Laserfiche WebLink
ti <br />can make sure the itrees are protected from the heavy equipment. Mr. Libassi noted he will look <br />into the canopy, present some ideas to break up the front facade, and talk to the forester about the <br />existing trees. Although the engineer was not present to explain the retention system, Mr. Libassi <br />agreed the retention system would conform to engineering departments requirements. Some of <br />the residents had concerns regarding the engineering departments requirements for drainage. Mr. <br />Conway advised the engineering departments standards as far as drainage have been upgraded <br />considerably in the last three years. Mr. Zergott- agreed-the--revised site plan can be reviewed <br />independently. Mr. Yager suggested making the screen wall continuous-and eliminating the gap <br />of approximately sixteen feet on the north elevation. The members discussed a motion. <br />T. Liggett motioned to accept the drawings as submitted with the exceptions that the landscape <br />and canopy be reworked per Mr. Zergott's, and Mr. Yager's suggestions then resubmitted to the <br />architectural review board for review and approval before the BZD meeting, the screening <br />towards the back side of the receiving area is to be redesigned as a masonry unit, look at the <br />facades and make them a little more playfuL The motion was seconded by B. Zergott, and <br />Unanimously approved. <br />vd. ADJOURNMENT: <br />The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 P.M. <br /> <br />B <br />? <br />A. Comish, Clerk of Commissions