one spoke in opposition. No written comments were received from abutters. The Applicant seeks the renewal of the Variance from Section 135 -67 B of the Code of the Town of Lexington (the `By- Law "), which Variance permits any parking space, driveway and maneuvering aisle at the Site to be set back: (a) from any street line by a distance of six (6) feet; (b) from all other lot lines by a distance of zero (0) feet, and (c) from the wall of a principal building by a distance of zero (0) feet. April 27, 2006 Minutes 8 The Board finds that the Site was created via a subdivision of the entire Metropolitan State Hospital site, as shown on those certain plans entitled: (i) "Town of Lexington - Definitive Subdivision Plans for Metropolitan Parkway, Metropolitan State Hospital, Lexington, Waltham & Belmont, MA ", dated May 16, 2002, last revised October 1, 2002, and recorded with the Registry as Plan No. 108 of 2003, (ii) "City of Waltham - Definitive Subdivision Plans for Metropolitan Parkway, Metropolitan State Hospital, Waltham, Lexington & Belmont, MA ", dated May 16, 2002, last revised October 1, 2002, and recorded with the Registry as Plan No. 107 of 2003, and (iii) "Town of Belmont - Definitive Subdivision Plans for Metropolitan Parkway, Metropolitan State Hospital, Belmont, Waltham & Lexington, MA ", dated May 16, 2002, last revised October 1, 2002, and recorded with the Registry as Plan No. 106 of 2003 (collectively, the "Subdivision Plan "). The Subdivision Plan was drafted in accordance with the terms of that certain Metropolitan State Hospital Re -Use Plan dated June 30, 1994, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Metropolitan State Hospital Re -Use Plan dated September 5, 1995, and as further amended by that certain Second Amendment to Metropolitan State Hospital Re -Use Plan dated May 22, 2002 (collectively, the "Reuse Plan "), adopted by the Tri- Community Task Force for the Metropolitan State Hospital. As outlined in the Reuse Plan, nearly ninety percent (90 %) of the entire acreage of the Metropolitan State Hospital site will be preserved as open space, including 254 acres of open space which have already been transferred to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation ( "DCR') for preservation as a DCR Reservation. In keeping with the goal of the Reuse Plan to maximize the preservation of open space at the three hundred forty (340) acre Metropolitan State Hospital site, the Subdivision Plan restricted the developable portion thereof to the 22.51 -acre Site. The Board finds that the Site is restricted to a relatively small area, and is surrounded by ample open space which will be preserved as such in perpetuity. The permanent open space surrounding the Site satisfies the aesthetic and open space concerns that motivated the provisions of the By -Law affected by the Variance. The Board finds that, in keeping with the terms of the Reuse Plan, the Applicant seeks to preserve up to thirty -eight percent (38 %) of the existing improvements at the Site, including significant portions of the "CTG Building" on the northerly portion of the Site. Preservation of significant portions of the CTG Building is central to respecting the historic character of the Site. The Board also finds that the Subdivision Plan drew the lot lines of the Site in such a way as to leave relatively little room between the CTG Building and the lot line of the Site; in fact, the existing driveway along the northerly side of the CTG Building is less than eight (8) feet from the lot line of the Site. In order to provide adequate parking for the CTG Building in connection with its conversion to residential use, it is necessary to allow for parking areas and driveways to be located between the CTG Building and the lot line of the Site. Given the location of the lot line of the Site as set forth in the Subdivision Plan, such parking areas and driveways must be located within the setback areas required by the By -Law. The area affected by the requested relief involves only approximately 4,550 square feet of the 22.51 -acre Site, but affects approximately ninety -one (91) parking spaces related to the Project as approved by the Lexington Town Meeting. April 27, 2006 Minutes 9 Furthermore, the Board finds that the Applicant's goal of maintaining the historic design of the Site, and of maintaining open space within the central portion of the Site, has required that a portion of the parking areas for the Project be located within the setback areas along the Metropolitan Parkway North. The difference in grade between the Metropolitan Parkway North and such parking areas will minimize the visibility of such parking areas from the Metropolitan Parkway North. Owing to the unique circumstances related to the shape, character and design of the Site, as well as the requirements of the Reuse Plan, and owing to the fact that these unique circumstances and requirements do not generally affect land in the RD District, the Board finds that a literal enforcement of the requirements of the By -Law would prevent the construction of the Project as approved by the Lexington Town Meeting and impose severe and substantial hardship on the Applicant. Due to the open space surrounding the Site, and differences in grade that will reduce the visibility of certain parking areas from the Metropolitan Parkway North, the relief requested may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the purposes of the By -Law. Finally, in light of the benefits of the Project to the Town of Lexington, as evidenced by the approval of the Project by the Lexington Town Meeting, the desired relief may be granted without detriment to the public good. The Board also finds that the renewal of the Variance is necessary for the Project to be constructed substantially in accordance with (i) the PSDUP, as revised by the DSDUP and the plans submitted with the DSDUP, and (ii) the Special Permit With Site Plan Review granted to the Applicant by the Board on October 14, 2004, filed with the Office of the Town Clerk on November 23, 2004, and recorded with the Registry on December 15, 2004 in Book 44300, Page 158 (the "Special Permit "). Decision: On a motion by Arthur Smith and seconded by John McWeeney, and by a unanimous vote, the Board hereby GRANTS A RENEWAL OF THE VARIANCE from § 135 -67 B of the By -Law to the Applicant WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: This renewal of the Variance is only valid in conjunction with the use of the Site as provided in (i) the PSDUP, as revised by the DSDUP and the plans submitted with the DSDUP, and (ii) the Special Permit. April 27, 2006 Minutes 10 DRAFT MINUTES of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals April 27, 2006 Present: Chairman — Judith J. Uhrig, John J. McWeeney, Maura L. Sheehan, Arthur C. Smith and Daniel A. Lucas Petition Address: 121 Shade Street The relief sought is for a variance from Section 135 -35, Table 2, Dimensional Control to allow variance for an addition with a side set back of 14.6 feet instead of the required 15 -feet and a front set back of approximately 25 -feet instead of the required 30 -feet. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:33 PM by reading the legal notice and described information received from the petitioner relative to the petition. Prior to the hearing, the petition and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Health Director, Zoning Enforcement Officer, Planning Board and Selectmen's Office. No comments were received. Michel Alder, owner of the property, presented the petition. He is seeking to expand the garage and the hardship the where the current footprint of the house stands on the lot. The Board questioned the square footage of the addition and went over the hardship with the applicant. There were no questions from the audience. No one spoke in favor or in opposition of the petition. The hearing was closed at 8:40 PM. Discussion: The Board felt the request was reasonable. Decision: On a motion by Daniel Lucas and seconded by Maura Sheehan, the Board voted 5 -0 to APPROVE VARIANCES for a side set back of 10.8 feet instead of the required 12 feet and a front set back of at least 25 feet instead of the required 30 -feet to allow construction of an addition. April 27, 2006 Minutes 11 DRAFT MINUTES of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals April 27, 2006 Present: Chairman — Judith J. Uhrig, John J. McWeeney, Maura L. Sheehan, Arthur C. Smith and Daniel A. Lucas Petition Address: One Ames Avenue The relief sought is for a Variance from Section 135 -35 to rebuild stairs with a set back of 11.5 - feet instead of the required 20 -feet to Carville Avenue. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:40 PM by reading the legal notice and described information received from the petitioner relative to the petition. Prior to the hearing, the petition and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Health Director, Zoning Enforcement Officer, Planning Board and Selectmen's Office. No comments were received. Faye Helen Lieb, owner of the property, presented the petition explaining that the stairs that had been rebuilt in 1986 need to be replaced again because they have rotted out. The Board had no questions. There were no questions from the audience. No one spoke in favor or in opposition of the petition. The hearing was closed at 8:43 PM. Discussion: The Board felt the request was reasonable. Decision: On a motion by Arthur Smith and seconded by Maura Sheehan, the Board voted 5 -0 to APPROVE a variance to allow construction of an overhang over the front steps with a front set back of 20.4 feet instead of the 30 -feet required.