Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-07-24 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesCommunity Planning & Development Commission Meeting July 24, 1986 Page 1 [ A meeting of the Community Planning & Development Commission i� convened in Room 16, Municipal Building at 7:30 P.M. Present were Chairman Howard, Secretary Goodemote, Board Members Ensminger, Griset and Jenks. Also present from the Engineering Division were Mr. William High and Mr. Michael Taddeo. By a show of hands, it was moved, seconded and voted 5:0 to accept the minutes of the CP &DC Meeting of July 7, 1986 as amended. By a show of hands, it was moved, seconded and voted 5:0 to award to Cynthia M.B. Keenan, the sum of $2,600 annually to perform all clerical functions for the Commission. It was the concensus of the Commission to schedule an additional meeting on September 22 to review subcommittee reports and input from various other Boards and Committees. Staff was directed not to schedule any public hearings or other business at this meeting. Mr. Ensminger requested that each member of the Commission receive a copy of the FEMA Flood Plain set of maps. Secretary Goodemote read the Notice of Public Hearing at 7:45 P.M. regarding the approval, conditional approval or disapproval of the Site Plan of the property known as the former Wes Parkers' Restaurant, located at 296 Salem Street and referenced by the Reading Assessors as Plat 79, Lot 178. The submitted site plan proposes to demolish the existing building formerly used as a restaurant and construct a new building in the same general location for use as a restaurant. Chairman Howard opened the meeting by introducing the members of the Commission and the Department. Representing the applicants were Mr James Bastion, the architect, Attorney Thomas Alexander and the applicants, Kenneth and Susan Ivester. Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting July 24, 1986 Page 2 Mr. Alexander explained that the applicants presently own and Y operate two restaurants, Seven Central and Roosevelt's in Salem. He further stated the applicants have been working on this concept for well over a year. This is a very tasteful and high quality operation. Mr. Bastion explained the site plan, he stated the existing restaurant has been demolished. The parking lot will remain the same at 38 spaces. The entrance has been moved down 30 feet, there is a service I entrance in the back of the building on Bay State Road. The building will be handicapped accessible. An outdoor dining area is proposed. The front of the building will be landscaped, the building will be two stories in height. Mr. Goodemote asked what will be the seating capacity? Mr. Bastion replied 152, including the outdoor dining? Mr. Goodemote asked how many employees are you proposing? Mr. Ivester replied there will be 12 - IS employees on the premises at one time. Mr. Ensminger asked what is the total square footage of the dining area? Mr. Bastion replied 2400 square feet. Mr. Griset asked what is the nature of the outdoor dining area? Mr. Bastion replied it will be a cement patio, with a seating capacity of 14. Bill High explained the Engineering Divisions' list of seven concerns (attached). Chairman Howard read the letters from the Conservation Commission and the Board of Health (copies attached). Mr. Griset stated there should be some mechanism by which the applicants can have the concerns of the Town brought to them before they come before this Commission. Community Planning 6 Development Commission Meeting July 24, 1986 Page 3 LMs. Jenks asked what are your proposed hours of operation? Mr. Ivester replied 11:30 A.M. to 10:45 P.M. There will not be a lounge area. Messrs. Goodemote and Griset stated they both had concerns with overflow parking. Mr. Tom Stohlman of 14 Mineral Street expressed much concern with the development and outlined the procedures used by the former Planning Board in their site plan reviews. Virginia Adams of 279 Pleasant Street asked what efforts have you made for exterior lighting and snow removal? Mr. Ivester replied the whole concept has been approved by the Building Inspector. The exterior is lit by 20 lights. If the Commission wants more lighting, we would comply. Mr. Goodemote asked what is the elevation of the parking lot as i far as drainage? Mr. Ivester replied we have not changed the grade of the culverts. There is no change from the existing levels of the parking lot and the building. i By a show of hands, it was mvted, seconded and voted 5:0 to close the hearing at 8:50 P.M. Chairman Howard stated the Commission will act on this plan within 20 days. Mr. Griset left the meeting at 8:55 P.M. Secretary Goodemote read the Notice of Public Hearing at 9:00 P.M. regarding the approval, disapproval or modification of preliminary plans entitled "Rocky Road" depicting a proposed roadway named Rocky Road extending four hundred and eighty (480) feet easterly off Main Street (between No's 1230 and 1244 Main Street). The subdivision proposes to ., Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting July 24, 1986 Page 4 subdivide an existing lot referenced by the Reading Assessors as Plat 195, Lot 9 into four building lots. Chairman Howard opened the hearing by introducing the members of the Commission and the Department. Present for the applicant were Engineer William Place, Angelo Petrocelli, the developer, and Silvio Giangregorio the applicant. Mr. Place explained this is 2.654 acres of 5 -20 Land, to be subdivided into four building lots. He stated this development can tie into the existing water and sewer mains presently on Main Street. He stated they are looking for two waivers: 1. Sidewalk only on one side of the street; r 2. Waiver of the requirement for granite curbing. He stated the land is not subject to flooding. He believes the minimum they will request of the Conservation Commission will be a determination of applicability. Chairman Howard read the letter from the Conservation Commission (attached). Mr. High read the list of eight concerns of the Engineering Division (attached). Mr. High added that this is a preliminary hearing and the applicant can get in touch with the Engineering Division at any time to go over the list. Mr. Goodemote asked have you been in contact with the owners of the Laschi property? Mr. Joseph Laschi of 156 Main Street replied I am in favor of this, I think it would benefit the property 100%. Beth MacKillop, Conservation Administrator, stated in an on -site inspection we found PVC pipe underground and on the site. Can you address this? Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting July 24, 1986 Page 5 i LMr. Giangregorio replied there is a well or a dry well in the area. Harold Hulse of the Conservation Commission asked how wide is the entrance way on Main Street? Mr. Place replied approximately 120' wide. Chairman Howard stated we must act on this submittal prior to August 5th. By a show of hands, it was moved, seconded and voted 4;0 to close the hearing at 9:25 P.M. Mr. Goodemote read the Notice of Public Hearing at 9:30 P.M. regarding the approval, disapproval or modification of definitive plans entitled "Maplewood Estates" for a proposed roadway named Wildwood Lane extending four hundred and eighty (480) feet northerly off Forest Street r++��I { (between number 25 and 33 Forest Street). The subdivision proposes to Y i subdivide an existing lot referenced by the Reading Assessors as Plat 158, i Lot 28B into four building lots. Chairman Howard introduced the members of the Commission and the i ! t Department. t Present for the applicant was Mr. john Paulson of Atlantic Engineering. i Mr. Paulson stated we are proposing a four lot subdivision on a parcel of land 200' wide. We previously went through this application process. We have allowed for a legal 50' right of way and these lots will meet all zoning regulations. The reason we have not extended the roadway is that this is the crest of the land. In order to properly drain this road, we have proposed drainage pipes that are less than the required four feet of cover which we have designated to be Class 5 pipe. The idea of jextending the road at this time causes the developer with two problems; our finished grade is 136' and we are proposing 134'. If we extend this 3 Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting July 24, 1986 Page 6 road down to the end we are dropping off by 8'. If we extend the road it will put this on someone elses land. To extend this road would cost. $20,000 per home. This is not necessary for this development. Mr. High explained the Engineering Division's list of eight concerns (attached). Mr. Paulson stated the hydraulic calculations will be submitted within the next two weeks. He stated the flow leaving the area will be reduced slightly and this will be proven out in calculations which we will submit. Dana Perkins will be doing the "rational method" calculations for me. Chairman Howard read into the record the letters form the Board [ of Health and the Conservation Commission as well as the two letters dated F June 30, 1986 from the Board of Survey (all attached). Mr. Henry Gromyko of 23 Van Norden Road stated every winter there is at least three feet of water in this area. This whole area is surrounded by lowlands, there is a lot of ledge in the area as well. Mr. Paulson stated this is the natural direction of the drainage. If this is approved, we will try to create some sort of solution. When we do the actual installation of this, we will cut the hill down and the whole road will be draining down into the retention pond. We will not be raising the grading in the area you refer to. Within a matter of one foot, our centerline follows the existing grade. We are now going to slow down the flow into an underground drainage system which will go into the existing catchbasins on Forest Street. This will follow the current flow 15 direction at a lower rate into the existing brook. Maria Silvaggi of 74 Whittier Road stated it amazes me that you are going to take all of this drainage and direct it into the headwaters of the Aberjona. You haven't even come up with the proper drainage calculations. I hope this Commission is not going to approve anything Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting July 24, 1986 Page 7 whether this development should even go in. I stand on the record as very much opposed to this. No retention pond can be built that can hold this water. Mr. Paulson stated I am well aware there are downstream drainage problems. Our calculations will show we will not increase the flow going down there. We are not increasing the flow. runoff? time. Mr. Goodemote asked are you saying the rate of runoff or total Mr. Paulson replied you have to increase the total flow over Mr. Donald Bray of 33 Forest Street stated I strongly protest a retention pond in my back yard and I will go to court if necessary. Mr. Paulson stated that pond will have water in it almost never. Mrs. Faith Bray of 33 Forest Street asked what is the maximum depth the pond will fill up in the rainy season? Mr. Paulson replied the maximum depth of that pond will be 3.8 feet. At the end of 10 hours there will be nothing left in the pond. This is a time versus flow relationship. Maria Silvaggi of 74 Whittier Road stated the houses on my street use sump pumps now. This additional flow will only add to the problem. Chairman Howard asked who normally maintains the retention ponds once they are developed? until you come up with the proper calculations. I am speaking for a neighborhood that is going to have wet cellars, beyond belief, I question whether this development should even go in. I stand on the record as very much opposed to this. No retention pond can be built that can hold this water. Mr. Paulson stated I am well aware there are downstream drainage problems. Our calculations will show we will not increase the flow going down there. We are not increasing the flow. runoff? time. Mr. Goodemote asked are you saying the rate of runoff or total Mr. Paulson replied you have to increase the total flow over Mr. Donald Bray of 33 Forest Street stated I strongly protest a retention pond in my back yard and I will go to court if necessary. Mr. Paulson stated that pond will have water in it almost never. Mrs. Faith Bray of 33 Forest Street asked what is the maximum depth the pond will fill up in the rainy season? Mr. Paulson replied the maximum depth of that pond will be 3.8 feet. At the end of 10 hours there will be nothing left in the pond. This is a time versus flow relationship. Maria Silvaggi of 74 Whittier Road stated the houses on my street use sump pumps now. This additional flow will only add to the problem. Chairman Howard asked who normally maintains the retention ponds once they are developed? Mr. Paulson replied yes, the Town will have an easement for maintenance. Mr. Paulson replied the Town. Mr. Goodemote asked is this part of Lot 17 Mr. Paulson replied yes, the Town will have an easement for maintenance. Community Planning 6 Development Commission Meeting July 24, 1986 Page D Ms. Jenks stated it appears there is some information that would enhance this discussion. You need to formally in writing extend our process for another two weeks, I would suggest you do that. I am somewhat concerned that I can not make any kind of decision tonight. Harold Hulse of the Conservation Commission stated I would like to point out that the creation of a retention pond develops a portion of the land now subject to flooding. This opens it up to a Request for determination under the Conservation Commission Rules and Regulations. Mr. Goodemote stated this is a preliminary submission. One of the main components of this that has not been determined is the extension of the road. What is our maximum allowable grade? Mr. High replied 10%. Mr. Goodemote stated 3% is not an incredible problem as far as I see it on the sloping. Mr. Paulson stated if we extend that 3% grade, it would require an additional retention pond and that pond would have to hold in total a 100 Year Storm. There are no other drainage systems for that backflow. Mr. Goodemote asked why are you doing this? Mr. Paulson replied I am sure the Engineering Department will not approve increases in runoff unless there is an adequate drainage system. Mr. Goodemote stated I have concerns about the hydraulic calculations and the EIP Report. Doug Rarker of 36 Forest Street stated I have sat through two hearings on this plan. This applicant has been shoddy in filing with the t Town Clerk. I am very much concerned about the retention pond and the children in the neighborhood. These ponds become the responsibility of the Town and we do not have the funds to maintain them and they become a 1 problem. Any further drainage in that area is going to cause problems for the Wadsworth Road area. The good lots have been sold in this Town, you 1 Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting July 24, 1986 Page 9 line. Mr. Bray asked how close is the retention pond to my house? Mr. Paulson replied the pond is 80' long and 11' from the lot The Board took a recess of the public hearing, and conferred with the new Conservation Administrator, Beth Mackillop, and Harold Hulse of the Conservation Commission. The Public Hearing reconvened with the acceptance of a letter from the applicant, Kenneth Svenson, requesting an extension of the hearing until the meeting of August 18, 1986. (attached). By a show of hands, it was moved, seconded and voted 4:0 that the Commission accept the letter from Mr. Svenson asking for an extension of this hearing until August 18. By a show of hands, it was moved, seconded and voted 4:0 to direct staff to notify the abuttors and anyone present at the hearing tonight of the extension of the hearing to August 16. By a show of hands, it was moved, seconded and voted 4:0 to continue the public hearing until August 16. After further discussion with the Conservation Commission, by a show of hands, it was moved, seconded and voted 4:0 to adjourn at 11:20 P.M. kes ectfully su itt ed, Secretary III should look very carefully at the hydraulics. line. Mr. Bray asked how close is the retention pond to my house? Mr. Paulson replied the pond is 80' long and 11' from the lot The Board took a recess of the public hearing, and conferred with the new Conservation Administrator, Beth Mackillop, and Harold Hulse of the Conservation Commission. The Public Hearing reconvened with the acceptance of a letter from the applicant, Kenneth Svenson, requesting an extension of the hearing until the meeting of August 18, 1986. (attached). By a show of hands, it was moved, seconded and voted 4:0 that the Commission accept the letter from Mr. Svenson asking for an extension of this hearing until August 18. By a show of hands, it was moved, seconded and voted 4:0 to direct staff to notify the abuttors and anyone present at the hearing tonight of the extension of the hearing to August 16. By a show of hands, it was moved, seconded and voted 4:0 to continue the public hearing until August 16. After further discussion with the Conservation Commission, by a show of hands, it was moved, seconded and voted 4:0 to adjourn at 11:20 P.M. kes ectfully su itt ed, Secretary 0 m CONSERVATION COMMISSION * 6 LOWELL STREET CREADING, MASSACHUSETTS 01867 942 -0500 EXT 69 July 23, 1986 Mr. Howard, Chairman Community Planning and Development Commission 16 Lowell Street Reading, Ma. 01867 RE: Preliminary Plan of Rocky Road Dear Mr. Howard: t The Conservation Commission offers the following comments for the above - referenced project: I (1) The filling operation for the proposed road changes the drainage characteristics of the area. The road acts as a dam, preventing overland flow from reaching the Wet- lands. (2) No means of mitigating increased rates of runoff have been provided. The Commission will look critically upon any increased rate of runoff. (3) The project will be the subject of a wetlands permit process under both the State Wetlands Protection Act and the Reading Wetlands Bylaw. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this. Sincerely, Beth 0yq� Beth Mac&illop Conservation Administrator aCJe�icafe� to A. nree¢r —tion 4— /(afural �eeourcea Maplewood Estates The Reading Department of Public Works Engineering Division, after review of the information filed to date, submits the following list of concerns and comments: 1. The Commission must act by July 28, 1986 unless an extention is granted by the applicant (the Engineer has already been notified the reason for the delay is due to their lack of submitting adequate routing calculation for their proposed retention area. I suggested that they grant an extention two weeks beyond their expected date of submitting this material) 2. Despite informal discussion and previous hearing discussion the roadway construction ends 250 feet short of the property line. The roadway should be constructed with a temporary cul -de -sac terminating along the property line between the applicant and Rand. 3. It appears there is a difference on sheet 2 between the plan and profile of the retention pond and DMH detail. A detail of the reinforced concrete wall for the retention area must be shown. 4. The drainage system improvement indicates a higher volumn of water discharging into an area that has a history of drainage problems. Hydraulic calculation referred to in Item # 1 are necessary for a complete review of the impact of this proposal. S. Detailed grading of the intersection of Forest Street must be submitted to insure proper runoff and eliminate any potential impounding areas. 6. The drain system lacks the required cover. 7. Drain catch basins indicated in the profile lack the required 3 foot sump although properly shown in detail. 8. No material is indicated for the proposed 6 inch sewer (assumed PVC). -00 wr orR �e ip 'e''�`: JILL G. GUGGAN. 85.. CAM PAUL P CASELLE. PO S. JAMES J. NUGENT, JR.. R.S.. CN O. Anthony V. Fletcher, Board of Survey 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS 01867 BOARD OF HEALTH 52 Sanborn Street, Room 12A Tel. 942 -0500 - Ext. 56, 57, 58 June 9, 1986 Clerk of the Board M. JANE GALLANUE. M P H. C,H O. ...IM UN—Ma RECEIVED BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS READING Dear Mr. Fletcher: This letter is to advise the Board of Survey that the Board of Health has reviewed the definitive subdivision plan for Maplewood Estates and recommends disapproval of the plan based on the following issues. The developer has not submitted adequate.data to fully evaluate the retention pond area. The plans indicate that the area will have a cement wall type pond and the Board is concerned that the soil beneath the pond is not adequate for proper drainage. We are requesting that the developer submit to us further data on the amount of retention in the pond and data indicating that the soil beneath the pond will provide for adequate drainage. Sincerely yours, � . A�1 M. Jane Gallahue, M.P.H. Health Director MJG:gf cc: William A. Redford, Town Engineer U CONSERVATION COMMISSION 6 LOWELL STREET READING, MASSACHUSETTS 01867 942 -0500 EXT 69 July 24, 1986 Mr. Howard, Chairman Community Planning and Development Commission 16 Lowell Street Reading, Ms. 01867 RE: Definitive Subdivision of Maplewood Estates Dear Mr. Howard: t The Commission has reviewed the plans for the above - referenced project and offers the following comments: (1) No wetlands are on the site or within the immediate proximity of the site. (2) Increased runoff from the site will be directed to a retention pond. Insufficient detail has been provided on the retention pond. (3) The only aspect of the project that would involve Conservation review is the construction of the drainage system (off - site) south of Forest Street where it empties into a tri- butary to the Aberjona River. (4) The Conservation Commission will look critically upon any increase in offsite runoff. In summation this project presents no wetland or floodplain problems if the retention pond is adequately designed. Sincerely, Beth MacKillop Conservation Administrator A'L.t"I to f% PreAer.ation oJour / /a�uraC Kedourced 11 11 ;:�j•VrYilxy� Kenneth W. Svenson 1090 Main Street Reading, Mass. 01867 Dear Mr. Svenson: BOARD OF SURVEY TOWN OF READING MUNICIPAL BUILDING READING, MASSACHUSETTS 01867 June 30, 1986 Re: Maplewood Estates Definitive Filing Please be advised as a follow -up to my discussion with your Engineer (John Paulson) and the formal discussion during the previous public hearing, that satisfactory hydraulic calculations (specifically storm water runoff routing calculations) have not been submitted along with the material previously presented. I can assure you, based on previous discussion and input from abutting home owners, the lack of these necessary calculations will weigh heavily in any review by this department and have an adverse impact on your filing and the necessary public hearing. Very truly yours, William A. Redford Assistant Superintendent- Engineering CC: /ommunity Planning & Development Commission Conservation. Commission Town Clerk John Paulson Kenneth W. Svenson 1090 Main Street Reading, Mass. 01867 Dear Mr. Svenson: BOARD OF SURVEY TOWN OF READING MUNICIPAL BUILDING READING, MASSACHUSETTS 01867 June 30, 1986 Re: Maplewood Estates Definitive Filing Please be advised as a follow -up to my discussion with your Engineer (John Paulson) and the formal discussion during the previous public hearing, that satisfactory hydraulic calculations (specifically storm water runoff routing calculations) have not been submitted along with the material previously presented. I can assure you, based on previous discussion and input from abutting home owners, the lack of these necessary calculations will weigh heavily in any review by this department and have an adverse impact on your filing and the necessary public hearing. Very truly yours, William A. Redford Assistant Superintendent- Engineering CC: /ommunity Planning & Development Commission Conservation. Commission Town Clerk John Paulson Kenneth W. Svenson 1090 Main Street Reading, Mass. 01867 Dear Mr. Svenson: BOARD OF SURVEY TOWN OF READING MUNICIPAL BUILDING /"z RCAEIN3. MA6lAC6altrr) 01867 June 30, 1986 Re: Maplewood Estates Please be advised that the Board of Survey at their regularly scheduled meeting on May 5, 1986 voted to disapprove the Definitive Plan entitled "Maplewood Estates" dated March 31, 1986 due to the following reasons: 1. No filing has been submitted to the Town Clerk. 1 2. No hydraulic calculations have been submitted. 3. No Environmental Impact and Evaluation Report has been submitted. 4. No sight easements are shown at the Forest Street intersection. 5. Lot 3 does not have sufficient frontage. 6. The temporary slope and tree planting easements are not the required 20 foot width. 7. The proposed drain lacks the required 4 foot cover. 8. The proposal will result in grade conflicts between the various utilities. 9. A storm water retention and runoff mitigating device is indicated. (The proposal shows the additional run -off discharging directly into an existing system, after upgrading by the developer, into an area with known drainage problems) p 8ge 2 Re: Maplewood Estates June 30, 1981 Sincerel2?zt4cd %h A. V. F her , P.E. Clerk of the Board CC: Town Clerk Conservation Police Department Fire Department Planning Board 10. The proposed retention area control device is not desirable. 11. No proposed roadway profile is shown station 0 +0 to 0 +41. 12. The proposed grading significantly effects the existing lots owned by Bray. 13. The proposed grading S drainage does not address the low area on Lot 4. 14. The proposed roadway construction does not extend to the non - subdivided adjoining property to the north (utilizing a 'tempo- rary turnaround'). 15. The catch basins do not have the required 3.0 foot sumps. 16. Curvature angles are required on the plans. 17. Traverse calculations have not been submitted. 18. The Department strongly suggests that the applicant withdraw this incomplete filing and re -file this proposal after address- ing and /or correcting these issues. Some of these issues were included in the Preliminary Plan Disapproval. Sincerel2?zt4cd %h A. V. F her , P.E. Clerk of the Board CC: Town Clerk Conservation Police Department Fire Department Planning Board 1/4/4Y zy, /,?S.6 eA/L �c -,q 6c I�qE7.VFp2n?eP. 7 -619)'- Z Aril i _ T��_ -. -- -- 2 1_SL6e__s T1iE_7)EF17161 L S /NGE2(F L ALN ESL+` �V6A DA - -__ -- 296 Salem Street - Wes' Parkers The Reading Department of Public Works Engineering Division, after review of the information filed to date, submits the following list of concerns and comments: 1. The Community Planning and Development Commission must make a-7 decision within 20 days. 2. Part of the site is contained within the Flood Plain Overlay District. (F). Under Section 4.4.4.2 and 4.5.6. the applicant will be required to file with the Board of Appeals for a determination of flooding and suitability prior to construction. 3. The proposed access to Salem Street, as the sole access to the parking lot is a more appropriate access than the existing entrances, however this activity will be addressed upon their curb cut application to the Department of Public Works 4. The proposed planting with the right -of -way at Bay State Road falls under the jurisdiction of the Tree Warden and the Department of Public Works, who will make separate approval for location, quantity and species. 5 The proposed sewer connections indicate tie -in to a sewer manhole, this is not a preferable connection, however this issue and the issue of requiring a grease trap is subject to specific application to the Department of Public Works for utility connections. 6. Although, not a requirement of Zoning, the applicant may wish to construct some kind of screening device along the zoning boundary Residential (810) and Business (B) 7. Portions of their frontage and proposed activity is under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Public Works (chain link fence area) any modification of the existing conditions will require separate filing and approval by the appropriate State Agency. 0*_' CONSERVATION COMMISSION 6 LOWELL STREET READING, MASSACHUSETTS 01867 ti 942 -0500 EXT 69 July 21, 1986 Mr. Howard, Chairman Community Planning & Development Commission 16 Lowell Street Reading, Ms. 01867 RE: Wes Parker's, Inc. 296 Salem Street, Reading Dear Mr. Howard: The Conservation Commission offers the following comments on the above - referenced project: (1) The applicant has submitted documentation (Reading Plan- ning Board Zoning Map) to the Commission indicating that a portion of the proposed building falls within the area of the flood plain overlay district. (2) Arecent filing (March 1986) before the Commission by R. Duval for lot 156 map 93, Bay State Road to construct a single family dwelling north of the above referenced project, demonstrated to the Commission that the area does not flood. (3) This project, if approved, will not require the approval of the Conservation Commission under both the State Wet- lands Protection Act and the Reading Wetlands Bylaw if in fact the subject lot does not fall within 100' of the 100 year flood elevation. In summary, it appears that the subject lot may not be sub- ject to flooding. However, appropriate documentation has not been submitted by the applicant to substantiate this assumption. Runoff from the site is directed to timberneck swamp. Any increase in the rate of runoff will not be acceptable to the Conservation Commission. Sincerely, �1ac X Beth MacKillop Conservation Administrator - Ted,cafeb to 11w P"jervation 4— //al"aL Paaoarcea V P JILL C. DUGAN. e.5.. cnm. PAUL F. CASELLE, O.U. S, JA MEG J, NUGENT, Jr,. N.9,. O.N.O. TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS 01867 BOARD OF HEALTH 52 Sanborn Street, Room 12A Tel. 942 -0500, Ext. 57 July 9, 1986 Mr. Richard Howard, Chairman Community Development 5 Planning Commission Town Hall Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Mr. Howard: M. JANE GALLAXUE, M.P.X., C M.O. NN�O Ulr,nor The Board of Health has reviewed the plan for construction of Wes Parker's Restaurant on 296 Salem Street in Reading on two separate occassions. The Board requested that the following be included in the plan. 1. A two - compartment sink installed in the beverage area and a dishwasher for the washing of beverage glasses only. 2. A hand - washing sink should be installed in the staff toilet. 3. Floor drains should be installed in the toilet areas. 4. Three (3) floor drains should be installed in the kitchen area. 5. The dumpster area be enclosed with a fence. 6. A designated and well- marked No Smoking area be provided which comprises of no less than twenty -five (25) percent of seating capacity of the restaurant. 7. One staff member will be on the premises at all times while food is being served, who is trained to administer choke- saving techniques. �s Page 2 8. Appropriate staff members will be sent to our Food Service Training Seminar in the fall of 1986. The developer has complied with all above requests and included items 1 - 6 on a plan presented to our Board, as required by Chapter X 'Minimum Standards for Food Establishments ". The Board, therefore, recommends approval of this plan. Our sanitariaq however,will be required to inspect the establishment before its scheduled date for opening. After this inspection, the appropriate permits will be issued. MJG:mf Sincerely, 4&.1" JAKE GALLAHDE, M.P.H. HEALTH DIRECTOR Rocky Road The Reading Department of Public Works Engineering Division, after review of the information filed to date, submits the following list of concerns and comments: 1. The Community Planning and Development Commission must act on this by August S. 1986, 2. Curb cut approval for access to Main Street will require separate filing and approval from the State Department of Public Works. 3. The drain system lacks the required cover. Catch basins lack the required 3 foot sumps. The proposed sewer lacks adequate cover and material (VC sewer main not acceptable) The proposed drain system layout is not appropriate or desirable (catch basin to catch basin connection and drain manholes outside the limits of the roadway are not acceptable). No runoff mitigating devices are shown. The applicant indicates direct _discharge_ onto abutting property owners (Laurenza). 4. The proposed fill (in some areas up to 6 1/2 feet) appears to block natural runoff patterns and no proposal is shown addressing that diking effect. S. Sidewalk construction at the intersection does not comply with standards. No side sloping tree planting or site easements are shown based on the existing ground and the proposed filling it would appear the placing of the relocated driveway access would be ill- advised. 6. Consideration should be given to requiring the construction of the roadway to extend in a temporary cul -de -sac and ending near the property of Laschi and the Town of Reading (this may allow some frontage to the existing dwelling owned by Laschi, which currently has no legal frontage. 7. The definitive filing should indicate the close proximity of the Town Wetland Protection Overlay District southerly of the property. CJ�1v�� S. The proposed vertical sarb at station 0 + 75 does not comply with our standards. The connection to the existing water main will require gating.