Friday, July 2, 2010
Planning Board considers River Road development, Greystone pathway
Representing Maris and Elizabeth Elliott Platais, Stamski and McNary engineer George Dimakarakos described two conceptual plans for the subdivision of approximately 40 acres (Map 1, Parcels 1, 1A and 1 B) at 291 River Road at the Planning Board meeting on June 23. Elizabeth Platais said that a number of configurations have been considered over a period of seven years and that the two options being discussed satisfy the family’s objectives.
One option results in eight lots with a roadway off of River Road but is somewhat disruptive of vista views of the property as seen from River Road. The preferred option results in six lots and would make use of an existing “private common driveway” off Skelton Road to provide access to four of the lots. The existing driveway would have to be extended from its present 300-foot length to about 1,150 feet, terminating in a cul-de-sac. This would require a waiver from the Planning Board on maximum length of a private common driveway. The Rules and Regulations specify a maximum length of 1,000 feet. Further, since a wetland crossing would be involved, a Conservation Commission permit would have to be sought. All of the resulting lots would have legal frontage on either River or Skelton Roads.
Observing that all lots were configured to have legal access to the Concord River, board member Marc Lamere suggested that consideration be given to a “shared easement” as well for all the lots. Vice chair Michael Epstein observed that there was no attempt to maximize the number of lots and that the conceptual plans “minimize disruption to natural surroundings.” Chair David Freedman said, “The length is a question of fire safety, but the reasons why it is longer makes sense.” Freedman thanked the Plataises and asked that they keep the board advised as project plans evolve. (See also “40-acre River Road property may be divided,” at left.)
Greystone Crossing pathway
Construction of a pathway along Cross Street at the site of the Greystone Crossing subdivision was Condition #12 imposed by the Planning Board in granting the Conservation Cluster Special Permit. When the public pathway was planned Stamski and McNary engineer Dimakarakos described the surface as a “crushed aggregate with an inert organic binder.” (See “Greystone trail takes shape,”Mosquito, October 20, 2006.)
The developer William Costello came before the board on June 23 to request an amendment to substitute asphalt. The reason given for the request was the difficulty in getting an installer for this specially-licensed proprietary surface. Consensus of Deb Belanger, representing the Pathways Committee, and Louise Hara, representing the Trails Committee, was that the request was reasonable. Belanger said that, in contrast with the aggregate surface, an asphalt surface accommodates a wider range of users of the pathway.
The board voted to grant Costello’s request. Alluding to the long delay in construction of the public pathway, Chair David Freedman asked, “When is this going to happen?” Costello responded, “I’m waiting for a little more activity in the (housing) market.” ∆
© 2010 The