Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-08-11-ZBA-min Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen’s Meeting Room August 11, 2016 Board Members Present: Chairwoman, Jeanne K. Krieger, David G. Williams, Martha C. Wood, and Associate Members F. David Wells and James A. Osten Also present at the hearing was Alternate William P. Kennedy Administrative Staff: Jennifer Gingras, Administrative Clerk and David George, Zoning Administrator Address: 48 Bellflower St. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Plot Plan, Elevations, Floor Plans and Photographs. Also received was an Assessor’s Information Sheet, Letter from Land Surveyor, dated August 4, 2016, updated floor plans, dated July 11, 2016, an updated plot plan dated August 4, 2016, a Neighborhood Petition in support of the project with eleven (11) signatures, and a signed affidavit of support by Ernest Carabillo, III of 52 Bellflower Street. Prior to the meeting, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Board of Selectmen, the Planning Director, the Historic District Commission Clerk, Historical Commission, Economic Development, and the Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from the Building Commissioner, Planning Director, and Zoning Administrator. The petitioner is requesting a VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) sections 135-8.4.1, 135- 9.2.2.2, 135-8.4.2 and 135-9.4 to allow a side yard setback of 2.3ft instead of the required 7.5ft and modification to a non-conforming structure. The Chairwoman opened the hearing at 7:32 pm by reading the legal notices and described information received from the petitioner. This is a continuation of the hearing from April 28, 2016. Ms. Emily Donovan, the daughter of the homeowner, presented the application. They would like to request to withdraw their application for a Variance in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) sections 135-8.4.1 and 135-9.2.2.2, to allow a side yard setback of 2.3ft instead of the required 7.5ft. Due to a revised plot plan, they have changed the design significantly and no longer require a side yard variance. Ms. Donovan would still like to request a Special Permit. The house is currently 14.5 ft away from the front yard property line and the new setback would be 13.3 ft. They would like to extend the porch in the front of the house. The applicant, Mr. Brian Lessard from ALC Design, stated that he is the contractor for this project. The 14.5 ft measurement to the front property line is to the base of the stairs. The current landing doesn’t conform to the current building code. Part of the garage will be within the 30ft setback. BOA Meeting August 11, 2016 2 The Chairwoman, Ms. Jeanne K. Krieger asked how the survey (plot plan) has changed from their previously submitted plot plan (Ms. Donovan stated that in February the surveyor came out and did a plot plan which is the one shown at the first hearing in April. After the continuation of that hearing, Mr. Lessard had the surveyor do a new plot plan. The surveyor found that they had missed monuments in the neighborhood and were approximately 4 ft off in measurement from the original plan. They had based their original design on the first plot plan so needed to re-do their design. The surveyor staked the property lines and the neighbors double checked them by measuring themselves instead of hiring a surveyor to do a plot plan for their property. Ms. Donovan submitted a document signed by the neighbor on 52 Bellflower Street stating that he agrees with the new plot plan, dated August 4, 2016. The Chairwoman, Ms. Krieger, asked if they had spoken to the owner of the property on the other side (No, they didn’t think it was relevant. The house on the left was built 3 or 4 years ago. The neighbor had planted the Arborvitae to mark his lot line which is shown on the plot plan for 48 Bellflower). A Board Member, Mr. James A. Osten, asked for clarification of the side setback (the correct number is 8.7 ft) Ms. Donovan stated that she remembers Ms. Wood asking them to talk to neighbors around them about what they were doing and presented a petition signed by the neighbors. A Board Member, Mr. David G. Williams, asked how close the driveway will be to the property line (the driveway is 3 ft from the side yard property line in one area and 4 ft in a different area but will stay as is. In the mid-1980s, the owners added another strip to the driveway). A Board Member, Mr. Williams, stated that it is very evident that someone patched the driveway (in order to maintain the 2 car driveway, they would have to dig-out the tree roots. The driveway has been the same since 1985). Mr. Williams stated it might be an issue with the neighbor. Mr. Lessard stated that the current driveway is staying as is. A Board Member, Mr. Williams, asked if the neighbor at 52 Bellflower is here (no). The Chairwoman closed the hearing at 7:54 pm. On a motion by Martha C. Wood and seconded by James A. Osten, the Board voted 5-0 to grant a SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) sections 135-8.4.2 and 135-9.4 to allow modification to a non-conforming structure. On a motion by Martha C. Wood and seconded by F. David Wells, the Board voted 5-0 to grant a REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL, DATED AUGUST 11, 2016 of a VARIANCE in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) sections 135-8.4.1 and 135-9.2.2.2, to allow a side yard setback of 2.3ft instead of the required 7.5ft. BOA Meeting August 11, 2016 3 Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen’s Meeting Room August 11, 2016 Board Members Present: Chairwoman, Jeanne K. Krieger, David G. Williams, Martha C. Wood, and Associate Members F. David Wells and James A. Osten Also present at the hearing was Alternate William P. Kennedy Administrative Staff: Jennifer Gingras, Administrative Clerk and David George, Zoning Administrator Address: 1963 Massachusetts Avenue The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Plot Plan, and Photographs. Also received was Proposed Art Gallery Activity (revised on August 11, 2016), Parking Plan, Signage Plan, and ten (10) letters of support from abutters. Prior to the meeting, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Board of Selectmen, the Planning Director, the Historic District Commission Clerk, Historical Commission, Economic Development, and the Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from the Engineering Department, Planning Director, Historic Districts Commission, Historical Commission, Economic Development, and Zoning Administrator. The petitioner is requesting THREE (3) SPECIAL PERMITS in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section 135-3.4, Table 1 (Permitted Uses and Development Standards), H.1.022, to allow a museum, art gallery, or private library in an RS district; section 135-5.1.4 to allow zero (0) parking spaces instead of the required three (3) off street parking spaces; section 135-5.2.10 to allow one (1) Temporary Banner and one (1) Semi-Permanent Standing Sign. The Chairwoman opened the hearing at 7:55 pm by reading the legal notices and described information received from the petitioner. The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. John and Gillian Ross presented the application. They live at 1963 Massachusetts Ave and would like to open their home as an art gallery. The name of the gallery is Gallery Blink and they would only be open for short periods of time and then close and return their house back to a home. They have submitted many letters from abutters and residents in support of their petition. In regards to the Zoning Administrator’s question about loading and unloading. Mr. Ross presented a plot plan showing where the loading and parking would be. The right side of the property is marked for loading and parking. Two (2) cars could be parked at the end of the driveway and the loading would occur at the front of the driveway. Most of the artists deliver their art using their personal vehicles so there are no large trucks. It takes about 15 minutes to deliver the art.Before a show, the artists are asked 2-3 weeks beforehand to drop off the art. BOA Meeting August 11, 2016 4 A Board Member, Ms. Martha C. Wood asked if they would be willing to have a condition on the Special Permit that it would only apply to \[John and Gillian Ross\] and could not change hands if the property was sold (yes). A Board Member, Mr. David G. Williams, stated he has a concern with the signage and wants clarification on what a pop-up gallery means (they would be up temporarily and then be removed once a show was over). A Board Member, Mr. Williams, asked the applicants to explain what they want for signage (They are asking for two (2) temporary signs. One would be a banner sign approximately 6’x2’ in size which would be on their porch during the hours they are open. The other sign would be put up while they were having a show and then put away when done). Mr. Williams stated that he would not be in favor of having a sign in the yard and a banner might be inappropriate due to it being a residential and historic neighborhood. The gallery is a destination and advertisement isn’t needed (neither sign would be prominent). Mr. Williams asked the applicant why it needs to be lit (it would only be lit during limited periods of time). The Chairwoman, Ms. Jeanne K. Krieger, stated that she agrees with Mr. Williams about the yard sign but she has no problem with the banner except that they would need approval from the Historic District Commission. A Board Member, Mr. Williams, stated that he doesn’t want commercialization to that part of Massachusetts Avenue. The applicant, Mr. Ross, stated that The Inn on Hastings has a sign that is similar to the design they are proposing. The church nearby also has a similar sign. There are quite a few properties that have a sign in their front yard in that area. The Chairwoman, Ms. Krieger, stated that the difference is that they are asking for an accessory use for the sign. A Board Member, Mr. James A. Osten, asked the applicant if anything they are proposing would hurt the right of way (There are two (2) driveways and one (1) is for the neighbor that lives in the back). Mr. Osten asked if the applicant had plans to open during Patriot’s Day (no). A Board Member, Ms. Wood, stated that she is not in favor of a sign that is lit or a sign that is permanent. A Board Member, Mr. F. David Wells, asked the applicants if the sign is going to be similar to the sign at the Inn (Yes). Mr. Wells stated that he he has no issues with the sign if it was a similar sign to that at the Inn. A Board Member, Mr. Osten, stated that it doesn’t seem necessary that the sign be lit since their hours are during the daytime. A Board Member, Mr. Williams, asked the applicant why they want to be open on a Sunday before 1:00 pm (they want to keep it consistent with their hours on the other BOA Meeting August 11, 2016 5 days of the week). Mr. Williams stated that parking may be an issue on Sundays due to the church being next door. There was a discussion on Payment in Lieu of Parking (this hasn’t been established by the Town yet). An audience member, Mr. Dennis Tremblay at 1949 Realty Trust, stated that he didn’t have any objections but they haven’t see the sign proposals (the applicant showed Mr. Tremblay the signs). Mr. Tremblay asked if it’s been reviewed by the Historic District Commission and Design Advisory Committee (they will be going in front of the Historic District Commission). Mr. Tremblay states that he doesn’t have any issues with the petition as long as it doesn’t block their business and there’s no excessive light. He also agrees with the condition Ms. Wood proposed. A Board Member, Mr. Williams, stated that he is opposed to the standing sign in the yard but he is in favor of the banner. A Board Member, Mr. Wells, stated that he is in favor of a standing sign in the yard that is similar to that of the Inn rather than having an “A-frame” type sign. The Chairwoman, Ms. Krieger, stated that they will not be voting in favor of the semi- permanent standing sign. There is no issue with the banner as long as it’s approved by the Design Advisory Committee and Historic District Commission. A Board Member, Ms. Wood, is in favor of the banner. There were no other comments from the audience. There were no additional comments from the Board. The Chairwoman closed the hearing at 8:20 pm. On a motion by F. David Wells and seconded by Martha C. Wood, the Board voted 5-0 to grant THREE (3) SPECIAL PERMITS in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section 135-3.4, Table 1 (Permitted Uses and Development Standards), H.1.022, to allow a museum, art gallery, or private library in an RS district; section 135-5.1.4 to allow zero (0) parking spaces instead of the required three (3) off street parking spaces; section 135-5.2.10 to allow one (1) Temporary Banner and one (1) Semi-Permanent Standing Sign with the following conditions: 1. There will be a Two (2) year renewal period; 2. Special Permit will be only be assigned to the Ross Family and cannot be transferred to a new owner; 3. The banner shall not be illuminated; The banner will only be up during hours of operation. 4. . BOA Meeting August 11, 2016 6 Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen’s Meeting Room August 11, 2016 Board Members Present: Chairwoman, Jeanne K. Krieger, David G. Williams, Martha C. Wood, and Associate Members F. David Wells and James A. Osten Also present at the hearing was Alternate William P. Kennedy Administrative Staff: Jennifer Gingras, Administrative Clerk and David George, Zoning Administrator Address: 25 Bridge Street The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Topographic Plan, Plot Plan, and Floor Plans. Also received was a petition in support of the application with forty-one (41) signatures and six (6) letters of support for the application. Prior to the meeting, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Board of Selectmen, the Planning Director, the Historic District Commission Clerk, Historical Commission, Economic Development, and the Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from the Building Commissioner, Engineering Department, Planning Director, and Zoning Administrator. The petitioner is requesting SEVEN (7) VARIANCES AND ONE (1) SPECIAL PERMIT to allow: Lot 148, Vacant Lot Bridge Street: Four (4) Variances in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) sections 135-4.4.1, Table 2 (Schedule of Dimensional Controls) to allow: a. Minimum lot area of 8,500 sqft instead of the required 30,000 sqft; b. Minimum lot frontage of 50 ft instead of the require 150 ft.; c. Minimum right side yard set back to be 10.2 ft instead of the required 15 ft; d. Minimum left side yard set back to be 10.2 ft instead of the required 15 ft. Lot 147, Bridge Street (Existing Home): Three (3) Variances in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) Sections 135-4.4.1, Table 2 (Schedule of Dimensional Controls) to allow: a. Minimum lot area of 6,000 sqft instead of the required 30,000 sqft; b. Minimum lot frontage of 50 ft instead of the require 150 ft.; c. Minimum side yard set back to be 7.8 ft instead of the required 15 ft. and one (1) Special Permit in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) Section 135-5.1.11(1) to allow a driveway to be 0 ft from the lot line instead of the required 5 ft. The Chairwoman opened the hearing at 8:30 pm by reading the legal notices and described information received from the petitioner. Mr. Fenn presented the application. The owners at 25 Bridge Street have decided to live apart but would like to continue to raise their children together by living next door BOA Meeting August 11, 2016 7 to each other. The Nature and Justification he submitted is very detailed. They are looking for the variances and special permits as listed in the application. By the Board granting the variances and special permit, they are preserving current and affordable housing in Lexington. The new home will be similar in size to the other lots and homes in the neighborhood. Very few homes on Bridge Street meeting the RO district zoning requirements. By splitting the lot, they are preventing a smaller, more affordable home from being torn town. There are many letters from abutters in favor of this project which are included in the application. They are proposing to put a modular home on Lot 148. The Zoning Administrator, Mr. David George discussed proposing the variances with them as opposed to proposing an accessory apartment. The Planning Board’s comments didn’t state they were opposed to the petition, they only asked that if granted, it comply with Article 41 of the Zoning Bylaws. Mr. Fenn presented an additional document stating the proposed square footage of the house. They are under the size limits of Article 41. The abutters on Bridge Street support a smaller home being built. A Board Member, Ms. Wood, expressed concern with the side yard setback request (The lot area is 8,500 not 30,000 and the houses would be consistent with the neighborhood. This size lot is oversized compared to the neighborhood). The Chairwoman, Ms. Jeanne K. Krieger, stated that at Town Meeting they allowed for more discussion on accessory units (they did discuss an accessory unit but building another home was more expensive. The decided against the accessory apartment because it could only be 1000 sqft. They also would need the home to be separate). A Board Member, Mr. David G. Williams, stated that the houses they propose are not small houses. In addition, he wasn’t aware that lots could be un-merged. The Building Commissioner, Mr. Fred Lonardo, stated that the two (2) lot are merged. There is no cause that would allow the Board to un-merge the lots. Mr. Fenn stated that this is a grandfathered lot and they understand it’s merged. The Zoning Administrator, Mr. George had asked if they had to go before the Planning Board for what is not approved under the A&R but they don’t need an A&R because it already existed in the previous plan and it’s listed as two lots on the deed. Mr. Fenn presented the Board with a copy of the deed. The Building Commissioner, Mr. Lonardo, stated that once the lots are in common ownership, the internal lot line dissolves. They applicants could have gone the avenue of proposing an accessory apartment. Audience members, Mr. Jim Bertelli of 4 Payson Street, Ms. Jennifer Lisle of 24 Bridge Street, and Mr. Albert Saul of 29 Bridge Street spoke in support of the applicant’s petition. An audience member, Mr. Richard Dommings of 39 Valleyfield Street asked what year was the house built that is on 25 Bridge St (1926). Mr. Dommings asked the applicant if anybody has shown intent as to that being a buildable lot (Unknown. They are asking for variances to construct this lot. There is a separate sewer hookup but there BOA Meeting August 11, 2016 8 is only one tax bill and one deed). Mr. Dommings stated that he owns five (5) lots on Valleyfield and is concerned about this proposal happening on other lots. Mr. Fenn stated that Lexington didn’t allow the merger doctrine. The Zoning Administrator, Mr. George had spoken with him about not going in stating that this is a grandfathered lot, but rather apply for the variances. Mr. Dommings stated that they are creating two (2) non-conforming lots with this proposal. If the Board grants these variances, they are creating a precedent for others to request the same thing. A Board Member, Mr. Williams, stated that many lawyers have proposed this but most of the time they have separate tax bills but in this case they only have one (that is correct). A Board Member, Ms. Wood, stated that the Board of Appeals votes on each application separately so their decision on this wouldn’t create a precedent. A Board Member, Mr. Osten, asked if the applicant if there would be two (2) separate deeds if they granted the applicant’s proposal and if they could be sold separately (yes, there would be the existing home and the modular structure). A Board Member, Mr. Williams, stated that he doesn’t agree that these are small homes. A Board Member, Mr. Wells, stated that it’s the first time he’s seen so many signatures in favor of a petition. An accessory apartment is totally different from what they are proposing. He is in favor of the petition. The Chairwoman, Ms. Krieger, stated that an accessory apartment would only be able to have one owner and is comparable to what they are proposing. They have to also take into consideration the support of the neighborhood. A Board Member, Mr. Williams stated that the Board can’t take into consideration personal situations, they have to consider zoning issues. Mr. Fenn stated that they are trying to prevent affordable housing from not being available. A Board Member, Mr. Osten, stated that there are three (3) direct abutters present that are in favor of the petition, a petition with 40 signatures in support of the petition, and one (1) audience member stating he is not in support. He is in support of the petition. A Board Member, Ms. Wood stated that the side setbacks are an issue because they are so close (All the homes have a 50ft frontage so they would be similar to all the other homes and the difference wouldn’t be noticed). The Chairwoman closed the hearing at 9:15 pm. BOA Meeting August 11, 2016 9 On a motion by F. David Wells and seconded by James A. Osten, the Board voted 2-3 (David G. Williams, Jeanne K. Krieger, and Martha C. Wood opposed) to grant SEVEN (7) VARIANCES AND ONE (1) SPECIAL PERMIT to allow: Lot 148, Vacant Lot Bridge Street: Four (4) Variances in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) sections 135-4.4.1, Table 2 (Schedule of Dimensional Controls) to allow: e. Minimum lot area of 8,500 sqft instead of the required 30,000 sqft; f. Minimum lot frontage of 50 ft instead of the require 150 ft.; g. Minimum right side yard set back to be 10.2 ft instead of the required 15 ft; h. Minimum left side yard set back to be 10.2 ft instead of the required 15 ft. Lot 147, Bridge Street (Existing Home): Three (3) Variances in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) Sections 135-4.4.1, Table 2 (Schedule of Dimensional Controls) to allow: d. Minimum lot area of 6,000 sqft instead of the required 30,000 sqft; e. Minimum lot frontage of 50 ft instead of the require 150 ft.; f. Minimum side yard set back to be 7.8 ft instead of the required 15 ft. and one (1) Special Permit in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) Section 135-5.1.11(1) to allow a driveway to be 0 ft from the lot line instead of the required 5 ft. A 4-1 vote was needed to pass, the motion was denied. . Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen’s Meeting Room August 11, 2016 Board Members Present: Chairwoman, Jeanne K. Krieger, David G. Williams, Martha C. Wood, and Associate Members F. David Wells and James A. Osten Also present at the hearing was Alternate William P. Kennedy Administrative Staff: Jennifer Gingras, Administrative Clerk and David George, Zoning Administrator Other Business: Discussion: ‘Payment in Lieu of Parking’ proposed policy The Building Commissioner, Mr. Fred Lonardo, stated that the policy would apply to businesses requiring zoning relief from the bylaw’s parking requirements. The money received would be used to offset the parking spots that don’t exist. A Board Member, Mr. Williams, stated there should be a surcharge if someone has to have more parking. He has a problem if someone wants to renovate their building and would have to provide more parking. Mr. Lonardo stated that if the business was to increase the size of the seating, this policy would take effect. A Board Member, Mr. Williams, stated he is not in favor of the policy. A Board Member, Mr. Wells, asked what the plan is for the money received from this (it goes towards a fund for parking. Specifically that money is to be used for parking mitigation. Collectively the idea is to create parking for all of the CB district). A Board Member, Mr. Wells, stated that unless there is more detail provided on how the money would be used, they would not be able to make a decision. An audience member, Mr. Todd Cataldo of Grant Street, spoke. His property on Muzzey Street would not get any grandfathering. He was asked to put his parking on site but would have to pay $320,000 for spots that don’t exist. If the Board wants to ensure that the center looks the same 50 years from now, this policy should be passed. A Board Member, Mr. Osten, asked how this would affect different uses and if someone wanted to change the use, would they get a waiver granted. A Board Member, Mr. Williams, asked for clarification on what Mr. Cataldo stated about the phantom spaces. Is new construction no longer allowed to use spaces that should be grandfathered? Mr. Lonardo stated that if you were going to increase your size by 35%, the owner would better be able to absorb the cost. Each business couldn’t afford to provide the BOA Meeting August 11, 2016 11 parking because they’d have to give up part of their building. They are trying to eventually have shared parking so people walk through the center. Mr. Williams stated that this policy just seems to be a way to get more money out of businesses. Mr. Cataldo stated that the costs would be directly passed down to the center. It is an expense that would later be tacked onto the rent and would make it more unaffordable for small businesses to operate in the Center. Mr. Lonardo stated that if it’s an existing building and if a new business is a like in kind use with the same demand of parking, they’re not encumbered with the policy. Mr. Williams stated that Bank of America never has anybody parking in the garage below Bank of America. Mr. Wells stated that they need a more concrete plan. Mr. Lonardo stated that they just need to let the Board of Selectmen know what the money would go towards. The money would be dedicated to an escrow account that should be decided on. Ms. Wood stated that parking is always going to be a problem, with or without parking garages. The Chairwoman stated that she has heard the Board’s comments and will pass them on. Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen’s Meeting Room August 11, 2016 Board Members Present: Chairwoman, Jeanne K. Krieger, David G. Williams, Martha C. Wood, and Associate Members F. David Wells and James A. Osten Also present at the hearing was Alternate William P. Kennedy Administrative Staff: Jennifer Gingras, Administrative Clerk and David George, Zoning Administrator Other Business: On a motion by F. David Wells and seconded by Martha C. Wood the Board voted 5-0, to accept the meeting minutes of July 28, 2016.