Laserfiche WebLink
asked that the revised plan be submitted to the Board, reflecting the light colored subservient <br /> signs. Mr. Ford inquired whether the signs needed to be white and Mr. Lehrer recommended <br /> that the Board require the signs to be white to be consistent with the white vinyl posts. Fonts <br /> could be darker in order to read better from the road. Mr. Balzarini stated that the bottom sign <br /> needed to be 15 inches from the ground due to potential grass growth. It was confirmed that the <br /> sign would not be illuminated. <br /> MOTION: Mr. Balzarini made a motion to accept the sign with the changes that the <br /> panels be all white with darker letters. <br /> Mr. Lehrer suggested that, provided the background and text color was established, as each <br /> tenant occupied the lots, they would not have to return to the Planning Board to have each panel <br /> approved, as it would not impact the streetscape. <br /> Mr. Phelan seconded the motion. All voted unanimously. <br /> Petition from Habitat for Humanity of Cape Cod to Divide an Existing Single Lot <br /> Located at 341 Great Neck Road North into Two Separate Lots to Construct a Single <br /> Family Home on Each Lot Under MGL Chapter 40B Section 20-23 and 760 CMR 56.00- <br /> Mr. Lehrer stated that the item remained on the agenda because the ZBA already acted on the <br /> petition, but the Planning Board had provided comment, at the request of the ZBA. Mr. Rowley <br /> provided comments and the Board had voted to forward Mr. Rowley's report to the ZBA during <br /> the last meeting. After the ZBA meeting, Mr. Rowley met with the proj ect proponent's engineer <br /> to discuss his comments and they came to agreeable terms based on Mr. Rowley's report, with <br /> updated site plans submitted to the ZBA. The item remained on the agenda because the Board <br /> authorized payment to Mr.Rowley for his work with the applicant, and Mr. Lehrer felt that Mr. <br /> Rowley should report back to the Board about his work. Mr. Lehrer stated that the ZBA had <br /> jurisdiction on the application. <br /> Mr. Phelan and Mr. Callahan inquired why the Planning Board was involved in the matter if it <br /> was a matter for the ZBA. Mr. Phelan further inquired why the Planning Board would have the <br /> matter on their agenda prior to the ZBA's consideration and why the Planning Board's engineer <br /> would be reviewing the site and creating an additional cost. Mr. Rowley stated that a copy of the <br /> application had been forwarded to the Planning Board and the Chair asked that he review the <br /> plan. Mr. Phelan expressed concern that the Planning Board was overstepping its bounds, when <br /> the Planning Board had no jurisdiction. Mr. Phelan further stated that he had contacted the <br /> engineer for the proj ect directly when he had fire apparatus access concerns. <br /> Mr. Lehrer stated that Chapter 40B granted authority to the ZBA, but the statute also requests <br /> that the ZBA seek comments from other boards. The Chair and Mr. Rowley were providing <br /> comment to the application. Mr. Lehrer indicated that,with two advertised open Public Hearings <br /> of regulatory bodies, comments in writing could be provided to the ZBA without deliberating on <br /> the project, which could introduce bias. <br /> Mr. Rowley's report regarding the May 30 meeting with the project engineer had been provided <br /> to Board members. Mr. Rowley was contacted by the proj ect engineer and an email sent on June <br /> 6 <br />