Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision And Stormwater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board continues Reservoir Meadows subdivision after drainage, easement and open‑space questions
Summary
The Planning Board continued the public hearing on Reservoir Meadows (26 Meadow Lane) to June to allow the applicant to respond to peer‑review drainage comments, clarify how wetland replication and open space are counted, provide easement-holder input and add documentation requested by the peer reviewer and Conservation Commission.
The Planning Board on May 12 continued the public hearings for the Reservoir Meadows subdivision (26 Meadow Lane) to June 6 to give the applicant time to respond to peer reviewer comments about stormwater, clarify use of on‑site wetlands for stormwater and finalize draft restrictive covenants for the proposed common open space.
Engineer Peter Bemis and the applicant described prior work to remove runway pavement from the site and said the project will treat rooftop and driveway runoff and reduce impervious coverage compared with historic conditions. Fuss & O’Neil, the town’s peer reviewer, asked for further hydrologic clarification and a response addressing whether created/replicated wetland areas were being used to mitigate peak flows and nutrient loads; the applicant told the board the replication area is intended to create habitat and will not substitute for meeting stormwater standards, but the board requested formal calculations or a written explanation to Fuss & O’Neil and to the Conservation Commission.
Several neighbors urged the board to require a more detailed hydrologic/hydrogeologic analysis and to obtain written confirmation from utility/easement holders before the board relies on any easement areas in the open‑space calculation. Town counsel had advised the board that holders of easements that convey subsurface rights or allow vehicular access can affect whether those easement areas may be counted toward the subdivision’s minimum open space; the board asked the applicant to secure easement‑holder agreement or to make counting those areas demonstrably consistent with the bylaw.
Board members also discussed open‑space management: the applicant provided a draft restrictive covenant that included mowing schedules and meadow and forested areas, but the board requested clearer mapping of meadow versus naturalized forested open space and direction on mowing frequency where meadow habitat is intended. The applicant agreed to add a defined maintenance strip to ensure pedestrian access from the subdivision to the wider trail system and to work with abutters about a limited mowed area that would abut an adjacent homeowner’s yard.
The board extended the decision deadline to June 6 and asked the applicant to submit a consolidated response to the Fuss & O’Neil peer review, corrected plan sheets, the finalized draft covenant tied to the approved plan and any written easement holder statements addressing subsurface and vehicular rights.
Ending: The board will take up the package at its next hearing on June 6 after peer reviewer closeout and receipt of the applicant’s responses and any easement‑holder statements.
