By The Clerk's Office at 2:48 pm, Oct 27, 2014
Approved
To Town Clerk
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS
BURLINGTON, MA
October 7, 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-Chairperson: Claudia Augustin, James Halloran, Charles
Viveiros, Jim Tigges.
Absent: Clerk: Joseph Morandi and Ed Mikolinski
New Hearing:
(2014-55)
39 Winn St.
Eligible to vote: Mr. Alberghini, Ms. Augustin, James Halloran, Mr. Tigges, and Mr.
Viveiros.
The public hearing notice was posted as required and all abutters, depts., and surrounding
towns notified of the hearing. Mr. Viveiros read the legal notice into record.
Notice is hereby given that the Burlington Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing on
Tuesday, October 7, 2014 at or after 7:30 PM at the Town Hall Main Mtng Rm, 2nd Floor, 29
Center St for petition of Robert Mallard for property located at 39 Winn St. as shown on Map 43,
Parcel 3 on the Burlington Assessor’s Map with applicant seeking to have a rear yard reduction
in the required buffer area to construct a small, wooden office building. The By-law requires a
minimum 20% depth of lot or 20’-6” when a commercial building borders a residential building.
Reason for Hearing: Violation of Article 5 section 5.2.0.
Atty. Murphy introduced himself and Mr. Mallard, and stated Mrs. Mallard would be joining
them shortly. He explained Mr. Mallard was trying to relocated his business, a small
engineering firm, into the location on Winn St., however because it is zoned general business
and abuts a residential home, it requires a 20% buffer or 20 feet set back verses the 15 ft.
setback. He stated he believed they have met the requirements for hardship because of the
following reasons:
1) The topography of the land slopes up in the back property and limits the position of the
business along with the lot is small and was grandfathered in.
2) The desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, they
argue it would be a beneficial because the present site is an eye sore.
3) That desirable relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from
the intent or purpose of such ordinance or bylaw, explaining the house in the back is at a
Board of Appeal Members: Chairman w John Alberghini, Vice Chairman w Claudia Augustin, Clerk w Joseph Morandi, Charles Viveiros, James
Halloran, Jim Tigges and Ed Mikolinski
higher elevation and the extra five feet would not make a different because the slope
gives significant space between the building and resident.
.
Mr. Tigges asked how many people would be employed and the proposed snow removal plan.
He was informed there would be about 10 employees and there is about 10 feet of green space
that can be used for snow.
Mr. Halloran asked if there were a possibility that the parking could be moved to the back.
Atty. Murphy presented the board with some pictures to assist in showing how it minimizes
functionality if the driveway was at the back of the building.
Mr. Halloran followed up with if the back would be landscaped.
Atty. Murphy stated the back would be landscaped. Mr. Mallard added there would be a
dumpster on the side with a small driveway to get to it.
Mr. Alberghini clarifies there would be a service driveway to the dumpster and asked if they
needed to go in front of the Planning Board.
Atty. Murphy stated they still needed a Site Plan approval, and at that time there may be some
additional adjustments.
Mr. Mallard explained the road had recently been repaved and the curb cuts have already been
made. Atty. Murphy added if there would be any other adjustments made on the curb cuts; it
would need to go in front of the Selectman.
Mr. Halloran asked if there would be any other tenants in the building and was informed no.
Mr. Alberghini reviewed the hardship criteria and stated he agreed with the intent of the bylaw
and the detriment to the neighborhood because he agreed the building is an eyesore; however he
questioned the topography of the land because the slope was actually on the neighbor’s property.
Atty. Murphy responded by stating A the lot is small under current bylaws and was built in 1920
and because the lot is zoned for business, the shape of the lot limits what can be there and that
creates a hardship.
Mr. Alberghini continued to discuss hardship and Atty. Murphy added because the existing
structure cannot be used and needs to be replaced that would be considered a hardship.
Mr. Tigges added he has concerns with the line of sight if delivery trucks were parked along the
sidewalk and asked if they could come up with some accommodations.
Mr. Mallard stated deliveries would be limited.
Mr. Alberghini read two letters of support into record. 1) Kevin Sullivan from Sullivan Funeral
Home and 2)Angelo Morandi from the Morandi Realty Trust.
Public hearing opened to public,
Mr. Yohannan and Manemel Chacko introduced himself and his wife stating they are the back
abutters on Ardomore Ave. He stated he had a few comments, starting with clarification of the
lot in the back. He pointed out his house is elevated and the proposed building will be two
stories and he is concerned about the windows overlooking his house. And if there would be a
fence around the dumpster and lightening.
2
Ms. Mallard stated the existing house is 2 stories, but the way the foundation is it looks like it is
higher but it is actually the same size and the room was a conference room and would not be
used at night.
Mr. Alberghini added there are height limits but the Board can add a condition no lights and no
parking in the back.
Mr. Mallard stated the dumpster would be fenced and they would be removing the shed and
placing it in that space.
Motion to close Public Hearing. All in favor.
Mr. Alberghini asked about a light on the dumpster and was informed there would not be a spot
light however they would need to have emergency lighting.
Mr. Vivieros made a motion to approve the variance to reduce the required rear yard buffer area
to 15 feet in order to construct an office building as shown on plans dated 9-12-2014, submitted
on September 17, 2014 with the time stamp of 9:02 A.M. With the conditions no parking or
lights in the rear of the building unless otherwise required by code.
Seconded by Ms. Augustin, All members voted in favor of the variance.
Added note was a discussion on signage and the applicant is only going to use a sign that would
be allowed by the by-law.
New Hearing
(2014-56)
24 Crystal Circle
Eligible to vote: Mr. Alberghini, Ms. Augustin, James Halloran, Mr. Tigges, and Mr.
Viveiros.
The public hearing notice was posted as required and all abutters, depts., and surrounding
towns notified of the hearing. Ms. Augustin read the legal notice into record.
Notice is hereby given that the Burlington Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing on
Tuesday, October 7, 2014 at or after 7:30 PM at the Town Hall Main Mtng Rm, 2nd Floor, 29
Center St for the petition of Brian and Bonnie LeRoux for property located at 24 Crystal Circle,
as shown on Map 22, Parcel 55 on the Burlington Assessor’s Map with applicant seeking two
variances. The first variance is to construct a 24’ by 24’ garage with a master bedroom above it,
requiring a variance of 5.6 feet on the South West corner of the proposed garage addition,
exceeding the minimum 15 feet side setback requirements. The second variance is for a bump
out to expand the Livingroom /Foyer area of the house. This requires a 1.3 foot variance,
exceeding the minimum 25 feet front property setback requirements.
Reason for Hearing: Violation of Article 5, Section 5.2.0
3
Attorney Thomas Murphy, introduced his clients, Brian and Bonnie LeRoux, and stated they
have been living at 24 Crystal Circle since 1993, and they were seeking to get two variance to
construct an addition with an in -law apartment for Mr. LeRoux’s parents. He explained the first
variance is to construct a 24’ by 24’ garage with a master bedroom above it. The addition
exceeds the minimum 15 feet side setback by 5.6 feet on the South West Corner. The second
variance is for a 1.3 feet on the front property line to allow them to expand the foyer/livingroom
area of the house.
Atty. Murphy explained the reasons why he believes the property meets the criteria for hardship:
1) Topography: includes the slope of the land, the ledge behind the house and a drainage
easement on the property.
2) The variance will not be a substantial detriment to the public good.
3) The variances will not nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of
such ordinance or bylaw. The house next door is around the corner, along with a natural
buffer between the houses provides the side yard with plenty of footage for privacy. The
front only needs less than 2 feet which visually they have because the town allowed for
sidewalks, so it appears to be about 35 feet.
Mr. Viveiros asked if they had looked into other options and questioned if the woods between
the houses, belonged to them or 26 Crystal Circle.
Mr. LeRoux stated they had looked at building up, however they wanted to stay away from stairs
due to his aging parents and informed the Board the woods belong to 26 Crystal except for about
5 feet.
Mr. Tigges discussed the peaks of the house and expressed concerns about rain and snow run off
going on to the neighbor’s properties.
Mr. LeRoux explained there was a drain easement which goes along Crystal Circle, and Atty.
Murphy added if necessary they would agree to gutters.
Mr. Halloran wanted to know about the bump out if they would be changing the roof line.
He was informed the roof line would remain the same, but they would be adding a foyer and
some peaks for the ecstatic reasons.
Ms. Augustin stated she didn’t have any concerns; however she would like to hear from the
neighbors.
Mr. Alberghini requested a structural drawing and wondered why the plot plan didn’t show the
drain easement on it.
Mr. LeRoux stated he didn’t have a drawing; however he provided the members with a floor plan
explaining the new in-law would be in the existing basement. He also acknowledged, he didn’t
know why the easement was not showing on the plot plan and stated he previously tried to add
fill but the Conservation Commission and informed him it was a drainage easement and could
not be filled.
Mr. Alberghini asked about the lot next door (26), stating it was a sizable piece of property and
wondered if it could be separated into two lots.
Atty. Murphy showed the assessors map and stated it could never be split or developed without
coming in front of the Board..
4
Mr. Alberghini stated he agreed with the reasoning behind the hardships. The ledge and
drainage for the topography, the large wooded area provides privacy for the intent of the by-law
and doesn’t see it to be a detriment to the public good because it wouldn’t be adding traffic and
it fits into the neighborhood.
Hearing was open to the public.
1) Khalifa Bhikhubhai from 26 Crystal Circle stated he lived next door and confirmed there
was a drainage easement and doesn’t feel drainage would be an issue. He also stated he
was in favor of the addition and didn’t feel it would impact him.
2) Rajaratnam Priuadharshini from 23 Crystal Circle stated he has no opposition to the
addition.
3) Dawn Ciulla from 20 Crystal Circle stated she supports the project
4) Paul Girouard from 33 Crystal Circle supports the project because it doesn’t affect him.
Mr. Halloran made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Ms. Augustin. All
members voted in favor to close.
Mr. Tigges stated he still had concerns about the drainage and would like a condition requiring
the applicant to place gutters on the side of the house
Mr. Halloran made the motion to approve the application for 24 Crystal Circle to grant 2
variances for a reduction of the Side and Front Yard Setback at 24 Crystal Circle. The first is a
5.6 ft. side variance on the South West side to construct a 24’ x 24’ garage with a master
bedroom above it. The second would be 1.3 ft. on the front yard to extend the front of the house
to bump out the foyer/living room as shown on plot plan dated 9/4/2014 submitted with the
application. With the condition gutters will be placed on the side addition to divert water away
from the abutting neighbors.
Ms. Augustin seconded the motion to approve. All Members voted in favor of the Variances.
Minutes from September 16, 2014
Ms. Augustin made the motion to approve the minutes from September 16, 2014; Mr. Viveiros
seconded the motion. All members voted in favor.
Adjourn
Mr. Halloran made the motion to adjourn the meeting. All members voted in favor to adjourn.
Jo-Ellen Carkin
Jo-Ellen Carkin
5
6