Laserfiche WebLink
sometime and Mr. Harris felt the residents would like some privacy. <br />Mr. Harris further stated that a precast masonry wall could be erected <br />which could later be moved to accommodate future development. Mr. Harris <br />spoke to Mr. Hirst's concerns with condition #6 concerning the door at <br />the rear of Euilding E. Mr. Harris stated that if in the future the <br />property is ever subdivided there would be no access if the doorway <br />wasn't provided. He stated he is not advocating the construction of a <br />hallway but just an access door. Mr. Hirst indicated a doorway is fine <br />with him. Per. Harris stated that regarding the concerns of condition #8, <br />Mr. Schaumburg could address this. <br />Mr. Schaumburg stated there are no plans at the present time to widen <br />Main Street at this location, but that it would be considered at the <br />time of the railroad consolidation. He further stated that this is a <br />precautionary condition and is in accord with the requirement made of <br />Valley Bank, the project's neighbor. <br />Commissioner Wilson then asked i.f this condition was required in the <br />first phase of this development and Mr. Schaumburg stated it was not. <br />Mr. Hirst spoke again stating that a slumpstone wall would be totally <br />obscured with the Edgren houses that are there. He stated they object <br />to putting a wall in now and then having to tear it down. <br />Commissioner Getty stated she wasn't sure how the street improvement <br />condition could be imposed on this phase and not on the first. <br />Commissioner Jamieson asked Mr. Hirst what he thought about uniform <br />fencing. Mr. Hirst responded. <br />Commissioner Wilson stated that not much money is involved in fencing <br />as requested and likes the idea of a uniform fence. Mr. Hirst stated <br />they would entertain a condition that if the other property is not <br />developed they would put in the wall at that time. <br />Mr. Harris stated that the project is a nice looking one and couldn't <br />see why the developer would want to leave two dissimilar fences along <br />the property lines. He reiterated that a precast type masonry wall <br />could be erected and then removed and reused upon further development. <br />He further stated that this project is not putting in street improvements <br />as previously stated by b1r. Hirst but rather they are merely installing <br />a driveway. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Jamieson, seconded by Commissioner <br />Wilson that the negative declaration prepared for this case be recom- <br />mended for approval inasmuch as this proposal would have no significant <br />adverse effect on the environment. <br />-5- <br />