Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-02-27-ZBA-minMeeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, via Zoom February 27, 2025, 7:00 pm Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Norman P. Cohen, Nyles N. Barnert, Martha C. Wood, and Associate Member Scott Cooper Alternate Member: Kathryn Roy Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, and Kiruthika Ramakrishnan, LUHD Office Manager Address: 33 Tower Road (Record # ZBA-25-3) 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 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, and Withdrawal Request Form dated February 26, 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 and Planning Department. The Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant a WITHDRAWAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE of 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 allow modification to a non-conforming structure (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, and Scott Cooper – Yes). Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, via Zoom February 27, 2025, 7:00 pm Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Norman P. Cohen, Nyles N. Barnert, Martha C. Wood, and Associate Member Scott Cooper Alternate Member: Kathryn Roy Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, and Kiruthika Ramakrishnan, LUHD Office Manager Address: 26 Rindge Avenue (Record # ZBA-25-5) The petitioner is requesting TWO (2) Special PERMITS and ONE (1) VARIANCE in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s)135-9.4 135-8.4.2, 135-4.4.3, 135-9.2.2(2), and 135-10.1, "Story, Half",to allow modification to a non-conforming structure, allow more GFA than otherwise allowed, and to allow a half story to be larger than otherwise allowed. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Certified Plot Plan, Topographic Plan, Elevations, Floor Plans, Gross Floor Area Calculations, Certified Proposed Plot Plan Waiver Request, Height Calculation Form, and Photographs. 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 Conservation Director. Hearing was opened at 7:04 PM. Petitioner: William Erickson, BFE Architecture William Erickson presented the petition on behalf of James Luker and Jennifer Zacharis. Mr. Erickson shared his presentation and explained the reason for the request and explained the details of the proposed structure in the context of the neighborhood. Mr. Erickson emphasized that the proposed structure would align with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Erickson added that the proposal conforms with the height requirements of the Town’s Zoning Bylaws and that they are planning to stay within the footprint of the existing house except for one area where they will be extending, which was conforming. Mr. Erickson also believed that the proposed structure was not detrimental to the neighborhood and that they received nine letters of support from neighbors. The home owner Jay Luker and the co- owner Jennifer Zacharis explained that the house was small for their present family size and that they did not want to move to a different location. They added that the additional space to be created would help with the family’s growing needs without any significant impact on the community. Board Chair expressed his concerns about the variance and asked the petitioner the details of the shape and the topology of the lot and the soil conditions. Based on Mr. Erickson’s response, Mr. Clifford stated that the three requisites for a Variance were not present in this petition and also expressed his concern about the hardship analysis. No further questions from the Board. Jeff Disco, 12 Melrose Avenue, also a neighbor, stated that he did some additions to the house he lived in a few years back and it helped his family stay in the same community and asked the Board to provide the same opportunity to the petitioners. Mr. Disco added that the petitioners contributed a lot to the community and were very friendly. Board Chair asked the petitioner if he would consider making changes to the floor plan that would lead to conformity. Mr. Luker explained that they had considered multiple options but this was the ideal option that took care of all needs. Mr. Erickson asked the chair if there was any provision in the bylaw to factor the size of the lot instead of the shape for consideration of the variance. Mr. Clifford responded that there was no provision and additionally all the lots on the street are of basically the same size. Mr. Clifford further stated that the presentation has not specified anything unique about the lot, and therefore the lot would not meet the requirements for a variance. Mr. Erickson did not agree with Mr. Clifford’s judgement of the lot sizes and pulled up a street map that showed what he considered to be lots of various sizes. Mr. Clifford then asked if any other members of the Board had questions. Ms. Zacharis attempted to add her input, however, Mr. Clifford informed her that she will have the opportunity to do so in the summary. Mr. Cohen reaffirmed Mr. Clifford’s judgement that most of the houses on the street stood around the same size and that any additions to the house would stand out. Mr. Cohen then identified that while he thinks the house’s slope may factor into approving Mr. Erickson’s request, he does not believe that the house’s slope would meet the requirements for a variance. No further questions from the Board. Before conducting the summary, the Board heard from an attendee, Ms. Leah Baigell, 91 Bow Street, who voiced her support for Mr. Luker and Ms. Zacharis. Mr. Clifford then gave Ms. Zacharis the opportunity to add her input. Ms. Zacharis stated that her and Mr. Luker live in a neighborhood on nonconforming lots and that their whole neighborhood differs a little from the rest of the town. Ms. Zacharis futher stated that while the Board may not see a hardship, she feels as though she needs a variance to make any sort of changes to the house. During his summary, Mr. Luker asked a clarifying question about the definition of hardship and the need for a unique situation. Mr. Luker wanted to know whether the Board the board considered “unique” as “singularly unique,” or if the same hardship could exist for two lots, as he suspects that other houses along the street would face similar hardships if they tried to expand their houses for the needs and comfort of a modern family. During his summary, Mr. Erickson reiterated that he believes that the request would remain in keeping with the houses to the north of Rindge Ave and that the request conforms with the reduced height bylaws. Mr. Erickson ended his summary by emphasizing the limited options allowed in Lexington and by praising Mr. Luker and Ms. Zacharis for their responsible approach to the matter. No comments or questions from the audience. No additional questions from the Board. Hearing was closed at 7:49 PM. (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, and Scott Cooper – Yes). During the discussion, Mr. Cohen stated that the limitations do not come from Lexington but instead come from the state. Mr. Cohen then stated that while initially he believed that no hardship existed on the lot, he now believes that the house would fit, and ponders on what to do about the hardship. Mr. Barnert then asked if the slope of the lot constitutes a condition, to which Mr. Clifford responded that the slope does not constitute a casual relationship. Mr. Clifford then proposes that the Board should bifurcate the two issues as the variance differs from everything else, and that the Board should do a straw vote on just the variance itself. The Board of Appeals took a straw vote and voted zero (0) in favor, five (5) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant and ONE (1) VARIANCE in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.2.2.2 and 135-10.1 "Story, Half" to allow a half story to be larger than otherwise allowed. (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford – No, Norman P. Cohen – No, Martha C. Wood – No, Nyles N. Barnert – No, and Scott Cooper – No) Mr. Clifford then stated that the Board did not create the laws, they only follow and bind them. Furthermore, Mr. Clifford stated that Town Meeting created the laws, and that any changes to the laws would also come from Town Meeting. Mr. Clifford then asked the Board to take another straw vote for the special permits. The Board of Appeals took a straw vote and voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant and TWO (2) SPECIAL PERMITS 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 nonconforming structure, and 135-4.4.3 to allow more GFA than otherwise allowed (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, and Scott Cooper – Yes) At 7:58 p.m., after the straw vote, Mr. Clifford moved to reopen the hearing. Mr. Barnert second Mr. Clifford, and Mr. Cohen, Mr. Barnert, Ms. Wood, and Mr. Cooper all approved in a roll call vote. Mr. Clifford then informed the applicant that they have the right to the Board’s vote and that the board will vote separately for the variance. Mr. Clifford further informed the homemakers that they can do what they want with the Board’s vote and that the Board does provide legitimate advising to the homemakers. Finally, Mr. Clifford recommended that the homemakers come back with a plan that would only require a special permit and that the homemakers ask for a continuance. Mr. Erickson agreed with Mr. Clifford’s recommendation for a continuance. Mr. Luker asked a clarifying question as to whether or not the Board needed to vote on the special permits separately to allow for a continuance. Mr. Clifford responded by informing Mr. Luker that while the Board could vote on the special permits separately, it would then not include anything Mr. Luker wants to do in response to the Board not granting the variance. Mr. Clifford also informs Mr. Luker that Mr. Luker could changes his plans to incorporate the things the variance would have achieved into a special permit. Mr. Clifford then asked the homeowners what date they wanted the continuance for. Mr. Luker, Ms. Zacharis, and Mr. Erickson all agreed that the April 10th, 2025 Board meeting would work. Mr. Clifford then informed homeowners that if they needed more time they would the Board would grant a further continuance. Mr. Clifford then informed the homeowners that one of them will need to go to Town Hall to sign some paperwork to formalize the continuance. At 8:10 p.m., Mr. Clifford moved to continue this matter until April 10th, 2025 and to keep the hearing open. Mr. Clifford then conducted a roll call vote, with Mr. Cohen, Mr. Barnert, Ms. Wood, and Mr. Cooper all agreeing. Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, via Zoom February 27, 2025, 7:00 pm Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Norman P. Cohen, Nyles N. Barnert, Martha C. Wood, and Associate Member Scott Cooper Alternate Member: Kathryn Roy Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, and Kiruthika Ramakrishnan, LUHD Office Manager Address: 36 Lowell Street (Record # ZBA-25-4) 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, 135-8.2.1, to allow for the alteration of preexisting non-conforming use. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Certified Plot Plan, Gross Floor Area Calculations, Elevations, Floor Plans, Photographs, Proposed Drainage Site Plan. 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, Engineering Department, and Conservation Director. Hearing was opened at 8:07 PM. Petitioner: Charles DeFrancesco Charles DeFrancesco presented the petition on behalf of 36 Lowell Street, LLC. Mr. DeFrancesco stated that he applied for a change of use and would like to put a conforming duplex in place of the existing nonconforming two-family dwelling. Following Mr. DeFrancesco’s explanation, Mr. Clifford stated that the Board cannot make a nonconforming use into a conforming use. Further, Mr. Clifford informed Mr. DeFrancesco that he can alter the already existing nonconforming use and that the Board can give Mr. DeFrancesco a special permit to modify or improve the current building. Mr. Clifford then asked the petitioner about who designed the drainage system, to which Mr. DeFrancesco responded that his engineer, Fred Russell, designed the drainage system. Mr. Clifford then asked Mr. DeFrancesco if the property had any impervious driveways and what surface type Mr. DeFrancesco planned to use for the driveways. Mr. DeFrancesco responded by explaining that the crushed stone on the driveway plans served for construction purposes only and that after construction ended, the property will have paved driveways. Mr. Clifford then asked about water removal from the driveways, to which Mr. DeFrancesco responded that the water will run down the sides while staying on the property. While Mr. DeFrancesco stated that the property had enough room on both sides for the water to run down, Mr. Clifford noted that the property does not have a flat topology. Mr. DeFrancesco responded by proposing that he could put trench drains in front of each garage and tie that to the infiltration system. Mr. Clifford then asked if any of the Board members had any questions, to which Ms. Wood asked how many curb cuts will exist onto Lowell St., to which Mr. DeFrancesco responded that the property will have two driveways. Mr. Clifford then asked if the two-family property already had to driveways. Mr. DeFrancesco responded that the residence had turned the left side of the property into a driveway and that he plans to have two separate driveways separated by a patch of grass in between each driveway. Mr. Clifford then asked again if any of the Board members had any additional questions or comments and no Board member did. Mr. Clifford then asked if any of the audience members had any additional questions or comments and no audience member did. Mr. Clifford once again asked if the Board members had any questions. Mr. Clifford then proceeded to ask Mr. Kelly if he had all the information necessary to issue a permit, as the file appeared smaller considering the scope of the application. Mr. Kelly responded that he did have all the necessary documents and that construction document preparation will occur after the Board grants the special permit. Mr. Clifford once again asked if the Board members had any final questions. No further comments from Mr. Francesco except for he held off on the framing plans until he got the permit. No comments or questions from the audience. No additional questions from the Board. Mr. Clifford then moved to close the hearing, with a second from Ms. Wood. Mr. Clifford closed the hearing at 8:16 p.m. (Mr. Clifford then took a roll call vote: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, and Scott Cooper – Yes). During the discussion, Mr. Clifford stipulated that Mr. Francesco needs to place the trench drains on the driveways to capture all the water and put it in the infiltration system. 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, 135-8.2.1, and 135-3.1.1 to allow for the alteration of preexisting non-conforming use, on the condition that the applicant install trench drains to capture all runoff from the driveways. (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Nyles N. Barnet – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, and Scott Cooper – Yes). Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, via Zoom February 27, 2025, 7:00 pm Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Norman P. Cohen, Nyles N. Barnert, Martha C. Wood, and Associate Member Scott Cooper Alternate Member: Kathryn Roy Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, and Kiruthika Ramakrishnan, LUHD Office Manager Address: 342 Bedford Street (Record # ZBA-24-40) 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, 135-6.2.4(1), and 135-3.1.1, Table 1 (Permitted Uses and Development Standards) Lines G.1.03 (Business or Professional Office) and M.1.06 (Trade Shop) to allow additional uses permitted in another district but not as of right in the district the historical structures are located. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Certified Plot Plan, Topographic Plan, Floor Plans, Photographs, Recorded Driveway Easement, Historical Commission Decision Letter dated April 21, 2023, Lexington Cultural Resources Survey, Geographic Information System (GIS) Map, GIS Ariel View, Property Owner Support Letter dated December 24, 2024, Historical Commission Support Letter dated February 20, 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, Planning Department, and Conservation Director. Hearing was opened at 8:18 PM. Petitioner: Attorney Pam Brown on behalf of David Supple Ms. Brown began the presentation by stating that the petitioner decided to appear in front of the Board due to an interesting incentive found in a section of the zoning by Law. Ms. Brown then proceeded to explain that the property consists of a two-family house and a barn, and that currently a contractor uses the use the property. Next, Ms. Brown gave an overview of the proposal. The proposal entails renovating the existing historic structures, with the outsides remaining mainly the same and most of the renovation occurring on the interior. Ms. Brown states that Mr. Supple plans to keep the two-family nature of the dwelling, and that he intends to live in the primary dwelling, while renting out the apartment at the lower level. Ms. Brown then proceeds to explain that Mr. Supple plans to renovate the barn for office and shop use by his architectural firm of about ten employees. Ms. Brown further states that Mr. Supple plans to preserve the historical structures. Regarding the relevant zoning bylaws, Ms. Brown highlights that section 135-6.2 encourages historic preservation. Ms. Brown then highlights that section 135-9.4 allows for a special permit for uses permitted in Lexington, but not in the subject district. In this case, the petitioner would need a special permit to allow for the continued use of a two-family home along with an office/shop use. Ms. Brown then proceeds to explain that she believes that a business or professional office (G.1.03) would constitute the correct permitted use, with the shop constituting an accessory (M.1.06). Ms. Brown concludes this part by stating that Mr. Supple also plans on doing some farming on the property, which would constitute another accessory use. Ms. Brown then breaks down the specific criteria of the Historic Preservation Incentives (135- 6.2.5) and how Mr. Supple meets the criteria. If Mr. Supple does not receive the special permit, then he does not buy the property, and the building will likely face demolition. Mr. Supple plans to preserve the historical and architectural features of the building. Ms. Brown further states that most of the proposal entails use change, not change to the historical and architectural features or building and renovations. Ms. Brown concluded this section by stating that Mr. Supple’s plans will not generate any negative impact. After concluding her part, Ms. Brown turned the presentation over to Mr. Supple. Mr. Supple began his presentation by stating that while himself and his family do not currently reside in Lexington, he does hope to. Mr. Supple also stated that he owns and operates an architecture and renovation company, and that he seeks to find a property that will contain both his primary residency and business (a home occupation). Mr. Supple then continued his presentation by detailing the location of the property. Mr. Supple highlighted that due to its secluded nature, the residential property would serve for good business use. Mr. Supple then concluded this part by explaining that he seeks a special permit to allow his business to operate on the property, which consists of twenty-five employees, ten of which work in the office Tuesday through Thursday. Mr. Supple then continued his presentation by explaining that to access the property, one must use the property’s easement. Mr. Supple explained that the easement, created in 1963 with the building of the ramp, serves as the entrance to access the property. Mr. Supple further explains that the easement serves the purposes of which streets serve in the Town of Lexington. Mr. Supple then continued his presentation by stating that the Historic Commission unanimously voted to support his initiative. After, Mr. Supple explained his plans for restoring the historic features of the property. Mr. Supple followed this by showing two letters; one letter detailed how the current property owner sought a demolition permit (now expired), and the other letter detailed how failure to grant the special permit will result in the historic property’s demolition. Mr. Supple then continued his presentation by discussing the minimal impacts that would arise should he acquire the property. Mr. Supple highlights that current owner did run a business from the property, which resulted in a fair number of vehicles parked on the property. Mr. Supple then stated that should he own the property, he believes the business side of the property will receive less use. He stated one client visits every week or every two weeks, and that his staff will most likely utilize public transportation. Mr. Supple then continued his presentation by stating that he initially seeks to have his business occupy the ground floor, with a minor renovation, until he comes up with a design to renovate the barn. After completing the barn renovations, the main house would return to a two-family dwelling. Mr. Supple then showed his plot plan, which included parking, existing lighting, flag plans, and sign plans that align with both the state and Lexington regulations. Mr. Supple then briefly explained a future project that he seeks to apply for separately, but for now only seeks a change of use to preserve and restore the property. With this, Mr. Supple concluded his presentation. Following the conclusion of the presentation, Mr. Clifford asked the members of the Board if they had any questions. Mr. Barnert questioned why the floor plan showed sixteen desks when Mr. Supple only has ten people coming into the office. Mr. Supple responded by reiterating that he only plans to use the ground floor of the primary dwelling as an office until he renovates the barn. Mr. Supple also reiterated that he has more than ten employees, and explained that the architects, designers, and administrators will regularly come into the office, while the project managers will primarily work on the field and will have a space to use for the few that they come into the office. Mr. Barnert then asked Mr. Supple about his parking capacity, to which Mr. Supple responded that he has more parking than he needs and plans to convert as much space as possible into farmland. Ms. Brown further reiterated that the property has much room for parking. Mr. Clifford then asked if the other Board Members had any questions. Mr. Cooper questioned Mr. Supple on the difference between the architectural office and the trade shop and what he will use the trade shop for. Mr. Supple explained that as an architecture firm, they act as construction supervisors and execute their own work. As a trade shop, the designers will do mock ups, samples, and prototypes. Mr. Supple further explained that the trade shop will operate out of the bottom floor of the barn. Mr. Clifford then asked if the other Board Members had any questions. Mr. Cohen asked Mr. Supple who owns the easement. Mr. Supple responded that he does not know who own the easement but that LexHAB owns one of the adjacent houses, so he speculated that LexHAB owns that property. Ms. Brown added that the easement existed prior to the construction of the LexHAB house and that the easement serves as an all-purpose easement. Mr. Cohen than asked Mr. Supple how many abutters received notices. Mr. Supple responded that he did not know how many abutters received notices but he did pull up the abutters map. Mr. Clifford then asked if the other Board Members had any questions. Mr. Clifford asked about the project’s duration. Mr. Supple responded that the initial renovation to the main dwelling should take around a year and that the barn renovation should also take around a year. Mr. Clifford then stated that the Board will likely want to approve the changes in advance to ensure that Mr. Supple maintains the historical features of the house, to which Mr. Supple agreed. No additional questions from the Board at this time. Mr. Clifford then asked if members of the audience had any questions. Mr. Moriarty, the current owner of 342 Bedford St., wanted to share his input on the situation. Mr. Moriarty reiterated his support for Mr. Supple’s plans and reiterated that should the Board not grant Mr. Supple the special permit, Mr. Moriarty will purse a demolition permit. Mr. Moriarty also stated that he believes that Mr. Supple’s plans will benefit the Lexington community. After Mr. Moriarty, an abutter, Mr. Narasimhan shared his input on the situation. Mr. Narasimhan, a neighbor at 19 Cider Mill Rd., raised concerns about the potential noise that may come from the trade shop, cars, farming, and foot traffic, and seeks reassurance that minimal disruption will occur to the neighborhood. Regarding the foot traffic, Mr. Supple stated that he believes that the traffic will remain in its current state or possibility diminish. Mr. Supple then stated that while the construction will take place like any other construction project, he does seek to have sound attenuation for the work shop. Mr. Supple also stated that he plans to have a closed space for the working shop, which will ensure that the noise does not negatively impact the neighborhood. Regarding the minuteman bike path, Mr. Supple stated that he seeks to follow whatever formal rules or accepted practices that the neighborhood has. Mr. Narasimhan explained that if people use the trail, the neighborhood would prefer that those people go through the regular road and not cut through behind the backyards. Mr. Moriarty shared his input on the bike path, stating that the normally, people come of the bike path at Bedford St. and then take the sidewalk down. Mr. Moriarty also noted that should someone want to enter alternately from the bike path, they could enter 342 Bedford St. long before they reach the backyards of the neighborhood. Ms. Brown agreed with this, while acknowledging Mr. Narasimhan’s concern about people entering through the neighborhood’s backyards. Mr. Clifford then asked if members of the audience had any questions. Mr. Hristov, a neighbor at 22 Cider Mill Rd., voiced his support for Mr. Supple’s plan that will benefit the Lexington community before reiterating concerns about traffic and ensuring that the neighborhood only experiences minimal disruption. Mr. Hristov highlighted that currently, no fence exists between the barn and the houses and raised the idea of looking into one to avoid the potential traffic or cutting through given the increased public presence that will occur as a result of Mr. Supple’s plans. Mr. Hristov also raised concerns about the close proximity of the parking lot to the houses and questioned Mr. Supple about whether or not he would consider having the parking lot located closer to the highway side. Mr. Supple responded by stating that he intends to share his plans with the neighbors and get some feedback from them. Mr. Clifford then opened the floor to other audience members. Ms. Gudka, a neighbor at 18 Cider Mill Rd., reiterated her support for Mr. Supple’s idea and for Mr. Hristov’s concerns for traffic and noise. Ms. Gudka asked for collaboration of how people would come and go, raised concerns about the easement, and raised the idea of potential signage. Ms. Gudka also reiterated support for a fence, to which Mr. Supple responded that he believed that a fence already exists behind the properties near the barn. Mr. Hristov responded that while a fence did exist, the current fence would not serve adequately for Mr. Supple’s plans. Mr. Supple acknowledged the fencing concern then continued by stating that he plans to put up signage so that his clients will know where to go. Ms. Gudka then asked Mr. Supple if he had any plans to grow his company, to which Mr. Supple responded that he does not have any. Mr. Clifford then asked if members of the audience had any questions. No comments or questions from the audience. Mr. Clifford once again asked if the Board members had any final questions. Mr. Clifford then proceeded to clarify his understanding of the project with Mr. Supple. Mr. Clifford reaffirmed with Mr. Supple that Mr. Supple intends to live on the property. Mr. Clifford also reaffirmed that Mr. Supple plans to put the business in the primary dwelling while renovating the barn, and clarified with Mr. Supple that Mr. Supple will live in the house immediately. Mr. Clifford then continued by advising Mr. Supple to read the noise bylaws and stated that the regulations in the noise bylaws may take care of some of the noise complaints that the neighbors have. Mr. Clifford then asked if the Board Members had any additional questions. Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Supple if the property had any another access to it, to which Mr. Supple responded that he does not think so. To combat the possibility of missing the easement, Mr. Supple stated that he plans to put up signage. Mr. Cooper then asked Mr. Supple if one could access the property from the back, to which Mr. Supple responded that the property has no back entrances since conservation land makes up the back half of the property. Mr. Clifford then asked if the Board Members had any additional questions. No additional questions from the Board. Mr. Clifford closed the Hearing at 9:14 PM. (Mr. Clifford took a roll call vote: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, and Scott Cooper – Yes). During the discussion, Mr. Clifford highlighted some of the conditions needed to grant the special permit, mainly that the property serves for owner occupancy, not purely commercial use. Mr. Clifford also set forth the condition that any changes or demolition to the exterior structure would need to go through the Historical Commission, who will then make a recommendation to the Zoning Board. Mr. Supple attempted to add his input, however, Mr. Clifford informed him that he cannot do so as the hearing is closed. Ms. Wood then raised some questions about the use of farm land on the property. Given the new questions that arose from the Board and Mr. Supple wanting to share his thoughts on the conditions, Mr. Clifford moved to reopen the hearing. Mr. Clifford received a second by Mr. Barnert. Mr. Clifford reopened the Hearing at 9:19 PM. (Mr. Clifford took a roll call vote: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, and Scott Cooper – Yes). Mr. Clifford then gave Mr. Supple an opportunity to share his input on the conditions. Mr. Supple expressed his intent to keep the main house, specifically the top two floors, residential, however, also expressed his desire for flexibility as the owner occupancy would limit him. Mr. Clifford then informed Mr. Supple that the Board can amend special permits. Ms. Brown then requested that the Board put in the special permit that should any changes occur regarding the owner living in- unit, the owner must return to the Board to amend the special permit. Mr. Barnert then asked Mr. Supple to clarify his intentions for the first floor of this main dwelling, to which Mr. Supple responded that the two-story dwelling has a ground floor that function as a walkout basement. Mr. Supple then explained that he plans to use the first two floors for residential use and plans to use the basement temporarily as his business. Mr. Supple further explained that he does not want this plan as a part of the special permit as he does not have definite plans for the basement after moving his business out of it and does not want any restrictions. Mr. Clifford then asked if the other Board members had any questions. Mr. Cohen asked if anyone had occupied the property before. Ms. Wood responded that yes, the someone has occupied the property. Mr. Clifford then asked if the Board Members had any additional questions. No additional questions from the Board. Mr. Clifford moved to reclose the Hearing at 9:31 PM. (Mr. Clifford took a roll call vote: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, and Scott Cooper – Yes). During the discussion, Mr. Clifford stated that he would grant the special permit under 135-6.2. Mr. Clifford also stated that he believes since the property resides in a residential neighborhood, the property should somewhat act like a residence. Mr. Clifford also reiterated that the Board can amend a special permit. Mr. Clifford also called to eliminate any demolitions. Mr. Clifford also called for the conditions that demolitions cannot occur without changing the special permit and that the historic commission must approve any changes to the property. Finally, Mr. Clifford clarified all the conditions for the special permit. 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, 135-6.2.4(1), and 135-3.1.1, Table 1 (Permitted Uses and Development Standards) Lines G.1.03 (Business or Professional Office) and M.1.06 (Trade Shop) to allow additional uses permitted in another district but not as of right in the district the historical structures are on the conditions that the property serves for owner occupancy and that any changes or demolitions made to the exterior structure will need to go through the Historical Commission (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Nyles N. Barnet – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, and Scott Cooper – Yes). Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, via Zoom February 27, 2025, 7:00 pm Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, and Martha C. Wood Associate Members: Patricia Nelson, Kathryn Roy, and Jeanne Krieger Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, and Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator Other Business: 1. Minutes from the February 13, 2025 Meeting The Board of Appeals voted three (3) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and two (2) in abstention to approve the minutes from February 13th, 2025 Hearing (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Nyles N. Barnet – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, and Scott Cooper – Yes). The Board voted to Adjourn at 9:37 PM (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, and Scott Cooper – Yes).