Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-06-27-ZBA-min Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom June 27, 2024, 7:00 pm Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, Martha C. Wood, and Associate Member Kathryn Roy Alternate Member: Jeanne Krieger Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, and Olivia Lawler, Administrative Clerk Address: 8 Columbus Street (ZBA-24-18) The petitioner is requesting a SPECIAL PERMIT is 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 nonconforming structure. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Certified Plot Plan, Floor Plan, Photographs, Elevations, Gross Floor Area Calculations, and Abutter Support Letters. 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 Interim Zoning Administrator and Planning Department. The Hearing was opened at 7:04 PM. Petitioner: Brigitte Steines, InkStone Architects, 18 Main Street, Concord, MA Brigitte Steines presented the petition. She began by giving an overview of the requested relief and the current nonconforming nature of the home. She shared the plans of the proposed additions and proposed plot plan. Ms. Steines emphasized the irregular shape of the lot which makes it more difficult to do the proposed alterations within the s etbacks. The home was built in 1930 with multiple additions and modifications occurring thereafter. The floor plans were presented and the gross floor area was described. The petitioner explained that a larger entrance way is needed to make the home more f unctional for the family when entering. She also highlighted that the need for the deck in the rear to be altered is due to the relocation of the kitchen within the home which necessitates moving the current door and landing in the rear. Existing photos of the home were shared alongside depictions of the proposed additions. Ms. Steines described that the proposed front deck will provide the family and visitors a safe landing spot when entering the home after climbing up the stairs. The front porch was also said to help with connectivity with the street and the neighborhood. She stated the 5 ft depth of the rear deck is to allow the family to place pots for growing vegetables, flowers, and other plants on the deck. She concluded emphasizing the minor nature of the proposed addition that will have a large impact on the quality of life for the family while not adversely affecting the solar access to adjoining lots. Ms. Steines also highlighted two (2) letters of support that were obtained from neighbors. Board Member, Nyles N. Barnert, questioned why the deck in the rear was originally proposed at 4 ft. in depth but is now 5 ft., making the rear setback smaller than the current nonconformity in the rear of the lot which is 13.1 ft. (The rear deck is a highly trafficked area and provides access to a grill, plants, and gathering space for the family. If the deck were only 4 ft. with a railing installed, there would not be sufficient space for gardening pots to be placed on the deck.) Mr. Barnert questioned if the applicant could reduce the depth of the rear deck to match the current nonconformity of 13.1 ft. (Yes, that could be done.) Associate Board Member, Kathryn Roy, questioned if there are stairs on the proposed rear deck. (Yes.) She questioned that since it is not a very high deck, could the deck depth be reduced and the homeowners utilize the ground on the existing patio for plants. (The location of the plants on the deck offers convenience for the family and will provide a pleasant view through the glass door of the home.) Board Member, Norman P. Cohen, questioned if the two (2) support letters were from direct abutters. (Support letters are from neighbors across the street from the front of the property. Only Abutters that have a direct view of the propos ed changes were approached about the request. Abutters on the side and rear have fences blocking their view) No further questions from Board. No comments or questions from audience Board Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, questioned if the applicant would agree to reduce the rear deck depth to match the existing nonconforming rear yard setback of 13.1 ft. (Yes.) Brigitte Steines closed her argument stating the she believes the scope of the project is clear and minor. Hearing was closed at 7:23PM (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). Mr. Clifford questioned if members of the Board agreed that a condition should be added to ensure the depth of the rear deck is reduced to make the setback to the deck match the current nonconforming rear yard setback. (Yes.) No further discussion from Board. The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant a SPECIAL PERMIT is 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 nonconforming structure with conditions. (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). Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom June 27, 2024, 7:00 pm Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, Martha C. Wood, and Associate Member Kathryn Roy Alternate Member: Jeanne Krieger Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, and Olivia Lawler, Administrative Clerk Address: 3 Bowker Street (ZBA-24-19) The petitioner is requesting a SPECIAL PERMIT is 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 nonconforming structure. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Certified Plot Plan, Floor Plan, Elevations, Applicant Special Permit Application Statement, Abutter Support Letters, Gross Floor Area Calculations, Average Natural Grade Calcula tions. 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 Interim Zoning Administrator, Building Commissioner, and Planning Department. The Hearing was opened at 7:26 PM. Petitioner: Bruce Daube, 3 Bowker Street, and Irena Matulic of Doma Homes Bruce Daube presented the petition. He began thanking the Board for their time and consideration. He described his history with the home which he has been in ownership of since 2006 and described the preexisting nonconformity of a 12.1 ft. front yard setback to the porch and only 4.2 ft. to the stairs. The designs were prepared by Irena Matulic of Doma Homes. Photographs of the lot were shared and Mr. Daube emphasized the sloping of the lot and a large sugar maple tree they wish to preserve are two reasons for the siting of the proposed garage. Plans of the proposed garage were shared and Mr. Daube highlighted that the proposed side yard setback is conforming. The garage will be a one car garage on the lower level and an office/workshop space on the level above. He described the layout of the proposed garage while sharing floorplans of the home and proposed attached garage that will be accessible from outside and from inside the existing home. Mr. Daube highlighted the quality of lif e improvements that the proposed addition would provide to he and his grown son. Auto repair and other hands-on activities, such as woodworking, will take place in the new garage since the home currently does not have ample space for it. He utilizes his auto repair hobby as a way to give back to his community and the garage would be a great dedicated space for that where he is sheltered from the elements. He also emphasized the current use of space is unconventional and the proposed garage would allow material and uses to be relocated to provide them with more typical uses of the space in their home. The proposed garage addition would also include insulation improvements to the first level of the home and allow for the replacement of all vinyl siding of the home, improving the energy efficiency and the curb appeal of the home. He concluded his presentation highlighting support from abutters and stating the proposal would improve his quality of life and increase property value. Board Member, Nyles N. Barnet, questioned what the proposed use of the upstairs would be. (It would house tools, machines, and weightlifting items .) He questioned if there was proposed bathroom on that level (No, there is no plumbing planned to the proposed garage. Applicant is willing to live without a bathroom in the garage to maximize space and reduce construction costs.) Associate Board Member, Kathryn Roy, questioned if the previously mentioned sugar maple tree could be presented and questioned if the applicant considered the drip line and the cutting of the crucial root system of the tree. (Applicant shared photograph. Minor trimming of branches is expected but tree is positioned far enough back that it is expected to survive the addition.) Ms. Roy question if the tiny home present in the photographs would be moved. (Yes, once the tiny home construction is complete it is planned to be brought to a property in New Hampshire that the applicant owns. It will move from its current location either way when the proposed addition is started) No further questions from Board. No comments or questions from audience Hearing was closed at 7:49 PM. (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). No further discussion from Board. The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant a SPECIAL PERMIT is 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 nonconforming structure. (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). Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom June 27, 2024, 7:00 pm Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, Martha C. Wood, and Associate Member Kathryn Roy Alternate Member: Jeanne Krieger Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, and Olivia Lawler, Administrative Clerk Other Business: 1. Minutes from the May 9, 2024 Meeting Board Member, Kathryn Roy, recused herself from the vote stating her absence at the May 9, 2024 meeting. The Board of appeals voted four (4) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to approve the minutes from May 9, 2024 Hearing (a roll call vote was taken: (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, and Martha C. Wood – Yes). The Board voted to Adjourn at 7:56 PM (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).