5/16/1984 PLANNING BOARD Minutes

Home Browse Search

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES:, 5-16-84 Cont 'd . Page 5 Per Nylen and Atty, Kirrane care. before the Board representing Redbrook Corporation and Earle l arsters abstained from this petition. They said they had submitted a plan to the Board two weeks ago and Mr. Rowley was to review the plan and make his recommendations and that 's why they were here tonight, to hear the recommendations and act acc ord in ly. Nor. Rowley vent through his report and said the plan did Satisfy the cluster provisions but felt there was a problem with lots 4 & 5 having less than the 60' frontage as required on Brookside Gir*cle . He did say however that thes6,o,-lots did have the frontage on Redbrook Rd * and I onomoscoy Rd. and so it would depend on where the house fronts as to whether there is enough frontage so the decision has to be made as to where the frontage will be . Atty. Kirrane said they hadn't wanted any access onto Redbrook Rd. but if Mr. Rowley's interpretation was correct, then there would be access on Redbrook Rd . . Rowley said on the plan it said "possible tennis courts" and felt it should say one way or the othr, Mrs Jonas agreed. Atty. Kirrane said the definitive plan will say whether or not they will have tennis court and will show the where the 60, frontage will be . Mr. Jonas felt the plan looked like a conventional subdivision and it was going to be brought to bear on the Board with other cluster develop- ments , Atty. Kirrane stated the zoning bylaw sets forth guidelines and sets forth a specific formula. e also said they could have 60 cluster lots but they are only having 54. Jean Thomas, in the audience , felt there was a density problem and this would create an impact. Atty. Kir•r~ane said if it were a multi,-*family development, they would be allowed to put in 100 units and when it comes to cluster developments, the Board 's flexibility is limited to the rules and regulations , Bill Overhoultz from the Committee for wa}uoit Bay haat these things to say regarding the development l There is a traf'f'ic problem on Redbrook Rd. along with l onomoscoy and this would add to it. 2 There is a water supply and fire protection problem in this area. 3 The open, space area is non usable land as it's below the 11' contour. 4) All the lots are right on the coastal bank Per Nylen responded by saying 1 He doesn't know the 7traffia.).would have an impact on Waquoit Bay -axed according to deed restrictions there would be no access to Redbrook Rd. 2 He thinks the open space is good a it consists of a cranberry bog and old trail system and across old dike 3 ) Yes, some .of open space is unbuildabie and they are constructing n lots most appropriate and not constructing on ones that aren't.