Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-09-27 Board of Survey Minutes Board of Survey Meeting of September 27, 1984 Page 1 A meeting of the Board of Survey convened in Room 31 of the Community Center, 52 Sanborn Street, Reading, Ma. at 7:30 P.M. Present were Chairman Barker, Board Members Wood, Polychrones and Griffin, Superintendent Anthony V. Fletcher and Assistant Superintendent William A. Redford. Mr. Griffin read the Notice of Public Hearing at 7:30 P.M. regarding Colonial Drive Extension. The proposed new subdivision will provide for eleven (11) new lots in addition to the two existing lots. There were four interested abutters present, as well as O. Bradley Latham, Attorney for the developer, and Mark Conserva, owner. Chairman Barker introduced the members of the Board and the Department. Attorney Latham presented the Board with an agreement for a 30 foot wide utility easement across the property of A.L. Symes for the owners right to install and maintain a sewer, water and other usual utility lines in a form reasonably acceptable to the buyer and the Reading Board of Public Works. Peter Ogren of Hayes Engineering joined the meeting at 7:40 P.M. Secretary Hampson joined the meeting at 7:45 P.M. Mr. Ogren outlined the proposed plan. He stated the sewer line will be connected to the existing sewer system which will flow to the existing sewer pumping station. He stated there doesn't seem to be any major problem with conforming to the list of concerns written by the Town Engineer. Asst. Supt. Redford stated T agree with Mr. Ogren that most of the items listed are technical in nature, and in most cases, are minor items. Board of Survey Meeting of September 27, 1984 Page 2 Chai.rman Barker read the letters from the Board of Health and the Conservation Commission into the record (attached). Supt. Fletcher stated this Board is the Water Commissioners for the Town, I don't think the Board of Health should require the looping of any water main. Mrs. Wood asked why can't the water main be looped in the same easement as the sewer? Mr. Ogren replied basically the expense becomes pretty extreme. Conditions are not always ideal for looping. We will provide a blow-off by placing a hydrant in a strategic location. Regarding drainage, Mr. Ogren thought impact on the wetlands will be minimal, however, there will be a wetlands filing at which time we will address these issues and provide calculations to the Board of Public Works. Mr. Ogren stated we request sewer elevations to be above the cellar wall. Mrs. Wood asked how such will it cost to loop the water main? Mr. Ogren replied probably around $12,000.00. 50% of the 300 foot trench is ledge. Mrs. Wood stated I am much more interested in looping this water main. Attorney Latham stated regarding the landlocked area we will designate this for pedestrian access. This land is very wet and will not be developed and the owners are seriously considering donating this wetlands area to the Conservation Commission. If necessary, we will break a rear lot line and add to the lot. Board of Survey Meeting of September 27, 1964 Page 3 ' Asst. Supt. Redford stated in informal discussions with Mr. Costello he indicated he had heard rumors about the gift of the land, but he indicated the Town would need some kind of access to this area. Mr. Griffin stated I would like to hear the Conservation Commission's input on this development in relation to this issue. We must be very careful about landlocking. Mr. Griffin added he would like to see the water main looped if at all practically possible. Mr. Symes stated my front yard which is BO feet is all ledge, he had to blast to install his septic system. Mr. Polychrones stated my concern is with the landlocked land. What if there is a fire in back with no fire road? Atty. Latham replied this is mostly wetlands. The creation of this subdivision brings the roadway closer to the potential fire area than it is now. Mr. Hampson stated I favor the water main looping given that the proponent has an easement and they should also prepare drainage calculations. Mr. Ogren stated our negotiations for the easement were primarily for sewer. Just because we have the easement doesn't mean we have the width for installing a new water line. Attorney Latham stated this is a pretty heavy expense. Chairman Barker stated I think the developer and the Department should consult on these matters. Asst. Supt. Redford stated one of the problems I have is with the sewer running across the front of Lot No. 4. This should be rerouted. It was moved, seconded and voted 5:0 to extend this hearing until October 15th. Board of Survey Meeting of September 27, 1984 Page 4 ' It was moved, seconded and voted 5:0 to close the Hearing at 8:40 P.M. Mr. Hampson read the Notice of Public Hearing at 8:45 P.M. regarding the plans for a subdivision located off Colburn Road within an area approximately bounded by Colburn Road, Annette Lane, Deborah Drive, Applegate Lane and Northerly of Spruce Road. There were approximately 45 interested abutters present. Chairman Barker introduced the members of the Board and Department. Chairman Barker stated that the applicant has chosen a "preliminary hearing", the purpose of which is to present his proposal and to hear the abutters concerns and the concerns of the Department and the Board. Also present were Eric Nitzsche of Robert E. Anderson Co. of North Reading representing Land Realty Trust and Mr. James Pacy, the developer. Mr. Nitzsche stated we propose to connect Deborah Drive and Colburn Road to create three new lots and using the Apple Gate Lane cul-de-sac as frontage, we would create another lot, for a total of four. Regarding the concerns of the Town Engineer, he presented the Board with plans of the existing lots owned by the King's and the Mc Mahon's. Asst. Supt. Redford stated one of the main concerns the Department has is that there was no notification to the Conservation Commission. This work will be within 100 feet of a Wetland Zone. The Department's feeling on Lot 4, which is the trapezoidalbased lot starting at the end of Apple Gate Lane, is that this 50 or so feet is not classified as frontage and therefore, there is not 80 foot frontage Beard of Survey Meeting of September 27, 1984 Page 5 ' resulting from picking up the small section from the King's. The field conditions I refer to in Item R5 specifically are in the area of the proposed driveway for Lot 4. Field inspection indicates a steep embankment in this area and perhaps bordering wetlands. The Board of Public Works currently has a driveway guideline which indicates no driveway will be allowed at the end of a roadway. This does cause us a great deal of difficulty during snow plowing operations. Chairman Barker read into the record (copies attached) letters from the Conservation Commission, the Board of Health, and two petitions from the abuttors. Mr. Hampson asked could you delineate the drainage area that drains into this proposed development. Mr. Redford replied in discussion with the Highway Supervisor, he stated this area is an area of springs and is constantly borderline wetlands, even during the dry season. Mr. Hampson stated I would like to see this delineated at the next meeting. I find there is a much larger low-lying area of wetlands than was defined on this plan. Mr. Nitzsche stated we understand we have to file a Notice of Intent under Chapter 131 with the Town of Reading Conservation Comm. Mr. Hampson stated this is a very highly developed area with a lot of homes. Currently, the Conservation Commission is requesting holding ponds for large developments. Mr. Nitzsche replied under this proposal, we do not intend to fill any wetlands. Mr. Polychrones asked how would you get access to that house at the end of Apple Gate Lane without the driveway? Board of Survey Meeting of September 27, 1984 Page 6 ' Mr. Nitzsche replied we would have to fill in over wetlands. Mr. Polychrones asked what about the 80' frontage requirement? Mr. Nitzsche replied there is an exception to this which states in part you must have a 120 foot width. Mrs. wood stated I have a problem with your interpretation of some of our rules and regulations. I have a serious problem with your interpretation of the Zoning By-Laws and the 80 foot frontage. Mr. Griffin stated I have a problem with your interpretation of the frontage on Apple Gate Lane. My second concern is the access from Annette Road to a house whose frontage is easily several hundred feet behind it. My concern is that the driveway access will not be acceptable, and that it will have a huge impact on the existing property. Judy Bliss of 46 Deborah Drive stated she has always had water problems in her cellar. She felt any development in this area would make her problem worse. Eileen Literin of 22 Deborah Drive stated she and her neighbors would like to go on record as totally opposed to any development of this land. If this area were to be developed, we can anticipate safety problems for our children and additional drainage problems for the abuttors. She felt the plan disregards the State and the Town of Reading Conservation Commission guidelines. She then presented the Board with a petition signed by 50 people. Darlene Barker of 40 Deborah Drive stated she had a septic system problem in her back yard, and felt any development would make her situation even worse. She presented the Board with a letter from the past Health Inspector, James Nugent, (copy attached) attesting to the situation. Board of Survey Meeting of September 27, 1984 Page 7 ' Eileen Savio of 34 Deborah Drive stated her back yard is a swamp now from February through June. She is afraid the problem is going to get worse. Bill. Mendor of 3 Deborah Drive stated I think the intent of the Zoning regulation is with respect to normal frontage. Mr. Nitzsche replied the By-Law states you must have 120 feet of frontage on a road. There is a frontage exception section that specifically states on a curve having a radius of 80 feet, I may reduce my frontage to 80 feet, provided, however, I have 120 feet across at the building line. Supt. Fletcher stated under State Subdivision Regulations, determinations of frontage requirements can be either straight or curved. Mr. Mendor asked what prevents this from being so convoluted? Supt. Fletcher replied the use of the term "along the right of way" Mr. J. DiGiovanni of 30 Deborah Drive stated the sewer was installed here in 1975 and I can recall coming before the Board with a long petition because of the septic system problems. I am strongly opposed to this development. I think if the road goes through, you will completely change the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Wayne of 27 Apple Gate Lane pointed out the steep grading of the driveway access. Mr. Nitzsche replied when we get to the Definitive stage, we will address your concerns. Asst. Supt. Redford stated when a subdivision is submitted to the Board of Survey, the Board has 60 days to act. Mrs. Wood stated in the many years I have sat on this Board, time after time on all subdivisions people come in with drainage problems. One of the things that has been found in the new subdivisions is that we are Board of Survey Meeting of September 27, 1984 Page 8 ' using different criteria. Sometimes retention areas help these problems. It was moved, seconded and voted 5:0 to close the hearing at 10:0 P.M. Mr. Polcari of Deborah Drive stated you people represent us. Please don't let a developer ruin our area. Mrs. Wood moved to approve the preliminary subdivision submitted by My State Development Trust on Apple Gate Lane and Deborah Drive. The motion was seconded. Mr. Griffin stated I think it is in the best interest of this Board to take some time for consideration of specifics based upon concept. Mr. Griffin moved to table the motion. Asst. Supt. Redford stated I was hoping to request one of the Board members table. The Department's recommendation is not to take action on the same night you receive input. The Department would like the opportunity to advise the Board in whatever action the Board takes. The Department does not feel at this time that we can give you detail. It was moved, seconded and voted 4: 1 (Mr. Polychrones opposed) to table discussion to consider further specific information. The meeting adjourned at 10: 15 P.M. Mr. Hampson read the Notice of Public Hearing at 10:25 P.M. regarding the modification of approved subdivision plans for a subdivision located off Avalon Road within an area approximately bounded by West Street, Whitehall Lane, Pine Ridge Road, Oak Street and Countryside Lane. There were five interested abuttors present, as well as Peter ' Ogren of Hayes Engineering. Chairman Barker apologized for the late hour. Board of Survey Meeting of September 27, 1984 Page 9 tMr. Ogren stated drainage improvements have been added. The Conservation Commission looked very carefully at the plan. What finally came about is that they wanted to see a further increase in the wetlands area and the retention area. The primary purpose of the watershed is for drainage control. He presented the amended plan with two (2) fewer lots. He stated there is one other item that involved a slight change. The Conservation Commission's concern was that the water would be allowed to drain too quickly. We finally agreed upon a fairly complicated structure which will allow us to receive the water at its' existing elevation 259.33 in the brook upstream. The water will come in twin 18" pipes and discharge through the pipes. Asst. Supt. Redford stated I highly recommend you consider requiring a three foot sump at the control structure. You should allow for overtopping and allow for thi.s to act as an overtopping weir. He discussed both of these options with the Conservation Commission and Mr. Costello stated he had no problem with that and did not consider this reason for a resubmittal. Mr. Griffin stated the original conditional approval requirements attached to the original plans should also be applied to these modified plans. It was moved, seconded and voted 5:0 that the Board rescind the approval of the prior submittal dated May 8, 1984. It was moved, seconded and voted 4: 1 (Mrs. Wood opposed) that the Board approve the Subdivision entitled "Avalon Estates dated October 1, ' 1984" subject to the six conditions outlined in a memo dated October 1, 1984. It was moved, seconded and voted 5:0 to close the hearing at 10:55 P.M. The meeting adjourned at 10:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Sec, ry "$ TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS 01867 ' r BARD OF HEALTH 52 Sanborn Street, Room 12A Tel. 942-0500 - Ext. 31, 32, 39 JAMES J NUGENT.JR..N.A.C.N.O..CHM. - M.JANE OALLANUF,MPH.C H O JUDITH A PIANI.S.A CCA. 'MMIA Ml-". PAUL F.CASELLE.0A.S. MAgV POLYCHNOHES Satrel,ry September 21, 1984 Mr. Anthony Fletcher, Clerk Board of Survey Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA., 01867 Dear Mr. Fletcher: F. Mr. Tabbi, our Health Inspector, reviewed the Definitive Plan at Colonial Drive which will be heard on September 27, 1984. The Board of Health members accepted Mr. Tabbi's recommendation that the developer be required to loop the dead-end water line from Colonial Drive to an existing water main on Brewer Lane. Would you kindly include the Board's recommendation as part of your review process of this plan? Sincerely yours, 4 � M. JANE GALLARUE, M.P.H. MJG;P HEALTH DIRECTOR a�t13i�J ur PUBLIG I;ItZ i Sep 2 CONSERVATION COMMISSION 2 6 LOWELL STREET _ READING, MASSACHUSETTS 01867 � 942-0539 942-0725 September 26 RECEIVED BOARD OF PUBLIC YOB Mr. Douglas Barker, Chairman Board of Survey Town of Reading /,2.10 TOWN OF READING RE: Colonial Drive Extension Dear Mr. Barker: The Conservation Commission has reviewed the Definitive Plan of this project and toured the area. It appears that, though the project site is for the most part upland, wetlands to the north of the site will be impacted by the development and its drainage changes. The Commission will be interested in what manner the developer proposes to dispose of the increased runoff. This project does come under the wetland jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission. For the Reading Conservation Commission, i Charles T. Costello Administrator CTC/mc cc: Mark Conserva (certified) 2)"h'abd to 14. Pre'.u.. o` our //nlaro��aloarce! CONSERVATION COMMISSION ? 6 LOWELL STREET 2' READING, MASSACHUSETTS 01867 942-0539 942-0725 September 26, 1984 nBOARDENED Mr. Douglas Barker, Chairman USUCWOR SBoard o£ SurveyTown of Reading RE: Colburn Road ExtensionProposed Development F HEADING Dear Mr. Barker: The Conservation Commission has reviewed the proposed "Pre- liminary Plan" for this project and conducted an on-site inspec- tion of the property. In addition, at a recent Commission meet- ing fourteen residents of the Deborah Drive area presented their strong opinion that a surface and groundwater problem exists presently at the site and any further development would be poten- tially threatening to their property. Upon onsite inspection, during last week's dry period, evidence of surface flooding was widely present. This project does come under the wetland jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission. For the Reading Conservation Commission, n� l Charles T. Costello Administrator CTC/mc Cc: James Pacy (certified) aUa�leafid !o ler nroaewalion o�our s/alarm�aeoarcae e^RWEIVED TO a or N WNOFREADING, MAS""SETTS01867 B0 0FPIISUCFW AKS BOARD OF HEALTH ■ �a ,..o,.� 52 Sanborn Street, Room 12A Tel. 942-0500- Ext: 31, 32, 39 TOWN OF HEADING JAMES J.NUGENT.JR.,8 S,C N.O..CMM. M.JANE GALLANUE,M P.N..C.H.O. JUDITH A.PIANO,SAI coA ..A D.I. PAUL F.CASELLE MMS. MARY PoLYCHRONES SFcrsury September 25, 1984 Board of Survey Anthony Fletcher, Clerk Board of Public Works 16 Lowell Street _ Reading, MA., 01867 Gentlemen: Please be advised that after reviewing the preliminary subdivision plan for Colburn Road Extension, I wish to offer the following com- ments regarding this plan: E` 1. there is no size of water supply on plan for lots 1 and 2 2, no water service shown on plan for lots 3 and 4 3. request drainage calculations for lot 3 and 4 relative to impact on adjacent lots 4. lots I and 2 show proposed final grading for lots 1 and 2 so lots can be evaluated relative to impact on proposed dwelling due to the evaluation of the water table in this area Would you kindly require the developer to address these issues in the definitive subdivision plan. Yours 2very y/ftruly, JOSEPH H .T. T �, "R.S. yTT;P HEALTH INSPECTOR Sept. 27, 1984 Per the letter from James Nugent, Health Agent, Board of Health, - 1 Reading, MA. , dated 10/7/74;. r.i The drainage problem still exists to the degree that during spring thaws and heavy rain, the water table, because of the underground creek or springs, rises and the drainage from the abutting property at 46 Deborah Dr. flows onto my property at 40 Deborah Dr. This causes the water from the drainage to lay on the surface of the ground for a depth of 4-6 inches for several months. My backyard cannot be mowed for weeks after a heavy rain -- or thaw, .Any additional drainage permitted to occur because of _ infringement on the "wet land" at the end of Deborah Drive and _ the disturbance of the present natural terrain will have" a serious r adverse effect on drainage of my property and the abutting property at both 46 and 34 Deborah Drive and continuing over to Covey Hill Road, where the creek surfaces. Yours truly, Dharled ne Backer 40 Deborah Dr. Reading, MA 01867 TOWN OF READING, MA95A1111ETTS o1b:61 A OFFICE OF BOARD OF HEALTH - MUNICIPAL BUILDING - - T.L. 9441422 90 R.W.WAKELING, O.O. p T.1.00 W O, M.O. N. POLYCNRONES s J.yNUGENT.JR., AGENT Mrs. Darlene Rocker - 40 Deborah Drive October 7, 1974 Reading , Mase. 01867 - Dear Mrs. Booker: . Per our conversation, I said I would write a letter to the Woburn court, regarding the additional leach line added to your septic system. Mr. James McKee added approximatly 65 feet of leaching to the already existing septic system (10-12-7. at my request, to relieve the excess affluent, coming from the existing system. The best possible leaching for the overflow, occuned in the rear of your lot. Construction is completed prior to any appreciable rain fall, and apparently the additional leaching was installed near or approximatly near an underground brook, stream, or spring. And as. a result, when the wetter winter months came upon us, the leaching field rendered itself to be inadaquate. If I may be of any further assistance to you, please feel free to call. Very truly yours, Of He th a JJH:P _ He th Ez� WaKs -TOWN OF HEADING 46 Deborah Drive Reading, AL1 01867 September 14, 1984 - Chairman, - Board of Public Works Municipal Town Office Main Street Reading, PIA 01867 Dear Sir: We are concerned about the plans for a subdivision that will provide for three new lots on the proposed Colburn Road extension along with an additional new lot on Applegate Lane. We purchased our home at 46 Deborah Drive in September of 1972. During the past twelve years, it has been evident to us that our land lies on "Wet Lands", lie have experienced numerous yearly episodes with both water in the basement and having the back third of our lot under three inches of water. The builder had installed a sump pump which runs almost constantly from February through June, however, its effect closely resembles trying to bail out the ocean pail by pail. Our efforts to eliminate the problem have included re-routing the sump pump, installing a dry well, installing a second sump pump, dumping tons of new top soil every few years, adding more ground cover and the Town sewer system. After twelve years of the "Water Vs. Home" battle, we have been able to minimize the water problem in the basement. However, we still have a mosquito mating area in our stagnant three-inch pool that exists until June each year (this year, July). lie believe our plight would be experienced by the potential owners of any new development built on the proposed building sites and further worsen our own existing situation. Please investigate our concerns. We would welcome a site visit from your office which would enable you to gain more wisdom regarding the proposed subdivision plan. Sincerely, ���lj��� J. S.S.kiss JSd/la 22 Deborah Drive Reading, Mass. Sept. 10, 1984 RE 7ENED WM OFK=" S Mr. Douglas Barker, Chairman 9. 13-S Dept. of Public Works 1 I Reading, Mass. 01867 TOWN OF READI Dear Mr. Barker: Enclosed is a copy of a petition which has been recently circulated and signed by residents in the Deborah Drive area, expressing our opposition to any plan submitted to your office which would pro- pose changing Deborah Drive from a cul-de-sac to a through street. We strongly oppose any plan that would extend or break through Deborah Drive for a number of reasons. Some of our concerns in- clude the health and safety of its residents, as well as the drainage problems that would surely ensue from the possible devel- opment of such a wet area. We feel confident that you will share our concerns with all the members of your committee and give our united neighborhood feelings due consideration. Sincerely* _ j 5 & Eileen S. Li.tterio C6 and Residents of the Deborah Dr. Area DEBORAH? DRIVE PETITION We the undersigned residents of and in the vicinity of. Deborah Drive oppose any proposal to change Deborah Drive from a cul-de-sac to a through street. From the time Deborah Drive was constructed and accepted by the Town of Reading as a public way, the neighborhood has develop- ed a certain character based upon a limited amount of traffic on the roadway. The current design of the street, with its low traffic levels, has resulted in a safe and quiet area. Residents purchased their properties with the expectation that the character of the neighborhood would be maintained. Any proposal to open up Deborah Drive as a through street will significantly increase both the amount of traffic and the speed of vehicles using this multi-curved roadway as an alternate route from Forest Street, thereby affecting safety in addition to disturbing the existing nature of the area. Therefore, we petition the responsible Town Officials to deny any proposal to change the layout of Deborah Drive from a cul-de-sac to a through street. Name , Address A,, iNEIN _ /�l)l��s�•,n .r Lam_ q / mmi I I a " v Page 2-.of the Deborah Drive Petition requesting responsible Town Officials to deny any proposal that would change the layout of Deborah Drive from a cul-de-sac to a through street.. Name Address 3/5 /✓,vE 1 � N �- ar "a bozos. oh.v �Q 1/ OU o Cl . C 0!4/ is c • 1 /' / O'O Q / D a '2 �G c •-� , 7�3 way let R 23 C e .9e --Q a 0 �0 7P NP -zo Fromtu., Ste-