8/1/2018 PLANNING BOARD Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,y that, once approved by the Building Inspector, the Planning Board and he should receive a copy of the final plans for the wall. Mr. Weeden stated that, due to its proximity to Santuit River and Shoestring Bay, the project sat in a designated high sensitivity map, Mr. Weeden stated that the entire area was archeologically sensitive and inquired about plans for archeological testing. Mr. McElhinney responded that there was an archeological preservation restriction located outside of the area, along sections of the western side of the river. Mr. McElhinney responded that he could provide a copy of a recorded preservation restriction, prohibiting any alteration within the easement area, noting that testing had occurred in the 1980s. IIS-. Weeden expressed interest in reviewing the report and its findings. Mr. McElhinney responded that he could look into it, noting that he believed it was PAL who completed the word.. Mr. Balzarint recommended also following up with Toni Fudala and Chuck Green, who may have additional information. Chairman wa gan requested that Mr. Mc lhinney forward the recorded preservation restriction to Mr. Lehrer, to then provide 1t to Mr. Weeden for his review, providing any of his comments to Mr. Lehrer for the draft.Modification. The Chair"Inquired if members of the public wished to view the plans, while the matter was being discussed. Mr. Cummings referenced the land swap completed, stating that Design Review had expressed interest in adding trees for the last building. Mr. Eddy responded that existing vegetation would be maintained, as much as was possible, and augmented as necessary. Updated plans were submitted and noted as L-1. 3,0 and 3.1, with a revision date oft , Mr. Lehrer stated that a separate landscape plan was provided and Mr. Eddy confirmed that the comment was addressed. Plans provided to the Planning Board in their packets did not include the comments but Mr. Lehrer responded that they had been sent by email, Mr. Hansen referenced the lower buildings and the significant grade changes and impacts of heavy rain. Mr. Eddy responded that the buildings would feature a walkout basement,.noting that the only flow would be from vegetated areas because all other flow would be picked up by the stormwater system. Mr. Rowley provided comments in two letters. Among his comments, Mr. Rowley referenced m onumentation of Sampsons Mill Road and the boundary of the property, drainage and location of paved waterways and alternate location for stormwater area.#12. Mr. Rowley also referenced the driveway for Building#5 that pitched towards the building, recommending a berm to ensure runoff would be captured in the basin rather than traveling to the wall. Mr. Bowleg inquired about adequate capacity with the existing sewer and adequate access for fire protection as well as a handicap pasting spot, grading comments and the need for on-site soil test results for drainage calculations. Mr. Eddy responded that their Special Permit allowed for the soil to be witnessed at the time of excavation. In addition,Mr. Rowley indicated that more information was needed about the status of an irrigation well, location of vaults and the adequacy of the system running parallel to Sampsons trill load. Mr. Eddy confirmed that he would review and. address Mr. 3