1987-01-05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MINUTES OF JANUARY 5, 1987 The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in Room G-15, Town Office Build- ing, was called to order at 7:39 p.m. by the Vice Chairman Cripps, with members Klauminzer, Sorensen, Wood, Planning Director Bowyer, Assistant Planner Rawski, and Secretary Peters present. Mrs. Uhrig was absent. 1. Approval of minutes: The Board reviewed the minutes for the meeting of November 5, 1986. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted unanimously to approve the minutes as written. The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of December 10, 1986. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, it was voted unani- mously to approve the minutes as corrected. The Board reviewed and corrected the minutes for the meeting of December 15, 1986. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted unanimously to approve the minutes as corrected. 2. EXECUTIVE SESSION: On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Wood, after a poll of the Board, it was voted unanimously (4-0) to go into Executive Session to discuss litigation against the Town, and to reconvene in open session for the purpose of continuing the meeting as set forth in the agenda. The Board ' went into executive session at 7:46 p.m. The Planning Board returned to open session at 8:26 p.m. ******************** ADMINISTRATION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ************ 3. APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Maguire Road and Hartwell Ave., Maguire Road Realty Trust, Michael Colan- gelo; Variance, min, lot area: The Board discussed a variety of issues involved in their recommendation to the Board of Appeals on the case that has been remanded back to the Board of Appeals for a new hearing on January 8, 1987. Mr. Bowyer reported that at the beginning of the trial in December, he and Mrs. Uhrig had been contacted by John Harding of Palmer & Dodge, represent- ing the Board of Appeals, about an arrangement, which both sides wanted to pursue, whereby the petition for the variance would be remanded to the Board of Appeals for a new hearing. The arrangement required that one or more responsible persons agree to make a favorable recommendation on the granting of the variance. He and Mrs. Uhrig agreed to do so subject to certain conditions: 1) the rehearing would be limited to the variance for minimun lot area only and would not imply any prior approval of any development proposal, 2) any development proposal would be the subject of a separate SPS application and would be treated the same as any other SPS application, and 3) the parties would understand that neither Mrs. Uhrig nor he could bind the other four members of the Planning Board to a positive recommenda- tion and definitely could not guarantee that the Board of Appeals would grant the variance. His reason was that the trial seemed to have become entwined in several overlapping issues, such as the minimum lot area, the