Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-27-ZBA-min Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals — January 27, 2005 Present: Chairman Judith J. Uhrig, Arthur C. Smith, Maura L. Sheehan, Associate David G. Williams sitting in for John J. McWeeney and Associate Leo McSweeney sitting in for Nyles N. Barnert Petition Address: 675 Waltham Street The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:45 PM by reading the legal notice and described information received from the Petitioner, other Boards and Commissions relative to the Petition. There were comments read from Conservation and the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Atty. William Dailey, Jr. presented the petition and pictures showing netting and plantings that had been put in place as requested by the board due to a neighbor's complaint during hearing last year. He also presented pictures of a locked gated fence that had been installed explaining the reason it is gated is to allow tractor - trailer trucks to turn around in parking lot when needed for sod deliveries. The relief sought is for a 5 -year extension to a special permit originally granted in 1993 and a variance to allow for use 4 poles of an approximate height of 25 feet with attached netting along a portion of the northerly boundary of the property. The total length of the fence formed by the poles and netting is approximately 75 feet. Questions from the Board: Mrs. Uhrig: When I went by today the gate was opened. Answer: That was because of some of the snow removal that was going on today. Do you have any letters from neighbors? Answer: Yes, a letter from the neighbor that had concern last year about balls going into his yard wrote a letter in October of 2004 regarding his pleasure with the work that was done to address his concerns. There were no questions from the audience. No one spoke in favor. No speakers in opposition. Hearing was closed. Decision on variance: On a Motion by David Williams and seconded by Leo McSweeney, the board voted 5 -0 to grant variance for height of netting. Decision on special permit: On a motion by Arthur Smith and seconded by Leo McSweeney, the board voted 5 -0 to approved to extend the special permit with same conditions for a 5 year term. Submitted by Dianne Cornaro, Clerk Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals — January 27, 2005 Present: Chairman Judith J. Uhrig, Arthur C. Smith, Maura L. Sheehan, Associate David G. Williams sitting in for John J. McWeeney and Associate Leo McSweeney sitting in for Nyles N. Barnert Petition Address: 31 Fletcher Avenue The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:54 PM by reading the notice and described information received from the Petitioner, other Boards and Commissions relative to the Petition. Comments were received from the Selectman, Conservation and from the Planning Department. A letter of opposition had been received from the Fletcher Neighborhood Association. The Chairman stated that this is not a full hearing on the project. This hearing is to determine whether a substitute for one use to another is appropriate. John Farrington, representing Jefferson Union Company, presented the Petition. Also present was Mike Meadows, one of the owners; Peter Quinn, Architect and Steve Sawyer, the civil engineer for the project. Read a short legal memorandum concerning a letter to the board from the Fletcher Neighborhood Association dated Dan 10 2005 focusing on the issues. Letter and memorandum on file. The relief sought is a special permit as set forth in accordance with 135 -28C of the code of Lexington for substitution of a nonconforming use. Mr. Farrington presented the history of the manufacturing building. The manufacturing plant had been in existence since 1896 as a matter of right not by any means of a variance or special permit. Current zoning for the area is RS. The proposed new use would be to preserve and modify the building to 13 condo units keeping with the historic look of the building. Peter Quinn the architect explained the plans for the proposal. There will be 13 units; 9 2- bedroom units with the remaining 4 being 3- bedroom units. The building in back will become a single family home. Questions from the Board: Judy Uhrig: Wanted to clarify that you are asking us to continue hearing until after planning board special permit site plan review? Answer: No, we are asking for a decision on change of use. What he doesn't want to happen is for the planning board to modify something that would make him need to come before board again. Discussion on either to close or continue as to not put any conditions on the plan use. David Williams: If we aren't talking about the entire project then we should be able to decide on a change of use. Maura Sheehan: Wouldn't we make a decision with the condition of approval from the planning board for special permit /site plan review? Board had discussion on by -law as to what they are being asked to decide. Arthur Smith: Any need for any other variances. Answer: No, they will be staying within set back requirements. There are some existing conditions that will be remaining the same. Arthur Smith: Will you have to come back to board after you go to planning board? Answer: We are not expecting to. Maura Sheehan: By law the board must consider compatibility in definition of circulation pattern, when visiting there it seemed like there would be a problem getting through the 1 way loop. Answer: They are planning on keeping the circulation pattern. The driveway will be widen from 18 to 20 feet which they feel will open it a lot more than it is right now. Maura Sheehan: Will there be a back up on Fletcher? Answer: When they widen the entrance they will be changing grades. They will be decreased from 16 feet to 12 -feet or under. Maura Sheehan: Have you considered having 2 driveways? Answer: Trying to work within existing because of the grade. There is not enough room to have a 2nd driveway. David Williams: Isn't it important to have 2 entrances into a multi - family development? Judy Uhrig answered that she had checked into that and it is okay with what they have. David Williams: Is the parking grandfathered? Answer: yes it is. They have an easement with the right to park from a parcel they had sold off Maura Sheehan: I believe the planning boards' site plan review might reduce the density and that would alleviate my concerns but if we voted tonight how can we structure our vote to make it clear that we have only answered the question of change of use without getting into the number of units and traffic issues/ problems. Answer: Vote for change of use recognizing that there will be a condition pending site plan review from the planning board. Also mentioned that the traffic plan will be much different with new use. Vote under section to substitute industrial use to multi - family residential use. David Williams: What is being done regarding landscaping and lighting to buffer the neighbors? Answer: The lighting consultant is not here tonight to go over entire plan but they are planning on using a 6 -foot cedar fence and evergreen buffer plantings along with some perennials. Questions from the audience: Scott Galin, 5 Fletcher Ave.: Impressed with the board's knowledge of the by -laws that he finds incredible confusing. Wanted to know why a factory with special requirements and so rich in historic value that makes the alternative use limited as to how the owners use the property. Because it is a factory that requires special terms to operate as a factory, why would receive special consideration to operate as something else. If turning into residential property why can't they stay within the by law requirements of the zoning. Speakers in Favor: Tom Mitchell, 25 Fletcher Ave: Stated he is in favor at a high level; doesn't oppose residential use but has a long list of questions and concerns about the plans that he understands he needs to address to the planning board. Alan Lane, 24 Hayes Lane: Have had a good relationship with the owners and tenants for many years and is highly in favor of change. Speakers in Opposition: Christine Massey, Fletcher Ave.: Feels as though the Neighborhood Associations concerns have not yet been addressed. Not opposed to the residential use but does oppose the density of the development. Also concerned with the ability for fire trucks and emergency vehicles access to property around a very dangerous corner, especially when there is snow on the ground. Discussion: The board discussed whether the hearing should be continued or if they should take a vote on the change of use. Maura Sheehan asked how could they structure the vote to have it clear that they have only answered the question of change of use without getting into the density issues. They do not want to take a position that the use is compatible to the circulation pattern with the number of units. Tom Mitchell: This project would substantially change the traffic pattern; right now the tenants are no longer there. There are at least 3 conditions that need to be met. Doesn't want to get to a position that the use is compatible to the circulation pattern with the number of units. Answer: They are asking for 13 sites because based on the work done by the engineers and architects, they believe 13 sites work on the site. Judy Uhrig clarified for the audience that the problem is that 4 votes out of 5 are needed and currently there are at least 2 votes that don't want to approve taking the position that the use is compatible with the current circulation pattern that is related to the number of units. Concern that planning board would think that the board approved the 13 units and traffic pattern. There was a long discussion on the jurisdiction of the BOA and planning board regarding this application. DECISION: David Williams motioned, seconded by Maura Sheehan, to approve the application pursuit to 135 -28C2 & C3, but reserve the final judgment on C1 until after the planning board's site plan review. Hearing for section 1 will be continued until April 28, 2005 at 7:45 pm. Submitted by Dianne Cornaro, Clerk Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals- January 27, 2005 Present: Chairman Judith J. Uhrig, Arthur C. Smith, Maura L. Sheehan, Associate David G. Williams sitting in for John J. McWeeney and Associate Leo McSweeney sitting in for Nyles N. Barnert Petition Address — 10 Grove Street The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the notice and described information received from the Petitioner, other Boards and Commissions relative to the Petition. No comments from any town Committees or Boards. Eric Boudette presented the petition. Also presented a letter from Charlotte Ford in favor of the variance. The relief sought is for a variance to allow from front yard set back requirements to allow them to construct 6 x 10 entry way to front of house. Landing and steps would encroach on set back. The hardship is caused by the position of the house on the property the front steps are within the set back. Questions /Comments from the Board: David: You are just adding for entryway? Yes Judy Uhrig: Are you planning on keeping your walkway the same? Yes. From the driveway. Questions from the audience: None Speakers in Favor: Paul Linton, 22 Grove Street is in favor of petition. Speakers in Opposition —None Hearing was closed. Decision: On a Motion by Arthur Smith, seconded by Leo McSweeney, the Board by vote of 5 -0 unanimously granted the variance to allow a 25 -foot setback. Submitted by: Dianne Cornaro, Clerk Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals- January 27, 2005 Present: Chairman Judith J. Uhrig, Arthur C. Smith, Maura L. Sheehan, Associate David G. Williams sitting in for John J. McWeeney and Associate Leo McSweeney sitting in for Nyles N. Barnert Petition Address: 4 Ward Street The Chairman opened the hearing by reading a letter from petitioner's lawyer requesting a continuance until March. On a Motion by Arthur Smith, seconded by David Williams, the Board by a vote of 5 -0 voted to continue hearing until March 10, 2005. Submitted by Dianne Cornaro, Clerk