Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPublic CommentFile: Planning Letter 1/22/20 ROBERT M. LAURICELLA, ARCHITECT 260 Mt Auburn St. (1-D), Watertown, MA, 02472, Tel.(61 Attn: Board of Appeal 1/22/2020 JAN 22 ATEF?7-� j1, ,N, MA RE: Porter Street and other developments reducing zoning requirements which impact on car spaces. Dear Sirs I have noticed that in a number of recent decisions by the Planning Board they have granted reductions in parking requirements in their approvals. 166 Main Street and 85 Walnut -Street. i have also heard from one of the town planners that they believe that based on the Gables Housing Project, new tenants are not using their parking spaces, therefore there is a trend that tenants are not having as many cars and that they can reduce the parking requirements. I have also noticed that the zoning requirements for Porter Street were relaxed so a developer could put 4 parking spaces in the rear yard. They relaxed the requirement of a 4 foot side yard -buffer to allow the developer to extend the driveway into the rear yard. This allowed them to have more than the 2-3 tandem parking spaces that are common in Watertown. This reduction seemed in contrast to the concept that car ownership is decreasing, that the planners advocated at the Main &Walnut projects. This relaxation allows the developer to sell the 2 family house as condos with assigned parking spaces. This relaxation encourages gentrification of Watertown as well as the reduction of open space. I do not understand why the these zoning variance are being granted in spite of the negative impact. I hope you will not continue this practice by rejecting the variance for Porter Street and other projects that encourage this type of development. Sincerely Robe La icell i P e developer can probably achieve this buffer if he removes a bay window on the first floor but this will cost more money.