Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-12-05Planninq Bo&r~ ~ssting Joseph Mahoney, ChaiLman, Richard Rowen, Vice Chairman, Alison Lescarbeau, Clerk, Alberto Angles, Associate Member. Richard Nardella arrived at 7:10 p.m. John Simons arrived at 8:10 p.m. Kathleen Bradley Colwell, Town Planner, was also present. D~scussion Butcher Boy sians/nei~hbor concerns Discussions of the landscaping, lighting and sign material continued. Mr. Yameen's landscaper was present and stated that he knows of no shrub/bush that would grow faster than the pine trees to shield Mr. Ragonese's property. The landscaper stated that white pines grow tall and spread fast; soon there will be a 20 to 30 foot wall of trees there. Mr. Ragonese suggested that additional pine trees be planted. Mr. Rowen stated he felt there was a section near the hydrant that could be planted with shrubs to block car headlights. Mr. Mahoney asked Mr. Yameen if there wasn't something that could be planted that would make Mr. Ragonese happy. Mr. Yameen thought so. Ms. Colwell to follow up on the landscaping. Some shrubbery is to be planted in the area of the hydrant to shield car headlights. Brian Lawlor, Crime Prevention Officer for the Police Department, was present to discuss the lighting. He visited the location at night to view the lighting situation from a security standpoint. There are two reasons why he believes the lighting should remain as it is and no shields placed on the security lights: 1. For personal security, employees leaving from the rear of their establishments will have the benefit of a large majority of the parking area lit if the lighting remains as it is. For employees carrying night deposits, if the shields were placed on the security lights, a large section of the parking lot would not be illuminated. Their safety could be endangered if the proper lighting is not in place. 2. For Police Officers responding or patrolling late at night when over 90% of business break-ins occur, if the security lights are shielded then only a small amount of area next to the building is illuminated. The Police Officers safety could be in jeopardy if they confront suspects involved in a business break in a darkened parking lot. Ms. Colwell stated that the parking lot pole lights adjacent to Mr. Ragonese's property were shielded. Mr. Picard, the Yameens sign man, was supposed to bring to this meeting some pictures of a sign made of sign foam. He wasn't able to because they were unavailable. Mr. Rowen asked if the construction of the entrance sign was underway. Mr. Picard replied yes. A motion was made by Mr. Nardella, seconded by Ms. Lescarbeau, to reconsider the prior vote taken on the sign issue. The Board unanimously agreed. A motion was made by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Ms. Lescarbeau, that in consideration of the applicant's willingness to review putting in additional landscaping along the property boundary with Mr. Ragonese, the Planning Board will agree to modify condition 22 of the Site Plan Review Special Permit requiring wooden signs and will allow a sign foam entrance sign, sign foam background on the 3 facades, and plexiglass letters on the building. All colors (green & ivory), lettering styles and textures are to be as presented to the Planning Board. The Board voted 4 to i in favor of the motion. Mr. Mahoney yes Mr. Rowen yes Ms. Lescarbeau yes Mr. Nardella yes Mr. Angles no A unanimous vote of four members is required in order to modify a special permit, therefore, the motion passed. Crossroads - sigps Att he last meeting Ms. Colwell presented plans for the Fuddruckers sign at the Crossroads Plaza. It is a wooden sign, but in the shape of the Fuddruckers logo instead of a rectangular wooden sign with the letters carved into it as was originally presented to the Board. The Board requested that Peter Shaheen and a representative from Fuddruckers attend the meeting to discuss the sign and awnings. Mr. Shaheen and Bill Van Benthysen, Fuddruckers representative, were present to discuss the sign issue. They presented a drawing of the proposed building with the signs and awnings in place. The general agreement of the Board was that 12 or so signs on the awnings was a bit much. Mr. Van Benthysen pointed out that the bylaw allows for 200 square feet of signage and their sign square footage is 160 square feet. The Board stated that two wooden signs would be sufficient, given that Fuddruckers has a very visible location. Mr. Shaheen stated that only the Fuddruckers building will have awnings. Mr. Mahoney asked what is the schedule for the opening Fuddruckers? Mr. Shaheen replied in April 1996. Mr. Mahoney suggested to Ms. Colwell that she have a conference with the Building Inspector, Mr. Nicetta, regarding the signs on the awnings. Mr. Rowen asked Mr. Shaheen to please see to it that the area around the Crossroads be kept cleaner. Lot 14 Lost Pond - Aaricultural Restriction Lot 14 Lost Pond contains the horse farm. The decision of the Board required that an agricultural restriction be placed on the lot. The Board wanted to be sure that lot 14 was not further subdivided, and that it remain as a farm or as open space. The te~m "agricultural restriction" as the State Office of Executive Affairs uses it, does not cover this situation. So, Dave Kindred's counsel and our counsel have worked out a "Restrictive Covenant" that covers the Board's concerns. As the decision requires an "Agricultural Restriction," Mr. Kindred's counsel has requested that the Board agree to a minor modification of the decision to change the language to say "Restrictive Covenant." Ms. Colwell recommends accepting the restrictive covenant and modifying the decision appropriately. On a motion by Mr. Nardella, seconded by Ms. Lescarbeau, the Board voted unanimously to accept the "Agricultural Covenant." Review of CBA interpretation There was no discussion of this item. Bonds/Lot Releases Hickory Hill - bond reduction Ms. Lescarbeau read the spread sheet from DPW recommending the following: the release of $24,000 and the retainage of $59,440 On a motion by Ms. Lescarbeau, seconded by Mr. Rowen, the Board voted unanimously for the release of $24,000 and the retainage of $59,440. Endorsement of Plans Form A Campbell Road - create o~e lot This subdivision (Campbell Forest) has been in litigation with ConCom. Because of that, Ms. Colwell checked with Town Counsel before bringing it to the Board. As Town Counsel stated it was appropriate to sign, the Board directed Ms. Colwell to endorse the Form A. Public Hearinqs= Modification to Meadowood III - subdivision/R-6 Lot 1M & 2M Route 125 - com~Qn Drive/Access Lot 3M & 4M Route 125 - Common Drive/Access The Planning Board held a site visit on November 11 at which time the engineer proposed a cul-de-sac off of Route 125 with 4 lots. The Planning Board members were all faxed copies of the plan at that time. ConCom did not waive the 50' no-build and 25' no-cut regulations. Therefore, the cul-de-sac plan is not buildable as presented as the roadway does not fit within the buffer zones. We are still waiting for comments from the drainage consultant. Mr. Nardella asked what Ms. Colwell's recommendation is. She replied that the Board has granted this in the past against her recommendation. There was general discussion and Mr. Mahoney stated he saw no reason why not to grant the four lots. Mr. Nardella stated that it is the only R-6 parcel in Town, and even though his heart is not in it, the fourth lot does seem to be consistent with the area. Ms. Lescarbeau feels that by allowing the access other than over the legal frontage the builder will be getting an extra lot. Ms. Colwell stated that the access is on a busy road (Route 125) and state approval will be needed. On a motion by Mr. Rowen, seconded by Ms. Lescarbeau, the public hearing was closed and staff was directed to draft a favorable decision for the December 19, 1995 meeting. Ad4ournment: On a motion by Ms. Lescarbeau, seconded by Mr. Rowen, the Board unanimously voted to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.