HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-08-24-ZBA-min
Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals
Selectmen’s Meeting Room
August 24, 2017
Board Members Present: Chairwoman, Jeanne K. Krieger, Edward D. McCarthy,
David G. Williams, Martha C. Wood, and Ralph D. Clifford
Alternate Present: Nyles N. Barnert
Administrative Staff: Jennifer Gingras, Administrative Clerk and David George, Zoning
Administrator
Address: 34 Arcola Street
The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and
Justification, Plot Plan, Elevations, Floor Plans, and Photographs. Also submitted
were updated plans, received on August 17, 2017 and August 18, 2017, and a letter
from the applicant regarding the heights of nearby properties, dated August 22, 2017.
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, Engineering Department, Planning Office, and
Zoning Administrator.
The petitioner is requesting a TWO (2) SPECIAL PERMITS in accordance with the
Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) sections 135-4.3.5 to allow a
height of a structure to be 33 ft instead of the required 25 ft; and 135-9.4 and 135-8.4.2
to allow modification to a non-conforming structure.
The hearing was a continuation from the July 27, 2017 hearing.
The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Aravind and Karuyna Srinivasan, presented the petition.
They are allowed by right to have a height of 25.6 ft for the addition. They have
provided updated plans showing that the proposed height is now 27 ft, as opposed to
the 33ft that was originally proposed. They were able to reduce the height by
removing the attic and reducing the roof pitch.
A Board Member, Mr. David G. Williams, asked if the neighbor that opposed the
hearing last time is in attendance.
An audience member, Ms. Chen of 38 Arcola Street, asked the applicants what the
proposed height of the addition is (the applicants responded it will be 27 ft and they
are allowed 25.6 ft by right). The applicants provided a copy of the plans to Ms. Chen.
Ms. Chen responded that she is no longer opposed to the addition after viewing the
updated plans.
The Chairwoman, Ms. Jeanne K. Krieger, stated that the updated plans have met the
majority of the concerns the Board had. Ms. Krieger asked the applicant to clarify how
the depth of the proposed addition was increased to 29 ft when the previous plans
showed 27 ft (the applicants responded that with the reduced height they increased
the depth to accommodate the space).
The Zoning Administrator, Mr. David George, recommended that the site plan be
marked up to reflect the proper plot plan that would be approved.
A Board Member, Mr. Ralph D. Clifford, asked if they are proposing to go further back
on the property (yes).
The applicant marked up the plot plan as “Exhibit A” to reflect the depth of the addition
as 29 ft instead of the previously proposed 27ft.
There were no further questions or comments from the Board.
There were no questions from the audience.
The Chairwoman closed the hearing at 7:42 pm.
On a motion by Ralph D. Clifford and seconded by Martha C. Wood, the Board voted
5-0, to grant a waiver to the requirement of a certified plot plan.
On a motion by Martha C. Wood and seconded by Ralph D. Clifford, the Board voted
5-0 to grant a TWO (2) SPECIAL PERMITS in accordance with the Zoning By-Law
(Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) sections 135-4.3.5 to allow a height of a
structure to be 33 ft instead of the required 25 ft; and 135-9.4 and 135-8.4.2 to allow
modification to a non-conforming structure.
Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals
Selectmen’s Meeting Room
August 24, 2017
Board Members Present: Chairwoman, Jeanne K. Krieger, Edward D. McCarthy,
David G. Williams, Martha C. Wood, and Ralph D. Clifford
Alternate Present: Nyles N. Barnert
Administrative Staff: Jennifer Gingras, Administrative Clerk and David George, Zoning
Administrator
Address: 38 James Street, f/k/a 7 Rangeway Street
The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and
Justification, Plot Plan, Elevations, Floor Plans, and Photographs. Also received was
a revised plot plan, received August 24, 2017, Addendum B, entitled, “Supporting
Additional Information”, received July 26, 2017, and letters from abutters in support of
petition.
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 Administrator, Planning Office, and
Zoning Administrator.
The petitioner is requesting a VARIANCE in accordance with the Zoning By-Law
(Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section 135-4.1.1, Table 2 (Schedule of
Dimensional Controls), to allow a height of a structure to be 43 ft instead of the
required 40 ft.
The Chairwoman opened the hearing at 7:43 pm.
Mr. John Farrington presented the petition.He had submitted letters from abutters
that are in favor of the petition. Mr. Farrington also stated that the Zoning
Administrator, Mr. David George, pointed out that the natural grade elevation as
shown on the plot plan submitted was different than what was shown on the building
permit application. This was a mistake by Meridian that has been discussed with
Building staff.
Mr. George responded that staff had previously discussed the slope on the building
application.
Mr. Farrington stated that the house meets all the setback requirements. The finished
topography is different than originally planned. There is a 12 ft grade change where
the house was previously. The property is located at the intersection of Rangeway
Street and James Street, which are both unaccepted, private ways. A house and 2
other structures were demolished before building the new house. The topography on
the site is steep. The soil conditions were a problem because 60% of the site was
granite. Blasting was not an option because the property is on a fault line. The drilling
and hammering took 26 work days, but it should have taken another 2 weeks to
excavate additional granite and lower the cellar further. They are requesting a
Variance for the height of the structure because it exceeds the maximum height
allowed of 40 ft. The Zoning By-law sets out two different ways to measure the grade
of the site. The grade could be either the elevation of the natural site grade prior to
disturbance and regrading for construction or if the finished grade is lower than the
undisturbed natural grade, the finished grade is the point from which the height of a
structure is measured. The height is the highest point of the structure built on the site,
which is typically the roof ridge line. The highest point of the structure at 38 James St.
is 33 ft 6 in, as shown on the architect’s plan. The zoning bylaw requires that the 33 ft
6 in be measured from the lower of the finished grade before construction. When built
according to the framing plans from the architect, the house measures 34 ft 2 in. All of
the architect’s measurements are measured from the sill, which averages 18 in above
finished grade. Because the framing plans result in a taller house by 6 in more than
shown on the architectural plans is the first error. The second error is that the
architect’s plans showed the measurement to the house ridge height from the sill on
the foundation instead of the finished grade shown on the architect’s plans. The total
of the two errors is approximately 2 ft 4 in. In addition, when looking at as-built plans,
there was confusion on whether to use the natural grade pre-construction or natural
grade prior to the grade change. The average natural grade, preconstruction, was
calculated at 251.5. The average finished grade post construction was calculated at
256. To determine the as built height, the allowable height limitation of 40 ft is then
added to the lower of these two numbers, allowing a total of 291.5.If the architect’s
33.6 ft is added to the preconstruction average grade, the result is 285.1, which is
below the maximum height limitation in the bylaw. At this point, the builder thought
everything was fine. When the actual roof peak elevation was measured in the field
after construction and was added to the preconstruction average natural grade, the
result shows a building height of 42.23, which is 2.23’ above the allowable height of 40
ft. This was when the mistakes in the architect’s plans were discovered. The height
overage was a result of multiple mistakes.Therefore, they are asking for a variance of
3 ft over the allowable height of 40 ft to include the mistake plus a few more inches.
The applicant submits that a literal enforcement would result in re-building the entire
roof structure. Because of the topography of the lot, and or the surrounding area, the
violation is not noticeable.
A Board Member, Mr. Ralph D. Clifford, stated that there is no question about the
hardship but he has questions about soil conditions and topology. Mr. Clifford asked
why they are stating this is a mistake with construction and not a mistake because of
the soil conditions (the grade change on the lot is significant and after drilling the
granite for 26 working days, the workers thought they had adjusted the foundation to a
point where it would accommodate the building as designed by the architect. The
result of the topography, mistakes, and having to do hammering instead of blasting,
caused the error).
A Board Member, Mr. Clifford, asked if the foundation was inspected by the Town (Mr.
Bob Cataldo, the contractor, responded yes). Mr. Clifford asked if the Building
Inspector measures the height or if they just do a safety inspection (no, the inspector
basically does a safety inspection. The person that does the excavating uses a laser
to measure the hole). Mr. Clifford stated that the overage in height was caused by the
mistakes made in construction and not because of the reasons described for a
variance in the bylaw.
Mr. Farrington stated that the impact of height is unnoticeable in the neighborhood and
that is an important part of the zoning bylaw.
A Board Member, Mr. David G. Williams, asked why they stopped drilling after 26 days
(Mr. Cataldo responded that the neighbor across the street kept asking them to stop
because their baby couldn’t sleep. Another problem was because the machine they
used kept bouncing. They went down in some areas 12-14 ft and it kept bouncing.
They took laser measurements that showed it should be deep enough). Mr. Williams
stated this isn’t a de minimus violation and is significant. Mr. Williams stated that on
one of the letters from an abutter at 31 James St asked for the storm drain to be
cleared (Mr. Cataldo stated that they took care of that).
Mr. Williams asked what the landscaping plans are since it’s an imposing house in a
small neighborhood (Mr. Cataldo stated they will have plantings in front of the house
and for the sloped part near the garage, they will probably do junipers).
A Board Member, Mr. Edward D. McCarthy, stated that the maximum gross floor area
was 7,142 sq ft and staff may have had a concern about it (Mr. Cataldo stated that
rd
number was calculated before the 3 floor was added. They are allowed to have a
GFA of 7400 sqft. The 7500 sqft reflected on the zoning board application is an error).
An audience member, Ms. Jo Ann Mulready-Shick of 27 Rangeway, spoke in
opposition of the petition. She stated that the owners of 38 James St never
approached her about the project and she doesn’t understand why we have
regulations if they are not followed. Because of the new structure, there is now major
erosion at the end of Rangeway and the increased runoff. She also believes the
height is very noticeable.
Mr. Farrington stated that if there is an erosion control problem, it should be the
builder’s responsibility to fix it.
rd
Mr. Williams asked the applicant if the 3 floor was an addition (Mr. Cataldo
rd
responded that the 3 floor was added after they started building).
An audience member, Mr. Matthew Daggett of 11 White Pine Lane, spoke in
opposition to the petition. Mr. Daggett stated that he doesn’t understand why the
errors were not caught earlier in the process.
Mr. Farrington stated that builders typically don’t make mistakes knowingly and just go
on to finish the project. The plans that were used showed a roof height that was fine.
Mr. Clifford stated that mistakes in construction are not something we are allowed to
look at for grounds to substantiate an error and he will be voting against the variance.
Ms. Jo Ann Mulready-Shick of 27 Rangeway, stated there have been other neighbors
on the street that have asked for variances and have been denied.
Mr. Williams asked what they are planning to do with the road and if they are required
to fix the road (Mr. Cataldo stated that they are not required to do anything to the road
because the Town did the road when they built the LexHab house further down the
street. The Town asked them to fix the berm at the corner of Skyview Rd. and put
berm at the end of the driveway across from James Street.There were no other
requirements he had to perform to upgrade the road. Mr. Cataldo stated that if the
erosion did occur because of this project, he will fix it and have tried to mitigate any
water run-off).Mr. Williams asked if the basement is finished (no). Mr. Williams asked
rd
if the 3 floor is finished (yes). Mr. Williams asked if they would have had the height
issue if the basement had been built 2.5 ft lower (they would have lost space on the
sides).
The Chairwoman, Ms. Jeanne K. Krieger, stated the Planning office has a comment
that the applicant is still subject for street determination (Mr. Cataldo believes that the
Town met the obligation when the LexHab houses were built).
Mr. Farrington stated that his understanding is that you can’t get your building permit
unless you get the street determination first. Mr. Farrington asked Mr. George if that
statement is correct. The Zoning Administrator, Mr. George, stated that in an ordinary
case when you have a lot adjacent to an unaccepted road or there is more than 1,000
sq ft of an addition, the road has to be brought to Town standards, so the applicant
would have to go before the Planning Board and it is his understanding that that
happened in this particular case. Mr. George asked Mr. Cataldo if the Planning Board
has issued an order relative to the unaccepted street such that Mr. Cataldo does not
have to do anything to bring it to Town Standards (Mr. Cataldo stated he met with the
Town Engineer and the road was built according to Town standards when they built
the LexHab houses). Mr. Farrington stated that his understanding is that that has to
come from the Planning Department. Mr. George stated typically a Certificate of
Occupancy won’t be issued until the street determination is made with the Planning
Board’s rules and regulations.
Ms. Krieger stated that she is not prepared to grant the variance. It’s a sensitive
neighborhood and it’s a large imposing structure.
A Board Member, Ms. Martha C. Wood, stated that if you look at the house from
James Street, it doesn’t look as large as it does from Rangeway Street.
Mr. Farrington stated he would rather continue the hearing than get a negative vote.
The Board unanimously stated that if they voted tonight it would be to not grant the
variance.
Mr. Farrington requested a continuance of the hearing to the September 28, 2017
meeting.
On a motion by Ralph D. Clifford and seconded by Martha C. Wood, the Board voted
5-0 to grant a continuance of the hearing to the September 28, 2017 and to extend the
constructive grant deadline to October 28, 2017.
Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals
Selectmen’s Meeting Room
August 24, 2017
Board Members Present: Chairwoman, Jeanne K. Krieger, Edward D. McCarthy,
David G. Williams, Martha C. Wood, and Ralph D. Clifford
Alternate Present: Nyles N. Barnert
Administrative Staff: Jennifer Gingras, Administrative Clerk and David George, Zoning
Administrator
Other Business:
1) Minutes of Meetings from July 27, 2017 Hearing
On a motion by Ralph D. Clifford and seconded by Martha C. Wood, the Board voted
5-0 to approve the minutes of July 27, 2017.
On a motion made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned.