Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-08-24-ZBA-min Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen’s Meeting Room August 24, 2017 Board Members Present: Chairwoman, Jeanne K. Krieger, Edward D. McCarthy, David G. Williams, Martha C. Wood, and Ralph D. Clifford Alternate Present: Nyles N. Barnert Administrative Staff: Jennifer Gingras, Administrative Clerk and David George, Zoning Administrator Address: 34 Arcola Street The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Plot Plan, Elevations, Floor Plans, and Photographs. Also submitted were updated plans, received on August 17, 2017 and August 18, 2017, and a letter from the applicant regarding the heights of nearby properties, dated August 22, 2017. 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 Office, and Zoning Administrator. The petitioner is requesting a TWO (2) SPECIAL PERMITS in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) sections 135-4.3.5 to allow a height of a structure to be 33 ft instead of the required 25 ft; and 135-9.4 and 135-8.4.2 to allow modification to a non-conforming structure. The hearing was a continuation from the July 27, 2017 hearing. The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Aravind and Karuyna Srinivasan, presented the petition. They are allowed by right to have a height of 25.6 ft for the addition. They have provided updated plans showing that the proposed height is now 27 ft, as opposed to the 33ft that was originally proposed. They were able to reduce the height by removing the attic and reducing the roof pitch. A Board Member, Mr. David G. Williams, asked if the neighbor that opposed the hearing last time is in attendance. An audience member, Ms. Chen of 38 Arcola Street, asked the applicants what the proposed height of the addition is (the applicants responded it will be 27 ft and they are allowed 25.6 ft by right). The applicants provided a copy of the plans to Ms. Chen. Ms. Chen responded that she is no longer opposed to the addition after viewing the updated plans. The Chairwoman, Ms. Jeanne K. Krieger, stated that the updated plans have met the majority of the concerns the Board had. Ms. Krieger asked the applicant to clarify how the depth of the proposed addition was increased to 29 ft when the previous plans showed 27 ft (the applicants responded that with the reduced height they increased the depth to accommodate the space). The Zoning Administrator, Mr. David George, recommended that the site plan be marked up to reflect the proper plot plan that would be approved. A Board Member, Mr. Ralph D. Clifford, asked if they are proposing to go further back on the property (yes). The applicant marked up the plot plan as “Exhibit A” to reflect the depth of the addition as 29 ft instead of the previously proposed 27ft. There were no further questions or comments from the Board. There were no questions from the audience. The Chairwoman closed the hearing at 7:42 pm. On a motion by Ralph D. Clifford and seconded by Martha C. Wood, the Board voted 5-0, to grant a waiver to the requirement of a certified plot plan. On a motion by Martha C. Wood and seconded by Ralph D. Clifford, the Board voted 5-0 to grant a TWO (2) SPECIAL PERMITS in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) sections 135-4.3.5 to allow a height of a structure to be 33 ft instead of the required 25 ft; and 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 August 24, 2017 Board Members Present: Chairwoman, Jeanne K. Krieger, Edward D. McCarthy, David G. Williams, Martha C. Wood, and Ralph D. Clifford Alternate Present: Nyles N. Barnert Administrative Staff: Jennifer Gingras, Administrative Clerk and David George, Zoning Administrator Address: 38 James Street, f/k/a 7 Rangeway Street The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Plot Plan, Elevations, Floor Plans, and Photographs. Also received was a revised plot plan, received August 24, 2017, Addendum B, entitled, “Supporting Additional Information”, received July 26, 2017, and letters from abutters in support of petition. 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, Conservation Administrator, Planning Office, and Zoning Administrator. The petitioner is requesting a VARIANCE in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section 135-4.1.1, Table 2 (Schedule of Dimensional Controls), to allow a height of a structure to be 43 ft instead of the required 40 ft. The Chairwoman opened the hearing at 7:43 pm. Mr. John Farrington presented the petition.He had submitted letters from abutters that are in favor of the petition. Mr. Farrington also stated that the Zoning Administrator, Mr. David George, pointed out that the natural grade elevation as shown on the plot plan submitted was different than what was shown on the building permit application. This was a mistake by Meridian that has been discussed with Building staff. Mr. George responded that staff had previously discussed the slope on the building application. Mr. Farrington stated that the house meets all the setback requirements. The finished topography is different than originally planned. There is a 12 ft grade change where the house was previously. The property is located at the intersection of Rangeway Street and James Street, which are both unaccepted, private ways. A house and 2 other structures were demolished before building the new house. The topography on the site is steep. The soil conditions were a problem because 60% of the site was granite. Blasting was not an option because the property is on a fault line. The drilling and hammering took 26 work days, but it should have taken another 2 weeks to excavate additional granite and lower the cellar further. They are requesting a Variance for the height of the structure because it exceeds the maximum height allowed of 40 ft. The Zoning By-law sets out two different ways to measure the grade of the site. The grade could be either the elevation of the natural site grade prior to disturbance and regrading for construction or if the finished grade is lower than the undisturbed natural grade, the finished grade is the point from which the height of a structure is measured. The height is the highest point of the structure built on the site, which is typically the roof ridge line. The highest point of the structure at 38 James St. is 33 ft 6 in, as shown on the architect’s plan. The zoning bylaw requires that the 33 ft 6 in be measured from the lower of the finished grade before construction. When built according to the framing plans from the architect, the house measures 34 ft 2 in. All of the architect’s measurements are measured from the sill, which averages 18 in above finished grade. Because the framing plans result in a taller house by 6 in more than shown on the architectural plans is the first error. The second error is that the architect’s plans showed the measurement to the house ridge height from the sill on the foundation instead of the finished grade shown on the architect’s plans. The total of the two errors is approximately 2 ft 4 in. In addition, when looking at as-built plans, there was confusion on whether to use the natural grade pre-construction or natural grade prior to the grade change. The average natural grade, preconstruction, was calculated at 251.5. The average finished grade post construction was calculated at 256. To determine the as built height, the allowable height limitation of 40 ft is then added to the lower of these two numbers, allowing a total of 291.5.If the architect’s 33.6 ft is added to the preconstruction average grade, the result is 285.1, which is below the maximum height limitation in the bylaw. At this point, the builder thought everything was fine. When the actual roof peak elevation was measured in the field after construction and was added to the preconstruction average natural grade, the result shows a building height of 42.23, which is 2.23’ above the allowable height of 40 ft. This was when the mistakes in the architect’s plans were discovered. The height overage was a result of multiple mistakes.Therefore, they are asking for a variance of 3 ft over the allowable height of 40 ft to include the mistake plus a few more inches. The applicant submits that a literal enforcement would result in re-building the entire roof structure. Because of the topography of the lot, and or the surrounding area, the violation is not noticeable. A Board Member, Mr. Ralph D. Clifford, stated that there is no question about the hardship but he has questions about soil conditions and topology. Mr. Clifford asked why they are stating this is a mistake with construction and not a mistake because of the soil conditions (the grade change on the lot is significant and after drilling the granite for 26 working days, the workers thought they had adjusted the foundation to a point where it would accommodate the building as designed by the architect. The result of the topography, mistakes, and having to do hammering instead of blasting, caused the error). A Board Member, Mr. Clifford, asked if the foundation was inspected by the Town (Mr. Bob Cataldo, the contractor, responded yes). Mr. Clifford asked if the Building Inspector measures the height or if they just do a safety inspection (no, the inspector basically does a safety inspection. The person that does the excavating uses a laser to measure the hole). Mr. Clifford stated that the overage in height was caused by the mistakes made in construction and not because of the reasons described for a variance in the bylaw. Mr. Farrington stated that the impact of height is unnoticeable in the neighborhood and that is an important part of the zoning bylaw. A Board Member, Mr. David G. Williams, asked why they stopped drilling after 26 days (Mr. Cataldo responded that the neighbor across the street kept asking them to stop because their baby couldn’t sleep. Another problem was because the machine they used kept bouncing. They went down in some areas 12-14 ft and it kept bouncing. They took laser measurements that showed it should be deep enough). Mr. Williams stated this isn’t a de minimus violation and is significant. Mr. Williams stated that on one of the letters from an abutter at 31 James St asked for the storm drain to be cleared (Mr. Cataldo stated that they took care of that). Mr. Williams asked what the landscaping plans are since it’s an imposing house in a small neighborhood (Mr. Cataldo stated they will have plantings in front of the house and for the sloped part near the garage, they will probably do junipers). A Board Member, Mr. Edward D. McCarthy, stated that the maximum gross floor area was 7,142 sq ft and staff may have had a concern about it (Mr. Cataldo stated that rd number was calculated before the 3 floor was added. They are allowed to have a GFA of 7400 sqft. The 7500 sqft reflected on the zoning board application is an error). An audience member, Ms. Jo Ann Mulready-Shick of 27 Rangeway, spoke in opposition of the petition. She stated that the owners of 38 James St never approached her about the project and she doesn’t understand why we have regulations if they are not followed. Because of the new structure, there is now major erosion at the end of Rangeway and the increased runoff. She also believes the height is very noticeable. Mr. Farrington stated that if there is an erosion control problem, it should be the builder’s responsibility to fix it. rd Mr. Williams asked the applicant if the 3 floor was an addition (Mr. Cataldo rd responded that the 3 floor was added after they started building). An audience member, Mr. Matthew Daggett of 11 White Pine Lane, spoke in opposition to the petition. Mr. Daggett stated that he doesn’t understand why the errors were not caught earlier in the process. Mr. Farrington stated that builders typically don’t make mistakes knowingly and just go on to finish the project. The plans that were used showed a roof height that was fine. Mr. Clifford stated that mistakes in construction are not something we are allowed to look at for grounds to substantiate an error and he will be voting against the variance. Ms. Jo Ann Mulready-Shick of 27 Rangeway, stated there have been other neighbors on the street that have asked for variances and have been denied. Mr. Williams asked what they are planning to do with the road and if they are required to fix the road (Mr. Cataldo stated that they are not required to do anything to the road because the Town did the road when they built the LexHab house further down the street. The Town asked them to fix the berm at the corner of Skyview Rd. and put berm at the end of the driveway across from James Street.There were no other requirements he had to perform to upgrade the road. Mr. Cataldo stated that if the erosion did occur because of this project, he will fix it and have tried to mitigate any water run-off).Mr. Williams asked if the basement is finished (no). Mr. Williams asked rd if the 3 floor is finished (yes). Mr. Williams asked if they would have had the height issue if the basement had been built 2.5 ft lower (they would have lost space on the sides). The Chairwoman, Ms. Jeanne K. Krieger, stated the Planning office has a comment that the applicant is still subject for street determination (Mr. Cataldo believes that the Town met the obligation when the LexHab houses were built). Mr. Farrington stated that his understanding is that you can’t get your building permit unless you get the street determination first. Mr. Farrington asked Mr. George if that statement is correct. The Zoning Administrator, Mr. George, stated that in an ordinary case when you have a lot adjacent to an unaccepted road or there is more than 1,000 sq ft of an addition, the road has to be brought to Town standards, so the applicant would have to go before the Planning Board and it is his understanding that that happened in this particular case. Mr. George asked Mr. Cataldo if the Planning Board has issued an order relative to the unaccepted street such that Mr. Cataldo does not have to do anything to bring it to Town Standards (Mr. Cataldo stated he met with the Town Engineer and the road was built according to Town standards when they built the LexHab houses). Mr. Farrington stated that his understanding is that that has to come from the Planning Department. Mr. George stated typically a Certificate of Occupancy won’t be issued until the street determination is made with the Planning Board’s rules and regulations. Ms. Krieger stated that she is not prepared to grant the variance. It’s a sensitive neighborhood and it’s a large imposing structure. A Board Member, Ms. Martha C. Wood, stated that if you look at the house from James Street, it doesn’t look as large as it does from Rangeway Street. Mr. Farrington stated he would rather continue the hearing than get a negative vote. The Board unanimously stated that if they voted tonight it would be to not grant the variance. Mr. Farrington requested a continuance of the hearing to the September 28, 2017 meeting. On a motion by Ralph D. Clifford and seconded by Martha C. Wood, the Board voted 5-0 to grant a continuance of the hearing to the September 28, 2017 and to extend the constructive grant deadline to October 28, 2017. Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen’s Meeting Room August 24, 2017 Board Members Present: Chairwoman, Jeanne K. Krieger, Edward D. McCarthy, David G. Williams, Martha C. Wood, and Ralph D. Clifford Alternate Present: Nyles N. Barnert Administrative Staff: Jennifer Gingras, Administrative Clerk and David George, Zoning Administrator Other Business: 1) Minutes of Meetings from July 27, 2017 Hearing On a motion by Ralph D. Clifford and seconded by Martha C. Wood, the Board voted 5-0 to approve the minutes of July 27, 2017. On a motion made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned.