Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-09-28-ZBA-min Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen’s Meeting Room September 28, 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: David George, Zoning Administrator Address: 38 James Street, f/k/a 7 Rangeway Street This is a continuation from the August 24, 2017 meeting. The petitioner submitted the following additional information with the application: Street Adequacy Determination, dated September 7, 2016, and a letter from John M. Farrington, dated September 26, 2017. 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 applicant submitted a request for a continuance to the October 12, 2017 meeting and an extension of the Constructive Grant deadline to November 12, 2017. On a motion by Martha C. Wood, and seconded by Edward D. McCarthy, the Board voted 5-0 to grant the Request for Continuance to the October 12, 2017 meeting date and an extension to the Constructive Grant deadline to November 12, 2017. Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen’s Meeting Room September 28, 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: David George, Zoning Administrator Address: 14 Robbins Road The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Plot Plan, Elevations, Floor Plans, and Photographs. Also received was (1) letter of support from an abutter. 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, and Zoning Administrator. The petitioner is requesting a SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By- Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) sections 135-9.4 and 135-8.4.2, to allow modification to a non-conforming structure. The Chairwoman opened the hearing at 7:33 pm. Ms. Amy Bentley with ASB Architecture, presented the petition on behalf of the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Rich and Lisa Premerlani. The applicants are proposing to nd add a master bathroom on the 2 floor of the house.When they evaluated the foundation of the structure, it was determined it wouldn’t be able to hold another addition, so they found that they would be able to expand slightly and partially create a new foundation, therefore, they need to alter and expand a non-conforming portion of the structure. They spoke with the neighbors and didn’t receive any negative responses to their petition. The neighbor to the east of them has a similar massing. They will not be disturbing the footings of the existing house and will be creating a crawl space where they are adding new footings. Because of the shape of the lot, it makes it difficult to expand. They are not increasing any demand on the systems of the town. The proposal would be an increase from the 1.5 bathrooms to 2.5 bathrooms. They feel like the addition is in character with the neighborhood. A Board Member, Mr. Ralph D. Clifford, asked Ms. Bentley if the applicants spoke with the neighbors to the west about the petition (Yes. The neighbors were not opposed to the petition, but they stated they were too busy to put something in writing). Mr. Clifford asked Ms. Bentley if there has been any thought about putting in landscaping between the properties (They have talked about it but don’t have anything specific planned). Page 2 The Chairman, Ms. Jeanne K. Krieger, asked if they will be able to maintain the trees on the property (yes). Mr. Clifford asked if the air conditioning unit will have to be moved because of the addition (yes, but they are not sure where yet, but it will most likely be moved to the rear of the lot). Mr. Clifford asked Ms. Bentley if it would be problematic if the Board made it a condition to move the air conditioning unit from the side (No, it wouldn’t be an issue). A Board Member, Mr. David G. Williams, stated that the unit should not be in the setback and they should move it as far back as possible. There were no further questions or comments from the Board. There were no questions from the audience. The Chairwoman closed the hearing at 7:44 pm. On a motion by Martha C. Wood and seconded by Edward D. McCarthy, the Board voted 5-0 to grant a SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) sections 135-9.4 and 135-8.4.2, to allow modification to a non-conforming structure with the condition that the air conditioning unit be moved to the back of the property and be placed outside of the required setbacks. September 28, 2017 ZBA Meeting Page 3 Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen’s Meeting Room September 28, 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: David George, Zoning Administrator Address: 29 Sherburne Road The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Topographic Plan, Plot Plan, and Floor Plans. Also received was a Board of Appeals decision, dated July 14, 1994. 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, and Zoning Administrator. The petitioner is requesting a VARIANCE in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) sections 135-9.2.2.2 and 135-4.1.1, Table 2 (Schedule of Dimensional Controls), to allow a front yard setback of 22.9 ft instead of the allowable 30 ft. The Chairwoman opened the hearing at 7:45 pm. The applicant, Mr. Sundaram Ramanathan, presented the petition. They are looking to add a larger landing and a front porch to their current home. His wife has a leg injury and it has become a challenge to get in and out of the house with the current size of the landing. They are proposing to extend the depth of the porch to 6ft, with part of it 8ft because of the position of the structure. In 1994, they had applied for a variance when they did an addition, which was granted. For this variance, they are asking for approval of a 22.9ft setback instead of the allowable 30ft. A Board Member, Mr. Ralph D. Clifford, asked the applicant if there is anything wrong with the lot that would qualify it for a variance (Mr. Ramanathan responded that it’s a corner lot and the front road is curved,making the design challenging). Mr. Clifford stated that it looks like the house is well positioned on the lot and he doesn’t see anything on the lot that would result in a zoning issue (Mr. Ramanthan responded that is accurate but they are requesting it because of his wife’s knee injury). Mr. Clifford asked what other options were investigated (Mr. Ramanthan responded that they had looked at putting an entry in the back but it wouldn’t allow his wife to use the front door). Mr. Clifford asked if there is a back door (there is a back door from the garage but it faces the garden. Mr. Clifford stated that if there is a viable alternative, it’s hard to argue the hardship. Page 4 A Board Member, Mr. David G. Williams, asked the applicant if they are proposing to do a screened porch or covered porch (covered porch). Mr. Williams asked the applicant why they have to build such a large porch since the problem is centered on the entrance (Mr. Ramanthan responded that his mother-in-law visits them in the summer and she likes to sit on the front porch and having a covered porch would be nice for her to have). Mr. Williams stated that he has no issue with putting a roof over the entrance and maybe have it a step wider but he cannot support having a wider porch (Mr. Ramanthan stated that if they need to make it narrower, they can do that, but the proposed design seemed to fit in well with the neighborhood). A Board Member, Mr. Edward D. McCarthy, asked if the applicant would keep the driveway if they approved the front porch, would they keep the driveway (yes). A Board Member Associate, Mr. Barnert stated that he understands that a larger landing would help with the hardship, but asked why not having a front porch is a hardship (they wanted to make sure the house is in alignment with the rest of the neighborhood). The Chairwoman, Ms. Jeanne K. Krieger, stated that the house fits well on the lot and she is concerned that a front porch extending the length of the house would be an intrusion into the setback. Ms. Krieger also stated that the hardship is not justified. A Board Member, Ms. Martha C. Wood, stated that they could put a larger landing and still be able to put a chair on it without having a large porch. Mr. Clifford stated that this is not a Special Permit so the amount of discretion is limited. He would have voted against the original variance if he had been on the Board at that point because it doesn’t meet the lot conditions required by a variance and he would have an issue voting for any variance with this circumstance. It is not legal for the Board to vote for this variance. Ms. Krieger stated that there is somewhat of a hardship based on the shape of the lot. There is also a hardship in terms of the access and she would be inclined to support a smaller scaled proposal. Mr. Williams stated that the reason the house is so close to the street is because they received the variance before and now they are asking to amplify that impact. He sees it as a self-imposed problem and he is not in favor of a covered farmer’s porch. Mr. Barnert stated that there is a big difference in having just the landing extended compared to having the overhang extended. With just the landing extended, there is no visual impact. Mr. Barnert asked if the Board would consider approving the expansion of the landing only without the overhang. Ms. Wood stated that part of the porch towards Dane Road is in the setback. If the applicant came back in with a proposal where the landing stopped after the door, that may be considered acceptable. September 28, 2017 ZBA Meeting Page 5 Ms. Krieger stated there is an understanding that the applicant has a legitimate request in making the door more accessible. Ms. Wood stated that they can’t keep him from building towards Dane Street because that is outside of the setback limits. The applicant stated that he would still need a variance in that case because part of it would extend into the setback. Mr. Clifford stated that the setback that would be usable would be the setback granted in the previous variance, but they can’t vote on a plan they have never seen. Ms. Wood stated she is not in favor of the variance request. Mr. McCarthy stated that when the applicant received the previous variance, there was talk about not having steps at all at the entrance (the previous variance counted the steps because they counted the setback to the bottom step). Mr. McCarthy stated that there had been a discussion about not having steps at all (that was a discussion they had to avoid having to request a variance). The Board discussed having the applicant request a continuance and come back with revised plans. Ms. Krieger stated that the Board would more likely think it acceptable if he moved the landing forward so that there are less steps and if they were able to have a porch that extended towards Dane Road and was within the setback. There were no further questions or comments from the Board. There were no questions from the audience. The applicant requested a continuance to the October 26, 2017 meeting. On a motion by Ralph D. Clifford and seconded by Edward D. McCarthy, the Board voted 5-0 to grant a Request for Continuance to the October 26, 2017 meeting. September 28, 2017 ZBA Meeting Page 6 Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen’s Meeting Room September 28, 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: David George, Zoning Administrator Address: 16 South Rindge Road The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Topographic Plan, Plot Plan, and Floor Plans. 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) sections 135-9.2.2.2 and 135-4.1.1, Table 2 (Schedule of Dimensional Controls), to allow a side yard setback of 11.4 ft instead of the allowable 15 ft. The Chairwoman opened the hearing at 8:14 pm. The applicant, Mr. Walter Scott, presented the application. He is proposing to add a third bay to his 2-car garage. He currently has 5 cars and his current garage can only fit 1 car, and his shed is full. During snow storms, the additional cars don’t fit into the driveway and block the snow plows and block people from walking by. They looked at other options for placement of the garage, but they would still have had to get a variance. They also looked at putting the location of the garage in the back, but there is a propane tank buried there and electrical panels that would be in the way. Mr. Scott stated that he has a hardship because of the shape of the lot. He has 125’ frontage and his house is 66’ long. Because the lot is at an angle, it makes it difficult to keep the garage within the setback. There is only a small porition of the garage that would be in the setback. A Board Member, Mr. David G. Williams, asked if the shed is outside of the 15’ setback (yes). Mr. Williams stated that this is a self-imposed hardship. Mr. Barnert stated that they have had applicants come before them asking for a variance to have a garage when they don’t have one at all, and they have been denied. Mr. Barnert asked the applicant why it is a hardship to have a two car garage (Mr. Scott responded that he would like to be able to put 3 cars in the garage so he doesn’t have to block the sidewalk). Page 7 A Board Member, Mr. Ralph D. Clifford, stated that this is more of a personal problem and self-imposed hardship and he doesn’t see any justification for a variance. There is not a hardship caused by the zoning. The Board collectively agreed that they would not vote for this and even if they offered him a continuance, it would most likely not be granted. Mr. George stated that the Board may give the applicant the opportunity to withdraw without prejudice in case he would like to come back in the future. If the Board denied the variance request, he wouldn’t be able to come back for 2 years. The Board discussed giving the applicant the opportunity to withdraw without prejudice as opposed to being denied. There were no further questions or comments from the Board. There were no questions from the audience. The applicant requested leave to withdraw the application without prejudice. The Chairwoman closed the hearing at 8:24 pm. On a motion by Martha C. Wood and seconded by Ralph D. Clifford, the Board voted 5-0 to grant a Withdrawal without Prejudice of a VARIANCE in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) sections 135-9.2.2.2 and 135- 4.1.1, Table 2 (Schedule of Dimensional Controls), to allow a side yard setback of 11.4 ft instead of the allowable 15 ft. September 28, 2017 ZBA Meeting Page 8 Minutes of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals Selectmen’s Meeting Room September 28, 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: David George, Zoning Administrator Other Business: 1) Minutes of Meetings from September 14, 2017 Hearing On a motion made and seconded, the Board voted 5-0 to approve the minutes of September 14, 2017. 2) Board reorganization, elect Chair, Vice Chair, and Board Clerk—to be effective October 12, 2017 On a motion by Jeanne K. Krieger and seconded by Edward D. McCarthy, the board voted 5-0 to reorganize the Board as follows, to be effective on October 12, 2017. Chairman – Martha C. Wood Vice Chairman – Ralph D. Clifford Clerk – Edward D. McCarthy On a motion made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned. Page 9