Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-09-14-ZBA-min Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals September 14, 2006 Present: Chairman — Judith J. Uhrig, Nyles Barnert, Maura Sheehan, Arthur Smith and John McWeeney David George, the new Zoning Administrator was introduced. Petition Address: 20 Cliffe Avenue The relief sought is for a Variance from Section 135 -3528A and a Special Permit form 135 -29A to allow a dormer to the second and a half story of a condominium. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:45 PM by reading the legal notice and described information received from the petitioner relative to the petition. Prior to the hearing, the petition and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Health Director, Zoning Administrator, Planning Board and Development Review Team. The Building Inspector commented that a variance would be needed if for expansion of a non - conforming use. The Planning Department had three comments: 1) when addition was done in 1996 the ZBA granted a variance to increase the net floor area. 2) Driveway and parking area were in violation in 1998 — Has this situation been rectified? 3) Verify setback of dormer to be at least 30 -feet from the road or a special permit is required. Marcy Milhomme, owner of the property, presented the petition. They are looking to add a dormer to add a bathroom and a hallway to eliminate the present situation of having the only access to a bedroom thru another bedroom. She said she needed a Special Permit because of the front setback requirements. She also was seeking a Variance to expand a non - conforming 2 Family. Mr. Smith asked why was a Variance required and was told it was for adding square footage to a non - conforming use. Mrs. Sheehan inquired if the other condo owner was in agreement to the expansion - to which the petitioner replied yes. This property had come before the Board at an earlier date requesting to move its driveway to the right of the building onto Theresa Ave. This petition was denied. Subsequently, the owner(s) moved the drive and lawned it over the area putting all the parking on the public way on Theresa Ave. The Petitioner stated she was unaware of this. Mr. Barnert asked how far from the street was the new dormer and her answer was 26 feet. September 14, 2006 Minutes 2 Mrs. Uhrig inquired of the audience if anyone had questions or wished to peak in favor or opposition. No one replied. The hearing was closed at 7:59 PM. Discussion and Decision. Mr. Barnert moved and then withdrew his motion that the Variance and Special Permit be denied as there was no hardship. Mr. Smith moved that no Variance was required as there was no non- conforming use. J.McWeeney seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously. With regards to the Special Permit, Mr. Smith said that the Dormer met the 50% limit. There was much discussion about the parking on Theresa Avenue. David George, the Zoning Administrator, indicated that the existing situation was subject to an enforcement action. On a motion by John Mc Weeney and seconded by Nyles Barnert the board voted 5 -0 to grant the Special Permit for the dormer subject to the condition that prior to a Building Permit being issued for the dormer, the parking area to the right of the building along Theresa Avenue had to be removed and replaced with lawn and landscaping and the required parking for the building be re- constructed in the lawn area to the left of the building within the required setback Submitted by Dianne Cornaro, Clerk September 14, 2006 Minutes 3 DRAFT MINUTES of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals September 14, 2006 Present: Chairman — Judith J. Uhrig, Nyles Barnert, Maura Sheehan, Arthur Smith and John McWeeney Petition Address: 17 Grassland Street The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:00 PM by reading the legal notice and described information received from the petitioner relative to the petition. Prior to the hearing, the petition and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Health Director, Zoning Administrator, Planning Board and Development Review Team. The Conservation Administrator commented that the Conservation Commission had approved a 2nd story addition in January - February of 2006. However, the plans before the ZBA currently are not the same plans the Commission had approved. They did not approve the porch or extended garage. Petitioner will need to submit a new plan to the Conservation Commission for plan change approval. Planning commented the proposed plans show a third story and wanted to know if it was still being contemplated. If so, it would require a variance. The Planning Board questioned the proposed third story. Gina Cobin, owner of the property, presented the petition. stating they had expanded their existing house and were looking to add a garage to the right which would extend into the front setback —she explained that there was a car port at that side of the house which was incorporated into the house years ago and there was an odd setback in the right side of the house as a result which was used to store miscellaneous items and that if she could put on the addition for the garage it would make much better use of the space. Ms. Cobin replied to Mr. Barnert's question as why the garage couldn't be extended back into the house because of the house layout. She also pointed out that there were wetland and slope constraints at the rear of her house, which was the hardship for the Variance. She also explained the relocation of the front stairs and entrance in order to allow the stairway to the second floor to work. No one spoke in favor or in opposition of the petition. Hearing was closed at 8:10 pm. On a motion by Nyles Barnett and seconded by Maura Sheehan the board voted 5 -0 to approve the Variance to permit the garage to extend into the front setback with a setback of 23.8 -feet instead of the required 30 -feet. Submitted by Dianne Cornaro, Clerk September 14, 2006 Minutes 4 DRAFT MINUTES of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals September 14, 2006 Present: Chairman — Judith J. Uhrig, Nyles Barnert, Maura Sheehan, Arthur Smith and John McWeeney Petition Address: 17 Cottage Street The relief sought is for a Variance from section 135 -35, Table 2 Dimensional Controls to allow a affront set back of 16.2 -feet instead of the required 30 -feet and a rear set -back of 3.7 -feet instead of the required 15 -feet. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:11PM by reading the legal notice and described information received from the petitioner relative to the petition. Prior to the hearing, the petition and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Health Director, Zoning Enforcement Officer, Planning Board and Selectmen's Office. No Comments were received from any Board, Department or Commission. There were three letters received in support from: Mr. & Mrs. Richard Soley of 28 Cottage Street; James Mantineo of 11 Cottage Street and Russ Brami of 22 Cottage Street. The Petitioners Lucia and Michael Kidney explained the history of their house and the height limitation of its stairway and the need of a second floor bath. The building was built in 1804 on a very small and irregular lot. They requested Variances to allow a 16.2- foot front setback, an 11.8 -foot side yard and a 3.7 -foot rear yard setback. They requested a modest addition on the right front corner of their house with a second story addition over. Letters of support from abutters were provided. There were no questions from the Board or the audience. No one spoke in favor of the petition. Hearing was closed at 8:17 pm. On a motion by Nyles Barnert and seconded by Arthur Smith the board voted 5 -0 to grant the VARIANCE as requested, citing the hardship as the shape of the lot. Submitted by Dianne Cornaro, Clerk September 14, 2006 Minutes 5 DRAFT MINUTES of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals September 14, 2006 Present: Chairman — Judith J. Uhrig, Nyles Barnert, Maura Sheehan, Arthur Smith and John McWeeney Petition Address: 3 Paul Revere Road The relief sought is for a Variance in accordance to Section 135 -19E (3) to allow an accessory apartment and a Special Permit in accordance with 135 -19 to exceed maximum gross floor space. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:18 PM by reading the legal notice and described information received from the petitioner relative to the petition. Prior to the hearing, the petition and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Health Director, Zoning Administrator, Planning Board, Selectmen's Office and The Design Advisory Committee. Planning Board wrote that applicants need a Special Permit for the accessory apartment and a Variance for excess floor area. Nicholas Alex, the Petitioner, said he was looking to move his folks from the other side of town to a new accessory apartment by building onto the garage at the rear of his property. He said he had reviewed the proposal with the former Zoning Enforcement Officer, Matt Hakala, and indicated that he was following Matt's suggested approach. The existing garage is 840 - square feet and the proposed apartment is 996- square feet. The proposed apartment deck is 140 - square feet Chairman Judy Uhrig stated the by -law seems to deal with using part of existing structure for the new apartment. In this case the apartment is planned as all new construction. The Chair asked for questions and comments in favor or opposition from audience. Abutter Ralph Hanson through his Attorney, Mr. McElaney spoke against the petition stating that the request doesn't meet a hardship requirement and goes beyond bylaw by not being compatible with adjoining lots. Mr. Hanson also spoke in opposition saying it would change the character of neighborhood and set a precedent. Glen Comeau from 2627 Massachusetts Avenue said the existing house and the new apartment /garage are equal in size. He is not opposed to the Special Permit just the size of September 14, 2006 Minutes 6 structure. The length of new bldg would be 65 -feet, which he thought was a lot of building to be looking at. Mr. Alex stated that he felt his proposal has least impact on the neighborhood. The Chair advised the Petitioner that his options were to go forward and seek the decision tonight or withdraw without prejudice and go back and talk to neighbors to see if something could be worked out. The Petitioner then provided a request to withdraw without prejudice. On a motion by Nyles Barnert and seconded by Arthur Smith the board voted 5 -0 to accept the withdrawal without prejudice. Submitted by Dianne Cornaro, Clerk September 14, 2006 Minutes 7 DRAFT MINUTES of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals September 14, 2006 Present: Chairman — Judith J. Uhrig, Nyles Barnert, Maura Sheehan, Arthur Smith and John McWeeney Petition Address: 313 Marrett Road The relief sought is for a Special Permit from Section 135 -86, 135 -87 and 135 -88A -2 1 and C to allow to install, operate and maintain a wireless communications facility The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:53PM by reading the legal notice and described information received from the petitioner relative to the petition. Prior to the hearing, the petition and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Health Director, Zoning Administrator, Planning Board, the Design Advisory Committee, the Communication Advisory Committee and the Development Review Team. Letters and comments were received from the Communication Advisory Committee and from EBI Consulting on behalf of the Lexington Historical Commission. Attorney Adam Braillard of Prince, Lobel, Glovsky and Tye, representing T Mobil and Byron Peres from the Radio Frequency Department of T Mobil presented the petition. Attorney Braillard stated that the Use was permitted by Special Permit that the plan was to replace the tower roof and put on a structure 7 -feet higher to accommodate the antenna. The additional equipment would be placed on the lower roof structure at rear of building next to the dumpster area. He indicated that equipment would be screened as suggested by the Design Advisory Committee. He indicated that additional information requested by Communication Advisory Committee would be provided before seeking permit to install. He stated that noise from the roof - mounted equipment would be no louder than a residential window air- conditioning unit and with screening wouldn't be heard at all. He provided a large application that he said showed the existing coverage of his client, the holes in local coverage, the locations approved and pending with the resultant potential coverage. He cited the lack of cell phone service coverage in the area. Mr. McWeeney asked if there was any way to provide co- location at this site, was this in fact the best site in the area, were there any other sites that could provide co- locations, good service and eliminate the proliferation of towers. Attorney Braillard replied that given the zoning limitations on where towers could go, there was no better site. This filled in a hole for them, was in an area of need, met zoning requirements and was hidden from view. September 14, 2006 Minutes 8 Maura Sheehan was concerned about traffic /parking impacts during construction, ongoing maintenance and the screening. Mr. Braillard said maintenance was twice a month, impact would be minimal and he was agreeable to the DAC screening suggestion for the roof - mounted equipment. The Chair asked the audience for questions: 1. Theresa Medina of 293 Marrett Road had cell tower health concerns and wanted to know if the Board had considered them. Mr. Smith stated that we had no authority to review health concerns. The Federal Government has set guidelines that the Applicant has to meet. The application was reviewed by CAC and it appeared everything was in order; the only matter the ZBA could act on was the appropriateness of the tower to the zoning code. 2. Kalie Koso, 44 Grapevine, asked if there was anything they planned to do other than what was shown to her tonight. The Petitioner answered no. 3. Jonathan Finklestein. 49 Grapevine, asked about roof materials; why not copper? Would the opening in tower remain? He was told that metal interfered with the antenna and the opening would remain. The only alteration to the tower was in the roof area. 4. Joseph Sercavich, 294 Marrett Road, asked about the tower strategy -why not fewer locations with bigger installations for multi users. Petitioner replied that they don't know other users plans and this met their particular need. 5. Tim Schmidt, 6 Farmcrest, asked what would be required to have another user in the tower? Petitioner replied that roof would have to be raised another 11 feet. The owner of the property, Dr. Mangenello, said that you can't add other users to the tower and that he turned down idea of a monopole. 6. Jerry Fleishman, 75 Hancock Street, wanted to know about other installations pending in town. 7. Serena Crystal, 34 Grapevine Avenue, warned about health and environmental impacts. Mr. Tim Schmidt of 6 Farmcrest, spoke in favor of the tower. The following spoke in opposition: 1. Theresa Medina, Thomas Medina complained about traffic at intersection. 2. Jonathan Finklestein wanted fewer installations. 3. Joe Serkovich doesn't want progress as one site approved will lead to another. The Hearing was closed at 9:56 PM. Decision: Nyles Barnert moved approval subject to condition that equipment be screened as suggested by the DAC, Mr. Smith seconded and the motion was approved unanimously. Submitted by Dianne Cornaro, Clerk September 14, 2006 Minutes 9 DRAFT MINUTES of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals September 14, 2006 Present: Chairman — Judith J. Uhrig, Nyles Barnert, Maura Sheehan, Arthur Smith and John McWeeney Petition Address: 33 Hayden Avenue The relief sought is for a Special Permit in accordance with Article 15, Section 135 -88A, 1.0 to allow to install, operate and maintain a wireless communications facility The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:56 PM by reading the legal notice and described information received from the petitioner relative to the petition. Prior to the hearing, the petition and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Health Director, Zoning Administrator, Planning Board, the Development Review Team, the Design Advisory Committee and the Communications Advisory Committee. Comments were received from the Communication Advisory Committee and from the Conservation Commission. No other comments were received. Attorney Adam Braillard of Prince, Lobel, Glovsky & Tye LLP represented the Petitioner. Attorney Braillard showed pictures of the building and described where and what would go onto the building. There were two false chimneys planned to camouflage the antennae and there was equipment that was to go onto a lower roof out of sight. DAC suggested that the false chimneys be eliminated as they stand out more than the antennae. The Board agreed with the DAC recommendation as the height was lower and the mass of the object was reduced. Mr. McWeeney wondered why Omnipoint hadn't considered a monopole at this location with co- location possibilities. The answer is that Omnipoint is only looking out for their own needs. Again the location meets the town zoning requirements for the cell tower and meets requirements for the Special Permit. The Chair asked for questions or comments in favor or opposed from the audience. Ms Debby Thompson of Coolidge Avenue questioned proximity to people relative to health issues. There were no other comments. The Hearing was closed at 10:12 PM. Discussion and decision: The Board agreed with DAC recommendation. Nyles Barnert moved to approve The Special Permit for a period of 25 years, with the condition that the false chimneys be removed and that the installation would otherwise be in conformity to the plans presented. Arthur Smith seconded and the motion was approved unanimously. Submitted by Dianne Cornaro, Clerk September 14, 2006 Minutes 10 DRAFT MINUTES of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals September 14, 2006 Present: Chairman — Judith J. Uhrig, Nyles Barnert, Maura Sheehan, Arthur Smith and John McWeeney Petition Address: 55 Coolidge Avenue The relief sought is for a Special Permit in accordance with Article 15, Section 135 -88A, 1.0 to allow to install, operate and maintain a wireless communications facility The Chairman opened the hearing at 10:13 PM by reading the legal notice and described information received from the petitioner relative to the petition. Prior to the hearing, the petition and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Health Director, Zoning Administrator, Planning Board, the Development Review Team, the Design Advisory Committee and the Communications Advisory Committee. Comments were received from the Communication Advisory Committee. No other comments were received. Attorney Adam Braillard of Prince, Lobel, Glovsky & Tye LLP represented the Petitioner stating that this was an area of need in Omnipoint coverage and proposed putting an antenna into the steeple with addition GPS antenna mounted on the steeple. He said GPS was required for 911 calls. There had been comment from the DAC regarding this installation but he had no alternative method and it was required at that spot on the tower in order to face the satellites that provided the data. He said that the exterior material around the antennae would be replaced with fiberglass- necessary equipment cabinets would be inside the building on a lower level. There would be an air conditioning condenser in the steeple but would be out of sight. Maura Sheehan asked if the pole approved for the Knights of Columbus covered this area. The submittal doesn't show coverage from the Knight of Columbus pole on its maps. Attorney Braillard said that they did have the data and was able to produce it in the filing. Other questions from the Board were on noise, no louder than window air conditioner; on lights - no; on back -up generator, no. It was suggested that the cabinet in the steeple be painted white to which the Petitioner agreed. September 14, 2006 Minutes 11 Questions from the audience: Mrs. Thompson of Coolidge Avenue, asked what are the health risks. The Board advised her that they were not empowered to determine that question. Mr. Dow of 50 Coolidge Ave asked the height of the GPS antennae to be mounted on the front of the steeple. One was 7 inches high by 4 inches wide, the other was 15 inches high by 1 inch in diameter. No one spoke in support or opposition. The Hearing was closed at 10:35 PM Decision: John McWeeney moved that the Special Permit be approved with the condition that the cabinet be painted white, and for a term of 25 years. Maura Sheehan seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously. Other Business: The Board discussed a letter from Tom Harden for 92 Bow St dated July 20, 2006 showing a revised location for the driveway turnaround as was required in a decision on that property. Maura Sheehan moved approval of the revised driveway, it was seconded by Nyles Barnert and approved unanimously. Mrs. Uhrig asked if all members would be available for October 26, 2006 meeting at which time she would propose elections. All indicated they would be available. Mr. McWeeney indicated he would not serve next meeting as he was familiar with the Petioners. The Meeting adjourned at 11:20 PM. Submitted by Dianne Cornaro, Clerk