Laserfiche WebLink
„VfIU, <br /> � ��� 2 Plannin Board- <br /> A, Jown of 4ashye <br /> 16 Great Neck Road North <br /> -%lashpee, Massachusetts 02649 <br /> small portion of the proposed building could not get over to the storm water system and leaching basins <br /> were installed to catch the runoff. Plan and Design Review gave approval from both Committees. Minor <br /> landscaping modifications will replace the current vegetation to a climbing hydrangea on the lattice. The <br /> island on the easterly end of the ten parking spaces will have landscaping like shrubs and grass. In <br /> going through Mr. Pesce's comment letter, in regards to the setback standpoint. Mr. Eddy's personal <br /> involvement with this project has been since 2005, and there have been many modifications with <br /> special permit going through the process. We are at 4.6 feet off of Charles St. an internal road, which is <br /> greater than the setbacks at Roche Bros. Internally, it's in keeping with what's consistent. The overall <br /> perimeter is maintained from original approvals. Mr. Pesce also commented on handicap space <br /> relocations. He recommended adding a note for the 90* cut off for black sky ordinance. On the storm <br /> water, he suggested added invert elevations where storm drain pipes can be added. <br /> Ms. Cox resumed by stating Mr. Eddy covered a lot of what she was going to discuss, unless the Board <br /> had further questions. Locally, in addition to Design and Plan Review, they also filed the plans with the <br /> Commission, their review is at staff level to determine the building is consistent with DRI decision. <br /> Those paths can happen simultaneously. She doesn't have comments back from the Commission yet. <br /> In addition, when plans were submitted to the Commission, out of abundance of caution the <br /> Commission's decisions require certificates to be issued before the DRI expires. The Commission <br /> wants all their certificates which include construction. They have sought an extension. The site has <br /> already been approved and authorized. They are seeking to build less than what the Board has <br /> previously approved for this shopping center. The plan is consistent and the entire team is present for <br /> questions. <br /> Mr. Balzarini reiterated it was two stores with one building. Where is the dumpster? Do the delivery <br /> trucks come at a certain time of day? Historically there have been problems with Home Goods delivery <br /> trucks, and the morning is a very busy time for deliveries. <br /> Ms. Cox noted the building is laid out to accommodate two retail tenants. <br /> Mr. Eddy referred to sheet 3.0, the rear loading dock area. There is a potential of sharing the dumpster. <br /> They can use the areas in the alleyway between C-D that have doors. If they don't, there is a location at <br /> the loading dock area. <br /> Myles Ostroff explained that all leases have language for rules and regulations that are enforced and <br /> put in place by the landlord. Once a tenant is finalized, they address their loading requests at that time. <br /> A lot of mornings, he is aware it needs to be managed. <br /> Mr. Phelan asked if this was the same plan presented to Plan Review. He asked if the building had <br /> sprinkler fire protected systems. Could they potentially use the alleyway dumpster? <br /> Mr. Ostroff stated the location in question plans for the dumpster in the loading area. They are working <br /> with the tenant to utilize two dumpers in building F2, a closer location. In both cases they don't <br /> anticipate heavy trash use. <br /> 7 <br />