Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-08-23-ZBA-min Minutes of the Lexinqton Zoninq Board of Appeals Selectmen's Meeting Room August 23, 2018 Board Members Present: Chair— Martha C. Wood, Ralph D. Clifford, Jeanne K. Krieger, David G. Williams, Edward D. McCarthy Alternate Present: James A. Osten Administrative Staff: David George, Zoning Administrator and Jennifer Gingras, Administrative Clerk Address: 46 Downing Road The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Plot Plan, Elevations, Floor Plans, and Photographs. Also received was 1 letter in opposition, 1 letter in support, a petition in support with 9 signatures, dated June 10, 2018, and additional correspondence from Amy Nastasi, dated June 13, 2018. 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. The petitioner is requesting a SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) sections 135-9.4 and 135-8.4.2 to allow modification to a non-conforming structure. On June 21, 2018, the applicant requested a Withdrawal without Prejudice. On a motion by Jeanne K. Krieger, and seconded by Ralph D. Clifford, the Board voted 5-0 to allow the Withdrawal without Prejudice, dated June 21, 2018. Minutes of the Lexinqton Zoninq Board of Appeals Selectmen's Meeting Room August 23, 2018 Board Members Present: Chair— Martha C. Wood, Ralph D. Clifford, Jeanne K. Krieger, David G. Williams, Edward D. McCarthy Alternate Present: James A. Osten Administrative Staff: David George, Zoning Administrator and Jennifer Gingras, Administrative Clerk Address: 152 Burlington Street The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, and a Plot 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 Health Department and Zoning Administrator. The petitioner is requesting a SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) sections 135-9.4 and 135-4.3.4 to allow a 3 ft side yard setback instead of a 15 ft side yard setback for a 25 ft utility pole. The Chair opened the hearing at 7:10 pm Presenter: John Farrington, Attorney for Property Owner Mr. Farrington stated that the applicants are asking for a Special Permit to put a utility pole within 3 ft of the lot line for utility service. The property has 125 ft of frontage. The house was demolished and re-built with a front yard setback of approximately 150 ft. The existing utility pole is set on the opposite side of Burlington Street from the property. The electrical provider, NStar, requires the distance from the pole to the house not to exceed 100 ft. If the distance does exceed 100 ft, the lot owner must provide a utility pole on the site. They are proposing the pole to be about 3 ft from the left side lot line. Mr. Farrington included some excerpts from NStar's regulations that covers the detail of span of electric grade. The abutting house on the left side has a pole about 3 ft, 6 inches from the property line. The former house's service was located on the right side of the house and they are proposing it to be relocated to the left side. The proposal meets the requirements of a Special Permit. A Board Member, Mr. Clifford, asked if the pole is just for electric or also used for cable and telephone (he assumes so). Mr. Clifford asked the applicant why the utilities can't be located on the neighbor's utility pole (Mr. Farrington responded that the neighbor is an attorney whose office is adjacent to his and the neighbor strongly feels that the pole should only serve his house). A Board Member, Mr. McCarthy, asked why the utilities couldn't go underground (Mr. Farrington responded that there are soil conditions that may prevent it). There were no questions or comments from the audience. There were no further questions or comments from the Board. On a Motion made and seconded, the Board voted to close the hearing at 7:21 pm. On a Motion by Ralph D. Clifford, and seconded by Jeanne K. Krieger, the Board voted 5-0 to allow a SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) sections 135-9.4 and 135-4.3.4 to allow a 3 ft side yard setback instead of a 15 ft side yard setback for a 25 ft utility pole. Minutes of the Lexinqton Zoninq Board of Appeals Selectmen's Meeting Room August 23, 2018 Board Members Present: Chair— Martha C. Wood, Ralph D. Clifford, Jeanne K. Krieger, David G. Williams, Edward D. McCarthy Alternate Present: James A. Osten Administrative Staff: David George, Zoning Administrator and Jennifer Gingras, Administrative Clerk Address: 35 Carville Avenue The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Topographic Plan, and a Plot Plan. Also received was a Zoning Board of Appeals decision, dated June 23, 1994. 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 Conservation Administrator and Zoning Administrator. The petitioner is requesting a VARIANCE in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) sections 135-9.2.2.2 and 135-4.1.1, Table 2 (Schedule of Dimensional Controls) to allow a 10 ft rear-yard setback instead of the required 15 ft. The Chair opened the hearing at 7:23 pm Presenter: Lucus Huang Mr. Huang stated that he is asking for a variance to put a deck on the garage. He moved to the property approximately 2 years ago. He found in the Town's records that there was a previous variance granted for a garage in 1994. Originally they wanted to put the deck on the house but there is a bulkhead blocking it. The Chair, Ms. Wood, stated that she wants to clarify that the deck was already built and requested the applicant expand on that (Mr. Huang stated that his contractor had started building the deck without a permit, but he stopped the process approximately 2 months ago so that he could go thru the right procedures and get approval). A Board Member, Mr. Clifford, asked for the applicant to expand on the justification of a variance. Mr. Clifford asked the applicant if it is correct that there are no strange soil conditions, odd lot shape, or significant slope (yes, that's correct). Mr. Clifford asked the applicant if there is a substantial hardship (Mr. Huang responded that the only other place to put the deck would be to attach it to the house and the way the bulkhead egresses, it would hit the deck. The stairs are angled and he would have to destroy the steps and re-angle the cement stairs. The contractor told him that the price to modify the stairs and bulkhead would be the same price as building the deck). Mr. Clifford asked the applicant how often he uses the bulkhead (he stores lawn equipment there). Ms. Wood asked where the other egress to the basement is (inside the house). A Board Member, Mr. Williams, asked if Conservation had been out there (Mr. George responded he is not aware of any visits by Conservation). Mr. Williams asked if the deck could be moved closer to the house (If they moved the deck closer to the house, they would be blocking a window). Mr. Williams stated that there must be a way to have the deck conform to zoning (the applicant responded that with the way they would be arranging items on the deck, the proposed placement would be the most optimal way). Mr. Williams stated that another option would be to do a patio and he wouldn't need approval from the Board of Appeals. Ms. Wood stated that if this was approved, she would want a condition that the deck cannot be ever enclosed or become part of the house (Mr. Huang stated that he would be okay with that as a condition). A Board Member, Ms. Krieger, stated that a variance has a very high standard. A patio would work effectively. The Board discussed the option of withdrawing without prejudice as opposed to having the Board deny the variance request. There were no questions or comments from the audience. There were no further questions or comments from the Board. The applicant requested a Withdrawal without Prejudice. On a Motion by Jeanne K. Krieger, and seconded by Ralph D. Clifford, the Board voted 5-0 to allow a WITHDRAWAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DATED AUGUST 23, 2018. Minutes of the Lexinqton Zoninq Board of Appeals Selectmen's Meeting Room August 23, 2018 Board Members Present: Chair— Martha C. Wood, Ralph D. Clifford, Jeanne K. Krieger, David G. Williams, Edward D. McCarthy Alternate Present: James A. Osten Administrative Staff: David George, Zoning Administrator and Jennifer Gingras, Administrative Clerk Address: 4 Cherry Street The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Plot Plan, Elevations, Floor Plans, and Photographs. Also received were four (4) e-mails in support from abutters. 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 Building Commissioner and Zoning Administrator. The petitioner is requesting a SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) sections 135-9.4 and 135-8.4.2 to allow modification to a non-conforming structure. The Chair opened the hearing at 7:40 pm. Presenters: Dan Hisel (architect) and Joel (property owner) Mr. Hisel presented the petition. Mr. Hisel stated that they are proposing to extend the front fagade of the house parallel to the street and continue the existing setbacks. The extension would allow this family with 3 children to expand their house to include 4 bedrooms, including a master bedroom on the 2nd floor. They are proposing to make the fagade more symmetrical by the front door. Overall, it would improve the aethistics and character of the neighborhood. The Chair, Ms. Wood, asked if there is a garage under the house (There is an existing non- functional garage under the house. There's also an existing asphalt driveway that crosses over the lot line at 2 Cherry St, of which they share an approximately 18 ft wide driveway with. Currently all they have are 2 tandam parking spots. They are proposing to sever and demolish the existing driveway up to the lot line, introduce a 10 ft grass area, and put in a double wide driveway). A Board Member Associate, Mr. Osten, asked the applicant how the slope would affect the abutting lots in regards to run-off(The yard to the right side of the house is relatively flat. There is some space in the back. The new grass area will make the slope more gradual and they will have a trench drain near the house. The owner said in general it will improve the drainage). A Board Member, Mr. Williams, stated he would like to note the many letters of support from the neighbors. There were no questions or comments from the audience. There were no further questions or comments from the Board. On a motion made and seconded, the Board voted to close the hearing at 7:50 pm. On a Motion by Jeanne K. Krieger, and seconded by Ralph D. Clifford, the Board voted 5-0 to approve a SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) sections 135-9.4 and 135-8.4.2 to allow modification to a non-conforming structure. Minutes of the Lexinqton Zoninq Board of Appeals Selectmen's Meeting Room August 23, 2018 Board Members Present: Chair— Martha C. Wood, Ralph D. Clifford, Jeanne K. Krieger, David G. Williams, Edward D. McCarthy Alternate Present: James A. Osten Administrative Staff: David George, Zoning Administrator and Jennifer Gingras, Administrative Clerk Address: 700 Waltham Street/31 Allen Street The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification. Also received was a map from the Town Assessor's relating to the area in question, a Zoning Board of Appeals decision, dated August 8, 2013; an e-mail in opposition from Ricki Pappo, received August 16, 2018; an e-mail in opposition from Jay Parsons with a video attachment, received August 18, 2018; a Letter in support from Elsie W. Kitchen, received August 20, 2018; an e-mail in opposition from Marie Tulin, received August 20, 2018; an a -mail in opposition from Jay Parsons, received August 21, 2018; an a -mail in opposition from Chloe Campbell, received August 21, 2018; an e-mail in opposition from Dean Campbell, received August 21, 2018; an e- mail in opposition from Caleb Rogers, received August 21, 2018; an e-mail from Ricki Pappo, received August 21, 2018; an e-mail from Jay Parsons, received August 21, 2018; an e-mail from Ricki Pappo with supporting attachments, received August 21, 2018; an e-mail from Ricki Pappo with two (2) attachments from the Department of Environmental Protection, received August 21, 2018; a Letter from the Lexington Police Department, received August 22, 2018; a Letter from Lexington Fire Department, received August 22, 2018; and a letter in support from Diane Snell, dated August 23, 2018. 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. The petitioner is requesting a SPECIAL PERMIT RENEWAL in accordance with the Zoning By- Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section 135-9.4 to renew the Special Permit to allow the acquisition and storage of vehicles. The Chair opened the hearing at 7:51 pm. Presenters: William J. Dailey, Jr, Esq., representing John Carroll and Jim Borrebach, a registered Professional Engineer with OHI Engineering, Inc. Mr. Dailey stated that the Special Permit has been in place for 48 years and has been in continuous operation. The Carroll family has owned this property for almost 100 years and is probably the largest property owner in Lexington. Mr. Dailey explained the property ownership to the Board. John Carroll is in the process of buying Diane Snell's interest in the property and will be the full owner shortly. The address of the property has always been known as 31 Allen Street, but approximately 10-15 years ago, there was a suggestion to use Waltham Street as the entrance to the property. Therefore, there is a sign now indicating the address as 700 Waltham St. They use that address for the keeping of the cars. There are 5 buildings on the property. There was never any work that was done without a permit. It was suggested many years ago that stakes be put at the corners of the one acre parcel designating the car storage area. This had been done and Mr. George has inspected the property to confirm that the operation is only within the 1 acre. The plan they provided indicates that the area is well within the acre of the permitted area and has remained in that location for the entire period. There had previously been an issue in regards to gravel trucks parking on the property. Feeney Bros had been doing some work in Lexington and was parking trucks on the side of the road. Someone recommended that they park the trucks on the Carroll property instead. Ms. Ricki Pappo had filed a complaint to Mr. George about this and Mr. George requested the Feeney Bros remove the trucks, which they did. Over the years, there has always been some sort of equipment on the property, whether it's haying equipment or tractor-trailers to take the cars. The Fire Department also uses the property for training purposes on how to extricate someone from a vehicle in the case of an accident. There was a suggestion that there were gravel trucks on Allen Street, but there haven't been any trucks on that street in connection to John Carroll. There was a project on Clematis Street but that's not connected with John Carroll's project. In 2005, there was an environmental concern raised and the problem was quickly addressed quickly to the satisfaction of the neighbors. There are monitoring wells that are maintained that show no releases since 2005 and the area is monitored routinely. The Town of Lexington has about 11,000 registered cars. The Carroll operation gives people the opportunity to have their cars taken away, which may be why abandoned cars aren't typically seen around town. Mr. Carroll also regularly works with the School Department and provides cars for seminars on safety. There's ample evidence that there is a public good that comes from the operation and Mr. Dailey requests that the Board renew the permit for a 5 year period. A Board Member, Mr. Williams, asked for a summary of the Engineering Report (Mr. Borrebach responded that he has been working as the LSP since November 2017. They conducted 3 rounds of groundwater sampling on the property. They analyze the soil for oil, petroleum, PCBs, non-organics, and metals. In 2005 there was a dry well discovered on the property with oil in it. It was subsequently removed. They did an injection of Hydrogen Peroxide which removes organics from groundwater. There has been remediation work done. The property has a designated temporary solution. In order to receive a temporary solution, one can do more remediation and monitor. It's a common solution in Massachusetts. They have to submit a report to the DEP every 5 years). A Board Member, Mr. Clifford, asked what the source of the pollution was (one was a dry well that had received oil in 2005 in the meadow area. The well was subsequently removed along with 250 tons of soil. The 2nd area of contamination was where gasoline was stored near the building. That area was subsequently excavated). Mr. Clifford asked if the dry well was near where the vehicles were stored (it was in the proximity). Mr. Clifford asked if it is possible that the oil was from the vehicles (it's extremely difficult to determine the age of oil, so that couldn't be determined). An audience member, Ms. Ricki Pappo, 16 Blossomcrest Rd. — Ms. Pappo asked what it will take to get a permanent solution for the site. She also stated that the original site was not within the one acre, it was in a different building. The gas was retained onsite for other trucking businesses and there was some spillage from transferring materials from one place to another. She has spoken with another engineer from OHI that reviewed the site 5 years ago (Mr. Borrebach responded that temporary solutions are a very common way to deal with more complicated sites. This is a solution that has been in place since 2011 and is not an uncommon situation. It means that some progress has been made and it means they are moving towards a better solution. In order to reach a permanent solution, they need to complete their 4th round of sampling, look at the data, and decide whether the site has received a permanent solution. The data they have been collecting is looking good. His understanding is that the initial response was to a dry well where oil was and another area where gasoline was spilled. The soil there has some residual contamination. They have to determine if it poses a risk to health, safety, and environment. There is a large span of action they have to follow in order to reach a permanent solution). Ms. Pappo presented a map showing the property. She believes they have to expand the area because it's affecting more than 1 acre. Ms. Pappo asked if Mr. Carroll owns the well on 4 Clematis Street because it's not closed (no). Ms. Pappo asked the applicant how he knows that there won't be another spill (Mr. Borrebach responded that there were 2 private drinking wells— 36 Allen and 4 Clematis. The well at 4 Clematis is irrigation only. The well at 36 Allen was closed and Mr. Carroll extended public water to those residences. There are groundwater standards and drinking water standards. The impacted area is bigger than one acre and extends outside the one acre limits. There's not much certainty about what would happen in the future, but an immediate response is easier to handle. To get to permanent closure, they have done 3 rounds of sampling, and they are doing a 4th round within the next month). Ms. Pappo asked how the gas is stored on the property (Mr. John Carroll responded that the gas gets deposited in a tank and gets pumped into their cars. He has a piece of equipment that takes oil from underneath the vehicle. They suck the antifreeze out that's picked up by Clean Harbors). Ms. Wood asked if that is done on the one acre parcel (Mr. Carroll responded yes). Ms. Pappo stated the map on the Town website shows the area for the junk yard and waste disposal is much larger than one acre and the aerial view shows trucks all over the property. Ms. Pappo asked for clarification on where the one acre is located. The conditions on the decision 5 years ago are not being adhered to and she would like to request a a continuance of the hearing until more information is received (Ms. Wood responded that a continuance must be requested by the applicant and the Board is limited to discussing only the one acre of land referenced in the application. Ms. Wood advised Ms. Pappo that the appropriate enforcement needs to be notified when there are noise complaints and other issues. Ms. Pappo again stated that she can't tell from the maps provided where the one acre is located. A Board Member, Mr. Williams, stated that he has seen this Special Permit renewal many times and when he went out to the property to see the stakes, they were in the same location as they were 10 years ago. A Board Member, Mr. Clifford, stated that the only official map is the one recorded with the Registry. He doesn't know if there is an actual map on file, but the acre described would be the same as the one in the original decision. The stakes accurately mark where the one acre is. An audience member, Mr. Jay Parsons of 65 Allen St, asked why the official map hasn't been produced (Mr. Clifford stated that in most cases, a certified plot plan is required. One of the requests in this matter is that there is a waiver of the requirement of a certified plot plan. If the Board doesn't agree to waive the plot plan, the decision is put on hold. The one acre more or less, is an indication that nobody had precise boundaries). Mr. Parsons requested that this matter be continued until an official map can be shown to the abutters. The abutters need evidence of the acre they are referencing and the stakes don't mean anything (Mr. Clifford responded that this Board has not made a decision yet to require a plot plan. The question from the Board is whether they know what the one acre plus or minus is). Mr. Parsons said that the piece of property has been designated by the Town for 48 years. An attorney told him that it's reasonable to ask for a deferment at the meeting. He was under the impression that it was a much larger site. Based on the fact that they have recovered additional information, he didn't see an accurate plot plan. He is questioning why this information can't be tabled until they have looked into sufficient information. They need to see an official map. He hasn't seen the stakes and they need something in front of the Board that goes into the record. Ms. Wood stated that a request for a continuance must come from the applicant. Mr. Parsons stated he is requesting for the Board to show him what place on the property is the acre by way of a certified plot plan. They need a valid piece of evidence, not just what someone says. Mr. Scott Carroll, 17 Eugene Rd, Burlington, MA, stated that he grew up there and the junk yard hasn't been expanded in the 34 years he's been alive. Mr. Parsons stated that he feels that there should be a certified plot plan showing the location. Ms. Wood stated that the Board has not made a decision yet to waive the plot plan. Mr. Parsons stated that he doesn't believe that the applicants have come prepared to ask the Board for a decision because they don't have the documentation. The meeting cannot go forward because if there is not a firm, documented basis of what acre we are talking about. It came to his attention that there is more of a map of the junk yard. He doesn't think the Board can make a decision that would be just to the interest of the abutters or to Mr. Carroll. The appellate should be obligated to bring in documentation. An audience member, Ms. Marie Tulin of 56 Allen St, stated that she was not aware that the Board has the option to waive the requirement of the plot plan. The property owner, Mr. John Carroll of 29 Allen St., stated that when Robert Cataldo was on the Board, he had asked for a certified plot plan to be done, which it was. He put an earth and berm around the property which determines the location of the property. The berm is still there. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Carroll if the stakes show the one acre (yes it does). An audience member, Mr. Fernando Quezada of 26 Blossomcrest Rd., stated that he has been an abutter since 1987 and one of the previous conditions is that there be no more than 30 cars. At that time, there were more than 30 cars. He had made a complaint and the cars were removed but they were put back. The property has changed it's operation over the year and he has come to doubt the Town's capacity to enforce the conditions of the decision. The Zoning Administrator at the time had said that she would check the property every 6 months, but never got around to it. He is concerned about the enforcement aspect. Ms. Pappo stated that when she researched the property online, she came up with Yelp reviews for an auto repair shop. Ms. Pappo asked the applicant if that is within the one acre and if another business would require a Special Permit (Mr. Dailey responded that on occasion a vehicle will come in that's in good condition and it's repaired and sent to the Concord Auto auction. The repairs are done within the one acre under the shelter). Ms. Pappo asked about a specific Yelp review of a car going back to the owner after being repaired (Ms. Wood stated they can only grant or not grant a Special Permit for this single acre. They have no jurisdiction to go further). Ms. Pappo asked the Board how they will make sure that the decision is being enforced and requested that the hearing be continued. Mr. Dailey stated that the direct abutters have had no issue. When Mr. Carroll was asked to put in the stakes years ago, he did so. The Zoning Administrator, Mr. George, has not had any issues, and the Police and Fire Departments have not had any issues. The Fire Department checked the oil sheen on the property that had been complained about and found no evidence of it. Mr. Carroll has attempted to comply with everything. Mr. Parsons responded to Mr. Dailey that he is the largest abutter and have had it in their yard for 48 years. The auto repair area has been used in the past. Ms. Wood asked Mr. Parsons if he directly abuts the one acre (he doesn't know where the one acre is so he couldn't say). Mr. Williams stated that he wants to clarify to Mr. Parsons that the closest abutters to the one acre from his observations are the lots on Pitcairn Place and the 5 lots on Allen Street. The Board has not heard from those abutters. Mr. Parsons and Ms. Pappo are far away from the one acre. Mr. Parsons responded to Mr. Williams that he is still a direct abutter and his opinions are not of less weight. Mr. Williams stated that he is just pointing out which lots are closest to the one acre. Mr. Casado stated that there are abutting activities that are outside of the one acre but sound like they are part of the same operation. Ms. Wood stated that the Board is only voting on the one acre tonight. Mr. Casado asked who the neighbors can contact for activities outside the acre (Ms. Wood responded that they can contact the Zoning Enforcement Officer or the Conservation Administrator depending on the issue. The Board can only tell the Zoning Enforcement Officer on what to enforce on the one acre that requires a Special Permit. Mr. Parsons asked the Board for clarification on when the property would be inspected (Ms. Wood stated that it would be up to the Board to insert a condition that it have an annual or 6 month inspection. The Zoning Administrator, Mr. George, asked Mr. Borrebach if he has been out to the site and made the determination of where the one acre is (yes). Mr. George asked Mr. Borrebach what conclusion he has drawn from the map provided by Mr. Dailey (he has seen the map and delineated that to 40,300 sq ft). Mr. George asked Mr. Borrebach to describe the area on the map (in the north central portion of the property). Mr. George asked Mr. Borrebach if the one acre is closer to the Allen St/Pitcairn PI area or the Blossomcrest Rd area (Allen St/Pitcarin PI area). Mr. George asked Mr. Borrebach if the map is consistent with the map he marked up today in preparation for tonight's meeting (the figure shows the area affected by the release. It has no effect on the acre). Mr. George stated he has been out to that site for several years. He has observed the site and has found that the one acre site is consistent with the plan in the application and the site is in compliance with the Special Permit decision. Ms. Wood asked Mr. Dailey if there is a plot plan on file. (Mr. Dailey stated that Mr. Carroll's recollection is that there was a plot plan done many years ago. The stakes around the one acre were put in 20 or more years ago and Mr. Carroll believes that those stakes mark the 1 acre area). Mr. Parsons asked Mr. Borrebach and Mr. George if they are certified surveyors (Mr. Borrebach responded he's not a registered land surveyor, he is a professional engineer). Ms. Wood stated that the point is that the markers were put there from the plot plan that is believed to be on file. Mr. Williams stated that he read the report from OHI Engineering and it is his understanding that they may never have the permanent solution and a temporary solution is a permanent solution (Mr. Borrebach stated that some sites never make a permanent solution because of the limits of the regulations. A temporary solution is not necessarily a bad thing). Mr. Williams asked Mr. Borrebach if the abutters could sleep well at night knowing there is a temporary solution (yes). Mr. Dailey asked the Board to reflect on the property that has been there for years. Mr. Borrebach has been able to provide good information to the Board. The zoning enforcement officer has been there many times and there have not been any negative reports. Mr. Dailey asked the board to renew the Special Permit for a 5 year period. Ms. Wood asked Mr. Dailey what the hours of operation are (8am —5pm on Weekdays, 8am — 1 pm on Saturdays, and closed on Sundays). On a motion made and seconded, the Board closed the hearing at 9:33 pm. On a Motion by Jeanne K. Krieger, and seconded by Ralph D. Clifford, the Board voted 5-0 to waive the requirement of a certified plot plan. On a Motion by Jeanne K. Krieger, and seconded by Ralph D. Clifford, the Board voted 5-0 to approve A SPECIAL PERMIT RENEWAL in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section 135-9.4 to renew the Special Permit to allow the acquisition and storage of vehicles with the following conditions: 1. The hours of operation will be 8am —5pm on Weekdays, 8am — 1 pm on Saturdays, and closed on Sundays. 2. The conditions on the previous decision dated August 8, 2013 will apply. Minutes of the Lexinqton Zoninq Board of Appeals Selectmen's Meeting Room August 23, 2018 Board Members Present: Chair— Martha C. Wood, Ralph D. Clifford, Jeanne K. Krieger, David G. Williams, Edward D. McCarthy Alternate Present: James A. Osten Administrative Staff: David George, Zoning Administrator and Jennifer Gingras, Administrative Clerk Other Business: 1) Minutes of Meetings from the August 9, 2018 Hearing On a motion by Jeanne K. Krieger, and seconded by Ralph D. Clifford, the Board voted 5-0, to approve the minutes of August 9, 2018. Mr. Clifford made a motion to thank and honor David George for his work with the Board of Appeals over the years. On a motion made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned.