Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-09-24-ZBA-min Minutes of the Lexinqton Zoninq Board of Appeals Selectmen's Meeting Room September 24, 2020 Board Members: Chair— Ralph D. Clifford, Jeanne K. Krieger, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen and David G. Williams Alternate Member: Beth Masterman Administrative Staff: Jennifer Gingras, Zoning Administrator and Sharon Coffey, Administrative Clerk Address: 10 Locust Avenue The petitioner is requesting a SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Earth Fill and Removal Bylaw, Chapter 43 of the Code of the Town of Lexington, to allow a maximum of 450 cubic yards of fill to be brought to the property. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Plot Plan and Plans. Prior to the meeting, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Board of Selectmen, the Planning Director, the Historic District Commission Clerk, Historical Commission, Economic Development, and the Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from the Building Commissioner, the Conservation Administrator and the Zoning Administrator. The applicant submitted a request to continue to October 8, 2020 Hearing. The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant a continuance to the October 8, 2020 Hearing (a role call was taken: Ralph D. Clifford — Yes, Jeanne K. Krieger—Yes, David G. Williams—Yes, Norman P. Cohen —Yes, and Nyles N. Barnert—Yes). Minutes of the Lexinqton Zoninq Board of Appeals Selectmen's Meeting Room September 24, 2020 Board Members: Chair— Ralph D. Clifford, Jeanne K. Krieger, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen and David G. Williams Alternate Member: Beth Masterman Administrative Staff: Jennifer Gingras, Zoning Administrator and Sharon Coffey, Administrative Clerk Address: 8 Rowland Avenue The petitioner is requesting a SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.4 and 135-8.4.2 to allow modification to a non-conforming structure. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Plot Plan and Plans. Also submitted was gross floor area calculations and elevations. Prior to the meeting, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Board of Selectmen, the Planning Director, the Historic District Commission Clerk, Historical Commission, Economic Development, and the Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from the Zoning Administrator and the Building Commissioner. Presenter: Patrick Doherty The Hearing was opened at: 7:06 PM. Patrick Doherty, P.C. Doherty contractor, presented the petition. He stated the Special Permit request is to build a detached garage in place of an existing non-conforming garage. The current rear yard setback is 5 feet and the current side yard setback is 5 feet. The garage is in disrepair. There is no garage door and currently does not serve a purpose. The proposed garage is a single bay garage and is to be 16 feet by 25 feet. The structure is designed to fit in with the current home and the neighboring structures. The proposed garage will have a rear and side yard setback of 5 feet. There is an existing screen porch that has a slight overlap issue for the proposed garage. If the garage were to overlap the screen porch more than it already is the property owners would have to maneuver the car around the screen porch which could cause someone to back into the house. A Board Member, David G. Williams, asked what happened to the garage in the last few years since the house was purchased. It was not sold in that condition (The garage has been there for a long time). Mr. Williams questioned the second story with the dormer. Thomas Clair, Associate of P.C. Doherty Construction, stated the total height is 17.4 feet and about 7.4 feet of that is the roof area. It is not a second floor it is a storage area. Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, asked how people will access the second floor (Mr. Clair stated a pull down ladder). Mr. Clifford questioned the purposed of the dormer (Mr. Doherty stated it was purely for ascetics). An audience member, Bradley Hastings of 8 Rowland Ave, stated when they purchased the house a year ago the garage was in the same shape and they dropped the price so they could re-build it. The reason no one noticed before was because there were cedar trees that lined the garage and hid the structure. The second level is just a storage area. The design of the garage is based on another garage in Lexington. There were no further questions or comments from the audience. There were no further questions from the Board. Mr. Doherty stated the property owners just want a garage they can use. The Hearing was closed at 7:20 PM (a role call was taken: Ralph D. Clifford —Yes, Jeanne K. Krieger—Yes, David G. Williams—Yes, Norman P. Cohen —Yes, and Nyles N. Barnert—Yes). There were no comments from the Board. The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant a SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) sections 135-9.4 and 135-8.4.2 to allow modification to a non-conforming structure (a role call was taken: Ralph D. Clifford —Yes, Jeanne K. Krieger—Yes, David G. Williams—Yes, Norman P. Cohen —Yes, and Nyles N. Barnert—Yes). Minutes of the Lexinqton Zoninq Board of Appeals Selectmen's Meeting Room September 24, 2020 Board Members: Vice Chair— Jeanne K. Krieger, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, David G. Williams and Associate Member Beth Masterman Administrative Staff: Jennifer Gingras, Zoning Administrator and Sharon Coffey, Administrative Clerk Address: 1761 Massachusetts Avenue The petitioner is requesting TWO (2) SPECIAL PERMITS in accordance with the Zoning By- Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-5.2.10 and 135-5.2.8.1 to allow 2 (two) wall signs to be larger than otherwise allowed. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, and Plans. Prior to the meeting, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Board of Selectmen, the Planning Director, the Historic District Commission Clerk, Historical Commission, Economic Development, and the Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from the Building Commissioner and the Zoning Administrator. Presenter: Philip Wright and Julie Reker on behalf of Bank of America The Hearing was opened at: 7:23 PM. Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, stated he has a conflict on this file and will be recusing himself. Vice Chair, Jeanne K. Krieger stepped in as acting Chair. Julie Reker, from Gensler Architect, presented the petition. She stated this request is for a sign on the front of the building above the front doors and a sign on the rear of the building. There are existing signs in those locations and they wish to replace those signs with signs that are longer. The logo for Bank of America has been updated, this would be changing those signs to the updated logo and letter style. Method of illumination stays the same. The Historic District Commission stated the illumination should be a specific LED lamping of a specific color temperature which they agree to. Vice Chair, Jeanne K. Krieger, confirmed that they accept the recommendations of the Historic District Commission (Yes). A Board Member, David G. Williams, stated in the front by the mailbox use to be nice plantings and now it is just dirt. He suggested they add plantings. There were no further questions from the Board. There were no questions or comments from the audience. The Hearing was closed at 7:32 PM (a role call was taken: Ralph D. Clifford —Yes, Jeanne K. Krieger—Yes, David G. Williams—Yes, Norman P. Cohen —Yes, and Nyles N. Barnert—Yes). There were no comments from the Board. The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant the waiver of a certified plot plan (a role call was taken: Beth Masterman —Yes, Jeanne K. Krieger—Yes, David G. Williams—Yes, Norman P. Cohen —Yes, and Nyles N. Barnert—Yes). 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) sections 135-5.2.10 and 135-5.2.8.1 to allow 2 (two) wall signs to be larger than otherwise allowed (a role call was taken: Beth Masterman —Yes, Jeanne K. Krieger—Yes, David G. Williams —Yes, Norman P. Cohen —Yes, and Nyles N. Barnert—Yes). Minutes of the Lexinqton Zoninq Board of Appeals Selectmen's Meeting Room September 24, 2020 Board Members: Chair— Ralph D. Clifford, Jeanne K. Krieger, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen and David G. Williams Alternate Member: Beth Masterman Administrative Staff: Jennifer Gingras, Zoning Administrator and Sharon Coffey, Administrative Clerk Address: 7 Slocum Road The petitioner is requesting a VARIANCE in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.2.2.2 and 135-6.1.1.1 to allow a swimming pool to have a 6 ft. rear yard setback instead of the required 20 ft. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Plot Plan, Topographic Map, and Plans. Prior to the meeting, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Board of Selectmen, the Planning Director, the Historic District Commission Clerk, Historical Commission, Economic Development, and the Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from the Historic District Commission, Planning Department and the Zoning Administrator. Presenter: Jennifer Carson and Stephen Carson The Hearing was opened at: 7:32 PM. Stephen Carson, property owner of 7 Slocum Road, presented the petition. He stated this request is for a pool to be used for exercise. The house is "u" shaped in the back which presents challenges. They are trying to add a pool for the family and exercise. A Board Member, Nyles N. Barnert, stated the application states this Variance is needed based on the placement of the home on the lot and if it were placed somewhere else a Variance wouldn't be needed, where else would that be? (Mr. Carson stated nowhere. They bumped the house back for the addition and they should have considered a pool then). Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, stated Variances have specific requirements that the law requires the Board to look at. He stated the lot is a square, not a difficult shape. The lot is a level lot. There are no wetlands or strange soils. There has to be some kind of hardship that is being faced that other people with a similar lot are not facing. You talked about COVID-19 which everyone is facing, it is not specific to the parcel. (Mr. Carson stated the COVID-19 reference was because the goal was to age in place. A pool made sense). A Board Member, David G. Williams, stated his concern for lighting (Mr. Carson stated there are no plans for lighting). A Board Member, Norman P. Cohen, asked if there will be a fence around the pool (Mr. Carson stated the whole yard is already fenced in). An audience member, Peter Lee of 4 Hunt Road, stated his concern for the Variance. He stated the pool will be close to their property and face their kitchen and back yard area, which causes concerns for noise. Mr. Lee also stated there are trees that serve a privacy function, the excavation for a pool could risk damage to the roots. The concern for water coming into their property was raised. Mr. Carson stated they were not aware of Mr. Lee's concerns. The trees are on the other side of the fence and they would not be going close to them. It is an in ground pool so the concern of a leak should not be great. Mrs. Carson stated they have lived there since 2004 and they do not have giant parties. This pool would just be for family and exercise. They have been good neighbors. The Hearing was closed at 7:49 PM (a role call was taken: Ralph D. Clifford —Yes, Jeanne K. Krieger—Yes, David G. Williams—Yes, Norman P. Cohen —Yes, and Nyles N. Barnert—Yes). Mr. Williams stated pools are intrusive to abutters because of noise, he will be voting against this. A Board Member, Jeanne K. Krieger, stated she would be voting no. Mr. Clifford stated none of the requisites for a Variance have been met, there is no land or wetland problems. A bigger house is a self-caused problem. He will be voting no. Mr. Cohen stated he would be voting no as well. Mr. Barnert stated this does not meet the merits of a Variance. The Board of appeals voted Zero (0) in favor, five (5) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant a VARIANCE in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) sections 135-9.2.2.2 and 135-6.1.1.1 to allow a swimming pool to have a 6 ft. rear yard setback instead of the required 20 ft (a role call was taken: Ralph D. Clifford — No, Jeanne K. Krieger— No, David G. Williams — No, Norman P. Cohen — No, and Nyles N. Barnert— No). As a result the Variance was denied. Minutes of the Lexinqton Zoninq Board of Appeals Selectmen's Meeting Room September 24, 2020 Board Members: Acting Chair— Jeanne K. Krieger, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen, David G. Williams and Associate Member Beth Masterman Administrative Staff: Jennifer Gingras, Zoning Administrator and Sharon Coffey, Administrative Clerk Address: 1605 Massachusetts Avenue The petitioner is requesting a SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-6.4 and 135-9.4 to allow the colocation of temporary transmission equipment at the site. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Plot Plan, photographs and Plans. Prior to the meeting, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Board of Selectmen, the Planning Director, the Historic District Commission Clerk, Historical Commission, Economic Development, and the Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from the Zoning Administrator. Presenter: Edward Pare, attorney, on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC The Hearing was opened at: 7:52 PM. Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, stated he has a conflict on this file and will be recusing himself. Vice Chair, Jeanne K. Krieger, stepped in as acting Chair. Edward Pare, attorney, presented the petition. He stated a few years back the Board granted them permission to attach the antennas to the existing Police Station tower. They found out the property may be redeveloped and they would need to find a new location. They are requesting to locate three panel antennas that are two feet tall on Cary Hall. Two of the antennas will be attached to the chimney and one antenna on the existing pent house. To get the footprint of 360 degrees they need three antennas. They got approval from the Historic District Commission. The equipment cabinets will be located down on the ground. Everything is temporary and removable. Chair, Jeanne K. Krieger, stated this application has not been reviewed by Communications Advisory Committee or the Design Advisory Committee. These Committees are not meeting during COVID-29 pandemic. They could opt to not take action until those Committees are back in session but that is not recommended. Mrs. Krieger stated it is the Boards practice to grant these applications for 5 years and to have a condition that if the equipment is not operating for a year it should all be removed. Is this acceptable to the applicant? (Yes, no issues with that). There were no further questions from the Board. There were no questions or comments from the audience. The Hearing was closed at 8:03 PM (a role call was taken: Jeanne K. Krieger—Yes, David G. Williams —Yes, Norman P. Cohen —Yes, Nyles N. Barnert—Yes, and Beth Masterman —Yes). An audience member requested to speak. The Hearing was re-opened at 8:07 PM (a role call was taken: Jeanne K. Krieger—Yes, David G. Williams—Yes, Norman P. Cohen —Yes, Nyles N. Barnert—Yes and Beth Masterman — Yes). An audience member, Sergio DeMango from the Department of Public Facilities, stated he was looking for the vote. There were no further questions or comments from the audience. The Hearing was closed at 8:10 PM (a role call was taken: Jeanne K. Krieger—Yes, David G. Williams —Yes, Norman P. Cohen —Yes, Nyles N. Barnert—Yes, and Beth Masterman —Yes). There were no comments from the Board. The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant a SPECIAL PERMIT in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) sections 135-6.4 and 135-9.4 to allow the colocation of temporary transmission equipment at the site with the conditions that 6.4.14 and 6.4.16 will apply to this application (a role call was taken: Beth Masterman —Yes, Jeanne K. Krieger—Yes, David G. Williams—Yes, Norman P. Cohen —Yes, and Nyles N. Barnert—Yes). Minutes of the Lexinqton Zoninq Board of Appeals Selectmen's Meeting Room September 24, 2020 Board Members: Chair— Ralph D. Clifford, Jeanne K. Krieger, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen and David G. Williams Alternate Member: Beth Masterman Administrative Staff: Jennifer Gingras, Zoning Administrator and Sharon Coffey, Administrative Clerk Address: 400 Shire Way The petitioner is requesting a MOFIFICATION TO A SPECIAL PERMIT with Site Plan Review, dated January 24, 2008 section(s) 135-42F(4) and 135-12. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Elevations and Plans. Also submitted was the Gross Floor Area Calculation and received numerous letters and emails from the applicant and abutters. Prior to the meeting, the petitions and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Board of Selectmen, the Planning Director, the Historic District Commission Clerk, Historical Commission, Economic Development, and the Zoning Administrator. Comments were received from the Building Commissioner, Planning Department and the Zoning Administrator. Presenter: Brian Lawlor, SMMA, John Hart, SMMA, Michael gray, Takeda, Peter Corbett, Goulston and Storrs, Mike Ashman, CRB and Nick Safina, CRB The Hearing was opened at 8:11 PM. Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, stated this is a complicated application so they are going break the Hearing down into sub-categories. This is to give the Board a chance to focus in on the various issues that may be of concern. Michael Gray, Takeda, presented the petition. He stated the expansion aims to deliver a pipeline product in the transformative area of Gene and Cell Therapy for Takeda's patients. The proposed expansion is situated between Route 2 and the existing 400 Shire Way facility. The project is 38,000 square feet of expansion. There will be no changes to the existing use of 400 Shire Way. The space will include a clean room production area, quality control and process science labs, housing areas, and an office area. A compressive sound assessment was conducted in 2012 and determined that the campus was in compliance with all sound requirements. This expansion is designed to be and will be in compliance with all applicable requirements. They did receive letters from abutters sharing their concerns, Takeda is committed to an open process of communication with the member of the community. Takeda is setting up a frequently asked questions format. There were no questions from the Board in regards to the opening statement. An audience member, Richard Canale of 29 Shade Street, asked how Takeda plans to communicate with the community (Mr. Gray stated they want to define and support communication through email and electronic messaging. The plan is to develop a robust strategy for email communication). An audience member, Jeanne Canale of 29 Shade Street, asked about sound. Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, stated everyone will have the opportunity to focus on noise, this will need to be delay until that point. An audience member, Vicki Blier of 41 Shade Street, asked if the compliance with the noise bylaw was taken before or after the trees were taken down by the piano lot (Mr. Lawlor stated the acoustic study was conducted over the last couple of weeks and those trees were removed mid-summer). An audience member, Manos Perros of 35 Shade Street, asked what the proposed communication will be about, maybe it would have been better to set this up abutter communication before submitting this application (Mr. Gray stated it will be for questions and concerns for this project to help support the neighborhood and inform what is happening on the site). There were no further questions from the audience in regards to the opening statement Mr. Gray stated the existing facility at 400 Shire Way has no change. The expansion will have 35 employees spread over two twelve hour shifts. They would be doing work similar to work being done now. Ventilation will be similar as well. This is for a different product. The product is not more or less dangerous than any other product the company deals with. There were no questions from the Board in regards to the changes of the use of the building. There were no questions from the audience in regards to the changes of the use of the building. John Hart, SMMA, explained the aerial view of Takeda and the proposed area of work. They reconfigured the parking slightly from what was originally submitted. There is a decrease of parking in that lot by 75 spaces. There is 153 parking spots now and they are going down to 78 spaces. They did look at parking and they had great data from 2019. They determined there was adequate parking even with the decrease of 75 spaces. They will have a total of 1,567 parking spaces including 28 reserve spaces. They did calculate the required parking versus existing. The bylaw requires a minimum of 1,255 spaces for the entire site. There is a traffic demand management that Takeda is implementing. There has been traffic counts each year for the last five years. The traffic use is less than anticipated. A Board Member, David G. Williams, asked if during the pandemic employees are working remotely (Mr. Gray stated yes a portion of the staff are working remotely). Mr. Williams asked if that has affected the traffic count or parking (Mr. Gray stated the information provided was from before the pandemic). Mr. Clifford asked if a load calculation has been done (Mr. Hart stated they do not have an exact number. There were times where the parking lot was down to one hundred spaces available. It is larger than the number of spaces they are taking away). Mr. Clifford stated his concern for availability for parking spaces for bicycles, the current bike racks on site are no longer up to Lexington code. Does Takeda have many employees who use bicycles? (Mr. Hart stated that the traffic study does look at all modes of transportation and there is low bike usage at this time. As far as the requirement there are 36 bike storage spaces available and per zoning it should be 1 per 20 spaces. There is a requirement for bike spaces, half of those should be covered and half can be short term. So they are 2 short on the covered spaces. The spaces that are available are not being filled). Mr. Clifford asked if Takeda will be willing to bring this up to code (Mr. Hart stated that would be something Takeda would be able to do). An audience member, Richard Canale of 29 Shade Street, asked since the indication is they will have 300 spaces more than they will need would they be willing to eliminate the reserve lot as it is the most problematic to the abutter (Mr. Hart stated there are no plans to construct that lot right now. There is not 300 extra spaces). Mr. Canale stated 10 years ago in the MOU with the Town there was a condition that Shire would investigate enabling residents to use the shuttle service. What is the status of allowing residents to use the Takeda shuttle to Alewife? (Mr. Gray stated they are not aware of that but can follow up with Takeda). A Board Member, Norman P. Cohen, asked how the reserve 28 parking spaces would affect the abutters if constructed (Mr. Hart stated the land slopes and some trees that are between the parking and property line would be removed). A Board Member, Jeanne K. Krieger, stated in the event that Takeda wants to construct those 28 parking spaces, they would have to come back to the Board of Appeals correct? (Peter Corbett stated in the 2015 modification to the Special Permit associated with building 200 Shire Way the provision says the 28 parking spaces can be constructed without any further approval). There were no further questions from the Board in regards to traffic flow, parking, transportation, etc. There were no questions from the audience in regards to traffic flow, parking, transportation, etc. Mr. Hart stated they applied for a Notice of Intent with the Conservation Department. They had the wetlands reflagged. The meeting with Conservation was closed on September 21, 2020. They did a storm water design for the whole campus and the development of 400 and 200 Shire in 2007 and they have been updating that since. Updated all of it to current standards. They added water quality units and relocated the recharge system. They met the one year volume requirement. The only utility they are doing is adding a connection for the sewage disposal. Mr. Clifford asked what the general direction of the flow of water is (Mr. Hart stated the general slope of the land is towards the highways). Mr. Clifford asked if they are aware of any issues with abutters dealing with drainage or water issues (Mr. Hart stated no, the entire campus is downgraded). There were no further questions from members of the Board in regards to drainage, storm water management, etc. There were no questions form the audience in regards to drainage, storm water management, etc. Mr. Hart stated there are seven trees being removed and eleven trees being put back. There is also ground cover and plants being planted around the building. Mr. Clifford asked if the trees being replaced are comparable in size (Mr. Hart responded the trees that are being planted are three and a half caliper trees and the existing trees are mostly 3 to 6 inches. Mr. Clifford requested the size of the replacement trees be bumped up (Mr. Hart stated planting larger trees has a lower survival rate. They can look at bumping up some of them). An audience member, Richard Canale of 29 Shade Street, asked if there was going to be an inch by inch replacement of the trees and asked if Takeda would be willing to plant some trees to help in the buffer of noise (Mr. Hart stated they have only considered replacing the trees in the limit of work. The caliper inch of trees what is being removed is 30 inches and caliper inch of what is being put back is 33 to 38 inches). Mr. Clifford asked how effective are trees in terms of breaking up sounds (Mr. Hart stated he couldn't speak specifically to that). There were no further questions from the Board in regards to landscaping, tree removal/replacement, etc. There were no further questions from the audience in regards to landscaping, tree removal/replacement, etc. Peter Corbett stated Takeda has had its acoustical consultant (Acentech) undertake a preliminary assessment of the sound impacts of the proposed expansion and they do this in accordance with the sound assessment protocol. The report showed no increase in sound levels. Takeda will use that standard of no increase in the design decisions. Pursuant to the 2015 protocol post construction Takeda will take an actual sound assessment to confirm the expansion has caused no increase in sound levels. Mr. Barnert asked if the measurements taken a couple of months ago were a preconstruction base line (Mr. Corbett stated as part of setting up this model they took actual measurements of all the existing equipment at 400 Shire Way and used that information plus the manufactures specification of the equipment that is expected to be installed on the expansion to project what the sound levels would be). Mr. Barnert asked if they will be doing preconstruction measurements to compare (Mr. Corbett stated the site currently complies with sound requirements based on the assessments based on the Town in 2012, there have been no changes to any significant aspect to the site since that time. Any equipment that has been replaced has met the no increase in impact standard). Mr. Barnert stated to know if the new equipment increases the noise you have to know what the level is before it is installed (Mr. Corbett stated they had those sound levels from 2012. They were done between 1 and 4 in the morning). Mr. Clifford asked how comfortable they are that the equipment is at the same volume it was in 2012 (Mr. Corbett stated they have no reason to believe it has changed). Mr. Clifford asked if the Board required Takada to do an actual measurement before the Building Permit is issued would that be acceptable (Mr. Corbett responded the equipment is maintained on a constant basis, everything still operates in accordance with the levels established in 2012. They would be willing to do a preconstruction measurement but the discussion about how that would be done would not be simple. The acoustical consultants would need to be involved). An audience member, Vicki Blier of 41 Shade Street, stated at the time of the original Special Permit the Town did not have any acoustical engineering expertise. They relied on the proponent's acoustical engineer. They were assured the deed restriction, which stated no noise shall cross property line, was the strongest protection for the abutters. Which was not true, neighbors are stuck with high pitched noise. She asked that going forward the Zoning Board of Appeals require for commercial properties abutting residential neighborhoods have the quietest ventilation fans and HVAC. Also every method should be used to avoid the destruction of acoustical buffers. Acoustical Engineers should certify that the quietest equipment is being used. What is the Board of Appeals going to do going forward? (Mr. Clifford stated the Board of Appeals consists of five volunteers and they will do the best job that they can). Mr. Corbett stated back in 2012 the Town did have an acoustical expert and agreed with the sound assessment that was done at that time. An audience member, Richard Canale of 29 Shade Street, stated the Board of Appeals is empowered to hire a consultant at the applicant's expense. Has the Board engaged in a consultant for this project? (Mr. Clifford responded no they have not. They have no way of knowing at this point if they are going to or not). Mr. Canale stated he was trying to find documentation to find out what has been replaced and what has been maintained and had difficulty finding those documents. Is there documentation where maintained is done? (Mr. Corbett stated he would need to consult with Takeda in terms of their internal records). An Audience member, Jeanne Canale of 29 Shade Street, asked if the new building and its uses will increase the noise level (Mr. Corbett responded that the preliminary sound assessment that was done indicated no increase in sound and all the design decisions and equipment selections are going to be done to maintain that standard of no increase). An audience member, Kamal Anand of 18 Shade Street, asked how the HVAC equipment is maintained (Mr. Gray stated the air handlers were replaced last year. Can look further into that). An audience member, Phil Jackson of 50 Shade Street, stated in 2004 when the property was being developed the Town signed a covenant which expressed there would be no noise spill over from manufacturing operations at the property line. Is there noise spill over form the manufacturing operations on the property line and does the covenant have any relevance? (Mr. Corbett stated the sound assessments for the entire campus was done in 2012 and the Towns acoustical consultant and Board of Appeals accepted that the campus was in compliance). Mr. Clifford stated a covenant is not going to be within the scope of the Zoning Board of Appeals authority. When getting into restricted covenants and their affect and enforcement that is an issue for Town Counsel. Mr. Jackson stated they were promised something specific and it doesn't seem like anybody has paid attention. What is the recourse for abutters that have had noise issues for 12 years? No one wants to fix it (Mr. Clifford stated again that is out of the authority of the Zoning Board of Appeals. He recommended to talk to a lawyer). An audience member, Manos Perros of 35 Shade Street, asked if the Zoning Board of Appeals feels that using the existing baseline, which could have been incorrect, is the baseline for any future measurements (Mr. Clifford stated the Board at the this point does not know what they will be considering). An audience member, Richard Canale of 29 Shade Street, the understanding is that what is up for review is a Special Permit for building 400 to increase it but also to revise the definitive site plan. The DSDUP covers the entire parcel. So if they are going to be modifying the whole site isn't everything on the site that is inter related with the Special Permit to be evaluated by the Board (Mr. Clifford stated to the extent that it is directly relevant to the proposed change the answer is yes. To the extent that it is directed towards remediating problems that exist because of earlier development than the answer is no. They do have to be concerned with their legal job and ruling on what is an amendment to a plan). An audience member, Vicki Blier of 41 Shade Street, stated if the Board is considering asking for a new baseline noise level that they take into consideration that could be harmful to the neighborhood. If the site has gotten noisier, then the new baseline will be higher. Mr. Clifford stated he noticed the original noise measurement is not there. He asked the applicant to comment on general compliance with the various agreements to measure noise and why it seems to be a little slower than it should have been (Mr. Corbett stated it struck everyone as things unfolded that there was not a process in Town to implement the requirements of the noise bylaw or other noise requirements in complex projects. Trying to figure out what the baseline was at this property was complicated because it had been developed and operated as a commercial property for decades before it was converted into Lexington technology Park. Trying to figure out the starting point was not easy. Part of this project got developed and put into operation before the question was raised as to establishing baseline. When the discussion turned to how are they going to measure compliance the complicated problem was that it was impossible to shut down all equipment in 2009-2010. Acentech worked with the Towns consultant to devise a computerized model that allowed measurement of all of the relevant sound sources at the campus and then to back out the impacts of certain sounds and construct a baseline from that model. Initially there were problems with building 300. The equipment was put in place by the developer of the campus. Those problems were identified and an attempt to mitigate was made). An audience member, Richard Canale of 29 Shade Street, stated in the present Special Permit the Board took note of a couple of things in the making the approval. The operating procedures to protect abutters has failed, could abutters get a report in terms of Takeda following operating procedures and light spill (Mr. Gray stated if there is an issue with light spill he encourages people to report it. There is a procedure in place with light spill. They hope to set up a line of communication). Mr. Canale then asked if Takeda would engage abutters in interactive virtual meetings (Mr. Gray stated a virtual meeting for light spill over does not seem appropriate. He asked that abutters use the email address). Mr. Corbett stated if there are violations brought to their attention they will be fixed. The windows for expansion are limited to the first level and are not visible to Shade Street. There were no further questions from the Board in regards to noise levels, abatement protocols, etc. There were no further questions from the audience in regards to noise levels, abatement protocols, etc. Mr. Barnert asked if Takeda would agree to the construction vehicles not using Shade Street (Mr. Gray stated they will agree not to use Shade Street for construction vehicles and make sure they communicate that). Mr. Williams asked if they would be putting together a traffic plan for Spring Street (Mr. Gray responded yes). An audience member, Manos Peros of 35 Shade Street, asked Takeda to comment on the resurfacing of the access road (Mr. Hart stated the access Road is to be maintained as part of a requirement from the Fire Department in case of an emergency. It needed some upgrades so that was completed. This is not related to the proposed expansion). Mr. Peros asked if Takeda has filed any documents in the last few hours that describe the type of substance that could potentially be found in the exhaust fans in terms of oders (Mr. Gray stated it's a biologics product, similar to what is being produced currently). Mr. Peros asked what substance if any would be vented through the air handling system (Mr. Gray stated none). An audience member, Richard Canale of 29 Shade Street, stated there is a heavy truck ban on Spring Street. Do operations people remind people driving heavy trucks not to use Spring Street (Mr. Gray stated he is not aware of that). There were no further questions from the Board in regards to the property owner's compliance with the current conditions on the Special Permit. There were no further questions from the audience in regards to the property owner's compliance with the current conditions on the Special Permit. Mr. Clifford recommended the Board continue this application due to a time restraint. The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant a continuance to the October 8, 2020 Hearing (a role call was taken: Ralph D. Clifford — Yes, Jeanne K. Krieger—Yes, David G. Williams—Yes, Norman P. Cohen —Yes, and Nyles N. Barnert—Yes). Minutes of the Lexinqton Zoninq Board of Appeals Selectmen's Meeting Room September 24, 2020 Board Members: Chair— Ralph D. Clifford, Jeanne K. Krieger, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen and David G. Williams Alternate Member: Beth Masterman and Hank Manz Administrative Staff: Jennifer Gingras, Zoning Administrator and Sharon Coffey, Administrative Clerk Other Business: 1. Minor Modification Determination at 200 Shire Way (Takeda) (Record # ZBA-20-37) POSTPONED FROM SEPTEMBER 10, 2020 HEARING The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to DETERMINE that certain changes to the Special Permit and Site Development and Use Plans for 200 Shire Way are minor in nature and that no public hearing is required by the Board to allow the revisions (a role call was taken: Ralph D. Clifford —Yes, Jeanne K. Krieger—Yes, David G. Williams —Yes, Norman P. Cohen —Yes, and Nyles N. Barnert—Yes). John Hart, SMMA, presented the petition. He stated the minor modification is for the Special Permit granted in 2010 and then again in 2015 with the addition of two parking lots. This is a minor modification to the pedestrian plaza. The project is to replace the patio with a new surface of pervious pavers and the replacement of the concrete sidewalks. They wish to reshape the area and additional plantings. Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, asked if the total impervious surface area is changing (Mr. Hart responded there is an increase of impervious surface because of the sidewalks). Mr. Clifford stated there is a condition on page 6 of the October 8, 2015 Special Permit that the total allowed impervious surface is 1,200,000 square feet (Mr. Hart stated they are well under that). Mr. Clifford clarified there will be no major changes in landscaping in terms of trees (Mr. Hart stated that is correct). There were no questions or comments from the audience. There were no further questions or comments from the Board. The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant a minor modification determination at 200 Shire Way (a role call was taken: Ralph D. Clifford —Yes, Jeanne K. Krieger—Yes, David G. Williams —Yes, Norman P. Cohen —Yes, and Nyles N. Barnert—Yes). 2. Minor Modification Determination at 3 Eldred St (Record # ZBA-20-44) Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, stated his concern for this application being treated as a minor modification because the house is moving a lot closer to the neighbor. This would be a time to have publication to notify the neighbors. The Zoning Administrator stated notices were sent to abutters within 300 feet as a courtesy. The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to DETERMINE that certain changes to the Special Permit for modification to a non-conforming structure are minor in nature and that no public hearing is required by the Board to allow the revisions (a role call was taken: Ralph D. Clifford—Yes, Jeanne K. Krieger—Yes, David G. Williams —Yes, Norman P. Cohen —Yes, and Nyles N. Barnert—Yes). Vikas Goel, property owner of 3 Eldred Street, presented the petition. He stated they were in front of the Board in February of 2020. They were trying to do the construction in a feasible manner. When they started designing it became apparent their original plan was not going to work. They wanted to take the opportunity to have a two car garage. They would need to extend about 7.5 feet. They will continue to maintain the allowed setbacks. A Board Member, David G. Williams, asked if it would have been better to put the garage on the other side of the house (Mr. Goel stated they would have loved that design but they cannot have parking coming out that close to a main Street and they would lose sunlight). A Board Member, Nyles N. Barnert, stated the original plan nothing was being done with the slab but now they will have a full basement, is that correct? (Mr. Goel stated yes. The living room is a slab and they want a basement there). There were no questions or comments from the audience. There were no further questions or comments from the Board. The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant a minor modification determination at 3 Eldred Street (a role call was taken: Ralph D. Clifford —Yes, Jeanne K. Krieger—Yes, David G. Williams —Yes, Norman P. Cohen —Yes, and Nyles N. Barnert—Yes). 3. Farwell to Board Member David G. Williams Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, stated whereas, David Williams has served the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Town of Lexington with distinction for the last ten years, and Whereas, the ZBA wishes to acknowledge the value to the Board of the information and experience Mr. Williams provided concerning real estate and zoning within the Town, and Whereas, Mr. Williams has provided invaluable service to the applicants before the ZBA by perceiving approaches that achieve what is desired in a way that is within the discretion of the Board. Now, therefore, the ZBA acknowledges and thanks Mr. Williams for his service to the Board. The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to adopt the above statement (a role call was taken: Ralph D. Clifford —Yes, Jeanne K. Krieger— Yes, Norman P. Cohen —Yes, Beth Masterman —Yes, Hank Manz—Yes and Nyles N. Barnert —Yes). 4. Board reorganization, elect Chair, Vice Chair, and Board Clerk-- to be effective October 8, 2020. Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, nominated Ralph D. Clifford as the Chair, Jeanne K. Krieger as Vice Chair, and Norman P. Cohen as Clerk The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to inducted Ralph D. Clifford as the Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals with Jeanne K. Krieger as Vice Chair, and Norman P. Cohen as Clerk (a role call was taken: Ralph D. Clifford —Yes, Jeanne K. Krieger—Yes, Norman P. Cohen —Yes, Beth Masterman —Yes and Nyles N. Barnert —Yes). 5. Review of 2021 ZBA Calendar The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to adopt the 2021 calendar (a role call was taken: Ralph D. Clifford —Yes, Jeanne K. Krieger— Yes, Norman P. Cohen —Yes, Beth Masterman —Yes and Nyles N. Barnert—Yes). 6. Minutes from the August 27, 2020 Hearing The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention in favor of approving the meeting minutes from the August 27, 2020 Hearing (a role call was taken: Ralph D. Clifford —Yes, Jeanne K. Krieger—Yes, Beth Masterman —Yes, Norman P. Cohen — Yes, and Nyles N. Barnert—Yes). 7. Minutes from the September 10, 2020 Hearing The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention in favor of approving the meeting minutes from the September 10, 2020 Hearing (a role call was taken: Ralph D. Clifford —Yes, Jeanne K. Krieger—Yes, Beth Masterman —Yes, Norman P. Cohen —Yes, and Nyles N. Barnert—Yes). The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to adjourn (a role call was taken: Ralph D. Clifford —Yes, Jeanne K. Krieger—Yes, Beth Masterman —Yes, Norman P. Cohen —Yes, and Nyles N. Barnert—Yes).