TheCommitteehasthefollowingconcernsabouttheseaccesseasements: <br />1)TheproposedeasementfromCupolaDr.toLots16and17andtheproposedeasementfrom <br />CapitalDr.toLots18and19areshownonthe1/18/19SitePlanL2.0as20footwideeasements <br />witha12footpavingwidth.Bothoftheproposedeasementsareintendedtoaccommodatetwo- <br />waytrafficaswellasallpedestriantraffictoandfromtheselots. <br />Suchasmallpavingwidthisunconscionable.ThisisespeciallytrueinlightofthefactthatLots <br />16and17aretheproposedmulti-familylotswhich,iftheyaredevelopedwiththreeunitseach, <br />willcreatemoretrafficthanotherproposedlots.Onafoggyschoolmorning,walkingandbike <br />ridingstudentsandcommutervehicleswilllikelysimultaneouslyutilizetheseaccesslanes.This <br />isarecipefordisaster.Childrenwillbedifficulttoseefromvehicles.Vehicleswillneedto <br />“pulltotheside”tomakewayforchildren;however,thepavementedgesforallthreeaccess <br />lanes(butespeciallythetwonarroweronescurrentunderdiscussion)directlyabutsteepdrop <br />offsandupslopes.Thereisnoescaperouteforpedestriansorvehiclesifneededtoavertan <br />accident. <br />2)Thelackofsidewalksonanyofthe3proposedaccesslanesonlyexacerbatesthishazardous <br />situation.Thisisa“no-win”situation,unlesstheaccesseasementsarewidened.Forthe2 <br />accesseasementsservingLots16and17andLots18and19,the12-footpavementwidthis <br />alreadywoefullyinadequate.Includinga4-footor5-footwidesidewalktocreatemoreroom <br />narrowsthetrafficlanesomuchthatvehiclescannotpasseachother,muchlessapedestrian. <br />Theproposed12footpavingwidthminus4to5feetforasidewalkmeansonlyaseventoeight <br />footpavedarearemainingfortwo-wayvehiculartraffic.Seventoeightfeetisn’tsufficientfor <br />one-wayvehiculartraffic,yetalonetwo-waytraffic. <br />Notethat EC9.6870StreetWidth containsatableentitled RightofWayandPavingWidth <br />thatspecifiespavingwidthsforpublicaccesslanesandalleys.Thereinprimaryaccessalleys <br />requirea20footwidthfortwowaytravelandaccesslanesrequirea21to28footwidth.Whyis <br />theApplicationproposingsuchanarrowwidthfortheseaccesslanes?Whydoesn’tthe <br />Applicationrequest“flexibility”forthisvariance? <br />3)Thelackofpathwaylightingonanyofthethreeproposedaccesslanesfurthercompounds <br />thesesafetyissues. <br />TheCommitteeisflummoxedbytheApplication’sinabilitytomeeteventhemostcommon <br />sensecoderequirementssuchassafeaccesseasements. <br />NotealsothatfeweraccesseasementswouldnotberequirediftheSitePlanwerenotso <br />contrived.Aspreviouslymentioned,thecurrentconvolutedsiteplanresultsfromthe <br />Applicant’sandhisConsultant’seffortstoworkaroundinherentlandslideissueswithoutlosing <br />lotcount.Thetwoaccesseasementssoegregiouslynarrowwereaddedafterthere-routingof <br />theprivatedrive. <br />121 <br /> <br />