2002-01-18-40B-min.pdf - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

and the development as indicative of the differences between the two developments. Finally, Mr. Taylor showed the committee the large amount of commercial/industrial-zoned property next to the Locke Village development and the relatively small residential property. All these differences showed that the Locke Village development could not really compare with the proposed Lowell Street development. Mr. Passman pointed out that the Locke Village development was sunk down in the ground so that neighbors only saw the roof of the complex. Bill Taylor stated that the buildings in Locke Village were similar to the surrounding buildings. Mr. Posner stated that the Locke Village buildings were three stories plus an attic. He pointed out that the pitch of the roof started at the second floor,but that the building continued up for another residential floor and an attic floor. He indicated that the Locke Village buildings were 10 feet higher than the proposed height of the Lowell Street buildings. Mr. Passman indicated that the set back in Locke Village allowed for both 3-4 rows of trees and appropriate backyard space. He stated that it looked like a rational way to put high-density housing next to residential housing. Mr. Cheng confirmed that a higher-density development dictated a larger set back. Mr. Taylor stated that, at 15 feet,the set back intruded on non-East Street neighbors. Mr. Taylor pointed to himself as an example, stating that he and his wife were avid gardeners and spent much of their time in their backyard with flowers and vegetables. Mr. Taylor also indicated that fellow neighbor Tony Galaitsis' house included a pool in the backyard. He stated that people would be looking into abutters' backyard gardens and pools from their bedroom windows—an undesirable situation. The real issue,Mr. Taylor stated, was the intrusion the development would bring into the privacy of neighbor's yards. Mr. Taylor stated that,where through normal zoning laws there would be one,there would now be four families out barbequing with swing sets very close to neighbors' houses. Mr.Taylor indicated that there would be no room for trees with a 15-foot setback- only a fence. Maryann McCall-Taylor stated that the committee was trying to get all the issues out, that the issue of the 15-foot setback was out and that the committee should move on to discuss other issues of concern. Mr. Taylor questioned whether Ms. McCall-Taylor thought he was being obstructionist because he felt he was not being obstructionist. He indicated that the Locke Village development was a good model because it was sunk down. Stan Abkowitz stated that the Locke Village development was completely different from the proposed Lowell Street development because it was surrounded by gas stations and other commercial developments. Ms. McCall-Taylor asked Mr. Posner whether the ledge would effect the development. Mr. Cheng informed the committee that it depended on the rock—if necessary, a backhoe would be used. Mr. Posner indicated that the test pits dug were clean. Mr. Posner asked the committee whether it would be acceptable for him to take photographs. When questioned as to the purpose, Mr. Posner indicated that it would be for Rising Tide's records,and to present to a meeting of Zoning Board representatives from around the state. Mr. Galaitsis(non- committee member)stated that unless he knew specifically what the pictures were for,then he would object. Jeanne Krieger asked if there were members of the committee who objected. Mr.Taylor stated that,as long as the pictures were not made public, it would be acceptable. Ms. Krieger put the matter to a vote that resulted in six in favor and three opposed. Mr. Tanner indicated that with such a close vote,they would refrain from taking pictures. Moving back to the issue of setbacks, Mr. Cheng stated that they could try and look at greater setbacks on all sides,but that it would increase the density and height in the center. He indicated that the company tried to put parking in the basement because it decreased surface clutter. Additionally,Mr. Cheng indicated a desire to give all units a door to the backyard and a path in the front to the road. Mr. Passman suggested putting the access road nearer to the perimeter,which would allow for trees to be planted along the border and would give residents more spacious backyards. Mr. Cheng pointed out that the issue of