Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-02-22-ZBA-minMinutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Virtual, Via Zoom February 22, 2024 Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, Martha C. Wood, and Associate Member Scott Cooper Alternate Member: Jeanne Krieger Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, Julie Krakauer Moore, Zoning Administrator, and Olivia Lawler, Administrative Clerk Address: 48 Forest Street 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 and 135-8.4.2 to allow modification of a non-conforming structure. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Plot Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations, Photographs, Gross Floor Area Calculations, Cover Letter to ZBA dated January 18, 2024, Previously Approved Building Plans, and Letters from Abutters. 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, Planning Department, and Zoning Administrator. The Hearing was opened at 7:05 pm. Petitioner: Deepak Dalvi and Netrali Dalvi Deepak Dalvi presented the petition along with Netrali Dalvi of 48 Forest Street. Mr. Dalvi shared his family history of being residents of Lexington for 10 years and provided an overview of recent renovations to the home. He also described the property characteristics including a bomb shelter that is robust and in close proximity to a Japanese maple tree that they wish to protect. The bomb shelter is partially underground and approximately 10 feet in height. Mr. Dalvi shared that a primary reason for the proposed deck over the bomb shelter is for safety improvements. The home owners love their property and neighborhood and care for the environment. Photographs of the existing site where shared and Mr. Dalvi highlighted the 6.5 feet between the bomb shelter edge and the neighbor’s home. He emphasized letters of support and highlighted mentions of aesthetics and functionality from the abutters. He also shared how long they have been disrupted in their home due to construction and their desire to be completed with all construction as to enjoy their home fully. It was clarified that they are requesting approval of a deck as it will offer an aesthetically better-looking structure and a safer, more functional plan for the property. This proposal will improve quality of life of the family. Board Member, Scott Cooper, questioned if the Bomb Shelter is still usable and where the access to it is. He also asked if the owners considered removing it. (Yes, is functional and has access from a crawl space in the basement. The character that the bomb shelter adds is well loved and removal was not considered and would likely be costly.) Board Member, Norman B. Cohen, questioned if the neighbors at 50 Forest Street are in support? (Yes, one support letter is from them. Support was received from the most affected neighbors.) Zoning Administrator, Julie Krakauer Moore, read a letter of opposition from an abutter Administrative Clerk, Olivia Lawler, read a letter of opposition from an abutter. Mr. Dalvi noted they have made sure their GFA is within limits and the setback is minimally changing. Mr. Cohen asked to clarify that this application is for a special permit and not a variance as stated in one abutter opposition letter. (Yes, it is a special permit) Board Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, questioned why the applicants never pulled a building permit for the deck and still started work on it. (There was a lack of understanding of the requirement and information pertaining to the construction of a deck. Building Inspector advised on the requirement and they are happy to follow the proper steps now.), Mr. Clifford questioned when the decision was made to add a deck to the construction on the property. (Much later than the original plans, around November.) Mr. Clifford questioned why the deck needs to be so big. He stated it seems a smaller deck outside of the double doors shown on the plot plan would provide safe egress and ingress. (The field stone of the bomb shelter is sharp and they want it to be fully enclosed to add additional protect for children and family.) Mr. Clifford questioned if repointing of the bomb shelter was done? (No. Concrete was added to make it more stable but no changes were made. There was ivy and other shrubbery in the location previously so the bomb shelter was not as visible prior to the removal of the plants.) Board Member, Martha C. Wood, questioned why the edge of the deck could be moved to make the deck narrower? Zoning Administrator, Julie Krakauer Moore, shared the plot plan of the property. She highlighted all setbacks on the plan. Mr. Dalvi stated that the supporting wall is independent of the bomb shelter, and there are some vent pipes and a tree in the rear so the deck was designed so that the it does not interfere with any of these things or add additional weight to the bomb shelter. Ms. Wood questioned if the shelter was built at the same time as the home. (Probably not. It looks like the bomb shelter was a later addition.) Mr. Cooper questioned if a smaller deck could be built within the setbacks or if the applicants just decided to use the bomb shelter as the edge limit. (A smaller deck was considered but multiple factors such as usable space, protecting an existing tree, and safety affected the design of the deck.) No further questions from Board. No comments or questions from audience Mr. Dalvi summarized that their intent is to preserve the structure and character of the home. They would love to age in place while increasing the safety of the property and preserving the tree that borders the bomb shelter. Mr. Cohen questioned if the neighbors that are in favor are the ones directly next door to the bomb shelter (Yes.) Hearing was closed at 7:32 PM. (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, and Scott Cooper – Yes). Ms. Wood stated that she believes the deck should be pushed closer to the house and she respects their work to save the existing. Mr. Barnert stated that if the deck is made narrower the deck will likely need more support in the rear which may compromise the tree. Mr. Cooper stated the application is, to some extent, an expansion to a non-conforming structure. He is sympathetic to the owners and believes the deck does make the deck make the bomb shelter look better, although he did not see the property prior to its current state. Mr. Cohen emphasized that the Board is not setting a precedent with their decision and it is unlikely to have another case involving a deck over a bomb shelter come before the Board. He does wish the deck could be pushed back. Mr. Clifford stated his concern that the deck is too large and believes it could be built smaller while still being safe. He also stated he believes there is plenty of room in the back yard for a deck if they really want one, but the current proposal is not justified. A Straw Poll was taken two (2) in favor, three (3) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention. Mr. Clifford summarized the proposal is likely to be denied tonight and the Board would recommend the applicant request a continuance to allow them time to work with and alter the plan. He stated the applicant also has the option to withdraw the application and start over again, or can have the Board vote tonight. Hearing was reopened at 7:39 PM. (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, and Scott Cooper – Yes). Mr. Dalvi requested a continuance. The Board discussed and agreed to Continue the Hearing with the agreement of the Applicant to the March 28, 2024 Board of Appeals meeting. No further discussion 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 March 28, 2024 Hearing (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, and Jeanne Krieger – Yes). Mr. Clifford clarified that if the Applicant wishes to move into the setback zones then they would need a really good reason to do so to obtain Board approval, so it may be necessary to move the porch elsewhere on the property. No further comments from the Board. Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Virtual, Via Zoom February 22, 2024 Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, Martha C. Wood, and Associate Member Jeanne Krieger Alternate Member: Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, Julie Krakauer Moore, Zoning Administrator, and Olivia Lawler, Administrative Clerk Address: 12 Cedar Street 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 and 135-8.4.2 to allow modification to a non-conforming structure. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Plot Plan, Floor Plans, Existing and Proposed Elevations, Average Natural Grade Worksheet, Gross Floor Area Calculations, GSF Take Off Delineation, and an Abutter 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 Building Commissioner, Conservation Director, and Zoning Administrator The Hearing was opened at 7:46 pm. Petitioner: Katy Finkinzeller Katy Finkinzeller presented the petition. She began by sharing that she is a registered architect in Massachusetts and has been representing herself as the homeowner of this property. Ms. Finkinzeller shared the proposed plans and elevations for the garage and highlighted the differences between the existing conditions and the proposed. The purpose of these changes is to acquire more space to store and charge an electric vehicle and to store yard and sporting equipment. Ms. Finkizeller explained that the cellar of the home on the property has a large exposed ledge inside and experience a lot of water which does not allow them to store belongings in the cellar safely. She highlighted that the proposed garage design is only 23-foot depth, making it shorter than the standard 24-foot depth of garages. It was also shared that the width of the design came to be from figuring how to fit a vehicle and stairs to the loft in the garage. Ms. Finkinzeller further shared that the property is non-conforming in nature due to a lack of required frontage and a driveway that does not meet the setback requirements in the Lexington’s Bylaws. She previously went through the ANRAD process with Conservation to determine the wetland delineations and what was required for this process according to the Conservation Commission. Conservation Commission has also held a hearing for a Notice of Intent for this proposed project and did decided they did not want to give full approval until Ms. Finkinzeller appeared before the Board of Appeals. The Conservation Commission did share that they do not want the structure any closer to the 25-foot No-Build Zone than it currently is as to not cause more disruption. Other locations were considered, such as on the left side of the home and the front yard, but setbacks and a steep grade were issues that were encountered in those scenarios. Ms. Finkinzeller also considered placing the proposed garage more directly in the rear of the property but the family does not want to lose much of their back yard and additionally she had to consider the turn radius needed to get around the house and into a garage. The proposed plans do not make the property very close to the max site coverage and the goal is to not overdevelop the site. Board Member, Nyles N. Barnert, questioned why there are stairs to a second floor. (Having only a ladder would make it difficult to move up and down and to store items upstairs. The stairs are only the 3foot width minimum and nose of a car would fit under the stairs and lawn mowers and other yard tools will be store in the side space under the stairs. Mr. Barnert questioned if the garage could be designed to be longer and narrower. He stated that is the garage was extended further back then it seems the stairs would not need to make a turn and could go straight up along the back. (The stair design turns in order to just meets the head height requirement for stairs. The narrower the garage gets, the less you would have for the rise and run of the stairs.) Board Member, Jeanne Krieger, questioned if the proposed garage is taller than the existing which would mean a tall wall protruding into the setback (Yes, but the height is measured to the ridge of the roof so the wall height is closer to only 13 Feet) Board Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, asked to view the plot plan and questioned where on the plan the No Build Zone Delineation line is (the dotted line indicates the No Build Zone, dashed line is the 100 Foot Buffer Zone) Mr. Clifford stated the Board often recommends full Conservation Commission approval prior to making a zoning decision. This allows the Board to make their conditions match the requirements of the Conservation Commission. He also shared his qualms with the reduction in the side yard setback making the garage closer to the neighbors. He stated side yard setbacks help to ensure fire safety and allows for firetrucks to move between properties when needed. Mr. Clifford questioned if the applicant could move the garage forward and left. (Potentially. That may affect the tree in the front of the garage that they want to protect.) Mr. Clifford emphasized that this was a good opportunity to request a continuance if desired. No further questions from Board. The Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant a continuance until the March 28, 2024 Hearing (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, and Jeanne Krieger – Yes). Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Virtual, Via Zoom February 22, 2024 Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, Martha C. Wood, and Associate Member Scott Cooper Alternate Member: Jeanne Krieger Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, Julie Krakauer Moore, Zoning Administrator, and Olivia Lawler, Administrative Clerk Address: 319 Woburn Street 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 and 135-3.4 Table 1 (Permitted Uses and Development Standards) line I.1.04 to allow a package liquor store, with no consumption on the premises. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, 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 Select Board’s Office and Zoning Administrator. The Board received a request to withdraw without prejudice. The Board of appeals voted five (5) 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, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, and Scott Cooper – Yes). Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Virtual, Via Zoom February 22, 2024 Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, Martha C. Wood, and Associate Member Scott Cooper Alternate Member: Jeanne Krieger Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, Julie Krakauer Moore, Zoning Administrator, and Olivia Lawler, Administrative Clerk Address: 510 Waltham Street 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- 3.1.1.1, and 135-8.2.1 to allow for the alteration of a pre-existing non-conforming use. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, 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 Select Board’s Office and Zoning Administrator. The hearing was opened at 8:15 PM Petitioner: Frederick Gilgun Frederick Gilgun presented the petition on behalf of LL&R Capital LLC. Mr. Gilgun described the request for the reconstruction of a non-conforming 2-family dwelling. The existing site plan was shared. Mr. Gilgun shared that the plot is 32,613 SQFT, which is more than enough square footage for a lot that is zoned RS. He highlighted that the side setback on the left side is only 3.9 ft. currently and is non-conforming because of that. The new structure will be within setbacks and be in conformance with dimensional regulations outlined in the bylaw. And will be located further back on the lot. He gave an overview of the proposed floor plan, which will be set back 70 feet from the street. He believes the construction will not have substantial detriment to the neighborhood since the property is already a 2-family home. Reconstruction will enhance the curb appeals and help to increase property values in the neighborhood. The proposed 2-family keeps with town objectives to promote diversity in housing. Mr. Gilgun also stated that the property will also have a storm water management system. Board Member, Scott Cooper, stated that the home currently appears as a one family because of the garage placement being out of site from the street. He questioned if it was considered to not have two garages front facing as to help limit the look of the home being a 2-family dwelling. (It was considered but there is not space to do it) Board Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, asked to clarify if the lot is big enough to be subdivided? (No. There is not enough frontage for this to be a subdivision.) Mr. Gilgun summarized the proposed 2-family dwelling will not be any more detrimental and they ask for the Board’s support and approval. The Hearing was closed at 8:23 PM. (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, and Scott Cooper – Yes). The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention a SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.4, 135- 3.1.1.1, and 135-8.2.1 to allow for the alteration of a pre- existing non-conforming use (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, and Scott Cooper – Yes). Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Virtual, Via Zoom February 22, 2024 Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, Martha C. Wood, and Associate Member Scott Cooper Alternate Member: Jeanne Krieger Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, Julie Krakauer Moore, Zoning Administrator, and Olivia Lawler, Administrative Clerk Other Business: 1. A minor modification determination to modify a Special Permit dated July 27, 2023 at 75 Fottler Avenue 2. Minutes from February 8, 2024 Meeting The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Certified Plot Plan, Elevations, Proposed Plans, and a Previously granted Special Permit. 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, Engineering Department, and Zoning Administrator. Petitioner: Xinyu Zhan Ms. Zhan presented. She spoke of the previously granted special permit for the property. She explained after further consideration of the plan and designs of the original proposed plans which were granted a special permit, she realized it was far from the ideal proposal. Highlighting factors such as too many steps and having arthritis, Ms. Zhan emphasized that the minor modification is a more beneficial to her and to others. The new proposed plans were presented alongside the original proposed plan in order to highlight the changes and it was emphasized that the structure is becoming more conforming in regards to set backs with the proposed modification. Side yard setbacks would be increasing from 6.5ft to 10.2 ft with the proposed modification and the number of stairs would decrease from 12 to 4. Ms. Zhan reiterated her gratitude and how this design is much more senior friendly than the previous plan. There were no questions or comments from the Board. No further discussion from Board. 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, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, and Scott Cooper – Yes). The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant a MINOR MODIFICATION in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section 135-9.2.2.5 to allow for a minor modification to a previously issued Special Permit (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, and Scott Cooper – Yes). Board Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, reported on updates regarding the Hosmer House. He summarized that Historical Commission would be requesting funds from the Select Board and that Select Board will make their decision during Executive Session. Mr. Clifford emphasized that the Board Members should not all attend as to not make a quorum. The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to approve the minutes from February 8, 2024 Hearing (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, and Scott Cooper – Yes). The Board voted to Adjourn at 8:40 PM (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, and Scott Cooper – Yes)