Board of Appeals Minutes 6-17-14

By The Clerk's Office at 8:07 am, Jul 24, 2014
Approved
To Town Clerk:
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS
BURLINGTON, MA
June 17, 2014
Chairman John Alberghini called the regular meeting of the Burlington Board of Appeals to order at 7:30
p.m. The meeting was held in the Main Town Hall Meeting Room, 2nd Floor, 29 Center Street,
Burlington, MA.
Present: Chairman: John Alberghini, Vice-Chairman: William Gaffney, Clerk: Joseph Morandi, James
Halloran and Charles Viveiros
Not present: Claudia Augustin
Mr. Alberghini opened the meeting by announcing Bill Gaffney will be transferring to the
Planning Board. He thanked Bill for his tremendous contributions to the Board of Appeals.
Continued Hearing from March 18th, April 1st, and April 15th, May 6th, May 20th, and
June 3, 2014
(2014-34)
4 Shady Lane
Eligible to vote: Mr. Alberghini, Mr. Gaffney, Mr. Morandi, Mr. Viveiros and Mr. Halloran
The public hearing notice was posted as required and all abutters, depts., and surrounding
towns notified of the hearing. Mr. Gaffney re- read the legal notice into record.
The petition of Ismael Valentin for property located at 4 Shady Lane Drive as shown on Map 35,
Parcel 76 on the Burlington Assessor’s Map with applicant seeking to construct an addition.
There are 3 required variances: 1) the existing dwelling is 22.6’ off the front property line.
B.Z.L. requires 25’. 2) The proposed addition will be 22.3’ off the front property line. B.Z.L.
requires a minimum of 25 feet. 3) The proposed addition will be 7.5’ off the right side property
line, B.Z.L. requires minimum of 15 feet. Burlington Zoning Law permits maximum dimensions
of 65 square feet.
As shown on plans filed on 2/18/2014 with this Board and a copy of which is on file with the
Town Clerk’s office.
Reason for Hearing: Violation of Article 5, Section 5.2.0.
Mr. Gaffney stated the first required variance was previously granted.
Mr. Valentin reintroduced himself and explained at the last meeting the Board had asked him to
come up with a different plan. He explained he sat down with his architect to come up with a
plan and presented the Board with the new plans. He explained he was now requesting a 20 foot
front property line variance.
Mr. Valentin asked if the Board could give him an allowable footage, that way, he and his
engineer could work with that figure, verses coming back and forth.
Board of Appeal Members: , Chairman w John Alberghini, Vice Chairman w William Gaffney, Clerk w Joseph Morandi, Claudia Augustin,
Alternate Charles Viveiros and James Halloran
Mr. Alberghini stated he appreciates the position he is in, but he doesn’t believe it is the Board’s
role to give him a number. After reviewing the new plan, he asked if Mr. Valentin was ok with
the jog shown on the new plan.
Mr. Valentin stated he took that part off of the garage and moved it forward, hoping it would get
approved tonight.
Mr. Halloran stated he prefers to grant the side variance rather than the front. Adding he likes the
old drawing, with the house being square and without the jog.
Mr. Gaffney informed Mr. Valentin it is the applicant’s responsibility to come in with the plan
and not to negotiate a number with the Board. He also reminded the applicant the Board has
asked numerous times for a plan showing a one car garage and has never received it.
Mr. Viveiros asked for clarification of the corner, if he really likes the way it looks.
Mr. Valentin stated he has no other choice, because he wants the two car garage. He thinks these
days, most people don’t build 1 car garage and he truly believes it is necessity. He reminded the
Board of what Ms. Augustin had stated about the hardship and would like any help the Board can
give him.
Mr. Morandi clarified that when Mr. Valentin originally came in he was looking for a 7.5 feet
from the side property line, then came in looking for 9.1, and now is are here with a plan that
meets the 15 feet side by-law, but is now asking for a 20 foot variance in the front line.
Mr. Alberghini acknowledged that Mr. Valentin has worked very hard and he is ok with the 20
foot front property line. He explained because he needed to come in for the 22.6’ for the existing
house, and that was a hardship because of how the house is situated, therefore extending it a little
bit is fine with him. However, he stated he does not see a hardship for the side line. He
explained the options to Mr. Valentin if he wanted something approved tonight.
Mr. Gaffney questioned if because of the way the variance was advertised, was it a legal
technicality to make that change. He notified the Board, that you can go higher but not lower.
Mr. Alberghini explained to the applicant that they could approve only the originally advertised
22.6 feet and he can go back to his architect and if the 22.6 doesn’t work for him, he can reapply
for a 20 foot front variance.
Mr. Morandi pointed out that although he wants a two car garage, the Board is not going to
approve it, so if he is ok with the new plan and the jog he should accept this.
The Public Hearing was still opened. Mr. Alberghini asked if there was anyone present to speak
for or against. No one was present.
Mr. Morandi made a motion to close the Public Hearing, Mr. Viveiros seconded the motion. All
members voted in favor.
Mr. Morandi made the motion to approve a 22.6ft front property line variance at 4 Shady Lane
Drive per plot plans dated 5/30/2014.
Board of Appeal Minutes
6/17/2014
Motion was seconded by Mr. Halloran. All members voted in favor.
Continued Hearing from April 1st and April 15th, May 6th, May 20th and June 3, 2014
(2014-37)
52 Second Avenue
Eligible to vote: Mr. Alberghini, Mr. Gaffney, Mr. Morandi, Mr. Viveiros and Mr. Halloran.
The public hearing notice was posted as required and all abutters, depts., and surrounding towns
notified of the hearing. Mr. Viveiros re- read the legal notice into record.
The petition of Kings Bowl of Burlington, LLC for property located at 52 Second Ave. as shown
on Map 45, Parcel 22 on the Burlington Assessor’s Map. The applicant is seeking to install two
signs to read “Kings Bowl” including their logo. The first sign on the East side elevation sign
proposed is 2’-0” in height x 19’-8” in length. The sign exceed the maximum dimension of 6’ in
length in a PD.D. zone. The second Marquee sign to be located over the outside patio, is
proposed to be 1’-4” in height x 13’-1” in length. The sign exceeds the maximum of 10’ off the
face of the building in a PDD Zone. As shown on plans filed on March 7, 2014 with this Board
and a copy of which is on file with the Town Clerk’s office.
Reason for Hearing: Violation of Article 7 section 3.5.i and 5.vi.
Mr. Alberghini stated the applicant had previously been in front of the Board and received an
approval for Sign A and was schedule to come back in front of the Board for Sign B (East Side).
Unfortunately, Kings Bowl had a fire, destroying the building. The applicant submitted a letter
asking to withdraw the application without prejudice.
Atty. Robert Buckley reintroduced himself and explained they were asking to withdraw the
application without prejudice. He informed the Board the building would be demolished and
rebuilt at the present site and instead of speaking hypothetical they would wait until they have a
definitive plans. He reported Kings was committed to Burlington and when construction begins,
they will be back in front of the Board.
Mr. Alberghini opened the hearing to the Public, no one present to speak for or against.
Motion to close the public hearing was made by Mr. Morandi and seconded by Mr. Viveiros, all
members voted in favor.
Mr. Morandi made the motion to withdraw the pending application for Kings Bowl at 52 Second
Avenue, Seconded by Mr. Viveiros. All members voted in favor of the withdrawal.
Continued from May 20, and June 3, 2014
(2014-41)
64 Cambridge St
Eligible to vote: Mr. Alberghini, Mr. Gaffney, Mr. Morandi, Mr. Viveiros and Mr. Halloran.
Board of Appeal Minutes
6/17/2014
The public hearing notice was posted as required and all abutters, depts., and surrounding towns
notified of the hearing. Mr. Halloran re- read the legal notice into record
The petition of Herb Chambers Cambridge Street, LLC for property located at 64 Cambridge St.,
as shown on Map # 42, Parcel # 98 on the Burlington Assessor’s Map. The applicant is seeking a
variance to allow parking on the adjacent lot which abuts the existing Porsche/Audi dealership.
Storage of vehicles must be located at least 1,100’ from the nearest residential zoned district.
The boundary to the north is 562’ from the property and to the west 636’ from the subject
property.
Reason for Hearing: Article 9, Section 9.5.0
Mr. Alberghini stated that at the previous hearing the Board wanted to have input from the
Planning Board prior to making a decision. He read the bullets from a letter from Kristen
Kassner, the Planning Director into record.
He highlighted points of the letter.
1) Vehicles would not be stored in front or beside dealership
2) Dense vegetation to block headlights and parked vehicles and only 2 pads for display.
3) The trees cut along the highway ramp were in the wetland buffer area and branches
overhanging this property were pruned significantly reducing the visual natural buffer
from residence sight lines.
4) Only 3 car carriers a month were allowed and the dealership lot was designed to allow the
cars to be unloaded on the site, however carriers are being unloaded on Cambridge St.
5) Temporary flags were placed on the site despite assurances the applicant would not need
them.
6) An application in Woburn prohibits car carriers, therefore there are concerns that the
Burlington site will be used as an off loading point.
Atty. Buckley re-introduced himself and re-stated the Board was to either approve or not approve
only to allow them to move forward with the Planning Board. He commented that some of the
concerns from the Planning Board are from 8 or 9 years ago. He stated some of the issues he
agrees with, however they will be addressed when they meet with the Planning Board.
Mr. Morandi stated he was frustrated over the tree issue. Atty. Buckley informed the Board that
the applicant did not cut trees in the wetlands. Mr. Morandi repeated that the Planning Board is
saying there were trees cut in the wetland zone. He asked if in the wetlands you could cut a tree
down but you not take the stumps out.
Atty. Buckley responded there may have been 2 stumps on the wetland lines and they will need
to verify the line. He informed the Board that 80% of the buffer is on the Rt. 128 ramp. He
explained all the alterations have to be conditioned by the Conservation Commission and he
explained they look at the impact of the alterations.
Mr. Alberghini clarified it is the buffer line not the wetland line.
Mr. Morandi asked if they could touch the vegetation on the ramp or build a wall.
Board of Appeal Minutes
6/17/2014
Atty. Buckley stated they could not because it is DOT jurisdiction and it is a difficult procedure
to obtain permits to make alterations.
Mr. Alberghini followed up on Mr. Morandi’s point and asked if the trimming that was done
required the Conservation Commission for approval.
Atty. Buckley responded it was not, because they used information off an old survey and they
believed they were within the line, therefore they didn’t require it.
Mr. Halloran asked if this application was not approved, what other options they have for the use
of the property.
Atty. Buckley informed the Board that this piece of land has limited use because of the highways
and he stated he thinks this is the hardship. He explained that it is a limited access property
because it is surrounded by the highway ramps and a divided highway. It is zoned commercial
and can be used as industrial or offices, but alternative uses would impact the traffic. People
would have to take a sharp turn onto the busy Cambridge St. creating a safety issue. Plus because
of the elevation, any building on this site would need to be two stories high.
Mr. Gaffney asked if the hardship is the variation of elevation and the drop. He questioned what
the hardship for the 1100 feet away from the residents is.
Atty. Buckley stated the hardship is the existing buildings, such as Corporate Dr. and Sunset Dr.
He stated the hardship is he can’t adjust the existing buildings.
Mr. Alberghini stated generally a hardship would be due to the topography such as ledge,
limiting how they can park the cars and that is why they cannot meet the 1100 feet. He also
stated that looking at the site plan, the buffer zone comes up to the green space.
Atty. Buckley’s engineer showed where the property lines were and pointed out the proposed
retaining wall.
Mr. Alberghini stated he was not sure you can use the land’s elevation as a hardship for the 1100
foot buffer requirement.
Mr. Gaffney wanted to know about the impact to the neighbors.
Mr. Gaffney stated he believed the intent of the by-law was to benefit the town. He added the
intent was for the site to be a gateway and he thought it was going to be high end dealership with
cars parked on the side and not a vast parking lot.
Mr. Alberghini asked about the intent of the by-law. The fact the planning board made a point
that they would like to see all the cars are in the back of the original dealership the intent of bylaw is to keep the cars from the sight line from the general public.
Atty. Buckley disagreed with Mr. Alberghini’s interpretation, stating the by law does not address
esthetics, stating that it was to provide protection from resident property. In this case it is all just
commercial property around it.
Board of Appeal Minutes
6/17/2014
Mr. Alberghini asked about the requirement that granting a variance would not be a detriment to
the public good. With cars visible to everyone in town as they drove by that would not meet this
requirement.
Atty. Buckley responded the alternative would be that there would be an office building with the
parking in the front of the building in back which would be worse than the proposed application.
And they would not need to go in front of the Planning for that because it would not require a
special permit.
There was a discussion about the access to the road way and possible ways to block off the
existing entrances. Some points made were to use decorative fronts, such as planters.
Mr. Morandi summarized the applicant’s request, basically they are asking for a variance not to
meet 1100 foot requirement so they could go to planning board and the Planning Board could
add any conditions. He stated he does not have a problem with that.
Mr. Halloran asked if the Board approved the application would the owner have the potential to
park other vehicles at that site.
Atty. Buckley responded that any cars parked in the adjacent lot need to be in connection with
the dealership.
Mr. Alberghini asked for clarification about the map submitted, is there any portion of the site
not within the 1100 buffer.
Atty. Buckley stated there is a small portion outside of the buffer zone.
Mr. Gaffney pointed out the site was not part of the dealership, therefore the applicant bought it
with knowledge of the by-law, therefore he feels they created their own hardship
Mr. Alberghini commented the intent was to hide the cars from the road, is there a possibility we
can place a condition so cars would be parked in the back.
Mr. Halloran agrees knowing that the planning board needs to approve the special use permit
gives him a better feeling about the application. However he is not sure it is best use, and is not
positive there is a hardship. He stated he believes the intent of by law was to protect the
resident’s view of the cars. He stated he was afraid if we approve something, three years later it
is may be used for something else.
Mr. Gaffney agrees about the lack of a hardship.
Mr. Viveiros stated he was struggling with the hardship, he hadn’t heard a good argument.
Mr. Alberghini said he also is having a hard time finding a hardship and if it is for the public
good, the lot was not meant to have cars parked in the front of it. He wonders about a condition
and pointed out he had no problem with the parking if we can have the same approach as the
Board of Appeal Minutes
6/17/2014
dealership, if architecturally you could have the same design with a building in front and cars in
the back.
Mr. Alberghini opened the hearing to the public, no one present to speak for or against. Mr.
Morandi made the motion to close the hearing and Mr. Halloran seconded. All members voted
in favor.
There was a discussion about possible wording for a condition.
Mr. Morandi made the motion to approve the application for property located at 64 Cambridge
St. as shown on Map 42, Parcel 98 on the Burlington Assessor’s Map for a variance to allow
parking on the adjacent lot which abuts the existing Porsche/Audi dealership with the condition
that appropriate screening be implemented to mitigate the visual impact of the parking lot where
cars are to be stored for sale from Rt. 3A/ Cambridge St. The motion was seconded and
approved 4-1.
Mr. Alberghini discussed the Planning Boards’ request to have a member of the zoning Board on the
Burlington Master Plan Steering Committee. Motion was made to accept James Halloran as the Boards’
representative, all members voted in favor.
Minutes: A motion to accept the minutes from June 3, 2014 was made by Mr. Morandi. Motion was
seconded by Mr. Gaffney. All members voted in favor.
Adjourn: Mr. Morandi made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Viveiros. All members voted in favor
of motion.
Submitted by
Jo-Ellen Carkin
Jo-Ellen Carkin
Recording Clerk
Board of Appeal Minutes
6/17/2014

Download Report