pages: PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf, 16
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-02-28 | 16 | Mr. Busse stated that the business was a veterinary hospital, and that boarding was an ancillary use. Only medical clients were able to use the boarding services, such as for diabetic dogs that need medical oversight. Presently, they allow only two spots for boarding, and that boarding was not available for non-clients; the other four slots were reserved for hospitalized animals. He estimated that six to eight boarding spaces would be available at peak periods for their medical clients; their business was not a kennel. In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara regarding the exercise area, Mr. Busse confirmed that it was not a dog run or play area, but an enclosed area where staff members will walk dogs on-leash one at a time. He emphasized that dogs would not be fenced in unattended in that area all day; it may take 10-15 minutes for staff to walk each dog. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand regarding the setbacks, Mr. Busse stated that the building setback at the closest point would be one foot from the property line on Central Avenue. The property line is 4'2" from the existing sidewalk, allowing five feet of landscape space at the closest point; it would expand to a range of 7-14 feet in other areas. Vice President Cook stated that she had no concerns about the proposed rezoning or about the design. She expressed concern about the impact of the lighted sign on the residences, and added that the business hours were generally confined to daylight hours. She was not concerned about the driveway, but was concerned about the expansion of the use next to residential uses. She noted that the Use Permit ran with the land, not the business, and did not believe this was an appropriate use so close to a residential neighborhood. Mr. Lynch advised that he did not have any concerns with the business operations at this site, largely due to their business model. Ms. Mariani noted that this use should blend as much as possible into the neighborhood, and suggested that mature landscaping be a condition of appeal. Mr. Busse advised that all the mature trees along the boundary between the property and the condominiums would be retained; the street trees on Central Avenue will remain as well. He stated that 24-inch box Chinese elms and Sweet Bay trees, as well as 36-inch box Maidenhair trees were among the trees being proposed. Ms. McNamara believed it was important to be more sensitive to the residential design in the immediate neighborhood. Ms. Altschuler noted that this was a very contemporary building, and that the reference to Craftsman style was with respect to the building materials. The condominium immediately adjacent was also a very modern building, as was the former Central Market across the street. She noted that the Board may recommend the rezoning without approving any other parts of the application. Planning Board Minutes Page 16 February 28, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf |