Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br /> MINUTES July 28, 1986 SPECIAL MEETING <br /> stands from Mr. Makunas that the Board was under the impression <br /> that the Planner had looked at the plans and stated that may be <br /> the reason why there was a failure to comply with the direct re- <br /> quirement. <br /> Mr.. Dubin stated the issue that caught them off guard was <br /> the residential units. He stated they did not know they were <br /> going to be residential units . <br /> Mr. Hanrahan stated to Mr. Dubin, the decision that was <br /> written does not specifically say there will be x number 'of <br /> units. He stated the decision reads there will be no more than <br /> 100 residential units, which we believe is permitted by the By- <br /> Law. Mr. Hanrahan stated, in the initial stages for the foot- <br /> prints, we were putting an actual finite limit to any number <br /> of residential units that might henceforth be considered. He <br /> stated it does not mandate any number of units at all in the <br /> decision. Mr. Hanrahan stated there is some misunderstanding <br /> with the Board of Appeals on what was submitted to the Planning <br /> Board, and stated the Board of Appeals does think they were in <br /> conformity with the By-Laws from what they normally do. Mr. <br /> Hanrahan stated if nothing is forthcoming from the Planning <br /> Board, once the plans are submitted, they proceed and assume <br /> there are no comments. He stated this is how we perceive this. <br /> Mr. Hanrahan stated the Board of Appeals worked deligently on <br /> this decision for a number of months . He stated it was a great <br /> surprise to the Board of Appeals that anyone else would be sur- <br /> prised by the decision and were a little taken aback. <br /> Mr. Dubin stated when he first heard about it he came to <br /> a conclusion that this was a Special Permit for the 100 dwellings <br /> and stated he realizes the Permit is not for that, and knowing <br /> that, that was the root of the dispute to begin with. Mr. Dubin <br /> stated the Planning Board would like commenting in the future on <br /> the residential units as they come up for a more formal approval. <br /> Mr. Dubin reiterated stating the Planning Board would like comment- <br /> ing on residential units whether they are mixed use or purely <br /> residential. He stated when the parties involved are ready to <br /> construct the residential units, before they receive a Perrniit <br /> or come in with standard architectural plans, they come before <br /> the Planning Board. Mr. Makunas stated it was his understanding <br /> that there were buildings that would be devoted to residential, <br /> the residential would be a sideline on the top floor, mixed or <br /> secondary use, there would be no change in footprint that would <br /> accomodate strictly residential. He stated each building will <br /> have to come before the Board of Appeals and be approved. Mr. <br /> Makunas stated the first phase has been approved but does not <br /> include residential. He stated there is a phasing schedule that <br /> goes along with the drawing. <br /> M . Dubin stated the plans were never sent to the Planning <br /> Board. Mr. Makunas stated he believes they never were. <br /> Mr. Costa stated it was his opinion the Planning Board re- <br /> viewed this some time ago. He stated Mr. Storrs came down to <br />