Case # 12-004, 160 Green Street, Eric Kenworthy (continued Public Hearing)

Agenda original PDF

No further agenda text.

Minutes original PDF

n he had brought and by indicating that trim would be placed around the windows and trim panels would be used above and below each window. Mr. Cassidy asked Mr. Kenworthy to explain how the gutter system would tie into the mansard roofline. Mr. Kenworthy indicated that the gutter would go along the fascia of the building, across the front of the structure. The downspouts would be located where one portion of the building is slightly offset from the other. Mr. Cassidy asked if the trim would be white and Mr. Kenworthy indicated this would likely be the case. Mr. Kenworthy went on to note that they may try to do a copper-look with the gutters for the building. Mr. Cassidy asked if AZEK would be used for the siding of the structure. Mr. Kenworthy stated Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 23, 2013 Page 5 of 8 that they would use AZEK or HardiePlank, but they would like to work with the Design Review Subcommittee on these specific details. Mr. King stated that he thought the gutters should be at the top of the mansard roof and not the bottom of the fascia. He thought the gutters should be located where the pitch of the mansard roof changes. Mr. Kenworthy stated that he thought it would be odd to put gutters in this location. Mr. Cassidy asked if there would be porch roof coverings over the front entrances. Mr. Kenworthy indicated that the originally proposed first floor roof coverings may be too much but they would like to talk to the Design Review Subcommittee about this detail. Mr. Ingemi added that they did not want to have bay windows on the first floor due to privacy concerns. Mr. Kenworthy then pointed out that condensers are not covered under the plumbing code and therefore there is no requirement that they have specific access provided to them on the roof of the structure. He went on to indicate that condensers are typically replaced only once every 20 years and rarely require maintenance. Mr. Kenworthy also noted that most three story buildings simply use ladders to access the condensers on their roofs. Mr. Cassidy stated that he felt the Planning Board was less concerned about the access to the condenser units. Mr. Welch indicated that he felt the condensers would need to be accessed more than once every 20 years. He noted that the fans of the condensers wear out and a 20 year estimate is for a perfectly functioning device. Mr. Kenworthy stated that maintenance issues could always arise but roof hatches are expensive and the condensers would likely only need to be accessed in the summer. Mr. Cassidy then asked how tall the condensers are and Mr. Kenworthy indicated they are approximately 24 to 30 inches in height. Mr. Cassidy stated that if the Applicant would prefer to access the condensers via ladders, that was fine with him. Mr. Kenworthy then spoke to the issue of handicap access to each of the units and indicated that because he is constructing townhouse units he would not have to make any of the units handicap accessible. Ms. Morelli and Mr. Cassidy conferred with one another if that was the correct interpretation of the regulation. Ms. Morelli felt the project might fall into a category that would require one of the units to be accessible. Mr. Kenworthy stated that since the project has no elevator and no ground level unit, the project is not required to have an accessible unit. Mr. Cassidy confirmed that this is due to the exception for townhouse style units because they are multi-story and Mr. Kenworthy indicated that was correct. Ms. Morelli added that the worst case scenario would be that the Applicant would have to add an internal wheelchair lift. Mr. Cassidy stated that if the units were flats, one of them would be required to be accessible. Ms. Morelli stated that it did not seem like someone could challenge these units for being required to have an accessible unit. Mr. Cassidy noted that his concern is that the site plan of the project would potentially need to be revised to accommodate an accessible unit. He went on to say that he was not sure if this particular project applied to the Federal Fair Housing Act. There was then a brief conversation about the rooftop penetrations for the HVAC system. Mr. Salvo stated that the site plan alterations included removing the saw tooth style curbing in the rear parking area and bringing the concrete sidewalk right up to the front of the building. He continued on to say that a poured-in-place concrete wall would be implemented along the western property line as a modular block wall would not be sturdy enough if any vehicles hit it. Mr. Salvo also noted that there will be a bit of space between this retaining wall and the walkway to the food store. He also indicated that he had met with the City Engineer who is now comfortable with this proposed construction. Mr. Mercado noted that the retaining wall along the western property line looks pretty high. Mr. Salvo stated that the wall is 3 feet high but it is only 2 feet higher than th

All documents for this meeting on the city portal