2005-09-12 Community Planning and Development Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

RH read the Town Engineer's memo containing his comments and concerns. All had been addressed except for four: 1. Sidewalk easement 2. Electrical plans have not been submitted 3. Inflow 4. Sewer connection. CR said that the language is in the draft decision to address these points as conditions. Architect John Ogren said that the reason they had not yet submitted the electrical plans was because they were waiting for the RMLD to review the changes. RH noted that the list of waivers in the Draft Decision does not match those requested by the applicant in the letter from Hayes Engineering. Mr. Latham said the first two of their requested waivers must go hand in hand. Their first is a request to reduce the Tree Lawn on the cul-de-sac to 6' from 10'. Their second is a request for an outside pavement radius of 44' as the Fire Chief prefers rather than 40'. CR agreed that this was consistent with the Board's understanding of the matter. CR added that the Draft does not reflect the Hayes Engineering letter because the letter was submitted late last week. Regarding the third waiver request in the Hayes letter (concerning drainage), CR said that he hasn't heard back from the Town Engineer on it yet but the Board could make it a condition. RH asked why the draft's first granted waiver (concerning the preservation of 6" caliper or greater trees) was added when the applicant did not request it? CR said he added it because the applicant was not in compliance. Mr. Ogren disagreed; he said he believes that they are in compliance with the draft's first waiver. NS asked if connecting Kylie Drive with Baker Road was ever considered? Mr. Ogren said it was considered but dropped because it would require filling in wetlands. RH asked, in regard to the wetlands, if the Board should consider adding a pedestrian easement to access them? CR said it could be done and noted that the Master Plan calls for more such connections. Mr. Latham said that there are two drawbacks to such an easement. First, it would have to be made between two of the lots. Second, it would encourage loitering. Both would compromise the privacy of the lots owners. CR said that people from Wakefield Street may like the access; on the other hand, Wakefield Street is not pedestrian- friendly and does the Board want to encourage pedestrian traffic there? The Board asked what the applicant planned to do with the back lot? Mr. Latham said that the applicant was considering making it conservation land or deeding it to the Town. JS asked for comments from the Public. There were none. RH moved to close the Public Hearing. NS seconded. Voted Approved: 5:0:0. Page 2 of 9