pages: PlanningBoard/2021-03-22.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2021-03-22 | 5 | Chris Buckley with the AAPS said that removing the asbestos shingles was a design improvement. He pointed out a design inconsistency where the plans said the siding would be restored but that no longer seemed to be the case. He wanted an example of the new siding to be submitted as part of the review. He discussed how this project was an example of work exceeding the scope of work and ambiguous work description. He urged that the applicant should keep original design elements when possible, AAPS was unsure why the attic window needed to be changed to the octagonal design. President Teague closed public comment. President Teague asked about the date discrepancy on the plans from the Approval Letter. Staff Member McCartney said she had asked for more information on the plans. President Teague clarified that the Approval Letter that they had received in the packet was not what they were moving to approve, it was what was originally published that was called for a review. Staff Member Tai said that was correct. President Teague opened the board discussion. Board Member Ruiz said she was extremely discouraged by the constant violation from the applicant on planning and building permits. She agreed with AAPS that these drawings had been very poorly assembled, it had made her question the quality of the final product. She did note however that these were construction details that the building department would have to review and approve and was outside the purview of the Planning Board. She did not see an issue with changing the attic vent to an octagonal design. She had concerns about the final material board since it looked like the applicant was not replacing in-kind materials. She did see why the building needed to be elevated and even with these concerns, she would not withhold her approval. Vice President Saheba said he was very disappointed that the applicant did not come to the review. That was his only comment. Board Member Hom said he did not have a problem with what was being proposed but it was vague on a lot of the details. He thought that raising the building was still in keeping the character of the home and for an ADU it made a lot of sense. He agreed with AAPS that there needed to be more clarity on what was being retained and what was new. He did not have an objection with the octagonal roof vent or switching out the siding. He agreed with the staff that it needed to be a wood railing and would approve this Design Review with some clarifying conditions. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 5 of 10 March 22, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-03-22.pdf |