My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/17/2025 PLANNING BOARD Minutes (2)
>
12/17/2025 PLANNING BOARD Minutes (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/18/2026 5:15:54 PM
Creation date
1/13/2026 9:12:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
PLANNING BOARD
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/17/2025
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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
of TMs s,s <br /> z. <br /> AU1MLIUV�y <br /> own qf MaS 2 Panning Board <br /> c� <br /> 16 Great Neck, RoadNorth <br /> JWashpee, wMassachusetts 02649 <br /> Regarding comment 9 about catch basin location and frequency, she agrees that the 300ft. <br /> spacing is typical for subdivision roadway design, but when that sag curve here is at the low <br /> point, she wants to be sure that catch basins grate has capacity to accept more than 300ft. <br /> She doesn't have a problem with the design,just wanted to double check the calculation. She <br /> is okay with this only if it will not present drainage problems per the calculation. <br /> Regarding comment 10, the roadway slope being no less than 1%, typically the roadway <br /> grades are given a tolerance of half a percent, there is possibility that road could be built at a <br /> half percent, we could have a shallower slope for a portion. She agrees with the understanding <br /> of not having it at 0%, but making the 1% section 1.5% is best practice as it will ensure a 1% <br /> grade as built which will help with drainage. <br /> Mr. Crispin stated the subdivision standards read a minimum road grade of 1%, and 2 points <br /> coming to a vertical curve, where the center is 0 slope, he argues this is not possible. He <br /> would like to resolve this with the Board Engineer outside the hearing. <br /> Ms. Waygan asked if they could physically incorporate what Tighe & Bond is asking. With rain <br /> events being more intense and weather changes, she is tending to be more conservative and <br /> follow the engineer's recommendation. Places that never flooded before are flooding now. <br /> Ms. Christy stated all other comments were addressed or will be answered with the submitting <br /> of revised plans. <br /> Ms. Waygan commented on peer review letter two dated December 10t". Usually, if an item is <br /> handled or resolved, it will drop off. The final peer review letter three will have any remaining <br /> guidance, we do make special exceptions, but we like the materials as soon as possible. We <br /> will take it at our meeting but submit the week prior. <br /> Ms. Faulkner inquired about number 17 and the stormwater catch basins and the manhole, <br /> with the velocity possibly causing erosion. Ms. Christy answered when we look at stormwater <br /> collection, there is a sweet range for flow where we want it to flush debris but not be too fast <br /> where erosion occurs. This length of pipe is short, so it may be fine. <br /> Mr. Milbury asked what material is being used at the cul-de-sac. It was answered there are <br /> only five homes, so they asked for a waiver, if there is a real problem they will pave it, but in <br /> today's work we try to minimize amount of pavement. <br /> Mr. Tobin answered from the Fire Chiefs comments, if the waiver is granted the cul-de-sac <br /> needs to be hard packed for a fire truck to turn around. The second comment the Chief made <br /> was regarding an emergency lane, extending to the doorway of the tennis courts hard packed <br /> 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.