Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan Continuance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues Bay Ridge mixed‑use proposal on Cranberry Highway to July 23 for retaining‑wall, parking and planting details
Summary
The board continued a proposal to convert a Cranberry Highway warehouse into four apartments and storage bays to July 23, requesting structural information on retaining walls, a revised parking table (excluding interior bays), a lighting plan and a revised plant list with irrigation commitments.
The Bourne Planning Board continued its review of a mixed‑use proposal at 74 Cranberry Highway after members said the submission lacks key technical and landscape details.
Engineer John Lavelle (speaker 1) introduced the application on behalf of Bay Ridge (applicant) and described the conversion: four one‑bedroom apartments on the second floor above four storage bays on the first floor, a new Title‑5 septic system with reserve area, and proposed drainage that routes roof runoff to underground infiltration basins. Lavelle said the project would reduce impervious area compared with current conditions.
The project drew several technical questions from board members about the height and structural design of the proposed retaining walls and whether an environmental site assessment had been completed. A board member urged the applicant to provide retaining‑wall engineering and foundation details at the next meeting because nearby properties have experienced problems with retaining structures.
Members also focused on parking calculations and precedent: one planning member argued the town has not historically counted interior garage space as meeting required on‑site parking and recommended the applicant show 12 spaces (eight residential + four for the storage use) located outside of interior bays to avoid setting a precedent. The applicant responded that some of the ground‑floor bays would be used for the owner’s storage and others would be rented for personal storage, and said they would revise the zoning table and parking calculations.
The conservation reviewer (speaker 8) delivered a long, detailed review of the planting plan and asked for specific changes: she requested that street trees be listed at 3–3½‑inch caliper, that shrubs be specified by planting height (24–30 inches) rather than nursery size codes, that botanical names be corrected and spacing be added, and that the applicant commit to irrigation (or install interim Gator bags) to ensure plant survival. The reviewer asked that those plant‑list corrections be made a condition of approval or that the applicant return with a revised planting plan.
After discussion, the board agreed the application is promising but incomplete. A motion to continue the hearing to July 23 passed; the board did not require a time waiver. The applicant was asked to return with retaining‑wall structural details, a lighting plan, corrected impervious‑surface figures for the zoning table, a revised plant list with sizes and spacing, and clarified parking calculations.
