Laserfiche WebLink
•��I CFI. <br /> dumpsters. Attorney Butler indicated garage placements on the <br /> Plan and proposed there may be a need for additional garage <br /> space. Any garages added to the Plan would be proposed on the <br /> impervious surface and submitted to the Planning Board for <br /> "A approval of the corresponding phase. <br /> F pp p g <br /> Attorney Butler assured the Board that all previous issues <br /> discussed at prior Hearings would remain in the Special Permit, <br /> such as low-flow toilets, updated/improved. wastewater treatment <br /> facility information, conservation restriction on open space, <br /> construction of wastewater treatment facility at the sixtieth <br /> (60th) unit. Attorney Butler informed the Board of his intent <br /> to identify and confirm to the Planning Board that concerns <br /> voiced during the site visit have been addressed, and to present <br /> kl this proposed concept. (There was brief discussion regarding <br /> clarification of the phasing schedule. ) <br /> The Chairman asked about a prior proposal to have a resident <br /> p <br /> engineer on duty at the site. Attorney Butler answered the <br /> phas in'g -schedule being proposed should eliminate the need for <br /> such a position, due to the fact the entire site would not <br /> be constructed at one time. <br /> The Chairman asked if the developer would be able to provide <br /> the Planning Board with certified updates for conformance by an <br /> ,rs independent entity prior to inspection; to which Attorney Butler <br /> agreed. <br /> The Chairman then asked Attorney Butler to explain the <br /> reason for appearing before the Board at this time. <br /> Attorney Butler answered there are a number of modifications <br /> to the Special Permit that would be required, there is a title <br /> issue, and a Special Permit in need of language addressing the <br /> new wastewater treatment facility, phasing and flexibility on <br /> footprint based upon limitation of total square footage. <br /> Attorney Butler requested a document be prepared dealing <br /> g <br /> with the proposal that could be certified and attached to the <br /> proposed Plan. He requested the Board find there is no detriment <br /> or derogation of the Bylaw. <br /> The Chairman opened the discussion to Planning Board in ut. <br /> p g p <br /> Patrick Coffey inquired as to the status of discussion with <br /> the Homeowners Association. <br /> Attorney Butler answered the Homeowners had opposed strongly <br /> ' the prior proposal and expressed their desire for Attorney Butler <br /> to deal directly with counsel. An attempt has been made by <br /> 'f Attorney Butler to spear with counsel to no avail, therefore <br /> there have been no discussions. <br /> Dennis Balzarini inquired as to the construction of the <br /> wastewater facility-sixty (60) unit condition. Attorney Butler <br /> explained originally construction was not required until the <br /> seventy-second unit; the proposed plan calls for construction <br /> at the sixtieth unit. In all, likelihood said facility would <br /> be constructed during Phase 1B, <br /> The Chairman inquired if the new technology would work with <br /> less than sixty units. Attorney Butler stated that it is his <br /> 7. 1 ,;; understanding from the engineers that it would work with any <br /> {r number of units; but that it would work most effectively at <br /> `H y 6- <br />