Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-08-18RECONSIDERATION - ROBERT J. BATAL, BUILDERS, INC. The Board of Appeals held a Special Meeting on Monday evening, August 18, 1989 in the Library/Conference room in the Town Building. The meeting opened at 7:30 and the following members were present and voting: William Sullivan, Acting Chairman, Augustine Nickerson, Clerk, Anna O'Connor and Louis Rissin. Mr. Robert Nicetta, Building Inspector was also present. Mr. Nickerson, Clerk read a letter from Mr. Batal's attorney requesting a reconsideration of the decision rendered on August 8, 1989. Mr. Robert Dunn spoke for the petitioner because Mr. Batal was out of town and could not attend this meeting. The Board voted unanimously to take this matter under reconsideration. Mr. Sullivan stated that the'density was the major problem. Mr. Dunn said that Mr. Batal had tried to show that they started with 116 units and had come down to 104. They have pushed the buildings to the back and have tried to keep Boston Hill looking the same as it does now. The sewer system will be donated to the Town and charge for this has not come in yet, but they feel that it will be about 3 million. He can- not go any smaller because of the price of the sewer line and not knowing the right price. There are two narrow sections and that is why the lots are put were they are. Originally the lots wsre in a different place, and the Staff and Boards asked if they could be moved back. He did push it back and added the garages. The minimum distance is 44'. The critical objection seems to be the distance of the two garages. They figured to put a heavily layered landscaping between the two garages so there would be no opening. They plan to use 3-6' high maple, ash or oak and 4-10' evergreen, such as spruce, hemlock or fir. The landscaping will be such that you cannot see the next deck from your unit. A great deal of landscaping will be done to provide privacy. Mr. Nickerson stated that it was no one lot that brought us back this evening. He said that he went home and made some cutouts to scale and found that three(3) units eliminated would mean that you did not have to come to the Board at all. But after that he concluded that three (3) units going would not make a great impact on the Town facilities. Mr. Sullivan stressed that Mr. Nickerson had done a lot homework on this and did a lot of extra work. We want to thank him publicly for his help and extra work. Mr. Dunn stated that they were trying to save as many trees as possible, and this is a good thing for the Town and the NACC and Planning Board want these trees to stay. Mr. Nickerson again stated that if four (4) units had been eliminated Mr. Batal would not have had to come to this Board at all. Mr. Dunn stated that both he and Mr. Batal felt that it had passed at the last meeting before they heard the 3-1 vote. Mrs. Fink stated that the only problem she had with this site is drainage and this is being handled by the NACC. Upon a motion made by Ms. O'Connor and seconded by Mr. Rissin, the Board voted, unanimously, to GRANT the variances as requested, subject to the following conditions attached to these minutes. A~drey W. ~aylor, Se~etary The Board finds that the Applicant has satisfied the relevant provisions of the Zoning Bylaw and finds that owning to circumstances relating to soil conditions, shape and topograph of the land, especially affecting such land but not affecting generally the VR Zoning District, a literal enforecement of the ByLaw would involve substantial hardship to the Applicant and that desirable relief can be granted with- out nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the Bylaw. The variances are necessary because of the steep togographical features, tree locations, and soil conditions of the site. William SulliVan, Acting Chairm~ Robert J. Batal Builders, Inc. DECISION 1. Section 8.5(6)(c).' Minimum distance between structures Page 2 August 15, 1989 The Board grants a variance from the 50 foot distance requirement to 30 feet between garages and 44 feet between units for all instances where the Plan does not comply. The Board finds that Applicant's proposed design provides maximum conservation of existing slopes and preserves natural grades whereever possible, without increasing permitted density. Separating the buildings in order to cause them to be 50 feet apart would result in unnecessary elimination of trees and would cause a substantial hardship to Applicant. The Board finds that because the Village Residential zoning contemplates "cluster" development, the development of the buildings in relative proximity to each other, but with ample adjoining landscaping, is conslstant with the purposes of the By-Law. 2. Section 8.5(6)(c): Buffer zone of 50 feet The Board grants a variance from the 50 foot buffer requirement to 25 feet plus added landscaping for all instances where the Plan does not comply. The plan provides for maximum utilization of lot size and open space and includes extensive landscaping for the benefit of all residents. Any redesign to eliminate any encroachment into the buffer zone would result in additional removal of trees and would increase the surface erosion. 3. Section 8.5(6)(c): Maximum height of 30 feet or 2.5 stories The Board grants a variance from this provision of 30 feet to 40 feet, in all instances where the Plan does not comply. The Board finds that the height violation is a direct function of the slope and topography of the site. The increased height is necessary in order to minimize overlot grading; any decrease in the height of the walls would require substantial additional changes to adjacent grades and slopes. The Board finds that Applicant's efforts in the resulting building design are consistent with the purposes of the By-Law. 4. Section 8.1(7): Minimum driveway width of 25 feet The Board grants a variance from the 25 foot width requirement to 22 foot, minimum, for all instances where the Plan does not comply. The Board finds that the 22 foot driveways provide adequate access for anticipated traffic in a "cluster" develop- ment as contemplated by Village Residential zoning and for any emergency vehicles, and is therefore consistent with the purposes of the ByLaw. The foregoing variances shall be subject to the following conditions, which are intended further to promote use of the site in harmony with the intent and purpose of the By-Law: 1. Prior to construction, Applicant shall construct and maintain a temporary snow fence along the line of limits of clearing adjacent to property lines, provided that no fence shall be installed in wet- lands areas or wetlands buffer zones. The line of limits of clearing is shown as a broken line on the site plan (the "Plan"). 2. Applicant shall construct a solid board fence at least 5 feet in height along the common property line with land of the Trustees of Reservations ("TTOR"), provided that up to two points of foot access between the site and the land of TTOR may be provided. One point of access shall be in the location of the parcel of land referred to in Item 4 below, and shown on the Plan as "Path to Meander with Natural Terrain"; the second point of access shall be in such location as Robert J. Batal Builders, Inc. 'DECISION Page 3 Applicant and TTOR may agree. The fence, or portions thereof, shall be constructed simultaneously with construction of portions of the road- way parallel thereto. 3. The land'lying between the broken line establishing the limits of clearing shown on the site plan and TTOR's common boundary shall be subjected to an easement granted to TTOR for the benefit of its Ward Reservation retaining soch land predominantly in its open, natural condition with no material removal of trees, shrubs or other vegetation permitted(except for removal of deseased or injured vegetation and in- stallation of any new landscaping shown on plans submitted to the Board) and no use of any herbicides permitted, such conveyance to occur at the time Applicant acquires the premises, but no later than issuance of a building permit (the acceptance and recording of such easement by TTOR to be in full satisfaction of this condition). 4. The 50 foot by 500 foot parcel of land connecting the site to Chestnut Street shall be conveyed to TTOR in fee simple subject only to a retained perpetual easement to install, repair, maintain and replace subsurface sewer lines, pumping stations and appurtenances beneath such parcel and beneath former Chestnut Street, provided that such right shall lapse if no such lines are initially installed within 5 years of such conveyances; such conveyance to occur at the time Applicant acquires the premises, but no later than issuance of a building permit (the acceptance and recording of such conveyance by TTOR to be in full satisfaction of this conditipn). 5. The site shall.be subject to a covenant granted to TTOR for the benefit of the Ward Reservation, that the owners of the site shall maintain, repair or replace the fence described in #2 above; such conveyance to occur at the time Applicant acquires the premises, but no later than issuance of a building permit (the acceptance and re- cording of such covenant by TTOR to be in full satisfaction of this condition). The Board notes that the construction of this residentaial development is contemplated in phases and that Applicant will rely on the granted variances for the entire development and condominiumization of the site. Once the first phase of the development is commenced, commitment to build infrastructure, and delicate open space, and devote the entire site to the precise development shown on the Plan will have been irreversibly made. Therefore, the Board finds that the variances shall apply to, remain in effect as to, and be deemed to have been exercised with respect to, all improvements shown on the Plan and each phase independently, provided that at least one building permit for any phase, or the entire site, is obtained within one year of the effective date of the Board's decision (i.e., one year after all appeal periods have lapsed without any appeal having been taken, or after any appeals have been finally dismissed).