Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-08-22-ZBA-min-copyMeeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom August 22, 2024, 7:00 pm Board Members: Acting Chair – Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, Scott Cooper, and Kathryn Roy Alternate Member: Jeanne Krieger Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, and Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator Address: 33 Woodpark Circle (ZBA-24-27) 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 135-6.7.7 to allow an Accessory Structure Apartment. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Certified Plot Plan, Floor Plan, 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 Zoning Administrator, Building Commissioner, and Conservation Director. The Hearing was opened at 7:05 PM. Petitioner: Chris Lee, 247 Coombs Rd., Brunswick, Maine, Backyard ADUs Chris Lee, presented the petition on behalf of Mark and Linda Adler. Mr. Lee gave an overview of their company, Backyard ADUs, and stated enthusiasm to work in the area. Mr. Lee provided a synopsis of the ADU, stating the proposal is in keeping with the spirit of Lexington’s ADU bylaw. The proposed ADU will allow for a multigenerational family to continue living on the same property and for family members to age in place. He emphasized that the ADU is designed to look subordinate to the main dwelling with a small garage that faces the street and a gable roof. Proposed elevations were presented. Mr. Lee described the potential views of the ADU from abutting properties, highlighting the minimal effect the ADU will have on the neighborhood. The roof line is clipped to help with fire separation and safety. Plans of the proposed ADU were shown and the attic space was examined. The attic will be unfinished and utilized for storage. Mr. Lee then presented the Site Plan and described how all utility connections will occur, emphasizing their collaboration with local DPW procedures and preferences. The ADU will be an all-electric, high efficiency home. Mr. Lee clarified that there are no rear abutters because there is a large utility easement in the rear of the property. A new driveway will be added and 3 trees will need to be removed. The proposal has no basement due to high estimated seasonal high ground water (ESHGW) which is located only 32 inches below grade according to test pits that were dug by a professional. Mr. Lee emphasize that an attic has been added to the plan so that no basement is required for storage and the ADU can stay further from the ESHGW and have no effect on the groundwater. Mr. Lee described the proposal’s location within the 100 ft. conservation land buffer zone. The Applicant has been in contact with the Conservation Department and will be filing a Notice of Intent with the Conservation Commission and Mass DEP for their approval. There is a Stormwater management plan in which all water that hits the roof will be recharged. Board Member, Norman P. Cohen, questioned if the letters of support were from direct abutters. (Yes). Board Member, Kathryn Roy, questioned how the water meter will be managed. (A single meter that runs the multiple units. If there were ever unrelated tenants, the cost of water would be incurred by the Landlord directly.) She questioned how long the tank for stormwater management will last. (It is a concrete tank that will last hundreds of years.) Board Member, James Osten, questioned if the proposal complies with setbacks. (Yes). He questioned if they are allowed two driveways on the property by right. (Yes). Board Member, Scott Cooper, asked to clarify the size of the apartment and the garage. (ADU is 998 sq. ft. and the garage is 227 sq. ft.). Board Member, Jeanne Krieger, questioned if they considered moving the ADU further back into the rear yard. (Yes, but there is an electrical easement in rear yard which they cannot build within). Acting Chair, Nyles N. Barnert, questioned where the water retention tank will be located (In the rear of the ADU, subgrade and not visible). Ms. Roy questioned if the tank will be located in the easement. (Yes, they can build below grade in the easement). Ms. Roy questioned the part of the ADU in the conservation land buffer zone. (Approximately 13.4 ft of the ADU is within the 100 ft. buffer zone). No further questions from the Board. Linda and Mark Adler, 33 Woodpark Circle, stated they received five (5) letters of support from abutters. Leslie and Scott Goldberg, 20 Woodpark Circle, stated their support of the proposal. No further comments or questions from audience. Mr. Barnert stated the Applicant has the option to request a continuance of the Hearing until they received Conservation Commission approval or they may have the Board vote during this hearing with the understanding that they may have to return for a modification or minor modification if the plans approved by Conservation Commission differ from the plans the ZBA approves. (Applicant would like to move to approval contingent on Conservation Commission approval. Notice of Intent is being filed and they do not anticipate to have to move the proposed ADU to received Conservation Commission approval). Hearing was closed at 7:30 PM (a roll call vote was taken: (Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, James Osten – Yes, Kathryn Roy – Yes, and Scott Cooper – Yes). Mr. Barnert stated the Special Permit will be contingent on Conservation Commission approval. 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 in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.4 and 135-6.7.7 to allow an Accessory Structure Apartment with conditions. (a roll call vote was taken: (Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, James Osten – Yes, Kathryn Roy – Yes, and Scott Cooper – Yes). Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom August 22, 2024, 7:00 pm Board Members: Acting Chair – Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, Scott Cooper, and Kathryn Roy Alternate Member: Jeanne Krieger Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, and Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator Address: 52 Vaille Avenue (ZBA-24-25) 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 nonconforming structure. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Certified Plot Plan, Floor Plan, Topographic 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, Conservation Director, and Planning Department. The Hearing was opened at 7:32PM. Petitioner: Tsung Lin, 52 Vaille Avenue Tsung Lin presented the petition. Mr. Lin gave an outline of the plan. The purpose of the addition is to add indoor parking for two (2) cars and additional living space for the family on the main level of the home. Mr. Lin’s wife started her business in 2012 which necessitated converting the one-car garage to storage space for her inventory. The family wishes to have a garage to store their vehicles in, specifically during the winter months to shield their cars from the weather and to make cleaning off their driveway easier and safer. He explained the garage s designed front to back rather than side-to-side because of ledge that is present on the side of the property. The proposed location helps to reduce the amount of ledge that needs to be removed and simplifies the work required to add a foundation. The existing non-conforming front yard setback was stated as 26.2 ft. and the proposed front yard setback would be 19.69 feet. No concerns from abutters were received. The proposal will not negatively affect traffic patterns because the use of the property will not change. The proposal will also allow the homeowner to add an additional bathroom on the upper level which functions as the main living level due to the lower level being colder and darker. Mr. Lin emphasized special permit approval will provide easier maintenance for the cars and driveway, a more welcoming home environment to visitors, and will not negatively impact the neighborhood. Board Member, James Osten, questioned if there would be ledge removal and how it would be done. (Yes. Drilling and Hammering. No explosives are planned). He questioned the applicant’s knowledge on the Noise Bylaw (Aware of the bylaw and the seven (7) days of ledge removal allowed without a noise mitigation plan. They will ensure to follow the noise bylaw). He stated the property is a secluded lot with plenty of room and he doesn’t believe the proposal will be seen by many or impact anyone negatively. Board Member, Kathryn Roy, questioned if the large rock shown in photos will be removed (No. They hope to minimize the disturbance on the and to their neighbors). Board Member, Scott Cooper, questioned if an architect is involved with the project (Yes. And a wetland scientist, engineer, and the conservation department). He questioned if they considered moving the garage back to be within the setbacks (No, they want to keep the shed in the rear and moving the garage would entail removing the shed). He questioned if they received support from their abutters (Yes, three (3) neighbors were questioned and shared their support). Acting Chair, Nyles N. Barnert mentioned the concerns shared from the Conservation Department (A Notice of Intent is being prepared and will be filed with the Conservation Commission). No further questions from the Board. No comments or questions from the audience Board Member, Norman P. Cohen, questioned if approval will be contingent on Conservation Commission approval. (Yes.) Mr. Barnert stated the Applicant has the option to request a continuance of the Hearing until they received Conservation Commission approval or they may have the Board vote during this hearing with the understanding that they may have to return for a modification or minor modification if the plans approved by Conservation Commission differ from the plans the ZBA approves. (Applicant would like a decision during this hearing). Hearing was closed at 7:49 PM. (a roll call vote was taken: (Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, James Osten – Yes, Kathryn Roy – Yes, and Scott Cooper – Yes). Mr. Cooper asked to confirm that the proposal is decreasing the nonconforming front yard setback, making the home more non-conforming. (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 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 nonconforming structure with conditions. (a roll call vote was taken: (Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, James Osten – Yes, Kathryn Roy – Yes, and Scott Cooper – Yes). Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom August 22, 2024, 7:00 pm Board Members: Acting Chair – Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, Scott Cooper, and Kathryn Roy Alternate Member: Jeanne Krieger Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, and Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator Address: 8 Mason Street (ZBA-24-28) The petitioner is requesting a SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section 135-9.4 and 135-6.2.4(4) to modify the dimensional controls of §4.0 to allow the renovation of a historic and architecturally significant building. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Certified Plot Plan, Floor Plan, Topographic Plan, Elevations, Photographs, Gross Floor Area Calculations, Abutter Support Letters, and Historical Commission decision Letter dated July 18, 2024. 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, Historical Commission, and Zoning Administrator. The Hearing was opened at 7:51PM. Petitioner: Dan Hisel, Hisel Flynn Architects, 52 Peacock farm Road Dan Hisel presented the petition on behalf of the Zachary and Suzanne Matus. He provided an overview of 8 Mason Street stating the lot is oddly shaped. The home is in the historical Peacock Farm neighborhood. The purpose of the proposal is to provide the homeowners with more space and to help improve the functionality of the home and the front entrance. Mr. Hisel shared the existing and the proposed site plan. The siting of the addition was decided due to a desire to not reduce too much outdoor space and to keep the existing roofline and architectural significance of the home. Mr. Hisel emphasized there are wetlands in the area but all proposed work is outside of the 100 ft. buffer zone. The applicant has been in contact with the Conservation Director and has applied for an administrative review. The proposed side yard setbacks were highlighted to be 13.2 ft. and 12.2 ft. instead of the required 15 ft. Mr. Hisel emphasized that it is only the roof overhangs that protrude into the required setbacks and that everything else about the addition can be done by right. Mr. Hisel provided an overview of Bylaw section 135-6.2, which allows for this request to be a special permit due to the home being in a historical neighborhood on the state register and the home being on the Lexington Cultural resources Survey. The required findings to grant a special permit under section 135-6.2 were shared and Mr. Hisel stated how the proposal meets each required finding. He also stated how the proposal complies with the required findings for a special permit under 135-9.4. Mr. Hisel closed by sharing proposed floor plans and emphasizing the minimal amount of roof overhang that would be within the required side yard setbacks. The proposal is designed to maintain the historic and architectural character of the home and neighborhood. Board Member, Kathryn Roy, questioned if the slope of the roof is changing (No). Board Member, Scott Cooper, asked to clarify that it is only the roof overhang that makes the proposal noncompliant with zoning setback regulations (Yes). He questioned how much space would be gain with the proposed addition (505 sq. ft.). Board Member, Norman P. Cohen, question if the Historical Commission (HC) has jurisdiction on this home and project (Yes, HC provided approval and letter of support for the proposal). Rachel Neu, Hisel Flynn Architects, read a comment from the HC from the application to clarify their support and approval. Acting Chair, Nyles N Barnert, clarified the proposed side yard setbacks. No further questions from the Board. No comments or questions from the audience. Zachary Matus, 8 Mason Street, stated they received letters of support from abutters and the neighborhood which are available with the application. Hearing was closed at 8:16 PM. (a roll call vote was taken: (Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, James Osten – Yes, Kathryn Roy – Yes, and Scott Cooper – Yes). No further discussion from Board. Mr. Barnert clarified that the side yard setbacks the Board will approve are 12.2 ft and 13.2 ft. as shown on the plans submitted with the application. 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 135-9.24 and 135-6.2.4(4) to modify the dimensional controls of §4.0 to allow the renovation of a historic and architecturally significant building with side yard setbacks of 13.2 ft. and 12.2 ft. instead of the required 15.ft. (a roll call vote was taken: (Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, James Osten – Yes, Kathryn Roy – Yes, and Scott Cooper – Yes). Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom August 22, 2024, 7:00 pm Board Members: Acting Chair – Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, Scott Cooper, and Kathryn Roy Alternate Member: Jeanne Krieger Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, and Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator Other Business: 1. Minutes from the July 25, 2024 Meeting Kathryn Roy and Scott Cooper abstained from voting. The Board of Appeals voted four (4) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to approve the minutes from July 25, 2024 Hearing (a roll call vote was taken: (Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, James Osten – Yes, Jeanne Krieger – Yes). The Board voted to Adjourn at 8:21 PM (a roll call vote was taken: (Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, James Osten – Yes, Kathryn Roy – Yes, and Scott Cooper – Yes).