2013-08-14-PB-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 2013 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Charles Hornig with members Richard Canale, Michelle Ciccolo, and Nancy Corcoran-Ronchetti, and planning staff Maryann McCall-Taylor, Aaron Henry, and Lori Kaufman present. Greg Zurlo was absent. ************************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION********************* PUBLIC HEARING 137-139 Shade Street, Definitive Site Sensitive Development (SSD): Mr. Hornig called the public hearing to order at 7:32 p.m. There were 3 people in the audience. Present were Fred Russell, project engineer, and Fred Keefe, applicant. Mr. Russell gave a brief recap of the project changes. The driveways were changed to a front entrance, the proposed driveway circle would be eliminated, there would be smaller infiltration systems, more trees preserved with the SSD, the drive for 137 Shade Street would be kept, and the proposed houses rotated. Board Comments:  Was the footprint for 137 remaining the same? Mr. Russell said yes.  The new trees to be planted should be three to four inch caliper not two inch.  Try to minimize tree removal; there were two trees in the middle that seem unnecessary to remove try to save them and reduce the size of the circle. Mr. Russell said the circle was part of lot four and not within the easement of parking in the common drive, but would look into saving the trees if healthy.  What would be the parking plan for the site? There would be a two car garage and two additional spaces for the houses at the rear of the site and the drive would be 18 feet wide.  It was difficult to read the plan with all the lines it should be simplified.  Has the Fire Department weighed in on this? Ms. McCall-Taylor said no.  Draft legal documents would need to be submitted at the continued hearing.  Would there be any need to park within the shared drive? Mr. Russell said no.  The utilities were going outside the easement on the plans and would need to be corrected.  The drainage study was confusing and does not appear to work.