|
Lexington Home Page
|
Help
|
About
|
Browse
Search
2008-10-15-PB-min
Breadcrumb Navigation:
TownOfLexington-Public
>
WEB PUBLISHED-PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
>
MINUTES-REPORTS-COMMITTEES ARCHIVE
>
Planning Board-PB
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2008
>
2008-10-15-PB-min
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/25/2019 3:32:26 PM
Creation date
1/6/2009 1:03:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Archives
Keywords or Subject
Minutes - PB - Planning Board
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
Page 4 <br />Minutes for the Meeting of October 15, 2008 <br />better project. <br />?? <br />What would be the historic preservation requirements? Mr. Hornig said it would be only on the <br />exterior of the structure. <br /> <br />Mr. Waitt said he did not know where this would lead since the project required 4 out of 5 board member <br />votes. He would like some guidance to file a definitive plan and, lacking a clear consensus of where to go, <br />he is concerned that it could go to a conventional plan. <br /> <br />Board Positions: <br />Mr. Canale <br />?? <br />The Board takes the new bylaws extremely seriously and the ten-unit plan did not meet the <br />standards of the new bylaws, the conventional plan would not be desirable, and there would be no <br />value to Option C. Options A & B were better then the ten-unit plan. <br />Mr. Zurlo <br />?? <br />In Option B the size of units 1 and 2 increased; why weren’t they kept the same size as in the ten- <br />unit plan? If a townhouse unit were removed an increase in the size of the other units would <br />make up some of the value. The development fell short of the nine criteria it needed to meet and it <br />could be better to go with the conventional plan if they are unable to bring down the number of <br />units. <br />Mr. Hornig <br />?? <br />Draw their own conclusions about how to proceed. If doing a BHD it could go to the definitive <br />stage, but if a conventional plan they should proceed with a preliminary. <br /> <br />Ms. McCall-Taylor said it would be hard to write a sketch letter without further guidance. Mr. Waitt <br />asked if they reduced the units back to 2,500 square feet would they support a nine-unit plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Zurlo said it was not the nine units that were the issue, but since he would not be able to get <br />viewscapes from the abutters’ perspectives the only tool left would be to remove a unit since there would <br />not be enough evidence to determine the impact on the neighbors. <br /> <br />Mr. Hornig and Ms. Manz were comfortable with Options A or B; Mr. Canale was a little less <br />comfortable with them, but thought they could work, and Mr. Zurlo preferred Option B with changes, <br />otherwise he felt that the conventional plan should be considered. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.