Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Hansen confirmed that the hydroseeding looked good and inquired how it would be <br /> maintained. It was confirmed that there would be no irrigation and that the grass would be <br /> maintained naturally. Mr. Balzarini agreed that the site looked good and confirmed the pole was <br /> removed. <br /> Mr. Rowley inspected the site on two occasions and spoke with Mr. Pastore, regarding loam and <br /> seed. This evening, Mr. Rowley noticed there were a couple of spaces in the drainage areas that <br /> required additional attention. Bounding had been installed and exposed. Mr. Rowley <br /> recommended release of the Covenant. <br /> MOTION: Mr. Balzarini made a motion to release Lots A,B, 1,2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Sand 9 <br /> shown on the plan titled Definitive Subdivision Plan, Evergreen Circle dated August 14, <br /> 20017 revised September 8, 2017, September 13, 2017 and November 20, 2017 for the <br /> provisions of a Covenant Agreement dated 15"November. It was added to the motion that <br /> the grass be cared for, ensuring its growth. Mr. Callahan seconded the motion. All voted <br /> unanimously. <br /> Mr. Rowley stated that he had discussions with Mr. Pastore, who provided photographs that the <br /> existing binder course had been tacked properly, before placing the mix and the top coat. Mr. <br /> Phelan inquired whether additional wording was necessary regarding the maintenance of the <br /> motion. Mr. Balzarini added the requirement to the motion and the project proponent agreed to <br /> maintain the grass. <br /> Planning Board members signed the Release. <br /> Evergreen Circle Signage Review-Mr. Lehrer reported that signage for Evergreen had <br /> been considered by Design Review, but that the Planning Board would have final approval since <br /> it was a subdivision. The sign on Main Street would sit on an easement. Vice Chair Cummings <br /> reported that the Committee recommended the sign would look better on wood, but Mr. Lehrer <br /> stated that the material of the sign could not be regulated since it was not located in the Historic <br /> District. The Vice Chair reported that Design Review expressed their preference that the letters <br /> be routed and that the 588 location sign be a separate sign. <br /> Due to issues of legibility, Mr. Lehrer, referencing the subservient signs below the green primary <br /> sign, recommended that the Planning Board require they be white with dark lettering. Mr. <br /> Balzarini agreed. Mr. Ford responded that the applicant would support the recommendation. <br /> Mr. Phelan inquired about the numbering of the units and Mr. Ford responded that A and B were <br /> the front lots, and the remaining were numbered 1-9. Mr. Lehrer responded that the address 11 <br /> Evergreen Circle would locate the subdivision. Mr. Phelan stated that 11 Evergreen Circle <br /> would not appear on GPS but that 588 Main Street would. <br /> Mr. Rowley suggested that the size of the sign and the bottom's proximity to the ground should <br /> be considered, and the sign would need to be set back so as not to block sight distance. Mr. Ford <br /> stated that the plan needed to show a 5 foot setback, as required by Design Review. Mr. Lehrer <br /> 5 <br />