05072026 SPRAB Meeting Review

TO: Genice Gary-Adams, Zoning Official/Director of Planning and Development CC: Jamilet Baquerizo Vite, Planning Board Secretary Ryan McNeil, Planning Board Engineer FROM: Malvika Apte, PP, AICP, Planning Board Planner Langley Oudemans, Associate Planner RE: SPRAB Meeting Summary PB Application 26-02 27 Fairway Drive DATE: May 7, 2026 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ SPRAB Meeting Summary: PB 26-02 Meeting Date: April 14, 2026, at 8:30AM The SPRAB Meeting for the proposed project at 27 Fairway Drive (Planning Board Application #26-02) was conducted on April 14, 2026. Below is a summary of the items discussed, including concerns presented by the review board and actions which should be taken by the Applicant. Type of Application: Major Subdivision (3 lots) Information Presented on the Site by Applicant’s Team:  Applicant is proposing to reflect the historic layout of the area, which included smaller lots sizes. o The 1932 maps that established the lots (Rolling Greens), show a similar layout to the proposal. o Lot 6.01 would be narrower than the original plat in order to maintain a larger setback for the existing single-family home. This lot would require variances for lot area and lot width. o Lot 6.02 would require variances for setbacks and lot area. o Lot 6.03 would require a variance for lot area.  Intention of the subdivision is to have three lots with a single-family home on each property. o Future homes will be smaller and will not need variances for bulk standards.

o The pool and patio will be removed and replaced with a home.  The existing home is unique. Board Engineer:  Applicant needs to submit a revised plat that meets the requirements for a major subdivision.  Applicant shall outline on the revised plans if the development will be major or minor in order to assess compliance with stormwater management standards. o Should include new impervious coverage and the amount of site disturbance proposed. o Should include conceptual grading plans.  For stormwater management, the revised proposal should propose alternatives to a drywell system first. Bioretention, rain garde, porous pavement, etc. should be considered first. Board Planner:  Response needed to March 3rd Completeness Letter  The proposal is creating several noncompliant conditions. Justification will need to be prepared and presented to the Board.  A concept/ floor plan is needed to assess compliance with other standards, including impervious coverage.  Questions raised about the possibility of creating two lots instead of one.  The zone permits certain standards, and the Applicant will need to provide a strong argument to the Board addressing concerns and alternatives. Conclusion:  Applicant must submit revised materials to meet the requirements of a major subdivision, including the items requested by the Board Engineer and Planner.  Applicant must submit a list of the waivers being requested.  The Review Board strongly recommended that an environmental impact statement be submitted.  Currently, the application is deemed incomplete.