2008-01-02-PB-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Minutes for the Meeting of January 2, 2008 Page 5 the maximums and worked with the Board over a series of meetings and ultimately submitted this definitive plan. She felt the Board had an obligation to make a decision and had to deal with the equities. The applicant followed the rules and responded to the requests of the Board. They came and abided by the Board’s rules and condition, and in fairness, they provided a variety in housing. The town doesn’t get a lot of townhouses and the additional traffic from 13 homes won’t have a substantial impact. The alternative would be four very large homes. Other issues of concern to her are adequate drainage; sidewalks being ADA compatible; limited curb cuts; lower profile on one block preferred; and walking paths and changes. Mr. Canale asked for clarification about the affordable units. Mr. Henry said there is one two-bedroom unit affordable at 80% AMI and they are providing a LIP application. Units one through four are two- bedroom units and the remaining nine are three-bedroom units. Mr. Canale wanted the condition of approval to specify that the units be specified so they would be eligible to be counted on the subsidized housing inventory. Mr. Canale was not so sure that the applicant responded to the Board’s requests for modifications for changes through out the process. The scale and height of the development is still more than it should be. The affordable unit is a plus. Other concerns are the easement for access to paths to Brookhaven, Ricci Lane monumentation and sidewalks being not only walkable, but also useable with wheelchairs. Mr. Zurlo asked for clarification on the height interpretation. Was the height based on lot corners or building corner? Units one through five are of particular concern. Ms. McCall-Taylor said they used lot corners and building corners for different conditions as allowed by the bylaw. Mr. Zurlo’s concerns were ensuring 50 percent of the cellar was below the finished grade on the entry level and lowering at least part of the dwelling containing units 1-5. He felt unit five should be lowered by some degree. He suggested lowering the unit four feet and dropping the garage, even though this would require cut in the rear. This will help with the transition from units six to nine and he is comfortable with the additional cut. Mr. Canale said this sounds reasonable. Mr. Galaitsis asked if the affordable unit is for sale by the developer or a gift to the Town? Mr. LeClair said the selling price is set by the State. It is not a gift to the Town it is a homeownership unit. Mr. Zurlo said he was concerned with the curb cuts in and out. He wants the left entrance the only access in and two exits. He also wants the move the two-way entrance 15 feet further from the abutter. Mr. Hornig wanted input from the Board on whether or not to remove the old foundations in the middle