1985-03-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Planning Board Minutes: March 16, 1985 N 69. Article 19, CD, 16 Hayden Avenue: Mrs. Uhrig disqualified herself from the discussion on this article. The Board reviewed a draft of the report dated March 15, 1985. It was agreed to change the order of paragraphs one and two in the recommendation section. Four members of the Board support the rezoning. 70. Article 20, RD, 188 Lowell Street: The Board reviewed a draft of a report dated March 14, 1985. It was agreed to change the order of the paragraphs in the recommendation section and to make several other editorial changes, particularly the language about the "entrance endowment," which may be misleading as now written. 71. Article 21, RD, Woburn Street: The Board had a general discussion of the Woodhaven Realty proposal. The issues seem to be: the number of dwelling units beyond 650 feet from Woburn Street and the means of access to them, the adequacy of access for emergency vehicles, and the location of the interior drive within the 40 -foot setback from the side lot line. Members liked the provision of affordable housing, particularly rental housing. That would be preferable to a subdivision of one -family homes. Nevertheless, the Board cannot support a rezoning simply because it provides affordable housing; it cannot ignore all other site planning and zoning considerations. The location, adjacent to Woburn Street, is a good one for multi -family development. Members noted that there were really two distinct parts to this site. The part nearest Woburn Street does not have many problems. The back land, furthest from Woburn Street, up the hill, has a number of difficult site planning problems. The Board considered recommending in favor of a modified rezoning which would permit multi -family development on the part of the site nearest Woburn Street while not recommending a rezoning, at this time, for the other part of the site. 72. Article 22, RM, Lowell Street: The Board reviewed a draft of a report dated March 8, 1985. A number of editorial changes were suggested. The Board discussed the propriety of commenting on the design of the buildings and of the site. Mrs. Uhrig and Mrs. Flemings supported commenting on the design of the proposal. The Board should not always comment on design but should do so when it is particularly good or bad. They reported they had heard a number of negative comments after the public hearing directed specifically at the design of the buildings. A majority of the Board favored including comments on the quality of the design in the report. The meeting was adjourned at 12:20 p.m. Cudith J. UH�g, Clerk G' 1