Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-07-23-ZBA-min.pdfMeeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom July 23rd, 2026, 7:00 p.m. Board Members: Chair — Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, and Associate Member Jennifer L. Wilson Alternate Member: Thomas Shiple Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator, and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant Address: 89 Meriam Street (ZBA-26-10) The petitioner is requesting ONE (1) VARIANCE in accordance with the Zoning By -Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.2.2(2) and 135-4.1.1 Table 2 to allow a setback on a secondary street to be less than otherwise required. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Topographic Plan, Plot Plan, Elevations, Floor Plans, Photographs, Homeowner's Letter, Abutter Support Letters, Gross Floor Area Calculation Form, Soil Suitability Assessment. 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 Engineering Department. At 7:04 p.m., the Hearing opened. Petitioner: Tim Svarczkopf on behalf of Bridger McGraw and McClain Howarth Mr. Tim Svarczkopf, contactor for the project, stated that he had worked with Stamski and McNary and the homeowners to put the proposal together. Mr. Svarczkopf then stated that the proposal entails a two -car garage at 89 Meriam St., which resides at the corner of Hayes Ave. and Meriam St. Mr. Svarczkopf explained that the site has some ledge, some elevation changes, and a limited amount of suitable soil for drainage structures, which creates a fairly limited space for the garage. Mr. Svarczkopf continued by stating that the homeowners have been Lexington residents since 2013 and that the homeowners are committed to the neighborhood and the Town, and that the homeowners plan to be there for a long time. Mr. Svarczkopf also noted that the homeowners are committed to maintaining the property and the character of their community. Mr. Svarczkopf continued his presentation by explaining that they seek to have the garage for winter safety and reiterated that the property has limited space for the garage. Mr. Svarczkopf then explained that they also seek to maintain the trees and that the homeowners want to have a garage to prevent damage to the vehicles from the trees. Mr. Svarczkopf also noted that since the homeowners plan to age at 89 Meriam St, the garage serves as an essential structural to provide a safe, attractive place for them and their vehicles. Mr. Svarczkopf continued the presentation by showing a site plan that showed the ledge along Hayes Ave and stated that the Meriam St. side of the property has the favorable soil conditions. Mr. Svarczkopf then stated that because of the limited availability, the proposed garage location will cause the least disruption to the neighbors, that will allow for tree preservation, and that will allow for water drainage. Mr. Svarczkopf then showed another site plan with the proposed driveway which would exit onto Hayes Ave. Mr. Svarczkopf then explained that the garage resides far enough away from the corner that it would not interrupt sight lines. Mr. Svarczkopf then continued his presentation by showing the conceptual design for the garage which will include a similar roof to the 1925 Dutch colonial house. Mr. Svarczkopf reiterated that the homeowners are committed to making the garage as attractive and useful to the neighborhood as they can. Mr. Svarczkopf then stated that he intends to build a twenty-four (24) by twenty-two (22) garage. Mr. Svarczkopf then showed some photos of the variety garages in the neighborhood and noted that the homeowners had received twenty-two (22) abutter support letters. Mr. Svarczkopf concluded his presentation by requesting a response to the physical constraints and reiterated that the proposal will cause the least disruption to the trees and the neighbors. Mr. Svarczkopf also reiterated that he intends to design the garage in honor of the 1925 Dutch colonial home, that the proposal is consistent with the other garages in the neighborhood and has neighborhood support, and that the proposal will allow the homeowner to age in place safely. Mr. Shiple asked if the Town ever proposed a sidewalk on Hayes Avenue and if the project would produce any obstacles to creating that sidewalk in the future. Ms. Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator, stated that the Land Use Department does not know of any plans for a sidewalk on Hayes Ave. and then stated that the Engineering Department and Planning Department would deal with that. Ms. Lawler then stated that both the Engineering Department and the Planning Department gave comments on this application, and they indicated that they had no concerns in relation to the ZBA proposal. Mr. Shiple then asked Mr. Svarczkopf if he intended to keep the existing driveway as is. Mr. Svarczkopf stated that he has not decided what will happen to the existing driveway but stated that he could potentially change the covering surface to pebble. Mr. Bridger McGraw, 89 Meriam St., stated should the Board approve the application, that that he would explore creating a more permeable solution on the existing driveway. Mr. Shiple then asked about the treehouse on the property and asked Mr. McGraw if he intended to keep the treehouse. Mr. McGraw stated that he had not thought about removing the treehouse as a part of the project and noted that many of the neighbors enjoy the treehouse. Mr. Shiple then clarified that the treehouse does not interfere with the construction of the garage, which Mr. McGraw confirmed. Mr. McGraw elaborated that the treehouse sits higher up on the ground elevation and the proposed garage would reside south of the visible ledge. Mr. Shiple then noted that the proposed garage would sit at an angle to the house and to the street and asked about the purpose of the placement. Mr. Shiple also noted that if the garage resided square to the house that it would increase the setback from the right-of-way and would allow for a wider driveway. Mr. Shiple further noted that the driveway angle could cause cars to back onto the street awkwardly. Mr. Svarczkopf stated that if the Board wants to raise that point that he would consider it. Ms. Wilson stated that she also had the same question about the driveway's angle. Ms. Wilson then asked Mr. Svarczkopf to explain the other options that they considered since the Board considers whether the proposal could occur without requesting a variance. Ms. Wilson noted that Mr. Svarczkopf had mentioned that he had explored several options and that Mr. Svarczkopf does not plan to attach the garage to the house despite the mobility, ice and other conditions discussed. Mr. Svarczkopf explained that he had first considered extending the driveway from Meriam St. up and putting the garage behind the house however the slope on the left side of the house would require a large retaining wall to get the driveway in. Mr. Svarczkopf also noted that the garage would fit in tight in that area and that the garage would reside in the setback. Mr. Svarczkopf further noted that routing site water from that corner would require a significant amount of demolition and yard tear up. Mr. Svarczkopf explained that the angle of the garage tries to fit a twenty-two (22) by twenty-four (24) garage into a tight space that also creates access to a walkway along the sunroom. Mr. Svarczkopf then elaborated that the path would start from the garage and go to the rear of the building. Mr. Svarczkopf then further explained that the project design has a lot to do with elevation change and they will try to maintain as little slop variation from the garage floor to the entrance as possible, site water mitigation, and easy access. Ms. Wilson asked if Mr. Svarczkopf could develop the ledge, to which Mr. Svarczkopf stated that hammering ledge would disturb the neighborhood and cost a lot. Mr. McGraw stated that the ledge goes into the house and that the previous owner emphasized that blasting in the area changed the water in the basement. Ms. McClain Howarth, 89 Meriam St., stated that she believed that the proposal would cause the least disruption to the neighbors. Ms. Wilson then asked why the garage could not reside to the back right side of the house, to which Mr. Svarczkopf stated that they would have to raise the garage to get it above the ledge. Ms. Wilson then asked why the garage does not reside square to the road. Mr. Svarczkopf responded that they chose the angle to get the garage close enough to the house while still allowing access and that if the Board would like him to explore another angle, then he will consider it even with the challenges presented by the ledge. Mr. Cohen stated that he had some of the same questions already asked and then stated that the new statute applies to the proposal. Mr. Cohen then asked Mr. Svarczkopf if he knew of the new statute and if he made any changes to what he had planned under the old law. Mr. Svarczkopf stated that he had learned about the new law change last week and that he had followed through with the existing plan regardless of that change. Mr. Svarczkopf acknowledged that the Board would make their decision based on the new standards but that he did not make any adjustments based on that. Mr. Cohen then asked about what street the Board Members should have conducted their site visit from, to which Mr. Clifford stated that the Board Members could go anywhere they need to get an accurate perception of what the site looks like with the consent of the homeowners. Mr. Clifford then stated that the Board needs to go where they can see the site to make the best decision. Mr. Cohen noted that the proposal had received numerous abutter support letters and then asked if the neighbor next to the site on Hayes Avenue had provided an abutter support letter. Mr. McGraw stated that he secured a support letter from every abutting neighbor to the property on Meriam, Hayes, and Woodland. Ms. Howarth stated that they made sure that the neighbors had an opportunity of voice any thoughts, questions, or concerns. Mr. Shiple stated that the plan shows a twenty-two (22) foot driveway while the Engineering Department has a maximum width of twenty (20) feet within the right-of-way. Mr. Shiple then asked Mr. Svarczkopf how he would accommodate that restriction. Mr. Svarczkopf stated that he intends to have the legal size at the street and that he would accommodate the twenty (20) feet requirement. Mr. Clifford expressed his concern with the close setback to the street and stated that the Board not only works on situations that exist now but also considers what will happen in the future. Mr. Clifford noted that the proposed garage has a five (5) to six (6) foot gap from the house and asked Mr. Svarczkopf what would prevent him from moving the garage back to the corner. Mr. Svarczkopf stated that the house has a lower roof for the sunroom and that attaching the garage to the house would require some funky roof lines. Mr. Clifford clarified that Mr. Svarczkopf could move the garage closer to the house without ledge problems, to which Mr. Svarczkopf stated that he will pin to the ledge regardless and that a thin veneer of soil and grass sit on top of the ledge. Mr. Clifford then noted that the plot plan includes numerous pluses or minuses and that for the placement of anything new, the Board must know the precise location. Mr. Clifford then asked Mr. Svarczkopf if he had any objections to removing those approximate measurements, to which Mr. Svarczkopf stated that he did not. Mr. Clifford then asked Mr. Svarczkopf if the proposal benefited the public interests, to which Mr. Svarczkopf stated that the garage would maintain the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Clifford then asked if the proposal supported housing production, to which Mr. Svarczkopf stated that he intends for the upstairs area of the garage to function as storage and not living space, but noted that someone could decide to make it living space in the future. Mr. Clifford then asked if the petitioner would face a financial hardship if the Board did not approve the proposal. Mr. Svarczkopf stated that the family has faced significant damage to their vehicles from the trees and stated that the homeowners may need to vacate the home in the future if the cannot find a safe way to get from a vehicle to the house. Mr. Clifford then asked if the proposal would cause a detriment to the public health, safety, or welfare of the neighborhood, to which Mr. Svarczkopf said no. Mr. Clifford then stated that the Board would consider whether the current or former owners would have self-created a problem and then asked if anything could have happened with the positioning of the house during its construction that would have not resulted in the circumstances today. Mr. Svarczkopf stated that he believed that whoever built the home tried to squeeze a building of significant size into an area constrained by ledge. Mr. Osten asked about the runoff from the garage roof and from driveway. Mr. Osten acknowledged that Mr. Svarczkopf would address the runoff with a drainage system and asked Mr. Svarczkopf how much rain or snow runoff he expected coming out of the driveway and onto Hayes Ave. Mr. Svarczkopf stated that he intends to create a small driveway and a larger roof area. Mr. Svarczkopf then stated that he does not have the runoff calculations and that he would rely on the site engineer, Stamski and McNary, to calculate that and the appropriate size for the drainage system. No further questions from the Board. No further comments or questions from the Public. No further questions from the Board. Mr. Svarczkopf stated that he believed that he had provided the Board with the best proposal and that he awaits the Board's opinion. At 7:37 p.m., Mr. Clifford moved to close the hearing. At 7:37 p.m., Mr. Barnert seconded Mr. Clifford. At 7:37 p.m., the Board voted to close the hearing (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford — Yes, Nyles N. Barnert — Yes, Norman P. Cohen — Yes, James A. Osten — Yes, and Jennifer Wilson — Yes). Ms. Wilson stated that she would like to talk about the new factors and hear people's views. Ms. Wilson expressed her concern with whether the current or former owner self-created the problem as someone developed the lot to its limit based on the ledge and decided that they did not want to build a garage. Ms. Wilson noted that someone now wants something extra and that she acknowledges all the support and desire to have a garage. Ms. Wilson then stated that she will consider whether the proposal constitutes the perfect case. Mr. Clifford stated that the legislature had given the Board a multi -factor weigh this against that type of test but has not told the Board how to weigh these factors. Ms. Wilson then pondered whether Mr. Svarczkopf and the homeowners could achieve the garage in a way that does not require a variance as it would solve some of the concerns that they articulated. Regarding whether the proposal would cause a detriment to the neighborhood, Ms. Wilson stated that the building would reside in the setback which could serve other uses and that the setbacks serve to keep the character of the neighborhood and the green space. Mr. Clifford noted that the building resides close to the property line. Ms. Wilson noted that she did not see a lot of homes in the neighborhood with garages like that. Mr. Clifford expressed his concern about how close the proposed garage resides to the property and stated that he did not believe that the garage could not reside closer to the house. Mr. Clifford stated that he did not know whether he would vote to approve the variance as the proposal stands and that his vote would depend on how the rest of the Board feels. Mr. Clifford stated that the Town could develop a sidewalk there sometime in the future and that the roofline of the garage would reside right on the edge of the sidewalk. Mr. Clifford then suggested that the Board do a straw vote. Mr. Osten expressed his support for the proposal and then noted the vague nature of the deciding factors compared to the old factors used to decide variances. Mr. Osten then stated that he did not see any predisposition for creating the problem from prior owners and then commented on the proposal's design. Mr. Osten then noted that ledge can create an issue and that the neighbors would not appreciate it if someone had to blast the ledge. Mr. Osten the stated that the Town builds a small number of sidewalks every year and noted that students use that road to walk to one of the schools. Mr. Osten then stated that he would support the proposal more if the garage resided a bit better on the property. Mr. Shiple asked how much the setback would increase if the garage resided square to the house. Mr. Shiple then asked how much closer the garage could reside to the house while still detached and asked about the possibility of an attached garage. Mr. Cohen noted that during the presentation, Mr. Svarczkopf stated that they could move the garage back a little and stated that moving the garage back would help. Mr. Cohen also noted that not many sidewalks or garages would have existed in 1925 and stated that his neighborhood protested to have a sidewalk built. Mr. Cohen then stated that despite the sidewalk, he worried about how close the garage resides to the street and stated that he would support the proposal if the garage resided a few feet back. Mr. Barnert stated that moving the garage back would help as it resides close to the property line. Mr. Clifford stated that in the future, the street could go right up to the property line. Mr. Barnert stated that he did not know how much more they could move the garage and questioned whether moving the garage back would make a big difference. Mr. Clifford suggested a straw vote and stated that he believed that the garage could reside closer to the house. Mr. Clifford then recommended a continuance so that Mr. Svarczkopf could tweak the proposal. Mr. Clifford then explained to Mr. Svarczkopf that a straw vote is a non- binding vote that indicates how the Board views the proposal. Mr. Clifford then explained that Mr. Svarczkopf would need four votes to approve the variance and that the straw vote allows the Board to reopen the Hearing and give him suggestions. Mr. Clifford then stated that should the Board deny the variance, Mr. Svarczkopf cannot submit another plan to the Board for two years. Mr. Clifford then noted that Mr. Svarczkopf can solve the problems that the Board has. At 7:50 p.m., a straw vote took place (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford — No, Nyles N. Barnert — Yes, Norman P. Cohen — No, James A. Osten — Abstain, and Jennifer Wilson — No). Mr. Cohen stated that he could not vote for the proposal as it currently stands but stated that he believed that a continuance would result in him voting yes. Mr. Barnert stated that he would vote for the proposal but would prefer to see the garage reside back a little further. Mr. Osten echoed Mr. Barnert's sentiments and stated that he would probably abstain. Mr. Osten stated that he would like to see the owners get a garage in a safer way for those who would pass by it. Ms. Wilson stated that she would not support the proposal now since she believed that the property has room to move the garage to improve the situation and offset the negative impacts. Mr. Clifford echoed the sentiments and stated that as it stands now, the proposal would have three negative votes and likely not pass. At 7:52 p.m., Mr. Clifford moved to reopen the Hearing. At 7:52 p.m., Mr. Barnert seconded Mr. Clifford. At 7:52 p.m., the Hearing reopened (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford — No, Nyles N. Barnert — Yes, Norman P. Cohen — No, James A. Osten — Abstain, and Jennifer Wilson — No). Mr. Clifford recommended that Mr. Svarczkopf take a continuance to take the time that he needs to come back to the Board with a proposal that places the garage as far away from the street and as square to the house as possible. Mr. Clifford then stated that the Board would likely approve the variance with the changes. Mr. Svarczkopf recommended to Mr. McGraw that they take the continuance, to which Mr. McGraw agreed. Mr. Clifford asked Mr. Svarczkopf how long it would take him to revise the plans, to which Mr. Svarczkopf stated that it would take a week or two. Mr. Clifford told Mr. Svarczkopf that the Board will hold its next meeting on August 13th, 2026. Mr. Clifford asked Mr. Svarczkopf if he had a good idea of what the Board indicated, to which Mr. Svarczkopf stated that he did. At 7:54 p.m., Mr. Clifford moved to grant a continuance to the August 13th, 2026, meeting. At 7:54 p.m., Mr. Barnert seconded Mr. Clifford. At 7:54 p.m., the Board granted a continuance to the August 13th, 2026, meeting (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford —Yes, Nyles N. Barnert — 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 July 23rd, 2026, 7:00 p.m. Board Members: Chair — Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, and Associate Member Jennifer L. Wilson Alternate Member: Thomas Shiple Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator, and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant Other Business: 1. Minutes from the July 9th, 2026 Meeting At 7:55 p.m., Mr. Clifford moved to approve the minutes. At 7:55 p.m., Mr. Barnert seconded Mr. Clifford At 7:55 p.m., the Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to approve the minutes from July 9th, 2026, Hearing (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford — Yes, Nyles N. Barnert — Yes, Norman P. Cohen — Yes, James A. Osten — Yes, and Jennifer Wilson — Yes). At 7:55 p.m., Mr. Clifford moved to adjourn the meeting. At 7:55 p.m., Mr. Barnert second Mr. Clifford. At 7:55 p.m., the Board voted to Adjourn (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford — Yes, Nyles N. Barnert — Yes, Norman P. Cohen — Yes, James A. Osten — Yes, and Jennifer Wilson — Yes).