Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-04-24-ZBA-minMeeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, via Zoom April 24th, 2025, 7:00 pm Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Martha C. Wood, Norman P. Cohen, and James A. Osten Associate Member: Thomas Shiple Administrative Staff: Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator, and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant Address: 81 Reed Street (Record # ZBA-25-9) The petitioner is requesting ONE (1) SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s)135-8.4.2 and 135-9.4.2 to allow reconstruction of a nonconforming structure. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Certified Plot Plan, Elevations, Floor Plans, Gross Floor Area Calculation Form, Current Interior Condition Photographs, and Abutter Support Letters Prior to the meeting, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, the Health Department, 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. The hearing opened at 7:04 p.m. Petitioner: John Esserian on behalf of Homes Development Corporation Jonathon Silverstein, 80 Reed Street, presented on behalf of Mr. Esserian Mr. Silverstein began his presentation by stating that the current property stands undersized, has a nonconforming frontage, and has a nonconforming front setback. Mr. Silverstein then explained that this application proposes a nonconforming front setback. Mr. Silverstein further explained that the application proposes to demolish a bad structure on single family home and to construct a new modest size, but appropriate for modern living, house. Mr. Silverstein also explained that the application proposes to move the structure closer to the front property line by a few feet. Mr. Silverstein then explained that the application proposes to move the structure forward because the back boundary contains a significant number of wetlands and the proposal ensures that no building expansion will take place within the wetland buffer. Mr. Silverstein then stated that the structure would still appear to reside 30 feet from the edge of pavement and would remain consistent with a similar project located down the street, that the Board granted a couple of years ago. Mr. Silverstein concluded his presentation by stating that the project will keep within the neighborhood, will not have negative impacts, and has received letters of support from abutters. Michael Novak, 17 Meridian Rd., Wenham, Mass., the project engineer, reaffirmed modest but rough shape of the existing dwelling. Mr. Novak explained that the property currently has 25.4 foot front setback to the closest point and that the property borders wetlands in the rear, as determined by a delineation. Mr. Novak then outlined the wetland buffers and stated that the entire structure resides in the 100 foot butter, with a part of the structure residing in the 50 foot no build zone. Mr. Novak then reaffirmed that the proposal entails a larger structure that will have a 20.2 foot front setback with the garage overhang. Mr. Novak concluded his presentation by explaining that the proposal will reduce the amount of structure in the 50 foot no build zone and that they have submitted the proposal to the Conservation Commission. Mr. Clifford asked if they planned to remove the shed, to which Mr. Novak stated that they did and that they do not plan to rebuild it. Mr. Clifford then asked about preserving the maple tree. Mr. Novak stated that they do plan to take down the maple tree and Mr. Silverstein stated that an arborist report determined the tree as invasive and unsafe. Mr. Novak then showed the Board the site plan for the property, which entails removing the shed and maple tree, and further details of the wetland butters. Mr. Silverstein then highlighted that they have a measure proposed to protect the maple in the front yard. Mr. Cohen asked what the Conservation Commission will decide. Mr. Silverstein said that they have a Notice of Intent with the Conservation Commission because the proposed structure will still reside within the buffer zone. Mr. Novak then reiterated that entire lot resides within the 100 foot butter zone. Mr. Clifford then stated that whatever the Board decides will depend on the Conservation Commission approval and that if the Conservation Commission requires any changes that they will need to reappear before the Board. No additional questions from the Board. No comments or questions from the public. No additional questions from the Board. Mr. Clifford then moved to close the hearing. Mr. Barnert and Ms. Wood second Mr. Clifford The hearing closed at 7:20 p.m. (a roll call took place: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Nyles N. Barnet – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten – Yes). Mr. Clifford set the conditions of Conservation Commission approval and of removing the shed. Mr. Clifford moved to grant the special permit at 7:21 p.m. No further discussion from members of the Board. Mr. Barnert second Mr. Clifford. 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) sections 135-8.4.2 and 135-9.4.2 to allow reconstruction of a nonconforming structure (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Nyles N. Barnet – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes). Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, via Zoom April 24th, 2025, 7:00 pm Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Martha C. Wood, Norman P. Cohen, and James A. Osten Associate Member: Thomas Shiple Administrative Staff: Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator, and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant Address: 29 Centre Street (Record # ZBA-25-8) The petitioner requests TWO (2) Special PERMITS in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s)135-9.4, 135-5.1.14 and 135-8.4.2 to allow a modification to a non-conforming structure and to allow a driveway to be located closer to the lot line than otherwise allowed. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Plot Plan, Elevations, Gross Floor Area Calculation Form, and Garage Plans Prior to the meeting, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Historical Commission, the Historic District Commission Clerk, Town Engineer, the Planning Director, Economic Development, Board of Selectmen, the Health Department, and the Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from the Zoning Administrator, the Conservation Director, and the Engineering Department. The hearing opened at 7:22 p.m. Petitioner: Yi Liu Mrs. Liu began her presentation by giving an overview of the current and previous conditions, structures, and landscaping of her property. Mrs. Liu also highlighted the need for changes due to water, heating, and electricity concerns. After, Mrs. Liu further specified that they currently have an addition and a deck permit underway, which included installing solar panels and an electric vehicle charger. After giving the overview, Mrs. Liu then discussed her garage and driveway proposals, which requires special permits. Mrs. Liu plans to put a 22x22 garage in her backyard, located next to the deck, which would require extending the driveway. Mrs. Liu seeks a special permit to have the garage located 4.5 feet from the side property line, which would result in a 22.2 foot set back from the other side and allow for a side entrance to the garage. Mrs. Liu also plans to put solar panels on top of the garage. Mrs. Liu then discussed the current and future needs that the garage will address, and continued her presentation by explaining that the majority of her neighbors have a garage. Mrs. Liu then explained how when doing work to older homes in Lexington, the work typically entails maxing out the gross floor area. Mrs. Liu then concluded her presentation by explaining that she intends to create a comfortable living space for her family while also respecting her neighbors, the Town, and the environment. Mr. Shiple asked for clarification on the existing conditions of the driveway, as the plot shows that the driveway ends just beyond the front door of the house, while pictures show that the driveway extends towards the addition. Mr. Shiple asked when they extended the driveway. Mr. Liu explained that they had the shorter driveway prior to July 2024 and then extended it towards the end of the addition with their ongoing addition project because their side door moved to the addition. Mr. Shiple then asked about the extended driveway’s setback from the property line. Mr. Liu said that the extended driveway has the same setback as the original driveway, and Mrs. Liu estimated that the extended drive has a 1.8 foot set back. Mr. Shiple then asked Ms. Lawler if the driveway extension would have required a special permit. Ms. Lawler responded that if the building department had received notice of the driveway extension that it would have required a special permit. Mr. Clifford reiterated that the driveway extension would have required a permit but did not have one, and stated that the Board could try to resolve that matter by rolling it into their considerations. Mr. Osten asked about how much new impervious surface the garage will add, and stated that while the applicants had put 440 square feet, he estimated that the garage and the driveway will add between 1,000 and 1,200. Mr. Liu responded that the 22x22 garage will at 484 square feet of impervious surface, but Mr. Clifford reiterated that the proposed extended driveway to the garage will add more. Mr. Osten then briefly mentioned the stormwater concerns that arose with this project, and then asked about where the applicants plan remove snow from the driveway. Mrs. Liu responded that when they prepared the garage proposal the architect and general contractor did not raise storm water concerns. Mrs. Liu also stated that they had received comments from the Town Engineer about stormwater runoff and that while they do not have a plan at the moment, they do intend to address these concerns when doing the driveway. Mrs. Liu then explained that for the driveway pavement, the company that they hired had applied for the permit and only did the first layer to see if they could have the driveway with the three basement windows on the addition. Mr. Barnert raised concerns about the lack of uncovered area and asked the applicants if they could remove the shed and the deck to have more open space. Mrs. Liu responded that they had just built the deck, and Mr. Barnert reiterated his concern about the amount of structures on the property. Mr. Clifford then clarified to the applicants that Mr. Barnert asked if they could remove the shed as it interferes with waterflow. Mr. Liu stated that they do not have a plan to remove the shed but plan to hire professional to address the waterflow. Mr. Liu then stated that they will modify any interferences determined by the professionals. Ms. Wood asked for clarification on where the applicants plan to remove snow to. Mrs. Liu responded by stating that they plan to move part of the snow to the front, part of the snow near the shed, part of the snow next the deck, and possibly some next to the addition. Mrs. Liu concluded by stating that their snow removal will not affect their neighbor. Mr. Shiple asked if they had already planned the garage when they designed the addition and the deck, or if that plan came later. Mrs. Liu responded that when they started to do the addition, they began thinking about having a garage. Mr. Liu then stated that they originally planned to have a garage but decided to put it on hold. Mr. Shiple then asked if the applicants considered orienting the garage to face the street, which would reduce the amount of impervious surface, although he noted that this may prove difficult given the location of the new deck. Mrs. Liu stated that they had originally thought about keeping the garage inside the setback, however they would not meet that with the overhang from the garage. Mrs. Liu stated that moving the garage to the back could work, but would not meet the 15-foot set back. No further questions from members of the Board. While waiting for a member of the public to reconnect to the meeting, Mr. Clifford explained a straw vote to Mr. and Mrs. Liu. Mr. Clifford explained that a straw vote will inform them of whether the Board will approve or disapprove and that should the Board indicate disapproval, it will allow them to rework and resubmit their plans. Should the Board vote on the merits of the proposal and vote against them, they will have a two-year block before they can submit a replacement plan. Bob Cunha spoke on behalf of his mother, an abutter who resides at 139 Reed Street. Mr. Cunha stated that the property does not have its own screening and that any screening comes from the neighbors. Mr. Cunha also expressed concerns about snow removal and stormwater runoff ending up on his property, and concerns about the number of cars, headlights, and lack of screening. Mr. Cunha concluded by stating that he does not view the garage as an asset to the neighborhood. No further comments or questions from members of the public. Mr. Barnert asked if this application contained letters from abutters. Mr. Clifford responded that he does not recall any from the file, which Ms. Lawler affirmed. Mrs. Liu stated that while she did not ask for letters she did inform another neighbor about the meeting should they have any questions. Mrs. Liu also reiterated her consideration for her neighbors. Mr. Cohen noted that in the file, most of the abutters reside above this property while one abutter resides lower. Mr. Cohen then asked how this applied to Mr. Cunha’s mother. Mrs. Liu responded that Mr. Cunha’s mother’s property resides above theirs, and so does another neighbor. Mrs. Liu also showed the current landscaping and fencing between their property and the neighbors’ property. With this, Mrs. Liu stated that the water will not runoff into their lot. Mr. Osten reiterated stormwater concerns and raised the possibility of a stormwater mitigation plan. Mr. Clifford reiterated what a straw vote entailed, and Mr. Liu asked about the timeline for after the straw vote takes place. Mr. Clifford explained that a straw vote allows for a flexible timeline and gives them the option of taking their time to amend their plans. Mr. and Mrs. Liu took a moment to discuss the matter. Upon their return, Mr. Liu stated that they would like a straw vote. Jack Cunha, brother of Bob Cunha, asked if the applicants will come back before the Board after a straw vote, to which Mr. Clifford responded potentially yes. No further comments or questions from members of the public. No additional questions from the Board. Mr. Clifford moved to close the hearing at 8:23 p.m. Several members of the Board second Mr. Clifford The hearing closed at 8:24 p.m. (a roll call took place: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Nyles N. Barnet – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes). Mr. Clifford took a straw vote to see if the Board would grant a special permit should they require that the application include a full water plan. Mr. Osten raised his hand for approval, the rest of the Board did not. Mr. Clifford clarified asked if this meant that the Board would not approve the plan regardless and if the Board wanted to inform the applicant of other changes that they should make. Mr. Cohen responded by stating that the water arose as the main issue for this proposal and that if the applicant can solve the water issue, then they can talk about the possibility of a driveway. Mr. Barnert raised the concern about asphalt on the driveway and stated that he would rather see something to absorb the snow melting and something with less impervious surface. Mr. Clifford reiterated the water concern and raised concerns about the small size of the lot. Given the high likelihood of the Board voting no, Mr. Clifford raised the option of the applicants withdrawing. Mr. Clifford moved to reopening the hearing at 8:28 p.m. Mr. Barnert second Mr. Clifford. The hearing reopened at 8:28 p.m. (a roll call took place: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Nyles N. Barnet – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes). Mr. Clifford reiterated to the applicants the Board’s high likelihood to vote no, and recommended that the applicants withdraw to give them as much time to come up with a plan that they think the Board might approve. Mr. Clifford also reiterated the water and lot size concerns. Mr. Liu asked if they made the living space ratio too high on their proposal. Mr. Clifford responded that when reviewing special permits, the Board balances what the applicant seeks to do with their property with the consequences on the neighbors and the community. Mr. Clifford reiterated that with this application, water and the amount of structures constitute main consequences and the applicants would need to address these concerns. Mr. Clifford presented the applicants with the choice to withdraw or to have the Board vote on their application. Mr. and Mrs. Liu discussed the matter for a moment. Upon return, Mr. Liu stated that the decided to withdraw the application. Mr. and Mrs. Liu requested to withdraw the application. Mr. Clifford moved to grant the withdrawal at 8:36 p.m. Mr. Barnert second Mr. Clifford. No discussion from the Board. The Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREDJUDICE TWO (2) SPECIAL PERMITS 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- 8.4.2 to allow a modification to a non-conforming structure and to allow a driveway to be located closer to the lot line than otherwise allowed (a roll call took place: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Nyles N. Barnet – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, and James A. Osten – Yes). Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, via Zoom April 24th, 2025, 7:00 pm Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Martha C. Wood, Norman P. Cohen, and James A. Osten Associate Member: Thomas Shiple Administrative Staff: Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator, and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant Other Business: 1. Minutes from the April 10th, 2025 meeting Mr. Clifford moved to approve the minutes from the April 10th, 2025 meeting at 8:37 p.m. Mr. Barnert second Mr. Clifford No discussion from the Board. The Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to approve the minutes from the April 10th, 2025 Hearing (a roll call took place: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Nyles N. Barnet – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, and James A. Osten – Yes). Mr. Osten wanted to inform the Board and members of the public that a public comment period for the Lowell Street Project will occur on April 28th, 2025, with a link to register found on the Affordable Housing Trust page. Mr. Clifford advised members of the Board to not involve themselves in the public meeting as the matter will ultimately come before the Board for decision and Mr. Clifford does not want to risk potential open meeting law problems. Mr. Clifford moved to Adjourn at 8:40 p.m. Mr. Barnert second Mr. Clifford. The Board voted to Adjourn at 8:40 p.m. (a roll call took place: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Nyles N. Barnet – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, and James A. Osten – Yes).