Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-01-11-ZBA-min Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Virtual, Via Zoom January 11, 2024 Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, and Martha C. Wood Alternate Member: Kathryn Roy Administrative Staff: Julie Krakauer Moore, Zoning Administrator, Sharon Coffey, Office Manager, and Olivia Lawler, Administrative Clerk Address: 1 Militia Drive The petitioner is requesting a SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.4,135-5.2.8 (3) and 135-5.2.10, to allow a standing sign. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Topographic Plan, Plot Plan, Plans, Photographs, and a Certified Plot Plan Waiver Request. Prior to the meeting, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, the Planning Director, Clerk, Economic Development, and the Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from the Engineering Department, Building Commissioner, Economic Development, and Zoning Administrator. The Hearing was opened at 7:12 pm Presenter: Mike McPherson Mike McPherson presented on behalf of Heritage Building Realty LLC. He stated the proposed sign would be located on the Worthen Road side of the property and will include multiple businesses that would provide them with visibility to the public that they would not normally have without this sign. Board Member, Nyles N. Barnert, questioned if the applicant had met previously with the Lexington Design Advisory Committee (DAC). (No) Building Commissioner, James Kelly, stated that it is his belief that the DAC may not always be needed in each circumstance of proposed signs. Board Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, questioned if any board members thought that the Applicant should send the proposed sign plans to the DAC for review. (No) No further questions from the board. No discussion or questions from the audience. The hearing was closed at 7:15 pm (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes and Nyles N. Barnert – Yes) No further comments from the Board. The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to waive the plot plan requirement. (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes and Nyles N. Barnert – Yes) 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) 135-9.4,135-5.2.8 (3) and 135-5.2.10, to allow a standing sign (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes and Nyles N. Barnert – Yes) with conditions. Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Virtual, Via Zoom January 11, 2024 Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, and Martha C. Wood Alternate Member: Kathryn Roy Administrative Staff: Julie Krakauer Moore, Zoning Administrator, Sharon Coffey, Office Manager, and Olivia Lawler, Administrative Clerk Address: 43 Blossomcrest Drive, also referred to as 790 Waltham Street The petitioner is requesting a SPECIAL PERMIT MODIFICATION in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) SPECIAL PERMIT MODIFICATION section 135-9.4.7 to allow modification to a previously granted SPECIAL PERMIT dated October 13, 2022. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Plot Plan, Floor Plans, Photographs, Massachusetts Historical Commission Letter, Previously Granted Special Permit Dated October 25, 2022, and Certified Asbuilt Foundation Plan. 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 Assistant Town Manager to the Land Use, Housing and Development Department, Zoning Administrator, Historical Commission, and Planning Department. The Hearing was opened at 7:18 pm Presenter: William Dailey Jr. William Dailey Jr. presented on behalf of John P. Carroll and JPC LLC. Mr. Dailey opened outlining the work that has been done including the reworking of and the addition of more supports in the basement, leveling of the first and second floor, some framing, and rough plumbing and rough electrical work. He referenced the packet of documents that he submitted with the application. Mr. Dailey summarized a conversation had with Michael Steinitz, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, in which he outlined three (3) problems with the home that effect its lack of qualification for perpetual preservation restrictions: 1) the historic barn and connecting ell had been removed previously 2) the roof was removed and disposed of 3) the additions on the side and rear of the house have changed the character of the house. He stated that due to these findings by the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC), it will never be possible for the Carrolls to meet the requirement listed on the previously granted Special Permit and therefore they wish for the Board to grant this modification. Mr. Dailey discussed the history of how the house came to be moved to its current location and highlighted its jagged track that it took to get here. Mr. Dailey stated that as soon as the Special Permit was granted on October13, 2022, Mr. Carroll was receiving requests to move the house as soon as possible although he was unprepared to do so. He stated that previous studies provided with the application indicated a number of problems with the property, such as structural problems, that were not addressed in the 2012 renovations of the home. It is also his belief that statements from the Historical Commission claiming that the 2012 renovation included meticulous restoration efforts is incorrect. Mr. Dailey highlighted that when Mr. Carroll came into possession of the home, a considerable amount of materials only dated back to 2012 based on barcodes found on the materials and therefore, much of the historical nature of the home was already diminished. He stated that all codes and regulations have been met and all work that has been done by the Carrolls certainly meets all requirements that are in place. He shared that the Carrolls have no intention of selling the house and will own it for years to come as he has with many other properties in town, so it is not accurate for people to assume Mr. Carroll will sell it right away. Mr. Dailey asked that the Special Permit be modified so that no changes can be made to the exterior in the future without approval from ZBA to keep it in the condition it is currently in. Board member, Nyles N. Barnert, questioned if the changes to factors such as paint color would go through the Board. (Yes, they would get permission from the Board and advice from the Historical Commission for changes of paint colors and other changes of that nature) Mr. Barnert, stated that the Board cannot evaluate historical importance and that potential changes in the future may require outside consultants with professional experience and questioned if this would be an issue. (No, they agreed and, in the future, would consult with whoever that Board deems necessary) No further Discussion from the Board. Robert Rotberg, Chair of the Historical Commission (HC), spoke of behalf of the HC to shared their objection to the modification and summarized a letter they sent to the board as part of the application. He stated the HC only supported this previously granted Special Permit because the proposal had merit in regards to promises made by the Carrolls to preserve the house as a historical home and keep its character during and after the move of the home. He emphasized that it is the belief of the HC that the Hosmer House has been destroyed, while the Carrolls had the opportunity to work with the MHC or other professionals in the historical preservation field in order to fulfill this condition of the previously granted Special Permit. Mr. Rotberg offered one potential solution as asking the Carrolls to return the home to the Town. The HC does not want a Certificate of Occupancy to be issued at this point. Mr. Rotberg closed by urging the Board to deny the application for modification otherwise the crucial work of volunteer boards in Town like the HC become purposeless. Susan Bennet, 64 Bloomfield Street, shared personal views of opposition to the Hearing. She stated her opposition and emphasized how experience with and involvement in the moving of another historical home in Lexington from Hancock Street that was in similar disrepair as the Hosmer House, proved that this home could have been successfully moved with approved plans that met the standards of the Massachusetts Secretary of the Interior and the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC). She stated her belief that if the Board approves this modification then they are setting a dangerous standard for the movement and preservation of historical homes in Lexington in the future. Ingrid Klimoff, 18 Bacon Street, stated that she sees herself as being relative neighbors with the property and believes that the process has been ridiculous and the Board should approve the request and let the Carroll have full use of the home. Marilyn Fenollosa, 10 Marshall Road, shared views of opposition on the matter. Ms. Fenollosa highlighted her background in Historic Preservation on the National, Regional, State, and Local levels. She stated her past involvement in rehabilitation and preserving the Hosmer House along with her help in drafting the original preservation restriction on this Special Permit. She stated that should the Board remove this requirement from the Special Permit a terrible precedent would be set and it would move the town back many years and undo years of work in preservation of the Historical nature of Lexington. She shared her belief that the owners should demolish the home or remove it from its nonconforming lot. Wendall Kaslow, 25 Summit Road, stated views of opposition. He stated that the owners had no past dialogue with the MHC and simply ignored a critical requirement of the purchase of the home. It is his belief that there could have been offers from other contractors had historical preservation not been a requirement and therefore the requirement should be enforced. Mr. Kaslow stated that he has no knowledge of discussions from the Carrolls questioning how to rectify the changes and make the requirement achievable. David Kelland, 884 Massachusetts Avenue, Alternate Member on the Historical Commission, spoke on behalf of the Historical Commission. He stated that there is only one (1) solution to the problem and that is for the owners to move the house to a conforming lot, on which the preservation restriction would not be required and therefore they would be allowed to sell or occupy the house while also adhering to zoning requirements. Mr. Kelland stated that the Board must set a precedent to not have a home built on or moved to a nonconforming structure. No further discussion or questions from the audience. Mr. Dailey summarized that the contractor involved with the moving and rehabilitation of the house at 35 Hancock Street had done ample research into the potential of buying the Hosmer House when it was first for sale. This contractor made the decision that it was not worth his time or money to purchase the home due to its condition, and therefore the assumption that other contractors or potential buyers would have been available is incorrect. He stated that Mr. Carroll desired to move the house as a whole but it was not a possibility due to the condition and urgency. He emphasized that there was not ample opportunity for the Town to find a solution for the home other than taking it down and Mr. Carroll purchasing and moving the home solved the issue of the assumed demolition of the home. The Carrolls provided plans and renderings at the initial ZBA hearing and the Owners were unaware and never warned of the potential that with those plans and the proposed additions at the time, the MHC would not approve the home for historical preservation. Mr. Dailey urged the Board to take into consideration that the house has been built and renovated in compliance with the plans and renderings that were previously accepted. He shared his appreciation to the Building Commissioner for his help in the process and all advice that has been given regarding the home. He emphasized the home will be protected for years into the future and the Board should grant the modification. The hearing was closed at 8:17pm (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes and Nyles N. Barnert – Yes) Board Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, stated that the decision is either one extreme or another. Board Member, Norman P. Cohen, stated that the argument of setting a dangerous precedent is one he has heard for many years although, that is an incorrect assumption. He emphasized that whatever decision is made for this application is only for this particular situation and is not a precedent for future hearings and situations. Mr. Barnert stated his belief that there is little visual difference between the current home where it is located now and what was there before, other than the removal of the chimney. He shared that a local preservation restriction would be similar to one from MHC. Board member, James A. Osten, stated that the home looks better currently than it did in its decaying state before it was moved and he prefers to look at it now when previously he would avert his eyes from the home. He stated he had never heard of homes being moved in parts previously and believes that given the state of the Hosmer house before the move, that moving it successfully in pieces would not have been successful. He emphasized his gratitude for the presenters and the Historical Commission for their input. Board Member, Martha C. Wood, stated that in considering the state of the house prior to the move, the potential future of the house had it not been moved, and last-minute nature of the move that the Carrolls did not do anything wrong pertaining to the move itself. Ms. Wood stated she does not foresee the home being sold back to the Town due to the Town lacking a proper location for the home and lacking funds to allocate to it. Ms. Wood questioned if anyone was even aware or had a full concept of what the Pre-1950 condition of the house was prior to a plethora of changes made. She also emphasized the Town’s need for more housing and how a certificate of occupancy for this home would provide from housing in the town. She questioned what the next steps would be should the Board turn down this request for modification. Alternate Board Member, Kathryn Roy, stated that she went to the property to view the home and believe it looked fine and the Carrolls did a good job on the home. She emphasized that given that the home was due to likely be demolished if the Carrolls had not purchased it, then why should it be preserved differently today. Mr. Chair stated that the State will not make the decision to say the home is MHC ready and therefore the condition on this previously granted Special Permit can never be satisfied. He shared his worry about the future of the home. Mr. Chair emphasized that it is the job of the Board to consider the future of the house due to the nature of Zoning and how all zoning restrictions and Special Permits will show up in decades in the future. The reality, he stated, is that the current property owners will not always own this home due to the nature of real-estate. Mr. Chair shared his concern that the Board is not equipped to make decisions about paint color and other changes of that nature because it is not their expertise. He stated that the resolution would be to involve the HC due to their expertise on the matter. He proposed to continue the hearing so that the Board may discuss with the Applicant and consult with Town Counsel in order to draft precise language to replace the current condition. Mr. Barnert, asked to confirm that a continuance would not have to be opened for public comment. Mr. Chair stated that public comment would not have to be opened but the Board but they may decide that they want to get opinions from the Public. Mr. Barnert stated that the proposal to Continue and draft Conditions sounds reasonable and it is beneficial that it involves the Board and others in the process. The Board discussed and agreed to Continue the Hearing with the agreement of the Applicant to the February 8, 2024 Board of Appeals Meeting to provide them with ample time to draft language for new conditions. No further comment from the Board. The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant a continuance until the February 8, 2024 Hearing (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes and Nyles N. Barnert – Yes) with conditions. Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Virtual, Via Zoom January 11, 2024 Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, and Martha C. Wood Alternate Member: Kathryn Roy Administrative Staff: Julie Krakauer Moore, Zoning Administrator, Sharon Coffey, Office Manager, and Olivia Lawler, Administrative Clerk Other Business: 1. A minor modification determination to modify a Special Permit dated May 12, 2022 at 14 Bridge Street (Record # ZBA-23-48) Mark Schlegel, 41 Harding Road, presented emphasized the odd shape of the lot in question that was part of the cause for originally obtaining a Special Permit. He stated that construction of the 1.5 story home that was proposed to the Board is currently underway but they wish to add a sunroom to the plans. Mr. Schlegel presented proposed plans for a sunroom and highlighted that the proposed addition will still be in compliance with minimum side yard setbacks as written in the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington). He stated an additional 75 square-feet would be added with this proposal and emphasized his belief that this would be minor addition to the previously approved 5725 square-foot building. No Discussion from the Board. No discussion or questions from the audience. The Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) abstention to accept this application as a MINOR MODIFICATION (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes and Nyles N. Barnert – Yes). The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant a minor modification determination to modify a Special Permit dated May 12, 2022 at 14 Bridge Street (Record # ZBA-23-48) (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes and Nyles N. Barnert – Yes) with conditions. 1. Minutes from the October 26, 2023, November 9, 2023, and December 14, 2023 Hearings. The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to approved the minutes from the October 26, 2023, November 9, 2023, and December 14, 2023 Hearings (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, James Osten – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes and Nyles N. Barnert – Yes). The Board voted to Adjourn at 8:32 pm (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes and Nyles N. Barnert – Yes).