Apparently, RSM has hired an etch-a-sketch expert to explain the building heights of the condos (in their own warped way) as being "difficult to define" due to the natural slope of the land and grading/entrances and whatever else they could think of. I believe the axis of the earth, the magnetic fields, and the alignment of the planets has something to do with it too....but I'm not sure.
I don't see how it's difficult to explain the building heights of the condos. According to the Town Code, Zoning, Definitions link to Town code page:
- BUILDING HEIGHT
- The vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the proposed finish grade at the front of the building to a point midway between the highest and lowest points of the roof, excepting chimneys, spires, towers, elevator penthouses, signs, tanks and similar projections which may be permitted or authorized by this chapter.
- LOT LINE, FRONT
- On an interior lot, the lot line abutting a street; or, on a corner lot, the shorter lot line abutting a street; or, on a through lot, the lot line abutting the street providing the primary access to the lot; or, on a flag lot, the interior lot line most parallel to and nearest the street from which access is obtained; or, on a waterfront lot, the lot line abutting the water body.
[Amended 2-4-1997 by L.L. No. 1-1997]
101 is this high
102 is this high
103 is this high
104 is this high
See how easy that was?
Instead, we get etch-a-sketch drawings that don't include the underneath parking garage in the height measurements, they "average" out the measurements of the buildings, and try to explain it away as "difficult" because of the slope and grading of each building. *Sigh*
The garages aren't "underground" parking - it's "underneath" parking. You can't have underground parking at this site because of the water table.
Why aren't you including the garage in the measurements? That's 11 to 12 feet "underneath" the 43-47 average height that isn't being included. Those buildings are technically 55-59 ft. high if you include the garage.
.....and the Town Code that the PB Attorney cites, Section 235-33-(C)(4) still says the buildings can't be higher than 45 ft.
Well, whatever......have fun approving this tonight, and thanks for setting a precedent for development along the bay that affects Penfield and Webster too.
Funny how you can have definite heights for the townhouses, which are on the same slope-y land - but the behemoth condos have a height measurement formula that even Einstein would have a hard time figuring out.
Do you guys do this on purpose to frustrate people to the point of just giving up?
5 comments:
Final approval passed last night. Shocking I know.
It was a DONEDEAL a long time ago - No Surprise!
This is my email to the board that I sent out last night.
Planning Board,
Well you had to know there would be one last email from me.
All turned out as I knew it would.
Bottom line for me is that this could have been a very nice low density project. Low density, you know how this site is described in the LWRP and Master Plan. Instead you decided to take all direction from RSM and let them dictate how dense the project was going to be. There was no discussion, deliberations or for that matter even questions answered.
You even voted on a resolution tonight that claims there is "underground parking!?" Can't wait to see that underground parking under the water. Get your snorkels out. It was determined long ago that it was "underneath parking." But whatever. Another way to not count height in the equation. The public could have saved their breath during input on this application through the years.
This project sets a new precedent on the waterfront and all of you are part of it except for Mitch. I'm so glad I'm not part of it either.
Thouroughly Disgusted,
Cheri
Something I forgot to add. I am so glad that it's over. I will not have to suffer through seeing the winking-nodding-prodding-smiling-pats on the back and all of the other gestures between certain board members/attorneys and developer. It was really gagging as the meetings went on.
Many of these board members had REAL CONCERNS back in 2007 about Density-Height-Intensity. RSM only came down 4 units and pulled a set of docks that should have never been in the cove in the first place. The docks shouldn't have been grandfathered this is a TOTALLY NEW USE!
I hope the board members that voted Yes last night are proud of setting a new HIGH density use on the bay. I also hope that you are proud of not really knowing how high these buildings are going to be and not having a sitewalk in this application ever.
The "underground parking" statement in the resolution for me was the icing on the cake!!
Travesty of Justice on the Bay and your names will all go down in history with this application! Congrats!
They came down 10 units---64 to 54.
There are over 1000 pages of highly technical documents the applicant was forced to provide by the PB at the request of neighbors, CB and environmentalists. Results were obtained in laboratories and listed in hundreds of pages for no rational reason.
Respected engineering firms(many), attorneys, architects, environmental testing laboratories, two supervisors, two administrations, two town attorneys, two town planners, several residents serving in volunteer positions, have not and did not all secretly meet to conspire in a subversive plot against the residents of the town.
tim golan
Bullshit that they came down 10 units.
Here's an article from 2007 - same concerns then as now....
Link
"The developer's plan for the former Newport House property at 500 Newport Road currently includes 58 housing units – 12 each in four condominium buildings and 10 townhouse-style condominiums"
They got rid of ONE townhouse, and FOUR condos.
That's it.
And, originally, they were using about an acre of land that they didn't even own! They got rid of that parcel to avoid using a site capacity worksheet, and only got rid of one townhouse and four condos.
The last minute sketch explanation on how they determine height is in violation of the town code for determining building height.
Who the hell is saying that they all secretly met and had subversive meetings to conspire against residents?
Your hyperbole slip is showing Tim.
Bottom line, they didn't lower the density enough in my opinion. You can say that is subjective, and that's fine.
They absolutely are in violation of town code on height of the condos, and they are making up THEIR OWN RULES on how to measure the height of the buildings.
Don't want to call that conspiratorial or subversive? I have a better word.
Bullshit.
My delete above because I did not count the gas shack.
The approved plan for Newport calls for 45 condos, 9 townhouses (54 units) and the gas shack (55 units).
So, technically, they really only reduced by 3 units from the original plans submitted for the 5.9 acre site.
They did not reduce by 10 as claimed....that's all I was really pointing out.
Post a Comment