Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-07-28-ZBA-min Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals July 28, 2005 Present: Acting Chairman Arthur C. Smith, Nyles N. Barnert, Maura L. Sheehan and Associate Commissioner Leo P. McSweeney sitting for John J. McWeeney Address: 396 Waltham Street, AEI Project No. 3491.105 Letter was received from Alan J. Micale of Ayoub Engineering, Inc., representing ExxonMobil asking for a minor modification to an existing 1990 Special Permit for internally illuminated signage. Anthony Guba, project manager, presented the request. On a motion by Nyles N. Barnert and seconded by Maura L. Sheehan the board voted 4 -0 to approve the minor modification to the 1990 Special Permit to replace the existing internally Pegasus emblem and "Mobil Mart" wall signs with a single internally illuminated channel letter "On the Run" sign. Address: 40 Hartwell Avenue, Cingular Wireless Site Letter was received from Paul L. DeBole, representing Cingular Wireless asking for a minor modification to perform some maintenance on this WCF in the following manner: 1. Remove the existing nine (9) antennas 2. Replace them with six (6) antennas (two (2) of which will cover each of the three (3) sectors) of similar size and appearance, and mounted in the same manner. 3. Remove the existing runs of coaxial cable and replace them with twelve (12) runs of 1 5/8" coaxial cable (the coaxial cables are inside the monopole) and 4. Replace some equipment in the enclosed equipment room. On a motion by Nyles N. Barnert and seconded by Leo McSweeney the board voted 4 -0 to grant the minor modification to perform maintenance at the 40 Hartwell Avenue site. Address: 4 Jean Road, Cingular Wireless Site Letter was received from Paul L. DeBole, representing Cingular Wireless asking for a minor modification to perform some maintenance on this WCF in the following manner: 1. Remove the existing twelve (12) antennas 2. Replace them with six (6) antennas (two (2) of which will cover each of the three (3) sectors) of similar size and appearance, and mounted in the same manner. 3. Remove the existing runs of coaxial cable and replace them with twelve (12) runs of 1 5/8" coaxial cable (the coaxial cables are inside the monopole) and 4. Replace some equipment in the enclosed equipment room. On a motion by Nyles N. Barnert and seconded by Leo McSweeney the board voted 4 -0 to grant the minor modification to perform maintenance at the 4 Jean Road site. Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals July 28, 2005 Present: Acting Chairman Arthur C. Smith, Nyles N. Barnert, Maura L. Sheehan and Associate Commissioner Leo P. McSweeney sitting for John J. McWeeney Petition Address: 4 Maguire Road The relief sought is to allow a wall sign above the first floor in excess of three feet Arthur Smith explained before opening the hearings that with 4 members present the decision must be unanimous to pass. The Acting Chairman opened the hearing at 7:55 PM by reading the legal notice and described information received from the Petitioner relative to the Petition and a letter from the Zoning Enforcement Officer explaining his decision. There were no comments from any Board or Commission other than the Design Advisory Committee Hazel Wood Hopkins, representing 4 Maguire Road Realty Trust, presented the petition Questions /Comments from the Board: Leo McSweeney: The depth and the height of the sign is okay? Answer: Yes, the horizontal size is what needs a special permit. Maura Sheehan: This is the only sign on the building? Answer: Yes. Nyles Barnert: Are there any other tenants in building? Answer: No There were no questions from the audience. No one spoke in favor of the petition. No one spoke in opposition. Hearing was closed at 8:01 pm. Decision: On a motion by Nyles N. Barnert and seconded by Maura Sheehan, the board voted 4 -0 to grant the special permit to allow a wall sign above the first floor in excess of three -feet horizontal dimension. Submitted by Dianne Cornaro, Clerk Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals July 28, 2005 Present: Acting Chairman Arthur C. Smith, Nyles N. Barnert, Maura L. Sheehan and Associate Commissioner Leo P. McSweeney sitting for John J. McWeeney Petition Address: 33 Hayden Avenue The Acting Chairman explained before opening the hearing that with 4 members present the decision must be unanimous to pass. The applicant Hazel Wood Hopkins, representing Boston Properties, was present to discuss the application for a Special Permit and requested that the hearing be postponed until August 11, 2005 when a full board was present. On a motion by Nyles Barnert and seconded by Leo McSweeney the Board voted 4 -0 to postpone the hearing until August 11, 2005. Submitted by Dianne Cornaro, Clerk Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals July 28, 2005 Present: Acting Chairman Arthur C. Smith, Nyles N. Barnert, Maura L. Sheehan and Associate Commissioner Leo P. McSweeney sitting for John J. McWeeney Petition Address: 107 Woburn Street Arthur Smith explained before opening the hearing that with 4 members present the decision must be unanimous to pass. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:05 pm by reading the legal notice and described information received from the Petitioner relative to the Petition. There was a comment from the Conservation Commission that applicant had received conservation approval and project was subject to order of conditions. No further comments from any other Board or Commission. Nicholas Chareas, owner of the property, presented the petition. The relief sought is to allow a variance from side set back requirements as defined in Section 135 -35, Table 2, Dimensional Controls on a non - conforming dwelling. Questions from the Board: Arthur Smith: Asked for Verification what variance was needed. Answer: 8 -foot side setback and 20- foot front setback. Leo McSweeney: What is the reason for the Conservation Commission issues? Answer: Because of a house built behind them conservation now thinks there may be water problems. Maura Sheehan: Have you shown the abutters your plans and do they approve of them? I have talked with some abutters and did not receive any opposition from them. There were no questions from the audience. No one spoke in favor of the petition. Jim McLaughlin of 1 Howard Munroe Place spoke in opposition to the 5 -foot side setback. Would not mind if it was 8 or 10 -feet from the side. Response from applicant: Would be happy to make any changes needed to get the approval. Hearing was closed at 8:12 pm. Decision on variance: On a motion by Leo McSweeney and seconded by Nyles Barnert the board voted 4 -0 to grant the variance for a 10 -foot side set back and a 20 -foot from front set back requirements. Submitted by Dianne Cornaro, Clerk Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals July 28, 2005 Present: Acting Chairman Arthur C. Smith, Nyles N. Barnert, Maura L. Sheehan and Associate Commissioner Leo P. McSweeney sitting for John J. McWeeney Petition Address: 205 Follen Road Arthur Smith explained before opening the hearing that with 4 members present the decision must be unanimous to pass. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:13 pm by reading the legal notice and described information received from the Petitioner relative to the Petition. There were no comments from any Board or Commission. Alexandra Bartcsh, owner of the property, presented the petition. The relief sought is to allow a variance from front set back requirements as defined in Section 135 -35, Table 2, Dimensional Controls from 30 -feet to 19 -feet to demolish sun -porch 9" into side set -back and to rebuild in same foot print. Questions from the Board: Nyles Barnert: Will it be the same height? Answer: Yes Maura Sheehan: Will the roof overhang change? Answer: Will be the same. Leo McSweeney: Any trees removed? Answer: No No questions from the audience. No one spoke in favor of the project. No one spoke in opposition. Hearing was closed at 8:16 PM. On a motion by Leo McSweeney and seconded by Nyles Barnert, the board voted 4 -0 to approve a variance of 9 inches into the side set back requirements at 205 Follen Road. Submitted by Dianne Cornaro, Clerk Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals July 28, 2005 Present: Acting Chairman Arthur C. Smith, Nyles N. Barnert, Maura L. Sheehan and Associate Commissioner Leo P. McSweeney sitting for John J. McWeeney Petition Address: 13 White Pine Lane Arthur Smith explained before opening the hearing that with 4 members present the decision must be unanimous to pass. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:17 pm by reading the legal notice and described information received from the Petitioner relative to the Petition. The Conservation Commission sent back a comment that this falls within 100 -feet of wetlands. Petitioner will need to file and receive conservation permit prior to commencing work. As part of Conservation filing, applicant will need to provide plan for run -off irrigation, such as dry wells. There were no comments from any other Board or Commission. Additional information received by the applicant was 13 letters of support from neighbors and abutters. Nannette Feurzeig, owner of the property, presented the petition. The relief sought is for a variance for a front yard setback of 11 -feet. Questions from the Board: Arthur Smith: Verified setback request of 11 -feet. Nyles Barnert: Is the driveway on just one side of the tree? Answer: No, paved driveway on both sides of driveway. Leo McSweeney: You are leaving the big tree? Answer: Yes. Leo McSweeney: Is your next -door neighbor one of the people that sent a letter? Answer: Yes There were no questions from the audience. No one spoke in favor of the petition. No one spoke in opposition. Hearing was closed at 8:23 pm. Decision on variance: On a motion by Leo McSweeney and seconded by Nyles Barnert the board voted 4 -0 to grant the front yard variance of 11 feet. Submitted by Dianne Cornaro, Clerk Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals July 28, 2005 Present: Acting Chairman Arthur C. Smith, Nyles N. Barnert, Maura L. Sheehan and Associate Commissioner Leo P. McSweeney sitting for John J. McWeeney Petition Address: 1430 Massachusetts Avenue Arthur Smith explained before opening the hearing that with 4 members present the decision must be unanimous to pass. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:23 pm by reading the legal notice and described information received from the Petitioner relative to the Petition. No comments were received from any Board or Commission. There were letters of support from 1436 Massachusetts Avenue and 11 Bloomfield Street. The relief sought is to allow a variance from side and back setback requirements. Christine Connor, owner of the property, presented the petition. Questions from the Board: Nyles Barnert: Will the wood shed go exactly where the wood is piled now? Answer: Yes. Arthur Smith: How close to the actual plot are you asking to go? Answer: 1 foot, the wood shed has a 4 x 10 footprint. Arthur Smith: Is there a fence behind it? Answer: Yes Leo McSweeney: Would having a 2 -foot variance be a problem? Answer: Whatever needed to be approved, but actually 18 inches would be better. Maura Sheehan brought up the question as to whether this would be considered a shed. No one was quite sure. The shed is about 1200 pounds. There were no questions from the audience. No one spoke in favor of the petition. No one spoke in opposition. Hearing was closed at 8:28 pm. On a motion by Nyles Barnert and seconded by Maura Sheehan, the board voted 4 -0 to approve an eighteen inch variance from the side and back plot line. Submitted by Dianne Cornaro, Clerk Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals July 28, 2005 Present: Acting Chairman Arthur C. Smith, Nyles N. Barnert, Maura L. Sheehan and Associate Commissioner Leo P. McSweeney sitting for John J. McWeeney Petition Address: 27 Muzzy Street Arthur Smith explained before opening the hearings that with 4 members present the decision must be unanimous to pass. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:28 pm by reading the legal notice and described information received from the Petitioner relative to the Petition. Comments were received from Planning saying that no parking or landscape plan was submitted. A special permit use is not non - conforming so ZBA must first determine that a residential use is not feasible before allowing a commercial use. The relief sought is to allow a special permit in accordance with Zoning By -Law Section 135 -16H for modification of non - conforming use. Pamela Brown of Brown and Brown PC, representing possible owners of the property Mr. & Mrs. Chiu, presented the petition. Questions from the Board: Arthur Smith: The parking plan submitted tonight was not in the original packet? Answer: No. Nyles Barnert: What are the hours for the present use? Answer: 9 -6, Monday thru Friday. Nyles Barnert: What are the hours that the salon would be open? Closed Monday, Tuesday thru Friday 9 to 9, Saturday 10 to 7 and limited Sunday hours. Nyles Barnert: That would add more of an impact on the neighbors in the way of traffic and noise. Maura Sheehan: Is Parcel "A" included in the Sale? Answer: Yes. Maura Sheehan: What happens to the tenant of the spaces that are being leased now? Answer: Checked with Matt Hakala and there should be no conflict for the current business. Leo McSweeney: Are any of those spaces being used now? Answer: Just by delivery trucks. Leo McSweeney: Any signage proposed? Answer: Haven't got that far yet. Mike Rubin, representative for the present owners said there is a small sign there now and would probably not change the size. Leo McSweeney: Any additional lighting? Answer: Wasn't expecting any. Leo McSweeney: Why did the fence stop coming up the driveway? Answer: For the courtesy of the neighbors, so that there view wasn't blocked. Leo McSweeney: What about the noise of the vent fan? Answer: It will not be needed and will be taken out. Nyles Barnert: How many chairs in salon? Answered by Lui Chiu: 10 -12 Chairs, we will be having about 4 to 5 clients at the same time. Leo McSweeney: Have you a business elsewhere? Answer: No, this is a new business. Maura Sheehan: Will you need to do some major plumbing upgrading? Answer: May have to do some work based on current business, but they have a lot of plumbing used. Leo McSweeney: There are 24 parking spaces on site. Answer: Yes and technically we could fit more. Leo McSweeney: Could we propose to limit the use by employees? Answer: That could be accommodated. Maura Sheehan: Would you agree to a condition of permit that the operational hours would remain the same? Answer: Would consider looking at hours 9 -6 with limited weekend hours. The Dentist currently uses property on Saturdays. Questions from the Audience: Susan Huhn, 6 Raymond Street: Just wanted to make a point when Grace Chapel wanted to put in a Recreation Center and they determined that there would be traffic problems, they ended up going residential. Christian Science Church is going residential. There has been a fan problem for a long time. It spurs out white stuff all over the place. I would much rather see this used as a residential dwelling. Tanya Villalobos, 2 Raymond Street: Biggest concern is the traffic impact. Sitting on our porch overlooks building, concerned about business being opened until 9:00 at night and loosing their privacy. Currently the business is not opened on the weekends. Worried about impact of noise, traffic and lack of privacy. Marilyn Alwan, 4 Raymond Street: Concerns with 1) the fence was put up with no discussion with her. Not sure if fence is on the line. Asked for a survey but has never received it. 2) There is no retail that comes down that far Muzzy Street. This building was to be for Professional use, retail is not appropriate. 3) Employees from the salon park on the leased lot, there is no traffic impact there now because people aren't coming and going all day. 4) I'll be happier once the fan goes. Response from Pamela Brown: Would be more than happy to sit and talk with abutters. A buffer can be added for the privacy question. The use for this building is not retail. Traffic will be impacted but not the comings and goings from a retail store. If there is a concern with the lighting, that can be worked on. They want to be a good neighbor. Response from Lawyer for Michael and Setta: Building is in residential area but has been used as a business use since the 50's. It would not be cost effective to change building to residential. Vent is there because of the current business and will be taken out. Hearing was closed at 9:08 PM. Discussion: Board felt parking was not an issue. Major concerns: Hours, increase in traffic, noise. Decision: On a motion by Leo McSweeney and seconded by Maura Sheehan, the board voted 4 -0 to grant the special permit with the following conditions: • The business meets the Board of Health conditions. • Hours of Operation will be: Monday thru Friday 9 AM to 7 PM, Saturday 10 AM to 4 PM. • No hours of operation on Sunday • Cliental will vacate the building by 7:00 pm Monday thru Friday. • Use of the parking spaces shall be restricted to those involved with the businesses at the property. • Exhaust fan will be removed. • Permit will be for 18 months and will expire January 31, 2007. • Applicant will be responsible for renewing special permit 8 weeks before expiration date. Submitted by Dianne Cornaro, Clerk