Planning Board minutes 1989-09-25

Browse Search

{ Minutes for the Meeting of September 25, 1989 2 the Zoning By-Law. Mr. Higgins outlined the various steps they had taken to try to legalize the apartments and referred to other plans filed with the Planning Board. Mrs. Wood noted that the only thing before this hearing tonight is the preliminary subdivision plan filed by the applicant. He said they had filed a preliminary cluster plan showing six dwelling units on five lots, that were "very close" to the frontage and lot area requirements of the RS zoning district, since the Board had previously indicated they were not inclined to consider a cluster plan with lots smaller than that. He added that they also filed a sketch plan showing a conventional subdivision of five dwelling units on five lots, and left it up to the Board to pick the one they preferred. He said they received no response on this filing. He said they were prepared to talk on how the lots can be legally separated, at the Board's convenience. He asked Mr. Larson to present the technical information. Mr. Larson presented the site analysis plan, the dimensional plans, the preliminary construction plan, showing the layout of the road, and five lots containing six units, and noted that two of the units have driveways with 12% grades. He pointed out the steep slopes at the rear of the site, up to 40% grade in one corner; an existing stone wall that they propose to save; an historically significant barn near Wood Street, that they propose to remodel; ' and a water storage area, previously used for irrigation, which has been classified as insignificant wetlands by the Conservation Commission, and which can be filled. He added they would retain the wooded area abutting the road, as well as the trees in front of some of the dwelling units. Mrs. Wood inquired what is the maximum street slope, roadway width proposed and what waivers the applicant would request? Mr. Larson said the maximum street slope was 8%, and width of the roadway was 24 feet, and would require about six foot of cut at the steepest portion of the site. He added that, in addition to the usual waivers, they would be asking a setback waiver, from Wood Street, to preserve the existing barn. Mr. Larson also located the pathway leading to the common open space from the turnaround. Mrs. Wood noted that no plan, showing large existing trees, as required in the Development Regulations, had been filed. Mrs. Klauminzer asked which back yard will require about six feet of cut to create? Mr. Larson pointed out the dwelling unit, and added that it would not require any retaining walls but could be sloped back for 15 to 20 feet. He added that at one point the site had been developed as a garden area with attractive plantings among walking paths, and that the steep slopes make a nice variation for walking. In response to a question from Mr. Williams, Mr. Larson said the proof plan showed six dwelling units. Mr. Williams questioned whether the proof plan complied with the provisions of the Development Regulations that deal with historic structures. One of the proposed lots can not be shown over the existing barn, unless it is planned to take the barn down, which they are not