Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-05-22 Board of Survey Minutes May 22, 1980 Meeting of the Board of Survey convened in the Auditorium of the Community Center at 7:50 P . M. Present were Chairman Cowell , Secretary Woad , Board Members DeHart , Barker , Superintendent Louanis and Assistant Superinten- dent Bergeron . Mrs. Wood read notice of preliminary public hearing at 8 :00 P .M. regarding the approval , disapproval or modification of plans for the extension of George Street and a new roadway , Heather Drive , to South Street . The proposed subdivision will provide for eighteen (18) new lots. Approximately twelve people attended the hearing . Mr . Charles Gillis , the developer was present and was represented by Raymond Garcia from the firm of Raymond Engineer- ing , Burlington, Massachusetts . Chairman Cowell introduced the Board and stated that the developer and/or his representative would make a presentation, questions would be forthcoming from the Board and then the devel- oper would entertain questions from the citizens. Mr . Garcia explained the proposal and addressed the problem of drainage and how they intended to create a retention pond to provide storage. He indicated that the site was comprised of approx- imately 12 acres and that 18 new house lots would be created. The Engineering Division presented a list of concerns, list appended hereto . The developers engineer reviewed the items of concern presented by the Engineering Dividion indicating that many had been addressed and that the remaining items would be worked out in the Definitive Design submittals. Mr . Sargent from 81 Curtis Street asked if the water pressure would change . The Engineer responded by saying that the looping of the main at the end of George Street to South Street would improve circulation and probably increase, certainly not decrease, the available flow. Mr. Sargent , concerned with the number of small children in the area, questioned the route to be taken by the construction vehicles during the period of construction . The engineer and the developer were not certain but the developer expected to use the South Street entrance more frequently . Mr . Frederick of 85 Curtis Street asked if the retention pond would create more mosquitos. The Engineer said he could not answer but the area did border a low swampy area. Mrs. Blake of 84 Curtis Street questioned the possibility of blasting and , was assured that if it was necessary it would be done under the supervision of the Fire Department and that there is an ample buffer area between the construction and existing homes. Ques- tions concerning duration of construction period and drainage flow were answered and Mrs. Wood moved, it was seconded and voted 4:0 to close the hearing at 8:35 P.M. Board Member Fallon joined the meeting at 8 :45 P.M. The Board read memorandum from the Engineering Division and the request by Parkwood Construction for a bond reduction. The value of work remaining is $20,500.00 on Aurele Circle and Benton Circle. Following a brief discussion it was moved, seconded and voted 5:0 to reduce the $72,700 bond held by the Salem Five Cent Savings Bank in accordance with an agreement dated October 22, 1979 between Parkwood Construction Corporation, the Reading . Board of Survey and the Salem Five Cent Savings Bank for the com- pletion of the work on Benton and Aurele Circles to $20, 500, releas- ing $52, 200. , Read memorandum from the Engineering Division regarding the status of the work and the progress to date on Chapel Hill Estates. Mr . Fallon moved and it was seconded and voted 5:0 to take the bond in the amount of $63,290.00 to complete the work on Chapel Hill Estates. Mrs. Wood read notice of preliminary hearing at 9 :00 P .M. regarding the approval, disapproval or modification of plans for a subdivision located off Mill Street and Sanborn Lane. The proposed subdivision will . create eleven new lots. Approximately ten people attended the hearing. Mr. Rivers, the developer , was present and was represented by Attorney 0. Bradley Latham and Peter Ogren of the firm of Hayes Engineering, Melrose, Ms. Chairman Cowell introduced the Board and stated that the developer and/or his representative would make a presentation, questions would be forthcoming from the Board and then the developer would entertain questions from the citizens. Mr. Latham explained the , general description of the property and asked for two waivers from the requirements of the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Survey . 1) That no sidewalk be required on the southerly side of .San- born Lane. The applicant would loam andseed the area where the sidewalk would normally be installed. A sidewalk on that side of Sanborn Lane would .serve no purpose inasmuch as there would be no pedestrian traffic on that side of the street. (Section 5 (G) (27) . 2) That Lilah Road be 40 feet in width rather then 50 feet in width. The cul-de-sac would be the normal size as .shown on the plan . Because of the short length of Lilsh Road, it would appearunnecessary to require a street of a greater width than 40 feet (Section 5 (B) width ( 1) ) . Mr . Ogren then went into further detail on the proposal . The Eng- eering Division presented a list of concerns (see list appended hereto) . The developer' s engineer reviewed the items of concern pre- sented by the Engineering Division indicating that some have already been changed and that others would be addressed as pert of the definitive design . Mr . Hulse indicated he believed sidewalks should be on both sides as school children must walk to Mill Street for the school bus. He also expressed concern that during the con- struction work alternate means of access should be provided to allow passage of emergency vehicles at all times. Superintendent Louanis indicated an alternate means of access would be provided but might not be within the current travelled Sanborn Lane. Mr. Rivera indicated he expected to provide for access within the new 50 foot wide layout that must be cleared. Mr. Rivers, in answer to Mrs. Hulse question, indicated that the newly installed power poles would be moved. Mr. Rivers responded to the question as to how the old and new section of Sanborn Lane would be blended by stating the three property owners at that location would pro- bably meet and arrive at an agreement concerning an improved alignment . Questions concerning duration of the project and drainage were answered and were followed by a motion which was seconded and voted 5:0 to close the hearing. Mr . Barker moved , it was seconded and voted 5:0 to adjourn at 10:00 P .M. RZrhetary cwt f�)u lly submitted , s" OAK KNOLL PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION ' ITEMS OF CONCERN: I Roadway: 1. The vertical curves do not meet AASHO standards for sight distance. 2. The entrance onto South Street is in a narrow road section that may have sight distance problems. De- tails will have to be made to insure a safe inter- section design. 3. Slope easements will be required in all areas to insure that the proper cross section will be maintained. - 4. Sight distance easements will be required at the inter- sections. 5 . The slope easements or retaining wall will have to to be decided upon on the final plan near South Street. II Drainage 1. George Street - The increased flaw down George Street intercepted by the new drain extension to Curtis Street needs more investigation to insure adequate capacity. + 2. It still appears that there is an area that will pond water in the vicinity of Station 2+0 on the Easterly side of the main roadway. Perhaps when the required two foot contour intervals are shown and some lot grading the problem will be eliminated. 3. The purpose of the retention basin calculations is con- fusing and the control exit flow valves and location are not indicated. 4. The pipe velocities and channel velocities will be established guidelines. 5. Due to the slope of the roadway under drains will probably be required. 6. Any discharge points out of the property must be proven to have no detrimental impact on the abutting property. 7. All catch basins will discharge into manholes. III Sewer 1 . Sever main shall be located in the layout as required. 2 . Sewer pipe velocities will have to be checked. 3. Extend the sewer closer to the end of the road in the cul-de-sac. 4. Sewer Main Extension Permits will be required. 5. Sewer may not be deep enough to serve the lots . IV Water 1. An additional gate will be required at the end of George St . IV Water (continued) . 2 . The minimum size water main extension is 8" 3. Two additional hydrants are required. 4. Actual piping configuration will be approved prior to installation. V Plans 1. The plans are required to show the topography on a two foot contour interval. 2 . Suggested roadway name should be submitted . 3. Name of the owner should be on the plan. 4. Due to the drainage problem a 100 scale watershed map of the area would probably be beneficial and it will most likely be required by the Conservation Commission. Prints of the Town's Topo are available. S. If the drain line is allowed to continue to Curtis Street the length of George Street would have to be overlaid with 1 plus inch of bituminous concrete. b. Wheel chair ramps at the intersections as required by law will be installed. 7. All easements are 30 feet wide. 8. Typical cross sections show that homes, driveways, services and cuts end -fills will be very difficult and may require retaining walls. LILAH ROAD AND SANBORN LANE SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY Items of concern: I Roadway: 1. All of the vertical curves will meet the AASHO stan- dards for sight distance. 2 . The rights to construct the proposed Sanborn Lane section from the abutters may have to be obtained also an easement for side slopes or a retaining wallsmay be required to do the cut. 3. Sight distance easements will be required. 4. Suggestions as to how the improved roadway would blend into the unimproved section especially due to the narrow road width . 5. Correct cross section to standards required. 6. Problems with entrance to Mill Street II Drainage 1. Easements to extend the roadway drainage into the Cedar Glenn complex will be required. 2. The hydraulic calculations to justify the proposed drainage improvements will be required. 3. Easements for proposed pipe work on Sanborn Lane will be required and for the exit drain pipe. 4. Class of pipe will be shown on all pipe. - 5. Exits will require rip rap and proper channel protec- tion for a length as standards indicate. III Sewer 1. The connection to the private sewer in Cedar Glenn will not be allowed. 2. The proposed connection manhole on Sanborn will not be allowed to connect at that angle. 3. The sewer main will be A feet deep in all locations. 4. Class of pipe will be shown on all pipe.