Laserfiche WebLink
of of cfflnghpre <br /> P. 0, BOX 1108 <br /> F, MASHPEE, MA 02649 <br /> PLUEVITNG BOARD MINUTES : 4/17/85 P. 8 <br /> Mr. Marsters : It 's amended to add an asterisk. I 'm not sure if that was <br /> in -there originally. It says in industrial districts ;the first half <br /> comma or 100' in industrial districts of -the front setback area . <br /> Mr. Dubin: The obvious question is whether in every case a screen is <br /> bet-ter than a less densely planted buffer. I tend to agree with one <br /> of his propositions that some of the ones that have come through lately <br /> the proponants have made -the argument we want the visibility from -the <br /> road and we 've allowed them that argument -to perhaps induce us less of <br /> a buffer that would have been better, would be right . But that doesn't <br /> mean -the system can't be . . .maybe if there 's a way to encourage more of <br /> a buffer without going to such eztremities I would be in favor of that <br /> but I think it 's just the degree here . <br /> Pilr. lviarsters : It 's going overboard in another direction that 's going <br /> to create more problems . <br /> PIltr . Costa : Isn't it policy, or somewhere in the by-law that prior to <br /> getting building permit they have to go to Design Review, they have to <br /> receive a special permit they have to give recommendations . <br /> Mr. Dubin: Well you can read Toni's explanation.- he doesn't like the <br /> way some of them have come out to satisfy his taste . <br /> Mr. Marsters : His -taste . it 's going -to be this way in every situation. <br /> Mr. Boyd : Have more fragments added -to fragments without taking land <br /> space requ irements as a whole and doing it right . I disagree with <br /> his intention,something has to be done but why attack Design Review and <br /> Planning Board because of it . We have setback requirements already <br /> written, do we eliminate those in favor of these . Do we leave these . <br /> It 's just another little fragment that will play into a bunch of other <br /> fragments and not be done right , that have gathered for a number of years . <br /> The only thing I can see that I agree with is that part of it with the <br /> retention ponds , -there has -to be something done , but why attack land- <br /> scaping. The Design Review is running pretty well for the sake of <br /> retention ponds . <br /> Mr. 114arsters : I -think Tom has made it obvious that he has a very narrow <br /> look at it himself . Don't disturb natural vegetation and replace it <br /> with planted trees , unnatrual lawn-is , what 's unnatural about lawns , stone- <br /> walls , retention ponds . Some of -these things done right can be a lot <br /> C-1 <br /> i prettier than natural vege-Ication. <br /> 11,41r . Dubin. On the other- hand, a lot of the large ones , even the ones <br /> that are pretty good , was before Design Review came in. one we have <br /> to look at is Deer Crossing and that one is done good , but I remember <br />