2008-08-27-PB-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of August 27, 2008 Mr. Canale said he appreciated the offer to move the driveway. Mr. Waitt said it made sense to save more trees, but the only issue was that the driveway would be over the infiltration system and they would need to move the water system to a place where there would be no further disruption to trees. Mr. Canale asked where would there be parking for unit owners and their guests. Mr. Waitt said units 1-3 would have a one- car garages and a space outside the unit; units 4 & 5 a two-car garage and no outside unit parking; units 6- 8 would have one bay and a drive that accommodates eight compact cars; the existing house would have a two-car garage and the carriage house had no garage, but four spaces near by. The 22-foot wide drive allowed emergency vehicles to get by parked cars. Mr. Canale asked about a snow removal storage plan and did they expect the Town to plow. Mr. Waitt said there was no snow storage plan and plowing would be left up to the Association to dictate, or the Board could require it in the condominium documents. Mr. Canale asked about the preservation of the current structures and wanted to make sure the integrity of the structures was set forth in a historic preservation agreement. He asked if they had spoken with anyone at the Historic Commission. Mr. Lopez said he had not spoken with anyone from the Historic Commission yet, but the intent was to preserve the exterior as it stood now and the interior would change. Mr. Canale said to have some clarity as to what would be done under whatever conditions during the preservation of these structures. Mr. Galaitsis was troubled by the fact that a) a 4-lot conventional subdivision (with the existing house razed) would result in a 25% of the development (1 house) in the eastern pocket of the parcel, b) a 3-lot conventional subdivision (with the existing house preserved) would result in a 0% of new structures in the eastern pocket of the parcel, while c) the proposed plan concentrated about 45% of new development (5 large units in two large structures) in the eastern pocket of the parcel, resulting in a much greater impact (especially visual) on the abutters at that side of the property. He asked whether the developer would consider (with the main house preserved and the carriage house razed) putting units 4 & 5 in the spot currently occupied by the carriage house and then rotating units 1-3 and shifting them away from the eastern border to mitigate the impact on that side. Mr. Waitt said if they lost a unit they would see how it played out. Mr. Dan Harrington said there would be a conflict since they were bound by what the Historical Commission dictates. How could the Planning Board say to knock down the carriage house? The original plan was to only save the main house, then the neighbors persuaded the Historical Commission to require saving the carriage house as well. Ms. Manz asked to be filled in on the historic significance of the structures. Mr. Harrington said it was part of a grand plan for the area. Olmstead drew up plans and a few houses got built, but the entire plan was not completed. Mr. Hornig said usually the Historic Commission liked to preserve carriage houses that match the main house.