2011-03-21-PB-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF MARCH 21, 2011 A meeting of the Lexington Planning Board in Room G-1, Town Office Building was called to order at 6:55 p.m. by Vice Chairman Richard Canale with members Michelle Ciccolo, Charles Hornig and Wendy Manz and planning staff Maryann McCall-Taylor and Aaron Henry present. Gregory Zurlo joined the meeting in progress. TOWN MEETING ********************************* *********************************** Article 41 Hartwell Avenue RO to CM Mr. Canale said that there had been questions on the Town Meeting Members Association listserv to which the Board should be prepared to respond. The issue is the appropriateness of the zone, not the development potential of the lot; a single-family house would be inappropriate in the middle of a commercial zone. The assessment question was based on a misunderstanding that the price quoted was for this lot only, rather than the combined lots that include the restaurant.; Commercial development would be a good thing if the lot allowed it within the constraints of the wetlands and floodplain. These constraints suggested that development was unlikely, whatever the zoning. Mr. Zurlo joined the meeting and took over as chair. Article 40 1095 Massachusetts Avenue Rezoning Mr. Fenn will ask that this article be referred back to the Planning Board for further study, rather than ask for indefinite postponement. On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted 5-0 to support referring Article 40 back to the Planning Board. Article 39 Private Ways Mr. Hornig recused himself from the Planning Board deliberations on this matter as he and his family have homes on private ways. As a resident, he asked that the Planning Board support his amendment that would eliminate the eligibility section. The discussion centered around the streets shown on the Zoning Map as unaccepted and whether they met the criteria outlined in the Development Regulations. Not all streets meet the standards as the Board has waived standards when making determinations of adequacy. It was felt that because of this, some of the