Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-10-23-ZBA-min.pdfMeeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom October 23rd, 2025, 7:00 p.m. Board Members: Acting Chair – Nyles N. Barnert, Martha C. Wood, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, and Associate Member Jennifer Wilson Alternate Member: Thomas Shiple Administrative Staff: Kiruthika Ramakrishnan, LUHD Office Manager, and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant Address: 17 Blossomcrest Rd (ZBA-25-22) The petitioner is requesting TWO (2) 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 driveway to be located 3.1 ft from the side property line instead of the required 5 ft and to allow a retaining wall to be located 0.5 ft from the rear property line and 2.2 ft from the side property line instead of the required 4 ft. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Plot Plan, Elevations, Floor Plans, Photographs, Gross Floor Area Calculation Form, and 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 and the Building Commissioner. The Hearing opened at 7:04 p.m. Petitioner: Nazneen Aziz Mrs. Aziz began her presentation by introducing her husband, Mr. Arijit Bose, and her contractor, Mr. George Gallagher. Mrs. Aziz then continued by explaining that they seek two special permits, one for the back section of their retaining wall and one for the driveway. Mrs. Aziz explained that heavy machinery got brought in during construction, which led to the removal of the lot markers. Mrs. Aziz further explained that while they had a survey done, without the lot markers, the mason had to estimate where to build the wall. This resulted in the mason building the retaining wall closer to the lot line that allowed. Mrs. Aziz then stated that her direct abutters have sent in support letters for the wall its location. Mrs. Aziz also stated that having to change the retaining wall would result in a huge financial undertaking. For the second special permit, Mrs. Aziz explained that they seek relief for the left side of their driveway. Mrs. Aziz once again explained that the mason estimated where to build the retaining wall. Mrs. Aziz explained that after the mason built the wall, the pavers then paved the driveway all the way to the wall, which resulted in the driveway residing closer to the side lot line that allowed. Mrs. Aziz stated that they cannot use that portion of the driveway as its angular location would damage any car and block the steps. Mrs. Aziz stated that the asphalt paving should not indicate a usable driveway. Mrs. Aziz stated that they either seek relief for the driveway as it stands or expressed her willingness to put potted plants in the area as additional mitigation. Mrs. Aziz stated that any changes to the driveway would result in a significant expense. Mr. Cohen asked when the construction had started and when it had finished. Mrs. Aziz stated that it started around June 2024 and finished by June 2025. Mr. Osten asked Mrs. Aziz when she last got a survey of the property done. Mrs. Aziz stated that they got a final zoning survey around June 20th, 2025. Mr. Gallagher stated that they had an as built done for the certificate of occupancy. Mr. Osten asked what markers got put in for the survey. Mrs. Aziz stated that around four or five red stakes got put in. Mrs. Wilson asked Mr. Gallagher if they paved the driveway with the intent of using it as a turnaround. Mr. Gallagher stated that the driveway would not serve as parking area but would serve as a place to turn a vehicle. Mrs. Wilson stated that as the driveway did not get built in substantial conformity with the plans, a financial hardship would arise to correct the construction error. Mrs. Wilson then asked why this falls on the property owners and not the developer. Mr. Gallagher stated that the landscaping did not fall in their scope. Mr. Gallagher also stated that they worked with the landscaper but did not have anything to do with building the wall. Mrs. Aziz stated that the responsibility falls on the builder and despite the extensive coordination, the error occurred. Mrs. Aziz further stated that the responsibility should not fall on the homeowners, however, they seek the special permit as to not have the expense of resolving the issue. Mr. Gallagher stated that the landscaper estimated the locations of the lot lines and that the stakes got removed early in the project. Mr. Gallagher also stated that the landscaper installed part of the wall correctly but skewed the wall as he went back. Mrs. Wilson stated that the abutter at 23 Blossomcrest Rd. referenced the wall in the rear but not the driveway. Mrs. Aziz stated that the letter did not reference the driveway as they will not use the left side of the driveway. Mrs. Aziz further stated that they did not ask for a letter for a driveway and only came to the Board as they cannot use the left side of the driveway. Mr. Bose stated that he tried to use the left side of the driveway and damage his car doing so. Mrs. Wilson expressed her concern about not having a support letter from the abutter most impacted by the driveway. Mrs. Wilson also stated that no site-specific reason exists to request the special permit, just that an error occurred. Mr. Shiple showed a photo that he took of the left side of the house and stated that the original proposal showed the retaining wall as perpendicular to the street and parallel to the side of the house. Mr. Shiple then stated that the wall did not get built according to the proposal. Mr. Shiple then showed another photo of the left-hand corner that showed the retaining wall. Mr. Shiple then identified a cast iron pipe located just off the corner of the wall. Mr. Shiple then asked Mrs. Aziz how long the stake had resided there and if the stake marks the corner of the property. Mrs. Aziz stated that the stake got put in the corner of the property for the original survey a while ago. Mr. Shiple stated that the mason would have worked next to the visible stake that would have given some indication of the property line. Mr. Barnert asked Mrs. Aziz her thoughts on making the potted plants a condition of the special permit. Mrs. Aziz expressed her content for the condition. Mr. Cohen reminded Mrs. Aziz of his first question then expressed his concern about the driveway. Mr. Cohen then asked Mrs. Aziz if they had lived in the house before or if they had recently bought the house. Mrs. Aziz stated that they lived in the house previously and decided to rebuild the house. Mr. Cohen expressed his concern about landscapers using estimates when doing work on houses and stated that he did not know if the driveway would ever bother the neighbor. Mrs. Aziz stated that the neighbors expressed no concerns about the driveway and then expressed her discontent that the driveway mistake had occurred. Mr. Cohen stated that the support letters helped but that neither abutter had written about the driveway. Mr. Cohen concluded by reiterating his concern about using estimates to do work on houses. No further questions from the Board. No further comments or questions from the Public No further questions from the Board. Mrs. Aziz stated that she seeks relief as correcting the error would result in a hardship for her or for the builders. Mrs. Aziz also stated that the responsibility should fall on the builders and that the builders and the mason had communicated with each other. Mrs. Aziz apologized for the error and reiterated that both neighbors did not express any concern. Mrs. Aziz reiterated that fixing the error would result in a hardship and that they will not use the driveway. Mr. Cohen reiterated that the abutter letters do not reference the driveway. Mr. Barnert moved to close at 7:29 p.m. Mrs. Wood second at 7:29 p.m. The hearing closed at 7:30 p.m. (a roll call vote took place: Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, and Jennifer Wilson – Yes). Mr. Barnert broke the discussion up into the wall and the driveway and began with the wall. Mr. Shiple made a general comment about the retaining wall and the driveway. Mr. Shiple expressed his concern for the project as he observed patterns of deviation from the site plan dated December 4th, 2023. Mr. Shiple noted that the original proposal did not include the rear and side retaining wall, that the walls on either side of the driveway appear wider, that the mason had built the retaining wall angled to the property line, and that the front wall got built on the town right of way. Mr. Shiple stated that some of the changes created the violations and expressed his concern about the project. Mrs. Wilson stated that the financial hardship that arose from the error does not suffice as a proper basis for granting the special permit as it would allow builders to build outside of the limits. Mr. Osten stated that per the picture that Tom showed, the retaining wall remains entirely within Mrs. Aziz’s property and finds it reasonable to allow the retaining wall to stay. Mrs. Wilson supports the wall more than the driveway as both neighbors have provided support letters. No further discussion from the Board. Mr. Barnert moved to approve the petition at 7:33 p.m. Multiple Board Members second Mr. Barnert at 7:33 p.m. The Board of Appeals granted the special permit for the retaining wall at 7:34 p.m. 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 and 135-4.3.4 to allow a retaining wall to be located 0.5 ft from the rear property line and 2.2 ft from the side property line instead of the required 4 ft. (a roll call vote took place: Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, and Jennifer Wilson – Yes). Mr. Barnert expressed his support for a condition that the applicant must put potted plants in the non-conforming part of the driveway and stated that a paved surface does not constitute a driveway. Mrs. Wilson asked if they had a plan about what the potted plants would look like and asked if the potted plants would remain permanent, which Mr. Barnert affirmed. Mr. Shiple asked Ms. Anjoorian if replacing the pavement with gravel would resolve the violation. Ms. Anjoorian stated that as she understands it, material composition does not define a driveway. Rather, the use of that space by cars does, but she would have to confirm that with other Town staff. Mr. Shiple asked if any else knew if the material made a difference. Mr. Barnert stated that he thinks that the material does not since many driveways use crushed stone. Mr. Shiple expressed his concern about the potted plants condition due to the difficulty of enforcing it. Mr. Shiple then stated that removing the pavement and planting the area would provide a better opportunity to resolve the violation. Ms. Wood noted that the town has many unpaved driveways, so the material does not make a difference. Mrs. Wilson stated that the Board did not receive support letters from the neighbors who would experience the adverse consequences from the driveway. Mr. Barnert asked if the adverse consequences would arise if the owners did not use it as a driveway. Mr. Osten asked if the wall next to the driveway had existed previously. Mr. Barnert said that it did not. Mr. Osten confirmed with Mr. Barnert that the wall could reside in its current location, which Mr. Barnert affirmed. Mr. Osten stated that the two feet of pavement from the wall does not affect the wall and expressed his support for the potted plants. Mr. Shiple stated that he looked up the definition of a driveway in Chapter 135 Section 10, which defines a driveway as an all-weather surface. Mr. Barnert moved to grant special a permit with the condition that the applicant place potted plants in the left-side part of the driveway at 7:39 p.m. Mr. Osten second at 7:39 p.m. Board voted to deny the special permit at 7:40 p.m. The Board of Appeals voted two (2) in favor, two (2) opposed, and one (1) in abstention to grant ONE (2) SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.4 and 135-5.1.11(1) to allow a driveway to be located 3.1 ft from the side property line instead of the required 5 ft (a roll call vote took place: Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Abstain, Norman P. Cohen – No, James A. Osten – Yes, and Jennifer Wilson – No). Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom October 23rd, 2025, 7:00 p.m. Board Members: Acting Chair – Nyles N. Barnert, Martha C. Wood, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, and Associate Member Jennifer Wilson Alternate Member: Thomas Shiple Administrative Staff: Kiruthika Ramakrishnan, LUHD Office Manager, and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant Address: 333 Woburn St (ZBA-25-21) The petitioner is requesting a SPECIAL PERMIT RENEWAL in accordance with the Zoning By- Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.4 and 135-3.4 Table 1 (Permitted Uses and Development Standards) line I.1.04 to allow renewal of special permit dated December 14th, 2023, to continue to allow a package liquor store, with no consumption on the premises. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Photographs, Proposed Certified Plot Plan Waiver Request, Parking Plan, and Special Permit Dated December 14th, 2023. 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. The Hearing opened at 7:40 p.m. Petitioner: Frederick Gilgun on behalf of ANR Realty Trust Mr. Gilgun, of Nicholson, Sreter, & Gilgun, 33 Bedford St, began his presentation by stating that he represents Arvind Patel, as trustee of ANR Realty Trust. Mr. Gilgun then stated that he seeks to renew the special permit granted in December 2023 for 333 Woburn St., a parcel located in the CRS zoning district. Mr. Gilgun explained that the special permit allowed for the use of 3,525 square feet of the property to operate as a package liquor store, pursuant to section 3.4 of the Zoning By-Law. Mr. Gilgun then explained that he seeks to modify the hours of operation on a Sunday to align with the hours that the Select Board approved for the liquor license. Mr. Gilgun then explained to the Board that in 2023, the property laid in a state of disrepair. Mr. Gilgun further explained that the applicant proposed to make several building and site improvements that the Board included as conditions for issuing the special permit. Mr. Gilgun stated that the applicant has completed all the proposed conditions, which included repainting the building, adding a new awning, upgrading the lighting, re-stripping the parking, marking the front door ADA accessible, and repairing the fence on the property boundary. Mr. Gilgun concluded his presentation by stating that the same reasons to justify the special permit’s initial approval remain today and warrant its renewal, and by requesting a five-year renewal. Mr. Osten expressed his content that the liquor store had had no incidents in the last two years. Mr. Osten then asked Mr. Gilgun how many other liquor stores the applicant owns in Lexington. Mr. Gilgun stated that he does not know but that he may own other liquor stores in other towns. Mr. Gilgun then raised the traffic concern that arose during the first hearing for the special permit and stated that a liquor store generates less traffic than a convenience store. No further questions from the Board. No further comments or questions from the Public. No further questions from the Board. Mr. Barnert moved to close the hearing at 7:47 p.m. Mrs. Wilson second Mr. Barnert at 7:47 p.m. The hearing closed at 7:47 p.m. (a roll call vote took place: Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, and Jennifer Wilson – Yes). Mr. Barnert moved to waive the certified proposed plot plan at 7:47 p.m. Mr. Osten second Mr. Barnert at 7:48 p.m. The Board waived the certified plot plan at 7:48 p.m. (a roll call vote took place: Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, and Jennifer Wilson – Yes). Mrs. Wood stated that she would like to renew the permit for five years. Mr. Shiple clarified that the Board issued the original special permit for two years and would renew the special permit for five years. Mr. Barnert affirmed this. Mr. Barnert went over the conditions. Mr. Barnert stated that the Sunday hours of operation would change to be from 12:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Mr. Barnert then stated that the parking plan, lighting plan, sign removal, and the door renovation no longer applied to the special permit. Mr. Barnert then stated that they would keep the conditions to maintain the trash and the fence, and the condition of Select Board issuance of the liquor license. Finally, Mr. Barnert stated that the Board would make the condition that the permit expires in five years. No further discussion from the Board. Mr. Barnert moved to grant the special permit renewal at 7:50 p.m. Mrs. Wood second Mr. Barnert at 7:50 p.m. The Board granted the special permit renewal at 7:51 p.m. The Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant a SPECIAL PERMIT RENEWAL in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.4 and 135-3.4 Table 1 (Permitted Uses and Development Standards) line I.1.04 to allow renewal of special permit dated December 14th, 2023, to continue to allow a package liquor store, with no consumption on the premises (a roll call vote took place: Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, and Jennifer Wilson – Yes). Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom October 23rd, 2025, 7:00 p.m. Board Members: Acting Chair – Nyles N. Barnert, Martha C. Wood, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, and Associate Member Jennifer Wilson Associate Members: Thomas Shiple Administrative Staff: Kiruthika Ramakrishnan, LUHD Office Manager, and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant Other Business: 1. Minutes from the October 9th, 2025 Meeting Mr. Barnert moved to approve the minutes at 7:51 p.m. Multiple Board members second Mr. Barnert at 7:51 p.m. The Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to approve the minutes from October 9th, 2025 Hearing (a roll call vote took place: Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, and Jennifer Wilson – Yes). Mr. Osten informed the Board that he may have difficulty attending the November meeting as due to his travels, he may have difficulty finding reliable internet. Mr. Osten requested that an associate take his place for the meeting. Mr. Barnert stated that Mr. Clifford had asked that all associates attend the November meeting. Mr. Barnert moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:53 p.m. Mr. Cohen second Mr. Barnert at 7:53 p.m. The Board voted to Adjourn at 7:53 p.m. (a roll call vote took place: Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, and Jennifer Wilson – Yes).