Laserfiche WebLink
Minor streets 1 o-d rell ings or less)require 3 1/2-inch total pavement-thicl ness; <br /> major streets require 4 1 -inch total pavement thickness. <br /> Mr. Rowley suggested that the language and definitions be reviewed for <br /> consistency clarif ieation,.as one portion of the regulation refers to "principal" streets. <br /> Ms. Laurent spore to the different widths required for minor, major, and <br /> commercial street classifications, suggesting that the Board review this matter. She has <br /> also suggested that the Board of Selectmen review all Town roads in order to devise a <br /> long-range plan for the rceonstruction rep vex ent of roads and for the expansion of <br /> sidewalks. <br /> n additional requirement has been included under Road Surfacing for <br /> inspections throughout the process. <br /> Mr. Rowley suggested that a weight/tonnage guide be established prior to <br /> construction of a project with regard to Applicant responsibility to submit weight slips for <br /> comparison purposes. <br /> Ms. Laurent,explained that she has not yet had an opportunity to review Mr. <br /> Iowley's section on berms, and suggested this matter be discussed at a later date. <br /> Mr. Rowley rley agreed to make all of the discussed changes and to update the draft <br /> for review with Ifs. Laurent and then.schedule.a date for discussion of stormwater issues; <br /> to which the Board agreed. <br /> Discussion <br /> Joy Street Revised Proposal <br /> The Chairman called this matter to order and made reference to a letter received <br /> from Town Counsel, dated December 11, 2009. He read the last paragraph of said letter <br /> into the record: "With respect to the nature and extent of discussion by Board members <br /> t such ameeting, l believe members could ask any questions they may have relative to <br /> any concept proposed-by Mr. l egathlin, rote concerns or issues they may Foresee with <br /> respect to any proposal, or suggest ways which any conceptual proposal could be <br /> modified or enhanced to better suit the public interest. I do not believe that any Board <br /> member should offer any Byrn opinion as to whether any proposal would constitute a <br /> specific and material change to the current use and configuration of the site for Section <br /> 16 purposes, nor should members consider any proposal made by Mr. Megarthlin a <br /> anything beyond a concept plan." <br /> The Chairman clarified this discussion was informational, and then recognized <br /> Don M gathlin, vice President of T l ni n fealty, representing the Applicant. He <br /> reminded the Board that request for improvements to Joy Street were denied in April, <br /> which means the matter cannot be reconsidered for two gears. However, after some <br /> 2 <br />