Laserfiche WebLink
Breadcrumb Navigation:
<br /> <br />PLANNING BOARD MINUTES <br />MEETING OF MARCH 4, 2015 <br /> <br />A regular meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room, was <br />called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Chairman Charles Hornig, with members Nancy Corcoran- <br />Ronchetti, Richard Canale, Timothy Dunn, Ginna Johnson and planning staff Maryann McCall- <br />Taylor, Aaron Henry and Lori Kaufman present. <br /> <br /> <br />***********************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION********************** <br />83 Spring Street, site sensitive development sketch plan: <br /> <br />Mr. Richard Canale recused himself, since he was an abutter to the property which could be a <br />conflict of interest. Associate Member Michael Leon, Associate Planning Board Member would <br />sit in for Mr. Canale. <br />Mr. Fred Russell, engineer and Benjamin Finnegan, applicant were present. Mr. Russell said they <br />went before the Conservation Commission to get a wetland determination, which was good for <br />three years and shown on the plans. The proof plan showed two lots and the proposal would be to <br />construct one new house where a pool and shed already disturbed the land and maintain the <br />existing house. Two issues brought up by staff were the angle between the centerline of the <br />proposed cul-de-sac and Spring Street which would be 78.44 degrees and the proposed distance <br />of the cul-de-sac and Underwood Avenue which would be 230 feet. <br />Board Questions: <br /> <br /> What are the existing setbacks? The side yards were 10 to 11 feet and front yard 35-40 <br />feet. The site had been surveyed and would be included at the preliminary phase. <br /> <br /> Was the existing house a legal two family or one family dwelling? It was a single family <br />with an accessory apartment. Provide documentation that the accessory apartment is <br />legal. <br /> <br /> The street was 24 feet wide instead of 20 feet; tighten it up as it affects entitlement. Also <br />the tree cover appeared to have fewer trees then the fall plan and the 2011 fly over. <br />There were no audience questions or comments. <br />Board Comments: <br /> <br /> The intent was to preserve the existing house and would be in the special permit. <br /> <br /> <br />