pages: PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf, 9
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-03-26 | 9 | President Lynch suggested that a design that would conform to City guidelines would be the most desirable outcome. He suggested that the Board either deny the application or continue it in order to allow the applicant to redesign it. Board member Cunningham believed there were many issues embedded in this application, including improvement of smaller homes, parking in the first 20 feet of the front yard, and the number of required parking spaces. He did not believe the Board could deviate from that standard. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Ekstein's question whether the City required two compact cars when a family may have larger cars, President Lynch replied that was not the case and that the City had a definition of required parking. Mr. Thomas noted that the applicant's choices were to redesign the interior, add a second story, to redesign into the backyard to maintain the space, or to pursue a variance. President Lynch believed it would be difficult to make the findings for a variance, and believed a redesign would be probably. Ms. Woodbury wanted to clarify that the applicant before the Board was to making a parking space determination, not to approve or deny the project. Board member Cunningham moved to recommend that 23.5 feet is equivalent to two parking spaces in this condition. Vice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 7. Planning Board Minutes Page 9 March 26, 2007 | PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf |