Laserfiche WebLink
r' <br /> ,d <br /> E <br /> i <br /> to sin among themselves before n ' <br /> g g commenting zng t o the Planning Board. <br /> For Attorney Butler to have stated a "unanimous" approval among <br /> the owners, was premature as the unit owners had not seen the <br /> final plans or reviewed the detailed Agreement they were asked to <br /> E � <br /> sign by Mr. Bornstein and his counsel, <br /> Ms . Prose stated that unit owners have been incredibly <br /> diligent in trying to work things out. Twelve long meetings have r <br /> taken place, countless phone calls, and expenses incurred for <br /> ^s legal fees. She stated the unit owners have chosen to not go <br /> 4� forward for the following l owin reasons: The lot v - ' <br /> .:: g t coverage �s too great, <br /> the Plan shown to the Board last week proposed two hundred and <br /> fifty-four thousand seven hundred 254 700 square feet in <br /> building footprint. The original building footprint was one ' <br /> hundred and seventy-eight thou n � <br /> thousand one hundred �17 8, 1�o} square � <br /> feet. Last weeks Plan represented an increase of seventy-six <br /> thousand six hundred (76, � g P 500) square feet In building footprint <br /> ` <br /> -. <br /> over the original approved Plan. This only represented the r��� <br /> r.`. P <br /> increase in footprint square footage, not total square footage � <br /> which would include second stories and basements. <br /> Ms. Prose then pointed s p ted out to the Board Members the reason <br /> the buildings appear smaller on the Plan presented is because <br /> the planting and patios/porches/decks are not shown. The number <br /> of proposed units at the size proposed far exceeds the capacity <br /> of the land area available for development.. The proposal P e p opos before <br /> you tonightdrastically <br /> y r g educes that area of the land which was � <br /> originally intended to be common area. The expanded footprints <br /> do not lend themselves at all to an easy fit with the existing <br /> topography, i I.!� <br /> The increase n building footprints require severe <br /> alterations, including the need for many retaining walls and the <br /> exposure of non-functional basements. The six-plexes overwhelm <br /> the space and are opposite of the original plans intent; there <br /> are no front windows and the garages block any view from the <br /> inside to the outside front. 1 <br /> F Many of the original concerns presented to the Planning <br /> Board are applicable today. There is a very limited option of <br /> floor plans; .in the original approved Plan, the units were <br /> if <br /> identified by number for building sequencer the buildings are <br /> numbered, but it is not the intent of the builder to build in � oil <br /> sequence; the change in architecture, building facades, lack of 1r ; <br /> brick chimneys, lack of first floor front windows due to garage <br /> E <br /> r a g g <br /> placement; number of units with garages, owners have no front <br /> door access and no view to the outside from the first floor front <br /> (security risk) - the number of units that have exposed non-- <br /> functional basements. unit owners desire more information on the <br /> wastewater treatment system being proposed. No common visitors <br /> rj parking exists in the proposed plan. Unit owners are opposed to <br /> t the insistence of building out to the edge of the power Line. <br /> The feel i would expose the view to the power line would <br /> �' e t ou d p p , <br /> ! will greatly devalue ' <br /> . diminish the existing aesthetics, and wz �. g eat y d ue the .r � <br /> -r property. <br /> The owners and trustees of Windchlme have absolutely no <br /> intention of standing in the way of future building, they would <br /> welcome neighbors. The residents are unanimous in their feelings <br /> s <br /> i <br /> r <br /> r ,11 <br /> 1�rr <br />