|
Lexington Home Page
|
Help
|
About
|
Browse
Search
2006-09-28-ZBA-min
Breadcrumb Navigation:
TownOfLexington-Public
>
WEB PUBLISHED-PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
>
MINUTES-REPORTS-COMMITTEES ARCHIVE
>
Board of Appeals-ZBA
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
2006-09-28-ZBA-min
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/25/2019 11:34:11 AM
Creation date
12/18/2007 12:41:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Archives
Keywords or Subject
Minutes - ZBA - Zoning Board of Appeals
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
September 28, 2006 Minutes 3 <br /> DRAFT MINUTES of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals September 28, 2006 <br /> Board Members Present: Acting Chairman — Arthur Smith, Nyles Barnert, Maura Sheehan, and <br /> Associate Members Carolyn Wilson and David Williams. <br /> Staff present: David George, Zoning Administrator and Dianne Cornaro, Administrative Clerk. <br /> Petition Address: Estabrook Road, Map 50 Parcel 98 <br /> The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:00 PM by reading the legal notice and described <br /> information received from the petitioner relative to the petition. <br /> The relief sought is to Appeal a Decision by the Building Commissioner, dated July 26, 2006, in <br /> accordance with Section 135 -10A of the Code of Town of Lexington. <br /> Prior to the hearing, the petition and supporting data were reviewed by the Building <br /> Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Health Director, Zoning <br /> Administrator, Planning Board and Development Review Team. Comments from the Planning <br /> Department and The Development Review Team were received that the Decision should be <br /> upheld. A memo from the Zoning Administrator explained reasons the decision should be <br /> upheld. <br /> Attorney Ed Grant, representing Christopher and Gillian Gill, presented the petition explaining <br /> the history of the property and why they believe it to be a split and buildable lot. As far as they <br /> can see in the last 80 years there has been no combination of the lots by deed or by building <br /> permits and it has been held in separate ownership. The previous owners had made an attempt to <br /> have the lots split and had been denied. They never pursued the appeal. <br /> Maura Sheehan asked about the driveway that had encroached the two lots and is no longer <br /> there. It had been removed last spring on the advice of the Realtor. <br /> Maura Sheehan also asked about the purchase price of the house, were the lots purchased <br /> separately or as one lot. Mrs. Gill spoke to say that they had bought the property all at once; at <br /> the closing the lawyer had suggested that they appeal for the buildable lot. <br /> Nyles Barnert asked if it was a single deed listing three lots for one price. Paid only one price, <br /> not by parcel. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.