Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-01-23-ZBA-minMeeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom January 23, 2025, 7:00 pm Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, and Martha C. Wood Alternate Member: Tom Shiple & Jennifer Wilson Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, and Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator Address: 39 Somerset Street (ZBA-24-38) The petitioner is requesting ONE (1) 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 non-conforming structure. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Certified Plot Plan, Floor Plan, Gross Floor Area Calculations, Elevations, Topographic Plan, Height Calculation Form, Average Natural Grade Worksheet, 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, Historical Commission, and Engineering Department. The Hearing was opened at 7:04 PM. Petitioner: Jayalakshmi Nagaraj, 39 Somerset Street and Bill Hubner, Incite Architecture, 1620 Massachusetts Avenue Jayalakshmi provided background reasoning for the proposed addition and alterations. Their owner’s young daughter tested positive for lead and the family has since vacated the property in order to remediate the problem and will complete the proposed alterations at the same time. Mr. Huber shared the plans for the addition. He stated the addition will make the 100+ year old home for appropriate for a growing family in today’s world. The proposal will provide additional living space and a bedroom suite on the first floor that will allow for aging in place and a safe room for elderly relatives to stay when visiting. Mr. Huber emphasized that the nonconformity in the rear is being removed and on the right side it is being reduced. The left side yard setback will not be altered but a second story will be added above the preexisting porch. The rear addition will allow for better connectivity from the garage to the home for the family. Board Member, James A. Osten, question if an accessory dwelling unit was part of the proposal. (No). He questioned if the proposal complies with the Gross Floor Area regulations (Yes.) Mr. Hubner stated the property owners are ready to comply with all stretch energy code requirements when the addition is constructed. Board Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, questioned if the Historical Commission has provided official approval. (They gave approval of the garage demolition and rear addition that is not in writing yet. They would like the applicant to return to HC with altered plans for the second story addition above the porch. Applicant is willing to remove the second story addition at this time for permitting if ZBA is not ready to approve that section without HC approval first.) No further questions from the Board. No comments or questions from the audience. Hearing was closed at 7:23 PM (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, and James A. Osten – Yes). Mr. Clifford stated he would prefer to have Historical Commission approval for the whole project. Board Member, Norman Cohen, question if continuing this hearing would delay the project. (Yes.) He stated he would like to go ahead and approve tonight. Other Board Members concurred. Board Member, Martha C. Wood, stated they Board can approve the proposal excluding the second story addition above the porch and the Applicant could potentially return to ZBA for a minor modification if/when HC approves that part of the proposal. Additional Board Members agreed with suggestion. The Board agreed to add a condition that the second story addition above the pre-existing porch will not be part of the vote and potential approval during this evening. The applicant may return to ZBA once HC approval is received. No further discussion from the Board. The Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant ONE (1) SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.4 and 135-84.2 to allow modification to a non-conforming structure with conditions (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, and James A. Osten – Yes). Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom January 23, 2025, 7:00 pm Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, and Martha C. Wood Alternate Member: Tom Shiple & Jennifer Wilson Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, and Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator Address: 46 Lowell Street (ZBA-24-39) 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 , 135-5.1.14, and 135-5.1.11(1) to allow a driveway to be zero (0) feet from the property line instead of the required five (5) feet. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Certified Plot Plan, Driveway Layout Plan, Driveway Contract, and Abutter Opposition Letters and Exhibits. 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 Engineering Department. Hearing was opened at 7:33 PM. Petitioner: Bin Zhang Mr. Zhang presented the petition. He provided an overview of the project. The driveway is needed due to not being able to effectively and effectively park 4 cars on the pre-existing driveway. The proposed driveway will provide parking for the family’s minivan. Mr. Zhang presented water mitigation plans that he designed and spoke of the similar driveway layouts in the neighborhood. The topography of the area was shared to indicate the direction of water flow. He emphasized the proposal will not have negative effect on the community and will provide safety and convenience to the homeowners. The proposal is expected to increase the value of the property without negatively impacting others, and will provide enhanced maneuverability to the home. Board Member, Martha C. Wood, questioned if the home is a one-family or two-family dwelling and how many cars they presently have. (Two-family. Four (4) cars). Associate Board Member, Tom Shiple, questioned how the 4 cars are currently managed and parked. (They can relatively manage but it is difficult. The4 cars are tandem parked but it is not easy to fit 4 cars in the current driveway and it takes a lot of shuffling of the cars to removed one. One car is parked on the street when the parking ban is not in affect). Mr. Shiple questioned what the parking arrangement would be if they are granted this driveway relief and why the driveway cannot be reduced in length to reduce impervious surfaces on the property. (The biggest car, a minivan, will be parked on the new driveway and the other 3 cars will park on the existing driveway. The proposed length adds potential for visitors to park in the driveway and extending the driveway does not increase the paving cost much for the homeowner.) Mr. Shiple question why the current driveway cannot be widened. (Dig Safe has visited the site and there are some gas and water lines in the area where there is potential to widen the existing driveway) Board Member, Nyles N. Barnert, questioned if the garage is utilized for parking cars. (No. It is very small and used for storage). He questioned if the proposed driveway could be shortened in length to contain only sections “E1” and “E2” as shown of the submitted driveway layout plan. (Section “E3” is needed to ensure the park car does not go into the Right-of-Way). Board Member, Norman B. Cohen, questioned if the applicant will back onto Lowell Street (Yes.) and stated his concern regarding a safe line of sight when exiting the driveway. Ms. Wood echoed concerns of safety including the proximity to the intersection of Lowell St. and Haskell St. (Proposed driveway is further from the street intersection than the existing driveway). Board Member, James A. Osten, shared his concerns regarding hazards to pedestrians protect, light glare to adjoining properties, and water management. He emphasized the need for the proposal to meet the requirements of section 135-5.1.1. Board Chair, Ralph D. Clifford questioned if pervious pavers had been considered and if an engineer has reviewed the water management plans? (Yes, if that is big concern they are open to other environmental solutions. No engineer has been involved). Mr. Shiple shared the dimensions of the applicant’s largest car and emphasized that it could fit in sections “E1” and “E2”. He questioned if the Applicant could expand the current driveway to the left in front of the home. (No, it would block the entrance to the home). A straw poll was conducted. All Board Members indicated their opposition to the request. Mr. Zhang requested a continuance to the April 10, 2025 ZBA Meeting. The Board reiterated their main concerns. No additional questions from the Board. The Board of Appeals voted to grant a continuance until the April 10, 2025 ZBA Meeting (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, and James A. Osten – Yes). Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom January 23, 2025, 7:00 pm Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, and Martha C. Wood Alternate Member: Tom Shiple & Jennifer Wilson Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, and Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator Address: 675 Waltham Street (ZBA-21-40) CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 12, 2024 & JANUARY 9, 2025 The petitioner is requesting a SPECIAL PERMIT RENEWAL in accordance with the Zoning By- Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.4 to allow continued use of a golf recreational facility. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Certified Plot Plan, Previously Issued Special Permit, Continuance Request Form dated December 12, 202, Continuance Request Form dated January 14, 2025, Abutter Opposition Letter and Photographs dated December 11, 2024, Correspondence Letter to ZBA from William Dailey Jr. dated January 6, 2025, Good Standing Letter from the Police Chief, Support Letter from the Varsity Golf Coach, Letter to ZBA RE: Impermissible License Agreement dated January 9, 2025, Stone Meadow & Lexington Conservation Commission License Agreement Draft, Support Letter, and Response Letter from Attorney Dailey Regarding License Agreement dated January 17, 2025. 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 the Conservation Director. Petitioner: William Dailey, Jr., Sloane and Walsh, 114 Marrett Rd., Lexington, MA Board Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, stated that Town Counsel and Conservation Commission have reach an agreement regarding the encroachment and it is not in the Board jurisdiction to consider the validity of the agreement. The Board must consider and decide if Condition 17 of the previously granted Special Permit has been satisfactorily met. Mr. Dailey discussed the process the applicant has been going through since the last renewal. They have worked closely with Town Counsel and Conservation Commission to find an agreeable solution to the land issue and have reached a satisfactory solution. Over the history of the Golf Facility, there have been no major changes to the operation and there have only been known complaints from one abutter at 673 Waltham St., Mr. Mancini. The Golf Facility operator, Scott Carroll recently became a certified Golf Course Manager through the PGA after taking a series of courses and certification tests. They have been in contact with Mr. Freytag inquiring what Mr. Mancini would like for them to do to make each party happy but they have not had a response. Mr. Dailey spoke of a privacy net that was installed that Mr. Mancini filed a complaint regarding. The Building Commissioner found the net in compliance with a previously granted special permit. The privacy net was removed in order to satisfy Mr. Mancini. Mr. Dailey emphasized there are no lighting violations at the property. He stated they allow the Lexington High School Golf Team to practice at their facility, free of charge. Mr. Dailey closed emphasizing Stone Meadow Golf benefits the Town in a plethora of ways. Kevin S. Freytag, Hemingway & Barnes, 75 State Street, Boston, MA, representing Abutter Armando Mancini, discussed their main concerns and requested additional conditions to be added to the Special Permit. Suggest conditions as follows: 1.Any newly added lights since the last renewal cannot be utilized until an updated lighting plan is submitted to the Board for approval. 2.All lights should be altered to eradicate any light trespass onto the abutting property. 3.Lights must be off after business closes, and no later than 10 pm. Mr. Freytag stated it is reasonable for the Board to consider land rights and the validity of the license agreement between the property owner and Conservation Commission. Associate Board Member, Jennifer Wilson, questioned if the applicant has observed the new lights and any light trespass they may be causing. (No new lights have been installed since the last hearing and Special Permit Renewal. Lights have been inspected by the Building Commissioner and the Zoning Administrator previously and comply with the approved plan. A security light next to the building stays on and otherwise all lights are out by the required time). No further questions from the Board. No further questions or comments from the Audience. Hearing was closed at 8:51 PM (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, and James A. Osten – Yes). Mr. Clifford suggested the following conditions: -A new Photometrics plan will be required at the next time of renewal and all lighting will need to be brought up to current code -Condition 17 will be altered to indicate that the Special Permit is contingent on the continued existence of the revocable license. -Special Permit will be for a 5-Year Renewal Term -Current Condition 18 will be removed and a new condition will be added in its place Board Members concurred with the suggested changes to the conditions. Condition 8 regarding lighting was discussed. The Board agreed they are satisfied with how it is currently written. The Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant SPECIAL PERMIT RENEWAL in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.4 to allow continued use of a golf recreational facility with conditions (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, and James A. Osten – Yes).