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

Browse Search

Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of September 24, 2008 concerns? Mr. Waitt said they would accommodate the trees and fence. ?? The Board members seemed to have made up their minds before hearing the abutters; the whole development would be out of character with the existing neighborhood and they should go back to the drawing board. ?? How would the preservation of the carriage house be guaranteed? Mr. Hornig said one condition would be a requirement to preserve both historic structures with constraints on how they could be rebuilt if needed. ?? How would parking be handled if there were parties? ?? An abutter said she was shocked over the last ten years in the destabilizing of neighborhoods one lot at a time. She would like each Board member’s view of this development. Also wanted to know the total GFA of the site. Mr. Zurlo said although there are elements of the proposals which may detract from the livability of a neighborhood there are several criteria by which proposals are judged. Depending on the project type, each criterion would be weighed differently, so missing the mark on one criterion may not be grounds to disapprove a proposal. Mr. Canale said all the stake-holders views weigh heavily, but when the Planning Board brought proposals to Town Meeting to increase the value of maintaining the character of the Town as was, Town Meeting made it clear that this criterion scored low in comparison to the values of other criteria. Mr. Galaitsis said that the proposed GFA conformed with the maximum limits of the Zoning Bylaw; that the Zoning Bylaw controls the GFA, not the number of units. The historic preservation takes up half the site, knocks out one lot in a conventional development and causes the developer to create a concentrated density on a portion of the site in a proposed cluster. In fairness, the cluster should be based on a multiplier of three, not four, but he cannot expect the developer to assume the cost of the lost unit. Possibly CPA funds could be used for this. Ms. Manz said there was trouble balancing competing concerns since it scored well on most of the nine items. This development has sole vehicle access from Marrett Road, historical preservation constraints, difficult topography, which would create an area of higher density on a portion of the site. Members responded that these units were buffered, screened and far enough away from the abutters. This diversity in housing would prevent much larger homes that could be built. The balanced housing development had lower limits then was previously allowed. The developer had complied with these stricter limits and it would be difficult to say this was unacceptable and must be lower. The total GFA proposed for this site is 28,697 square feet. Mr. Canale said he was reluctant to close the public hearing without a historic preservation restriction covenant on the existing structures. Mr. Harrington said they had no intention of taking down either the