|
PLANNING BOARD MTNTUTES
<br />M;-:STING OF MARCH 25, 2002
<br />The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the Carpenter Roam, National Heritage Museum,
<br />33 Marrett Road, Lexington, was called to order at 7:08 pan_ by Chairman Galaitsis with members,
<br />Chase, Davies, Harden, Kastorf and planning staff Garber, McCall - Taylor, Tap and Tyson present.
<br />ARTICLES FOR 2002 TOVVNNMETINCz
<br />Articles 16, 17, 18, 19 and , �oniny Amendments Having read the draft Reports to Tow ;a Meeting
<br />prior to the meeting, after a brief discussion, on the motion of Mr. Davies, seconded.by Ms. Chase, the
<br />Board voted unami to accept the reports to Town Meeting on Articles 16, 17, 18, 19,and 21, as
<br />written
<br />Article 20 Lame House Site I'l _Review update The Board discussed various aspects of Article 20,
<br />including: -
<br />the February 20, 2002, thresholds
<br />the exemption of additions and the definition of addition
<br />what could be done if an applicant does not accept the Planning Board's conditions on a large
<br />house project. It was thought that a building permit could be denied on the basis of the applicant's not
<br />having provided enough information. It would cost them time_ Ms. Chase commented that most people
<br />will come in good faith and the Board will act the sarne. The or- gotiating process works in many similar
<br />processes.
<br />material required of the applicant forthe site review process. The Board felt that the requirements
<br />listed as a, b, and c in the motion are too stringent Secondary sources, e_g., topographical maps from, the
<br />assessors' records or and data from the Conservation Commission would suffice. Mr. Davies suggested
<br />adding a capsule description of a landscape plan, as people seem not to understand what a plan includes.
<br />The Board members discussed a proposal from Mr. Patrick Mehr using a cubic volume measure in a
<br />neighborhood context. While the Board had previously considered similar devices it felt that his
<br />neighborhood context method would be too difficult to administer. They felt that there was no need to
<br />lobby for the defeat of the amendir Grit since it would probably die on its own.
<br />There still was uncertainty whether or not to go ahead with Article 20, as there is so much opposition to
<br />it, as well as unresolved issues. But Board mcm bers agreed that there was so much impetus for some type
<br />of control on very large houses from residents, fr own the 2020 process, and from the comprehensive plan
<br />process, that the issue must be brow -ht up for examination and discussion at Town Meeting. Dr the
<br />motion of Ms. Chase, seconded by N1r. Ka.storf, the Board voted unainincusly to go forward with Article
<br />20, House impact Review.
<br />.ADMINISTRA iON OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
<br />RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS TO HE BOARD OF APPEALS
<br />Applications To Be Heard on March 28, 2002: Ms. Chase gave an oral review of the following
<br />applications:
<br />182 BEDFORD STREET - L' Alouette Iiie= SDec ial Permit to conti110 e to operate a gouranzt take -o ut
<br />food business.
<br />25 TAFT AVEIti>LT, - peci, [ P ermit to recon.strzzct a garage attached to a nonconform, - ng single -
<br />fa,ni'y dwelling and construct living space above the garage and back porch.
<br />40 WACHYJSE.TT DRIVE - V froru required 7S- side Lard setback to construct a secon -d
<br />fzont z ,try for a nor�ccnfonxzing single faz iN dw°el is g 1vl�ich jviil i,ave a ti.2 ft side yard setback.
<br />
|