Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-14-ZBA-min MINUTES of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals — April 14, 2005 Present: Chairman Judith J. Uhrig, Arthur C. Smith, Nyles N. Barnert, Associate David G. Williams sitting in for John J. McWeeney and Associate Carolyn C. Wilson sitting for Maura L. Sheehan Petition Address: Grandview The Chairman opened the meeting by asking to reaffirm the vote taken on March 24, 2005 for the Grandview Meadows project for option 1 of the decision drafted by Marc Goldstein. During discussion Mrs. Uhrig brought up a request by Atty. Emily Sample to add a condition on the retaining wall. Mr. Barnert said the retaining wall is in the original plans and feels it is not necessary to add as a condition. The board agreed with him. Judith Uhrig read option one from the draft decision: In the event the Town reached the 10 percent jurisdictional threshold by April 19, 2005 (the date the Board's decision was due) the project would be denied. The Town received a letter from the Department of Housing and Community Development dated April 12, 2005 stating that the Town had met the 10 percent threshold. DECISION: On a Motion by Nyles Barnert and seconded by Carolyn Wilson the Board voted by roll call to deny the application as inconsistent with local needs because the Town had reached the 10% jurisdictional threshold for affordable housing in Town. Roll Call Vote: Nyles Barnert — Yes Arthur Smith — Yes Judith Uhrig — Yes Carolyn Wilson — Yes David Williams — yes Submitted by Dianne Cornaro, Clerk. DRAFT MINUTES of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals — April 14, 2005 Present: Chairman Judith J. Uhrig, Arthur C. Smith, Nyles N. Barnert, John J. McWeeney and Maura L. Sheehan Petition Address: 30 Lillian Road The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:50 PM by reading a letter from the petitioner, JaeHyun Cho, requesting to withdraw the application without prejudice. DECISION: On a Motion by Arthur C. Smith and seconded by John J. McWeeney the board the Board voted 5 -0 to accept the withdrawal without prejudice for 30 Lillian Road. Submitted by Dianne Cornaro, Clerk. DRAFT MINUTES of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals — April 14, 2005 Present: Chairman Judith J. Uhrig, Arthur C. Smith, Nyles N. Barnert, John J. McWeeney and Maura L. Sheehan Petition Address: Lincoln Street, Map 50 Lot 20 The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:50 PM by reading the legal notice and described information received from the Petitioner, other Boards and Commissions relative to the Petition. There were letters received from the Communication Advisory Committee and the Lexington Design Advisory Committee. No comments were received from any other board or committee. Adam F. Braillard, Esq., representing Omnipoint Holdings, Inc., presented the petition along with photo simulations. The relief sought is for a special permit to install a wireless communications facility on an existing tower as well as place supporting radio equipment at the base of the water tower within a fenced compound. Such proposal is permitted per Article 15 of the Lexington Zoning By Laws. Submitted information with the application: Zoning Analysis Supporting Statement, Engineer Report, Photograph Simulations, Vicinity TOPO Map, Affidavit of Radio Frequency Expert, MPE Power Density Calculations, Antenna Specifications, MDPH Memorandum, Service Coverage Maps, List of Existing Omnipoint facilities in Lexington and contiguous Municipalities, Affidavit Regarding FAA Light/Marking, NEPA Compliance Documentation, FCC License, Evidence of Legal Interest in Subject Property and Site Plans. New antennas will not impact the equipment that is now there. They will be installing neutral color base transistor cabinets on a cement slab, removing the cement building now there. They are proposing 3 arrays of 3 antennas; one facing towards Jean Road, one mounted facing towards Lincoln Street and one facing Morgan Street. Questions from the Board: Nyles Barnert: Any screening on boxes? Answer: We propose none, cabinetry will not need any. Arthur Smith: Any noise from the units? Answer: The By -law regulations require that we have a licensed Engineer present a noise affidavit that is tested from the property lines. They compare the noise to be compared to a whisper. Someone would need to concentrate to hear the noise that will be coming from this equipment. There are noises up there that have nothing to do with this equipment. John McWeeney: Discussed the noises from the other equipment. Maura Sheehan: Has the lease been signed? Answer: T -Mobil and the Town are talking on the lease now. Should be complete in about a week. John McWeeney: Is any of the equipment on the ground ever combined instead of having duplication of equipment. Answer: Each carrier needs their own radio equipment for transmission. No one spoke in favor of the project. There were many questions from the audience concerning noise, radiation, equipment and height of the antennas. Atty. Adam F. Braillard explained the FCC regulations, how the entire project is regulated and gave them a pamphlet of general concerns about cell towers. Atty. Braillard explained he could not answer some of the technical questions. John Bowman of 10 Jean Road had sent a letter of opposition as well as spoke at the meeting of his concern for the noise level all ready at the tower. Sy and Mai Young of 15 Morgan spoke in opposition citing their concern for radiation factors and read a letter of opposition from their neighbor, Ron Grammunt, 9 Jean Road, who was unable to attend meeting. Hearing was closed at 8:28 pm. Decision on Special Permit: On a Motion by John McWeeney and seconded by Nyles N. Barnert the board voted 5 -0 to grant the special permit for cell tower as submitted in plan for term of 25 years. Submitted by Dianne Cornaro, Clerk DRAFT MINUTES of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals — April 14, 2005 Present: Chairman Judith J. Uhrig, Arthur C. Smith, Nyles N. Barnert, John J. McWeeney and Maura L. Sheehan Petition Address: 79 Robbins Road The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:28 PM by reading the legal notice and described information received from the Petitioner, other Boards and Commissions relative to the Petition. . No comments were received from any other board or committee. Stephanie Blout, owner of the property, presented the petition along with her architect Mike Shirley. The relief sought is for a variance from side yard set backs from 135.35, table 2, Dimensional Controls to construct an addition. Petitioner is asking to eliminate garage and replace with addition keeping in scale of neighborhood homes as to have minimum impact on neighbors. Questions from the Board: John McWeeney: What is the size of the building now compared to what is will be? Answer: Not really sure, can figure it out for you if you would like. Arthur Smith: Where will you park? Answer: We will be maintaining the existing driveway. Maura Sheehan: Asked applicant to explain how topography of the lot impacts need /request for variance. John McWeeney: Why can't you put the addition to the back? Answer: Site falls away dramatically. John McWeeney: What we look for is do you have a case with the topography of the land. Answer: We have a large oak tree about 100 years old in the front yard. It would dramatically change the drainage if we were to take that out. Mike Shirley, Architect: Discussed the slope in the back and the concern that the building would appear quite high with a 3 -story facade to the back. Judy Uhrig: You already infringe on the setback. There really isn't anything wrong with the shape of the lot. Nyles Barnert: How much narrower could you make it? Really couldn't. The petitioner brought two letters in favor of the project from neighbors: Philip Sullivan, 77 Robins Road and Janice and Stephen Sarmanian of 1 Plymouth Road. Chairman, Judy Uhrig, read a letter in opposition from David and Julie Yen. David and Julie Yen also spoke in opposition at the meeting. Their concerns were regarding other alternatives to the location of the addition and drainage. Final comments from architect Mike Shirley: A lot of thought went into this addition. Putting the addition anywhere else adds to the footprint. John McWeeney: How will you handle additional run -off? Answer: Would consider down spouts to dry wells. Closed at 9:04 pm. Discussion: John McWeeney: Don't have a problem with this request. Judy Uhrig and Nyles Barnert felt the addition was to close to the line. Arthur Smith: Thinks there is room to redesign. Has an issue with the basement, doesn't see the need for extra 2 feet. Maura Sheehan: Minimal impact on the neighbors. Judy Uhrig: Has problem with the increase of set back. Arthur Smith: Doesn't think the location of the house is a hardship. There are other ways of getting room. Decision: On a motion to approve the petition by John McWeeney and seconded by Maura Sheehan, and with a vote of 2 -3 the Board voted to DENY the petition. John McWeeney and Maura Sheehan voted to approve and Judy Uhrig, Nyles Barnert and Arthur Smith voted to deny DRAFT MINUTES of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals — April 14, 2005 Present: Chairman Judith J. Uhrig, Arthur C. Smith, Nyles N. Barnert, John J. McWeeney and Maura L. Sheehan Petition Address: 21 Worthern Road The Chairman opened the hearing at 9:04 PM by reading the legal notice and described information received from the Petitioner, other Boards and Commissions relative to the Petition. No comments were received from any other board or committee. Jennifer Mullin presented the petition. With the limited amount of growth available and the restricted parking in her current building, she is under contract to purchase 21 Worthern Road. Her intent is to make the building handicapped accessible by adding a new external accessible entry vestibule at the rear of the building. She is also requesting a permit for 65 parking spaces. Changing the use of the building to 1/3 medical changes the requirements needed for parking spaces from 65 to 77. They have a verbal agreement with Grace Chapel to use their parking lot. Questions from the Board: How many parking spaces at your present location? Answer: About 12 spaces in back, they really have no parking spaces for patients. They rent parking spaces across the street where they now have about 20 employees park. John McWeeney: You basically have the same parking problem as you did before. Answer: Yes. Maura Sheehan: Are you the landlord for the building? Is that office staff? Answer: Administrative in lower level, 2nd floor is medical. Maura Sheehan: You could not have any further medical rentals in the building because of the parking restrictions. Not without coming before building again. Maura Sheehan: If granted today, would you have a problem with that as a condition? Answer: Ideally we would like to keep our options opened. Arthur Smith: Will you be asking employees to park next door. Answer: Yes, that will leave 65 parking spaces for tenants and patients. Nyles Barnert: You have no contingency plan for parking? Answer: The old plans would not be allowable with todays by laws. Judy Uhrig: Tenants in building now? Yes, there is a real estate office, Hearing Aid Company and a construction office. Questions from audience: None No one spoke in favor. No one spoke in opposition. Closed at 9:30 pm. DECISIONS: VESTIBULE: On a motion by Arthur Smith and seconded by Nyles Barnert, the board voted unanimously to allow modification of a special permit to allow renovations to add a new external accessible entry vestibule and elevator core. PARKING: On a motion by Arthur Smith and seconded by Nyles Barnert, the board voted unanimously to approve a special permit to maintain 65 spaces with the condition that no more than 1/3 of the building is used for medical offices or outpatient clinics. Submitted by Dianne Cornaro, Clerk