Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Curb Cut 62 Mohican topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Resident seeks second driveway at 62 Mohican; planning board tables request pending drainage and cost details

3665024 · June 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A homeowner asked the board to approve a second driveway at 62 Mohican Street; the board discussed stormwater, permeable materials and cost and voted to table the application for more detail and contractor pricing.

Katie Wells, the homeowner at 62 Mohican Street, asked the Planning Board for permission to add a second curb cut and driveway to her single‑family property after receiving a violation for on‑street parking. Wells told the board the lot is narrow and that several neighboring homes already have two driveways; she provided a neighbor’s written support.

Board members and city staff raised concerns about drainage and stormwater management. The city engineer’s office advised that any new impervious surface should be constructed with permeable materials where possible or include on‑site mitigation to infiltrate runoff before it reaches the street. Wells said the pervious concrete noted by the city engineer is substantially more expensive (she cited roughly $5,000) than asphalt (roughly $1,200–$2,000) and asked whether lower‑cost alternatives or city programs could help.

Board members discussed options including a pitch toward the backyard, a small catch basin, crushed‑stone base layers or a permeable subbase beneath a capped surface; several board members urged Wells to obtain contractor pricing and a simple site plan showing grades and proposed materials. Because key technical details (drainage path, catch‑basin location, and cost estimates for permeable construction) were missing from the packet, the board voted to table the application and asked the applicant to return with contractor quotes, a schematic showing how runoff will be managed, and any available grant or city‑assistance information for permeable surfacing.

The board’s discussion emphasized minimizing additional impervious surface where feasible, ensuring vehicles will not overhang the sidewalk, and coordinating any new curb cut with public works/engineering requirements. The motion to table was recorded in the minutes; the meeting transcript and record do not show a roll‑call tally of votes by name.