8/21/2013 PLANNING BOARD Minutes

Home Browse Search

-Curb Radius-Due to the property line's intersection with Degrass and%the fact that parcel 49 was not owned by the developer, it would be difficult to build the radius at than location but i=ead curve the pavement by sl i ding the intersection on north. -Center of Pavement-The wdsting traveled way along Blue Castle meandered all over the road layout and on abutting properties. Additionally, an moment was taken by the Water District and was 5 feet off the property lure. The applicant requested a waiver from the center of pavement requirement, but within the 40 foot road layout(excluding easements),because the applicant planned to relocate the pavement to match it with the existing traveled way for a sunless transition, as well as to minimise impact to the utilities. -Minimum Grade-A .9°� slope grade, in place of the I% grade, was being requested but I Ir. Costa felt that it would work itself out. Referencing Mr. Rowley's August 5th letter, Mr. Costa indicated that he would continue to'work on technical issues with him. Ir. Costa referenced the design sequence required by the cluster development regulations and stated that he had submitted four plans identifying the resource area, open space and wilding lots. Regarding density maculations, Mr. Costa pointed out that he calculated the density of the lots using decimal plate resulting in 9.27 lots, 12.76 and 2.3 to arrive t a total of 16 lots,though the use of whole numbers would result in 1 -lots. Mr. Costa suggested that the regulations did not specify whether decimals or whole numbers should be used and requested guidance from the Board since 16 lots versals 15 lots impacted the development both financially and physically. Mr. Costa pointed out that the regulations allowed a cluster subdivision with twice the area required by Zoning, which the developer owned and Mr. Costa discussed the area as a contiguous fee ownership. Mr. Fudala confirmed that the entire.tract of l and would be considered a cluster subdivision as one unit since contiguous land could'be crossed by roadways. Additional items-would be wormed out with 11r. Rowley regarding storm water, light impact development style,and other design issues. Mr. Costa indicated that the housing would be good-sib single Family style hones, comparable to the homes located at Blue Castle and Great Deck Road. A subdivision covenant would be established to address issues such as stozmwater mana2ement, privacy and the maintenance ofthe aesthetics of the development, such as requiring similar light posts and privacy screening. Mr. Rowley read for the record the regulations regarding the design process, suggesting that the required infon ation was not included in the initial application, though Mr. Fudala just provided information to Mr. Rowley attempting to address the issues not previously handled. 11r1r. Rowley pointed out that the regulation intended for the cluster development to be unique, with the main features considering nearby wetlands or unbuildable areas and unique features to-the site identified prior to drawing the final lot lines. The document submitted did not include any unique features and appeared not to take into consideration any alternate locations within the parcel to construct the homes. Additionally, lir. Rowley r�ef'erenced the total number of lots and the regulation that referenced the total being wholly divisible by the lot size, suggesting that decimals should not be considered. Mr. Rowley suggested that 15 would be the number of whole lots and noted that it was the first cluster subdivision considered for Mashpee. There was-also discussion regarding the resulting affordable lot and extra lots as a refit of the open space. lir. Rowley added that the development of 15 lots in place of 16 would allow more space for better access and radius at the intersection of Degrass Road and Ockway lane, which may eliminate the need for the waivers. Mr. 3