Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-03-26-ZBA-min Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen’s Meeting Room March 26, 2015 Board Members Present: Chairman – Martha C. Wood, Jeanne Krieger, Edward D. McCarthy, Leo P. McSweeney and David G. Williams Also present at the hearing was Associate Member F. David Wells Administrative Staff: Dianne Cornaro, Administrative Clerk Address: 321 Concord Road, Map 10, Lot 30 Petitioner submitted the following with the application for hearing: nature and justification of request; uncertified plot plan and porch and stair plans. Prior to the hearing, the petition and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Health Director, Planning Director, Zoning Administrator and Board of Selectmen. Comments were received from the Building Commissioner, Historical Commission Clerk and the Zoning Administrator. The petitioner requested a SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with 135-8.4.2 and 135-9.4 of the Zoning Bylaw to allow modification (porch and stairs) of a non conforming structure. The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:35 pm by reading the legal notices and described information received from the petitioner. The owners of the property Priscilla and David Turnquist presented the petition explaining the proposed modification to the stairs and porch. Ms. Turnquist presented the Board a copy of an uncertified plot plan showing an 11.9 feet set-back to the front to the stairs. A Board member asked if the stairs would be in the same place. (Yes) Another Board member asked what a cistern was. (It is a hand dug well that at one time was used to collect water.) The Chairwoman asked when the house was built. (1845) A Board member asked if there was anyone from the audience that wanted to see the plans for the porch and stairs. (There was not.) There were no questions from the audience. 2 Board of Appeals Minutes – March 26, 2015 No one spoke in favor or in opposition to the petition. The Chairwoman closed the hearing at 7:48 pm. Findings The Town of Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), having received the Board of Appeals’ Application for Hearing, viewed the site, conducted a public hearing, and reviewed all the submitted evidence, finds that: 1. Priscilla V. Turnquist and David A. Turnquist are the applicants and owners of property located at 321 Concord Avenue in the Town of Lexington. Said land is more particularly described in a deed recorded in the Middlesex South District Registry of Deeds Book No. 24757 and Page No. 492. 2. The land is situated in a zoning district classified under the Lexington Zoning By- law (Bylaw), CH 135 of the Code of the Town of Lexington, as RO (One-Family Dwelling). 3. Presently located on the site is a single family residential dwelling. 4. The principal structure is nonconforming with respect to the front-yard setback— 6.1 ft. instead of the required 30 ft. 5. As shown on the plans, submitted with or in information otherwise referenced in the application, the applicant seeks to remove the existing 4 ft. by 5 ft. uncovered porch and stairs, located at the right-side of the house, and replace with an 8 ft. by 10 ft. uncovered deck and stairs. 6. The proposed addition to the structure will result in an increase in the nonconforming nature of the structure. 7. The applicant applied to the Board for zoning relief under the applicable Bylaw sections, § 135-8.4.2 and §135-9.4, to allow the above listed work. 8. The Board finds that the proposed change, extension, or alteration will not result in a new nonconformity and will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming structure and further, that the Board finds that it can grant the special permit to modify a nonconforming structure because the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts to the Town or the neighborhood with respect to each of the following criteria \[Note: Criteria in Italic, Finding in plain text\]: 3 Board of Appeals Minutes – March 26, 2015 1. Specific factors set forth elsewhere in this Bylaw for the proposed use or activity: The structure is currently nonconforming and meets the requirements for nonconforming structures. The existing nonconforming porch and stairs are in disrepair and need to be replaced. The existing porch does not have footings. The proposed porch would have footings. It is not possible to reconstruct a smaller porch with footings because of a cistern located near the existing porch. The structure was constructed prior to enactment of the local zoning bylaw. The proposed addition does not create any new nonconformities. 2. Social, economic, or community needs which are served by the proposal: This criterion will not be negatively affected. The structure will remain a single family dwelling. 3. Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading: This criterion will not be negatively affected. There will be no changes to the parking area because of the proposed work. 4. Adequacy of utilities and other public services: This criterion will not be negatively affected. Any required utilities can be extended from the primary structure. 5. Neighborhood character and social structures: The character of the neighborhood will not be negatively affected. The proposal is consistent with the architecture of the existing structure. 6. Impacts on the natural environment: This criterion will not be negatively affected. There will be a negligible increase in water runoff associated with the rebuilt porch and stairs. The work will is not located near any protected resource or wetland areas. 7. Potential fiscal impact, including impact on town services, tax base, and employment: There will be no adverse impacts on town services, tax base, or employment. 4 Board of Appeals Minutes – March 26, 2015 Decision On a motion by Jeanne K. Krieger and seconded by Leo P. McSweeney, the Board voted 5-0, to grant a SPECIAL PERMIT, from Ch. 135 of the Code of the Town of Lexington (Zoning By-Law) in accordance with §135-8.4.2 and § 135-9.4, to allow modification of a nonconforming structure (addition), subject to the following conditions: 1. Construction of the deck and stairs shall conform substantially to the plans submitted with the application; and 2. Location of the deck and stairs shall conform substantially to the location shown on the plan entitled, “Proposed Plot Plan #321 Concord Avenue in Lexington, MA,” prepared by Rober Survey, dated December 5, 2014, as that plan was noted at the hearing on March 26, 2015 to show the dimension from the front lot line to the bottom stair. The above listed zoning relief is for property located at 321 Concord Avenue. Submitted by: Dianne Cornaro, Administrative Clerk Board of Appeals Minutes – March 26, 2015 5 Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen’s Meeting Room March 26, 2015 Board Members Present: Chairman – Martha C. Wood, Jeanne Krieger, Edward D. McCarthy, Leo P. McSweeney and David G. Williams Also present at the hearing was Associate Member F. David Wells Administrative Staff: Dianne Cornaro, Administrative Clerk Address: 12 Reed Street, Map 64, Lot 59 and 60 The petitioner submitted the following information with the applications: nature and justification of request; a non-certified site plan; floor plans and elevations. Prior to the hearing, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Board of Selectmen, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Director, Economic Development; the Historic District Commission Clerk, Historical Commission and the Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from the Building Commissioner and the Zoning Administrator. The petitioner is requesting a SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with 135-8.3 of the Zoning Bylaw to allow expansion of an existing non conforming 3-family dwelling. The Chairman read a letter from Attorney Thomas Fenn, representing Rasco and Mijana Boven, requesting the hearing be postponed until Thursday, April 9, 2015. The Board discussed the reason for the postponement and a proposed a condition that the applicant send out notification of the postponement to the abutters. On a motion by Jeanne K. Krieger and seconded by David G. Williams, the Board voted 5-0 to accept the condition that the applicant notify the abutters of the postponement. On a motion by Jeanne K. Krieger and seconded by Leo P. McSweeney, the Board voted 5-0, to grant a postponement of the hearing until Thursday, April 9, 2015. Submitted by: Dianne Cornaro, Administrative Clerk Board of Appeals Minutes – March 26, 2015 5 Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen’s Meeting Room March 26, 2015 Board Members Present: Chairman – Martha C. Wood, Jeanne Krieger, Edward D. McCarthy, Leo P. McSweeney and David G. Williams Also present at the hearing was Associate Member James A. Osten. Administrative Staff: Dianne Cornaro, Administrative Clerk Address: 675 Lowell Street, The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Letter dated February 23, 2015 requesting a determination; topographic map of the area; site plan; floor plans; photographs; existing conditions site layout; certified copy of the original and amended Preliminary Site and Development and Use plan as approved by Town meeting on May 2, 1988 and Special Permit decision dated September 29, 1988. Prior to the meeting, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Board of Selectmen, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Director, Economic Development; the Historic District Commission Clerk, Historical Commission and the Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from Conservation Administrator; the Health Director and the Zoning Administrator. The Applicant requested in a letter dated February 23, 2015 that the the Board of Appeals make a determination that certain REVISIONS to the previously approved SPECIAL PERMIT - originally approved by the Board on September 29, 1988— may be considered MINOR in nature and that no new public hearing before the ZBA is required to allow the revisions. Attorney Robert Buckman, representing E & A Northeast Limited Partnership— the applicant and owner of property and Keith Hague of Edens and Avant presented the request to the Board explaining the proposed upgrades to the building entrance and enhance the overall façade of the building. A Board member asked if the foundation would be changing any (No) and confirmed how the building would be changed. He had a general concern with the maintenance of the outside of the building and wanted to know if dumpsters would be enclosed. (Keith Board of Appeals Minutes – March 26, 2015 5 Hague explained the winter has taken a toll on the property and they have a company that keeps it clean and there is no plan to enclose the dumpster.) A Board member asked if the hours of operation would be different from the previous tenant. (The Dollar Tree was open 10 am-9 pm, he is not sure what the salon’s hours will be. The Cycle Loft’s hours are slated to be, out of season 10 am-7 pm Monday through Friday and until 6 on Saturday’s and until 5 on Sunday’s. During the season of st March 1 through September the hours shall be 10 am until 8 pm Monday through Friday and 10 am until 7 pm on Saturdays and 6 pm on Sundays.) Another Board member asked if the building was vacant yet. (Yes) A Board member wanted to know who maintains the stairs from the Condominium complex. (The Condominium Association or their Management Company) Decision: On a motion by Jeanne K. Krieger and seconded by Leo P. McSweeney, the Board voted 5-0 to DETERMINE that certain CHANGES (modification to building interior and exterior) to the SP for 675 Lowell Street are MINOR in nature and that no new public hearing is required. Such determination was made in accordance with § 135-7.3.5.8 and §135-9.4 of the Zoning Bylaw. The approval was made subject to the following conditions: 1. All previously listed findings and or conditions of the September 29, 1988 Board decision remain in effect, except as specifically modified by this Decision; 2. The DSDUP approved in 1988 remains in effect, except as specifically modified by this Decision; 12 3. Construction of the building exterior and the internal building configuration shall conform substantially to the untitled and unattributed plan depicting existing exterior, proposed exterior, and interior floor plan, apparently prepared by AMENTA/EMMA, and dated February 2, 2015, except that any signage depicted on that or any other plan submitted with the application requires separate approvals not part of this Decision; and 4. Approvals granted by this Decision are made only for the scope of work and uses as shown on the plans or in information materials submitted with the application, except as may otherwise be conditioned by this Decision. Any 1 Existing exterior condition based on plan titled, “Middlesex Mall Expansion Exterior Elevations, sheet A-3,” prepared by Daniel/Mulliken Associates, Inc., dated January 8, 1988. 2 Existing internal condition based on plan titled, “Middlesex Mall Expansion Floor Plan, sheet A-2,” prepared by Daniel/Mulliken Associates, Inc., dated January 8, 1988 BOA Meeting January 22, 2015 5 subsequent modifications to the Site, in whole or in part, may require Board action in accordance with § 135-7.3.5.8 and § 135-9.4. Submitted by: Dianne Cornaro, Administrative Clerk Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen’s Meeting Room March 26, 2015 Board Members Present: Chairman – Martha C. Wood, Jeanne Krieger, Edward D. McCarthy, Leo P. McSweeney and David G. Williams Also present at the hearing was Associate Member James A. Osten. Administrative Staff: Dianne Cornaro, Administrative Clerk Other Business: On a motion by Jeanne K. Krieger and seconded by Leo P. McSweeney, the Board voted 3-0 (Jeanne Krieger, Martha Wood and Leo McSweeney voting) to approve the minutes of February 26, 2015. A Board member asked for a discussion on a Town Meeting article that would give the Selectmen the authority to rezone town owned properties. He felt the Board of Appeals should have been advised of this article. He questioned if the Selectmen could take over the Board’s authority under the law as the granting authority Jeanne Krieger will talk with the Selectmen on the Board’s feeling.