Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-06-09-ZBA-min Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals June 9, 2005 Present: Chairman Judith J. Uhrig, Arthur C. Smith, Nyles N. Barnert, John J. McWeeney and Maura L. Sheehan Petition Address: 12 Smith Avenue The relief sought is to allow a variance from the height requirements as defined in Section 135 -35, Table 2 — Dimensional Controls. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:47PM by reading the legal notice and described information received from the Petitioner relative to the Petition. There were no comments from any Board or Commission. Hadi Shavarini, owner of the property, presented the petition along with new elevation plans. Mr. Shavarini said he had spoken with neighbors about his project and had a petition in favor signed by Jamie Lakowitx and Steve Sherman, Bobbie and Jarik Tornheim, Ginny and Tom Smith, Lucy and Mike Lockwood, Diane and Dave Abe and Jane and Alex Lehar, Questions /Comments from the Board: Nyles Barnert: What is the height? Answer: The front is less than 50% and they need a variance for the back. Judy Ugrig: Are you making a third story out of this? Answer: Actually it already is a 2 - '/ 2 story, they are adding dormers to allow more space and add a bathroom. John McWeeney: We've allowed third stories on a case -by -case basis in the past. Arthur Smith: Are there other three story homes on Smith Avenue? Answer: Yes. Maura Sheehan: The look of the 3 rd story is more prevalent to the back rather than the front. Applicant explained the roofline and dormers. There were no questions from the audience. No one spoke in favor of the petition. No one spoke in opposition. Hearing was closed at 7:56 pm. Discussion: John McWeeney: Had no problems with the request. Judy Uhrig and Nyles Barnert had mixed feelings on the height. Nyles willing to accept it. Maura Sheehan said the roofline actually isn't changing but with the dormers it will be giving a bigger impression. Art Smith thought there were a lot of 3 stories in the neighborhood. Decision on variance: On a motion by Arthur Smith and seconded by John McWeeney the board voted 4 -1 to grant the variance for height requirements with Judy Uhrig opposing the variance. Submitted by Dianne Cornaro, Clerk Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals June 9, 2005 Present: Chairman Judith J. Uhrig, Arthur C. Smith, Nyles N. Barnert, John J. McWeeney, and Maura L. Sheehan Petition Address: 1361 Massachusetts Avenue The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:56 PM by reading the legal notice and described information received from the Petitioner relative to the Petition. The only comment received from any Board or Committee was from the Engineering Department. Steven Breitenfeld, owner of the property, presented the application for a variance from Section 135 - 39B of the Town of Lexington by -laws along with a letter responding to the Engineering Department's concerns. Questions from the Board: John McWeeney: The neighbors are not interested in burying their lines as well? Answer: The closest neighbor lives in Alaska and has tenants in the house. Maura Sheehan: Will any trees be affected? Answer: No Nyles Barnert: How far is the pole from your side yard? Answer: 6 -feet going back exactly in line from where it is now. Ms. Carol Stavenhagen, of 1377 Massachusetts Avenue, asked if the applicant could explore camouflaging the poles since the replacement will make an eyesore to them. Pole would be diagonally opposite their property. No one spoke in favor No one spoke in opposition of the project. Hearing was closed at 8:06 Decision on variance: On a motion by Arthur Smith and seconded by John McWeeney the board voted 5 -0 to approve the variance to move the existing telephone pole from front to side yard and to bury the utility lines to the new pole location. Submitted by Dianne Cornaro, Clerk Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals June 9, 2005 Present: Chairman Judith J. Uhrig, Arthur C. Smith, Nyles N. Barnert, John J. McWeeney and Maura L. Sheehan Petition Address: 32 Percy Road The relief sought is to allow a variance from side set back requirements as defined in Section 135 -35, Table 2 — Dimensional Controls. The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:07 pm by reading the legal notice and described information received from the Petitioner relative to the Petition. There were no comments from any Board or Commission. A letter from Eastern Construction was received with application with an explanation as to why they inadvertently did the work done before receiving approval by the Board of Appeals. Jon Hanson, owner of the property, presented the petition and introduced Neil Kalman from Eastern Construction who was there to answer any questions from the Board. The relief sought is for a variance for a bay window that encroaches 1 -foot into set back. Questions from the Board: Maura Sheehan: Did the applicant pay the variance fee? Answer: Yes There were no questions from the audience. No one spoke in favor of the petition. No one spoke in opposition. Hearing was closed at 8:12 pm. Decision on variance: On a motion by Nyles Barnert and seconded by Arthur Smith the board voted 5 -0 to grant the variance for 1 -foot into set back requirements needed for bay window installation. Submitted by Dianne Cornaro, Clerk Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals June 9, 2005 Present: Chairman Judith J. Uhrig, Arthur C. Smith, Nyles N. Barnert, John J. McWeeney and Maura L. Sheehan Petition Address: 177 Bedford Street The relief sought is for a special permit to install and operate a wireless communication facility. The Chairman read a letter from Adam Braillard, representing OmniPoint, requesting that the hearing be postponed until June 23, 2005 pending more information. On a motion by Nyles Barnert and seconded by Arthur Smith the board voted 5 -0 to postpone hearing until June 23, 2005. Submitted by Dianne Cornaro, Clerk Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals June 9, 2005 Present: Chairman Judith J. Uhrig, Arthur C. Smith, Nyles N. Barnert, John J. McWeeney and Maura L. Sheehan Petition Address: Waltham Street, Map 5, Parcel 11A The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:17 pm by reading the legal notice and described information received from the Petitioner relative to the Petition. The Board received the following prior to the hearing: letter from the Conservation Commission dated June, 2005; letter for the Planning Board dated June, 2005; letter from the Design Advisory Committee dated June 2, 2005. Applicant submitted the following with the application for hearing: Definitive Site Development and Use Plan[ "DSDUP "]; Town Clerk's certified copy of Preliminary Site Development and Use Plan[" PSDUP"] approved by Town Meeting on March 30, 2005 under Article 9; letter to the Board of Appeals dated May 2, 2005 from Edmund C. Grant, attorney for the petitioner. The following were present at the hearing : Ernest Rogers of Rogers & Company, petitioner; attorney Edmund C. Grant; Michael Dryden of Meridian Engineering, RLA; architect Ed Nilsson of Nilsson +Siden Associates, Inc.; traffic consultant Charles Kalauskis of BSC Group. The presentation was made by Mr. Grant who stated that there had been no changes made in the DSDUP from the PSDUP approved by Town Meeting; Questions from the Board: Judy Uhrig: Is the list of conditions in the narrative? Answer: Yes, section 6, page 9 thru 10. Nyles Barnert: Is there a maintenance plan for conservation: Answer: Yes it is in the order of conditions. Nyles Barnert: Is there a connection between you and your neighbor McDonald's. Answer: They will provide walkway. Judy Uhrig: Is that written anywhere? Yes in the narrative. John McWeeney: What are the permitted uses? Answer: Bank use, drive up window, medical uses allowed, CLO. John McWeeney: Is the handicapped ramp flushed with sidewalk? Answer: We will extend sidewalk until the end. Arthur Smith: Are you coming back for special permit for sign? Answer: We are entitled to one sign on the building. John McWeeney: Traffic study? Answer: Does not include the large apartment complex; had checked with Lexington planning but not Waltham. John concerned with the back up at lights at peak traffic times. John McWeeney: Any improvements from next door planned? Answer: Hit some political snags. The planning board from Waltham turned down the curb cut. They are working with Waltham planning, the traffic committee and major to try to iron things out. No one spoke in favor of the petition. No one spoke in opposition. Hearing was closed at 8:40pm. Decision on variance: On a motion by Arthur Smith and seconded by Maura Sheehan the board voted 5- 0 to grant the special permit with the following conditions: A. Applicable Zoning By -Law Except as modified by the provisions of the PSDUP approved by the 2005 Annual Town Meeting under Article 9 which are incorporated in the DSDUP, the land and development in this Planned Commercial District is subject to the 2004 Zoning By -Law, Chapter 135 of the Code of the Town of Lexington, as amended through the 2004 Town Meeting. B. Transfer Any sale or transfer of rights and interests in the property in this Planned Commercial District shall include a condition that successors and assigns are bound to the terms and conditions of this Preliminary Site Development and Use Plan and of any Special Permit with Site Plan Review (SPS) or other Special Permit granted by the Board of Appeals for this zoning district. C. Traffic and Transportation Demand Management Petitioner's Transportation Demand Management Plan is as follows: 1. Sidewalk by the handicapped parking spaces shall be extended the length of the parking spaces. 2. Information about fixed route transportation services available, including MBTA bus and subway service, and the LEXPRESS bus service will be obtainable upon request and prominently displayed in a common area of the property for use by employees. 3. Bicycle racks that are secure shall be provided for use by employees and customers. 4. Petitioner shall maintain implementation of the provision of 1 and 2 above as owner occupant and /or through tenant leases of the building. 5. Petitioner shall make an annual $3,500 contribution to the Town of Lexington, payable on or before January I of each calendar year, to be used to fund /support the LEXPRESS transportation system and /or Town of Lexington Transportation Coordinator. Petitioner agrees that the annual $3,500 contribution above shall be adjusted annually for inflation based upon changes in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers, U.S. City Average, All Items (1982 — 1984 = 100), published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. If the Bureau of Labor Statistics should cease to publish the Consumer Price Index in its present form and calculated on the present basis, a comparable index or an index reflecting changes in prices determined in a similar manner shall reasonably be designated by the Town in substitution therefore. The Index for any year relevant to the application of this definition shall be that published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for such year. Since a Consumer Price Index relevant to the application of this definition may not be available as of the date on which any adjustment in the $3,500 contribution is to be made, necessary adjustments to such contributions shall be made retroactively, within a reasonable time after required computations can readily be completed. Should LEXPRESS or the Town Transportation Coordinator cease operations, Petitioner agrees that the $3,500 contribution, adjusted for inflation as above, may be used by the Town to implement transportation system improvements in the vicinity of the Property which may include but shall not be limited to those set forth hereafter in Section C.S. 6. Petitioner shall make a contribution of $25,000 to the Town of Lexington to be used by the Town, after consultation with appropriate Boards and Departments, to fund traffic mitigation improvements and /or services that benefit the Property, which may include but shall not be limited to a) a new pedestrian signal and crosswalk on Waltham Street; b) an operating subsidy for LEXPRESS or financial support for the Town Transportation Coordinator; c) improvement of the intersection at Waltham Street and Concord Avenue as outlined in the Transportation Element of the Planning Board's Comprehensive Plan, for example, upgrading the signal equipment to provide protected left turn phases as set forth in the Traffic Impact Study prepared by BSC Group (Appendix 3); 6. Petitioner shall continue to work with Lexington and Waltham officials and other property owners on a plan for the construction of a pedestrian signal and crosswalk on Waltham Street in Lexington or Waltham to promote safer pedestrian access to shopping and services in the vicinity of Waltham Plaza. Petitioner agrees to participate in the funding for construction of the pedestrian signal and crosswalk, provided that Petitioner's funding participation shall be limited to and applied from Petitioner's $25,000 contribution set forth in C.5 above upon the Town's determination that the $25,000 be used for that purpose, and Petitioner's funding participation shall not be deemed a contribution obligation in addition to the $25,000 in C.5 above. D. Conservation Restriction The Owner shall grant to the Conservation Commission of the Town of Lexington a Conservation Restriction pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 184, Sections 31, 32 and 33 for that area designated as "Conservation Area" as shown on the Plan. The Owner shall submit the aforementioned Conservation Restriction for State and local approval. If approved, the Conservation Restriction shall be recorded with the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds. Submitted by Dianne Cornaro, Clerk Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals June 9, 2005 Present: Chairman Judith J. Uhrig, Arthur C. Smith, Nyles N. Barnert, John J. McWeeney and Maura L. Sheehan Petition Address: 41 Waltham Street The relief sought is for a special permit to operate a Neapolitan style pizzeria. The Chairman read a letter from Jordan Tobins requesting that the hearing be postponed until June 23, 2005. On a motion by Nyles Barnert and seconded by Arthur Smith the board voted 5 -0 to postpone hearing until June 23, 2005. Submitted by Dianne Cornaro, Clerk