Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-02-08-ZBA-min Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Virtual, Via Zoom February 8, 2024 Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, Martha C. Wood, and Associate Member Kathryn Roy Alternate Member: David Williams Administrative Staff: Julie Krakauer Moore, Zoning Administrator, and Olivia Lawler, Administrative Clerk Address: 76 Bedford Street The petitioner is requesting two (2) SPECIAL PERMITS in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135.5.2.8(1) and 135.5.2.10 to allow wall signs to be larger than other allowed and to allow more wall signs that otherwise allowed. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Certified Plot Plan Waiver Request, and Proposed Sign 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 Building Commissioner, Economic Development, and Zoning Administrator. The Hearing was opened at 7:05 PM. Petitioner: Joseph Amorosino Joseph Amorosino presented on behalf of Bella Sante. He described how Bella Sante has grown from occupying one (1) unit in Custance Place to four (4) Units currently. Mr. Amorosino presented photographs of the current conditions of the building and the locations of current signs, along with the proposed sign locations. He outlined the proposed second sign location on the street side of the building has previously installed sign lighting that will be above the proposed sign. It was stated that per Condo Rules, only one sign can be installed above each occupied unit. He believes the proposed signs are a delicate design and will add symmetry to the building. Signs on the side of the building where the parking lot is located will provide patrons with a better understanding of where to enter and will also give people traveling on Bedford Street toward Interstate 95 a view of the Business name which is currently not available. Mr. Amorosino described how Condo Bylaws set forth by Custance Place dictate the size, color, design, and producer of all signs located on the Building and therefore Bella Sante had limited options for the signs. Following these rules and regulations, the proposed signs he presented are what came to be and he believes they look very nice. Board Member, Nyles N. Barnert, questioned what was wrong with having just one sign in the center of the building on the street side that faces Bedford Street. (It is common area for the building so Bella Sante does not have ability to put a sign there. They may only place signs above the units that they occupy per Condominium Regulations.) No further questions from the Board. No comments or questions from the audience. Mr. Amorosino summarized he is respectfully asking to be approved and that he believes the proposed signs match the traditional Lexington aesthetic. Hearing was closed at 7:14 PM (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes and Kathryn Roy – Yes) Mr. Barnert stated that the restrictions from the Condo Association make it difficult for the Applicant to do anything else other than what was presented. No further discussion 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, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes and Kathryn Roy– Yes) The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant two (2) SPECIAL PERMITS in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135.5.2.8(1) and 135.5.2.10 to allow wall signs to be larger than other allowed and to allow more wall signs that otherwise allowed. Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Virtual, Via Zoom February 8, 2024 Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, Martha C. Wood, and Associate Member Kathryn Roy Alternate Member: David Williams Administrative Staff: Julie Krakauer Moore, Zoning Administrator, and Olivia Lawler, Administrative Clerk Address: 363 Massachusetts Avenue The petitioner is requesting a SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135.5.1.4 and 135.5.1.14 to allow fewer parking spaces than otherwise allowed. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Plot Plans, Floor Plans, and Certified Plot Plan Waiver Request. 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, Planning Department, Building Commissioner, and Economic Development. The Hearing was opened at 7:18pm. Petitioner: Rakesh Patel, 8 Spencer Street, Lexington MA on behalf of Nelly Mayorga Rakesh Patel presented on behalf of Nelly Mayorga and Sol Solecito Daycare. He stated the proposal is to add a playground in the rear of the building to allow daycare patrons to have a play structure to play on in the morning during the warmer weather months, which would result in a decrease in parking spots that is lower than otherwise allowed for the building. Mr. Patel shared pictures of the building and its parking lot, highlighting other businesses that occupy units such as Lex Spa and Verge Therapy. In presenting pictures of the parking lot taken over the past few week, Mr. Patel stated that the front parking lot commonly has spots available even during peak hours and that the rear lot is rarely utilized. He outlined peak hours as being in the morning during Daycare drop-off and in the evening between 5:00PM and 6:00PM during Daycare pick-up. Mr. Patel stated the parking situation at 363 Massachusetts Avenue was thoroughly accessed by an architect who shared their findings and calculated the parking spots per business requirements for the property. The total parking requirement for the property is 32 parking spots and 2 ADA spots. Mr. Patel stated with two vacant units in the building, theoretically, there is currently only a requirement of 25 parking spaces. The proposal would decrease the number of parking spots but it would add an additional Van Accessible parking spot. Mr. Patel indicated that other businesses in the building are not open everyday during the week with three of them being closed on Tuesdays and one of them additionally being closed on Thursdays, which decreases the need for a high number of parking spots on those days due to less patrons visiting the property. He stated the other businesses rely on weekend business while Sol Solecito is closed on weekends. The proposed plot plan with the location of the proposed playground and fence was shared. Mr. Patel highlighted that a fence will give children a safe egress in the back of the building to get to the playground. This proposal would reduce available parking spots to 26 spaces, 6 less than the requirement of 32. The Building Parking assessment, playground design and parking design was created by Seth Allen Holden with SAH Design, LLC. Board Member, Nyles N. Barnet, questioned if would it be possible to add a parking space along the back of the property along the new chain link fence (Yes, it appears that is possible.) Mr. Barnert asked how many employees the Daycare employs and if it would be possible to add a condition that one or two employees be required to park in the rear of the building. (Seven employees and only 1 car is parked by employees and yes, they could park in the rear) Associate Board Member, Kathryn Roy, questioned how long the two vacant units in the building have been empty and what would happen regarding parking when they are filled? Board Member, Norman B. Cohen, stated that when he visited the property he believes every parking spot in the front was occupied, although he may have missed noticing an open one. He shared his concern for the amount of parking if the unoccupied units are filled. He also questioned if the landlord would mind this reduction in parking at this property. (They are tenants of the building and the Landlord signed off on this proposal due to the belief that it would help Sol Solecito be tenants for the foreseeable future. This proposal would not have been presented to the Board if the Landlord did not support it.) Alternate Member, David Williams, stated his concern with the current conditions in the rear of the building. He believes more effort is needed and someone would need to clean it up and make improvements to the rear of the building before a playground is placed back there. Mr. Clifford questioned if the current asphalt will need to be torn up and removed in order to make these proposed changes. He also questioned if the rear of the building and its parking lot will be returned to the current conditions if/when the daycare closes or moves. (The rear will be closed during construction and the asphalt will all stay. A play mat of a sufficient material will be placed on top of the asphalt.) Mr. Clifford questioned how many ADA spots are required for the property? (The study found we were lacking a van accessible ADA parking spot. They believe only two ADA spots in total are required and they are improving upon this by adding an additional ADA van accessible spot.) Mr. Clifford emphasized Mr. Williams’ concern of the appearance in the rear of the building. He stated how general cleanup in the back is needed. (They want it to be cleaned up and look nice because it will benefit the daycare and their patrons.) Board Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, stated the Board is concerned the current unoccupied units may be occupied soon and as a Board they must consider the outcome if new tenants show up in the near future. Mr. Williams stated he believes that closing the hearing would be premature but emphasized that he is not voting on the issue as he is in attendance as an Alternate Member. No further questions from the Board. Charles Yang, 26 Brandon Street, Lexington, identified himself as a resident that lives behind the property who strongly disagrees with the proposal. He stated the building is 15 feet away from his back yard and is concerned about the noise levels that would come with the addition of a playground in the rear parking lot and sees it as a permanent impact. Mr. Yang described his neighborhood as quiet and thinks the addition of a playground at Sol Solecito would increase noise levels in the neighborhood and potentially decrease property values for he and his neighbors. Alternate Member, David Williams, questioned what the Building Commissioner’s, James Kelly, stance is on this proposal. Zoning Administrator, Julie Krakauer Moore, quoted James Kelly’s comment from the application stating: “Plans seem well thought out, and the daycare is primarily drop off, I've never seen that lot full, it’s likely the most undesirable location for someone to park, and the owner supports the application, I would recommend approval.” Board Member, Norman B. Cohen, questioned what the hours of the daycare are and asked to clarify that the playground would not be available for public use. (No, this is for toddlers who go to the daycare and they will not be using this all day long or into the night) Mr. Clifford asked what are the basic operating hours are and how many children the daycare cares for? (29 children in total currently but they will not utilize the playground at the same time. The playground will only be used between 9:00AM and 12:00PM) Mr. Barnert questioned what the hours the daycare is open are. (8:30AM to 5:30PM) Mr. Clifford clarified this is a matter of parking requirements only, not whether or not the Applicant can put a playground in. They can put in a playground by right per MGL 40A and the Board is only here to consider the reduction in parking that would be caused by a playground. No further comments or questions from audience No further questions from the Board. Mr. Patel summarized they are wanting to add a playground to a parking area that is rarely used. The playground would only be used by toddles in the morning during warm weather months. The children already go out for walks on the Minute Man Trail and go outside to walk around. He stated this would be a good addition for the children and there would still be enough parking spaces for all tenants of the building. Hearing was closed at 7:54PM. (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes and Kathryn Roy – Yes) Ms. Roy stated that adding an additional parking spot in the rear and requiring employees of the daycare to park in the rear as suggested by Mr. Barnert is a good condition to add. Mr. Clifford stated a condition that if the daycare is to close at any point, the applicant shall restore the parking lot to its prior (current) condition. No further discussion from 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, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes and Kathryn Roy– 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) 135.5.1.4 and 135.5.1.14 to allow fewer parking spaces than otherwise allowed with conditions. Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Virtual, Via Zoom February 8, 2024 Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, Martha C. Wood, and Associate Member Kathryn Roy Alternate Member: David Williams Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, Julie Krakauer Moore, Zoning Administrator, and Olivia Lawler, Administrative Clerk Address: 1729 Massachusetts Avenue The petitioner is requesting a SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-5.2.10 and 135-5.2.4(3) to allow a sign to be painted directly on the exterior surface at the rear of the building. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Photographs, Elevations, Certified Plot Plan Waiver Request, and Mural Removal 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 Zoning Administrator, Historic Districts Commission, and Economic Development. The Hearing was opened at 7:59PM. Petitioner: Liza Shirazi on behalf of Revival Kitchen and Cafe Liza Shirazi presented on behalf of Revival Kitchen and Café. She described the proposed plan of adding a mural to the rear of the building at 1729 Massachusetts Avenue and shared images of the proposed painting. Ms. Shirazi spoke to her knowledge of improving cultural districts and emphasized the benefit of adding community art to public spaces. She highlighted that painting a sign is a cheap and easy way revitalize the space. It was stated that the Historic Districts Committee approved the proposed mural/sign at their February 1, 2024 meeting. Ms. Shirazi outline their removal plan for the paint as being either painting it over in white when they vacate the property as requested by the landlord or utilizing paint remover if necessary. She stated that the art was design by a local artist by the name of Chole Rubenstein and the intention was to integrate the word “Café” into the artwork and not have it utilized as a sign. Associate Board Member, Kathryn Roy, questioned if it is possible to add an ADA accessible ramp in the rear of the building. (Yes, it would be possible, a removable ramp could be utilized. Funds are not currently available to create a permanent ramp.) Board Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, questioned if the front entrance of the property was ADA Accessible. (Yes) Alternate Board Member, David Williams, questioned if a canvas or other removable option was considered or could be utilized. (It was considered but it adds another expense that they do not want and it was found that it could affect the integrity of the façade of the building. Latex paint is believed to be the safest product for the façade.) Ms. Roy questioned what the removal process is. (Paint the wall white or utilize paint remover) No further questions from the Board. No comments or questions from audience Ms. Shirazi summarized they are requesting exterior approval to paint a mural with the word “Café” in the back of 1729 Massachusetts Avenue. Hearing was closed at 8:06PM. (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes and Kathryn Roy – Yes) No further discussion from 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, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes and Kathryn Roy– 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) 135-5.2.10 and 135-5.2.4(3) to allow a sign to be painted directly on the exterior surface at the rear of the building. Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Virtual, Via Zoom February 8, 2024 Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, Martha C. Wood, and Associate Member Kathryn Roy Alternate Member: David Williams Administrative Staff: Julie Krakauer Moore, Zoning Administrator, and Olivia Lawler, Administrative Clerk, Mina Makarious, Town Counsel Continued from the 1-11-2024 Meeting: 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 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, Certified As-built Foundation Plan, and a Continuance Request Form dated January 12, 2024. 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. Board Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, summarized the history of the Hosmer house and its hearings with the Board of Appeals. He gave a detailed review of the January 11, 2024 Board of Appeals meeting that the hearing was continued from. Mr. Clifford outlined that the January 11 Public Hearing was closed and if there will be more testimonial issues during this meeting then the hearing will be reopened. He emphasized that the Board was not satisfied with the proposal from the Applicants to just remove conditions 7 and 8 from the Special Permit due to that effectively removing the longer-term historical preservation of the building which they do not wish to see happen. Leaving the conditions in place would effectively leave the Hosmer House empty, leaving it to either be demolished in time or allowed to deteriorate over the years. Mr. Clifford stated that in the discussions with Town Staff and Town Counsel, a fairly simple way to achieve their goal is to remove the current language found in Conditions 7 and 8 of the Decision dated October 25, 2022 and replacing them with the associated Historic Preservation Restrictions (RFP) signed by the Carrols and the Town November 8, 2022. He stated that Massachusetts Historical Commission could not be counted on to do the work. Mr. Clifford emphasized that the one area open for discussion is in regards to what is meant by “Town” and who in the Town the responsibility of making decisions that pertain to future changes at the Hosmer House falls on. Town Counsel, Mina Makarious, clarified that if the Massachusetts Historical Commission did approve the Historical Preservation Restriction of the Hosmer House, that would not have meant that the State was responsible for handling decisions regarding revisions to the home. This responsibility would fall on the Grantee, which in this case would be the Town, and would fall on the Select Board under a provision within the preservation restrictions. The Select Board would have the ability and purview to obtain advice and guidance from another entity they deem necessary, such as the Historical Commission. Mr. Makarious additionally spoke to what is effectively gained or lost in a condition written this way versus a preservation restriction. He outlined that until recently many Towns believed that restrictions, such as preservation restrictions, were required due to the belief that Town would absent the state approval due to statutorily lapsing with 30 years under statue. Doubt was recently placed on this belief and understanding in due to a Land Court decision. The decision suggested that the restriction in the case held an inappropriate condition in requiring a third party, i.e. the State, to act prior to the permit taking effect which was outside of the Applicants and the Board’s control. It also suggested that the Land Court believed that any restriction would be perpetual so long as the Zoning Relief in question was needed. Mr. Makarious summarized this new understanding in the Land Court regarding restrictions has led many towns to take more comfort in issuing conditions similar to the ones being proposed in this meeting. Mr. Clifford stated that the condition on the previously granted Special Permit is not a restrictive covenant. He reiterated the basic proposal is to take the language of the agreement the Carrols signed with the Town and attach it to the Special Permit as Conditions 7 and 8. He shared the proposed language that was drafted to replace conditions 7 and 8 in the Special Permit. Zoning Administrator, Julie Krakauer Moore, asked to clarify the exhibit letter written in the proposed language would match the Preservation Restriction. Mr. Clifford clarified that whatever the executed copy is of the Preservation Restriction, is what will be written in the Conditions. He stated that it is his belief that the Board has achieved what they wanted in this new iteration of the conditions. Mr. Makarious shared that is his only suggestion is that the Board vote and provide, with flexibility, that the exhibit can be changed to match what is in the RFP. He stated the Board has as-built plans and plans that show was exists after the RFP was issued and so what is being preserved needs to reflect today’s conditions of the house and that should be in the final exhibit listed in the conditions. Mr. Clifford stated that all decisions by the Board include that any proposal must be in substantial compliance with the plans and proposals that were submitted with the application. substantial compliance to with what was submitted. He stated that the Board also has power to approve or deny minor modifications and that they can do so for this case in the future if it is needed. Applicant, William Dailey Jr., 114 Marrett Road, Lexington, shared he and his client’s appreciation for the Chair, the Town Staff and Town Counsel and their tremendous work and efforts during this process. He emphasized their gratitude and shared his hope that this outcome is the best result that could have been achieved. Board Member, Norman B. Cohen, stated that as Mr. Dailey said, this has had a very good outcome. He highlighted how he has heard multiple people comment on the look of the home and how good it looks in its current state. He gave credit to the Carrols for coming forward and purchasing the home and moving it when no one else would. Board Member, Nyles N. Barnert, questioned if the Board should add a condition that a chimney, working or otherwise, be a required addition to the home. Mr. Clifford stated his belief that the Board should disregard the lack of chimney on the home now as they are not even sure if the prior chimney was historical in character. The board does not have a full understanding and spread of the history of the home. He stated the Hosmer House, as it stands today, is an excellent replica as the original home was allowed to rot away and the historical nature was diminished during the occupancy of the School Department in the home. Mr. Cohen stated his agreement with the Chair and highlighted that as former Town Counsel who had to go into the home in the past, he was always nervous about the integrity and safety of the home at the time. Mr. Clifford stated the home experienced a hard life during which it was largely neglected. He believes it is great that it was able to be preserved in any shape. He summarized the proposal is to Substitute Conditions 7 and 8 with what was presented on the slide during the hearing. The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant a SPECIAL PERMIT MODIFICATION in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section 135-9.4.7 to allow modification to a previously granted SPECIAL PERMIT dated October 13, 2022. Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Virtual, Via Zoom February 8, 2024 Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, Martha C. Wood, and Associate Member Kathryn Roy Alternate Member: David Williams Administrative Staff: Julie Krakauer Moore, Zoning Administrator, and Olivia Lawler, Administrative Clerk Other Business: 1. Minutes from January 11, 2024 Hearing The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to approve the minutes from January 11, 2024 Hearing (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes and Kathryn Roy – Yes). The Board voted to Adjourn at 8:30 pm (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes and Kathryn Roy – Yes).