Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-14-03.pdf To•Mr Robert Sacco, Chairman Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals From John J McWeeney- Clerk Date. August 15, 2003 Re Minutes of Meeting August 14, 2003 Mr Sacco called the meeting to order at 7 45 PM Present were Mr Sacco, McWeeney, Smith, Barnert, and Mrs Uhrig and associate member Mrs Davidson 1 700 Waltham Street-Special Permit Mr Sacco read the notice and file No comments from other boards Atty William Dailey spoke representing John Carroll who was present Mr Dailey indicated that this was John's 33 rd year of operating under a special permit. Mr. Dailey requested a five year permit and indicated that existing conditions of permit were acceptable Letters of support were received from the Lexington Fire Chief, Town Engineer and DPW Director Mr Barnert advised Mr Dailey of letter from Mr Bussgang reporting the presence of cars for sale parked at the entrance to the property in violation of conditions Mr Dailey said that he was unaware of Mr Bussgang's letter and the issue—could have been employees acting on their own behalf but assured that that was not an activity that Mr Carroll was allowed to do nor was engaged in and they would check it out and desist Mr.Steve Gerson of 12 Clematis Road asked if there were conditions and could Carroll sell retail parts Mr Gerson was given a copy of the conditions and was advised by the Board that retail sales were prohibited by the conditions Mr Fernando Casas, 26 Blossomcrest Road reported that after the hearing 5 years ago, he checked with Town Hall looking for the Decision and the conditions and that the decision was filed over a year after the hearing which he felt was unsatisfactory He requested the decision be filed timely and be readily available to the public He said that he saw non compliance over the years with cars going in and out on Saturday and Sunday in violation of the conditions but he didn't want to play policeman .He wants the petitioner to comply with the conditions. He said that 5 years ago Mary McCall Taylor, the then building officer said she would make penodic inspections but they were never done He also felt that the area for the car operation to be designated by marking the Four Corners of the acre spot was never done Peter(last name?) said that 4 corners were marked Heanng closed Board Discussion Mr McWeeney said he wanted annual inspections by both the health and zoning inspectors with written reports put in the file so that there would be enforcement and compliance over the term of the permit. The other members felt that this could not be made a condition but all agreed to a new condition that would require the petitioner to annually request in writing that the zoning enforcement officer inspect the property and furnish a report to the Board of Appeals On a motion by Mrs Uhrig seconded by Mr Barnert the Special Permit was unanimously granted for 5 years subject to all the existing 16 conditions and with an added condition#17- "the Permit Holder shall request annually in writing to the zoning enforcement officer to make an on site inspection and send a written report of conditions to the Zoning Board of Appeals." Page 1 of 4 08/14/24 12 37 PM H\ZBA minutes\8-14-03 doc 2 9 Nichols Road-Variance The Hearing began at 7 55 PM Mr Sacco read the Notice and reported no comments from other Boards Petitioner Suzanne Riches said her garage was built in the 1930's and was inadequate Because of the shape of the lot and where the house was located there was not another place to build a garage to replace the existing. She requested approval to demolish the present garage and to replace with a larger single car garage with the setbacks to be maintained as at present Abutter Andrea Simpson said she was in support Hearing closed On a motion by Mr Barnert seconded by Mrs Uhrig, the Variance was approved unanimously 3 44 Simonds Road-Variance Mr Sacco recused himself and was replaced by Mrs Davidson Mrs Uhng acted as Chairperson The Hearing began at 8 05 PM with the notice read by Mrs Uhrig. Mr. Mahoney, the petitioner, explained that they bought the house 2+yrs ago and were not able to effectively use the closed in porch on the Dexter Road side of the house It wasn't good enough construction for year round use and its windows did not allow for good use as a porch Petitioner submitted letters of support from abutters They were using it for storage In order to gain better use, he proposed to add 2 to3 feet to the footprint and demolish the existing"porch" and create more useable space The Hearing was closed and the Board moved to decide the case before opening another hearing Mr Smith felt that the petitioner was not forthright by requesting a variance to extend a porch while what he was asking for was to put an addition on the house. Mrs. Uhrig stated that she felt that his building plans were inadequate and that we should be getting better plans of both site and facades from petitioners The sideline of Dexter St was of concern to Mr McWeeney but he felt that a 3-foot extension would not be detrimental On a motion by Mr Barnert seconded by Mr Smith the variance was approved unanimously 4 26 Welsh Road Variance Mr Sacco read the notice and opened the heanng at 8 20 PM The petitioner, Mr Han described that he wanted to put an addition of a garage onto the house with the entrance from Estabrook instead of Welsh His idea was to use the grade difference to put the garage under and then expand the house over the garage at the same level as the existing house Mary Gearty 33 Stimson Ave spoke in opposition that houses were getting too large on the lots and out of proportion to existing homes Mrs Rita Zhi 8 Stimson spoke in support On questions from Board over the new extenor walls on Estabrook-Mr Han said that he would finish exterior the same as existing house-vinyl clapboard materials He said from Welsh Road you would only see 1 foot of concrete wall along the addition The Heanng was closed In discussion the Board again expressed dissatisfaction with the plans submitted and suggested that the building department should require better plans before accepting applications The Board was concerned with exterior appearance of addition on Estabrook Rd On a motion by Mr McWeeney to approve with the condition of requiring that the exterior of the addition facing Estabrook(both levels)be finished with the same materials as the rest of the house-vinyl siding- seconded by Mr Barnert the Variance was unanimously approved 5 33 Center Street-Mr Sacco read the Notice and opened the Hearing at 8 36 PM Donna Baron, the Petitioner said that she bought property with daughter and husband. That the house is a bunch of odd additions The garage has been improved and could be finished to make an Page 2 of 4 08/14/24 12 37 PM H\ZBA minutes\8-14-03 doc accessory apartment She said the house had a permitted accessory apartment Her goal was to remodel the house to create two good living areas There was a slight set back problem from a 3" overhang so she requested a variance to raise the roof in that area Her intention was to create a home where two generations could live together Mr Sacco read a letter from Mr and Mrs Corr In opposition to the request to make the house a two family. The petitioner said she had shown the plans to the Cons and the response they had received was that they liked the plans No one spoke in favor Petitioner responded to question from Mr Barnert that she had no problem limiting the permit to present owners Heanng closed The Board wanted several conditions in order to approve this Special Permit That the garage could not be used as a bedroom/residence, that the building be remodeled as shown in plans submitted and that the permit would require that one of the units be owner occupied at all times or the permit would lapse On a motion of Mr McWeeney citing the 3 conditions above seconded by Mr Barnert the Special Permit was unanimously granted. 6 220 Lincoln Street-Variance Mr Sacco who read the notice opened the Hearing at 8 50 PM Conservation Commission indicated they might need a filing if construction within 100 feet of a wetland Karen Beck, the owner described the addition to replace a front entry that had been there earlier and the bay window and rearranging of the interior No Public Comments Hearing closed On a motion by Mr Barnert seconded by Mr Smith the Variance was granted unanimously 7. 62 Liberty Street-Variance. The Hearing was opened at 8.57 PM after requesting and receiving approval to take out of order to go ahead of 59 Worthen Rd Mr Sacco read the notice Mrs Cole represented herself and explained her request to use this addition that had been built to accommodate her husbands injury she now wanted to use as accessory apartment but there was a technical problem with zoning Mr Hakala said that he was sympathetic and asked the Board to approve the Vanance or overrule him so Mrs Cole could rent out this area The Board then discussed the issue that this was not a use variance but rather a variance of requirement that required accessory apts in parts of homes built pnor to 1983. No comment received from abutters. The petitioner said she called several and none were concerned Hearing closed The Board was very understanding of this technical issue and on a motion by Mr Barnert Seconded by Mrs Uhng the variance was unanimously granted 8 59 Worthen Road- The Hearing was opened by Mr Sacco at 9M5 PM by reading the notice Dan Harden, Architect, and Dave Feist, engineer represented the petitioner Mr Harden explained that safety and code issues related to an earlier approved remodel/expansion could not be solved so the Church now planned to demolish the older 5 sections of the building and build new instead. Since they were now starting new the plan was modified to round out the building shape which increased the size of the footpnnt by about 2,000 SF They were appearing because they were short the number of parking spaces required But the revised plan resulted in increasing the number of spaces by 6 and resulted in a much more attractive and efficient lot with improved landscaping and amenities Conservation lauded the new plan as it included storm water recharge and moved the paved way about 15 feet away from wetlands The building was much more efficient but still was just adequate for this large congregation Mr Harrington of 11 Parker Street and Tony Pelts of 8 Jackson Court both commented on the problem of parking on Parker Street-they heard that the eliminating parking on one side of Parker was under consideration The Church's building chairman Page 3 of 4 08/14/24 12 37 PM H\ZBA minutes\8-14-03 doc responded that they have a parking committee that works hard but one of the issues is the access to the site presently is very vague as to where to enter etc and that will all be solved by the new plan Also they are considering a police detail and more monitors to direct churchgoers to the satellite parking facilities The hearing was closed Discussion of the Board was that the plan was an improvement. That parking was still an issue. Mr. Smith was concerned that the revised plan did not yield a smaller footprint given that they should have had more efficiency in new construction On a Motion by Mr McWeeney seconded by Mr Barnert the Vanances requested were approved unanimously conditioned on construction as per plans submitted and the submittal to the Board of a written pro-active parking control plan that specifies actions the church will undertake that would reduce on street parking and parking in municipal lots at times when there are use conflicts such as the swimming pool lot in the summer time such as staff-parking monitors,police detail and cone placement. 9 99 Follen Road-this is a continued hearing from June 26, 2003 on a lot that had been filled and a retaining wall erected prior to approval of the fill being brought in Atty Dailey represented the landowners Mr Sacco opened the continued hearing at 9 55 PM Mr Dailey presented the Board with plans showing how the wall was to be cut back to provide a tiered effect with landscaping between walls He also provided the Board with a certification from the site contractor that the fill had come from two sites in Lexington and were clean fill Mr Dailey indicated that the highest any wall would be from its base would be 9 feet The building inspector will have to approve the wall so he will receive a certified stamped plan from a structural engineer before he could ok the wall Public concern was for the stability of the wall and voiced by Mr Treadway of 28 Independence, Mr McPharland at 18 Independence who lives in the shadow of the wall Robert Weigan 30 Independence Mr Smith wanted to know if the owner had a record of the original elevations Mr Dailey advised that they knew onginal elevations and in response to a question from Mr Lahar of 32 Independence advised that there were about 2 feet of crushed stone under the wall Loam had been placed against the wall and was probably 2 feet thick The hearing was closed After discussion on a motion by Mr. Barnert seconded by Mr. McWeeney the Board voted unanimously to approve the permit subject to the following 1 That the wall and landscaping be constructed as shown on the plans submitted 2 The wall must meet the requirements of the building inspector 3 No wall face will be higher than 9 feet from foot to top of wall 4 No future structure will be built on the site closer than 10 feet from the wall 10 15 Audubon Road Request for extension for variance due to delay on plans Mr Hochman On a motion of Mr.Barnert seconded by Mr. Smith , it was unanimously voted to extend the vanance to March 31, 2004 Page 4 of 4 08/14/24 12 37 PM H\ZBA minutes\8-14-03 doc