Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1:19-cv-12333 Document 1-4 Filed 11/13/19 Page 8 of 43 <br /> The Chair invited Board and staff members to comment. Mr,.Callahan stated that the applicant <br /> addressed concerns expressed by the Board, Mr, Phelan agreed that most of the issues were addressed. <br /> Mr. Cummings had no concerns. Mr:Balzarini appreciated the changes to the exterior. <br /> Mr. Lehrer agreed that the proposed architectural designs were an improvement over what was <br /> previously submitted and were in compliance with the Cape Cod Commission Design Guidelines. Mr. <br /> Lehrer noted that the narrative was abbreviated and asked that more information be included as to why <br /> the design choices were made. Mr.Lehrer added that,as a site located in the 6-3 District,40%of the <br /> lot was required to remain undisturbed natural, adding that Mr.Rowley had initially pointed out that <br /> the calculation did not appear on the plans. <br /> Mr.Lizardi-Rivera discussed the architectural changes made to the building, originally intended to be <br /> metal, and would include a central portion made up of cedar shingles,with the wings featuring vinyl <br /> siding, The two entrances were shifted to the corners with awnings above;to create a projection. The <br /> bottom of the fagade would also feature barn board. The building sign would now be facing Evergreen <br /> Circle. <br /> The natural open space calculations had been added to Sheet 1 and met zoning compliance of 50%, <br /> including improvements and had been considered by Plan and Design Review where more native <br /> species were requested in the landscaping, Mr, Lehrer inquired whether the 50%calculation was <br /> undisturbed, as required and Mr,Lizardi-Rivera responded that it was disturbed but replaced with <br /> landscaping. Mr. Lehrer inquired how much of the land would be undisturbed and how much would <br /> be landscaped but Mr, Lizardi-Rivera was unsure of the exact calculations. Mr, Lehrer reiterated that <br /> 40%needed to remain undisturbed,unless relief was being sought and granted. The Chair requested <br /> that the calculations be provided to the Board. Mr. Lizardi-Rivera stated that the land on Main Street <br /> had already been disturbed previously. There was disagreement regarding zoning interpretation of <br /> disturbed and undisturbed land,if the land had already been disturbed. The Chair stated that the note <br /> would need to be added to match the zoning bylaw in the zoning compliance table and Mr. Rowley <br /> agreed that compliance needed to be shown, The Chair believed that the intent of the Bylaw was that <br /> the final product be left in its final state but Mr.Lehrer suggested that use of"undisturbed"meant prior <br /> to development of the site. Mr.Lizardi-Rivera stated that the C-3 district was completely disturbed. <br /> Mr.Phelan agreed with both viewpoints. <br /> Mr.Rowley referenced the location of the water main and sprinkler system,and the need to clear the <br /> trees that would impact the undisturbed area, adding that it would be fine if it was a Water District <br /> preference, as there would belittle difference. Regarding drainage,Mr. Rowley expressed concern <br /> about the shifts in the crown shedding the water to one side,suggesting the possibility that plowed <br /> snow may block the drainage areas, directing water to Evergreen Circle,which was not designed to <br /> manage additional flow from other sites. Mr.Rowley had suggested that the low point be adjusted and <br /> the runoff contained within the site. There was agreement for Mr.Rowley and Mr. Lizardi-River to <br /> work on the matter further. <br /> There was no public comment. <br /> 2 <br />