Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-09-28-ZBA-min DRAFT MINUTES of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals September 28, 2006 Board Members Present: Acting Chairman — Arthur Smith, Nyles Barnert, Maura Sheehan, and Associate Members Carolyn Wilson and David Williams. Staff present: David George, Zoning Administrator and Dianne Cornaro, Administrative Clerk. Petition Address: 109 Bow Street The relief sought is for a Variance from Section 135 -35, Table 2 Dimensional Controls to allow a front set back of 7.7 feet instead of the required 15 -feet and a side set back of 5.7 -feet instead of the required 7.5 feet to construct a porch. 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. A letter of opposition was received from Mr. & Mrs. Peter Steinkauss of 111 Bow Street. 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. Comments were received from the Engineering Department stating they have coordinated paving with the non - standard sidewalk and the Zoning Administrator asked if the shed in the back yard was in compliance with zoning requirements. Jennifer Higgins, owner of the property, presented the petition. Ms. Higgins explained that the non - conforming house is extremely small, 735 square feet, on a 2800 square feet lot. She is looking to enclose the front porch area for both space and for safety. She explained that her bedroom is in the front of the house and very close to the street, she feels unsafe to have the windows open while she is sleeping. Maura Sheehan asked about the construction being started before permit received. Bill Chase of HyTech Window and Siding spoke up that he takes responsibility for not getting the required permits. There was confusion on whether a variance was needed. Arthur Smith asked for an explanation on the facade of the porch. Nyles Barnert asked if the roofline would remain the same, which was answered, yes. There were no questions from the audience. No one spoke in favor or opposition of the petition. The hearing was closed at 7:59 PM. September 28, 2006 Minutes 2 Discussion: The Board justified the hardship as the size of the lot and the location of the house so close to the street. Decision: On a motion by David Williams and seconded by Carolyn Wilson the board voted 5 -0 to grant the Variance to allow a front set -back of 6.8 -feet instead of the required 15 and a side set back of 5.7 instead of the required 7.5 -feet. September 28, 2006 Minutes 3 DRAFT MINUTES of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals September 28, 2006 Board Members Present: Acting Chairman — Arthur Smith, Nyles Barnert, Maura Sheehan, and Associate Members Carolyn Wilson and David Williams. Staff present: David George, Zoning Administrator and Dianne Cornaro, Administrative Clerk. Petition Address: Estabrook Road, Map 50 Parcel 98 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. The relief sought is to Appeal a Decision by the Building Commissioner, dated July 26, 2006, in accordance with Section 135 -10A of the Code of Town of Lexington. 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. Comments from the Planning Department and The Development Review Team were received that the Decision should be upheld. A memo from the Zoning Administrator explained reasons the decision should be upheld. Attorney Ed Grant, representing Christopher and Gillian Gill, presented the petition explaining the history of the property and why they believe it to be a split and buildable lot. As far as they can see in the last 80 years there has been no combination of the lots by deed or by building permits and it has been held in separate ownership. The previous owners had made an attempt to have the lots split and had been denied. They never pursued the appeal. Maura Sheehan asked about the driveway that had encroached the two lots and is no longer there. It had been removed last spring on the advice of the Realtor. Maura Sheehan also asked about the purchase price of the house, were the lots purchased separately or as one lot. Mrs. Gill spoke to say that they had bought the property all at once; at the closing the lawyer had suggested that they appeal for the buildable lot. Nyles Barnert asked if it was a single deed listing three lots for one price. Paid only one price, not by parcel. September 28, 2006 Minutes 4 David Williams asked if they received three separate tax bills. Answer was yes. Questions /Comments from the audience: Norman Newlands of 49 Grandview Avenue said the "shed" mentioned that was on the lot was not a shed but a garage. He has a copy of the plot plan from 1964. His mother had originally owned the property. Susan Newlands of 49 Grandview Avenue that the current owners moved the driveway took the shed down and moved the swing set. Norman Peterson of 30 Estabrook Road presented to the Board a photograph of the house with a swing -set and driveway on the lot that he had received from the accessor's office. No one spoke in favor of the petition. Lena Young of 28 Estabrook Road and Mike Schroeder of 2 Welch Road spoke in opposition. Hearing was closed at 8:47 pm. Discussion: The Board felt that the petitioner had clearly purchased the property as one lot only finding out at the closing that they could appeal to try to separate it. Three separate tax bills have been sent out for the three parcels not 2 parcels. Decision: On a motion by Nyles Barnett and seconded by David Williams, the board voted 0 -5 to over -rule the Building Commissioners rulings. The motion for appeal failed and the Board upheld the Building Commissioner's ruling.