Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-12-08-ZBA-min Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Virtual, Via Zoom December 8, 2022 Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Martha C. Wood, Norman P. Cohen and James Osten Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner Julie Krakauer Moore, Zoning Administrator and Sharon Coffey, Administrative Clerk Address: 99 Meriam Road The petitioner is requesting VARIANCE in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.2.2.2 and 135-4.1.1 Table 2 (Schedule of Dimensional Controls) to allow a side yard setback of 6.25’ instead of the required 12’. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Topographical Plan, Plot Plan, Plans, Elevations and Gross Floor Area Calculations. Also submitted was letters from abutters, a by-right comparison and reasons in support letter. Prior to the meeting, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Board of Selectmen, the Planning Director, the Historic District Commission Clerk, Historical Commission, Economic Development, and the Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from the Zoning Administrator, Building Commissioner, Engineering Department and Planning Department. Presenter: William Erickson, Architect at 1723 Massachusetts Ave, on behalf of Pan Wu and Liang Liang The Hearing was opened at 7:06 pm. William Erickson presented the petition. He showed the plans and stated the request is to allow to expand the existing one-car garage to become a two-car garage. The existing garage leads to difficulty in juggling two cars, complicates snow removal, and car outside are subject to sap and needles from trees. They explored a by-right solution but this solution was not a good solution because between Adams Street and Hill Road all the houses have the garage facing the street. They would need to carve out backyard due to a sloping grade and it would not fit with the neighborhood. Number of houses’ that visually look into the backyard. Financially this by-right option would be very expensive. The proposal is more compatible with the neighborhood and the driveway wouldn’t have to change. He discussed the low impact on neighbors of the proposed plan. Part of the proposal is to do work on the second floor but that is all conforming. They are trying to keep the character of the existing house. The hardship is that there is a serious underground issue. The land slopes from Meriam Street down and water flows down. There is an existing system now that collects the water. It would present a financial hardship to abandoned this system. Storm water is regulated and controlled. There are other environmental concerns in terms of affecting vegetation. This is a hardship to the community. A Board Member, Martha C. Wood, questioned if there were comments from abutters (There were 9 letters submitted). Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, stated a for a Variance the specific lot conditions become important. He questioned if it was a fair assessment that there was not anything that looks like ledge, wetlands or anything pertaining to soil conditions on the lot (Yes). Mr. Clifford asked if the slope is fairly gradual (It’s a reasonable slope. You can build the by-right solution with the slope but they would need retaining walls. It’s expensive). A Board Member, Norman P. Cohen, asked what the neighbor that would be most affected felt about the proposal (They are new homeowners and they saw the proposal and were in favor of it). A Board Member, James Osten, asked how many trees would be removed (None). Ms. Wood stated her concern about the root system of the trees (They are not digging deep, there is no basement. It only needs a trench for the footings). There were no questions or comments from the audience. There were no further questions from the Board. Mr. Erickson stated they are aware of the court rulings on zoning. They make rulings in contentious situations, not one in which the neighborhood has come together in support for a more rational solution to a problem. If they look at the underpinnings of zoning we live in a country where we have private ownership of land and are encouraged to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Zoning is the guard rail so that we are good neighbors. He stated he believes this is a good solution for granting this variance and the underground water system is a hardship on the owners. This is a better solution than going into the backyard. The hearing was closed at 7:33 pm (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, James Osten – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes and Norman P. Cohen – Yes). Mr. Osten stated he is looking for the unique conditions for enforcement and inability to use one’s property. He’s wondering if that’s enough. Mr. Cohen stated if this was a Special Permit he would vote yes. This does not meet the requirements for a variance. However, there are times when the alternative might be a better solution. Mr. Clifford stated side setbacks are not just to keep social distance but they have a substantial impact in terms of firefighting, so they don’t set adjoining houses on fire. This is a substantial detriment to the public good. Variances are forever. These neighbors are happy with it but that does not mean it’s good for the community. He addressed Mr. Erickson’s comments about Government power. The rules state there have to be something unique about the soil conditions, shape of the lot or the topology. The lot is square, soil conditions are normal, there is no ledge and the topology are level. This is not on a Special Permit. This is a variance we should not grant. There were no further comments from the Board. The applicant requested a withdrawal without prejudice. The Board of appeals voted four (4) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant a withdrawal without prejudice (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, James Osten – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes and Norman P. Cohen – Yes). Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Virtual, Via Zoom December 8, 2022 Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Martha C. Wood, Norman P. Cohen, Nyles N. Barnert and James Osten Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner Julie Krakauer Moore, Zoning Administrator and Sharon Coffey, Administrative Clerk Address: 1756 Massachusetts Avenue The petitioner is requesting SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.4 and 135-3.4 Table 1 (Permitted Uses and Development Standards) to allow fast food use in the CB Zoning District. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification and floor plans. Prior to the meeting, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Board of Selectmen, the Planning Director, the Historic District Commission Clerk, Historical Commission, Economic Development, and the Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from the Zoning Administrator, Building Commissioner, Health Department, Select Board’s Office and Planning Department. Presenter: Fred Fleisher, at 1315 South Street Needham, on behalf of When Pigs Fly The Hearing was opened at 7:06 pm. Fred Fleisher presented the petition. He stated they got a great deal of feedback from customers who are excited about this opportunity. They serve bread, doughnuts, breakfast pastries, scones, muffins and coffee. They want people to have a place to sit to meet their friends, have a coffee and a scone. A Board Member, Nyles N. Barnert, questioned the hours of operation (10 am to 6 pm). A Board Member, James Osten, clarified if they are asking for 6 seats and a counter at the outside window and asked what type of seats will be used (Correct. Padded stools). Mr. Osten questioned if they have an occupation limit for the premises (One was not granted because this is retail and take-away. This is the first time they have had seating. He doesn’t believe this would be necessary). There were no further questions from the Board. No questions or comments from the audience. Mr. Fleisher stated they have been open for over a week and its been an amazing week. They are excited to be a place people can go to and meet their friends. The Hearing was closed at 7:47 pm (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, James Osten – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes and Nyles N. Barnert – Yes). The Board discussed and agreed on the condition for operating hours of 10 am to 6 pm and the Special Permit be renewed in two years. The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant a SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.4 and 135-3.4 Table 1 (Permitted Uses and Development Standards) to allow fast food use in the CB Zoning District (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, James Osten – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes and Nyles N. Barnert – Yes). Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Virtual, Via Zoom December 8, 2022 Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Martha C. Wood, Norman P. Cohen and James Osten Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner Julie Krakauer Moore, Zoning Administrator and Sharon Coffey, Administrative Clerk Address: 3 Maguire Road The petitioner is requesting SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.4, 135-3.3, 135-3.4, (Table 1, Permitted uses and development standards) Line D.1.04 to allow a temporary drive-in movie theater. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Plot Plan, Plans, Drive-in Map, Drive-in Adherence Letter, Car Heater Document, Drive-in no Idling Graphic, Bylaw Adherence Letter and Email correspondence with the Health Department. Prior to the meeting, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Board of Selectmen, the Planning Director, the Historic District Commission Clerk, Historical Commission, Economic Development, and the Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from the Zoning Administrator, Health Department, Building Commissioner, Planning Department, Select Board Office, Fire Department and Police Department. Presenter: Gardy Desrouleaux representing Revolution Hall The Hearing was opened at 7:50 pm. Mr. Derouleaux presented the petition. He stated they are proposing to place a 40 foot blow up screen that allows for 20 vehicles to watch movies during the evening times. They will have a heater in the vehicles to not have idling vehicles. Staff will enforce the no idling law. They can jump start vehicles with battery packs. They will have two movies play. A Board Member, Nyles N. Barnert, stated different plans were submitted and questioned which one will be used (Courtney Steeves, 10 Maguire Road, clarified it is the plan that has the screen perpendicular to Maguire Rd). Mr. Barnert stated his concern on how people will leave or get their cars out in the middle of the movie in an emergency (Matthew Leppek, 10 Maguire Road, stated there will be 5 ft in-between each bumper, which allows for 10 ft. Team members will move the cones and allow them to exit. Fire safety requires less than 5 minutes and they can get people out sooner). Mr. Barnert questioned where the projector will be (Mr. Leppek stated the projector will be near the front bumper of the car closets to the screen and audio goes directly through radio in the cars). A Board Member, James Osten, questioned how long the screen will be up (Mr. Lepeek stated the screen is broken down as soon as the movie ends and can be set up in 15 minutes). A Board Member, Martha C. Wood, questioned how they would limit it to the correct number of people (Mr. Leppek stated they will sell tickets and once it hits 20 tickets the tickets can no longer be purchased and they have to have a ticket to enter). Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, questioned if walk ups are allowed or just drive in (Mr. Leppek stated just drive in). Mr. Clifford questioned the hours of operation (Mr. Leppek stated 5 pm to 9 pm on Saturdays and maybe Fridays). Mr. Derouleaux stated in the past they have committed to doing charity viewing for the Schools that can happen on a week day but on normal operations will happen mainly on Saturdays. They would like to be allowed to have this 7 day a week 5pm to 9pm. Mr. Clifford questioned if this was only for the winter and when it would end (Mr. Derouleaux stated that is correct because the beer garden is more attractive during the warmer months. April 1, 2023 would be the end and December 1, 2022 was the expected start date). Mr. Osten suggest 5 pm to 9:30 pm, the sun sometimes doesn’t set before 5 pm. Mr. Clifford stated his concern for idling cars. He questioned how they intend to enforce that (Mr. Derouleaux stated they will have three check points. There will be a video advertisement that warns against idling, people will be told in an FAQ on the website and told that when checked in by ticket checkers. If cars are idling people will be told to shut them off and if they don’t they will be asked to leave). Mr. Barnert questioned is it possible that cars don’t have the adaptability for the heaters (Mr. Derouleaux stated that is a rarity, they will make sure they have the adapters). An Audience member, Evelyn Dickson, 87 Westview St, stated her opposition. She stated the current issue is with the live music. Earlier this month the Select Board approved outdoor propane at 10 Maguire Road. The combination of that with the emissions of the cars is an accident waiting to happen. She did a search on the towns website and there was a police log with police checks almost every week in 2022. They should tone down the live music. Mr. Derouleaux stated they recognize there is a residential area in the vicinity. There are no noise emissions because it is through the radio. They only do live music once to twice a week. There were no further question or comments from the audience. There were no further questions from the Board. The Hearing was closed at 8:20 pm (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, James Osten – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes and Nyles N. Barnert – Yes). The Board discussed and agreed on the following conditions; the Special Permit will expire on April 1, 2023, there are no external sound systems of any kind to be used, no more than 20 cars will be admitted, no car will be allowed to idle its motor during the movie experience and the applicant will enforce this condition, the applicant will have sufficient employees on site throughout the movie experience to ensure both the safety of the guests and to comply with all the exit requirements, the hours of operation are 7 days a week 5 pm to 9:30 pm and that this operation only be effective between December 1, 2022 and April 1, 2023. There were no further comments from the Board. The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.4, 135-3.3, 135-3.4, (Table 1, Permitted uses and development standards) Line D.1.04 to allow a temporary drive-in movie theater (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, James Osten – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes and Nyles N. Barnert – Yes) with conditions. Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Virtual, Via Zoom December 8, 2022 Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Martha C. Wood, Norman P. Cohen and James Osten Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner Julie Krakauer Moore, Zoning Administrator and Sharon Coffey, Administrative Clerk Address: 915 Waltham St The petitioner is requesting a total of FIFTEEN (15) SPECIAL PERMITS in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-5.2.8.3 to allow the existing standing sign to be reinstalled after construction is complete; THREE (3) SPECIAL PERMITS section 135-5.2.8(1) to allow for three additional secondary signs beyond the permitted two secondary signs;135-5.2.8(1) to allow for the principal wall sign to be larger than otherwise permitted; FIVE (5) SPECIAL PERMITS section 135-5.2.8(1) to allow for five secondary wall signs to be larger than otherwise permitted; 135-5.4.4 to allow light trespass; and FOUR (4) SPECIAL PERMITS section 135-5.2.4 to allow for the internal illumination of signage. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Plot Plan, Plans. Also submitted was a Narrative and a letter from the Design Advisory Committee Letter. Prior to the meeting, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Board of Selectmen, the Planning Director, the Historic District Commission Clerk, Historical Commission, Economic Development, and the Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from the Zoning Administrator, Building Commissioner, Conservation Department and Engineering Department. Presenter: John Farrington, attorney at 35 Blair Ln West Falmouth, on behalf of Colbea Enterprise LLC The Hearing was opened at 830 pm. John Farrington presented the petition. He stated they are requesting special permits for signage and lighting. He discussed the lot history. He state the presentation will focus on existing, proposed and addressing the special permits. They will address the comments from the Design Advisory Committee. The signage and lighting will be a continuation of what currently is there. Sheryl Guglielmo, LEED AP Senior Project Manager, reviewed the Special permits requested one by one. She stated the existing main sign is internally illuminated. They propose to allow for that to be removed and reinstalled after construction to protect the sign. No changes will be made. A Board Member, Nyles N. Barnert, questioned if the Design Advisory Committee recommend this sign no longer be internally illuminated (The memo states no internal illumination of the grocer rewards panel or the Dunkin sign). Ms. Guglielmo stated the Design Advisory Committee requested they take out the illumination but it is already there as previously approved under a Special Permit. They are not making any changes to that and would like to keep it that way. Ms. Guglielmo stated there are two internally illuminated shell pectin signs on the fuel canopy. They required Special Permits because they are beyond the max of two permitted wall signs, they are internally illuminated and are larger than allowed. They are permitted as part of a Special Permit in 2002. They are a branding standard for Shell. Waltham Street is busy and these signs help drivers to identify the brand. The Design Advisory Committee recommended to remove these signs and to remove internal lighting on the pump canopy. Although they were okay with the up lighting on the red band. They are internally illuminated today. The understanding is the Design Advisory Committee would be amendable to keep these signs if they could reduce the height of the facia of the canopy. That is something they are able to achieve. They can reduce is from 45.5 inches to 33.5 inches. Ms. Guglielmo stated they are proposing a welcome sign that is part of the canopy and it needs a Special Permit because it is an additional secondary sign. This sign is to draw customers to the entrance. There was no comment from Design Advisory Committee. Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, question if there was illumination (Can lights would be used). Ms. Guglielmo stated they are proposing the Seasons sign. It has channel letters. It needs a Special Permit because it is larger than allowed and is internally illuminated. This sign identifies the convenience store use and is proportional to the scale of the building. This has been reduced from typical sign sizes. The Design Advisory Committee recommended this should not be internally illuminated. It is obstructed by the canopy and landscape so it requires lighting to make the sign more visible. It will only be lit during operation hours. Ms. Guglielmo stated they are proposing a Corner Market sign located at the center of the building. I will have acrylic letters. The Special Permit is required because it is beyond the number of secondary wall signs and larger than allowed. This sign identifies the convenience store use. It is externally illuminated and there were no comments from the Design Advisory Committee. Ms. Guglielmo stated they are proposing a Dunkin’ sign on the right side of the building. It requires a Special Permit because it is beyond the allowed number of secondary wall signs, it is internally illuminated, and is larger than allowed. This sign identifies the use. It is the same size as the existing. It is proportional to the scale building. The Design Advisory Committee recommended no illumination of this sign. Illumination helps to provide visibility on this corner with the obstructions. The sign will only be lit during operation hours. Ms. Guglielmo discussed light trespass. The Special Permit request is to allow light trespass from proposed light fixtures over the property line. She showed a photometrics plan and discussed the lights that will cause light trespass. Mr. Barnert questioned the light spill over in the residential area (Most of the light spill over is between 0.0 and 0.1 and by the time you cross the property line it is at 0.0. The only fixtures in the back are the gooseneck lights that shine down). Ms. Guglielmo stated the Design Advisory Committee asked them to remove the seasonal LED strip lights proposed along the perimeter of the roof line and then for the Ballard’s in front of building to not have any lighting. These were not Special Permit requests. The Ballard’s give off very minimal light and help to light up the sidewalk. The strip light is like a rope light that is installed at the roof line. It is minimal light trespass. The colors change with holidays and special causes. There were no questions or comments from the audience. There were no further questions from the Board. Mr. Farrington stated the branding and lighting are important for a small sight. Ballard lighting also extends to the disabled parking area. That type of lighting is immensely important. The hearing was closed at 9:03 pm (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, James Osten – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes and Nyles N. Barnert – Yes). Mr. Barnert stated he has two concerns. There is too much internal illumination. The Dunkin’ sign is not currently internally illuminated and that works. The Seasons sign is a large sign and is too bright. He recommended halo lighting. A Board Member, Norman P. Cohen, stated for a small site there are so many lights. He doesn’t see how anyone driving can take this in. He is in favor of the Ballard’s but the Seasons sign if very bright. A Board Member, Martha C. Wood, stated the Seasons sign is too bright. She stated she doesn’t see a difference if the Dunkin’ sign has external vs internal illumination. Mr. Clifford stated it is more historic. A Board Member, James Osten, stated the Seasons sign is large and bright. The other signs are fine. Mr. Clifford stated the Dunkin’ sign should have external illumination and the Seasons sign should follow one of the Design Advisory Committees recommendations. The Board agreed they should reopen the Hearing to discuss with the applicant. The Hearing was reopened 9:10 pm (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, James Osten – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes and Nyles N. Barnert – Yes). Mr. Farrington stated they are fine with not internally illuminating the Dunkin’ sign on the building. The Seasons sign is the branding but they would be okay with external illumination in some fashion. Mr. Clifford stated the Board is asking them to follow the Design Advisory Committees recommendation about the Seasons sign which was that it shall not be internally illuminated but backlighting, halo lighting or external illumination would be acceptable. Andrew DelliCarpini, 7 Josephine Dr Smithfield RI, stated the site will not be extremely bright. There will be a non-blinding presence of light that will create safety at the corners. They are amenable if they can leave the size and be able to put some gooseneck lights for the Seasons and Dunkin’ signs. The Hearing was closed at 9:16 pm (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, James Osten – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes and Nyles N. Barnert – Yes). The Board removed two (2) Special Permits to allow internal illumination of signage of the Dunkin’ sign and the Seasons signs. The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant a total of THIRTEEN (13) SPECIAL PERMITS in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-5.2.8.3 to allow the existing standing sign to be reinstalled after construction is complete; THREE (3) SPECIAL PERMITS section 135- 5.2.8(1) to allow for three additional secondary signs beyond the permitted two secondary signs;135-5.2.8(1) to allow for the principal wall sign to be larger than otherwise permitted; FIVE (5) SPECIAL PERMITS section 135-5.2.8(1) to allow for five secondary wall signs to be larger than otherwise permitted; 135-5.4.4 to allow light trespass; and TWO (2) SPECIAL PERMITS section 135-5.2.4 to allow for the internal illumination of signage. Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Virtual, Via Zoom December 8, 2022 Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Martha C. Wood, Norman P. Cohen and James Osten Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner Julie Krakauer Moore, Zoning Administrator and Sharon Coffey, Administrative Clerk Other Business: 1. Minutes from the October 27, 2022 Hearing The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to approved the minutes from February 10, 2022 Hearing (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, James Osten – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes and Nyles N. Barnert – Yes). The Board voted to adjourn.