1985-03-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Planning Board Minutes 2 Meeting of March 4, 1985 offices. Mrs. Smith commented that the most important reading she had obtained from the public hearing was that the building needed to be scaled down. While several members understood Mr. Cannalonga's change, based on the negative reac- tion to retail space at the hearing, they regretted that so much of the commer- cial area in Town was being developed for office space. Several members of the Board advocated language in the site development and use plan to steer the development toward small offices serving residents of the Town or other small businesses. They are not in favor of general office space in which the whole building is taken by one regional or high tech -type company. That is not what the neighborhood business district is intended to be. Mrs. Uhrig expressed concern about the amount of area covered by parking. 56. Article 11, Planned Residential Development: The Board discussed what density to propose for the RD district at the public hearing on March 18. Mrs. Smith suggested a maximum of 15 dwelling units per acre as that is the maximum permitted in the RM district now. Mr. Sorensen thought that no maximum density should be stated; that would make the RD procedure comparable to the commercial development procedure in which no predetermined standards are included in the Zoning By -Law. Mrs. Uhrig agreed. Mrs. Smith thought there should be some maximum base density to which the bonuses for increase in density, for inclusion- ary housing, could be applied. Mrs. Flemings thought that could be handled through the Inclusionary Housing Policy. It was finally agreed, among the four members present, to recommend no maximum density in the RD district. The Board continued its discussion of Section 9.3.2 relative to two means of access, for emergency vehicles, to dwelling units. Concern was expressed about the "rule beaters" and weird geometry that developers might create to get around the requirement. Members commented the usable open space provision was too complex and needed to be either simplified or deleted. Their should be a higher minimum lot area for a cluster development than for a conventional subdivision; 125,000 square feet was suggested. 57. Article'17, Health Hazards: It was agreed that the Board does not know enough about the various "containment levels" for RDNA research. It may be premature to.adopt this regulation while the Board of Health is close to adopting guidelines for this research. It was agreed that the Zoning By -Law should say where the research should be conducted with the Board of Health saying what levels and type of research should be conducted. The Planning Board will limit its comments to the zoning districts where the research should be permitted. The staff was requested to prepare a report accordingly. 58. Article 20, RD, Lowell Street, McNeill Associates: Mr. Sorensen inquired whether the plans had changed from what was shown to the Board earlier. The buildings appear larger and more institutional now than before. He pointed out that when the proceeds from the required endowment are included, the cost of the housing places it in the market rate category. Mrs. Smith said she was thinking about a negative recommendation because of the problems inherent in this long, thin lot. The development appears to be dense because of its proximity to the Mediplex Nursing Home. There is another question as to whether additional housing oriented to the elderly should be located between two existing large nursing homes. Mrs. Uhrig commented that the narrow- ness of the lot will result in minimal buffering against abutting properties.