pages: PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-04-11 | 8 | buildings cemented over their lawn and parked there following the amnesty. She believed this would significantly impact the neighborhood. Mr. Chau, project engineer, understood the neighbors' concerns about parking and has been working with staff. He was not aware of the history of the neighboring buildings, but knew that their family was growing and must be accommodated. He did not believe the number of 26 residents was justified. President Cunningham noted the neighbors would like a guarantee regarding the number of people on an individual property, and suggested that they work together to craft an answer to limit the number of people who could live within the residence. Mr. Chau noted that the garage was no longer there, and that they needed storage space. Mr. Piziali noted that in Alameda, the garage was meant to park cars, not for storage. In response to an inquiry by Ms. McNamara, Mr. Chau stated that they had three cars. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Kohlstrand regarding the number of people living in a home as a family, Ms. Harryman noted that the number of people in a dwelling unit cannot be limited. Deed restrictions may be imposed and stairwells reviewed for integrated internal access so that the building may retain its single-family nature. Mr. Piziali believed that this house was overbuilt for the neighborhood. Mr. Brighton noted that the resolution contained a typographical error, and that the design review would be valid for one year. Mr. Lynch believed the applicant should start this process over again, and that the applicant should consider the City guidelines; the new application should be submitted according to those City guidelines in the Code. He believed there was significant inconsistency in the history of this application. Ms. Harryman noted that the Board members should look at this application as it is, notwithstanding past Code enforcement actions, and that they may make a determination based on significant adverse impacts. Mr. Piziali could not support this application because of the lack of a garage, and believed it would impact the neighborhood negatively. Ms. McNamara noted that she could not make the findings, and that this neighborhood was significantly impacted by the large amount of traffic and parking congestion. Ms. McNamara did not believe that this address was solely responsible for the street's parking suggestion. Ms. Mariani noted that was not the assumption. Planning Board Minutes Page 8 April 11, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-04-11.pdf |