Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-04-25-ZBA-minMeeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom April 25, 2024, 7:00 pm Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, Martha C. Wood, and James A. Osten Alternate Member: Scott Cooper Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, and Julie Krakauer Moore, Zoning Administrator. Address: 3 Baker Avenue (ZBA-24-14) 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, Certified Plot Plan, Floor Plan, Elevations, and Gross Floor Area Calculations. 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, and Historical Commission. 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, James A. Osten – Yes and Nyles N. Barnert – Yes). 2 Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom April 25, 2024, 7:00 pm Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, Martha C. Wood, and James A. Osten Alternate Member: Scott Cooper Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, and Julie Krakauer Moore, Zoning Administrator. Address: 1822 Massachusetts Avenue (ZBA-24-17) The petitioner is requesting a SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-8.6 and 135-5.2.10 to allow the reestablishment of a non-conforming use and to allow for larger signs than otherwise allowed. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Certified Plot Plan, Floor Plan, Photographs, Elevations, Historic Districts Commission Certificate of Appropriateness Dated November 3, 2022, Proposed Sign Plan, Existing Sign Specifications, and Proposed 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, and Historic Districts Commission. The Hearing was opened at 7:07 PM. Petitioner: Tom Chiudina of 905 South Main Street Mansfield, MA Tom Chiudina presented the petition on behalf of Santander. Mr. Chiudina mentioned the proposed project has been planned since prior to the COVID-19 Pandemic. He described the property as being built in 1930 and has operated as a bank or financial institution since that time. The building has experienced a plethora of additions at different times and he shared a color-coded plan that outlines when each addition was completed. Mr. Chiudina outlined the requested relief for two building signs on the facades of the building facing Muzzey Street and Massachusetts Avenue. Additionally, an existing standing sign will be replaced and the lighting fixture below the sign will be removed and replaced with one that projects from above. He shared the proposed signage plans and emphasized the approval received from the Historic Districts Commission (HDC). He described how HDC requested the letters on the wall signs to be smaller and those changes were made and they also want the downward facing LED light fixture on the post sign to have a max of 3500K. Mr. Chiudina then described the second half of the proposal and requested relief pertaining to reinstating the abandoned non-conforming use of a drive-up banking facility. He outlined that the current two-lane drive-up windows were added around 1965 with two teller windows. The 3 second lane teller window was replaced with an ATM in the 1980s and later, both drive-up operations were halted due to changing banking habits. Proposed plot plan was shared along with photographs of the existing conditions. Mr. Chiudina outlined Santander’s plan to remove the structure for the drive-up banking lanes and remove the existing window and door on the back side of the building and replace it with a drive-up ATM. The original proposal was to add parking where the current second lane is but after speaking with the Zoning Administrator, who highlighted that the depths of the parking spaces are not to regulation, they have created a second proposal. The second proposal places more landscaping in that area rather than parking spaces. He also shared that he spoke with Thomas Cataldo, the abutter at 7 Muzzey Street, who shared his support for this proposal and is willing to work with the applicant to potentially redesign the parking and the location of the easement in order to allow for the addition of more parking spaces. He summarized they are asking the Board to allow them to reactivate the non- conforming use under the Bylaw that allows it. Board Member, Nyles N. Barnert, asked to clarify if the proposal includes any new lighting or requested relief in regards to lighting. (There will be changes to lighting that are allowed by right without any additional special permits. Building Commissioner recommended placing the light at the ATM on a dimmer so it is darker when it is not in use since it will have to be one at all hours due to Bank regulations.) Board Member, Scott Cooper, questioned if the parking, both existing and proposed, is intended only for Santander customers. He stated he does not believe it is currently marked that way. (The parking spaces have signs indicating the spots are for customers conducting banking business but they do not specify Santander anywhere on them) He questioned if there were off- hour parking restrictions in place. (Unsure if there is signage or enforcement for off-hours parking. Not aware that it has ever been an issue.) Zoning Administrator, Julie Krakauer Moore, clarified what the parking signs at each parking space say. Board Member, Norman P. Cohen, questioned if the bank occupies the second floor of the building. (Yes, they lease the whole building. The front side of the second floor is not used and the second floor in the rear is used for the bathroom and breakroom facilities. The ground floor does not have a bathroom or breakroom. The proposed interior alterations include life safety improvements and upgrades along with upgrades to make the facility ADA compliant.) Board Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, stated his confusion for which plans the applicant is requesting relief for, the one with additional parking or the one without. (The only requested relief is for the reinstatement of the non-conforming use. Parking will be considered in the future after further discussion with Mr. Cataldo.) He emphasized the Board does not approve concepts and must only approve what has been submitted with the application. He stated the applicant may have to return to the Board for a minor modification if the parking plans with Mr. Cataldo work out. No further questions from Board. Ms. Krakauer Moore stated she met with Mr. Cataldo who was unable to be in attendance but is in support with the two requests that are in front of the Board tonight and he is more than happy to work with Santander about the easement configuration. Changes to the right-of-way will benefit both parties. No comments or questions from audience 4 A Straw Poll was taken on the reactivation of the nonconforming use, with no Board Members indicating intent to vote no. Mr. Clifford stated he may suggest the applicant request a continuance so they may figure out the easement and parking situation prior to the Board voting. Ms. Krakauer Moore described how the Town just voted to change the sign Bylaw which would make the proposed signs allowed by right if the Attorney General approves the new Bylaw. She suggested the Board still vote on the matter. Mr. Chiudina requested that the Board add a condition regarding the rear parking situation rather than a doing a continuance. He stated his desire for the building permit to be released to allow interior renovations to begin while understanding that parts of the proposal would be under risk without Board approval. Building Commissioner, James Kelly, stated there is a mechanism to allow for the building permit to be released which can be discussed in depth at another time. He questioned if the Board’s decision would have to be contingent on the exterior work. He mentioned if the decision is not contingent on the exterior work, the Board could approve the request without recognizing the changes in landscaping and parking that would be allowed by right. Mr. Clifford stated, that what they are proposing cannot be done as a right since they want to reinstate a non-conforming use and therefore, they need approval on the project, including this exterior work that relates to the use. He stated that this request relates to both the non- conforming use and the non-conforming structure that would be removed. Mr. Barnert questioned if the Board approved the second version of the plot plan if the applicant could return for a minor modification for any parking changes. Mr. Clifford stated the type of modification required depends on the nature of the changes and requests. He clarified that if the applicant proposed changes that encroached greater into setbacks than it would not be a minor modification. Ms. Krakauer Moore quoted the Zoning Bylaw stating “minor modifications shall be limited to changes that do not have a material impact on the project… and do not grant any zoning relief not originally requested or approved.” Mr. Chiudina stated the goal would be add additional parking eventually and that if the easement is altered additional parking could comply with dimensional regulations and therefore, no additional relief would be needed. Mr. Clifford asked to clarify that the applicant wanted the Board to vote on each issue rather than to do a continuance. Mr. Chiudina he would like the Board to vote assuming the landscaping plan is requested and that if in the future the Board deems it necessary for them to complete the whole process and not just a minor modification then they will oblige. Mr. Chiudina summarized that the nearly 100-year-old building is in dire need of rehabilitation inside and out after being deprived for so long. Santander is making a substantial investment in the property and hopes to stay here for years to come. Hearing was closed at 7:42 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) 5 Mr. Clifford stated the Board should add a condition that the applicant must satisfy all Historic Districts Commission requirements. He clarified that the Board is voting in regards to the proposal that had landscaping and no additional parking spaces. 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, 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) 135-8.6 and 135-5.2.10 to allow the reestablishment of a non-conforming use and to allow for larger signs than otherwise allowed with conditions. (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). 6 Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom April 25, 2024, 7:00 pm Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, Martha C. Wood, and James A. Osten Alternate Member: Scott Cooper Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, and Julie Krakauer Moore, Zoning Administrator. Other Business: 1. Minutes from the April 11, 2024 Meeting The Board of Appeals voted four (4) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and one (1) in abstention to approved the minutes from April 11, 2024 Hearing (a roll call vote was taken: Norman P. Cohen– Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes and Nyles N. Barnert – Yes). Board Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, abstained from voting, stating his absence at the April 11, 2024 meeting. The Board voted to Adjourn at 7:45 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).