Laserfiche WebLink
of TMs s,s <br /> z. <br /> Aannin Board <br /> 16 Great Neck Road NOYth <br /> wlashpee, Aassachusetts 02649 <br /> Present for the applicant this evening is Dave Crispin with BSC Group and Nick Galanis with <br /> New Seabury Homes. After the commentary, concerns were narrowed down to 9 points. One <br /> of the major ones is the addition of the full cul de sac per the Fire Department. The simplest <br /> solution was to build and pave. The gravel driveway is shown in detail on the plans. <br /> Regarding storm drainage, double catch basins were added to both per the ten-year storm <br /> calculations. For the slope of the roadway, peer review suggested 1.5%, so the easiest <br /> resolution was to make it 1.5%. A pipe needed to be labeled on the plan so the location was <br /> highlighted. Dates were added to the plan, and the last section was the drafting of scale <br /> profile and it was redone. Based on conversations, everything should be good. <br /> Ms. Waygan referenced page 6 of 11, the Site Utility Plan. She sees the driveway into the <br /> existing parking lot. Mr. Milbury also asked why it was hooked in that way, down Topspin Way. <br /> It was answered to avoid traffic, but Mr. Galanis noted it is only exaggerated like that on the <br /> plan. <br /> Three parking spaces have been eliminated, but Mr. Milbury noted it could potentially be <br /> added at the other end where the other entrance is being reconfigured. <br /> Ms. Waygan inquired if the cars turning exiting the parking lot would shine into anyone's <br /> window. <br /> Jean Christy stated many of her comments have been addressed. Following the January 2nd <br /> letter, she had asked for additional stormwater calculations and she was satisfied with all the <br /> design work. She was satisfied with the double catch basins and that change in roadway <br /> slope. Waivers have been taken care of and there is a new set of plans. At this point, she is <br /> comfortable. <br /> Mr. Tobin commented there were some written public comments, as well as phone calls into <br /> the Department on more lighting and sidewalks in that area. A waiver has been sought. When <br /> the first waivers were sought, they were approved. Since then, there have been a number of <br /> complaints stating the area is not well lit nor is it safe with excess speeding. The question is, <br /> do we require it here, for this 5-lot subdivision, do we waiver it, or work out a compromise with <br /> the applicant that potentially fixes what may have been a previous mistake? <br /> 6 <br />