8/1/2018 PLANNING BOARD Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Wil 1 ob end prof ect of 3 27 acres, excluding the new 9 golf hol e course, a 60 acre sep arate project. Teed restricted open space totaled approximately 188 acres, double what was required. The project would be adjacent to the Santuit River but oul d respect the 200 foot setback, with a small corner of grading within the Zoo feet. .Zl r. mcElhinney confirmed that they had been in receipt of Mr. Bowle 's comments and would respond to thews. Mr. Eddy reiterated that the project site would.be located off of Sampsons Mill Road, and would front on the golf course. Santuit River would be located to the east and some water drainage work would need to be completed in a corner of the site,within-the Zoo foot setback, which had been approved as an RDA by the Conservation Commission. The project area consisted of acres, 7 1/2 acres of which was upland, and would feature 11 structures consisting of 22 duplex units* 5 buildings in the`Wi110 " style, and 6 buildings in the"Fairway" style, identical to the structures in "The villages.'' Proposed additional amenities included a s 'all pool and changing area. ,ill setbacks woul d be m et for the Witt owb end Special Pe'ftnif' Lot coverage total ed 13.1 below what was required. A.ccess to the development would be a 2.2 foot roadway access off of Samp sons.M 11 Road. Each unit would have its own garage, driveway.and two parking spaces and Mr. Eddy confirmed that there would be handicapped parking available, as well as guest parking availability., Drainage and stormwater would meet all Town and DEP requirements and. Mr. Eddy confirmed that he would be working with Mr. Bowleg regarding his comments. proposed retaining wall would address the topography drop off on the east side and the building foundation would be considered by the Building Department for structural design. Mr. Balzarini inquired about the height and style of the wall, to which lam`. Eddy responded that it could be approximately 12 feet. Mr. Rowley referenced.Plan C-4.0 and expressed concern about the length of the wall and height differences, describing the different types of walls that could be-. used. Mr. Rowley agreed that the Building Inspector would have the final say, due to the gall being considered a structure, but recon mended consi dean sp'eci al language for the wall in the Modification-since the gall could move further out depending upon the tape of wall being used, and could be an important consideration for the Planning Board due to its potential impact. Mr. Rowle: y recommended that preliminary designs be shared With the Board to know better what to expect regarding the all's impacts. Mir. Balzarini expressed concern about the safety of the height and the need for fencing, Mir. Rowley added that some drainage areas could be difficult to access due to the wall, Mr. Rowley suggested the possibility of added wording to the Special Permit that, should the wall design require relocation of the gall, the project proponent would need to present changes to the planning Board. Mr, Weeden inquired about impacts to the gall with increased stoarmwater but Mr. owl ey responded there would be a pervious barrier to remove the storrnater or a means to relieve the pressure of water. Mr. Weeden inquired whether increased nitrogen could be transported to the river and Mr. Rowley responded that it was some distance from the river, adding thathe was unsure whether it was addressed inthe Con se ati on Commission's iW . Mr. Bowley noted that runoff-from the gall would be taken away from the wall and roof drains would remove runoff'away from the wall. Mr, Rowley stated 2