|
Lexington Home Page
|
Help
|
About
|
Browse
Search
Planning Board minutes 1989-10-16
Breadcrumb Navigation:
TownOfLexington-Public
>
WEB PUBLISHED-PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
>
MINUTES-REPORTS-COMMITTEES ARCHIVE
>
Planning Board-PB
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1989
>
Planning Board minutes 1989-10-16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/30/2024 3:44:54 PM
Creation date
1/30/2024 3:44:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Archives
Year
1989
Department
Planning
Keywords or Subject
Planning Board minutes 1989-10-16
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
Minutes for the Meeting of October 16, 1989 2 <br /> RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS <br /> 248. Additional Hearings Scheduled for October 26. 1989: Mrs. Uhrig gave an <br /> oral review of the following cases scheduled to be heard by the Board of <br /> Appeals. <br /> 40 Hartwell Avenue, M.I.T. Lincoln Lab. , to renew a special permit, for <br /> the continued use of a modular unit as a temporary structure: Mrs. <br /> Uhrig reported that when this application to allow a temporary structure <br /> was heard by the Board of Appeals in November of 1988, the Planning <br /> Board recommended that the special permit not be granted; the Building <br /> Commissioner stated that a temporary special permit can not exceed one <br /> year; and that last year's Board of Appeal's decision granted the <br /> special permit for one year, stating that the structure was considered <br /> temporary. She added that the applicant is now asking for a continua- <br /> tion of the special permit for four years. <br /> The Board agreed that the opinion of the Building Commissioner and last <br /> year's decision of the Board of Appeals should be sustained. On the <br /> motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted 3-1-0 (Mr. <br /> Williams voted in the negative) to recommend the special permit not be <br /> granted. <br /> The Board agreed to make no comment on the following applications also <br /> lscheduled to be heard on October 26, 1989. <br /> 71 Meriam Street, Jacquelyn Katzenstein, SP, to install a projecting <br /> sign. <br /> 11 Wachusett Drive, Bernadette Shapiro, Variance, to add additional <br /> risers to bring the front steps of a dwelling down to existing grade, <br /> allowing a front yard setback of 25 feet instead of the required 30 <br /> feet. <br /> 249. Hearings Scheduled for November 9. 1989: Mr. Sorensen gave an oral <br /> review of the following cases scheduled to be heard by the Board of Appeals. <br /> 277 Bedford Street, Mobil Oil Corp. , variance, to install a canopy with <br /> a 1'-6" front yard setback instead of the required 30' , and to allow the <br /> total coverage of the existing building and canopy to be 22% instead of <br /> the required 20%. The Board agreed that none of the statutory criteria <br /> for a variance, relating to topography and soil conditions, have been <br /> met, and that the proposed expansion would be out of scale and character <br /> and overly large for the lot, which is almost entirely surrounded by <br /> residences. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mr. Williams, it <br /> was voted 3-0-1 (Mrs. Wood abstained) to recommend the variance be <br /> denied. <br /> 277 Bedford Street, Mobil Oil Corp. , SP, to replace a self-service <br /> island and a full-service island with 2 self-service islands, add a <br /> canopy over the islands and modify transition area screening. The Board <br /> noted that a service station is a nonconforming use in the CN, Neigh- <br /> borhood Business district, and as such, is subject to the limitations of <br /> Section 6.3.1, particularly sub-paragraph c. , of the Zoning By-Law. <br /> They agreed that as long as it complied with the criteria of 6.3.1, they <br /> did not object to the change to self-service gas pumps. They also recom- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.