Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-10-08-ZBA-min Minutes of the Lexinqton Zoninq Board of Appeals Select Board's Meeting Room October 8, 2020 Board Members: Chair— Ralph D. Clifford, Jeanne K. Krieger, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen and Associate Member Beth Masterman Alternate Member: Hank Manz Administrative Staff: Jennifer Gingras, Zoning Administrator and Sharon Coffey, Administrative Clerk Address: 10 Locust Street 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, Plans, and Plot Plan. 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. Presenter: Jerry Harding Jerry Harding presented the petition. He stated they went back and reshot all the grades. They propose to bring in 200 yards of sandy material to put on the bottom and two feet of sandy gravel to increase the capacity of water runoff. Then they will put the loom back over the sand. The existing grade is at 91 and they will bring it down to 89 then fill with 6 inches of crushed stone. They intend to add an earth berm on back side of property. They did a walk through with Engineering and the Building Commissioner. They dumped the material on site and then realized they needed a Special Permit so they left it. The Engineer and the Building Commissioner saw the material and agreed it was clean. They will hydro seed with wildflower. A Board Member, Jeanne K. Krieger, state abutters had raised question about the retaining wall, it was not clear how far the retaining wall would extend. That would provide a bypass for water to sneak back down (That retaining wall is not going any further. It is already existing). Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, asked about the retaining wall on the map (That was a mistake,that does not exist). Mr. Clifford asked if the storm tech units will still be going in (Engineering said they were not necessary so they will fill an area with stone to take on a little more water and leach into the sand). Mr. Clifford asked how much fill has already been brought in (12 cubic yards). Mr. Clifford asked how much more fill will be brought in (They figured 210 cubic yards of sandy gravel material then they will out the existing loom back on over sand. Also there will be 10 tons of stone, so about 15 cubic yards). Mr. Clifford stated the application requests 450 cubic yards of fill that seems high. Would 350 cubic yards of fill be a better estimate? (Agreed). An audience member, Karen Murray of 904 Massachusetts Avenue, stated the concern that the grade is going to be raised up at least 10 feet and it slopes down toward their property. When the ground freezes or is saturated they are going to get water. Mr. Harding explained at the center of the property the finished grade is 98.80, it is a foot lower at that point. From there the grade drops rapidly for 25 feet and then it levels out for another 75 feet so as to not allow water to run straight down. Mrs. Murray stated the quick grade change at the beginning does change things. She can accept that. There were no further questions or comments from the audience. Mr. Clifford asked what the nature of the yellow area on the map is (That area was loom and clay. They are putting two feet of sandy gravel there). The Hearing was closed at 7:29 PM (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). Mr. Clifford stated the Board should change the request from 450 cubic yards to 350 cubic yards. There were no further 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 Earth Fill and Removal Bylaw, Chapter 43 of the Code of the Town of Lexington to allow a maximum of 350 cubic yards of fill to be brought to the property (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). Minutes of the Lexinqton Zoninq Board of Appeals Select Board's Meeting Room October 8, 2020 Board Members: Chair— Ralph D. Clifford, Jeanne K. Krieger, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen and Associate Member Beth Masterman Alternate Member: Hank Manz Administrative Staff: Jennifer Gingras, Zoning Administrator and Sharon Coffey, Administrative Clerk Address: 1707 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) 135-5.2.10 and 135-85.2.8.1 to allow a sign to be larger than otherwise allowed. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, and Plans. The applicant requested a continuance to the December 10, 2020 Hearing. 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. The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant a continuance to the December 10, 2020 Hearing with the final action deadline of January 31, 2021 (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). Minutes of the Lexinqton Zoninq Board of Appeals Select Board's Meeting Room October 8, 2020 Board Members: Chair— Ralph D. Clifford, Jeanne K. Krieger, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen and Associate Member Beth Masterman Alternate Member: Hank Manz Administrative Staff: Jennifer Gingras, Zoning Administrator and Sharon Coffey, Administrative Clerk Address: 36 Bedford Street The petitioner is requesting a SPECIAL PERMIT RENWAL in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-5.2.10 to allow more or larger signs than allowed by right in the parking lot of Stop & Shop. 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 Zoning Administrator and the Historic District Commission. Presenter: Christina Moreau, Agnoli Sign Co, Inc on behalf of Stop and Shop The Hearing was opened at: 7:31 PM. Christina Moreau, Agnoli Sign Co, presented the petition. She stated the renewal is for a Special Permit granted last year. There were a few conditions to add trees, clean up an area and renew within a year. The copy on the signs are slightly smaller than what was approved last year. They would like to put the updated version of the signs up and will be using the same poles. Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, stated there was consolation with the Historic District Commission and they approved as a minor matter (Correct). There were no further questions from the Board. There were no further questions from the audience. The Hearing was closed at 7:34 PM (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). A Board Member, Jeanne K. Krieger, asked how long the limitation would be. Mr. Clifford stated they previously put the limitation on this because of some identified problems. He stated his concern for putting time conditions on signs. It should run on open basis. The Board agreed it should not have a limit. An associate member, Hank Manz, stated the signs are there for a specific purpose and would be there for as long as they are needed. He asked what their purpose is. The Hearing was re-opened at 7:36 PM (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). Mrs. Moreau stated they are online pickup signs. As long as they have that feature they will have the signs. The Hearing was closed at 7:37 PM (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). There were no further 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 RENEWAL in accordance he Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-5.2.10 to allow more or larger signs than allowed by right in the parking lot of Stop & Shop (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). Minutes of the Lexinqton Zoninq Board of Appeals Select Board's Meeting Room October 8, 2020 Board Members: Chair— Ralph D. Clifford, Jeanne K. Krieger, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen and Associate Member Beth Masterman Alternate Member: Hank Manz Administrative Staff: Jennifer Gingras, Zoning Administrator and Sharon Coffey, Administrative Clerk Address: 3-5 Utica Street 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 and 135-8.2.1 to allow the reconstruction of a non-conforming two-family dwelling in a RO (One-Family Dwelling) Zoning District and 135-5.1.11 and 135-5.1.14 to allow a driveway to be setback closer than five (5) feet to a lot line. The petitioner submitted the following information with the application: Nature and Justification, Plot Plan and Plans. Also submitted was gross floor area calculations, elevations, drainage plan and storm water site plan. 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, Conservation Administrator, Historical Commission and the Building Commissioner. Presenter: Fredrick Gilgun, attorney, Mike Novak, engineer, and Jim Barr, contractor The Hearing was opened at: 7:38 PM. Fredrick Gilgun, attorney, presented the petition. He stated the property is located in the RO zone which is not permitted as of right a two family dwelling, however, the property has existed as a two family dwelling sense 1885. The property is a preexisting non-conforming two family dwelling in the RO zone. The use will continue as a two family use. To the extent that there is any increase in the use it will not be more detrimental to the neighborhood. The project will be beneficial to the community and the neighborhood. The property exists currently as a three family dwelling and will continue that capacity. One of the benefits of continuing the use is it will provide more affordable housing in Lexington. The new structure will generate increased tax revenues. The structure conforms to the neighborhood as there are other multifamily dwellings. It will be setback from the street and will not impose on the street. It will accommodate parking spaces. The frontage is only 10 feet which is the full width of the driveway. They will be correcting an encroachment that appears further up the driveway. This is not substantially more detrimental and is consistent with the intent of the bylaw. A Board Member, Nyles N. Barnert, questioned how they are fixing the encroachment on the driveway (Mike Novak, engineer, stated the existing driveway does encroach lot 3. The proposed driveway will be brought back by removing the illegal asphalt). A Board Member, Jeanne K. Krieger, asked if the trees in front of the house will need to be removed (Jim Barr, contractor, stated they are not removing those trees and they are adding trees to the whole perimeter). A Boar Member, Norman P. Cohen, asked if it is currently a two family (Mr. Gilgun stated two family and continue as a two family. He miss spoke earlier, it is not three family). Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, stated the original plan did not focus on water on the driveway and the amended plans does and they appreciate that. An audience member, Xunzhong Liu of 17 Utica Street, asked about the construction plan timeline and impact on the neighborhood (Mr. Barr stated it would take 6 to 8 months and he is accommodating to all neighbors. They only work form 7 am to 4:30 pm). Mr. Gilgun stated they got positive feedback from neighbors on this project. There were no further questions from the Board. There were no further questions or comments from the audience. The Hearing was closed at 7:49 PM (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). 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 TWO (2) SPECIAL PERMITS in accordance with the Zoning By-Law (Chapter 135 of the Code of Lexington) section(s) 135-9.4 and 135-8.2.1 to allow the reconstruction of a non-conforming two-family dwelling in a RO (One-Family Dwelling) Zoning District and 135-5.1.11 and 135-5.1.14 to allow a driveway to be setback closer than five (5) feet to a lot line (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). Minutes of the Lexinqton Zoninq Board of Appeals Selectmen's Meeting Room October 8, 2020 Board Members: Chair— Ralph D. Clifford, Jeanne K. Krieger, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen and Associate Member Beth Masterman Alternate Member: Hank Manz Administrative Staff: Jennifer Gingras, Zoning Administrator and Sharon Coffey, Administrative Clerk Address: 400 Shire Way The petitioner is requesting a MODIFICATION 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 Peter Corbett, Goulston and Storrs, presented the petition. He stated the expansion at building 400 is being designed so that there will be no increase in sound levels at the property line. This no increase standard is a stricter standard than is required by the Town bylaw. They have engaged Acentech as the acoustical consultant and they have created an acoustical model to evaluate the sound impacts of the proposed addition of the equipment. The data that was used in that model included actual sound measurements of all of the equipment on the existing building 400 and added to that the acoustical specifications of the new equipment from the manufacturers. That was put through the model to project sound impacts at the property line in three locations. In all cases the model shows no sound impacts from the new expansion. The design process is ongoing and at each step of the process there will be acoustical evaluation to maintain the no increase standard. Compliance will be demonstrated before and after measurements. There will be actual measurements and repeat measurements when equipment is turned on. There will be no increase at the property line. Michael Gray, Takeda, stated Takeda is committed to transparent open communication with its neighbors. A protocol to receive neighborhood concerns is being established. To ensure all neighbors are informed of this protocol a letter will be sent to all neighbors. They are setting up a virtual meeting with neighbors. Takeda is proactive in maintaining mechanical equipment. Takeda utilizes a computerized maintenance management system that actively tracks and deploys preventive maintenance program. As a normal procedure on equipment replacement projects Takeda retains Acentech to provide consulting expertise on the selection of equipment and prepares studies to demonstrate compliance. The studies are submitted to the Town. Sense receiving neighborhood feedback regarding the shades Takeda has taken immediate action to execute shade requirements. Mr. Corbett stated the construction manager for the proposed project has prepared a construction traffic plan which will be shared with contractors. This prohibits construction traffic on residential streets in the area including Shade Street. Takeda is aware of traffic restrictions on Spring Street and will reiterate to vendors to comply with those restrictions. Takeda conducted a survey for bicycle parking and discovered they are two few bicycle spaces short and are moving to add two additional covered spaces and 36 uncovered spaces, which will bring the campus up to compliance. A Board Member, Nyles N. Barnert, stated he thought the July 2012 measurements were the standard and asked if they are going to compare that to what they have now (Mr. Corbett stated the 2012 measurements showed that the campus complied with the requirements that were applicable to it. Any change that has a sound impact has been evaluated by Acentech in accordance with protocol that the Town approved in 2015. Each change was held to a no increase standard. They are applying that same standard to the equipment that would be installed). Chair, Ralph D. Clifford, asked if the model that they are using to predict sound changes work backwards to figure out what the ambient noise level would have been had the entire facility never been constructed (Mr. Corbett stated it is difficult to do exactly that. There was an effort make in 2012 to approximate that. The kinds of things they would have to take into consideration would be to assume there were no buildings at the property and factor out all other sound sources. What was done in 2012 was to get as close to that as possible. There has been no demonstrated change sense then). Mr. Clifford stated it is possible to conclude they do not have a good baseline to measure from. Which can be difficult to know what no additional noise means. Mr. Corbett asked Mr. Clifford to explain his statement that they have no reliable baseline. Mr. Clifford stated the reliability of the baseline has been challenged. They need to decide if the 2012 evaluation was effectively done. If it is possible to model back and figure out the accuracy of the 2012 model it could go a long way to resolving this. (Mr. Corbett stated the assessment done in 2012 was reviewed by the Towns consultant and accepted. It was found by the Building Commissioner well enough to issue a Certificate of Occupancy. Nothing has been shown to bring any of those results into question. The neighbors have been unhappy with the operation of the facility but that is not any evidence that anything was incorrect at that time). Mr. Clifford stated it was not reviewed by Zoning Board. If this is a modeling that could be done then it might prove to be a value in the Board making a decision (Mr. Corbett stated the Board did approve the protocol in 2012. The Board did have a say). Mr. Clifford stated this could show there is not a problem and it could be resolved. Michael Bahtiarian, from Acentech, stated it is not an easy process. The study takes two things into account, what the current building is producing for sound and what is the new building producing for sound. They would have to add a tremendous amount of information, like highway counts, the time of day and time of year, traffic for both highways and traffic for local roads. It's more complicated. Mr. Clifford asked if it is possible to model what would be produced without the current building (Mr. Bahtiarian stated it's not. If they were to take the software and shut the building off, the software doesn't know what else is producing sound). Mr. Barnert stated in order to have a certificate of occupancy they have to run this test. He asked if the actual manufacturing affects noise (Mr. Corbett responded the process of manufacturing itself is cells growing inside containers. The noise being generated is the HVAC systems and fans which can be turned on before operation). A Board Member, Norman P. Cohen, stated the Chair mentioned highway noise. He asked if the addition will block some of the highway noise (Mr. Bahtiarian responded no. The addition sits behind the current building. Any sound from that part of building is blocked form current part of the building. The nature of protocol is to have no increase in sound, they are not masking highway sound). Mr. Cohen asked if some of the equipment could be put at ground level (Mr. Bahtiarian stated the design of the building conceals a tremendous amount of equipment in a pent house. Only one piece of equipment has to be outside and that is the cooling tower which is being blocked by building 400). Mr. Cohen asked if some of the existing equipment could be looked at (Mr. Gray stated the design is similar to building 400, where all of the equipment is within a pent house with the exception of the cooling tower. It is standard to have them on the rooftop. It is in the back of the building. The layout is no added noise. Relocating them to ground level would cause longer distances for pipe work and that has the potential for making more noise). There were no further questions from the Board in regards to other issues not addressed. There were no questions from the audience in regard to other issues not addressed. Mr. Clifford stated they are now at the part of the agenda where the application will be evaluated and members of the public may make statements in favor or against the proposal. An Audience member, Richard Canale of 29 Shade Street, stated the neighbors have raised issues with what was measured and not measured in terms of noise. The town needs professional advice form a nonaffiliated expert. The town has a consultant on call. When this was approved it was approved with a zero DB increase. They ended up with 10 DB increase when all others have a 5 DB difference. The Lexington noise bylaw has three test for noise, one is 10 DB and that is objective. The other part is the excessive noise. The Board needs to listen to the owner of the property who said they agree they are making too much noise. The question is what is a reasonable persons standard for the noise that is being generated. The public has reached out to Takeda to discuss concerns and they were not responsive. He urged the Board not to close the hearing until they get the opportunity to hear about abutter concerns. Without the dialog it makes it difficult to suggest what kind of conditions should be put on this application. An audience member, Jeanne Canale of 29 Shade Street, stated her concern for the landscape plan. The honey locust trees will not protect them from noise, they are too small. There were no further comments from the audience. Mr. Clifford stated the Board cannot keep a meeting open artificially as a form of getting commitment to do anything. They are bound by law to make a decision in a prompt way and the amount of time they are given to make a decision is limited. It would be highly inappropriate to keep it open. The Board is not responsible for directly enforcing zoning. There are procedures for seeking enforcement of zoning. The Administrative officers can handle that. Mr. Corbett stated they have taken seriously the comments from neighbors. The problem with light spill is the kind of problem where if it's brought to their attention it will be corrected immediately, mistakes get made. There was communication between neighbors and then Shire produced a result that went above and beyond. In the past there was communication between neighbors and Shire about noise on a Sunday afternoon. There was testing of emergency generators. That testing was in compliance with the Town bylaws but Shire committed to testing only during business hours. They hope to do that going forward. There were no further questions from the Board. The Hearing was closed at 8:39 PM (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). Mr. Clifford stated he would like to open it up to the Board to discuss possible conditions. Mrs. Krieger stated she would have the condition that the Town have access to Takeda's consultant in order to review the sound measurements when they are actually made and to be available to the neighbors to help them understand the limitations of the model. Mr. Cohen stated he agrees with Mrs. Krieger's statement. Mr. Barnert suggested the conditions that the bike parking be brought up to code and the construction vehicles stay off Shade Street. He stated they are proposing more employees and removing parking spaces which means it is more likely that reserve parking area will be needed. He suggested the condition that Takeda come before the Board for a Special Permit to use that reserve parking area because it has an impact on sound. Associate member, Hank Manz, stated the big issue here is noise. They have to realize noise is increasing overall. A re-inventory of what is on the roof would be helpful to see what could be done to help with noise. Mr. Clifford suggested the conditions that the bike storage be brought up to compliance with the current Zoning Bylaw, the total caliper inches of the replacement trees will be greater than or equal to the trees that are removed, the construction equipment will not be allowed on Shade Street or other residential Streets and a traffic plan will be submitted. There are some things the Board should not get involved with even though they are important they are not Zoning issues. For example, light spill and the meeting system with abutters. They do need to discuss how they are going to reach the noise issue. The Board and the Town have the authority to bring in a consultant. He stated his concern for just going with the model, at some point the model needs to be confirmed. They should have the experts do the actual measurements to make sure the zero DB commitment from those 2012 numbers are actually being met. The approval should be based on actual measurements. Mr. Barnert stated he thought the applicant said they would do measurements before everything is turned on and after. Mr. Clifford responded that was right, he just wants to indicate that's by measurement and not by model. This should be of reasonable satisfaction of the Building Department. The Zoning Administrator stated the Zoning Board can authorize the building department to hire someone if it is under a Special Permit. The Board can make a condition under the Special Permit that the Town can hire a consultant prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Clifford stated he agrees with the condition that the reserve parking lot would need to come back to the Board as it would affect noise. Mrs. Krieger stated she supports that condition. The Zoning Administrator clarified if the Board does make a condition to hire a consultant under 53G and have that report done prior to Certificate of Occupancy that would be at that applicants cost. Mr. Cohen stated the applicant stated when the building opens there would be more employees so he could agree to the condition of the reserve parking lot. Mr. Clifford stated the parking inventory the applicant did indicates a surplus that is far larger than that lot so it is not an immediate problem. Mr. Clifford stated the noise requirements imposed by superseded DSDUP would be rescinded and replaced by the conditions the Board is establishing. The Board does not want to end up with Takeda or the Town having two different standards to look at. This is the latest statement and anything that came before that is contradictory is by implication repealed. Mr. Clifford then stated he will read out the list of conditions. The conditions are as follows. The building permit will not be issued without demonstrating compliance with the noise standard and the certificate of occupancy will not be issued without compliance with the zero DB commitment that there will be no increase in sound because of the new building which is to be done by measurement and not by model. So all the equipment will have to be operating and the zero DB will have to be measured at the appropriate places. Any prior noise requirements that have been imposed by the Board will be modified to be consistent with the ones that are established here. The Board of Appeals authorizes the Town under section 53G to hire an appropriate consultant to review the sound measurements and the sound models both at the time of application of building permit and at the application for the certificate of occupancy. Takeda will bring the bike storage of the complex up to date with the current zoning requirements. The plan will be modified so the total caliper inches of the replacement trees will be greater than or equal to the caliper inches of the trees being removed. Takeda will put together a construction plan that prohibits construction equipment on Shade Street or on any other residential Street. Takeda will commit to a traffic plan for construction that is subject to reasonable satisfaction of the building department. If Takeda desires to construct he reserve parking lot they will need to apply for a Special Permit to do so and the Special Permit will be specifically interested in any noise increase that it might cause. The Zoning Administrator requested clarification on the reserve parking area. That would be a revision, a special permit modification (Mr. Clifford stated that would be correct). The Board of appeals voted five (5) in favor, zero (0) opposed, and zero (0) in abstention to grant a MOFIFICATION TO A SPECIAL PERMIT with Site Plan Review, dated January 24, 2008 section(s) 135-42F(4) and 135-12 subject to all conditions discussed (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). Minutes of the Lexinqton Zoninq Board of Appeals Selectmen's Meeting Room October 8, 2020 Board Members: Chair— Ralph D. Clifford, Jeanne K. Krieger, Nyles N. Barnert, Norman P. Cohen and Associate Member Beth Masterman Alternate Member: Hank Manz Administrative Staff: Jennifer Gingras, Zoning Administrator and Sharon Coffey, Administrative Clerk Other Business: Mr. Clifford stated the November 12, 2020 Hearing overlaps Town Meeting so that hearing has been cancelled. Mr. Clifford announced the Select Board has announced Martha Wood as a full Board member for the Zoning Board of Appeals and will be joining us on the October 22, 20220 Hearing. 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).