Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-03-24-ZBA-min Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen’s Meeting Room March 24, 2016 Board Members Present: Chairwoman, Jeanne K. Krieger, Edward D. McCarthy, Martha C. Wood and David Williams Also present at the hearing was Associate Member Nyles N. Barnert and Alternate F. David Wells Administrative Staff: Jennifer Gingras, Administrative Clerk and David George, Zoning Administrator Address: 6 Candlewick Close The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and justification; plot plan, elevations, floor plans and photographs. Also received was letters from abutters approving of the project. Applicant also submitted a drawing entitled “Neighborhood Plan, A0.5” dated December 5, 2014. 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, the Historic District Commission Clerk, Historical Commission, Economic Development, the Design Advisory Committee and the Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from the Building Commissioner, the Conservation Commission, and the Zoning Administrator. The petitioner is requesting SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section 135-8.4.2 and 135-9.4.2 to allow modification (addition) to a nonconforming structure. The Chairwoman opened the hearing at 7:32 pm by reading the legal notices and described information received from the petitioner. Charles Rollinger and Robin Pike presented the petition. Also presenting with Charles Rollinger and Robin Pike was the architect Cheryl Lion. The applicant seeks to tear down the current 1 car garage and add a 2 car garage and extend the kitchen. The project would correct the existing side non-conformity and increase the existing front non-conformity. Candlewick is a dead-end cul-de-sac and this would have no impact on the neighborhood. A Board member (Mr. McCarthy) asked how close to the road the garage will be. (Ms. Lion, the architect, answered A.0.2 shows 18.7 from front of garage to end of driveway. The property line is at the end of the driveway. BOA Meeting March 24, 2016 2 A Board member asked about #4 of the applicant’s answer to the question about snowfall. (Ms. Pike answered that they park cars at end of driveway so they don’t get plowed in. With the new garage, they will not have to park in the driveway anymore). Ms. Pike presented a poster board showing photographs of the neighboring properties and how they compare to their proposed plan. She stated that it will be 14 ft. to the edge of the driveway. She also stated that the proposed garage will be 4.5 ft from the edge of the property line. A Board Member (Mr. Williams) stated that the length is very extreme. Ms. Lion stated that although the plan shows the garage is far from the setback line, it allows an even line with the other homes on the street. It’s not a possibility to fit a 2 car garage on side of house. Ms. Miljana Bovan, 9 Tufts Rd., owner of 12-14 Reed Street, stated that when they tried to do a similar thing with a non-conforming structure, it was denied. She thinks they have the right to build the garage they need but wants it noted that the property sits near the wetlands. She is surprised at the procedure and double standard of the request. A Board Member (Mr. Williams) asked if they had applied to conservation. The Chairwoman read the comments from the Conservation Administrator, Karen Mullins which were stated on the Interdepartmental Recommendations sheet. Ms. Pike stated that they had not been to Conservation about this yet but acknowledged that they are 50 ft. from the intermittent stream. The Chairwoman stated that whatever their decision, it will still have to go through the conservation commission. A Board Member (Mr. McCarthy) stated they may have another hurdle through the conservation. The Chairwoman closed the hearing at 7:45PM. On a motion by Mr. Nyles Barnert and seconded by Mr. Edward McCarthy , the Board voted 4-1 to grant a SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section 135-8.4.2 and 135-9.4.2 to allow modification (addition) to a nonconforming structure. Submitted by: Jennifer Gingras, Administrative Clerk Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen’s Meeting Room March 24, 2016 Board Members Present: Chairwoman, Jeanne K. Krieger, Edward D. McCarthy, Martha C. Wood and David Williams Also present at the hearing was Associate Member Nyles N. Barnert and Alternate F. David Wells Administrative Staff: Jennifer Gingras, Administrative Clerk and David George, Zoning Administrator Address: 20 Bernard Street The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and justification; plot plan, elevations, floor plans and photographs. 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, the Historic District Commission Clerk, Historical Commission and the Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from the Building Commissioner, Planning Director and the Zoning Administrator. The petitioner is requesting a SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the zoning by-law (chapter 135 of the code of lexington) section 135-8.4.2 and 135-9.4.2 to allow modification (reconstruction and expansion) to a nonconforming structure. The Chairwoman opened the hearing at 7:47 PM by reading the legal notices and described information received from the petitioner. Mr. Leonard Morse-Fortier presented the petition. Mr. Morse-Fortier stated that he would like to replace the small garage on the property with a better structure (a new garage). The current garage is a 18ft x 18ft wood-frame garage and they would like to demolish it and replace it with a larger garage, measuring 22 ft by 24 ft and including a nd 2 story. They have an adult daughter with down-syndrome and want to eventually make that an accessory apartment for her. This is not his immediate plan but wanted to note his intentions. A Board Member (Mr. Barnert) stated that he couldn’t tell from the plans what the orientation of the new garage was on the property. A Board Member (Ms. Wood) asked if there would be a bathroom facility in the garage. (No, he would only be adding rough plumbing now. It’s very easy to run a line out to the garage and it would remain capped until needed.) A Board Member (Mr. Williams) stated that he understands why the applicant wants to put a garage on the right of the property but doesn’t understand why it needs to be so close to the property line in the back. It would be closer to the neighbor’s property line BOA Meeting March 24, 2016 4 and may be “overkill” to the neighbors. He asked if the neighbors are supportive of the project. (Mr. Morse-Fortier stated that he agreed it would be closer to the neighbors.) A Board Member (Mr. Williams) stated that the proposed structure is very large may overshadow the neighboring property. Mr. Morse-Fortier stated that it would be 12’ at the eave instead of 8’ at the eave. There is also vegetation along the property line which separates them from the neighbors. A Board Member Alternate (Mr. Wells) commented that it’s an attractive building and asked if they had ever considered turning it so that they can drive a car into it directly. (Mr. Morse-Fortier stated that he can park in the proposed right garage.. One part of the old garage is used for parking and the other for lawn equipment. He now parks between the deck and the garage.) Mr. Wells commented again that the proposed structure is very good looking and if they moved it a quarter, it may be easier to pull into the driveway. (Mr. Morse-Fortier stated that his wife was reluctant to have the garage take up too much yard space). A Neighbor, Mr. Wensog Pan of 22 Bernard Street, stated that he had concerns about the size. He asked how much larger the structure would be. (4 ft. taller than the current structure). Mr. Pan also stated there is already limited space to put snow and this would make less space to put the plowed and shoveled snow. (Mr. Morse-Fortier stated that he had discussed the possibility a couple years ago with Mr. Pan about putting in a common driveway so that they would not have to put snow between the lot lines. That would have made it easier but since that’s not a possibility he would try his hardest to make sure the snow is not pushed onto their property.)Mr. Pan stated that doesn’t support the structure as he feels it would be too close to their lot. A Neighbor, Mr. Manuel Conceison of 26 Bernard Street spoke. He has lived in the neighborhood for 56 years and has watched Mr. Morse-Fortier’s family grow there for the past 26 years. He commented on Mr. Morse-Fortier’s daughter Lucy and how he has loved to watch her grow. He has nothing to say about the plot lines and if in fact it’s approved and the structure is built, it would be a great place for Lucy to eventually have as a living space. Mr. Morse-Fortier reiterated that he thinks that the issue of snow going onto Mr. Pan’s property would be less of an issue with the new structure. A Board Member (Mr. Williams) stated that they are going from an 8ft side yard to a 5ft side yard and therefore understands the neighbor’s concern. Mr. Williams stated that the Board’s goal is to minimize the impact to the neighborhood. Mr. Morse-Fortier referenced the Planning Board’s recent proposal to regulate floor- area-ratio (FAR) on developed lots. He stated that the houses behind him on Calvin Street were previously demolished. Both of those developments exceed the lower proposed FAR. Mr. Morse-Fortier’s house was added onto by a previous owner and with the method of calculation presented at the recent Planning Board hearing, it would fall below the lower of the two FAR proposals by 200ft. BOA Meeting March 24, 2016 5 A Board Member (Mr. Williams) stated that he is not familiar with the developments he is referencing on Calvin Street but he would need to have a certain size lot to have an accessory structure. Mr. Morse-Fortier stated that he understands. The Chairwoman closed the hearing at 8:05 PM. On a motion by Mr. Edward McCarthy and seconded by Mr. Nyles Barnert, the Board voted 4-1 to grant SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section 135-8.4.2 and 135-9.4.2 to allow modification (addition) to a nonconforming structure. Submitted by: Jennifer Gingras, Administrative Clerk Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen’s Meeting Room March 24, 2016 Board Members Present: Chairwoman, Jeanne K. Krieger, Edward D. McCarthy, Martha C. Wood and David Williams Also present at the hearing was Associate Member Nyles N. Barnert Administrative Staff: Jennifer Gingras, Administrative Clerk and David George, Zoning Administrator Address: 15 Depot Square, Unit 1 The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and justification; plot plan, elevations, floor plans and photographs. Also received at the hearing was a Memorandum from Ms. Robin Ross of Social Services Center, dated March 23, 2016. 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, the Historic District Commission Clerk, Historical Commission and the Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from the Building Commissioner, Historic Districts Commission, Economic Development and the Zoning Administrator. The petitioner is requesting a SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By- Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section 135-3, Table 1: Permitted Uses and Development Standards, Line G.2.01 to allow an office use of a street floor level on a building in the Central Business District. The Chairwoman opened the hearing at 8:06 PM by reading the legal notices and described information received from the petitioner. Mr. Michael Whitmore, the architect for the project, presented the petition. Also presenting with Mr. Whitmore was the applicant, Robin Ross, President of the Social Service Centers. nd Mr. Whitmore stated that the applicant wishes to move from their 2 floor space to the st 1 floor space of which a tenant has recently vacated.Mr. Whitmore stated that a special permit is required for office use of the street floor level of a building in the Central Business (CB) district. The applicant has met with the Economic Development and Planning Department to review the proposed use. The determination was made by the Building Commissioner that the space wasn’t used as a storefront like the other spaces in the building. There is a 2.8 ft long window that is related to the frontage on the public way so there is no tenant storefront in that section of the building. They st need to apply for a special permit to move into the 1 floor space. They would like for their clients to have easier access to the business. BOA Meeting March 24, 2016 7 The applicant, Ms. Robin Ross, spoke. Her company provides services to persons nd with developmental disabilities in the Lexington community. They have been in the 2 floor office space since 1990. They love the location of the building and have had their eye on the first floor space for a long time. ReMax Realty recently vacated that space. The building is accessible without stairs at the backdoor. In the front of the building, there are two (2) steps onto a patio area before the front door of the building. A lot of nd the clients and families cannot negotiate the stairway in the building to the 2 floor because of its instability. nd A Board Member (Mr. McCarthy) asked if they plan to still occupy the 2 Floor (no). The Applicant (Ms. Ross) stated they have already signed a lease on this space and their realtor is present at this hearing. She stated that it would be difficult for a retail company to occupy the space because they would have no way to display anything in the window due to the size. A Board Member (Ms. Wood) asked if they would be gaining any space by moving to st the 1 floor space (Yes, they would be gaining 270 sq ft of space). A Board Member (Mr. McCarthy) asked if they had met with the center committee. Additional paper received – Memorandum from Robin Ross regarding meeting with Center Committee. There was not an opinion against or for during the meeting with the Center Committee. Mr. Jerry Michaelson, Chair of the Center Committee spoke. He stated that on March 10, 2016 the Committee met with Ms. Ross. They had made the suggestion for SP (non center storefront). They didn’t take any votes but did discuss it. They talked about if they were really trading storefronts.Real Estate is a G and this is an H so it’s not a direct flip. They had concerns about the definition of the public way. They had heard that the Building Commissioner had commented that it wasn’t a public way. There is also a bikeway in the rear and a public parking lot and it technically does front st it. They also talked about the 1 floor space being a non-premium space and it may compliment the other businesses. They also mentioned the remodeling the back of the building as well. The Social Services Center is a very valuable business to the town. They have been there for a long time and that if they wanted to move, there are other places in Lexington they could move to. The Center Committee did not take a vote and feel that it’s valuable to make a statement. A Board Member (Mr. Williams) looked at the zoning code table and stated there are many destination uses. Looking at the table, there are probably 12 uses that are not destination uses. There’s other office spaces around the center that are available and there is excess office space overall. He agrees with Mr. Michaelson that it’s a storefront. He mentioned that the neighboring nail salon is a destination use and is torn as to whether this should be allowed and stated that they don’t need to be right on the avenue to be successful. The Chairwoman stated that she is sympathetic to the use and suggests that if they approve, they approve with the condition of a time limit. She asked what the length of the lease is (5 Years). BOA Meeting March 24, 2016 8 The Chairwoman stated that she understands the bike path is a public way. She also doesn’t regard this as a storefront as it has very little frontage on the public way. She suggested adding to the permit a condition that it runs for a length of five (5) years. In five (5) years the applicant would come back and ask for an extension of the permit. A Board Member (Mr. Wells) asked if it would be wheelchair accessible (the rear door could be made accessible but is currently not). A Board Member (Mr. Williams) stated that there will be no change with how her clients are accessing the building. A Board Member (Mr. McCarthy) asked if they were a non-profit organization (No). Mr. Andrew Pearlman a real estate broker of 4 Emily Lane, Peabody, Massachusetts, spoke. He stated that for over twenty (20) years, the space has been used as an office setting. It would be difficult to use the space for a retail client. There is no window space to speak of and they would be hard pressed to put in a retail. The landlord has no intention of changing the building structure. With how the space is configured, it would be tough to have a retail establishment. A Board Member (Mr. Williams), expressed that another destination businesses might be better in that space. Mr. Pearlman stated that it would be a better office setting. Mr. Michaelson with the Center Committee spoke again. He stated that they had an accessibility discussion. He asked how a building would become ADA compliant. Mr. Whittmore answered that the Massachusetts Access Code is a building code and is set by the value of the building. If you are doing up to a certain amount of work on the building, then you are required to provide other accessory items (bathroom, etc.). In this case, there have been no changes to require this. Chairwoman asked if the applicant had concerns with adding the condition that at the end of the five (5) years, they could go before the board again and seek an extension. The applicant asked if special permit goes with the land or the person (the land). The Chairwoman closed the hearing at 8:36 PM. On a motion by Mr. Nyles Barnert and seconded by Mr. Edward McCarthy, the Board voted 5-0 to grant a SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section 135-8.4.2 and 135-9.4.2 to allow modification (addition) to a nonconforming structure with the following conditions: That the special permit be granted for 5 years and that the requirement of a plot plan be waived. Submitted by: Jennifer Gingras, Administrative Clerk Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen’s Meeting Room March 24, 2016 Board Members Present: Chairwoman, Jeanne K. Krieger, Edward D. McCarthy, Martha C. Wood and David Williams Also present at the hearing was Associate Member Nyles N. Barnert Administrative Staff: Jennifer Gingras, Administrative Clerk and David George, Zoning Administrator Other Business: 1. On a motion by Mr. Edward McCarthy and seconded by Ms. Martha Wood the Board voted 5-0, to accept the meeting minutes of February 25, 2016. Submitted by: Jennifer Gingras, Administrative Clerk Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen’s Meeting Room March 24, 2016 Board Members Present: Chairwoman, Jeanne K. Krieger, Edward D. McCarthy, Martha C. Wood and David Williams Also present at the hearing was Associate Member Nyles N. Barnert Administrative Staff: Jennifer Gingras, Administrative Clerk and David George, Zoning Administrator Other Business: 1. On a motion by Mr. Edward McCarthy and seconded by Ms. Martha Wood the Board voted 5-0, to appoint Jennifer Gingras as the Administrative Clerk for the Zoning Board of Appeals. Submitted by: Jennifer Gingras, Administrative Clerk