Laserfiche WebLink
16 Great Neck RoadNorth <br />wlashyee, -Massachusetts o2649 <br />Mr. Lehrer acknowledged the concerns for environmental benefit are substantially engaged. <br />The missing piece of the puzzle is the lack of consistency among Board members regarding <br />what mitigations are or are not appropriate. There has not been any mention to the negotiating <br />room. The issue of conditions would come on the heels of the 90 day report, include the <br />conditions, and remove any reference condition of LEC. <br />Arden Russell- She stated Chapter 108 of the general bylaw limits bedrooms. The CCC <br />through the Regional Housing Strategy says we have to limit bedrooms and multifamily due to <br />impairment of waterways. This bylaw has nothing to do with the Special Permit or a private <br />developer, there is a mandate to limit bedrooms on a parcel. If the Planning Board approves <br />this project they will be setting a horrible precedent with the Chapter 108 Flow Neutral Bylaw <br />and potentially put funding at risk. <br />Mr. Lehrer answered the question relative to flow neutral, by right a single family dwelling is <br />allowed and Willowbend is permitted as a multifamily project. <br />Mr. McElhinney elaborated that with DEP there is no nitrogen policy and that will completely <br />offset whatever goes into the ground, which would be the elimination of a 5 bedroom house on <br />septic. They are looking for more direction before completing the drainage plan, he would like <br />to see where the Board is on this in a larger sense, with respect to the project. He noted Ms. <br />Waygan brought up the buffer, if that is more important then buildings can be moved closer <br />together. He would like to hear of any issues that have not been addressed. <br />Ms. Waygan stated there are insurmountable barriers, one being the Flow Neutral Bylaw. She <br />encouraged the reading of minutes to figure out what else she was not fond of. This does not <br />align with what is set forth in the LCP. She is not supporting the project at this point, mitigation <br />would be to reduce the project significantly. <br />Mr. Balzarini is alright with the project as proposed today, he would like that $90,000 to <br />increase to $300,000 or meet somewhere in the middle. He is in agreement with the wetland <br />restoration but he is concerned about the people who already bought properties. <br />Ms. Faulkner would like at least one affordable house, two would be ideal. She is trying to <br />figure out a good dollar amount and with $5 Million on the line she doesn't feel like $90,000 is <br />a lot of money. <br />Mr. Richardson would like to go forward with the discussion relative to mitigation, he gets the <br />impression there is a little more that the Board could get. <br />11 <br />