Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 <br />Minutes for the Meeting of September 24, 2008 <br />want to hold up the process. <br /> <br />The landscape plan shows native species but the numbers need to be updated to reflect the higher <br />numbers mentioned at the last session. The limit of work on the landscape plan needs to be shown on the <br />site construction plan. <br /> <br />There was further discussion of the sizes of the existing house and the proposed house. Members <br />cautioned that the applicant needed to include possible future additions now as a maximum square <br />footage would be set. The current house has a gross floor area of 6309 sf, so they would like to have <br />7,300 sf; the living area is 3,076 and they would like 4,100 sf. <br /> <br />While no one was present in the audience, Ms. McCall-Taylor called attention to the printed email from <br />Mr. Horton supporting the project. <br /> <br />Mr. Hornig closed the public hearing and the Board began its deliberations. <br /> <br />A straw poll showed that the members were leaning toward approval of this proposal with conditions, <br />particularly regarding the size of the houses. After some discussion there was agreement to limit each <br />house in size, rather than a combined maximum. The new house would be no more than 5,500 sf gross <br />floor area and the existing no more than 7,000 sf. There would be no limit on the living area in keeping <br />with the new Special Permit Residential Development bylaw that removed any limits on living area, <br />instead using the gross area to regulate the mass of the structure. <br /> <br />The Board discussed other standard conditions such as tree protection and operation and maintenance <br />plans for the drainage system. Comments made in the staff analysis memo would also need to be <br />addressed. <br /> <br />On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted, 5-0, to grant with conditions the special permit <br />with site plan review for a site sensitive development. <br /> <br />On a motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted, 5-0, to approve the definitive subdivision with <br />conditions. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />