Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-07-10-ZBA-min1775 j � 1 M Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom July 10th, 2025,7:00 p.m. Board Members: Chair — Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, and Associate Member Jennifer Wilson Administrative Staff: Bruce Dempsey, Acting Building Commissioner, Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator, and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant Address: 27 Massachusetts Avenue (ZBA-20-23) The petitioner is requesting SPECIAL PERMIT RENEWAL in accordance with the Zoning By - Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.4 to allow renewal of a special permit dated July 23 d, 2020, for the continued operation of the car wash. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Plot Plan, Landscape Plan, Landscape Maintenance Contract, Previously Issued Special Permit dated July 23rd, 2020, and Abutter Concern Letter. Prior to the meeting, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Select Board, 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. The Hearing opened at 7:04 p.m. Petitioner: Paul Kirchner on behalf of Mass. Ave. Realty Mr. Kirchner, from Stamski and McNary, began his presentation by stating that 27-31 Mass. Ave. contains an existing car wash that requires a special permit to operate in the retail shopping zoning district. Mr. Kirchner stated that the special permit last renewed five years ago in 2020 and will expire in August 2025. Mr. Kirchner then stated that the continued operation of the car wash at that site depends on the special permit renewal. Mr. Kirchner then explained that no changes would occur to the existing infrastructure or town services, that as the only car wash in town it serves a community need, that no changes would occur to the traffic parking, utilities, neighborhood, natural environment, or fiscally as the car wash already exists. Mr. Kirchner then stated that he had received positive comments from the town staff, including a recommendation from the Building Commissioner for a ten-year renewal, which he would ideally like to obtain. Mr. Kirchner also stated that the Planning Department gave positive feedback and that the Conservation Director stated that the car wash has complied with the maintenance of the landscaping on site. Mr. Clifford asked about the letter that the Board received concerning noise issues. Mr. Clifford asked Mr. Kirchner if he knew about the letter, what the problems entailed, and how the car wash can address the problems. Mr. Kirchner stated that he saw the letter and that Greg Thompson, the Mass. Ave. Realty owner, can address it. Mr. Thompson stated that occasionally, the car wash staff must get loud to prevent cars from flying through the car wash because they may hit another car already inside the tunnel. Further, Mr. Thompson stated that some of his employees enjoy loudly greeting their friends. Mr. Thompson stated that he has talked to his employees about settling down and explained that they have neighbors behind them that they need to respect. Mr. Thompson also stated that he sent his employees the letter and that the employees had realized the impact of their actions. Mr. Thompson stated that he told his employees that they can't upset neighbors as it risks the car wash's operation. Mr Thompson also expressed gratitude for the letter that he received. Mr. Thompson stated that he told his employees to only raise their voice if cars appear to not enter the tunnel correctly. No further questions from the Board. Ellen and Ivan Basch, 3 South Rindge Aveune, the authors of the letter, stated that they appreciate Mr. Thompson's comments and stated that the loud noises did subdue after the last time that they spoke with Mr. Thompson. Mrs. Basch then stated that they seek a way to contact someone should a noise complaint arise as she does not want to have to wait another five years for a special permit renewal. Mr. Clifford asked Mr. Thompson if he can provide Mrs. Basch with the information that she seeks. Mr. Thompson stated that he would give Mrs. Basch his cell phone number. No further comments or questions from the Public. No further questions from the Board. Mr. Clifford moved to close the Hearing at 7:13 p.m. Mr. Barnert second Mr. Clifford at 7:13 p.m The hearing closed at 7:13 p.m. (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford — Yes, Norman P. Cohen — Yes, Nyles N. Barnert — Yes, James Osten — Yes, Jennifer Wilson — Yes). Mr. Clifford opened the discussion by explaining that the Board currently renews permits every five years and noted that some business come before the Board completely compliant every time. Mr. Clifford then asked members of the Board about their thoughts on changing to sticking with the five-year renewal. Mr. Barnert stated that for one case the Board granted a longer renewal on the condition that the owner does not change. Mr. Barnert also raised the possibility of an indefinite renewal, where applicants would never have to return to the Board. Mr. Cohen expressed his agreement with Mr. Barnert. Mr. Osten expressed his preference for a fix length renewal and for the requirement that zoning must review the status of a facility. Mr. Osten also stated that Mrs. Basch would not have had an opportunity to express her concerns if the special permit had had a ten-year renewal. Mr. Osten then stated that the Board should consider changes in ownership and a longer length than five years. Mr. Clifford expressed his support for a consistent rule regarding special permit renewals, then raised the idea of having a shorter first-time special permit renewal, followed by a second time longer special permit renewal. Mr. Barnert stated his content with five years and Mr. Clifford agreed Mrs. Wilson expressed her support for a ten-year special permit renewal given how many times the car wash has come before the Board on the condition that if ownership changes the car wash would lose the extension. Mr. Clifford reiterated having an initial five-year special permit renewal and then a second ten-year special permit renewal on the condition of no problems have arisen and that the special permit will need renewal if the ownership changes. The Board agreed with Mr. Clifford. No further discussion from the Board. Mr. Clifford moved to grant the special permit renewal at 7:17 p.m. subject to the new standard conditions and the conditions on special permit. Mr. Cohen second Mr. Clifford at 7:18 p.m. 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 renewal of a special permit dated July 231, 2020, for the continued operation of the car wash (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford — Yes, Norman P. Cohen — Yes, Nyles N. Barnert — Yes, James Osten — Yes, Jennifer Wilson — Yes). Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom July 10th, 2025,7:00 p.m. Board Members: Chair — Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, and Associate Member Jennifer Wilson Administrative Staff: Bruce Dempsey, Acting Building Commissioner, Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator, and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant Address: 675 Waltham (ZBA-25-15) The petitioner is requesting an APPEAL OF THE ACTING BUILDING COMMISSIONER in accordance with the Zoning By -Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135- 9.2.2(3) regarding a request for enforcement action dated May 16th, 2025. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Plot Plan, Enforcement Request to Building Commissioner Dated April 18th, 2025, and Response to Request for Enforcement Dated May 16th, 2025. Prior to the meeting, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Select Board, the Planning Director, the Historic District Commission Clerk, Historical Commission, Economic Development, and the Zoning Administrator. No comments were received. The Hearing opened at 7:19 p.m. Petitioner: Taylor Lee on behalf of Armando Mancini Ms. Taylor Lee, of Phillips & Angley, One Washington Street, Boston, MA, represented Mr. Armando Mancini, homeowner of 673 Waltham St. Ms. Lee explained that she came before the Board on an appeal of the decision of the Acting Building Commissioner. Ms. Lee also explained that Mr. Mancini had requested enforcement from the Acting Building Commissioner on the special permit granted to John P. Carroll, LLC, doing business as Stone Meadow Golf Course, located at 675 Waltham St. Ms. Lee further explained that Mr. Mancini specifically requested enforcement of condition 17 of the special permit, which states that the Special Permit is contingent on the continued existence of the revocable License issued by the Conservation Commission. Ms. Lee then stated that Stone Meadow Golf currently encroaches on Town Conservation Land, a matter that the Board knows of. Ms. Lee then further stated that the dispute does not lie in the license's issuance, but arises since the Conservation Commission and Mr. Carroll have not signed the license. Ms. Lee explained that the unsigned license does not meet the condition precedent to the special permit and asked that the Board vote to overturn the denial of enforcement and asked that the Board order the revocation of Stone Meadow's certificate of occupancy until the license meets the condition. Mr. Clifford asked what standing Ms. Lee's party had to file the appeal. Ms. Lee explained that Mr. Mancini directly abuts Stone Meadow Golf and that Mr. Mancini had standing from the overall harm caused by the project approved under the special permit. Ms. Lee stated that they have filed a zoning appeal that outlines how Stone Meadow Golf had injured Mr. Mancini, a matter that the Board knows of. Ms. Lee explained that this included trespassing, broken windows, and lighting concerns from the driving range that encroaches on conservation land. Mr. Bruce Dempsey, Billerica MA, Acting Building Commissioner, stated that he denied Mr. Mancini's request on advice of town counsel given pending litigation. Mr. Cohen questioned Ms. Lee about the lights remaining on all night at the golf course as lights usually shut off at a certain time. Ms. Lee stated that the light does come from the golf course and stated that Mr. Mancini can further speak to the light that hits his property. Responding to Mr. Dempsey's comment, Ms. Lee stated that the ongoing litigation constitutes a separate issue and that they have appealed a request for enforcement of a specific condition not yet met. No further questions from members of the Board. Mr. Armando Mancini, 673 Waltham St., stated that the golf course has one light in the parking area, that points towards his house, that stays on all night long. Mr. William Daley, who represented Mr. Scott Carroll, stated that the light in question, located at the front of the building, serves as a security light. Mr. Daley also stated that the light resides about 900 feet away from Mr. Mancini's house. Additionally, Mr. Daley stated that the rest of the lights turn off during the evening and for about six months out of the year the lights remain completely off or turn off at sunset. Mr. Daley then highlighted that Mr. Mancini had commenced an action in a superior court which raised the issues concerning the property involved in the operation of the golf course. To address these issues, Mr. Daley stated that they had filed a complaint to quiet title regarding the 12,000 square foot property in question. Mr. Daley then stated the Mancini side had filed a first amendment complaint and a second amendment complaint, all of which stand before the superior court. Mr. Daley then stated that they hold the position that the superior court will address all these matters as Mr. Dempsey indicated. Mr. Daley then highlighted to the Board that the golf course has operated for over thirty years and each time the special permit renewal comes up, the Town notifies the abutters that a hearing will take place. Mr. Daley estimated that the golf course has about twenty-five to thirty abutters, and of these abutters, the only complaint, to Mr. Daley's knowledge, comes from Mr. Mancini. Mr. Daley also highlighted that the town staff had come out to look at lights in response to Mr. Mancini's complaints. According to Mr. Daley, Mr. Jim Kelly, the Building Commissioner, and Mrs. Krakauer, the former Zoning Administrator, had found that the lights comply with the lighting plan. Mr. Daley then asked that the Board confirm Mr. Dempsey's position and allow the matters to play out in court. Mr. Makarious, Town Counsel, sought to clarify the differences between the cases and the procedural status of each. Mr. Makarious stated that the Conservation Commission voted to grant a revocable license to meet the condition that the Board had put in place for this property. Mr. Makarious then stated that the Conservation Commission had not signed the license because Mr. Mancini had challenged that action in one proceeding. Mr. Makarious then stated that the quiet title action challenges the need for the license in a separate proceeding, so if the Conservation Commission did sign the license, the license would remain subject to the resolution of one or both of those cases. Mr. Makarious then stated that the matter before the Board does not concern the harm or whether the ZBA acted appropriately as Mr. Mancini had already appealed those matters the appeal to the Court of the Board's prior decision. Mr. Makarious then highlighted that the matter before the Board also stands before the court on question of whether or not the applicant had met the condition of having a signed revocable license with the Conservation Commission, not because of the lighting. Mr. Makarious then stated that the Conservation Commission has the authority to regulate encroachments on its property. Further according to Mr. Makarious, the Conservation Commission also constitutes the proper entity to contest the quite title action. Mr. Makarious also stated that the Conservation Commission issued the revocable license because it did not want to grant a full property interest. Mr. Makarious then stated that the applicant had complied willingly with the condition to obtain a license from the Conservation Commission. Further according to Mr. Makarious, from the Town's and Conservation Commission's perspectives, they had no objections to the golf course's continued operation on the portion of conservation land at this time pending the resolution of the litigation. Mr. Makarious also stated that both the quiet title and the action filed by Mr. Mancini challenge the use of conservation land. No further comments or questions from the Public. No further questions from the Board. Mr. Clifford moved to close the hearing at 7:34 p.m. Mr. Barnert second Mr. Clifford at 7:34 p.m. The hearing closed at 7:34 p.m. (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford — Yes, Norman P. Cohen — Yes, Nyles N. Barnert — Yes, James Osten — Yes, Jennifer Wilson — Yes). Mr. Barnert stated that the Carroll's appear to meet the intent of the bylaw of the special permit. Mr. Clifford stated that the Board must clarify what the appeal entails and what the appeal does not entail. Mr. Clifford then stated that the request for enforcement had nothing to do with the lighting but rather had to do with the license, specifically condition seventeen, and hence the Board should decide the appeal on that matter and no other. Mr. Clifford then expressed his support to reject the appeal since Ms. Lee and Mr. Mancini did not address the appeal to the Town Clerk and since the appeal effectively asked the Board to reconsider a prior decision, something that the Board does not have the authority to do under Chapter 138, Section 19 of the Lexington Bylaws. Mr. Clifford also raised his concern about the standing for this appeal and the consequences to Mr. Mancini resulting from the use of the conservation land. Mr. Clifford then stated that the Board granted the special permit on a revocable license from the Conservation Commission, not on the basis of any particular written document, and that the Conservation Commission had voted to allow this license to exist. Mr. Clifford further stated that the vote satisfied condition seventeen of the special permit. Mrs. Wilson agrees with recommendation to reject the appeal on the same basis as Mr. Clifford. Mr. Osten agreed to reject the appeal on the basis of the ongoing court cases and that the Board had what they needed for their initial request for an agreement on the land. Mr. Osten also stated that the Board should not get involved in court cases that fall outside of their lane. Mr. Barnert stated that he believes that Carroll's meet the intent of condition 17 and agreed to reject the appeal. Mr. Cohen agreed with the comments made especially the comments from Mr. Daley and Mr. Clifford. Mr. Cohen then stated that he will not vote to overturn the Acting Building Commissioner's decision. Mr. Clifford reiterated that the Carroll's have satisfied condition 17 and that three out of five of the Board members agree with the other comments that Mr. Clifford made. No further discussion from the Board. Mr. Clifford moved to overturn the determination of the Acting Building Commissioner at 7:42 p.m. Mr. Osten second Mr. Clifford at 7:42 p.m. The Board of Appeals voted zero (0) in favor, five (5) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant an APPEAL OF THE ACTING BUILDING COMMISSIONER DETERMINATION DATED MAY 16th, 2025 in accordance with the Zoning By -Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.2.2(3) to appeal a determination of the Acting Building Commissioner regarding a request for enforcement. Therefore, the Board denied the appeal and upheld the determination (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford — No, Norman R Cohen — No, Nyles N. Barnert — No, James Osten — No, Jennifer Wilson — No). Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom July 10th, 2025,7:00 p.m. Board Members: Chair — Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, and Associate Member Jennifer Wilson Administrative Staff: Bruce Dempsey, Acting Building Commissioner, Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator, and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant Other Business: 1. Minutes from the June 26th, 2025 Meeting Mr. Clifford moved to approve at 7:43 p.m. Multiple members of the Board second Mr. Clifford at 7:43 p.m. The Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to approve the minutes from June 26th, 2025 Hearing (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford — Yes, Norman R Cohen — Yes, Nyles N. Barnert — Yes, James Osten — Yes, Jennifer Wilson — Yes). Mr. Clifford moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:43 p.m. Mr. Barnert second Mr. Clifford at 7:43 p.m. The Board voted to Adjourn at 7:43 p.m. p.m. (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford — Yes, Norman P. Cohen — Yes, Nyles N. Barnert — Yes, James Osten — Yes, Jennifer Wilson — Yes).