Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-08-13-ZBA-min.pdfMeeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom August 13th, 2026, 7:00 p.m. Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, and Associate Member Jeanne K. Krieger Alternate Member: Jennifer L. Wilson Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, and Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator Address: 89 Meriam Street (ZBA-26-10) The petitioner is requesting ONE 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, Certified Proposed Plot Plan, Elevations, Floor Plans, Photographs, Homeowner’s Letter, Abutter Support Letters, Gross Floor Area Calculation Form, Soil Suitability Assessment, Average Natural Grade Worksheet, Revised Certified Proposed Plot Plan dated July 28th, 2026, and Height 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 and the Engineering Department. The Hearing opened on July 23rd, 2026, and continued to August 13th, 2026. Petitioner: Tim Svarczkopf on behalf of Bridger McGraw and McClain Howarth Mr. Tim Svarczkopf, Senior Project Developer at Platt Builders, represented the homeowners at 89 Meriam St., Mr. Bridger McGraw and Ms. McClain Howarth. Mr. Svarczkopf stated that he had refined the proposal based off the Board’s feedback and stated that they seek to create a commonplace, modest, functional improvement that respects both the home’s character and the neighborhood around it. Mr. Svarczkopf explained that he had shortened the proposed garage by two feet and repositioned the garage so that it resides four feet away from the property line. Mr. Svarczkopf also explained that he brought the garage fully in plain with the existing home and moved it as close to the ledge as site conditions safely allow. Mr. Svarczkopf stated that this adjustment reduces massing, improves site lines, and creates a more cohesive relationship between the new structure and the 1925 Dutch Colonial. Mr. Svarczkopf showed a plot plan of the original designed and the revised one and then stated that he narrowed the driveway to twenty feet to conform to zoning requirements and for consistency throughout Meriam Hill. Mr. Svarczkopf explained that he prioritized honoring the historic qualities of the home while ensuring that the design remains fully in keeping with the neighborhood’s established patterns of driveways and garages. Mr. Svarczkopf then stated that the revised garage placement represents the least disruptive option available and protects mature trees, respects natural contours, and avoids unnecessary disturbances to abutters. Mr. Svarczkopf concluded his presentation by emphasizing the abundant abutter support for the project, reiterated that the project would preserve the character and integrity of the neighborhood, and stated that the project would solve a functional need for the homeowners. Ms. Krieger asked Mr. Svarczkopf about his plans for the existing driveway cut on Meriam Street and asked if he plans to landscape it or retain it. Mr. Svarczkopf responded that the while the homeowners have yet to decide what to do with the existing driveway, in the last meeting they suggested removing the pavement and replacing it with a permeable surface. Mr. Svarczkopf then stated that he thought that the homeowners intended to retain some sort of parking nearby Meriam Street but then discontinue the driveway past that. Ms. Krieger then asked if the homeowners intend to pull the cars into the garage or if the homeowners intend to park the cars on the driveway which resides in the right-of-way. Mr. Svarczkopf stated that the homeowners intend to have the cars in the garage unless they have guests visiting or some short-term tasks that they need to do. Mr. Osten asked about rain and snow removal, and stated that based off the peak roof plans, the water would run off the sides. Mr. Svarczkopf confirmed this. Mr. Osten asked Mr. Svarczkopf if he had any plans for snow removal. Mr. Svarczkopf stated that the ridge lines goes parallel to Meriam Street so the water would not fall onto the driveway. Mr. Clifford stated that at the last meeting the Board suggested moving the garage closer to the house and asked why the garage remained close to its original location. Mr. Svarczkopf explained that he intends to have access from the back of the garage to the home and that they did not want to move the garage any closer. Mr. Svarczkopf stated that the garage would reside close to the sunroom and that he wanted some separation between the sunroom and the garage. Mr. Clifford noted the challenging nature of the proposal and stated that the Board must consider whether the garage could reside on the property in a way that would not violate zoning as much and then stated that moving the garage closer to the house would achieve that. Mr. Clifford asked Mr. Svarczkopf if he had any other reason for the garage’s placement besides the gap between the garage and the sunroom. Mr. Svarczkopf stated that the ledge resides directly south of the sunroom and to the east of the proposed garage and explained that he intends to manage the location of the garage with the Board recommendations and site conditions. Mr. McGraw stated that they had shortened the garage by two feet and had moved it closer to the house from the property line to improve the distance. Mr. McGraw noted that they could move the garage north towards the ledge which may result in the garage residing closer to the house. Mr. McGraw stated that once they better understand the placement of the ledge, they can address Mr. Clifford’s concern. Mr. Clifford stated that they need to address the concern tonight or continue the hearing so that they can explore the ledge. Mr. Clifford then noted that Lexington measures setbacks from the furthest projecting point, so based off the roof overhand, the garage would reside approximately three feet from the property line based on the plot plan. Mr. Clifford then stated that if they moved the garage towards the house, it would reside further away from the property line and would align with many Lexington neighborhoods. Mr. Cohen recalled that many neighbors had provided written support in favor of the proposal and asked if they had shown the neighbors the new proposal. Mr. McGraw stated that while they did not show the neighbors the new plans, the design and placement of the new proposal remain similar to the original one. Mr. McGraw then stated that the improvements and the Board recommendations align with the neighbor’s support for the garage. Mr. Cohen noted that no one spoke against it. Mr. Osten asked if the garage door would open in a folding manner or an overhead manner, to which Mr. Svarczkopf stated that they plan to have carriage-style doors that will function like a standard garage door. Mr. Svarczkopf concluded his presentation by stating that they had tried to implement the Board’s recommendations to the best of their ability and the significant amount of ledge on the site presents challenges. Mr. Svarczkopf stated that for those reasons they ask the Board to approve the application as it’s proposed. No further questions from the Board. No further comments or questions from the Public. No further questions from the Board. At 7:17 p.m., Mr. Clifford moved to close the hearing. At 7:17, multiple Board members seconded Mr. Clifford. At 7:18 p.m., the hearing closed (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, and Jeanne K. Krieger – Yes). Mr. Clifford noted that with the new variance standards, the Board should go through the standards step by step so that the staff can meet the needs to develop the necessary findings to incorporate them into the decision. Mr. Clifford then stated that the Board should make statements about how the proposal complies or does not comply with each of the new variance standards. Mr. Clifford further stated that the garage would benefit the petitioner. Mr. Clifford then noted that the garage would have a neutral impact on the public interest, which Ms. Krieger agreed with. Mr. Clifford then stated that the garage would not support housing production. Regarding soil condition, lot shape, or topography, Mr. Clifford noted that the ledge affects the decision of where to put the garage. Mr. Cohen asked for clarification on whether the Board needs to consider it, to which Mr. Clifford stated that the statute states Board can consider those factors but does not say what the Board needs to do with them. Regarding the financial hardship, Mr. Clifford stated that the tree nuts will no longer hit the homeowners’ cars and noted that variances no longer require a severe financial hardship. Mr. Osten also noted the walking hazard posed by snow and ice. Mr. Clifford noted that since the garage does not attach to the house the homeowners would need to leave the garage and walk to the door, though Ms. Krieger noted that the slope might lessen. Regarding the detriment to public health, safety, or welfare of the neighborhood, Mr. Barnert and Mr. Clifford both agreed that the proposal will not pose a problem. Regarding whether the proposal could become more compliant, Mr. Clifford stated that the garage could reside closer to the house. Mr. Barnert noted that moving the garage closer to the house would cost the homeowners more. Mr. Clifford stated that he believed that the statute does not instruct the Board to balance factors but rather asks the Board various questions. Regarding whether the current or a former owner created the problem, Mr. Clifford and Ms. Krieger both agreed that a former owner did, as whoever built the house built it without a garage. Mr. Clifford noted that the intent of that criteria would apply to parties who started a project in violation of the old statute, who now seek a variance. Mr. Clifford expressed his concern about how the garage could become more compliant by moving the garage closer to the house while allowing the homeowner to have the financial benefit of the garage. Mr. Clifford stated that the Board should grant the variance for a five (5) foot gap between the house and the garage, not a ten (10) foot gap. Mr. Clifford noted that this would result in a proposal that complies better with the zoning regulations while allowing the homeowner to have the financial benefit of the garage. Mr. Clifford then stated that the Board should grant the variance for five (5) feet, not ten (10) feet. Ms. Krieger stated that she believed that a potential hardship would exist if they had to move the garage closer to the house as it would shade the sunroom and have a dark alley between the garage and a room. Mr. Clifford noted that the statute discusses financial hardships. Mr. Clifford stated that if they discover that they cannot place the garage in a way that they thought they could, they can come back to the Board and seek an amendment to the variance. Mr. Clifford noted that the financial hardship would arise if they needed dynamite or something else to do the project. Mr. Clifford then stated that he would support the variance with a five (5) foot gap between the house and the garage and suggested that the Board add it as a condition. Mr. Cohen asked that the Board acknowledge that should the Board add a five (5) foot gap condition, and should the ledge affect the garage in that location, that the proposal would need to come back to the Board. Mr. Clifford stated that the proposal would need to come back to the Board and asked Ms. Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator, to look at the zoning regulations to see if they could come back to the Board for a minor modification. Ms. Wilson agreed with Mr. Clifford that the Board does not have information to know decisively if a hardship would occur if the Board granted the variance with a larger gap. Mr. Osten stated that the Board does not know how far the ledge extends underground and noted that the underground ledge may potentially interfere with the proposal. Mr. Osten then stated that five (5) feet away from the house should give them clearance from the ledge. However, should the ledge present a problem for the foundation, Mr. Osten stated that he would willingly extend the gap between the house and the garage. Ms. Lawler stated that only special permits can come back to the Board for minor modifications but that the proposal could apply for a regular modification, which would require a new public hearing. Mr. Clifford stated that the Board would likely not approve the variance as a variance would need four votes to pass and two of the Board members would not approve the proposal in its current form. Mr. Clifford then stated that the Board needs to decide how they can effectively grant the variance, but not for the garage in its current location. Mr. Clifford suggested granting the variance with a condition, but that would require another advertisement for the proposal. Mr. Clifford then suggested reopening the hearing so that the Board can discuss the options with the applicant. At 7:31 p.m., Mr. Clifford moved to reopen the Hearing. At 7:31 p.m., Mr. Barnert second Mr. Clifford. At 7:31 p.m., the Hearing reopened (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, and Jeanne K. Krieger – Yes). Mr. Clifford told the applicant that the Board would grant a variance for a garage located five (5) feet away from the house but that the plans do not show that and that the Board needs to know whether the ledge drops down. Mr. Svarczkopf stated that the property has a fence with a gate and that they’ve done some minor test digging in the area and found that the ledges goes five (5) inches below at the gate. Mr. Svarczkopf then stated that the gate resides in the area that they hope to come off the back of the garage to access the rear of the home, which would serve as the primary entry from the garage. Mr. Svarczkopf then stated that they know that that area has ledge and that if the Board grants the variance with conditions that they will do some further investigation. Mr. Svarczkopf then stated that they would willingly prove the location of the ledge, and therefore the location of the garage, and will manage the conditions that the Board sets. Mr. Clifford stated that he hopes to avoid having to readvertise the Hearing and recommended that the Hearing continue. Ms. Lawler then stated that a proposal can do a minor modification for a variance. At 7:34 p.m., Mr. Clifford moved to reclose the Hearing. At 7:34 p.m., Ms. Krieger second Mr. Clifford. At 7:34 p.m., the hearing closed (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, and Jeanne K. Krieger – Yes). Mr. Clifford proposed granting the variance with a condition that the garage resides five (5) feet away from the house with a full understanding that they have minor modification rights. Mr. Clifford stated that should the applicant prove that the five (5) foot gap does not work because of the ledge, they should file for a minor modification, and the Board will work with them to figure out a plan that does work. Mr. Barnert asked why this would work better over a continuance. Mr. Clifford stated that the Board could do a continuance, however, the Board could change its mind. Mr. Clifford then stated that if the Board voted on a variance, they would at least have one with conditions. Ms. Krieger stated that she does not have an opinion and asked if the applicant had a choice. Mr. Clifford stated that the Board would need to reopen the Hearing. Mr. Clifford noted the safer and stronger nature of granting the variance rather than continuing the Hearing. Mr. Clifford stated that the Board could vote no if the Hearing continued, but that they will have the variance if the Board votes to grant it. No further discussion from the Board. At 7:37 p.m., Mr. Clifford moved to approve the petition subject to the plans submitted and subject to the additional requirement that the garage reside five (5) feet away from the house. At 7:38 p.m., Mr. Cohen second Mr. Clifford. At 7:38 p.m., the Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant ONE 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 (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, and Jeanne K. Krieger – Yes). Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom August 13th, 2026, 7:00 p.m. Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, and Associate Member Jeanne K. Krieger Alternate Member: Jennifer L. Wilson Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, and Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator Address: 323 Marrett Road (ZBA-26-12) 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, 135-5.2.4(1), and 135-3.4 – Table 1, Line J.1.02 to allow internal illumination of wall signs and to allow a takeout food service establishment to open at 5:00 a.m. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Sign Plans, Property Owner Narrative, and Certified Proposed Plot Plan Waiver Request. 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, the Building Commissioner, and the Select Board. At 7:38 p.m., the Hearing opened. Petitioner: Nicole Sullivan on behalf of Rev Road Realty LLC Ms. Nicole Sullivan represented Mark and Megan Page, who own both the property and the business at 323 Marrett Rd. Ms. Sullivan then stated that they come before the Board to allow internally illuminated lights and for a 5:00 a.m. start time. Ms. Sullivan noted that she already has the lights up but that they do not illuminate. Mr. Sullivan also noted that the previous Dunkin’ had illuminated signs but that the believed that she needs to go back to the Board since she plans on increasing the no. of signs. Ms. Sullivan then showed some drawings that show the elevation. Mr. Osten expressed his content with the signs and asked if any baking will occur at 5:00 a.m. or if they will have food brought to the site. Ms. Sullivan stated that they will have food brought to the site. Ms. Sullivan stated that they have other stores in other towns that open at 5:00 a.m. and that they want the opportunity to serve first responders and people who head out early. Ms. Sullivan noted that opening at 5:00 a.m. also helps with congestion since people could come in earlier. Mr. Osten noted that the property has one garbage bin the back which resides well below the residential neighborhood. Mr. Osten then asked about the plans to empty the garbage bin. Ms. Sullivan stated that she works with Win Waste on the dumpster and that they had come out to the store, after she had gone to the Board of Health, and stated that Win Waste plans to come later since they abut a residential area. Mr. Barnert asked Ms. Sullivan if she had received any responses from the neighbors on Marrett Rd. and Waltham St regarding opening early. Ms. Sullivan stated that she had not received any responses. Mr. Barnert asked if she had contacted them, to which Ms. Sullivan stated that a notice had went out. Mr. Barnert clarified that Ms. Sullivan did not try to contact them individually, which Ms. Sullivan confirmed. Mr. Barnert stated that a residential neighborhood surrounds the area and that no other business in the area opens before six. Mr. Cohen asked what zone the property resides in, to which Mr. Barnert responded that the property resides in the CN zone. Mr. Cohen stated that notifying the neighbors in person about the 5:00 a.m. opening may have appeared better but noted that the abutters did receive notices. Mr. Cohen noted that he believed that the property did not have a change in ownership. Mr. Cohen stated that while a 5:00 a.m. opening may seem a little early, no baking will take place and that the people in charge will arrive before 5:00 a.m. Mr. Cohen stated that he plans to vote yes. Ms. Krieger noted that some participants had left comments in the chat and that the Board should address those. Mr. Clifford stated that they have not done public comment yet. Mr. Clifford asked Ms. Sullivan when the truck will do the deliveries. Ms. Sullivan stated that they plan to use a box van to deliver the donuts and that the delivery time differs sometime between the night before or the early morning hours. Ms. Sullivan clarified that the delivery van will leave the donuts in the vestibule every day. Mr. Clifford asked if Jimmy John’s will have the same system. Ms. Sullivan stated that Jimmy John’s will bake the bread everyday and that since Jimmy John’s serves lunch that they will not open early to bake. Mr. Barnert clarified with Ms. Sullivan that should the Dunkin’ open at 5:00 a.m., they will serve donuts that could arrive at the store eight hours before. Ms. Sullivan confirmed this and stated that Dunkin’ now receive donut deliveries overnight and no longer makes fresh donuts in the store. No further questions from the Board. Mr. Dominic Modoono, 336 Marrett Rd., who resides across the street from 323 Marrett Rd. and right next to Cumberland Farms, expressed his concern for the 5:00 a.m. opening when the other businesses in the area open at 6:00 a.m. or 7:00 a.m. Mr. Modoono noted that another business in the area has patrons arriving before the opening time waiting to go in and that in the wintertime, the snow plows will leave their trucks running. Mr. Modoono expressed his concerns that these occurrences may happen an hour earlier and expressed his concerns with him and his family sleeping through the night. Mr. Modoono then asked if this will set a precedent in Lexington that all stores can open at 5:00 a.m. and noted the early nature of a 5:00 a.m. opening. No further comments or questions from the Public. Ms. Sullivan expressed her gratitude for the conversation and expressed her excitement to open either way. Ms. Sullivan then expressed her willingness to open at 5:30 a.m. as a compromise and stated that should the 5:00 a.m. opening not serve as a benefit that they will not do it but would like to try. Ms. Sullivan stated that they also own the Dunkin’ at 286 Lincoln St and that the reason that that Dunkin’ does open earlier is because the gas station does not open earlier. No further questions from the Board. At 7:54 p.m., Mr. Clifford moved to close the Hearing. At 7:54 p.m., Mr. Barnert seconded Mr. Clifford. At 7:54 p.m., the hearing closed (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, and Jeanne K. Krieger – Yes). Mr. Clifford asked if any Board member had a problem with the signs. No Board member did. Mr. Clifford then asked if any Board member had a problem with the opening time. Multiple Board members expressed their concerns for the opening time. Mr. Clifford asked what opening time the Board members would prefer, to which multiple Board members stated that they wanted a 6:00 a.m. opening. No further discussion from the Board. At 7:55 p.m., Mr. Clifford moved to approve ONE (1) SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning Bylaw (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) (the “Bylaw”) section(s) 135-9.4, and 135- 5.2.4(1) to allow internal illumination of four (4) wall signs At 7:55 p.m., multiple Board members 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 grant ONE (1) SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning Bylaw (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) (the “Bylaw”) section(s) 135-9.4, and 135-5.2.4(1) to allow internal illumination of four (4) wall signs. A roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, and Jeanne K. Krieger – Yes). At 7:56 p.m., Mr. Clifford moved to approve ONE (1) SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning Bylaw (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) (the “Bylaw”) section(s) 135-9.4 and 135- 3.4 - Table 1 (Permitted Uses and Development Standards), Line J.1.02, to allow a takeout food service establishment to open at 5:00 a.m. At 7:56 p.m., Mr. Barnert seconded Mr. Clifford. At 7:56 p.m., the Board of Appeals voted zero (0) in favor, five (5) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to deny ONE (1) SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning Bylaw (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) (the “Bylaw”) section(s) 135-9.4 and 135-3.4 - Table 1 (Permitted Uses and Development Standards), Line J.1.02, to allow a takeout food service establishment to open at 5:00 a.m. A roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford – No, Nyles N. Barnert – No, Norman P. Cohen – No, James A. Osten – No, and Jeanne K. Krieger – No). Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom August 13th, 2026, 7:00 p.m. Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, and Associate Member Jeanne K. Krieger Alternate Member: Jennifer L. Wilson Address: 20 Muzzey Street (ZBA-26-14) 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, 135-5.1.11, & 135-5.1.13.1D to allow for the driveway/maneuvering aisle and the parallel parking to be located closer than 20 ft. to the residential district line & to allow a driveway for two-way use to have less than the required 18 ft. width required. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Site Plan, Approval Not Required Plan of Land, and Proposed Certified Plot Plan Waiver Request. 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 7:56 p.m., the Hearing opened. Petitioner: Colin Smith on behalf of Veda Realty LLC Mr. Colin Smith, architect for the proposal, stated that he represents the owner of a growing Lexington-based dental practice. Mr. Smith explained that the owner recently purchased 20 Muzzey St. and plans to add a two-story addition to the structure. Mr. Smith then explained that they seek relief from the eighteen (18) foot requirement for existing driveway and the twenty (20) foot requirement for parking since the property resides in the CB zone and abuts a residential property. Mr. Smith stated that they plan to improve the snow storage and then showed an aerial view of the parking lot. Mr. Smith described the parking area as large and stated that the rear abuts all three lot lines. Mr. Smith elaborated that they plan to create more of a buffer and stated that their proposal remains in character with the commercial parking in the area. Mr. Smith then showed a photo of the abutting residential property with vegetation screening and a fence and reiterated that they plan to increase that buffer area for snow storage. Mr. Smith then identified the proposed area for the parallel parking spaces. Mr. Smith then explained that the existing historic structure and the curb cut bound the driveway and that they do not plan to change the existing curb cut. Mr. Smith explained that he did some calculations for the lot and that the lot requires a minimum of twelve (12) parking spaces and that they propose to have thirteen (13), which will include two (2) accessible spaces. Mr. Smith noted that they plan to make the dental practice handicap accessible. Mr. Barnert asked Mr. Smith about the hours of operation. Mr. Smith stated that the did not know the hours of operation and stated that he could get that information to the Board. Mr. Smith also noted that they will comply with the Bylaws for operating hours. Mr. Barnert asked if restricting parking from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. would pose a problem, and clarified that cars parking at night could pose a problem to the residential abutters. Mr. Smith stated that he does not believe that that condition would pose a problem. Ms. Wilson asked Mr. Smith to clarify the parking restriction since the parking lot would constitute off-street parking and would not restrict people from parking in other places. Ms. Wilson then stated that whoever parking in the area off-hours would park in street spaces. Mr. Clifford stated that the Board can discuss the possible condition during their deliberation. Mr. Osten asked about the status of the application before the Historical District Commission. Mr. Smith stated that they have an application filed with the Historic District Commission and that they will go before them on September 3rd. Mr. Osten asked Mr. Smith if the Historic District Commission imposed any conditions on them yet, to which Mr. Smith stated that they had not received any feedback from the Historic District Commission and that they will receive feedback at the Hearing. Mr. Osten asked if any incentive exists in state law and bylaws that encourages handicap accessibility. Mr. Smith responded that the code requires them to make the dental space handicap accessible. Mr. Smith then stated that his client needs the accessibility design for patients that may receive anesthesia and need some assistance out. Mr. Clifford asked the plans of what the parking lot will look like as the parking currently appears in a state of disrepair. Mr. Smith stated that the property may have a partially paved driveway that disintegrates into the back lot. Mr. Smith then noted that the parking lot will constitute a huge investment for his client and stated that his client had hoped to develop their parking lot after they settle in their business. Mr. Clifford then stated that one of the special permits regards parking and asked Mr. Smith if he knows where the handicap spots will reside. Mr. Smith stated that the signage would identify the handicap spots in the aisle and that they would have to bring that up to code. Mr. Smith stated that he had provided a proof plan to show that this site could handle the amount of square footage that they had proposed and still meet the bylaw parking requirements. Mr. Clifford expressed his concern about water and stated that if the parking lot becomes paved then the water will flow differently. Mr. Smith agreed and said that a paved driveway would constitute a more intense use of the site. Mr. Smith then said that the property has a partially paved driveway and might have mostly impervious surface. Mr. Clifford stated that the Board may impose a condition. Mr. Cohen asked about the width of the existing driveway. Mr. Smith responded that the driveway has a width of about twelve and a half (12.5) feet. Mr. Smith stated that they would change the shape but would not change the curb cut, that the driveway would have a width of about twelve and a half (12.5) feet instead of eighteen (18) feet, and that the parallel parking spaces would have seven (7) feet instead of twenty (20) feet. Mr. Cohen clarified that when one drives into the property from the street, the property cannot have a wider driveway than the one that currently exists because of the building, which Mr. Smith confirmed. No further questions from the Board. Mr. John Campbell, 33 Muzzey St., stated that he and his wife own 22 Muzzey St. which resides adjacent to the driveway. Mr. Campbell stated that while snow storage could serve as a buffer, it could also serve as a way to push snow against the fence and potentially knock it over. Mr. Campbell then asked how the snow removal would work. Mr. Smith stated that the plan also includes snow storage on the opposing lot line as well as either side of the driveway up front. Mr. Campbell stated that in the past, the back of the lot served as snow storage, and that the side of the driveway has all grass. Mr. Campbell then stated that he believed that the snow storage would kill the grass and spill over into his property. Mr. Smith stated that the natural tendency of the snow plow would push the snow to the back of the lot and stated that plowing the driveway would naturally result in some snow storage on the borders. Mr. Smith then stated that they have room for snow storage in the back corner and also stated that he does not know of any calculations in the Bylaw that dictate how much snow storage a property needs to have. Mr. Smith asked Ms. Lawler about the Bylaw requirements for snow storage, to which Ms. Lawler responded that the Zoning Bylaw requires a minimum of two five (5) foot wide areas on either side of the parking lot. Mr. Smith stated that their site plan includes one seven (7) foot area abutting 22 Muzzey St. and another eight (8) foot area on the other side. No further comments or questions from the Public. Mr. Cohen asked about the size of the dental practice. Mr. Smith stated that they have four (4) treatment rooms on the first floor and two (2) more with a potential third on the second floor. No further questions from the Board. Mr. Smith expressed his excitement for the project and stated that his client has expressed a willingness to invest and refresh the historic property. Mr. Smith stated that the property keeps with the character of the business and the layouts of the adjacent parking. At 816 p.m., Mr. Clifford moved to close the Hearing. At 8:16 p.m., Mr. Barnert seconded Mr. Clifford. At 8:16 p.m., the hearing closed (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, and Jeanne K. Krieger – Yes). Mr. Clifford stated that he had noted three conditions during the discussion. Mr. Clifford then began discussing potentially adding a condition of parking hours. Ms. Wilson stated that the additional parking lot would provide a benefit as people would not have to use street parking. Ms. Wilson asked why the Board would prohibit parking out of regular hours. Mr. Barnert stated that as a privately owned parking lot, it would serve the customers of the dentist. Ms. Krieger stated that the owner can come back and ask for a special permit to change the hours and that parking will occur there without some kind of special preparation. Ms. Wilson asked if the restriction would only apply to commercial purposes. Ms. Krieger stated that regulating parking would protect the abutter. Mr. Clifford expressed his concern about approved residential units in downtown Lexington that would come without parking capabilities. Mr. Clifford then stated that a market could develop for people who live in downtown Lexington but do not have a place to put a car, which may result in overnight parking storage in a commercial facility. Mr. Barnert stated that they would have to return to the Board for that, to which Mr. Clifford stated that a change in use would occur. Mr. Clifford asked the Board about their opinions on parking hours. Ms. Krieger suggested 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., to which the rest of the Board agreed. Mr. Osten noted that the property does not have a parking lot light that may irritate the neighbors, so 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. would prevent the irritant. Mr. Clifford then suggested having snow storage primarily at the rear of the lot while recognizing that some will end up along the side. Ms. Krieger asked if Mr. Clifford intended to have the snow storage area adjacent to 22 Muzzey St. marked as landscaping or grass. Mr. Osten agreed with having the snow placed at the rear of the lot to the extent feasible. Mr. Clifford then discussed pavement and stated that they do not have a design for the lot and that he does not see how they will get parking spots labeled. Mr. Clifford then noted that the parking lot has sufficient size to satisfy the parking need for the facility. Mr. Clifford then stated that any paving and water discharge must meet the satisfaction of the building commissioner. No further discussion from the Board. At 8:23 p.m., Mr. Clifford moved to waive the requirement for a proposed certified plot plan. At 8:23 p.m., Mr. Barnert seconded Mr. Clifford. At 8:23 p.m., the Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to waive the certified plot plan requirement (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, and Jeanne K. Krieger – Yes). At 8:23 p.m., Mr. Clifford moved to grant the petition subject to the three discussed conditions. At 8:24 p.m., Mr. Cohen seconded Mr. Clifford At 8:24 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, 135-5.1.11, & 135-5.1.13.1D to allow for the driveway/maneuvering aisle and the parallel parking to be located closer than 20 ft. to the residential district line & to allow a driveway for two-way use to have less than the required 18 ft. width required (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, and Jeanne K. Krieger – Yes). Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom August 13th, 2026, 7:00 p.m. Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, and Associate Member Jeanne K. Krieger Alternate Member: Jennifer L. Wilson Other Business: 1. Minutes from the July 23rd, 2026, Meeting At 8:24 p.m., Mr. Clifford moved to approve the minutes. At 8:24 p.m., multiple Board members seconded Mr. Clifford. The Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to approve the minutes from the July 23rd, 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 Jeanne K. Krieger – Yes). Mr. Barnert expressed his concerns about the site visit protocol and noted the restrictive nature of the protocol. Mr. Clifford stated that after consulting both authority and counsel, the Board needs to get consent. Mr. Clifford stated that the form get reworked and that stated that the Board cannot enter a property, subject or abutter, without consent. Mr. Barnert asked how the zoning enforcement officer does site visits, to which Ms. Lawler stated that if she makes a site visit to a property she schedules it with the property owner directly but that she takes photos from the public way. Mr. Cohen stated his understanding of the site visits and highlighted some potential problems. Mr. Clifford noted that the reworked form will alleviate some of the problems. At 8:32 p.m., Mr. Clifford moved to adjourn the meeting. At 8:32 p.m., Mr. Barnert second Mr. Clifford. At 8:32 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 Jeanne K. Krieger – Yes).