2008-05-08-ZBA-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

May 8, 2008 ZBA Minutes 10 Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen's Meeting Room, Lexington Town Hall May 8, 2008 Board Members Present: Chairman — Arthur C. Smith, Nyles N. Barnert, John J. McWeeney, Judith J. Uhrig and Carolyn C. Wilson Staff present: Dianne Cornaro, Administrative Clerk and David George, Zoning Administrator Petition Address: 7 Aerial Street, Map and Lot: 0013000065 The relief sought is for variance to allow a 19.1 ft. front -yard setback instead of the required minimum 30 ft. front -yard setback.; and a special permit to allow modification or expansion of a pre- existing nonconforming structure. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:55 PM by reading the legal notices and described information received from the petitioner relative to the petitions. Prior to the hearing, the petition and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Health Agent, Board of Selectmen, Zoning Administrator, Planning Board and the Historic District Commission. Comments were received from the Building Commissioner, the Planning Administrator and the Zoning Administrator. Danielle Defrancesco, owner of the property, presented the petition. The petitioner seeks to construct a second floor addition and to expand the front entry (9.2 -ft. by 10.3 -ft. addition to front entry). Because the structure is non - conforming in the location of the proposed second floor addition, a special permit to expand or modify the structure is required. Because the front entry is being expanded within the front yard setback, a variance is required. As justification to grant a special permit, the applicant indicates that expansion of the property will be in scale with adjacent properties, will be in a compatible architectural style as adjacent properties, and that the existing non - conforming structure is not greater than 50% of the minimum yard setback. To justify the grant of a variance, the applicant indicates that the existing entrance is inefficient as an entrance, due to original construction of the building. Regarding whether the height exceeds the by -law for height in stories or feet, the applicant states, in their attached nature and justification, that engineers have confirmed the height is not exceeded for either height in stories or in feet. The Board asked for clarification of the hardship and how much of the lower floor is above ground. They also asked if the footprint was increased and how much did the front extensions come out. There were no questions from the audience.