Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-24-04.pdf Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals- June 24, 2004 Present, Mrs Uhrig, Chair, Mr Smith, Vice-Chair, Mr Barnert, Mrs Sheehan, Mr McWeeney Petition Address 125, 131, 141 Spring Street Assessors map- 18, 18, 26 Lot number- 14A, 14B, 44D The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the notice at 8 00 PM and descnbed information received from the Petitioner, other Boards and Commissions and letters relative to the Petition The Petition was presented by-Mr Ed Grant, Esq , Peter Lusiak, Architect Information presented by Petitioner- Sign Plans for the site and buildings. Need for signing for new tenant moving in The relief sought- is Special permit for signs The hardship is -NA Questions from the Board Why all signs now - why not only signs needed for tenant now Don't you need to approve sign locations for freestanding and building signs at a future date when you come back for site plan approval Questions from the audience -None Speakers in Favor -None Speakers in Opposition-None Rebuttal or comments by Petitioner- Mr Grant pointed out that ZBA was always in charge and any changes have to come to ZBA for approval Hearing was closed at•. 8.20 pm Discussion Wording Decision. On a Motion by Mr. Barnert, seconded by Mr.Smith. The Board by vote of 5-0 Approved the petition -with the following conditions -that the Board was not approving the placement and number of building signs for#200 and#400 Patriot Drive which are future buildings Submitted by John J McWeeney, Clerk Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals- June 24, 2004 Present, Mrs Uhng, Chair, Mr Smith, Vice-Chair, Mr Barnert, Mrs Sheehan, Mr McWeeney Petition Address - 2295 Massachusetts Avenue Assessors map - 50 Lot number - 154 The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the notice at 7•.52 PM and described information received from the Petitioner, other Boards and Commissions and letters relative to the Petition The Petition was presented by-Diana Linsenmeyer, Architect Information presented by Petitioner- Descnbed the existing condition -proposed addition area that is in the middle for which relief is needed The relief sought is - Special permit The hardship is -NA Questions from the Board. None Questions from the audience -None Speakers in Favor -None Speakers in Opposition-None Rebuttal or comments by Petitioner-None Hearing was closed at 7 58 PM Discussion-None Decision On a Motion by Mr Barnert, seconded by Mrs Sheehan The Board by vote of 5-0 Approved the petition -with the following conditions -none Submitted by John J McWeeney, Clerk Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals- June 24, 2004 Present, Mrs. Uhrig, Chair, Mr. Smith, Vice-Chair, Mr. Barnert, Mrs. Sheehan, Mr. McWeeney Petition Address - 10 Woburn Street Assessors map Lot number The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the notice at 7 45 PM and descnbed information received from the Petitioner, other Boards and Commissions and letters relative to the Petition The Petition was presented by-Partners, James Allen&John Cook Information presented by Petitioner- Letter dated 6/24 stating they felt they met the requirement of special permit and seek an extension The relief sought is - 5 year extension to special permit The hardship is -NA Questions from the Board-Are you seeking any change in conditions? Answer no Questions from the audience -Dan Consh, Hayes Lane, had comments on rubbish pickup from grounds and also compressor noise and suggested stockade fence might block noise Speakers in Favor - Jim Shaw Speakers in Opposition-None Rebuttal or comments by Petitioner -Petitioner agreed to continue to have employees police the area for rubbish Felt that noise fence was not necessary Heanng was closed at 7 51 pm Discussion on fence Decision On a Motion by Mr Barnert, seconded by Mr Smith The Board by vote of 5-0 Approved the petition-with the following conditions Same conditions as original permit Submitted by John J McWeeney, Clerk Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals- June 24, 2004 Present, Mrs. Uhrig, Chair, Mr. Smith, Vice-Chair, Mr. Barnert, Mrs. Sheehan, Mr. McWeeney Petition Address - 8 Drew Avenue Assessors map - 20 Lot number - 144 The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the notice at 8 29 PM and described information received from the Petitioner, other Boards and Commissions and letters relative to the Petition The Petition was presented by-Atty. Peter Puciloski and petitioner Peter Macy Information presented by Petitioner- Mr Puciloski said the Petitioners bought an old house on a small lot in 1999 The following year they bought an undeveloped lot behind their house in hopes of expanding their house and putting a driveway in the rear An abutter on Cliffe road blocked their plans by claiming adverse possession on a portion of the rear lot, which they use as back yard The Petitioner has already done some excavation work on the back lot The Petitioner says that since he bought the house his wife has had a baby and they find the present situation unlivable as the front stairs are dangerous in winter and the topo of the lot unsafe for the child. The Petitioners have been unable to resolve the issue with the abutter and faces years of expensive litigation without being able to make their home situation better The Petitioner believes his best course of action is to reverse the combination of the two lots and sell the front lot with the house on it The rear lot would be retained since if could not be sold for its value while litigation was pending The Planning Board has advised in their opinion the lots have been combined and cannot be separated as the front lot alone would be less than 5,000 sq ft Mr Puciloski said it was difficult and unusual situation and requested relief The relief sought is -Variance to separate lots. The hardship is - Topography and adverse possession claim by abutter Questions from the Board - The Board asked about status of negotiations between the parties Was the seller of the 2 lots the same owner Questions from the audience - B Doherty, 44 Bow St, said Petitioner removed substantial amount of soil to begin rear drive and should replace it. Owner 37 Cliffe said she bought her property in 1959 and believed she owned land in question Speakers in Favor -None Speakers in Opposition- Peter Dmitey, 81 Fottler Ave , who felt hardship was self inflicted Rebuttal or comments by Petitioner -None Hearing was closed at 8 45 PM Discussion Mr Barnert noted that the rear lot looked like it was made up of two small lots numbered 73 and 74 that the adverse possession claim was only on a portion of the site and only on lot 73 He suggested that if we separated lot 73 from the whole, the remainder would be in excess of 5,000 sq ft thereby sidestepping one of the concerns of the planning board. The Petitioner could then hold out the disputed area for litigation and sell the house and move on The area of lot 74 that has been disturbed has already grown in This thinking was attractive to other members who were troubled in coming up with a decision could provide relief Decision On a Motion by Mr McWeeney, seconded by Mr Barnert The Board by vote of 4-1 Approved the petition-with the following conditions Only lot 73 is separated out Lot 74 is to remain a portion of map 20 Lot 144 Lot 73 is to be stipulated as unbuildable lot Mrs. Uhrig voted in the negative. Submitted by John J McWeeney, Clerk Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals- June 24, 2004 Present, Mrs. Uhrig, Chair, Mr. Smith, Vice-Chair, Mr. Barnert, Mrs. Sheehan, Mr. McWeeney Petition Address - 18 Preston Road Assessors map - 78 Lot number - 24 The Chairman opened the hearing by reading a letter from the owner at 8 47 PM The Petition was presented by- Letter from Mane Lindquist and Robert Weissroft Information presented by Petitioner- Request to extend variance received 6/26/03 for 6 months due to inability to find a contractor The relief sought is - Extend variance for 6 months The hardship is -NA Questions from the Board. None Questions from the audience -None Speakers in Favor -None Speakers in Opposition-None Rebuttal or comments by Petitioner -None Hearing was closed at 8 50 PM Discussion. None Decision On a Motion by Mr Barnert, seconded by Mrs Sheehan The Board by vote of 5-0 Approved the petition - To extend variance for 6 months Submitted by John J McWeeney, Clerk Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals- June 24, 2004 Present, Mrs. Uhrig, Chair, Mr. Smith, Vice-Chair, Mr. Barnert, Mrs. Sheehan, Mr. McWeeney Petition Address - 2 Young Street Assessors map 54 Lot number 18 The Chairman opened the hearing by reading the notice at 8 21 PM and descnbed information received from the Petitioner, other Boards and Commissions and letters relative to the Petition The Petition was presented by-Zhiying Jin Information presented by Petitioner-Zhiying Jin pointed out on plan the proposed additions and the 2nd floor overhangs The relief sought is - Set back vanances The hardship is - Location of existing building on lot Questions from the Board Mr Smith requested petitioner to explain the setback issues Mrs Uhrig pointed out a non-conforming shed on property and asked petitioner if he could move or remove it to make it conform Questions from the audience - None Speakers in Favor -None Speakers in Opposition-None Rebuttal or comments by Petitioner - Petitioner said he would remove the shed Hearing was closed at 8 29 PM Discussion Wording of motion on shed Decision On a Motion by Mr Barnert, seconded by Mrs Sheehan The Board by vote of 5-0 Approved the petition-with the following conditions Shed to conform or be removed Submitted by John J McWeeney, Clerk Minutes of Executive Session Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals 6/24/04 At 8 50 P M Mr Barnert moved that the Board go into Executive Session to discuss a personnel matter Mrs Uhng polled the Board All answered in the affirmative The remaining person in the audience was asked to leave and the door closed Mrs Sheehan gave a report on the interviewing process for the clerk's position The response-the culling-the 8 to interviewed-the top two, the next two She reported that although our pnor clerk had responded that she was not in the final 8 Members all indicated that the prior clerk's performance was satisfactory and we were willing to have her back She reported that the top two were excellent but she understands that neither had taken the job when offered and wasn't sure if it was the money, the way the job is split, the responsibilities or what The next two would be satisfactory She felt that the remaining 4 were not satisfactory The Board discussed how the job was split, the requirements of the Board that staff needed to provide given legalities, etc Maura expressed concern that although the job had a wide salary range, she wasn't confident that the top people were being offered the top of the range of compensation and therefore were not taking the job The Board came out of executive session at 9.36 P M The Board requested the chair to send a letter to Karen Mullins regarding the top 4, expressing confidence in their qualifications but serious reservation in the remaining pool - suggesting re-advertising and requesting some information on why preferred candidates were not taking the job The Board adjourned at 9 40 P M