Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ashland Planning Board approves site plan decision for 240–260 Pleasant Street with added conditions
Summary
The Ashland Planning Board approved the site plan decision for 240–260 Pleasant Street May 28, adding a requirement for a signed illicit-discharge statement before construction and language that lighting operating hours be set by the authority having jurisdiction. The Board closed the public record and forwarded a memo to the Select Board.
Get email alerts on the Site Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Ashland Planning Board voted May 28 to approve the site plan Decision for 240–260 Pleasant Street with added conditions intended to address stormwater and lighting concerns. Planning Director Jasmin Farinacci told the Board staff recommended adding a condition that “A signed illicit discharge statement must be provided prior to the start of construction.” Members also agreed to language stating that lighting “Operating hours shall be determined by the authority having jurisdiction.”
Board member Tricia Kendall proposed several minor edits to the draft Decision. After discussion, Member Anna Tesmenitsky moved to approve the Decision with the changes discussed; Kendall seconded the motion. The motion passed by roll-call vote, 4–0–0 (Tesmenitsky—aye, Kendall—aye, Pelletier—aye, Montesino—aye). Tesmenitsky then moved to close the public record on the site plan review; Kendall seconded and the motion passed 4–0–0.
The Board subsequently voted to re-approve the Decision with the changes and to issue a memo to the Select Board; that motion also passed 4–0–0. The Decision now includes the illicit-discharge statement requirement and the lighting-operating-hours language; staff will follow up with the Town Manager’s Office on the lighting authority language and proceed with next administrative steps, including transmitting the Decision to the Select Board.
The meeting record shows no amendments to the Decision’s substantive zoning or verbiage beyond the added conditions and the minor editorial edits the members adopted.
