Laserfiche WebLink
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES <br />MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2000 <br />The meeting of the Lexington Planning Board held in the SeIectmen's Meeting Room of the Town Office <br />building, was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Colman, with members Bridge- Denzak, Davies, Chase, <br />Galaitsis, Planning Director Garber, Assistant PIanner McCall - Taylor, and clerk Diane Snell present. <br />* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MINUTES*********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** <br />Review of Minutes: August 30, 2000, on the motion of Ms. Chase, seconded by Mr. Galaitsis, the Board voted <br />5 -0 to approve the minutes as amended. <br />* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** <br />684 Lowell Street - Appeal of ZEO decision regarding classification of home business. A pet care service is <br />operated out of (residential zoned) 684 Lowell Street. The zoning enforcement officer (ZEO) ruled that this <br />type of business is not an allowed use. Mr. Galaitsis recommends upholding the ZEO ruling. <br />14 Benjamin Road — Appeal of ZEO notification to remove deck. Mr. Galaitsis recommends the Board uphold <br />the ZEO's decision, <br />23 Carville Avenue — Variance for a two -story addition No comment. <br />673 Waltham Street — Special Permit for expansion of a non-conforming two-family. Mr. Galaitsis stated the <br />non - conformity has not increased very much and therefore recommends a no comment. <br />33 Locust Avenue — Variance for two -car garage replacing one -car garage, Mr. Galaitsis commented that the <br />plans as submitted create a self-inflicted hardship and the applicants should seek an alternate placement for the <br />garage. <br />On the motion of Ms. Bridge- Denzak, seconded by Mr. Davies, the Board voted 5 -0 to accept Mr. Galaitsis' <br />recommendations on the applications to the board of appeals. <br />* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** <br />Mr. Colman called the Public Hearing on 41 Lincoln Street to order at 7:45 p.m. After a brief review of the rules <br />and the format of the hearing Mr. Colman turned the floor over to the petitioner. Attorney Daniel Harrington <br />spoke on behalf of the applicants, Jan & Anna Popiel and the North Shore Construction & Development, Inc. of <br />Woburn. Also present for the development team were Ron Lopez, Daniel Harrington, Rick Waitt, Dylan James, <br />and Richard Lakutis <br />The applicant sought approval of a special permit under paragraph 7.4.5 to permit the reduction in lot frontage <br />from the required 125' per lot and to waive the requirement to build a subdivision street and allow use of a <br />common driveway to provide access to the two lots. <br />Attorney Daniel Harrington gave a brief history of the project, pointing out how the design of the project has <br />responded to the issues raised at the preliminary hearing. The house size and massing have been reduced, the <br />original 9,000 square feet of gross floor area down to 6,600 square feet, while living area has been reduced to <br />4,600 square feet from 5,600 square feet, and height at 34.5', down from 40'. With the removal of the <br />conservatory from the Lincoln Terrace side, the side setback is now 32'. This should aid in mitigating the impact <br />along the Lincoln Terrace boundary, as will the landscape screening. Seventy -two mature mixed conifer trees <br />will be planted along the Lincoln Terrace boundary and between lots one and two. Runoff from the site will not <br />increase. Mr. Harrington also discussed the question of a full compliance plan, stating that the plan submitted <br />shows a fully complying subdivision with approximately 300' of road and terraced retaining walls. Mr. <br />Harrington said that while it would be possible to construct such a road, it is not necessarily what anyone would <br />want. Mr. Harrington pointed out that this is why the provisions of 7.4,5 exist, to allow creation of a second lot <br />