Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-10-10 ZBA Minutes Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen’s Meeting Room October 10, 2013 Board Members Present: Acting Chairman – Leo P. McSweeney, Jeanne K. Krieger, David G. Williams, and Associate Member Nancy M. Adler and Carolyn C. Wilson Staff Present: Dianne Cornaro, Administrative Clerk and David George, Zoning Administrator Address: 0 Edna Street, Map 58, Lot 168 Address: 51 Asbury, Map 58, Lot 164 These hearings had been postponed from September 26, 2013. The Board and the applicant agreed to hear the hearings together. The petitioner submitted the following information with the applications: 1. For 0 Edna Street: nature and justification of request; a topographic plan, plot plan, letter of support and clarification from Attorney Thomas Fenn dated September 17, 2013, statement of applicant Norman and Katherine Johnson, Transfer Certificate of Title dated November 3, 1972 and the proposed house design. Also received were letters of opposition from Ester Castanheira of 17 Emerald Street and Brian and Katheryn Wipke of 53 Asbury Street. 2. For 51 Asbury Streetnature and justification of request; a topographic plan, : plot plan, letter of support and clarification from Attorney Thomas Fenn dated September 17, 2013, statement of applicant Norman and Katherine Johnson, Transfer Certificate of Title dated February 5, 1965 and a Plan of Land dated February 27, 1959. Also received was a letter of concern was received from Sharon L. Reidbord and Mignonne Halpern of 19 Emerald Street. A letter of opposition was received from Brian and Katheryn Wipke 53 Asbury Street. Prior to the hearing, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Acting Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Board of Selectmen, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Director and the Historic Districts Commission Clerk. Comments were received from the Planning Director and the Zoning Administrator. A letter was received from the Planning Board recommending the variances not be granted. The Chairman opened the hearings at 7:35 pm by reading the legal notices and described information received from the petitioner. BOA Meeting October 10, 2013 2 0 Edna Street is requesting 4 variances from Sections 135-4.4, Table 2, Schedule of Dimensional Controls to allow: 1. A minimum lot size of 8,000 sq. ft. instead of the minimum required 15, 500 sq. ft. 2. Allow for a lot frontage of 80 ft. instead of the required 125 ft. 2 3. Allow side yard setbacks of 12 ft. instead of the required 15 ft. side yard setbacks. 51 Asbury Street is requesting 4 variances from Section 135-4.1.1, Table 2, Schedule of Dimensional Controls and 135-9.2.2 to allow: 1. A minimum lot size of 6,106 sq. ft. instead of the minimum 15,500 sq. ft; 2. Allow a frontage of 61.48 ft. instead of the minimum of 125 ft. 3. To allow for 2 side yard setbacks of 10 ft. instead of the required 15 ft. side yard setback. Attorney Thomas Fenn spoke on behalf of Katherine A. Johnson, owner of the properties. He explained the history of the lots. A Board member asked if the petitioner would agree on a 12 foot setback for Asbury Street, They are staying consistent with the neighborhood and would agree on an 11.5 ft. side setback on the North side of the property. It was also asked what road improvements would need to be done on Asbury Street. They would need to go to the Planning Department with the plans for the road for approval. A Board member asked Charles Hornig of the Planning Board if there was room for an emergency turnaround on Asbury. He did not know and confirmed they would need to go before the Planning Department. Another Board member asked if the house plans will be the same for both houses. Somewhat the same, with a few differences. Brian Wipke of 53 Asbury Street agrees with the 11.5 ft. setback and asked who would bear the cost of the road improvements. (Builder) He was also concerned with the proposed house shading the south side of his house. Jim McLaughlin speaking on behalf of his mother at 55 Asbury Street was not in favor of allowing a setback other than 12 ft. Chen Gang of 24 Bellflower Street was concerned with increased traffic if the Road was improved all the way to Emerald. Walter Adams, brother of the petitioner spoke on behalf of his sister telling the history of the lots and the reasons they are unique. He spoke of the separate tax bills and the financial hardship on his sister if this was not passed. Charles Hornig, Chairman of the Planning Board spoke in opposition to the petition giving a brief history and the intent of the changes in the bylaws. BOA Meeting October 10, 2013 3 Attorney Fenn addressed the issues brought up by the abutters. There was a discussion that followed when one of the Board members asked why the 2 lots were assessed so differently. A Board member was concerned with the size of the house and felt strongly that the setbacks should stay at 15 feet as the bylaw now requires. After a discussion on the setbacks, the Chairman allowed a 5 minute recess to give Attorney Fenn time to call the proposed builder regarding the setback. He agreed to a 15 ft. setback for 0 Edna Street. Chen Gang of 24 Bellflower Street spoke of a family of turkeys that are living in the trees at 0 Edna and his concern of the turkeys being displaced due to the proposed house. The Chairman closed the hearing at 8:20 pm. On a motion by Carolyn C. Wood and seconded by Jeanne K. Krieger, the Board voted 4-1, with Nancy M. Alter opposing, to approve the following 4 variances for 0 Edna Street: 1. A minimum lot size of 8,000 sq. ft. instead of the minimum required 15, 500 sq. ft. 2. Allow for a lot frontage of 80 ft. instead of the required 125 ft. On a motion by Jeanne K. Krieger and seconded by Carolyn C. Wilson, the Board voted 5-0 to approve the following 4 variances for 51 Asbury Street: 1. A minimum lot size of 6,106 sq. ft. instead of the minimum 15,500 sq. ft; 2. Allow a frontage of 61.48 ft. instead of the minimum of 125 ft. 3. Allow for 2 side yard setbacks of 1) 10 ft on the right side and 11.5 ft. on the right side of the lot. Submitted by: Dianne Cornaro, Administrative Clerk BOA Meeting October 10, 2013 4 Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen’s Meeting Room October 10, 2013 Board Members Present: Acting Chairman – Martha C. Wood, Jeanne K. Krieger, Leo P. McSweeney, David G. Williams, and Associate Member Nancy M. Adler Staff Present: Dianne Cornaro, Administrative Clerk and David George, Zoning Administrator Address: 411 Waltham Street, Map 32, Lot 14 The petitioner submitted 2 applications which the Board and the applicant agreed to hear together. The applicant is requesting: 1. A special permit in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) sections 135-9.4.2 and 135-3.0, Table 1: Permitted Uses, Line I.1.04 to allow a package liquor store, with no comsumption on the premises. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section 135-9.4.2 and 135-5.2.10 to allow placement of 2 temporary signs; hanging banner and a sandwich sign placed at entrance of shopping center. The petitioner submitted the following information with the applications: nature and justification of request, plot plan, parking requirements, copies of December 11, 2008 and September 13, 2012 decisions, findings of fact from the applicant, a banner log and the sandwich board dimensions. Prior to the hearing, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Acting Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Board of Selectmen, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Director, Economical Development, and the Historic Districts Commission Clerk. Comments were received from the Zoning Administrator. The Chairman opened the hearings at 8:32 pm by reading the legal notices and described information received from the petitioner. Suran Der Avedisian, General Manager of the liquor store, presented the petitions. A Board member asked the petition how they had survived over the last 3 years with the road construction. (It has not been an easy time.) No one spoke in favor or in opposition to the petition. BOA Meeting October 10, 2013 5 The Chairman closed the hearing at 8:44 pm. On a motion by Leo P. McSweeney and seconded by Jeanne K. Krieger, the Board voted 5-0 to grant the special permit in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) sections 135-9.4.2 and 135-3.0, Table 1: Permitted Uses, Line I.1.04 to allow a package liquor store, with no comsumption on the premises subject to the previous conditions as follows: 1. Hours shall be Monday through Saturday from 9:00 am until 9:00 pm and Sunday from 12:00 noon until 8:00 pm. 2. There shall be no food preparation done on the premises. 3. No deliveries before 7:00 am or after 8:00 pm. 4. Trash shall be kept in a locked dumpster. 5. Special permit renewal is for 5 years and will expire on December 31, 2018. 6. Applicant shall be responsible for renewing special permit 8 weeks before the expiration date. On a motion by Jeanne K. Krieger and seconded by Leo P. McSweeney, the Board voted 5-0 to grant the special permit in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section 135-9.4.2 and 135-5.2.10 to allow placement of 2 temporary signs; hanging banner and a sandwich sign placed at entrance of shopping center subject to the following conditions: 1. One (1) banner sign shall be permitted for the site. The banner sign shall be a maximum 2-ft. by 10-ft. and displayed on the exterior of the building adjacent to the storefront to which it relates. 2. The banner sign shall be displayed a maximum of 20 weeks. 3. One (1) sandwich board sign shall be permitted for the site. The sandwich board sign shall be a maximum 2-ft. by 3.75-ft. and displayed adjacent to the driveway entrance on private property. 4. The above listed sandwich board sign shall be brought indoors daily after the store closes. 5. The applicant shall keep a log of when the banner sign is on display. The log shall be submitted to the ZBA as part of any future ZBA submittal. The logbook shall be available in the store for view by the Zoning Administrator of other designated Building Division official. 6. No balloons or other devices shall be attached to or otherwise affixed to the signs. 7. Special permit renewal is for 5 years and will expire on December 31, 2018. 8. Applicant shall be responsible for renewing special permit 8 weeks before the expiration date. Submitted by: Dianne Cornaro, Administrative Clerk BOA Meeting October 10, 2013 6 Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen’s Meeting Room October 10, 2013 Board Members Present: Acting Chairman – Martha C. Wood, Jeanne K. Krieger, Leo P. McSweeney, David G. Williams, and Associate Member Nancy M. Adler Staff Present: Dianne Cornaro, Administrative Clerk and David George, Zoning Administrator Address: 50 Outlook Drive Address: 48 Outlook Drive The petitioner submitted 2 applications which the Board and the applicant agreed to hear together. The applicant is requesting: For 50 Outlook Drive: 4 VARIANCES in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section Section 135-9.2.2.2 and section 4.1.1, Table of Dimensional Controls to allow: 1. A minimum lot frontage of 60 ft instead of the required 125 ft, 2. Allow a minimum lot area of 12,600 sq. ft. instead of the req 15,500 sq. ft.; and 2 3. To allow -side yard setbacks of 10 ft. instead of the required 15 ft. For 48 Outlook Drive: 5 VARIANCES in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section Section 135-9.2.2.2 and section 4.1.1, Table 2, Schedule of Dimensional Controls to allow: 1. A minimum lot frontage of 50 ft instead of the required 125 ft., 2. A minimum lot area of 10,500 sq. ft. instead of the required 15,500 sq. ft. 3. Allow a left side yard setback of 7.8 ft. instead of the required 15 ft. 4. A right side yard setback of 3.6 ft. instead of the required 15 ft. 5. A front yard setback of 25'2" instead of the required 30 ft. The petitioner submitted the following information with the applications: Nature and justification; plot plan; 1998 Planning Board report and report to the 1998 Town Meeting on elimination of certain grandfathered lots; statement of applicant Harold Sukeforth; petition from 21 abutters supporting this request and a sword affidavit from Harold Sukeforth regarding an offer to purchase the property. Attorney John Farrington presented the petitions for the owners of the property, Ruth E. Sukeforth Trust (48 Outlook Drive) and the Earl Sukeforth Trust (50 Outlook Drive), by explaining the history of the separate lots; why they feel these are grandfathered separate lots held in separate ownership and the change in the bylaws for grandfathered lots in 1998. Paula and Harold Sukeforth, children of Ruth and Earl Sukeforth, were also present at the hearing. The lots have been held in separate ownership and have had separate tax bills and betterment charges for each of the lots. BOA Meeting October 10, 2013 7 Board members asked Attorney Farrington the following questions: 1. Is it the intent to take down the house at 48 Outlook Drive. (Yes it is); 2. Would the size of both houses be the same? (Approximately the same); 3. What is the proposed square footage for the house at 50 Outlook and would both houses be the same? (Builder Matthew Sepe answered 3,510 sq. ft. and they would be slightly different due to a design change in the houses.) 4. The proposed house at 50 Outlook show a 13.5 ft. setback on the plans submitted and a 10 ft. setback requested on the application; why the difference? The first plan Attorney Farrington saw showed 10 ft and asked David George if they could change the setback to 13.5 ft. (David George clarified creating 2 new lots makes the setback come under the current requirements which would be 15 ft). 5. A Board member wanted to visually see the size of the home. (Mr. Sepe provided a plan showing a 2 ½ story structure) The Chairwoman clarified the house is 2 ½ stories.) 6. If a house is being built on 48 Outlook why do we have a plot plan showing the existing house location instead of the proposed, why aren’t you showing proposed locations for both houses on the plot plans? The house plan submitted was for 50 Outlook. (Don’t have the plans for 48 Outlook Drive, Mr. Sepe spoke of the topography of the lot.) 7. Questioned the proposed setbacks for 48 Outlook Drive on the application. (David George answered the only purpose of the requested setbacks is to protect the existing structures if relief for 50 Outlook is granted as a buildable lot.) 8. A question was addressed to Mr. Hornig of the Planning Board regarding the road improvements on Outlook Drive, who would pay for it, what impact on the neighbors? (The applicant would need to come to the Planning Board with a submission for road improvements that is usually paid for by the Developer and the abutters would or would not get involved if they so choose.) Board members voiced concern over the setbacks. The following audience members had questions for the applicant. 1. Charles Hornig, Chairman of the Planning Board asked if there could be a condition that if the existing house and garage at 48 Outlook Drive be taken down then the setbacks would be 15 ft. (David George answered once they are torn down the variance would no longer be in affect and the setback requirement would be 15 ft.) 2. Patricia Collins of 72 Prospect Hill Road asked if the Board was aware that there was a demolition delay on 48 Outlook Drive. The Chairman answered that is under the jurisdiction of the Historic Commission and it would be up to that Commission to monitor the attempt to move or renovate the home. No one spoke in favor of the petition. BOA Meeting October 10, 2013 8 The following spoke in opposition to the petition: 1. Attorney George Foote spoke on behalf of Robert Montgomery and the Neighborhood Association. Mr. Foote presented the Board with a statement dated September 12, 2013 to the Acting Building Commissioner Bruce Dempsey with copies of a building permit application received on April 4, 2013 for a new single family dwelling; Letter from then Building Commissioner Garry Rhodes dated April 26, 2013; Current Zoning Table; Assessor information sheets on 48 and 50 Outlook Drive; 1985-89 Table of Dimensional Controls; 2 chain of ownership sheets; deeds dated August 12, 1947, May 9, 1967, March 31, 1989 and August 10, 1989; wills of Earle Sukeforth and Ruth Sukeforth; Quitclaim deed dated August 10, 1989; Probate documents dated May 27, 1999 and May 25, 2005. Attorney Foote also presented to the Board a letter from him dated October 10, 2013. 2. Bing Wang of 45 Outlook Drive 3. Charles Hornig of the Planning Board 4. David and Diane Timberlake of 26 Outlook Drive (presented print out of Zillow Zestimate.) 5. Albert Montgomery of 49 Outlook Drive 6. Ronald and Linda Gatzke of 75 Prospect Hill Road 7. Catherine Collins of 72 Prospect Hill Road 8. Sandra Natale of 47 Downing Road 9. Hamid Keramaty of 72 Propsect Hill Road Attorney Farrington spoke to the concerns and asked the Board to find in favor these 2 lots as separate lots not under common ownership. The hearing was closed at 10:26 pm. A discussion followed by the Board concerning the size of the houses to be built and overbuilding the lots. Decisions: 50 Outlook Drive: On a motion by Leo P. McSweeney and seconded by Jeanne K. Krieger the Board voted 3-2, (With Martha Wood and Nancy Atler voting to deny the petition) to grant 4 VARIANCES in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section Section 135-9.2.2.2 and section 4.1.1, Table of Dimensional Controls to allow: 1. A minimum lot frontage of 60 ft instead of the required 125 ft, 2. Allow a minimum lot area of 12,600 sq. ft. instead of the req 15,500 sq. ft.; and 2 3. To allow -side yard setbacks of 10 ft. instead of the required 15 ft. The motion failed. BOA Meeting October 10, 2013 9 48 Outlook Drive: On a motion by Leo P. McSweeney and seconded by Jeanne K. Krieger the Board voted 3-2, (With Martha Wood and Nancy Adler voting to deny the petition) to grant 5 VARIANCES in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section Section 135-9.2.2.2 and section 4.1.1, Table 2, Schedule of Dimensional Controls to allow: 1. A minimum lot frontage of 50 ft instead of the required 125 ft., 2. A minimum lot area of 10,500 sq. ft. instead of the required 15,500 sq. ft. 3. Allow a left side yard setback of 7.8 ft. instead of the required 15 ft. 4. A right side yard setback of 3.6 ft. instead of the required 15 ft. 5. A front yard setback of 25'2" instead of the required 30 ft. With a condition that once the existing dwellings are torn down the side yard variances would no longer be in affect and the setback requirement would be 15 ft. The motion failed. Submitted by: Dianne Cornaro, Administrative Clerk BOA Meeting October 10, 2013 10 Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen’s Meeting Room October 10, 2013 Board Members Present: Acting Chairman – Martha C. Wood, Jeanne K. Krieger, Leo P. McSweeney, David G. Williams, and Associate Member Nancy M. Adler Staff Present: Dianne Cornaro, Administrative Clerk and David George, Zoning Administrator OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Election of Zoning Board of Appeals Officers for 2013-2014. Nominations for the Board of Appeals officers were as follows: a. Nominated by Jeanne K. Krieger, Martha C. Wood was elected as Chairwoman. b. Nominated by David Williams, Jeanne K. Krieger was elected as Vice Chairman c. Nominated by David Williams, Leo P. McSweeney was elected as Clerk. d. Nominated by Jeanne K. Krieger, Dianne Cornaro was elected as Administrative Clerk 2. On a motion by Jeanne K. Krieger and seconded by Leo P. McSweeney, the Board voted 4-0 to approve the minutes of September 26, 2013. 3. On a motion by Jeanne K. Krieger and seconded by Leo P. McSweeney the meeting was adjourned. Submitted by: Dianne Cornaro, Administrative Clerk BOA Meeting October 10, 2013 11