My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/01/2021 PLANNING BOARD Minutes
>
12/01/2021 PLANNING BOARD Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/13/2022 5:24:43 PM
Creation date
1/13/2022 4:09:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
PLANNING BOARD
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/01/2021
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
1*,Vll>I VVV_, <br /> Town of�lashpee Z'CanninA BoarcC <br /> 16 Great Neck RoadWorth <br /> Nashpee, Massachusetts 02649 <br /> you choose to do so. That is not what they are presenting as a preliminary or what they are intending to <br /> bring back with any further subdivision. <br /> Ms. Waygan would like Mr. Lehrer to share his thoughts on the matter. <br /> Mr. Lehrer has had this conversation before. Generally, the normal trigger for a DRI is 9,999 sq. ft. <br /> building. Assuming they have the dimensional latitude on a lot to expand, you could easily foresee a <br /> building that's just shy of 10,000 sq. ft. It's not an unreasonable assumption, but it does not require a <br /> deferral. You as a Board can only review the plans before you. You can make a discretionary deferral. <br /> If you're concerned about segmentation, you could consider a condition to mitigate such a future action. <br /> This is a preliminary plan, an approval does not grant approval of subdivision. <br /> Mr. Phelan wants to clarify when they come back with the definitive plan, can we make that a condition <br /> for approval? <br /> Mr. Lehrer notes the Board can grant a dead end waiver specific to dead end streets. Also, to Ms. <br /> Waygan's point, her asking about access to Ashumet is pertinent. The conditions and waiver could be <br /> specific to allow that point. <br /> Ms. Waygan directed her statement to Mr. Balzarini, asking him what he wants to see at the end of the <br /> street, when referring to line of sight. <br /> Mr. Balzarini is worried there will be three driveways close together, it would be nice to come down <br /> Nicoletta's Way, and there must be an easement to enter. <br /> Mr. Kirrane stated it is his understanding that option was explored with the owners of Nicoletta's Way, <br /> and the proposed cost to seek permission was prohibited. We are entitled to access this property no <br /> matter the distance, between the various roads, certainly if they could use Nicoletta's Way it would <br /> have been a better option. <br /> Mr. Balzarini referenced a lot of trucks coming in and out of Nicoletta's Way. <br /> Mr. Kirrane said it is not inconsistent with other access points. <br /> Ms. Waygan asked Mr. Pesce if he could recommend best practices for people to drive in and out. <br /> Mr. Pesce stated safe sight distance, he would like them to comment on that in the definitive. When he <br /> stands at the proposed intersection, does he see trees that obstruct the view for safe turning and safe <br /> stopping when someone is coming onto Route 130? There was one minor issue with design, the <br /> entrance radius on one side of the north side was not in accordance with the subdivisions rules. It may <br /> work as design, but he is asking they look into that. He doesn't see why they couldn't use 35 feet. It <br /> would also help for fire access. He would also request the turning template for the ladder truck. <br /> 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.