Laserfiche WebLink
Kirrane confirmed that Design Review had considered the matter and the Chair asked that <br /> documentation be submitted from Design Review, Mr. Lehrer confirmed that Design Review <br /> had approved the plans, but not specifically the reduction. Mr. Kirrane stated that the original <br /> plans considered by Design Review did not include the undisturbed natural buffer, but did <br /> include landscaping. Mr. Johnson confirmed that 50 feet was shown on the map. The Chair <br /> noted that reducing to 50 foot would not touch the property. Mr. Kirrane added that they would <br /> not be seeking a full 50 foot reduction because they would be providing landscaping, where the <br /> hole was being filled. It was Mr. Balzarini's opinion that the hole would look better filled, with <br /> landscaping added, especially with larger trees. <br /> The Chair inquired whether the front designed area was intended to draw in the customer or for <br /> customers on site. Mr. Aggerbeck stated that the intent was to make the area attractive for <br /> customers to linger and be protected from the sound of traffic, adding that the existing trees did <br /> not provide a buffer due to their height. <br /> The Chair recommended that the project proponent review the minutes from the last meeting. <br /> Mr. Phelan had inquired about correspondence from the Fire Department regarding access and <br /> Mr. Lehrer would be providing the DRI decision from the Cape Cod Commission. The Chair <br /> had suggested a condition to ensure a compatible use for any incoming tenant. Mr. Johnson <br /> confirmed that turning radius had been confirmed with Mr. Rowley. The Chair suggested the <br /> possibility of having to re-advertise the relief if it had nothing to do with the naturally <br /> undisturbed buffer, but Mr. Lehrer disagreed. <br /> The Chair invited public comment. <br /> Kathy Petersen,Main Street, confirmed that there originally had been a full natural buffer, but <br /> the original owner of the property clear cut the trees, leaving only the tall trees. Ms. Petersen <br /> expressed concern about visibility with plans to offer out door games and a fire pit to customers, <br /> adding that she had met with Mr. Aggerbeck. Ms. Petersen stated that the original intent was <br /> industrial, as a coffee maker, but expressed concern with plans to make it more of a family <br /> friendly destination. Ms. Petersen agreed that filling in the hole, with proper landscaping would <br /> be an improvement. Ms. Petersen expressed concern about the speed of Route 130 with children <br /> playing outside. Ms. Petersen also expressed concern about noise with increased traffic entering <br /> and exiting the site, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. The Chair referenced Article 27 that allowed outside <br /> seating for an established eating place in an industrial area, but would require appropriate visual <br /> screening areas abutting a residential zone. Mr. Kirrane stated that it was the intent of the <br /> applicant to provide screening. <br /> Bob Laline, Main Street, voiced his concern regarding the buffer and encouraged all to read <br /> Section 174 and the 100 foot buffer requirement, and the 40% requirement. Mr. Laline noted <br /> that all of the other businesses were set back, as required, and it would be unfair to allow this <br /> applicant relief from what was required. Mr. Laline referenced the front of the building on Route <br /> 130 and another front on Evergreen Circle. Mr. Laline suggested that the porch on the front <br /> 7 <br />