Laserfiche WebLink
Breadcrumb Navigation:
<br />PLANNING BOARD MINUTES <br />MEETING OF March 7, 2007 <br /> <br />A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, was held in Estabrook Hall at Cary Hall, and called <br />to order at 7:45 p.m. by Chairman Manz with members Hornig, Galaitsis, Canale, Zurlo and planning <br />staff McCall-Taylor, Henry and Kaufman present. <br /> <br />************************************* MINUTES ************************************** <br />Review of Minutes: On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the minutes for the <br />meeting of January 17, 2007, as amended. The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting <br />of February 21, 2007. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the minutes as <br />amended. <br /> <br />************************ ARTICLES FOR 2007 TOWN MEETING************************** <br />Article 2, Report to Town Meeting: Ms. Manz suggested that the Board discuss this next week after they <br />have reviewed the information. <br /> <br />*************************SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATION***************************** <br />177 Grove Street, Deliberations after Public Hearing: Ms. Manz explained to those present, that once the <br />public hearing was closed the Board no longer takes testimony; however they will consider written <br />communications they have received in the last week. <br /> <br />Mr. Hornig asked what were the changes on the March 5, 2007 plan and what exactly were they <br />reviewing. Mr. Henry walked the Board through the changes, which were the addition of a building <br />envelope for each house, the work line for the wetland enhancement; drainage and electric lines and detail <br />of additional trenches on sheet 4; the profile and plan view of the utilities on sheet 5; and the landscape <br />plan; additional planting of witch hazel on lot 3 (at the engineers request) on sheet 6. <br /> <br />There was discussion about the building envelope. Mr. Galaitsis asked if anyone reviewed the building <br />footprint; he wanted to make sure it did not go closer to the lot line; the size of the envelope was fine, but <br />he wanted a footprint size set and would prefer specified square footage per lot not to be exceeded. Mr. <br />Hornig preferred the building envelope a little larger but cap the overall floor plan footage. He wanted to <br />place the smallest rectangle that goes around the building; and no shifting of living area, site coverage, or <br />gross floor area, as they would throw off drainage calculations. He asked if the decks would be outside <br /> <br />