Planning Board minutes 1989-09-11

Browse Search

Minutes for the Meeting of September 11, 1989 4 is a difference of 14 feet between the existing and proposed grades, but the difference will be sloped back. Mr. Williams proposed the walking easement to Estabrook School be delineated by a fence along both sides. Mr. Larson commented that they have proposed a stone dust path delineated with large boulders with shrubs in between. Mr. Williams also suggested that a conservation restriction be placed on the unbuildable lot, if the intention is to screen the development from the road. Jane Murphy, 20 Robinson Road, asked whether her land abutted the subdivision and was told it did not. She also had questions about the location of the homes off the end of the cul-de-sac. William Murphy, 20 Robinson Road, asded whether the homes would have septic tanks or be tied into the Town system, and was told they would be tied into the Town system. George Flett, 109 Grove Street, asked about the location of the walking easement in relation to his home. Robert Higgins, 40 Robinson Road, asked to be recorded in favor of the sub- division, and complimented the presentation and the engineer. As direction to the staff, the Board agreed that the walking easement to Esta- I ' brook be delineated by a fence or a stone wall on both sides. Mr. Bowyer noted that, according to the Zoning By-Law, the common driveway proposed for Lots 5 and 6, requires an additional special permit. Ms. Nordby reported there had been a request that the amount of impervious surface in the common driveway be split between the two lots it serves. The Board did not have a problem with this, if both lots, in the aggregate, stay under the impervious surface limit established by the Zoning By-Law. Mrs. Wood declared the hearing closed at approximately 9:20 p.m. 216. Pheasant Brook II. Definitive Plan. Fees for Submittal of New Plans: Mr. Sorensen recommended the Board consider the definitive plan filed on July 28, 1989 as a resubmission of the definitive plan withdrawn by the applicant on June 26, 1989, and the fees, for the July 28 application be calculated for a resub- mitted or revised unapproved definitive subdivision plan, as set forth in the Development Regulations under Section 8. A majority of the Board considered the July 28 application was a new filing and requires the filing fee and review fee for a new submission. On the motion of Mrs. Klauminzer, seconded by Mrs. Uhrig, it was voted 3-2 (Mr. Sorensen and Mr. Williams voted in the negative) , to inform the applicant, Mr. Cataldo, that the July 28 application is considered a new filing for a definitive plan and requires the fees set forth in the Development Regulations for a new submission of a definitive subdivision plan. 217. Carchia Woods. Release of Lot 3. On the motion of Mr. Sorensen, seconded by Mrs. Klauminzer, it was voted unanimously to release Lot 3, as requested by the applicant.