Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-10-08-ZBA-min.pdf Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom October 8th, 2026, 7:00 p.m. Board Members: Acting Chair – Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, and Associate Members Jeanne K. Krieger and Kathryn A. Roy Administrative Staff: Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator, and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant Address: 213 East Street (ZBA-26-16) 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 side yard setback 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, Gross Floor Area Calculation Form, Existing Conditions Site Plan, Original Proposed Addition Floor Plans, Original Proposed Addition Elevations, Original Proposed Addition Framing Plans, Original Proposed Addition and Driveway Site Plan, Plan D Variance Memo dated October 1 st, 2026, Updated Certified Proposed Plot Plan dated October 5th, 2026, Updated Proposed Floor Plans dated October 5th, 2026, Updated Proposed Elevations dated October 5th, 2026, Updated Gross Floor Area Calculation Form dated October 5th, 2026, Updated Plan D Variance Memo dated October 5th, 2026, and Abutter Support Letter 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 Conservation Director. At 7:07 p.m., the Hearing opened. Petitioner: Mallikarjun Sundaram Srivatsan Mr. Mallikarjun Sundaram Srivatsan, 213 East St., began his presentation by stating that his request entails a sixteen (16) foot one-car garage at the front of his house. Mr. Srivatsan explained that his wife’s father has limited mobility and the house does not have a garage. Mr. Srivatsan further explained that leaving the house involves helping his father-in-law through the rain, snow, and ice, which has become increasingly more challenging as his father-in-law ages. Mr. Srivatsan then stated that the one-car garage will have a width of sixteen (16) feet and a depth of 26.4 four feet and will align with the house. Mr. Srivatsan further stated that the proposed garage will use the existing driveway and will not intrude into the wetlands. Mr. Srivatsan then explained that the garage will have an additional room above it that will connect to the master bedroom. Regarding the setback, Mr. Srivatsan stated that while he understands that he normally needs to have a fifteen (15) foot side yard setback, this configuration will have a 7.4 and a 7.8 side yard setback. Mr. Srivatsan then explained that he had considered other plans and that his initial plan for an addition with a three-car garage and sunroom at the rear of the house currently stands before the Conservation Commission. Mr. Srivatsan stated that the Conservation Commission did not have an issue with the addition but did have an issue with the driveway that would access the garage. Mr. Srivatsan then explained that he had also explored a two-car garage option and a one-car garage option and stated that he sought to have a garage as minimal as possible while still meeting his family’s needs. Mr. Srivatsan explained that he had looked at a fourteen (14) foot wide garage but had determined that a fourteen (14) foot wide garage would not have allowed enough room on the side for assistance. Mr. Srivatsan then stated that he had concluded that a sixteen (16) foot wide garage would meet his family’s needs with a minimal configuration. Mr. Srivatsan also noted that this would align with the 2010 ADA standards. Mr. Srivatsan then continued by showing a site plan with the proposed one-car garage and two- story addition. Mr. Srivatsan stated that the garage would have a sufficient front yard setback and that he only requires a variance for the side yard setback and that the two-story addition currently stands in front of the Conservation Commission. Mr. Srivatsan then explained that the original plan for a three-car garage required the driveway to intrude into the wetland buffer zone, which the Conservation Commission would not have approved. Mr. Srivatsan then explained that he had considered putting a two-story garage to the side, but that garage would have required cutting down two mature trees and a driveway that would have had a larger slope than the allowed twelve (12) degree slope. Since the three-car garage and the two-car garage would not work, Mr. Srivatsan state that that’s what led to the sixteen (16) foot garage. Mr. Srivatsan further elaborated that the three-car garage would have required them to cut down about sixteen (16) trees on the left side, whereas the one-car garage only requires them to cut down four (4) trees. Mr. Srivatsan then noted that he has presented a restoration plan to the Conservation Commission, which they expressed their approval for. Mr. Srivatsan then stated that in total, the project will result in a house with a 5,200 sq. ft. gross floor area. Mr. Srivatsan further stated that their neighbors had reviewed the plan and expressed their approval for the project. Mr. Srivatsan then summarized his request by reiterating that the lot has wetlands in the back and a steep grade on either side which limits where he can put the garage. Mr. Srivatsan then stated that him and his family will face a substantial hardship if they do not have the garage and that a minimal, modest one-car garage will not cause any detriment. Mr. Srivatsan concluded by reiterating that he only needs the variance for the side yard setback, not for the front yard setback or the height, and requested that the Board grant the variance so that he can have a garage to help with the elderly resident who resides at the house. Mr. Cohen asked if the Board needed to act on the driveway. Mr. Barnert said no and that the driveway will not reside within five (5) feet of the property line. Mr. Srivatsan explained that he originally needed Conservation Commission approval for the driveway at the back, but now that he plans to keep the driveway in the front, he does not need any approval for it. Mr. Srivatsan reiterated that he only needs the variance for the side yard setback. Mr. Cohen then asked where Mr. Srivatsan stands with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Srivatsan explained that he currently has a continuance with the Conservation Committee. Mr. Srivatsan then stated that since the Conservation Committee would not approve the driveway in the back, they suggested that he come before the ZBA and then return to the Conservation Commission. Mr. Srivatsan elaborated that should the ZBA grant the one-car garage, he will return to the Conservation Commission and inform them that he does not need the three-car garage or rear driveway. Mr. Osten asked Mr. Srivatsan how he plans to assist his father-in-law from the garage to the house. Mr. Srivatsan explained that he plans to have the garage and the sunroom on the same level, and that the sunroom will connect to the house. Ms. Roy asked if the sunroom would intrude onto conservation land. Mr. Srivatsan stated that he would have a minimal thirty-nine (39) square foot incursion into the fifty (50) foot wetland buffer zone. Mr. Srivatsan then noted that he plans to remove the shed and the vegetable garden at the back of the property to offset the incursion. Mr. Srivatsan noted that the Conservation Commission seems okay with the minimal incursion and that he would adjust the plan if they did not. Ms. Roy then asked why Mr. Srivatsan plans to put a level above the garage. Mr. Srivatsan explained that the house’s configuration results in a constrained master bedroom and stated that the additional level above the garage would give him a little more space. Ms. Krieger stated that she would have preferred to see a drawing that showed how the garage would fit and the height of the new structure relative to the house since Ms. Krieger recalled that the right side of the house appears to have one and a half (1 ½) stories and the left side has two (2) stories. Ms. Krieger then asked if the structure would extend out to the one and a half (1 ½) story side and asked about the structure’s height relative to the rest of the house. Mr. Srivatsan explained that per the architect’s plans, the structure would match the existing height of the building and that he would not extend beyond the elevation of the existing house. Ms. Krieger then asked about the elevation of the completed new structure. Mr. Srivatsan stated that while he does not have an exact number, the structure will match the elevation of the existing dwelling and will remain well within the permissible limit. Mr. Srivatsan noted that he does not need a variance for the height. Ms. Krieger expressed her concern and stated that if Mr. Srivatsan did not add on the second level, the garage would have a lower height and would result in less of an intrusion from the neighbor’s perspective. Ms. Krieger stated that she would have preferred to see the garage drawn out in a bit more detail. Mr. Srivatsan stated that per his architect, the structure’s elevation would match the current elevation. Ms. Roy agreed with Ms. Krieger on the importance of seeing the full drawings. Mr. Barnert stated that Mr. Srivatsan had provided a justification for the garage in the setback area but had not provided justification for the living space in the setback area. Mr. Barnert then asked Mr. Srivatsan what areas of the variance require him to have a living space in the setback area. Mr. Srivatsan explained that the house has three bedrooms and that he needs a little more space. Mr. Barnert asked if he could put that living area anywhere else on the property. Mr. Srivatsan stated that he does not have another area to put the living space with the way the house is structured and the extensive wetlands in the back. Ms. Krieger asked to see the floor plans, and Ms. Roy asked if the driveway would have to slope down to reach the garage. Mr. Srivatsan stated that the driveway would only drop minimally. Ms. Krieger noted that the Zoning Bylaw has a limitation on the slope of a driveway. Mr. Srivatsan stated that the garage will not sit much lower than the existing level. Ms. Roy noted that on her site visit, the driveway did not appear to go as far as the house. Mr. Srivatsan stated that the structure would adjoin level to the right side of the house. No further questions from the Board. No further comments or questions from the Public. Mr. Osten noted that per the new variance standards, achieving the benefit in a more compliant way would disfavor the variance. Mr. Osten continued by stating that while he believed that the arguments made had determined that the garage could not reside elsewhere on the property, the arguments made had not established that the living area above the garage could reside somewhere else. Mr. Osten stated that the Board would need to establish whether the living area could achieve its benefit in a more compliant way and then asked Mr. Srivatsan if he could put the living area in another way. Mr. Srivatsan stated that he believed that he could not add the living area to the house in any other way. Mr. Srivatsan stated that they had looked at other configurations, had discussed the project with the architect, and then stated that this is the only configuration that they came to. Mr. Barnert asked Mr. Srivatsan if he could add the living area to the left of the proposed two-story addition. Ms. Roy then stated that while Mr. Srivatsan could not extend the master bedroom any other way, the extension would impose into the setback. Mr. Barnert then asked Mr. Srivatsan if he could extend his two-story addition to the left. Mr. Srivatsan stated that he could decrease the size of the living area and reiterated that the architect believed that the area above the garage served as the only location to put the living area. Ms. Roy stated that if Mr. Srivatsan extended the two-story addition to the right then he would not need the second story above the garage. Mr. Srivatsan stated that a tree resides there, and Mr. Barnert stated that they could only extend eight (8) inches to meet the setbacks. Mr. Barnert noted the Board’s concern about the living area above the garage and asked if the Board should conduct a straw vote. Mr. Barnert explained to Mr. Srivatsan that a straw vote acts as a non-binding vote to see where the Board stands on the proposal and if the straw vote indicates that the Board will not approve the proposal as it stands, Mr. Srivatsan can go back to his architect to reconfigure the plan. Mr. Srivatsan clarified that the Board could approve the garage but has concerns with the living area above the garage, which Mr. Barnert confirmed. Mr. Srivatsan suggested only extending the living area out eight (8) feet instead of sixteen (16) feet and asked if the Board would approve that. Ms. Krieger stated that she would prefer to see a drawing of what that proposal would look like and stated that she would like some clarification on the height of the room above the garage relative to the street. Mr. Barnert suggested that Mr. Srivatsan take a continuance so that the architect could provide the Board with some elevation drawings. Mr. Srivatsan stated that he would meet with his architect to get elevation drawings and drawings that showed a decreased living area that did not intrude into the setback. Mr. Barnert asked Mr. Srivatsan how soon he could get the drawings, to which Mr. Srivatsan stated that he could have them by the next meeting. No further questions from the Board. At the applicant’s request, at 7:36 p.m., Mr. Barnert moved to continue the hearing to the October 22nd, 2026 Hearing. At 7:36 p.m., multiple Board members seconded Mr. Barnert. At 7:37 p.m., the Board of Appeals voted to grant a continuance to the October 22nd, 2026 Hearing (a roll call vote took place: Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, Jeanne K. Krieger – Yes and Kathryn – Yes). Meeting Minutes of the Lexington Board of Appeals Conducted Virtually, Via Zoom October 8th, 2026, 7:00 p.m. Board Members: Acting Chair – Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, James A. Osten, and Associate Members Jeanne K. Krieger and Kathryn A. Roy Administrative Staff: Jim Kelly, Building Commissioner, Olivia Lawler, Zoning Administrator, and EmmaJean Anjoorian, Department Assistant Other Business: 1. Minutes from the September 24th, 2026, Meeting At 7:38 p.m., Mr. Barnert moved to approve the minutes from the September 24th, 2026, Meeting. At 7:38 p.m., multiple Board Members seconded Mr. Barnert. At 7:38 p.m., the Board of Appeals voted to approve the minutes from the September 24 th, 2026, Meeting. The Board of Appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to approve the minutes from the September 24th, 2026, Hearing (a roll call vote took place: Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, Jeanne K. Krieger – Yes and Kathryn – Yes). At 7:38 p.m., Mr. Barnert moved to adjourn the meeting. At 7:38 p.m., multiple Board Members seconded Mr. Barnert. At 7:38 p.m., the Board of Appeals voted to adjourn (a roll call vote took place: Nyles N. Barnert – Yes, Norman P. Cohen – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes, Jeanne K. Krieger – Yes and Kathryn – Yes).