Laserfiche WebLink
4 <br /> which would comply with any and all conditions imposed by the <br /> v; Planning Board. The developer also has the option to appear <br /> bef ore the Board to r ,request building changes. � <br /> Attorney Butler agreed and further explained the total <br /> amount of square footage would not exceed what was originally ' <br /> approved. All unit owner/abutters to the property would �. <br /> - dulynotified f ied f p p y � <br /> o any proposed phasing changes. Proposed issues <br /> to be included in a phase discussion w ' ' <br /> ,p would be the potential to �. <br /> add/delete garages if deemed appropriate; roadway and <br /> architectural design changes. <br /> The Chairman recognized Thomas Fudala, who inquired as to <br /> the phasing process as it would relate to public notice. 1 A <br /> Special Permit would allow the Applicant to a M's� pp appear before the � <br /> Board without a new Public Hearing process in modif led phases; <br /> or 2 each thanmodification ge would require a of the <br /> Permit, <br /> Attorney Butler proposed to request process ((1) , with the <br /> understanding Applicant would be responsible for giving notice <br /> ri <br /> to any unit owner/direct abutter. <br /> The Chairman clarified that the units are to be decreased by � <br /> fourteen (14) in number, the footprint of those units will not b <br /> decreased, <br /> The Chairman then opened discussion to members of the , <br /> public} An unidentified unit owner inquired as to the number on <br /> } the building which is to be eliminated on the proposed Plan' <br /> which p p to <br /> h ch Attorney Butler answered, #31 on the old plan, <br /> Frances Doherty, Unit #14 in � <br /> inquired as to the location of <br /> the proposed construction road. AttorneyButler answered the <br /> ,. <br /> main entrance as opposed to cutting in a separate roadway is <br /> .� <br /> being proposed. There is to be a gate system allowing unit f,s� <br /> owner access. <br /> Mr. Traczyk suggested the Condominium Unit owners take the <br /> opportunity to consider the Plan being proposed at this meeting. <br /> He did inquire as to maintaining architectural integrity. <br /> _ g y- <br /> Attorney Butler stated that a balance between the original <br /> concept/flexibility of building size and architectural design 4 <br /> g � <br /> would be maintained, which is the reason for a request for <br /> phasing. Attorney Butler stated he would be happy to meet with <br /> unit owners/Trustees to discuss the Plan and to address h it t e <br /> concerns. <br /> Ms. Prose asked why some buildings would be changed and <br /> others (in orange) not. I <br /> Y A1 <br /> Mr. Bornstein answered he may want to mix architectural , <br /> ky design so that the facades will be more appealing. <br /> The Chairman <br /> , t i <br /> further explained that the buildings indicated "r <br /> i <br /> in orange had been subj ect to great public input during the ; <br /> initial hearing process, with much modification to the initial <br /> F application. The Chairman expressed strong concern for not <br /> modifying the outer d f t r edge o he project <br /> Ms. Prose expressed unit owner concern regarding changes <br /> n that may be proposed ed b the Applicant. <br /> y p p �' <br /> The Chairman explained that projects of this magnitude are <br /> very often modified before build-out. The jurisdiction of the <br /> ..9_ • . <br /> i <br />