Planning Board Meeting Notes on Overlook Acres, LLC - April 2, 2020
On Thursday April 2, the Planning Board continued the public hearing for Overlook Acres, LLC, the development on Barnes Road/Highland Avenue/Cedar Road. The meeting may be viewed online.
My previous post (March 28) detailed the changes being introduced to the plans in response to their first meeting in front of the Planning Board on March 5. You can read a recap of the March 5 meeting in this blog post (March 7).
The agenda for the April 2 Planning Board meeting was extremely ambitious, and the entire meeting was approximately 4 hours. Even with the first two agenda items asking for an immediate continuance, the board still needed to limit discussion for all remaining agenda items to a total of 45 minutes: 15 minutes for developer presentation, 15 minutes for questions and comment from the board, and 15 minutes for questions and comment from the public. In the end, the developers gave an abbreviated presentation which went a bit over their allotted time, the board gave some comment and a few questions, and the public was limited to a handful of individuals.
A quick note about the process and our current normal: the Planning Board is doing their best to give each project a fair hearing. I want to again remind everyone that this is a volunteer board, and each member has a full time job, and everyone is doing the best they can during this extremely stressful time. Ben Anderson made a statement later on in the meeting that the board is intentionally slowing down the process moving forward. They are spacing out hearing dates in order to better take in public comment. To this end, the next date for this project is May 5. Nothing is being rushed through the process.
Comments and questions from the Planning Board:
Carole Hamilton asked about trash location. The current plan has a centralized location for trash. Additionally, it is not hidden behind a building, which was an intentional decision to avoid issues that could happen if things are out of the public eye. Residents will need to either put their trash bags into their car trunk and drop it off, or walk over to the dumpster area. This also provides one stop for trash removal trucks instead of trucks traveling to each building, bringing them closer to the surrounding neighbors.
Carole also asked for clarification on the number or stories for each building: building 2 is now 3 stories, the commercial/retail building, 5, is now 1 story, and buildings 1,3 and 4 are 4 stories. In other words, for this new plan, building 2 and 5 were the only buildings to lose height and units.
Kirt Rieder commented on the entry corridor setback with regards to the commercial building. The plan has it very close to the road, with the entry in the back. The developer felt that this merited approval. The board is still looking for dimensions from ground to the peak of the roof, not just number of stories. The board will look to the Fire Marshall for approval of the length of the cul-de-sacs within the development. He also commented that the open spaces are more robust in this new plan, but is looking to the abutters and neighborhood to comment about the preference for keeping a dense buffer or “blowing it all out” and planting new vegetation that could take 15 years to grow in. He is still trying to digest the density, especially in relation to the wetlands. The applicants stated that they are no closer than 25 feet, but it may still be too close, since an expectation is more like 50 feet of buffer.
Helen Sides, Noah Koretz, and Matt Smith questioned the buffer vs. the overly developed park. Looking for public comment on this change. It may be developing a pathway from the residential area into a small commercial area, which may be beneficial to the neighborhood, but they are all looking for feedback from the neighbors.
Matt Smith made positive comments about the changes in the entrance roads, which now are more street like due to the elimination of many of the parking spaces along the entrance roads.
Several members of the board complimented to developers on the changes introduced since the last meeting. They have decreased the surface parking spaces, lowered the density by a bit, and made an effort to move things out of the wetlands.
Public comment was very limited:
David Labbe, who lives next to the proposed playground, asked about the buffer between his house and the project. He likes the playground, but would like to maintain more of a buffer. Also he is questioning the comparisons being made between building 2 and the house across Barnes Road. His house is closer to the building, and the building is 7 feet higher than his home.
Leann Zeoli, who lives across Highland Avenue, asked about the hours of operation for the businesses in building 5, and asked about signage and illumination.
Beverly H commented about the preference for mature growth, as opposed to taking down trees and planting new. She also commented about the one-way driveway onto Barnes Road and the enforcement of access on this road. She stated that she has seen people drive the wrong way on roads like this.
And that was the end of public comment for this meeting.
Moving forward: After speaking with the applicant, we are working on a way to continue the conversation between the neighborhood and the developer during this next month in order to get answers to questions from the neighbors. We are still working our a way to get all of your comments and questions during the next month both on the public record and to the developer for answers. I will hopefully have something pulled together early in the week to address this. In addition, I have a few suggestions for making the public comment period more efficient for each project. Hopefully, we can make a few tweaks in the process.
