Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-11-07 Board of Survey Minutes i Board of Survey Meeting of November 7, 1983 Page 1 1 p meeting of the Board of Survey convened in Room 16, Municipal Building at 7:42 P.M. Present were Chairman Wood, Secretary Barker, Board Members Polychrones, Griffin and Hampson and Assistant Superintendents Edward D. McIntire, Jr. and William R. Bergeron. The Board reviewed the bond reduction requests for Francis Drive, Benton and Aurele Circles, Heather Drive and Latham Lane. It was moved, seconded and voted 5:0 to reduce the bond for Francis Drive from $500.00 to $100.00, releasing $400.00, as requested by Aurele Cormier of Parkwood Construction Corp. It was moved, seconded and voted 5:0 to reduce the bond for Benton Circle and Aurele Circle Subdivisions from 8600.00 to zero, releasing $600.00 as requested by Aurele Cormier of Parkwood Construction Corporation. It was moved, seconded and voted 5:0 to reduce the bond for Heather Drive Subdivision from $20,000.00 to $2,200.00, releasing $17,800.00, as requested by Aurele Cormier of Parkwood Construction Corporation. Mr. Barker felt the fire hydrants in this subdivision should be painted. It was moved, seconded and voted S:0 to reduce the bond for Latham Lane Subdivision from $1,500.00 to $500.00, releasing $1,000.00, as requested by Albert Symes of Symes Associates, Inc. The Board next met with David L. Vines, petitioner, Andrew Bramhall, Surveyor, and Jack Rohrer, Hydrologist of I.E.P. Inc. to discuss the petition of David L. Vines for a reduction in the flood plain elevation in the property located off of Willow Street known as Lots 2 and 21, Assessors' Map 99. Board of Survey Meeting of November 7, 1483 Page 2 Mr. Vines presented the Board with a letter stating he believed he has thoroughly satisfied the specific burden of proof necessary to gain Special Permit Approval. (copy attached as a permanent record). There were approximately 25 abuttors present. The Board was also presented with a letter from John F. Rohrer, Engineer for I.E.F. Inc. (copy attached) stating that because of the accuracy of the model and the detailed definition of required input factors (including surveying of the site, flood basin and structure inverts) they believe their predicted 100 Year Flood Elevation (85.3 feet NBVD) to be the most accurate of any flood state estimation for this area, for the following reasons; ® (1) Unless the limit of observed flooding is staked during the event and surveyed, documentation of the event is subject to recollection and may therefore be biased, (2) The actual flooding may have resulted from an abnormal outlet condition such as siltation or debris in the culvert, and (3) Localized flooding in small depressions may have been mistaken for flood plain. Mr. Timothy Murphy of 22 Willow Street stated as has been stated in prior hearings, residents have witnessed flooding in the area for numerous years. He stated this flooding has endangered the lives of children and property. We have witnessed the flooding and it had been our understanding that this land was on a Flood Plain, so no photographs were ' taken, as we felt this land was not buildable. He stated he hired the Robert E. Anderson Co. to do spot elevations, and presented the Board with a report of Anderson Co. 's findings. (copy attached). Mr. Murphy stated he thinks before the Board of Public Works makes a decision they should consider that if they let Mr. Vines build, Board of Survey Meeting of November 7, 1903 Page 3 they are going to be inundated with other requests for building on Flood Plains. i Mr. Murphy thanked the Board for their time. Chairman Wood stated I think the petition of Mr. Vines is not necessarily to build on the Flood Plain, but to establish the Flood Plain as lower at 89.3 feet. Every time a builder wants to put a house on a contour lower than 90 feet, they must come before this Board. These are hearings on a case by case basis. Mr. Barry Hampson stated I am also a Registered Professional Engineer and I know from my professional experience that a number plugged into the computer only is as good as the least significant number plugged into the computer. ' Mr. Rohrer of I.E.P. stated he used the topographic maps of the i Town. I j Mr. Hampson stated when the Town voted to use SO feet as a number, they also used a judgement call. The other point is that this whole area is controlled by the culvert under the railroad tracks. The Town can not expect to keep the sediment out of the culvert. Mr. Rohrer replied we don't dispute this and we don't dispute the fact that this area floods, but we are assuming this is caused by the culvert. Mr. Rohrer assumed the culvert is going to always be cleaned of sediment by the Town. Mr. Bergeron stated the original 1970 Flood Plain contours were established from the memory of abettors in the area. The HUD study ' indicates that the Flood Plain Zone line is at the % foot contour. The 500 Year HUD study indicated it to be 06.5. He stated we do have photographs of the flooding in the January 1979 storm which indicate 00.0 or OB.9, close to the lower street side. He stated he has seen pieces of plywood pulled out of that culvert. Board of Survey Meeting of November 7, 1903 page 4 i� Mr. Rohrer stated that from what he has heard for the establishment of the 90 foot contour, he felt his method was substantially more accurate. Historically, there has been debris and siltation in the culvert which is probably the cause of flooding more than anything else. He stated there may be small depressions and standing pockets of water which are not necessarily in the Flood Plain Area. Mr. Murphy of 22 Willow Street stated the flooding he was talking about was not caused by small pockets of water, he was able to go down there in a boat. Mr. Rohrer stated you seem to think there are mistakes in the calculations, certainly we appreciate a review of the calculations. We { 1 can only test this model if the 100 Year Storm actually occurs. Chairman Wood stated when I went to this area with you and you pointed out the stream bed up in the area of the sewer manhole cover and the rubble pile there is a stake marked with a yellow flag. Mr. Bramhall, the surveyor, stated the yellow flag was an observation on October 13 of the high water elevation. There was roughly 1 1/2 to 2 " of rain, this marked the edge of the water. Mr. Bramhall stated he took testimony from some of the abuttors. The person at 0256 Lowell Street pointed out to the best of his ability where the water had come in to his back yard, he stated he took an I elevation there of 86.0, and at 038 Bond Street took an elevation of 00.3. Mr. Fernando Caratelli of 284 Lowell Street presented the Board w I with pictures of his back yard which showed flooding at last Saturdays rainstorm. He also presented letters from three Town Meeting Members stating they were at his property on Saturday and also witnessed this flooding. Hoard of Survey Meeting of November 7, 1903 Page 5 Mr. Harker read the three letters from the Town Meeting Members. Maureen O'Brien of S9 Willow Street stated she has observed on a number of occasions the flooding talked about. She stated she wanted to point out to the Board that Hen Nichols measured the culverts. With Proposition 2 1/2 upcoming, no Town will be able to maintain these j culverts. The culvert on the side entering from Lowell Street is larger than the one on the other side. I understand this area is the headwaters of the Aberjona River and that is another reason for the flooding. Attorney William Diamond spoke on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Maillett and David Vines. Ne stated he looks at this situation essentially as an effort on the part of a property owner to dispose of a parcel of land. Mr. Maillett purchased this property in 1967 and has been unable to do anything with it since then. Ile stated he doesn't see anything here that could cause potential flooding except to the owners of the proposed new dwelling. The present taxes accumulated on this property amount to about 85,200.00. Mr. Maillett is under contract to sell this to Mr. Vines for i 812,000.00. Mr. Maillett will then receive 87,000.00 on his 832,000.00 investment. He stated I suggest to the Board that they consider this under the law on the factual basis that we are dealing with a loss. This dwelling will be an asset to the neighborhood. I would ask that the Board consider very seriously the human side of this entire picture before recommending it or rejecting it. ' William Carney of 12 Willow Street stated I suggest that the dollar figures do not have any bearing on the case before the Board. Mr. Fernando Caratelli of 204 Lowell Street stated this is a gamble Mr. Maillet took. Board of Survey Meeting of November 7, 1963 Page 6 Mr. Jeffrey Hollis of 46 Bond Street stated he abuts this property and feels that the construction of a gravel road will block water. There is water in the back of my yard every year and in my cellar every year. Any new construction is going to cause water in my back yard. Mr. Freeman of 50 Bond Street stated I have been here since 1970, the problem is in the winter, and you will get water far and above what is there now. I feel you should take this into consideration. Mr. Vines stated I have listened to the conversations and I think Mr. Hampson indicated the exit culvert was subject to siltation, one should assume that whatever properties were causing problems in the Town should be accountable. It would seem to me that siltation upstream would in fact slow down the water getting into that area. At no time did anyone ever indicate that the exit culvert is larger. The area does in fact serve as a retention basin, there is 15 acres of storage in there. We are stating the area will flood to a specific elevation only. Mr. Vines stated the Zoning By—Law has set the flood elevation at. 90, it has also stated there will be exceptions. The 100 Year Flood is 6.5 inches of rain over a 24 hour period. This is not arbitrary, it is used as a standard throughout the State of Mass. We have used computers and an engineering firm that are beyond dispute. I think we have done a fine job of supportive data. It concerns me deeply that we have been waltzing around this issue. Mr. Hampson stated the Flood Plain Zone Line looks too close to ' your proposed foundation. Mr. Vines stated the flood elevation is close but the foundation is not altering anything there. The house will be built on a slab. The interior will be filled solid with a compact fill. Mr. Hampson stated I worry that some time in the future if the Board of Survey Meeting of November 7, 1903 Page 7 i i culvert is not cleared somewhere along the line, it will cause problems for the new dwelling. Mr. Vines stated I would make it part of the Order of Conditions to set aside a fund to clean the culvert. Mr. Daniel Mulawski of 270 Lowell Street stated I can't understand why you would want to put a house in this area. You have a petition from the taxpayers of this Town who fear what will happen if this is built. I would suggest to the Board that you do not build anything at all on this property. Mrs. Lester Horton of L Willow Street stated the land we are talking about is a natural watershed. I have seen this land flood, this i is a valley area. There is no way for anyone to safely build. Mr. Vines is the third contractor to ask for variances on that land. Mr. Barker moved that the Board write to the Board of Appeals and advise them that the house location as shown on the topographic plan revised October 3, 1903 is not subject to flooding to the extent zoned (90' elevation) and is suitable for human habitation. The motion was seconded and defeated 0:4; 1 (Mr. Polychrones abstaining). Mr. Polychrones stated I think our engineers should have some input on this. Mr. Bergeron stated at the last hearing my recommendation to the Board was read into the minutes and based on the calculations, the information presented and my own personal observations. My recommendation ' was to allow the construction. { Mr. Griffin read a letter from the Board of Health stating the Health Inspector felt the lot was suitable for building. Chairman Wood stated I had problems with the drainage conditions in the area. IIHoard of Survey Meeting of November 7, 1983 Page 0 1 1 Mr. Griffin stated I Found this was an area I perceived was n nn-drainable. i Mr. Hampson stated my main problem was that the calculated flood plain was so close to the foundation it gave no margin for error. Mr. Polychrones stated I abstained because I was not completely sure either way, I heard three different opinions from three different engineers. Mr. Barker stated based on the testimony presented, I voted the way I did. The meeting adjourned at 9:S0 P.M. Respectfully submitted, I November 7, 1983 Mrs. Gail Wood, Chairperson Board of Survey 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Re: Board of Appeals petition under Section 4.4.4.2, of the Flood Plain District - David L. Vines, et.al., applicants Dear Members of the Board: I am writing to summarize the salient information relative to my Flood Plain District Special Permit application with the Board of Appeals. As you know, Section 4.4.4.2. of the Zoning By-Laws gives the Board of Survey and Board of Health the specific responsibility of submitting written recommendations to the Board of Appeals relative to applications of this type. After study- ing the following information, I believe you will agree that I have thorough- ly satisfied the specific burden of proof necessary to gain Special Permit approval. Burden of Proof - Section 4.4.4.2. (Flood Plain Districts) outlines very specific conditions for granting a Special Permit. The applicant must demon- strate that the area is "not subject to floodingnor unsuitable for human occupancy due to drainage or topographic conditions"(emphasis added. I be- lieve I have provided all of the technical documentation and supporting evi- dence necessary to more than satisfy that requirement. Statement of the Facts - Comprehensive and detailed flood routing calcu- lations have been prepared by a registered professional engineer employed by IEP, Inc. , a prestigous environmental and engineering consulting firm re- spected statewide. This analysis was accoplished to a level of thoroughness never before achieved in this region of town. State-of-the-art computer modeling utilizing widely accepted techniques was employed. Inverts of all drainage structures were field verified by a surveyor. These calculations have been reviewed by William Bergeron, the Town'a own registered engineer. He has concurred with the calculated 89.3' flood elev- ation. In fact, he noted that the engineering methods used to develop that elevation "generally yield conservative results". At the previous meeting, there was some discussion of the potential percent of error associated with this calculation. It is my understanding that Mr. Rohrer was able to speak to Mr. Hampson last week relative to this concern. As Mr. Rohrer will explain, the computer modeling of a drainage system gen- erates a finite number for the 100 year flood elevation. It is not accepted professional practice to prepare hydraulic calculations on a plus or minus basis. Certain conservatiW assumptions are built into any good calculation which, in turn, generates realistic figures for the flood elevation. It is also important to realize that the calculated flood elevation is based on a ' Mrs. Gail Wood, Chairperson -2- November 7, 1983 100 year storm design frequency. That translates to 6✓lJ.nches of rain in a 24 hour period! ! Although the 89.3' 100 year flood elevation is projected to fall within a few feet of the foundation wall itself, it is extremely important to note that the minimum slab elevation will be placed 3_7 feet above that level, constituting no hazard to the occupants of the dwelling. The proposed location of the dwelling is also important to consider. The home will lie outside the 89.3' contour (the revised 100 year flood elevation as calculated by IEP, Inc.); it will lie outside the Planning Boards limit of the 90' contour Flood Plain District as shown on the existing Zoning Maps; and also lies outside the flood boundary as established by the National Flood Insurance Program. There will be no alteration of the topography inside the 89.3' contour flood plain level. Soils on the site in the immediate vicinity of the proposed home and extending all the way to the wetland boundary are well-draining and can easily accomodate the proposed construction. A visit to the site after last Friday's and Saturday's heavy rains, readily verified that fact. Finally, it is worthwhile to note that the proposed dwelling will connect into Town water and sewer services, the latter of which is immediately avail- able adjacent to the proposed structure. Conclusion - It is clear that the Board of Survey must carefully sort out what information is and is not relevant to this case and what data is and is not substantiated by technical documentation. I have presented every possible piece of technically supported evidence to verify the soundness of this pro- posal. It is obvious that the objections of certain persons in the neighbor- hood extend well beyond the specific issue of flooding to their own personal desire to see the land,which has remained open for so long,stay in its present state. While certainly understandable, that desire must be weighed against the compelling evidence which has been assembled in support of this petition. I respectfully request that you cut through all of the unsubstantiated claims and base your decision on the fact presented. Thank you for your time in considering this proposal. ry ruly rs, C David L. Vines 14A Gregory Island Road ' Hamilton, MA CONSULTING ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS 6 MAPLE ST.-P.O. BOX 780, NORTHBOROUGH, MA 01532 1 c Inc. (61 7) 393-8558/890-2130 November 7, 1983 Project 83-98 Board of Survey Town of Reading Town Hall Reading, MA 01867 Re: Vines Petition, Lowell Street Dear Board Members: This letter is in response to your inquiry (October 31 hearing) about an error analysis on the predicted 100-year flood elevation as modelled by IEP. No such analysis has been performed because it would be well beyond the scope of standard practice. In fact, we have never encountered such an analysis on a flood routing evaluation in our years of reviewing flooding calculations. Our methodology is very intensive and is considered state-of-the-art by pro- fessional engineers and hydrologists. Please refer to our letter of October 6, 1983 to the Reading Board of Appeals. Because of the accuracy of the model and the detailed definition of required input factors (including surveying of the site, flood basin, and structure inverts) we believe our predicted 100-year flood ele- vation (89.3 feet NGVD) to be the most accurate of any flood state estimation for this area. Admittedly, any such flood routing method can at best only approximate a real event. However, we believe that our predicted flood level is more representative of "the 100-year flood" than are observations for three reasons: (1) unless the limit of observed flooding is staked during the event and surveyed, documentation of the event is subject to recollection and may therefore be biased, (2) the actual flooding may have resulted from an abnormal outlet condition such as siltation or debris in the culvert, and (3) localized flooding in small depressions may have been mistaken for flood plain. Please contact us if we can provide further information regarding our procedures. Sincerely, IEP, Inc, n F. Rohrer Hydrologist JFR/ei BRANCH OFFICES MARION, MASSACHUSETTS WAUKESHA, WISCONSIN SUNDERLAND. MASSACHUSETTS 178 Park Street P.O. BOX 177 U. C-u M. sncdtw North Reading, Mass. 01864 RanhR.- 664-3606 944-4420 c d°.s Eiaallon, opographic flan, Res. 687-4420 cnn""""nn n°"° sftW Design. Ha..e b ROBERT E. ANDERSON INC. Reg. Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors COMMERCIAL - INDUSTRIAL - RESIDENTIAL ENGINEERING & DEVELOPMENT November 7, 1983 Timothy Murphy 22 Willow Street Reading, Ma. 01867 RE: FLOOD ELEVATIONS - ABERJONA RIVER, READING, MASS. Dear Mr. Murphy: Pursuant to your request, I hereby certify that I did take on-the-ground elevations in the Aberjona River Flood Plain in the vicinity to the rear of your house on November 1, 1983, These elevations were taken with the understanding that said ground elevations would be used by you at a Board of Appeals Public Hearing in the Town of Reading to attempt to refute a Flood Plain Study proposed by I.E.P. Inc. of Northborough, Mass. . To that extent I requested that you indicate on the ground where you referenced the high water and Robert E. Anderson Inc. would then take an elevation at that spot. The elevations were performed using a Zeiss Nit self leveling instrument in accordance with the Procedural and Technical Standards for the practice of Land Surveying. The Bench Mark used was that which was specified on the "Topographic Plan of Land, Reading, Mass. " by Robert G. Applegate, R.L.S. dated July 26, 1983, revised August 15, 1983 and revised October 3, 1983; said plan having been submitted to the Board of Appeals as you have informed me. Bench Mark: Southwest Nut on Hydrant Cap located on the Westerly side of L6well Street opposite the intersections of Intervale Terrace, Datum: Mean Sea Level Elevation = 97.05 The elevations taken on November 1, 1983 by Robert E. Anderson Inc. are as follows; 1 . Two stakes were set to the rear of 22 Willow St. ; the first stake was 93 feet behind the dwelling, ' the second stake was 102 feet behind the dwelling, Ground Elevations at these stakes were 89.7 feet and 88.8 feet respectively. Average Elevation = 89.25 TO: TIMOTHY MURPHY PAGE: TWO ' RE: FLOOD ELEVATIONS - ABERJONA RIVER DATE: 11/7/83 READING, MA. 2. The tope of a boulder which sets on top of a Sewer Manhole approximate 100 feet Southwesterly of your property. Elevation = 88.29 3. A paint mark was set on an old bituminous walk approximately 250 feet Southwesterly of your property. Elevation = 88.79 Thank you for this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any further questions, please contact me. Very truly yours, _A1 ROBERT ROBERT E. s C. n E _1.e EWN:gag Erich W. " •..Lrni.kH ry