2014-06-18-PB-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF JUNE 18, 2014 A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Charles Hornig, with members Nancy Corcoran- Ronchetti, Richard Canale, Timothy Dunn, associate member Ginna Johnson, and planning staff Maryann McCall-Taylor, Aaron Henry, and Lori Kaufman present. **********************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION*********************** 48 Summit Road, Definitive Site Sensitive Development Plan: Mr. Hornig called the public hearing to order at 6:01 p.m. There were approximately five people in the audience. Ms. Ginna Johnson, Associate Planning Board Member, was designated to act on this special permit. The applicant requested a continuance. On a motion, duly made and seconded, it was voted, 5-0, to continue the public hearing without input to July 2, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room. Oakmount Circle, Lot 186E, Street determination: Present were Dan Orwig and Scott Kenton of Copley Design, and John Farrington, attorney. Mr. Orwig said the plan before the Board was the final revised plan with the following changes:  The footprint of the house was changed with the garage being moved from one side of the lot to the other side of the lot to provide adequate drainage.  Extreme drainage calculations were used, which increased the storm drainage on the lot and would have no run off from the site.  The driveway was moved six feet from the property line. The plan had two parts to the proposal providing a house on the lot and providing adequate access down Oakmount Circle. The widths vary on the existing street from 12 to 15 feet and 10 feet wide in front of the applicant’s lot. The road would be widened to 16 feet with a cape cod berm. There was an existing sewer stub and water main that the applicant would like to tie into and no trees would be cut. If the circle was made one-way with no parking the 16 foot width would be adequate. The applicant believed that Conservation requirements were met. Board Comments:  The plans submitted were missing the street profile required by the regulations. The applicant would get them to staff tomorrow.