2008-09-24-PB-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Minutes for the Meeting of September 24, 2008 Page 5 ?? The Planning Board was serving as a reactor not as a planner. The process was not serving the abutters and Town well. The idea of co-housing had been sent to the neighbors, using the existing structure as a common area, but the neighbors never had the chance to meet with the developer and architect to present this idea. ?? This would be a dramatic and fundamental change to the neighborhood and the abutters had no opportunity to discuss it with the developer outside of these meetings. ?? Numbers for the GFA for the existing structures would be over the limit for density of this site if the Assessors numbers were the data used to obtain the neighborhood profile. Comparing the ratio for the existing neighborhood and then the proposed development shows the density being increased for this area. Mr. Hornig said the Zoning Bylaw contains the definition of what was used to determine the GFA. ?? There has been concern if there was adherence to the Zoning Bylaw Section 135-34 B & C regarding size restriction. Densification was not consistent here and this was the first Town project under the new bylaw and Town Meeting was watching with great interest. ?? The project’s density was insane and would impact negatively on the livability, scale and character of the existing neighborhood. ?? There should be a Historic Preservation Restriction Covenant not to demolish the existing structures. ?? The abutters had hoped to meet with the developer and there should be a statutory requirement for the developer to meet with the abutters. ?? A letter submitted to the Planning Board from an abutter was read. ?? Not enough parking would be available and with the path to Wachusetts Drive that would encourage parking on that street. The proposed buildings were not that attractive and the architectural structure should match the existing buildings on the site. ?? The proposed houses would be cookie cutter homes with cheap materials, minimal quality and would not fit the character of the surrounding neighborhood. ?? The project was a tumor; don’t let it grow. ?? The Board admitted they could adjust the top number, this was a difficult site to develop and the entire site was not developable so adjust the numbers accordingly. ?? Generally supportive of development, but this proposal would not fit the scale or character of this neighborhood. Allow 4-5 units with one and one half stories, historical style architecturally, six- foot fence wooden fence along back property line and driveway with 10-12 foot evergreens to screen the driveway, blasting protection. Would there be police details in the mornings for traffic