Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-08-ZBA-min1775 j 1 M Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom May, Stn, 2025,7:00 p.m. Board Members: Acting Chair — Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, Martha C. Wood, and Associate Member Jennifer Wilson Alternate Member: Kathryn Roy Administrative Staff: Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator, and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant Address: 46 Lowell Street (ZBA-24-39) 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, 135-5.1.14, and 135. 1.11 (1). 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, Certified Plot Plan, Updated Driveway Layout Plan, Driveway Contract, and Abutter Opposition 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, the Health Department, and the Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from the Zoning Administrator, Building Commissioner, the Conservation Director, and Engineering Department. The Hearing opened on January 23rd, 2025 and continued on May 8th, 2025 Petitioner: Bin Zhang Mr. Zhang began his presentation by showing a map of his house and by explaining that the proposed project will take place on the front left side of his house. Mr. Zhang then outlined his parking concerns, which he intends to resolve with his proposed project. Mr. Zhang continued his presentation by explaining his new proposal, which incorporated the feedback that Mr. Zhang received from the first hearing. Mr. Zhang's new proposal included a driveway with pavers to address water concerns, a one -foot grass setback from the property line, and a reduction in the driveway's length. Mr. Zhang explained that using paver stones will allow the water to go through so that the water will not accumulate. Mr. Zhang then provided a visual of his ideal conditions. Mr. Cohen asked Mr. Zhang to specify the requested special permit. Mr. Barnert explained that the special permit will allow for a driveway to be located closer to the lot line than otherwise allowed, with Mr. Zhang wanting the driveway located to the left of his house. Mr. Cohen noted that per Mr. Zhang's ideal picture, the cars located on right -side driveway go over the property line. Mr. Cohen also noted the water concerns and wanted to ensure that the Town Engineer approves of the solution Ms. Wood then asked Mr. Zhang about where the water will go and asked if a hydrologist had reviewed his proposal. Mr. Zhang stated that he spoke with the Town Engineer who recommended the pavers as the wider gaps will allow the water to go through to the dirt. Mr. Zhang then stated that in the last meeting, he proposed adding a trench at the end of the driveway and connecting it to an already existing downspout from his house. Mr. Zhang explained that this would allow for the water to go to the backyard. Mr. Zhang reiterated that the Town Engineer told him that pavers allow for the water to go through to the dirt and not accumulate. Ms. Wood then asked what happens when the water goes to the backyard and noted that the proposal may potential increase the amount of water. Mr. Zhang explained that with the relatively small size of the pavers, the water accumulated will have a minimal impact on the backyard. Mr. Zhang also expressed his willingness to have a civil engineer calculate the amount of water the proposal will add. Mr. Osten asked about the actual frontage of the lot. Mr. Zhang stated that his front lot measured about 50 feet. Mr. Osten then asked about the location of the neighbor's house from the proposed driveway. Mr. Zhang stated that the neighbor's house resides 21 feet from his lot. Mr. Osten then asked to clarify if this neighbor was the same abutter who had submitted an opposition letter, which Ms. Lawler confirmed. Mr. Osten then stated that he does not think that the lot intended to have four cars, reiterated the water concern, and raised a concern that the one -foot buffer will lead to the snow on the driveway ending up on the neighbor's lot. Mr. Zhang stated that he has not and will not put any snow on his neighbors' lot. Mr. Zhang then stated that he moves the snow to his backyard or on the side of the street Mr. Osten then asked if Mr. Zhang if he had an engineer analysis for water flow, to which Mr. Zhang responded that he did not but had consulted the Town Engineer. Ms. Wilson then stated that at the previous meeting, the Chair had suggested putting the pavers on the other side of the property to expand the driveway. Mr. Zhang explained that this option would block his walk way, that the gas and water lines found in that area would require a foundation to support the weight of the cars, and that this option will not provide easy access to his house. Mr. Zhang also stated that he may not put anything on top of the lines. Ms. Wilson asked Mr. Zhang to clarify what the lines prevent him from doing, and Mr. Zhang stated that he may not put foundation on top of the lines, but would need a foundation to support the car's weight. Mr. Zhang also confirmed with the Town Engineer that he should not pursue this option. Ms. Wilson then asked Mr. Zhang to remind the Board of the situation with the garage. Mr. Zhang gave the dimensions of the small garage. Mr. Zhang also stated that he had cleaned up the garage to fit the fourth car, but could not get the fourth car freely out. Zhang then showed the conditions of the current left -side driveway and that it fits his needs. Ms. Roy asked about the width of the left -side driveway, which Mr. Zhang stated that the driveway has a width of 12.2 feet. Ms. Roy then asked the proximity of the driveway to the border. Mr. Zhang stated that the new proposal will have a one -foot setback from the property line and will have 10.11 -foot width. Ms. Roy stated that parking garages usually have 9 -foot wide spaces and suggested making the driveway 9 feet wide so that the driveway would have a greater setback to the boundary. Mr. Zhang expressed his willingness to accommodate that and parking his car constituted his main concern. Ms. Wood asked if Mr. Zhang had discussed the matter with his neighbor. Mr. Zhang stated that when he first got the permit, he discussed the project with his neighbor and stated his willingness to have open communication with his neighbors. Ms. Wood stated that she thinks a one -foot setback does not provide enough space and question about how Mr. Zhang could open his door and step out of his car without stepping on his neighbor's lawn. Mr. Zhang explained that the current 12 -foot width fits within his property and that he would not touch his neighbor's property. Ms. Roy then asked why the gravel goes back so far if Mr. Zhang only needs to park his car there. Mr. Zhang explained that the Town Engineer recommended parking one car in that space and that the zoning code recommends having 25 feet to ensure enough room in the front and back. Mr. Barnert stated that he needs to get a certified plot plan before he gets the building permit, to which Mr. Zhang stated that he has a company ready to draw it up. Ms. Roy asked Mr. Zhang if he uses the left -side driveway. Mr. Zhang said he tested out the driveway to see if his car fits and that he wants to park his car with the proper approval. Mr. Zhang stated that the driveway company had completed the foundation but did not pave the driveway. No further questions from the Board. Mr. Barnert then opened discussion to members of the public. Ms. Tsvetkova, 42 Lowell St, a direct abutter of 46 Lowell St., stated that he had sent the Board a few letters. Ms. Tsvetkova stated that Mr. Zhang did not notify them in advance of his driveway project. Further, Ms. Tsvektova stated that after she contacted the Town Engineer, the Town Engineer determined that the driveway did not have the five-foot setback required by the permit, and the project stopped. Ms. Tsvetkova also claimed that the driveway company went over the property line. Ms. Tsvetkova then stated that Mr. Zhang approached her and her husband to talk. Ms. Tsvetkova then stated that she believes that Mr. Zhang has discrepancies in the measurements that he provided, that the Board should require the proper documents, and that the Board should not approve a plan without certifications. Ms. Tsvetkova then shared her letter that the submitted Board, which included photos and highlighted her main concerns with Mr. Zhang's project. These concerns included elevations, drainage systems, and snow removal. Ms. Tsvetkova then brought up the easement that gives Mr. Zhang an extra five feet to park and questioned why Mr. Zhang does use it. Mr. Cohen then clarified that the plans pertain to the left-hand side of the house and that the Board did not realize that the gravel went so far back. No further comments or questions from the Public. Mr. Barnert then asked if Mr. Zhang could reduce the length of the driveway by five feet and extend it on the right. Mr. Barnert also asked Mr. Zhang if he could move the driveway 3 feet from the side. Mr. Zhang stated that he could do that. Ms. Roy then asked if the entrance to the driveway could have a five-foot setback, to which Mr. Barnert said that the driveway itself would still have a three-foot set back, and to which Mr. Zhang stated that he would hit his stairs. No further questions from the Board. Mr. Barnert then offered and explained a straw vote to Mr. Zhang. Mr. Barnert moved to close the hearing. Ms. Wood second Mr. Barnert The hearing closed at 8:04 p.m. (a roll call vote took place: Norman P. Cohen— Yes, Nyles N. Barnert — Yes, Martha C. Wood — Yes, James Osten — Yes, and Jennifer Wilson — Yes). Mr, Barnert stated that he believes that the pavers will not add more water than already there. Ms Wilson stated that the water would flow to the abutter's property based on the elevations the abutter showed, but stated that they do not have a hydrologist report. Mr. Barnert stated that the Town Engineer implied that the pavers would absorb most of the water there. Ms. Wood stated that the project tried to cram too much on a small lot and that the Board does not know the hydrology of the lot. Mr. Barnert stated that a five-foot setback would not change the hydrology, but Ms. Wood stated that a five-foot setback would add water. Ms. Roy asked if the driveway has to come before the Board if it has a five-foot setback. Mr. Barnert said no. Mr. Osten stated that Mr. Zhang can take a different course of action to avoid impacting the neighbors. Mr. Cohen stated clarified the car ownership and stated that the Board just doesn't know the hydrology. A straw vote took place. (a roll call vote took place: Norman P. Cohen — No, Nyles N. Barnert — No, Martha C. Wood — No, James Osten — No, and Jennifer Wilson — No). Mr. Barnert moved to hearing reopened at 8:09. Multiple members second Mr. Barnert. The hearing reopened at 8:09 p.m. (a roll call vote took place: Norman P. Cohen— Yes, Nyles N. Barnert — Yes, Martha C. Wood — Yes, James Osten — Yes, and Jennifer Wilson — Yes). Mr. Barnert suggested that the applicant continue or withdraw. Mr. Zhang asked that if he could have an engineer draw up a hydraulic drawing for the Board to consider. Mr. Barnert said that a withdrawal would give him as much time as he needed to prepare a new proposal, but Mr. Zhang opted to continue. Ms. Wood stated that the Town does not have a hydrologist, Mr. Zhang said that he would find one. Ms. Wilson expressed her concern that the hydrologist repot would suffice as the project would still raise other concerns. Mr. Osten stated that Mr. Zhang would need to address the neighbor's concerns to the neighbor's satisfaction which he does not believe can happen. Mr. Barnert again suggested withdrawing. Mr. Barnert stated that a withdrawal would give the applicant all the time he needs to resolve the issues. Mr. Cohen clarified that a withdrawal will result in re -advertising. Mr. Zhang opted to withdraw. Mr. Barnert moved to withdraw without prejudice the proposal 8:15 p.m.. Multiple board members second Mr. Barnert The Board voted to withdraw without prejudice the proposal at 8:15 p.m. The Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREDJUDICE ONE (1) 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. 1.11 (1). To allow a driveway to be located closer to the lot line than otherwise allowed (a roll call vote took place: Norman P. Cohen — Yes, Nyles N. Barnert — Yes, Martha C. Wood — Yes, James Osten — Yes, and Jennifer Wilson — Yes). Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom May, Stn, 2025,7:00 p.m. Board Members: Acting Chair — Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, Martha C. Wood, and Associate Member Jennifer Wilson Alternate Member: Kathryn Roy Administrative Staff: Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator, and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant Other Business: 1. Minutes from the April 24th, 2025 Meeting Mr. Barnert moved to approve the minutes from the April 24th, 2025 meeting 8:17 p.m. Mr. Osten second Mr. Barnert. The Board voted to approve the minutes from the April 24th, 2025 meeting 8:17 p.m. The Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to approve the minutes from April 24th, 2025 Hearing (a roll call vote took place: Norman P. Cohen — Yes, Nyles N. Barnert — Yes, Martha C. Wood — Yes, James Osten — Yes, and Jennifer Wilson — Yes). Mr. Barnert moved to adjourn at 8:17 p.m. The Board voted to Adjourn at 8:17 p.m. (a roll call vote took place: Norman P. Cohen — Yes, Nyles N. Barnert — Yes, Martha C. Wood — Yes, James Osten — Yes, and Jennifer Wilson — Yes).