Planning Board minutes 04-05-1995

Browse Search

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF APRIL 5, 1995 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room 105, Town Office Building, was called to order at 7.35 p.m. by Chairman Davison, with members Canalc, Davies, Grant, Merrill, Planning Director Bowyer, and Assistant Planner Marino present. ******************************** EXECUTIVE SESSION ********************************* Mrs. Davison polled the members individually at 7.37 p.m. and the Board voted unanimously to go into Executive Session to consider the exchange, lease, or value of real property for which public discussion could have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the Town. The Board reconvened in open session at 9:29 p.m. ************ ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************* RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS 71 Tvnes of Aonlications to the Board of Anneals: 72. Anolications To Be Heard on Anril 13. 1995' Mr Canale gave an oral review of the following applications: Vacant lot abutting 6 Melrose Ave. John J. Brennan, Jr. Trustee, variances to allow construction of dwelling facing Melrose Ave. The Planning Board agreed to recommend denial of this petition because granting a variance to this extent is contrary to the Lexington Zoning By-Law The Board believes the applicants have not demonstrated that they meet the statutory criteria for granting a variance, i.e., that they would suffer substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape or topography of the land or structures if a variance from the provisions of the Zoning By-Law is not granted. 1707 Rear Massachusetts Ave. Enchantments, Inc., special permit for sign The Planning Board agreed to recommend that the application be referred to the Design Advisory Committee for their review Mrs. Davison said that the lettering on the sign is difficult to read at a distance. 2006 Mass Ave, Edward and Christel McCarthy variances to extend front porch The Planning Board believed that the applicants did not adequately address hardship in the submission they reviewed, but that, architecturally, it is an attractive addition. 26 Ames Avenue. M.S. and Aruna Jayakumar, variance for two-story addition The Planning Board agreed to recommend that the design be modified to comply with the setback requirements called for in the Zoning By-Law It also noted that the applicants did not adequately address hardship in the submission they reviewed. _ 1