Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Standards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board and developer clash over façade rules, glazing and vinyl siding on proposed apartments
Summary
Board members challenged the developer’s façade treatments — including whether two‑foot wall‑plane changes are met by piers, whether the ground‑floor glazing percentage applies, and the town’s non‑waivable prohibition on vinyl siding — and asked the applicant to return with design revisions.
The planning board questioned whether the applicant's architectural approach meets the town's façade and materials standards and asked the developer to provide revised elevations and a written explanation.
Architect (S4) argued the proposed piers and color variation create the required 2‑foot wall‑plane modulation and visual interest. Board consultant Anthony (S10) said the zoning definition focuses on wall‑plane changes and noted the illustration in the code expects a wall‑plane modulation rather than thin decorative fins. The chair (S1) and other members said the board must be able to document compliance or explain deviations when forwarding a recommendation to the town board.
Board members also pressed the applicant on the ground‑floor glass percentage. The applicant said the 35% glazing standard is more applicable to mixed‑use downtown settings and that larger residential windows could conflict with privacy and mechanical needs; consultant S10 suggested increasing transparency in nonresidential spaces (community room, fitness area) to approach the standard.
On materials, the applicant said moving from vinyl to cement‑fiber or hardiplank would add significant cost — an estimate of roughly $400,000 — while the chair pointed out that the code explicitly bans vinyl on principal structures and called that provision non‑waivable.
