Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-09-24-ZBA-min.pdf Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom September 24th, 2026, 7:00 p.m. Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, James A. Osten, and Associate Members Jeanne K. Krieger and Kathryn A. Roy Alternate Member: Thomas Shiple Administrative Staff: Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator, and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant Address: 4 Compton Circle (ZBA-26-15) 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 front yard setback to be less than otherwise required. The Board reviewed the petition in accordance with Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A Section 10 and the altered standards enacted on July 1, 2026. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Topographic Plan, Plot Plan, Elevations, Floor Plans, Gross Floor Area Calculation Form, Board of Directors Approval Letter, Proposed Carport Depiction. 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 7:04 p.m., the Hearing opened. Petitioner: Michael Samra Mr. Michael Samra, 4 Compton Cir., began his presentation by stating that he and his wife Ellen Avery-Samra, 4 Compton Cir., have lived at 4 Compton Cir. for just over ten years. Mr. Samra then stated that while he would like to have a garage, he did not find it possible. Mr. Samra then shared a site plan of his property that showed the topography and location of the current driveway and retaining wall. Mr. Samra then stated that the retaining wall descends about eight and a half (8.5) feet between the top of the driveway and the front door. Mr. Samra then explained that this resulted in the inability to put a cover over their cars without significant disruption to the land. Mr. Samra then identified the locations of their recycling and trash bins and their garden equipment. Mr. Samra then showed his proposed plans and explained that he proposes having a four (4) by fourteen (14) foot shed to store their garden equipment and trash and recycling bins and a four hundred (400) square foot carport that will go over the shed. Mr. Samra then showed the carport elevations and stated that he worked hard to keep the carport as low as possible. Mr. Samra stated that at its low point, the carport has a height of seven and a half (7.5) feet and at its high point, the carport has a height of ten and a half (10.5) feet. Mr. Samra further explained that when driving into the driveway, the shed will have two double doors to access the storage area. Mr. Samra then showed some renderings from a few different vantage points and explained that to keep the proposal within the character of the neighborhood and the house, he matched the fascia depth, the siding, and the pitch of the roof with the existing house. Mr. Samra then noted that the carport does not cover the cars completely but does provide some shelter from the elements. Ms. Roy asked if the storage shed went any further than the current driveway goes. Mr. Samra explained that the front of the storage shed currently resides at the retaining wall at the end of the driveway and that he will push further back four (4) feet into the front yard to maintain about fifteen (15) feet of coverage for the cars. Ms. Krieger asked Mr. Samra if he had had conversations with his neighbors. Mr. Samra stated that he had spoken with all his neighbors and that he had received support for the proposal. Mr. Osten asked if another feasible location existed for the carport than the one that Mr. Samra had chosen. Mr. Samra responded that another feasible location did not exist given the location of the current driveway and curb cut. Mr. Samra explained that he had considered having the driveway go down to the bottom of the house but that he and his wife could not maintain a steep driveway as they got older. Mr. Samra then showed a street view image of his property and noted that his house sits far down compared to the road and that the topography slopes steep to get to his house. Mr. Samra noted the other topographic characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and further explained that the creation of Compton Cir. involved half cut and half fill. Mr. Osten asked if the snow and rain runoff from the proposed car would go to a permeable area, which Mr. Samra confirmed. Mr. Osten asked Mr. Samra if he had to remove any trees for the proposed carport, to which Mr. Samra responded that they will not have to remove any trees, just one bush. Mr. Clifford asked about the possibility of moving the carport a little farther away from the street. Mr. Samra stated that he had worked hard on the dimensions and stated that he believed that he that he could move the carport back half of a foot. Mr. Samra then explained that he had set the front of the shed at the retaining wall and the end of the driveway, and that he had pushed the shed into the yard to get a certain amount of the driveway covered. Mr. Clifford stated that the Board must determine whether the proposal sought can achieve its purpose in a more compliant way. Mr. Clifford noted that during his inspection, the driveway ends and it drops very quickly, which would cause construction problems if moved elsewhere. Mr. Samra noted the difficult nature of moving the carport back given the location of the stairs and stated that moving the carport back another half of a foot would expose more of the car. Mr. Shiple asked if a retaining wall existed on the downhill side of existing driveway. Mr. Samra responded that that area contained bushes. Mr. Shiple then asked Mr. Samra if he planned on creating a wall on that side, to which Mr. Samra responded that he does not plan to create a retaining wall. Mr. Samra then explained that the driveway pitches to the proposed shed and to the area with the bushes where the water runoff occurs naturally. Mr. Shiple then asked about the feasibility of shifting the carport one foot towards the house without causing grading issues. Mr. Samra explained that he had talked to his site engineer who said that he would not recommend it because of the fill residing there. No further questions from the Board. No further comments or questions from the Public. No further questions from the Board. Mr. Clifford suggested conducting a straw vote before the Board closed the hearing to see whether the Board would want Mr. Samra to try to move the garage back or whether the Board will accept the proposal as it stands. Mr. Clifford explained that a straw vote serves as a non- binding vote to figure out where the Board stands on a proposal. Mr. Clifford and Mr. Shiple both would want the carport moved back since the legislature requires the Board to determine whether the proposal sought can achieve its purpose in a more compliant way. Mr. Samra concluded by stating that he appreciated the opportunity to meet with Ms. Olivia Lawler and stated that he appreciated the ZBA’s simple and straightforward process. At 7:23 p.m., Mr. Clifford moved to close the Hearing. At 7:23 p.m., Mr. Barnert seconded Mr. Clifford. At 7:23 p.m., the hearing closed (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, Jeanne K. Krieger – Yes, and Kathryn A. Roy – Yes). To summarize the Board’s findings, Mr. Clifford stated that having a carport would benefit the petitioner but that the proposal does not have any specific public benefit or support housing production. Mr. Clifford agreed that the need for the proposal arose due to soil conditions, shape, or topography. Mr. Barnert stated that a strict enforcement of the bylaw would impose a financial hardship on the petitioner as his car would degrade more rapidly. Mr. Clifford and Mr. Barnert both found that the proposal would not cause a detriment to public health, safety, or welfare of the neighborhood. Regarding whether the proposal can achieve its benefit in a more compliant way, Mr. Clifford stated that any changes to the proposal would not result in anything significant and that the cost of construction would increase to gain a few inches of setback. Finally, Mr. Clifford did not find that the current owner or a former owner created the problem. No further discussion from the Board. At 7:26 p.m., Mr. Clifford moved to approve the petition. At 7:26 p.m., Mr. Barnert seconded Mr. Clifford. At 7:26 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 front yard setback to be less than otherwise required (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, Jeanne K. Krieger – Yes, and Kathryn A. Roy – Yes). Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom September 24th, 2026, 7:00 p.m. Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, James A. Osten, and Associate Members Jeanne K. Krieger and Kathryn A. Roy Alternate Member: Thomas Shiple Administrative Staff: Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator, and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant Address: 25 Maple Street (ZBA-26-9) The petitioner is requesting ONE (1) EARTH FILL & REMOVAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) Ch. 43-1 (Earth Fill and Removal) to allow 2,200 cubic yards of fill to be brought to the property. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Topographic Plan, Preliminary Subdivision Plan Set, Certified Plot Plan Waiver Request, Source of Fill Certified Statement, Tree Study for Parcel 30-105, Tree Study for Parcel 30-106, Storm Water and Erosion Control Management Memo dated July 27th, 2026, Grading Plan, Erosion Control Plan, Preliminary Subdivision Decision dated August 5th, 2026, Continuance Request dated August 24th, 2026, Proposed Exterior Architectural Rendering, Height Calculation Form, and Continuance Request dated September 16th, 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. The Hearing opened on the August 27th, 2026, meeting and continued to the September 24th, 2026, meeting. Petitioner: James Patnaude on behalf of Grand Central Suites LLC Upon the Petitioner’s request, at 7:27 p.m., Mr. Clifford moved to grant a continuance to the October 22nd, 2026, meeting. At 7:27 p.m., Mr. Osten seconded Mr. Clifford At 7:27 p.m., the Board of Appeals granted a continuance to the September 24th, 2026, Hearing (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, Jeanne K. Krieger – Yes, and Kathryn A. Roy – Yes). Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom September 24th, 2026, 7:00 p.m. Board Members: Chair – Ralph D. Clifford, Nyles N. Barnert, James A. Osten, and Associate Members Jeanne K. Krieger and Kathryn A. Roy Alternate Member: Thomas Shiple Administrative Staff: Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator, and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant Other Business: 1. Minutes from the August 27th, 2026, Meeting At 7:29 p.m., Mr. Clifford moved to approve the minutes. At 7:30 p.m., multiple Board Members seconded Mr. Clifford. At 7:30 p.m., The Board of Appeals voted four (4) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and one (1) in abstention to approve the minutes from August 27th, 2026, Hearing (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, Jeanne K. Krieger – Yes, and Kathryn A. Roy – Abstain). Mr. Clifford stated that the Select Board abolished the ZBA terms limits but noted that the Select Board could re-adapt the term limits at some point in the future. Mr. Clifford also stated that the Select Board had changed the two (2) year minimum requirement to serve as an associate member before becoming a full member from a requirement to a preference. Ms. Lawler stated that the Select Board’s agenda for the September 28th meeting included voting to reappoint multiple ZBA members. Mr. Clifford asked for the Board’s consent to represent the Board’s opposition to the term limits if the Select Board decides to discuss them and noted that the Board has lost members due to the term limits. Mr. Clifford then stated that should a Board member not do their job, the Select Board should not reappoint them. Mr. Barnert, Ms. Roy, Mr. Osten, and Ms. Krieger all agreed with Mr. Clifford. At 7:30 p.m., Mr. Clifford moved to adjourn the meeting. At 7:30 p.m., Mr. Barnert seconded Mr. Clifford. At 7:30 p.m., the Board voted to Adjourn (a roll call vote took place: Ralph D. Clifford – Yes, Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, Jeanne K. Krieger – Yes, and Kathryn A. Roy – Yes).