Laserfiche WebLink
4 <br /> There were several major objections to the 6 unit proposal including loss of open space, creating <br /> n unappealing strut scape and because they are now near the-end of construction, owners did <br /> not want to see construction begin again. <br /> Thin new proposal units)will improve curb appeal and will not reduce the open space as much <br /> and will retain the existing forested., woodlands which are tight to the road. They worked with <br /> the'Trustee to develop work rules to mitigate construction impacts and any violations will carry a <br /> monetary penalty. <br /> Mr. l a Arley feels they heard what the community had to say and responded. Ofcourse, they <br /> would like to add all 9 Unaks but are prepared to amend the master deed to reduce the number of <br /> total units from 161 to 156. No further units can be added without unanimous consent of the <br /> homeowners. These 4 units will finalize the project once and for all. <br /> Planning Board questions: <br /> Dick Terry asked if they agreed on the siting of the 4 units? <br /> Yes, Mr. Ial ey showed them on the plan ; 154, 155, 156 and 157 . will be 2 building of <br /> units each. The impact to the open space been reduced by half to 3/10 of an acre. <br /> Don Meyer asked if this proposal has the blessing of the homeowners association? It does. <br /> Dennis asked if there were other.locations for these 2 building - Bishops Terrace? <br /> Mir. Dawley said there is a drainage structure in the one other area and the other possibilities all <br /> have an impact to the buffer tonne all will have an impact on the 46..2 acres of open-space and on <br /> utilities. <br /> l en m*s asked if Mr. Dawley is stating this proposal has approval of homeowners association <br /> because he has a lot of letters in opposition? Mr. oavley said this does have the support of the <br /> Trustees for this proposal. There still remains several residents who don't agree with this. <br /> Public Comment; <br /> Tom Fudala, 60Wilan load, He stated this entire process is pointless because the zoning bylaw <br /> under which this project was developed permanently protected the dedicated open space with no <br /> possibility to take any of that land out of the open space for development. <br /> The association owns-that open space and.the restriction is recorded. It is not to be built one and <br /> cannot be disposed of- any of it. <br /> The Planning Board cannot change that bylaw. A large portion of the negotiations for the special <br /> pemu t for this project was about the open space. <br /> The approved special permit established a firm line of open space not to be touched - ever. There <br /> can be no unit in the open space. All the history of moving units within this project resulted in a <br /> reduction of units (which was misrepresented by Mr. l awley). <br /> Whey they substituted 7 single unit buildings for a number of multiple unit buildings there was <br /> no representation they would try to male those units up. <br /> In 1998 Mr. Mal bought the project and reduced the number of units by 4 in the Windsor <br /> Point area with no representation they would be re-gained. <br /> This project is pernni ted for 161 units in the 1988 decision"'as shown on the site plan",which is <br /> important. The owners have spread out the development within the permitted area squeezing <br /> themselves out of building more units. <br /> Dick Terry asked Tom-.if he is swing the planing Board does not have.the authority to Flo this? <br /> Tom said the Board does not. The units could be added if they were within the boundary without <br /> going into the open space. <br /> 2 <br />