Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> Seek the input of the Fire Chief and continue this hearing. There were no ' <br /> F time guidelines for the remand. <br /> s:. <br /> r?z? <br /> {r` Tom said this is just a discussion . Should the Board hold an advertised <br /> f public hearing with the abutters notified? <br /> M r. Danesk i said you can , or give notice to the abutters of the meeting <br /> n <br /> when you announce the action you will take . <br /> } what the abutters' reactions were at the original hearings? <br /> DennisDenn�s asked at <br /> Tom said they were concerned about safety . <br /> 'r M r, Angus said they were on notice, each property owners ' s deed stated <br /> there was a reservation of the easement to use that road . <br /> xi M r. McGrath discussed some alternatives for that 300 foot section of road <br /> ti <br /> because of the Board 's concern over it' s narrowness. It is possible to take <br /> off the slop retaining, use vertical retaining and ga'n 2-3 feet on each <br /> side. <br /> Tony said the Board is being asked to accept the boulevard as an elixir to <br /> a problem, except for the 300 feet of i t, I f the engineer and traffic <br /> consultants say it is an excellent solution , that sounds like a good idea <br /> Y= but it is 300 feet short of doing the job. They had a reason for doing the <br /> boulevard , then why doesn ' t it go all the way to the Childs River section? <br /> ee <br /> Mr. Scully said there is a right of way issue for that 300 foot section . <br /> This section is wider then the 800 feet of Childs River East roadway . <br /> Tony said when they reviewed Childs River, it was never part of the review <br /> . .. that it would become a connector for another subdivision . The labeling of <br /> the easement had different wording between the ZBA special permit filing ►' <br /> and the Planning Board subdivision filing . The Board did not consider the <br /> impact of the additional traffic through Childs River. This section may be <br /> a better situation than Childs River but it is only better than something <br /> .yk that is no that good to begin with. <br /> Mr. Scully said they took care of 80-90° of that distance . <br /> Tom said they are piling one accessibly long cu l de sac on top of another <br /> one, going out to old Barnstable Road . <br /> Mr. McGrath said they could put in 2 vertical walls and put the guard rail <br /> on top of reinforced concrete wall . You would still get 22 feet of paving , <br /> which is what was required at the time plus about 2 1/2 to 3 feet on each <br /> `s de He said a s i another alternative is to get a waiver to have a less than <br /> -_ . <br /> normal landing area. He can show the Board roads with smaller landing <br /> T. areas . He discussed the grade change that would have to occur - it would <br /> be about ?--8 for a short st retch. He could furnish a sketch showing the ' <br /> revision to the profile. <br /> Tom asked why the Board would waive a second regulation in addition to the <br /> i� y <br /> z Soo foot cu 1 de sac regulation? What is the justification? <br /> r � <br /> Mr. McGrath said he is just offering suggestions . <br /> Tom said this wi l 1 still be slightly worse that a normal subdivision " <br /> street. ' <br /> Mr. An us said they are saying 90% of the road will be much better. This is <br /> , <br /> 9 <br /> Just a limited stretch. <br /> i <br />