2006-DESIGN REVIEW - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Site Plan and Landscape Review McShane Construction Co. 340/342 Main Street Kenmark Office Systems/Warehouse/Mercantile/Storage Kevin Kirrane,John McShane,Justin Lamoureux, and Steven Hayes were present. In reviewing the plans, following were included in the discussion: • Plans have no grading layout on lot. How do they deal with retaining wall on left-hand side? Mr. Hayes said they will be bringing up grading to 7' and thought was they would not disturb the retaining wall. • Design Review needs to see how grades going to be set. Mr. Hayes said they wanted to see if Design Review was happy with the layout and then they will work out the grading. • Design Review commented that the building looks great. • Landscape Plan has to have 10' buffer. Mary suggested oaks and"nice natives"be placed on buffer entranceway area. At left side,Mary suggested buffer of trees and native shrubs. She suggested they try to make it look natural. • Side property line buffer 6' minimum evergreens be planted. Mary suggested it looks a little thin, so add some fill in. • Applicant needs to show how the 2 properties are going to interact. • Bob Nelson asked what they are planning to do about a sewage system. Reply was that they might have their own system. Bob asked would they please think about possibility of hooking town hall into that system. He said the Town Administrator asked him to make this request. • Applicant was asked to submit their revised plan a week before next Design Review Meeting date. Conclusion: Not approved. Applicant to resubmit Plan and to show grading and how the 2 properties are going to interact. Revised Plan to be submitted a week before next Design Review Meeting date. James H. Crocker,Jr. 14 Sampson's Mill Road Mathew Eddy,Jim Crocker, and Kevin Kirrane appeared. Before reviewing Site Plan,Design Review asked is this to be reviewed as 2 lots or one? Kevin Kirrane asked that in reviewing the present configuration look at it being one parcel. Design Review then confirmed that the review being conducted today was as one lot; no property line. • Position of building is very good. But height of building is 5' higher than allowed by town by-law. • Parking is good. • Landscaping—Mary said it looks weak; needs to be beefed up and should be vegetated. Give decent size trees and stagger trees to give naturalistic look. • Applicant to bring ConCom plan to next meeting to show what ConCom suggested. • Handicap access—need ramp coming off curb cut. • Next Plan submitted to Desi Review—show as one lot; show dum sters. Design p t seek variance. • advisory committee; applicant has right o Walter stated that Design Review is an ad ry pp Conclusion: Not approved. Applicant to resubmit proposal showing site as one lot; show dumpsters on Plan; and bring ConCom plan to next Design Review meeting.