HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-08-23Planning Board
H~nutes
~ugust 23, ~994
L~brazT Con£erenoo Room
The meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m.
Members Present
Richard Nardella, Chairman, Joseph Mahoney, Vice Chairman, and John
Daghlian. Richard Rowen, Clerk, arrived at 7:12 p.m. Also present
was Kathleen Bradley Colwell, Town Planner. John Simons and Alison
Lescarbeau were absent.
Hoadowood II!
Mr. Steve Stapinski and Mr. Thomas Laudani were present.
There was a discussion of D.P.W. issues.
need to create a turnaround at the end of Peterson until
a road connection is built to Nadine Lane.
Ms. Colwell suggested that a temporary cul-de-sac be constructed at
the end of Peterson and that the lots covered by the cul-de-sac be
constructed when the roadway connection goes through thus providing
incentive to the applicant to pursue the roadway connection.
Mr. Nardella asked what the time frame was for getting the road
connection through the Conservation Commission process.
Mr. Stapinski told the Board that the Planning Board approval must
be filed, then file with Conservation Commission based on Planning
Board decision. Conservation Commission will then issue a
decision. If the Conservation Commission denies the application,
the applicant will appeal the denial to the Superior Court and
D.E.P. D.E.P. can issue a superseding order.
The Planning Board could also be a party to the
application and therefore appeal the Conservation
Commission decision.
Current plan shows no activity within 15 feet of wetland.
Roadway connection is not currently designed.
Conservation Commission will view roadway connection as
a separate application.
Less 5,000 sq.ft, wetland filling required.
Mr. Rowen asked why is the entire roadway not shown on the plans?
Mr. StapinskiWs reply was because in that case the Conservation
Commission would disapprove the entire project not just the roadway
connection and this would tie up the entire project.
Mr. Rowen concerned that if plans show a temporary cul-de-sac, it
will be more difficult to obtain Conservation Commission approval.
Mr. Stapinski stated that the project can only obtain limited
access crossing status if the Planning Board requires the roadway
connection across the wetland.
Discussion of limited access crossing status limits ability of
local Conservation Commission to put conditions on project.
Mr. Stapinski stated that there would be 120' of roadway through
the wetland but less than 5,000 sq. ft. of filling total.
Mr. Nardella stated that the Planning Board is looking at the
roadway from a safety and traffic flow point of view.
Mr. Daghlian suggested that the public safety issue be discussed
with the police department.
Mr. Stapinski suggested that a cul-de-sac not be a written
requirement, suggest that to achieve public safety need to require
road connection. Roadway connection would be limited to 22'
Mr. Mahoney stated that applicants generally construct a temporary
cul-de-sac and remove it when roadway connection is made.
Mr. Stapinski could fit a small cul-de-sac into the current design.
- on Lot 17 slide house back from the road 12' to fit 25' from
wetland setback, slide Lot 18 house back, could move homes on Lots
17, 18 and 19 to create room for cul-de-sac. Do not have to change
limit of grading, can build cul-de-sac same size as Meadowood II.
Mr. Nardella said to put need for roadway connection in the
decision - strong language regarding public safety, acknowledge
reduced right-of-way and pavement.
Do not actually build road until Nadine side of road under
construction. Town keeps bond money to cover cost of construction
of connection.
Mr. Nardella stated that the Planning Board should attend the
Conservation COmmission hearing on the roadway connection.
Discussion of D.P.W. letter:
cape cod berm to be installed
Condition that design of roadway connection be submitted for
review and approval by the Planning Board and D.P.W. prior to
endorsement, but not shown on plan.
Why 10' fill?
Mr. Stapinski stated that Conservation required all grading to send
flow of water away from the wetland areas, could have 7 ft. of fill
without this requirement of Conservation Commission.
temporary cul-de-sac
require applicant to submit to the Planning Board and D.P.W.
for approval a plan for a temporary cul-de-sac during
construction, prior to endorsement but not o__n the endorsed
plans
"to be utilized until such time as connection is finalized"
4. 4 ft. sidewalks
Items 5 through 11 to be as written by D.P.W.
12.
Discussion of location of leach pits - not possible to move
pits out of front yard - will move pits as per D.P.W. where
possible.
Items 13 through 17 to be as written by D.P.W.
Roadway connection to NadineLane must be completed unless rendered
un-permittable by the Conservation Commission.
Condition #1
Applicant shall within ninety (90) days apply for
permits to construct the roadway from station 4+50
through to Nadine Lane and upon receipt of
applicable permits construct such connection.
Planning Board wants connection for public safety - create
neighborhood in the R-6 Zoning District as consistent with the
overall plan of the R-6 Zone.
Ms Colwell to add side width to the list of waivers.
On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, the Board voted
to approve the Meadowood III Definitive Subdivision Conditional
Approval as amended and discussed.
Why show Parcel A in on the subdivision plan?
Mr. Stapinski replied, because regulations require remaining land
of the owner to be shown.
Discussion by the Planning Board that 28 lots created, 26 new
homes, i existing home, plus Parcel A.
Prior to endorsement the Planning Board and D.P.W. must review
design of road.
Discussion regarding the placement of a stockade fence behind Lot
10 along Route 125 and along the Gallant Property. Ms. Colwell to
add as a condition.
Site opening bond set at $15,000.
Discussion regarding whether any specific conditions should be
placed on Parcel A. No specific conditions to be placed on Parcel
A.
On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, the Board voted
to approve Meadowood III Special Permit as amended this evening.
The Chairman also voted.
The Board reviewed the playground equipment
70~x70t area
40'x30'
sand and mulch base
planting around bus shelter
Will become a Town playground.
"Package IV" - the Monster Castle Series was reviewed and approved
by the Planning Board.
Bus e~
Interior - benches and MDO board - landscaping around exterior
Redesign of roof discussed - same roof pitch as existing homes
Review roof design will be reviewed by the Planning Board once tot
lot and landscaping is in place.
~onina Chanqe~
The Planning Board discussed changes to the Watershed Protection
District and Zoning Bylaw proposed by the Watershed Council.
The Planning Board discussed increasing the CBA to 90% in the
watershed and changes to the Phased Development Bylaw
The Planning Board is in a better position to monitor Phased
Development.
The Planning Board will focus attention on:
1. Watershed Protection District
2. Lots issues