Laserfiche WebLink
S <br /> 1 <br /> .f <br /> peak and 50 i n the evening . Approximately 500 trips over a 24 hour peri od . <br /> Pat asked if there were any actual comments from the Fire Department <br /> regarding this proposal ? <br /> s: Tom said they have not see this proposal . <br /> Mr. Angus said the Fire chief was at the trial . <br /> Dennis asked about the section of road without the double barrelling , what <br /> happens there? <br /> Mr. McGrath explained there is a 300 foot section without double barrelling . The area al 1 around it has been cleared, there are no trees <br /> =;Y} that could fall and block the road . 5 <br /> Tom asked if they had plans for that area of the road? <br /> Mr. McGrath showed the Board the plan. They have to provide slope <br /> protection n this area, There w i 11 be a guard rat 1 . There s a fi foot , <br /> d ra off at the worst area. <br /> Tony said this area is a real choke point. <br /> Mr. Scully said 40 cars per hour is a small number. 20 feet of pavement is <br /> 4 more than adequate to carry those cars any time of the day. This 300 foot <br /> section is 22 feet of pavement. There is plenty of room for a vehicle to <br /> ti get by there and there is nothing around there to block i t. There w i 11 be <br /> an increase on the street system but i t i s easily accommodated by it' s <br /> design . <br /> Tom said the issue is blockage and safety, not capacity . If there is an <br /> accident the situation is even tighter than a normal subdivision street ' <br /> M because of the guard rail . <br /> F Tony said the boulevard approach has merit but this area is the weak link <br /> f, in the chain . <br /> He asked how long the cul de sac is to get to the subdivision? <br /> =- M r. McGrath said approximately 1700 feet. <br /> Tony said the boulevard seems to address the safety issues within that <br /> -Y portion of the layout. <br /> Tom asked what the potential is for undeveloped land that could access this <br /> road in the future? <br /> Mr. McGrath said ComE 1 ect r i c owns one parcel and the applicant owns the <br /> other. The Planning Board has the right, in his opinion , to limit the <br /> access. The Board can add a condition to the approval to limit the future <br /> development here. <br /> ` Tom asked if there has been any representation that the applicant will <br /> l i m i t any further access? <br /> Mr. McGrath said they haven 't been asked. <br /> he Board stands with the court decision? ; <br /> :.; Tom asked Town counsel where t � <br /> .' This is a different plan that the one denied. � <br /> Mr. Danes k i sa i d th 7 s p 1 an i s for the Board s consideration as if it was . <br /> what the applicant proposed originally. With a remand, the parameters are <br /> a little more relaxed . There is no need for a formal submission for a <br /> mod-'f i cation . This new proposal will take the place of what the Board <br /> first reviewed and denied . The remand has required the Board to reconsider . <br /> their original decision . There is no requirement to act tonight. You can <br /> 2 <br /> k. <br /> t <br />