Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-07-09-ZBA-min.pdfMeeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom July 9th, 2026, 7:00 p.m. Board Members: Acting Chair — Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, and Associate Members Scott E. Cooper and Jeanne K. Krieger Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator, and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant Address: 12 Blossomcrest Rd (ZBA-26-6) 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 and 135-8.4.2 to allow modification of a non -conforming structure to allow the height of the dwelling to be greater than otherwise allowed and to allow the front yard setback to be less than otherwise allowed. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Certified Proposed Plot Plan, Elevations, Floor Plans, and Gross Floor Area Calculation Form. Prior to the meeting, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, the Conservation Director, the Town Engineer, the Select Board, the Planning Director, the Historic District Commission Clerk, the Historical Commission, Economic Development, and the Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from the Zoning Administrator. At 7:03 p.m., the Hearing opened. Petitioner: Samuel Robertson on behalf of Piotr and Teli Leung-Galecki Mr. Samuel Robertson, architect for 12 Blossomcrest Rd., began his presentation by stating that he had submitted a design packet of information for the two special permits that he sought. Mr. Robertson stated that in the application packet they had a pre-existing non -conforming footprint that they wish to build on top of. Mr. Robertson elaborated that the project entails a renovation and an addition and that the house will connect to the preexisting non -conforming garage. Mr. Robertson then explained that the connection to the pre-existing non -conforming garage triggers a stricter height requirement and that the intended project will have a height of thirty (30) feet above grade. Mr. Robertson noted that with the roof overhang, the pre-existing non- conforming garage has a 3.3 -foot setback from the side property. Mr. Robertson continued his presentation by stating that the second -floor addition also increases the home's non -conformity. Mr. Robertson then explained that he wants to frame the addition with a method called garrison framing, where the floor framing overhangs the existing first floor walls. Mr. Robertson further explained that this method of framing allows for an efficient structural assembly and would create bedrooms sized to today's standards. Mr. Robertson then clarified that the addition would increase the non -conformity to the street. Mr. Robertson continued by asking the Board to look at the shape of the building and noted that thirty (30) foot part of the project will reside in the center of the site. Mr. Robertson further noted that the property has screening on both sides and that the lot has an irregular shape with a curved frontage. Mr. Osten asked to see a layout of the expansion. Mr. Osten noted the thirty (30) foot front yard setback requirement and then stated that the Zoning Bylaw contains a provision about curved frontages and questioned the location of the actual frontage and front property line. Mr. Robertson stated that he had included a drawing that shows the building footprint, roof overhangs, and setback lines. Mr. Robertson showed the drawing and noted the curved setback. Mr. Osten then asked Ms. Olivia Lawler, Lexington Zoning Administrator, about the Zoning Bylaw provision regarding curved frontages. Ms. Lawler responded that the provision regarded the length of the front yard rather than the front yard setback. Mr. Osten then asked about the location of the addition, to which Mr. Robertson showed the existing footprint on one side of the house where they plan to put a second story addition and continue the gable roofing front to back. Mr. Robertson noted that with the garrison framing, the second story floor will overhang the first floor and that the second floor would reside fourteen (14) inches closer to the street on the front and side. Mr. Cooper clarified that the overhand constitutes the setback violation, which Mr. Robertson confirmed. Mr. Cooper then asked how much the proposed height exceeds than the allowed height. Mr. Robertson stated that the setback determines the height and that the house has a pre-existing non -conforming height of twenty-five (25) feet. Mr. Robertson noted that a by -right footprint allows a heigh of forty (40) feet and that their proposal has a height of thirty (30) feet. Ms. Krieger expressed her concern about the height and asked Mr. Robertson if he had considered a design that would conform with the allowable height. Mr. Robertson stated that he had not and that the garage setback determines the height restriction. Mr. Robertson noted that the rest of the building, besides the front, conforms. Mr. Cohen asked what the neighbors thought about the project. Mr. Piotr Galecki, 12 Blossomcrest Rd., stated that he had discussed the project with the neighbors and that the neighbors had not raised any concerns. Mr. Barnert asked which neighbor Mr. Galecki had discussed it with, to which Mr. Galecki stated that he had discussed it with the neighbors on the garage side. Mr. Cohen asked about the neighbors on the other side, and Ms. Lawler stated that the staff had not received any letters from the neighbors. Ms. Teli Leung-Galecki, 12 Blossomcrest Rd., stated that they had spoken the neighbors on the left and that they did not have any concerns. No further questions from the Board. No further comments or questions from the Public. No further questions from the Board. Mr. Robertson summarized his project by stating that the project will bring the house to more contemporary standards. Mr. Robertson noted that they have continued with the design of the house with strong roof planes and glass. Mr. Roberston then stated that he believed that the project keeps with the style of the neighborhood and that the proposal would result in a modest increase to the tax base. Mr. Robertson further noted that the project would remain under the maximum allowed gross floor area and the modest height increase. At 7:22 Mr. Barnert moved to close the hearing. At 7:23 p.m., the hearing closed (a roll call vote took place: Nyles N. Barnert — Yes, Norman P. Cohen — Yes, James A. Osten — Yes, Scott E. Cooper — Yes, and Jeanne K. Krieger — Yes). Mr. Barnert noted that according to the bylaw, tall structures can't reside close to the edge of the property. Mr. Barnert then stated that the tall part of the project appears to have a large enough setback from the neighbor and that the neighbor had expressed their content with the project. Ms. Krieger expressed her concern about the height and stated that she understood the bylaw to prevent large masses on narrow lots. Ms. Krieger then stated that she will not make an issue of the height if the neighbors have no concerns with it. No further discussion from the Board. At 7:24 p.m., Mr. Barnert moved to approve the petition. At 7:25 p.m., multiple Board Members seconded Mr. Barnert. At 7:25 p.m., the Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant TWO (2) SPECIAL PERMITS in accordance with the Zoning By -Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.4 and 135-8.4.2 to allow modification of a non -conforming structure to allow the height of the dwelling to be greater than otherwise allowed and to allow the front yard setback to be less than otherwise allowed (a roll call vote took place: Nyles N. Barnert — Yes, Norman P. Cohen — Yes, James A. Osten — Yes, Scott E. Cooper — Yes, and Jeanne K. Krieger — Yes). Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom July 9th, 2026, 7:00 p.m. Board Members: Acting Chair — Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, and Associate Members Scott E. Cooper and Jeanne K. Krieger Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator, and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant Address: 300 Shire Way (ZBA-26-7) The petitioner is requesting a MINOR MODIFICATION in accordance with the Zoning By -Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.2.2(5) to allow a minor modification to a previously issued Special Permit dated February 26th, 2026. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Plot Plan, Elevations, Rendered Building Images Dated February 26th, 2026, Rendered Building Images Dated June 41h, 2026, Site Plans, Roof Plans, Existing Conditions Plan, Site Preparation Plan, Layout and Materials Plan, Grading and Utility Plan, Previously Granted Board of Appeals Decision dated February 26th, 2026. Prior to the meeting, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, the Conservation Director, the Town Engineer, the Select Board, the Planning Director, the Historic District Commission Clerk, the Historical Commission, Economic Development, and the Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from the Zoning Administrator and the Building Commissioner. At 7:25 p.m., the Hearing opened. Petitioner: John Hart on behalf of Takeda Pharmaceuticals Mr. John Hart, civil engineer at SMMA, represented Takeda Pharmaceuticals and stated that he had come before the Board in February for a major modification, which the Board approved. Mr. Hart then explained that after the approval, him and his team added two air handling units on top of the penthouse, that comply with zoning and modifying the electric yard to add one more transformer and eliminate one more parking space. Mr. Hart then noted that the penthouse structure did not change and that the building height requirements allow for the penthouses to reach a height of twenty-five (25) feet and sixty percent (60%) of the roof area, which did not change. Mr. Hart then stated that the requirements allow for equipment to extend between twenty-five (25) and thirty (30) feet, which the two added air handlers fall in that range. Mr. Hart explained that the air handles add one percent (1 %) to the 0.8% roof area and that zoning allows three percent (3%). Mr. Hart then reiterated that he plans to add one more transformer to the electric yard which will result in the loss of one parking spot. Mr. Hart then continued his presentation by stating that the modification also includes some facade changes and a reduction in impervious surface. Mr. Hart explained that the Town's peer reviewer has the completed sound study and that he awaits final comments. Mr. Hart elaborated that he would do the new sound measurement after the project's construction. Mr. Hart then showed a visual of the changes, the new facade, the electric yard, and the proposed landscaping. Mr. Hart then noted that Takeda will still have well over the required amount of parking spaces. Mr. Osten asked when the Board approved the original proposal, to which Mr. Barnert stated that the Board had approved it in February. Mr. Cooper asked why the screening material had changed. Mr. David Simon stated that he had met with Takeda's global planning and design folks about the first design and that they had asked that the screening match the existing color perspective between 200 and 400 Shire Way. Mr. Osten asked about the status of the sound study. Mr. Hart stated that Takeda's consultants the Town's consultants had gone back and forth and that they had made some updates to the report. Mr. Hart then stated that he had uploaded the most up-to-date report to the portal and that although Takeda's consultants are waiting to hear back from the Town's consultants, all parties have reached an agreement on the protocols and that he awaits the finals comments from the Town's consultants. Mr. Hart explained that sound readings will occur once the project moves ahead. Mr. Osten asked Mr. Hart if he had a mitigation plan, to which Mr. Hart stated that some equipment will come off the roof while other equipment will go on. Mr. Todd Kosterman explained that putting the units on the roof reduces the need for louvres on the building, which will keep the penthouse more sound tight. No further questions from the Board. No further comments or questions from the Public. No further questions from the Board. At 7:42 p.m., Mr. Barnert moved to determine that the petition is a minor modification. At 7:42 p.m., Ms. Krieger seconded Mr. Barnert. At 7:42 p.m., The Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to DETERMINE that certain changes to the Special Permit Modification Decision are Minor in nature and that no public hearing is required by the Board to allow the revisions (a roll call vote took place: Nyles N. Barnert — Yes, Norman P. Cohen — Yes, James A. Osten — Yes, Scott E. Cooper — Yes, and Jeanne K. Krieger — Yes). Ms. Krieger expressed her content knowing that the project follows the protocol established for reviewing the noise impacts and that the Board should approve the petition subject to the competition of that procedure and have a field test at the end. At 7:43 p.m., Mr. Barnert moved to approve the petition. At 7:43 p.m., Mr. Cohen seconded Mr. Mr. Barnert. At 7:43 p.m., the Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant a MINOR MODIFICATION in accordance with the Zoning By -Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) 135-9.2.2(5) to allow a minor modification to a previously issued Special Permit dated February 26th, 2026 (a roll call vote took place: Nyles N. Barnert — Yes, Norman P. Cohen — Yes, James A. Osten — Yes, Scott E. Cooper — Yes, and Jeanne K. Krieger — Yes). Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom July 9th, 2026, 7:00 p.m. Board Members: Acting Chair — Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, and Associate Members Scott E. Cooper and Jeanne K. Krieger Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator, and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant Other Business: 1. Minutes from the May 28th, 2026 Meeting At 7:44 p.m., Mr. Barnert moved to approve the minutes. At 7:44 p.m., Mr. Osten seconded Mr. Barnert. At 7:44 p.m. the Board of Appeals voted three (3) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and two (2) in abstention to approve the minutes from May 28th, 2026, Hearing (a roll call vote took place: Nyles N. Barnert — Yes, Norman P. Cohen — Yes, James A. Osten — Yes, Scott E. Cooper — Abstain, and Jeanne K. Krieger — Abstain). At 7:44 p.m., Mr. Barnert moved to adjourn the meeting. At 7:44 p.m., multiple Board members seconded Mr. Barnert. At 7:44 p.m., the Board voted to Adjourn (a roll call vote took place: Nyles N. Barnert — Yes, Norman P. Cohen — Yes, James A. Osten — Yes, Scott E. Cooper — Yes, and Jeanne K. Krieger — Yes).