Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Balzarini inquired whether the movement would add pressure to the retaining wall and Mr. <br /> Rowley responded that if the foundation was deep enough, it should not impact the wall. Mr. Rowley <br /> added that it would be a matter to be considered by the Building Inspector. <br /> Mr. Phelan inquired whether 27 feet would be maintained between the buildings and Mr. McElhinney <br /> confirmed that it would. Mr. Rowley confirmed that the orientation and setbacks between buildings <br /> had not changed, adding that the north and west sides moved closer to the wall and golf course. There <br /> were no additional questions or comments. <br /> MOTION: Mr. Balzarini made a motion to accept the Minor Modification as presented. Mr. <br /> Cummings seconded the motion. All voted unanimously. <br /> Applicant: Modi LLC <br /> Location: 10 Evergreen Circle <br /> Request: Minor Modification of Special Permit Site Plan to reduce the asphalt paved <br /> parking/drive area to include only the required parking, remove all concrete sidewalk <br /> except the required handicapped access, all curbing at paved areas to be Cape Cod <br /> berm/rolled edge to facilitate snow plowing, relocate the fence screening the outdoor <br /> seating to the property line along Rt. 130. Internal retaining wall to be eliminated, reduce <br /> the asphalt paving thicknesses to the Town required minimums, substitute split rail <br /> fencing along the southerly property line in place of 6-foot solid fence. <br /> The Chair read the request. <br /> MOTION: Mr. Balzarini made a motion to go forward without a Public Hearing. Mr. Callahan <br /> seconded the motion. All voted unanimously. <br /> Brian Catignani, Project Manager with ConSery Group, represented the applicant and proposed <br /> changes primarily to the parking lot area and fencing, while maintaining the approved layout. Mr. <br /> Catignani reported that the May Institute, abutters to the fencing, supported a modification to a split <br /> rail fence, to increase visibility. The front section would relocate the fence closer to the covered porch, <br /> away from the buffer zone, in order to remove the need for a retaining wall. The auxiliary parking lot <br /> would be changed to gravel, maintaining only a loading zone. <br /> Mr. Catignani stated that the applicant was carrying a heavier asphalt thickness than was required in <br /> the Town's bylaw and proposed that it be reduced to 2.5 inches. Mr. Rowley suggested that the <br /> minimum was 3 inches and Mr. Catignani quoted Parking Lot Design, Section F. Mr. Rowley stated <br /> that it was changed in Subdivision Regulations but possibly not the Bylaw. Mr. Rowley stated that to <br /> maintain the surface, 1.5 inches base was a bare minimum with just 1 inch on top, and would create a <br /> maintenance issue later on. Mr. Rowley recommended 1.75 inches base and 1.25 inches for a total of 3 <br /> inches. Mr. Balzarini agreed. Mr. Catignani stated that there would not be heavy travel, but Mr. <br /> Rowley cautioned against what was being proposed, noting the potential of unraveling and damage <br /> from snow plows. Mr. Rowley agreed that 4 inches may be more than necessary and recommended 3 <br /> inches. Mr. Callahan suggested following the Town Regulations, unless the applicant wished to take <br /> the Board's recommendations. Mr. Rowley noted that the Bylaw listed a minimum standard, and that <br /> something more could be appropriate. The Chair acknowledged the owner, Jan Aggerbeck, and <br /> 2 <br />