1985-01-07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Planning Board Minutes: January 7, 1985 2 Planning Board position, on the motion of Mrs. Flemings, seconded by Mr. Cripps, it was voted unanimously to make the following recommendations to the Board of Appeals: Hearings of January 10, 1985 70 Westview Street, Dupree Associates: Plan to Control Traffic: The Board does not believe that the information submitted by Dupree Associates is a specific or definite plan for limiting the effect of the development on peak hour traffic. Having the potential restricted time period start at 4:00 p.m. falls outside of the evening peak hour, which is estimated to fall between 4:15 and 5:45 p.m. 52 Lowell Street, Rosins, Buss: SP, roadside stand: The Board understands that there have been problems at this location in the past with repairing automobiles on the site. The Board is not opposed to granting the special permit requested for the roadside stand and the sale of Christmas trees provided no other non-residential uses are permitted on the site and the time period is limited to one year in order to monitor activities at the site. 41 Preston Road, Sydney Alpert: SP, non -complying building: The Board does not believe the mortgage survey type of plan submitted should be accepted in a case dealing with yard setback because that type of survey has proven to be inaccurate in the past. The application should be deferred until a plan based on an instrument survey and tied to concrete or stone bounds and proper reference points is submitted. Hearings of January 24, 1985 Myrna Road, John Gilbert: Variance, frontage: It is important to establish when this lot was created. If the lot was created at a time that permits it to qualify for the frontage exemption allowed in Section 7.4.1a, then, conceivably, no petition for a variance needs to be submitted and the owner could apply directly for a building permit. If the lot does not qualify for the frontage exemption, which is a very liberal provision that the Lexington Zoning By -Law has, a variance should not be granted. One purpose of a frontage requirement is to control density. It should be noted that while the nominal frontage measured on the arc of the intersection is 94.25 feet, the "actual" frontage, as measured in the passageway from the rear of the lot to the street, is only 27 feet. 4 Spencer Street, John Flaherty: SP, non -complying building: The Board does not believe the mortgage survey type of plan submitted should be accepted in a case dealing with yard setback because that type of survey has proven to be inaccurate in the past. The application should be deferred until a plan based on an instrument survey and tied to concrete or stone bounds and proper reference points is submitted.