Laserfiche WebLink
a, A <br /> Nelson responded by stating his opinion that builders <br /> Mr.. g p e s . <br /> Y <br /> would not construct expensive houses on 10, o o o square foot lots. i <br /> (There was some discussion in this regard with references being <br /> onesset, Little Neck B <br /> made to Pop <br /> P ay, New S eabury, and Fells <br /> s <br /> Pond. ) <br /> ' f"'4 <br /> John Kuchinski explained the idea is for good planning and ` <br /> that it is more environmental friendly r endly to construct smaller lots, <br /> shorter roads, and more open space as opposed to developing a <br /> larger parcel of land. He also r g r:,�� <br /> g p o explained the lot size is to be <br /> considered a minimum which could be increased through the Special <br /> Permit ' <br /> process. <br /> P EA, <br /> Mr. Nelson made the argument that the Town could find itself <br /> with a series of boxes having been built upon 10 0 0 o <br /> p square foot <br /> lots which could also attract young people with a fairly large � f <br /> number of children resulting in further straining of the school <br /> system. <br /> +EIOr <br /> Mr. Fudala reminded Mr. N <br /> elson this did not refer to <br /> independent lots, but rather to cluster subdivisions. <br /> Mr. Nelson stated the Board of Appeals is concerned with <br /> certain aspects of this proposal (setback, frontage, open space- <br /> requirements) and f eels that more consideration is required. He <br /> stated that in eneral the Board of Appeals ppeal s is in disagreement <br /> and that the paragraph needs improvement. <br /> At this point the chairman requested input on the subject of , , =EI �' <br /> building envelopes from the Consulting Engineer, Mr. Rowley, who <br /> inquired if the Plan was at a stage where the Planning <br /> Board/Department wanted to develop such detail. <br /> Mr. Fudala suggested allowing the concept to remain, and <br /> deleting the reference to 5 to 25 foot fronts. <br /> 1 <br /> r <br /> Mr. Rowley supported the suggestion to leave the reference <br /> to envelopes as being one planning tool, but to not become so <br /> spec i f i c as this is meant only as a guideline. 1# <br /> All Planning Board Members were in agreement with Mr. ' Ky, <br /> Fula f "Reduction g <br /> la s suggestion, Reduction of setbacks [depending on <br /> neighborhood type and location] should also be considered" . Mr. <br /> Nelson agreed this would be an improvement. <br /> The Chairman clarified for Selectman caf f n that the ° <br /> reference to 1 o, o o o square feet would remain, as agreed upon at <br /> the time of discussion with the Board of Selectmen, <br /> Mr. Nelson suggested the Planning Board reconsider the <br /> frontage requirement of 5 0-feet to 5 0-feet. ,. <br /> After some discussion it was agreed upon by all Board <br /> -23- { <br />