Loading...
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