Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-04-27-ZBA-minMinutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen's Meeting Room April 27, 2017 Board Members Present: Chairwoman, Jeanne K. Krieger, Martha C. Wood, Edward D. McCarthy, David G. Williams and Associate Member 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: 29 Ames Ave The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Topographic Plan, Plot Plan, Floor Plans and Photographs. Also received were three (3) letters of support from the 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 Zoning Administrator. The petitioner is requesting a SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By - Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) sections 135-9.4 and 135-8.4.2 to allow modification to a non -conforming structure. The Chairwoman opened the hearing at 7:33 pm. The applicant, Ms. Pamela Brown, Esq., presented the petition along with the property owner, Mr. Arvind K. Venkatesh. They are proposing to build a mudroom addition on the existing home. The home is currently non -conforming. They looked at various options on where to add the mudroom, including putting something in the front of the property, but it would have required a variance. They are seeking relief into the side - yard setback to be 7 ft instead of the required 10 ft. It will remain a single family home. The Chairwoman, Ms. Jeanne K. Krieger, asked if the extension of the porch will be going into the side -yard. (That is all existing. They currently have a building permit to build a conforming structure. They are planning to build an addition in the back and the deck will be torn down and be re -built as a wrap-around deck. The addition is compliant and doesn't require zoning relief). A Board Member, Mr. David G. Williams, asked who owns the hedge to the right of the property (the property line runs through it). A Board Member, Mr. James A. Osten, asked the applicant if there has been a problem with drainage due to the slope of the property (He does not know of an issue). 1 A Board Member, Mr. Edward D. McCarthy, asked for clarification on what the red dotted line is on the plot plan (the applicant responded that it's showing the setback limits). The Chairwoman, Ms. Krieger, asked about the deck and if it will be extended to 9.6 ft from the lot line (it will be maintained at the same distance it currently is). The Chairwoman closed the hearing at 7:41 pm. On a motion by James A. Osten and seconded by Martha C. Wood, 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 135-9.4 and 135-8.4.2 to allow modification to a non -conforming structure. Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen’s Meeting Room April 27, 2017 Board Members Present: Chairwoman, Jeanne K. Krieger, Martha C. Wood, Edward D. McCarthy, David G. Williams and Associate Member 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: 10 Woodland Road The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Topographic Plan, and Plot Plan. Also receied were specifications for the proposed shed, one (1) letter of support from an abutter, and one (1) letter from an abutter requesting information from the applicant. 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 Zoning Administrator. The petitioner is requesting a VARIANCE in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) sections 135-9.2.2 and 135-4.1.1, Table 2 (Schedule of Dimensional Controls) to allow a 5 ft rear-yard setback instead of the required 15 ft setback. The Chairwoman opened the hearing at 7:42 pm. The owner, Ms. Christine DeRosa presented the petition. They are proposing to place a shed in their yard with a 5 ft rear-yard setback instead of the required 15 ft setback. The shed will be less than 200 sqft. They would be moving the shed from its location in the side-yard to be more setback on the property. Most of the neighbors around them have sheds within a few feet of their back fence. If they set it back 15 ft from the house, it would be in the middle of the yard, so placing the shed according to the bylaw would impede on their use of the back yard. A Board Member, Mr. David G. Williams, stated that it’s a large shed and asked the applicant why the shed couldn’t be placed perpendicular to the side of the house and have a setback of 15 ft from the side-yard. (Ms. DeRosa stated it’s abutting the green space in their backyard. The challenge in placing it outside of the 15 ft setback would be that it wouldn’t fit as they already have a deck in the backyard). The Chairwoman, Ms. Jeanne K. Krieger, stated that it’s already a large house for the lot, which makes it an issue to place the shed. 3 A Board Member, Ms. Martha C. Wood, asked the applicant if placing the shed right beside the deck would work better (Ms. DeRosa responded that it would obstruct their view and that side of the lot is their primary entrance to the back yard). Ms. Derosa stated that if the shed was placed 15 ft from the property line, it would be 10 ft from the end of her home to the shed. A Board Member, Mr. Williams, stated that the applicant already has a large house with a 2 car garage and a shed doesn’t seem necessary for storage (they have items they want to move from the garage to the shed). A Board Member, Mr. Edward D. McCarthy, asked the applicant what will happen to the current foundation for the shed (it depends on the expense to move it). Mr. McCarthy asked if they would use part of the old foundation for the new shed (she doesn’t know yet). A Board Member, Mr. McCarthy, read the letter received from an abutter, Jim and Carleen Fiore, to the applicant. A Board Member, Mr. Osten, stated that when he viewed the property it looked like there weren’t a lot of trees behind her property (there are a lot of trees in their yard). Mr. Osten stated that sometimes people put barrier trees around a shed (Ms. DeRosa stated that the other neighbor is in favor of the petition). A Board Member, Mr. McCarthy, asked how much further the property extends past the stone wall (3-4 ft approximately). A Board Member, Mr. Williams, asked if the property line is behind the stone wall (she is not sure and the plans don’t show the stone wall relevant to the end of the property line). The applicant’s husband, Mr. Jim DeRosa, stated that there are trees to the right of the property so they would have to be removed to fit a shed. There’s also trees in the rear of the property so it’s not obstructing the neighbor’s view.In regards to the foundation, he is not sure what could be reused from the foundation. An audience member, Ms. Geneva Smithlin of 12 Woodland Road, stated that she recently had a survey of her property done and the property line goes 2-3 ft past the stone wall. There is also a house behind their properties (10 Woodland and 12 Woodland) and she is concerned they will be able to see the shed from their back window (Ms. DeRosa stated there is about 50 ft to the neighbor’s house and there are trees between them). An audience member, Mr. Jim Fiore of 8 Woodland Road, stated that he has no objections to the placement of the new shed but they want to know if the current foundation will be taken apart since it has to be cleaned up. (The applicant stated it is their intention to do so). An audience member of 7 Porter Lane stated that her dining room is very close to the neighbor’s property line and a shed would be too close to their property. The Chairwoman, Ms. Krieger, stated she doesn’t see the justification for a variance due to the size and distance to the property lines. A Board Member, Mr. Williams, suggested that they put storage under the deck (the basement windows are under the deck). A Board Member, Mr. Osten, stated that the value of the home closest to the shed would be impacted. Ms. Derosa stated that she would be okay with putting it in a back corner of the property but it would be closer to the property line. A Board Member, Mr. McCarthy, stated that if the shed was within 5 ft of the property line it would have to be fireproofed. The Chairwoman, Ms. Krieger, stated that if she is denied, she can’t come back to the Board for 2 years. The applicant requested to withdraw her petition without prejudice. On a motion by Ralph D. Clifford and seconded by Martha C. Wood, the Board voted 5-0 to grant the applicant’s Request for Withdrawal without Prejudice, dated April 27, 2017. Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen’s Meeting Room April 27, 2017 Board Members Present: Chairwoman, Jeanne K. Krieger, Martha C. Wood, Edward D. McCarthy, David G. Williams and Associate Member 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: 1) Minutes of Meetings from April 13, 2017 Hearing On a motion by Martha C. Wood and seconded by David G. Williams, the Board voted 5-0 to approve the minutes of April 13, 2017. On a motion made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned. 6