2009-03-26-CPC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

not favor a house on Brookwood Drive, noting it would jeopardize the integrity of the conservation land. There was a question about the sewer easement that bisects the Leary land, and a resident of Vine Street commented on the existing safety of Vine Street, noting that Mr. Leary himself had twice been struck by cars on his walks down the street. Ms. Porter questioned if there was enough land to allow for the needed flexibility in planning affordable housing on the 30,000 sq. ft. lot. Mr. Wolk responded that the Conservation Commission had met with the Planning Department and Engineering, and felt that many options had been preserved. The issue of the uplands off Brookwood Drive were discussed, with Mr. Keane making the strong point that it appeared to have considerable uplands for parking purposes. Mr. West responded to this question, stating that although it had uplands, there were few trail options from this section of the property. He noted that access to the rest of Vine Brook Conservation Area can only be gained in August or when the wetlands are completely frozen. Mr. Kanter made the point with respect to the suitability of the Brookwood uplands for housing, that the primary purpose in acquiring this parcel of conservation land was to preserve the integrity of the Vine Brook conservation lands. Mr. Kelley noted that this was the first time such a land acquisition had come before the CPC. He asked if the project could be amended on the floor of Town Meeting or whether it had to be approved or turned down as proposed. Mr. Cohen spoke to this issue, noting that applicants bring projects to the CPC, and that the CPC reviews them and votes on whether to recommend them to Town Meeting. He said this acquisition was voted on the previous day, and had unanimous 9-0 approval with the housing lot as shown. The project as presented to the CPC and approved would go before Town Meeting, and could not be amended on the floor. Mr. Kanter added here that if the article failed, the CPC could reconvene, and reconsider a reconfigured plan under the same motion. Ms. Shaw noted that this was the first time the CPC had reviewed such a mixed use project, and admitted that the process “hadn’t been the best”. She suggested that in the future, a subcommittee be appointed to help plan such projects. Ms. Deb Mauger, a TMMA member, asked about the process of review by the CPC. Mr. Cohen explained the Committee’s review process and stated that the Committee had given final review to the Leary land acquisition the previous day and took a straw vote on it, with all members in favor. Ms. Mauger asked that if there were any subsequent votes on the project that were not unanimous, she would appreciate a minority report. She said she felt such reports by the financial committees were very helpful in assessing the various articles at Town Meeting. With no further questions or comments on this project, the discussion was brought to a close. 5