HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-07-24-ZBA-min.pdfMeeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals
Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom
July 24th, 2025, 7:00 p.m.
Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, Martha C.
Wood, and James A. Osten
Alternate Member: Thomas Shiple
Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator,
and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant
Address: 385 Marrett Road (ZBA-25-12)
The petitioner is requesting TWO SPECIAL PERMITS in accordance with the Zoning By-Law
(Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.4, 135-4.3.4, and 135-5.1.11(1) to allow
a retaining wall to be located closer to the side lot line than otherwise allowed 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, Floor Plans, Photographs, Certified Proposed Plot Plan Waive Request, Abutter
Support Letters.
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, and the Engineering Department.
The Hearing opened at 7:04 p.m.
Petitioner: Marc Ligor
Mr. Ligor began his presentation by giving an overview of the current conditions of his driveway
and explained the need to expand his driveway. Mr. Ligor then explained why he cannot expand
his driveway to the right and that his neighbor had expressed approval for Mr. Ligor to expand
his driveway to the left. Mr. Ligor then explained that he seeks to expand his driveway and his
curb cuts, but does not plan to go over twenty feet for the curb cuts per state code. Mr. Ligor
stated that once the work has concluded, Reading Asphalt will repave his driveway and reset
the curb. Mr. Ligor also stated that he has had contact with MassDOT. Mr. Ligor then explained
that he plans to have his mason move the wall closer to the lot line and reconstruct the wall
using the same material. Mr. Ligor explained that having the wall pushed back will give him and
his family more ease when entering and exiting the driveway with their cars. Mr. Ligor then
explained that the driveway will have a width of twenty-one feet wide but the reiterated that the
curb cut will comply with the MassDOT regulations. Mr. Ligor also explained that the expansion
will help with sight lines and that he will have more room to look up and down Marrett Road. Mr.
Ligor asked for relief to have his wall located two feet from the lot line and explained that he had
no plans to go onto his neighbor’s property. Mr. Ligor then explained he would be willing to have
a land surveyor come back out and clearly mark the line.
Mr. Clifford stated that Mr. Ligor must have a precise location of the wall so that the Building
Department understands what the Board will grant. Mr. Clifford then stated as he understands it,
the project will consist of a wall located two feet away from the property line. Mr. Ligor confirmed
Mr. Clifford’s understanding. Mr. Clifford asked if Mr. Ligor owned the landscaping on the top of
the wall to which Mr. Ligor said that he did. Mr. Clifford then clarified who owned the bush, to
which Mr. Ligor stated that he thinks that the bush mostly belongs to the neighbor. Mr. Ligor
explained that his land surveyor will come back out to clearly mark the lot line. Mr. Clifford
explained that the Board often put conditions on special permits like these to maintain or repair
the landscape as it currently exists. Mr. Clifford asked if Mr. Ligor found this condition
acceptable to which Mr. Ligor responded that he does.
Mr. Shiple asked about how the new wall would improve the sight lines if the wall will remain the
same height. Mr. Ligor explained that with the cars residing further apart, Mr. Ligor and his
family will have more room to back the cars out of the driveway. Mr. Ligor also explained that
with the expansion, him and his family can direct their focus to the road when backing out rather
than directing their focus on not hitting the other car in the driveway. Mr. Ligor further explained
that with the expansion he will see pedestrians and bikers more clearly. Mr. Ligor then stated
that he may have his mason do a rounded corner rather than a ninety-degree corner so that he
can see up and down Marrett Road better.
No further questions from the Board.
No further comments or questions from the Public.
No further questions from the Board.
Mr. Ligor clarified that the decision gets posted in about a month. Mr. Clifford explained that the
Board will make the decision tonight and that the opinion expressing that decision will take
about a month to draft. Mr. Ligor then asked if he will receive a notice and asked what action the
Board will take tonight. Mr. Clifford explained that the Board will vote on the matter and that the
Building Department will handle the rest of the process. Mr. Ligor clarified that the Board’s part
will conclude tonight, and Mr. Clifford clarified that Mr. Ligor cannot start his work immediately as
he must wait to the appeal period to expire. Mr. Ligor then asked the length of the appeal period,
to which Ms. Lawler explained that the appeal period will last twenty days after the Building
Department files the decision. Mr. Clifford clarified that the Board will make the decision at the
meeting, that the Building Department will draft and file the decision, and then the twenty-day
appeal period needs to expire before Mr. Ligor can act on his project.
Mr. Clifford moved to close the hearing at 7:19 p.m. Mr. Barnert second Mr. Clifford at 7:19 p.m.
The hearing closed at 7:19 p.m. (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes, Norman P.
Cohen – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, and James Osten – Yes).
Mr. Clifford proposed a condition of maintain the landscape. The rest of the Board agreed with
Mr. Clifford.
No further discussion from the Board.
Mr. Clifford moved to waive the requirement for a certified plot plan at 7:20 p.m. Multiple Board
Members second Mr. Clifford at 7:20 p.m.
The Board waived the requirement for a certified plot plan at 7:20 p.m.
The Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to
waive the requirement for the certified plot plan (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford –
Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, and James Osten
– Yes).
Mr. Barnert clarified that Mr. Ligor will need a certified plot plan for the building permit, to which
Mr. Clifford confirmed that they will.
Mr. Clifford moved to grant the petition at 7:20 p.m.
Mrs. Wood second Mr. Clifford at 7:21 p.m.
Mr. Barnert mentioned that the Board should clarify that they will grant the petition for the wall to
reside two feet from the lot line, to which Mr. Clifford affirmed. Mr. Clifford also stated that the
Mr. Ligor must either maintain or replace the landscaping on the top of the wall. Mr. Cohen
raised a thought about imposing a condition for the curb cut, but stated that the Board does
need to do that as Mr. Ligor has stated that he will take care of the curb cut. Mr. Clifford then
stated that as he understands it, the project will not change the curb cut.
The Board granted the special permit at 7:22 p.m.
The Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to
grant TWO SPECIAL PERMITS in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the
Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.4, 135-4.3.4, and 135-5.1.11(1) to allow a retaining wall to
be located closer to the side lot line than otherwise allowed and to allow a driveway to be
located closer to the lot line than otherwise allowed (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford
– Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, and James
Osten – Yes).
Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals
Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom
July 24th, 2025, 7:00 p.m.
Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, Martha C.
Wood, and James A. Osten
Alternate Member: Thomas Shiple
Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator,
and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant
Address: 40 Winchester Drive (ZBA-25-17)
The petitioner is requesting ONE SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law
(Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.4 and 135-4.3.4 to allow an 8-foot
fence to be located 0 feet from the property line instead of the required 8 feet.
The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification,
Plot Plan, Floor Plans, and a Certified Plot Plan Waiver Request.
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, the Engineering Department, and the Planning Department.
The Hearing opened at 7:22 p.m.
Petitioner: Nilton Machado and Mason Tomaino on behalf of Dogan Askan
Mr. Machado and Mr. Tomaino presented on behalf of the homeowners of 40 Winchester Drive.
Mr. Tomaino began his presentation by stating that the homeowners at 40 Winchester Drive, a
new construction, seek more privacy and sound protection from the main road through the
construction of an eight-foot high fence on the front and right side. Mr. Tomaino explained that
the homeowners seek to put the fence on the property line since the homeowner just planted a
number of trees and the fence will act as a backdrop to the trees. Mr. Tomiano then explained
that since the area has some forestation, the height of the fence would have no negative impact
on anyone in the area. Mr. Tomiano further explained that the neighbor to the right resides a
little-ways away and that the fence would serve as a good barrier to separate the two properties.
Mr. Tomiano also explained that they have plans to transplant the trees situated right on the
property line as having the fence sitting behind the trees affect their growth. Mr. Tomiano then
showed the construction details of the fence and showed some photos of a string running along
the property where the fence will return to the house. Mr. Tomiano reiterated their plan to move
the trees forward so that they can grow and to take out some of the smaller trees as their
removal would not negatively impact the heavily forested area. Mr. Machado added that the
house already has an existing fence along the back and that the homeowners seek to close it so
that their young daughter will have a safe area to play and so that they will have the added
noise barrier, at a height of six feet rather than eight feet.
Ms. Wood asked if the fence will go around the entire property. Mr. Machado stated that the
fence will not go around the entire property, only in an “L” shape on the front and right sides. Mr.
Machado explained that the proposed fence will connect to an existing fence in the corner, will
connect to part of the house, and will connect to another part of the house and the existing
fence. Mr. Machado further stated that the proposed fence would enclose the right side of the
property while the left side of the property would remain open.
Mr. Barnert stated that he understood the purpose of the front fence (to mitigate the sound that
comes from Winchester Drive) but stated that the house resides ninety feet away from the
property line and that the right side contains numerous trees. Mr. Barnert questioned the need
for an eight-foot fence and stated that the fence residing in the back has a height of six feet, not
eight feet. Mr. Machado also confirmed that the fence in the back has a height of six feet. Mr.
Barnert questioned why the fence cannot have a height of six feet. Mr. Machado explained that
the homeowners seek to prioritize soundproofing and privacy, and noted that the property has a
deck raised in the back. Mr. Machado explained that while the homeowners may have privacy at
the ground level with a six-foot fence, he estimated that the deck has a height of over six feet,
and, therefore, a six-foot fence would not provide the homeowners with privacy for the deck. Mr.
Barnert asked why the homeowners need to put the fence on the property line given that they
have trees there. Mr. Tomaino explained that while on the property, he ran a string between the
two property stakes down the property line and found that the property line has a low point. Mr.
Tomaino further explained that the right side of the property has a lower grade and that the
fence would not appear as tall since it would sit lower. Mr. Tomaino reiterated that the
homeowners seek to have as much privacy as possible. Mr. Machado explained that the area in
between the two properties has a lot of trees and that both homes have a considerable distance
between them. Mr. Machado further explained that despite the wooded area, the property has
space and stated that the edge of the lawn falls within the property line. Mr. Machado further
stated that the fence could come in the right side however the homeowners would still want an
eight-foot fence for more coverage. Mr. Barnert stated that if the fence resided eight feet within
the property line, that the fence would comply with the Zoning Bylaw. Mr. Clifford stated that the
homeowners could put the fence in by right should the fence reside eight feet from the property
line. Mr. Barnert stated that should the fence reside eight feet from the property line, the
homeowners would still have about eighty feet between the house and the fence. Mr. Machado
stated that the homeowners seek to prioritize having the fence on the front property line since
the front property line as a setback of twenty feet from the street. Mr. Machado further stated
willingness to have the side fence come in eight feet from the property line.
Mr. Shiple stated that no other house on Winchester Drive has a fence in the front. Mr. Shiple
asked if the homeowners would still meet the goals of privacy, security, and noise control if the
fence resided eight feet in from the front property line. Mr. Machado explained that have the
front fence in eight feet from the front property line would interfere with the existing landscaping.
Mr. Shiple stated that the fence did not seem planned with the construction of the new house
and the landscaping that got put in. Mr. Machado explained that the current homeowners bought
the property from the builders.
Mr. Cohen asked if people currently lived in the house. Mr. Machado answered that people did.
Mr. Cohen stated that he agreed with the points that Mr. Shiple made. Mr. Cohen expressed his
discontent with an eight-foot fence right on the property line. Mr. Machado explained that the
fence will reside twenty feet away from the street on the property line and that given the difficulty
of seeing the house from the street, the fence would most likely also have low visibility from the
street. Mr. Cohen asked if they had contacted the neighbor on the right side about the fence to
which Mr. Machado responded that they have not. Mr. Machado further stated that the fence
would reside pretty far from the neighbor’s home and would not invade on the neighbor’s
property. Mr. Machado also stated that contact could occur through the appeal period and also
expressed the possibility of contacting the neighbor.
Mr. Osten asked about the possibility of having an eight-foot high fence in the front and having a
six-foot high fence on the side, to which Mr. Machado expressed interest in the idea. Mr. Osten
then asked about the possibility of putting a fence just around the deck for privacy there. Mr.
Machado responded that that option may pose a challenge given the characteristics of the living
space. Mr. Osten then asked Mr. Machado what trees they plan to cut down and what trees they
plan to transplant. Mr. Tomaino responded they plan to work with the homeowner to implement
any kind of mitigation required by the town.
Mr. Clifford asked why a six-foot fence does not provide the same sound blocking as an eight-
foot fence. Mr. Clifford asked if they had any evidence to support an extra two feet making a
difference. Mr. Machado stated that the homeowners seek an eight-foot fence to act as a
secondary layer to the existing trees to boost sound absorption. Mr. Machado stated that the
homeowners do not want to get too involved with the project and have deemed the eight-foot
fence the most effective route to blocking the sound and creating privacy. Mr. Clifford then made
the comment about the town land located between the property and the street. Mr. Clifford
stated that the town may want to do something with that land or the street someday, so while
the property may reside twenty feet away from the street now, it may not in the future. Mr.
Clifford reiterated the same sentiment for the wooded nature of the partial, as while the property
may have those trees now, it may not in the future. Mr. Clifford explained that when the Board
considers zoning requests like these, the Board considers the request in the context of what
may occur later.
Ms. Wood expressed her concerned about the fence residing on the side property line as should
the homeowners need to get on the other side, they would trespass on the neighbor’s property.
Ms. Wood then expressed that the fence should come in from the property line.
No further questions from the Board.
Ms. Debra Ouellette, 44 Winchester Drive, expressed her concern regarding the wooded area
that separates the two lots. Mrs. Ouellette has a large pine tree located right on the lot line and
stated that a few trees would have to come down to put up the fence. Mrs. Ouellette further
stated that she does not understand why the fence has to have a height of eight feet and also
does not understand why the fence must reside on the lot line. Mr. Machado explained that they
must have had an oversight as they did not intend to put the fence on the right side of the
property line. Mr. Machado further explained that the property has enough room for a fence and
that the did not intend to take down any trees.
Ms. Kathryn Roy, 382 Marrett Road, a ZBA Associate Member, expressed her objection to the
eight-foot fence on the front property line since she thinks it will set a bad precedence.
Ms. Lisa Newton, 15 Ledgelawn Avenue, opposed the project since she thinks that the zero-foot
set back will set a poor precedent. Ms. Newton also expressed her concern for the ability to do
maintenance to the fence and for the potential tree removal.
No further comments or questions from the Public.
No further questions from the Board.
Mr. Machado expressed his willingness to bring the fence and reiterated that the homeowners
seek to have a quieter and more private outdoor space.
Mr. Clifford moved to close the hearing at 7:49 p.m.
Mr. Barnert second Mr. Clifford at 7:49 p.m.
The hearing closed at 7:50 p.m. (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes, Norman P.
Cohen – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, and James Osten – Yes).
Ms. Wood stated that she does not understand the need for an eight-foot fence, and stated that
the Board needs to know where the fence will go and how far the fence will reside from the
property lines. Ms. Wood described the project as vague and huge. Ms. Wood further stated that
the project will stand out in the neighborhood.
Mr. Shiple clarified that he will not vote but stated that the Town has bylaws for a reason. Mr.
Shiple did not see any circumstances to grant an exception as alternatives exist.
Mr. Clifford reminded the Board of 135-4.3.4 which does give the Board permission to allow
higher fences than the normal limitation of six-foot high fences on the property line. Mr. Clifford
stated that the larger fence needs to remain compatible with the scale of the neighborhood and
cannot intrude on solar access of the adjoining lot. Mr. Clifford then stated that any fence higher
than six-feet will cast a shadow on the boundary of the property. Mr. Clifford also stated that the
trees do not have any relevancy as they may get cut down. Mr. Clifford further stated that should
the Board say no to the eight-foot fence, the applicant has the right to construct a six-foot fence
that only concerns the Building Department.
Mr. Osten stated that he feels differently about the fence on the front of the lot versus the side of
the lot. Mr. Osten expressed his disapproval of the side fence because of the trees and the
neighbors, but expressed his support for the front fence because of the traffic and the noise.
Mr. Cohen stated that putting a fence near the street takes away from the neighborhood. Mr.
Cohen then raised the matter of the length of the lot, to which Mr. Clifford stated that the lot has
a length of 265 feet in the front.
No further discussion from the Board.
Mr. Clifford moved to waived the requirement for a certified plot plan at 7:56 p.m.
Multiple members of the Board second at 7: 56.
The Board waived the requirement for a certified plot plan at 7:57 p.m. (a roll call vote took
place: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C.
Wood – Yes, and James Osten – Yes).
Mr. Clifford moved to grant the petition at 7:57 p.m.
Mr. Barnert second Mr. Clifford at 7:57 p.m.
The Board of Appeals voted zero (0) in favor, five (5) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to
grant ONE SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code
of Lexington) section(s) section(s) 135-9.4 and 135-4.3.4 to allow an 8-foot fence to be located
0 feet from the side property line instead of the required 8 feet (a roll call vote took place: Ralph
D. Clifford – No, Norman P. Cohen – No, Nyles N. Barnert – No, Martha C. Wood – No, and
James Osten – No).
Mr. Clifford moved to grant the petition at 7:57.
Mr. Barnert second at 7:58 p.m.
The Board of Appeals voted one (1) in favor, four (4) 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 135-4.3.4 to allow an 8-foot fence to be located 0
feet from the front property line instead of the required 8 feet (a roll call vote took place: Ralph
D. Clifford – No, Norman P. Cohen – No, Nyles N. Barnert – No, Martha C. Wood – No, and
James Osten – Yes).
The Board therefore denied the Petition.
Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals
Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom
July 24th, 2025, 7:00 p.m.
Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, Martha C.
Wood, and James A. Osten
Associate Members: Thomas Shiple
Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator,
and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant
Other Business:
1. Minutes from the July 10th, 2025 Meeting
Mr. Clifford moved to approve the minutes at 7:58 p.m.
Mr. Barnert second Mr. Clifford at 7:58 p.m.
The Board of Appeals voted four (4) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and one (1) in abstention to
approve the minutes from July 10th, 2025 Hearing (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford –
Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Abstain, and James
Osten – Yes).
Mr. Clifford stated that no August 14th, 2025 meeting will take place. Ms. Lawler affirmed Mr.
Clifford’s statement.
Mr. Clifford moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:59 p.m.
Mr. Barnert second Mr. Clifford at 7:59 p.m.
The Board voted to Adjourn at 7:59 p.m. (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes,
Norman P. Cohen – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, and James Osten –
Yes).