2015-04-06-PB-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF APRIL 6, 2015 A meeting of the Lexington Planning Board, held in the Lexington High School, Room 143, was called to order 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Charles Hornig, with members Nancy Corcoran-Ronchetti, Richard Canale, Timothy Dunn, Ginna Johnson, and planning staff Aaron Henry present. ****************************** TOWN MEETING ARTICLES *************************** Reconsideration of Article 49, Governmental-Civic use District: The Board again discussed whether to ask Town Meeting to reconsider the Article; the principal issues were whether there was enough new information to warrant it and if Town Meeting wanted to see it again. The Board decided to bring it back to a future Town Meeting. Articles 8 & 9, CPA Articles: The Board had previously indicated support for all the CPA articles, voting support of Article 9, but reserving its vote on Article 8. Discussion focused on 8E and 8O in particular. The Chair wished to reiterate that support of 8E should be consistent with Town Meeting’s support of Articles 35 and 45, which pertain to complete streets and pedestrian safety. The Board expressed concern whether 8O was adequately funded and what the process would be going forward. The CPC voted to support this article by a vote of 6-0. The Planning Board again indicated support of Article 8, but did not take a vote. Articles 47, Medical Marijuana Amendment: Town Meeting member David Kanter requested that the Board revisit its position to request referral of the Article back to the Board for further study. Mr. Kanter believes that Town Meeting spoke very clearly on the matter last year when it adopted the present bylaw and this request is untimely. He intends to move for indefinite postponement of the article. The Board debated the difference between an indefinite postponement, referral, and outright defeat of the article. In attempts to understand the sense of the Board, votes to reconsider their recommendation to Town Meeting were entertained but none ultimately changed the vote. A motion to postpone the article failed to garner any support although the subsequent motion, to support the defeat of the article only gained two votes. This brought the Board back to its present motion to refer it back, which like its position included in its report, garnered three votes in favor. The Board will discuss this again at its next meeting.