Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-12-10 Board of Survey Minutes z a Board of Survey Meeting of December 10, 1984 Page 1 A meeting of the Board of Survey convened in Room 16, Municipal Building at 7:4S P.M. Present were Chairman Barker, Board Members Wood, Polychrones and Griffin, Supt. A.V. Fletcher, P.E. and Asst. Supt. William A. Redford. The Board discussed the Board of Survey Hearing philosophy. Asst. Supt. Redford stated he would like to review his general thoughts and ideas on the hearing concept, and specifically his recommendations on the deliberation process at the hearings. He stated the Board of Survey Rules and Regulations really set out minimum standards for the Town. Primarily, Subdivision Control Law does not deal in limiting growth, but does address the roadway and utility expansion in the Town. The Rules and Regulations do set 60 day time limits for a decision on plans submitted. He stated the sequence after submittal is as follows: 1. Review and input of the Department; 2. Gathering of input and data at a Public Hearing; and 3. Determination and final review of the submitted plans. He stated it is his attempt to try and schedule hearings 30 days into the process. He stated the concept of a preliminary hearing is not a mandatory step, but his view is that this gives advance notice to the community and gives an opportunity and a forum to flag any known problems, and it also gives the townspeople opportunity to voice their concerns. He stated that in general, he would recommend not waiving any requests at the preliminary stage, mostly because the final design is not done and all the engineering data has not been received and can not be reviewed by the Board, specifically the drainage calculations, etc. He stated his feeling on the Board of Survey hearings is that he would like the Board to come in unbiased by the Department. He views the Board as the policy determining group who set the ground rules. He sees the Department more as a technical advisor of the Rules and Regulations and any potential legal ramifications for decision making. Board of Survey Meeting of December 10, 1984 Page 2 Mrs. Wood stated I think we have to be fair to both parties, and it helps the developer to know that we do or do not approve of these plans at this stage. Supt. Fletcher replied that is why we have a comment period and a hearing after a 30 day waiting period. Mr. Redford stated I believe every recommendation you have received since July lists a number of options to the Board for comments. Mr. Griffin stated he has three areas of concern: 1. The imperative establishment of a calendar; 2. That specific details be given to the developer, and 3. That the Board have some awareness of what is on file. Asst. Supt. Redford stated he would have a difficult time with giving this to the Board in their package without giving it to the developer. Mr. Griffin stated the telegraphic communication between engineers is very frustrating to me. Mr. Redford stated perhaps he could send the Board a locus map with general details prior to the preliminary hearing. He stated he thought it was more important that the Board be available for an on-site meeting after the hearing. Chairman Barker stated I feel it is beneficial to at least have a general flavor for the topography. The Board next discussed the Colonial Drive Extension Subdivision Definitive Filing. Asst. Supt. Redford commented on his memo containing nine items of concern on this subdivision, and his recommendation for conditional approval by the Board. He stated the first five items of concern were so-called "boiler plate" concerns which could easily be taken care of by the developer. He recommended the Board approve the subdivision subject to these conditions. Board of Survey Meeting of December 10, 1984 Page 3 Mrs. Wood stated a list this long bothers me and the fart that we do not have an agreement in hand from Mr. Symes for the easements. She stated the hydrant layout, water and sewer layout and the water main looping bother her as well. Mrs. Wood asked what about the landlocking problem? Mr. Redford replied they will place a note on the plan stating that the landlocked sections will be made a part of two of the lots. Mrs. Wood asked if the development would fall under the 2/1 infiltration - inflow policy? Supt. Fletcher replied yes, and this will have to go to Water Pollution Control, and we will address this problem. Mr. Griffin stated I understand it is our objective to loop the water main. What does this entail in the event of a watermain break? Does it mean that the work within the easement is confined to the 30 feet? Mr. Redford replied yes, we can not overrun this easement, it is not only for the actual placement, but also for the maintenance, repair, etc. Atty. 0. Bradley Latham stated his client has proposed Jefferson Circle as the name of the new street. Mr. Griffin suggested that in the future that "Morton" be kept in mind as the name of a roadway in recognition of Newt Morton. Mr. Latham added that his firm has a binding contract with Mr. Symes for the easements for this development. It was moved, seconded and voted 4:0 to accept Colonial Drive Extension subdivision subject to the conditions listed on Asst. Supt. ' Redford's memo dated December 7, 1984. (attached). The Board next discussed the Chestnut Road Preliminary Subdivision. ` Board of Survey Meeting of December 10, 1984 Page 4 ' Asst. Supt. Redford recommended disapproval due to the items listed on his memo. He stated this plan requires action by the 2tst of December. He stated it is his recommendation not to consider any waivers at this point, but to wait until the Definitive Stage. Mrs. Wood stated when the Board does consider a waiver of this type (connection with uncompleted extensions of adjacent ways) she would like to make sure that the developer realizes the Board is only considering this. Atty. 0. Bradley Latham stated it seems to me that part of the purpose of a preliminary hearing is to allow a basic plan to come before you. We would like to ask for waivers and the applicant will send in writing the reasons for the request for waivers/. Jack Rivers asked is the Board looking for definitivep plans and foregoing the preliminary? Chairman Barker replied we are looking for preliminary plans. Asst. Supt. Redford stated the Boards' decisions are not based on just public input. We are very clearly delineating our responsibilities. He stated that any granting of waivers should be viewed in light of consistency and enforcing the regulations uniformly across the Board to all developers. It was moved, seconded and defeated 0: 3: 1 (Mr. Polychrones abstaining) to approve the Chestnut. Road Preliminary Subdivision Plan. Mrs. Wood moved to disapprove the preliminary subdivision plan entitled Chestnut Street, dated October 2, 1984, due to the ten items listed on Asst_ Supt. Redford's memo (attached). The motion was seconded. ' Mr. Griffin amended the motion that Item B be added to Item 5 of the memo. The amendment was seconded and voted 3: 0: 1. (Mr. Polychrones abstaining). • Board of Survey Meeting of December 10, 1984 Page 5 The main motion as amended was voted 3:0: 1 (Mr. Polychromes abstaining). The Board next discussed the Pine Grove Estates Preliminary Subdivision. Asst. Supt. Redford stated I would suggest you disapprove this plan due to the length of the street and the drain configuration and the concern of the Board of the sensitive nature of the wetlands. He recommended the Board consider the waiver of the 900 foot roadway length at the defintiive stage. Atty. Latham was opposed to the fact that the Board would not grant the waiver at this time. It was moved, seconded and defeated 0:4 that the Board accept the Pine Grove Estates Preliminary Subdivision plan as submitted. It was moved, seconded and voted 4: 0 to disapprove the Pine Grove Estates Preliminry Subdivision plan in view of Asst. Supt. Redford's memo (attached) and his concerns as listed thereon. Regarding the Subdivision Status Report: It was moved, seconded and voted 4: 0 to bring forth a report to a meeting in early January for submittal to the annual warrant for the taking of any Subdivision bonds in order to clean up the list. Mr. Griffin requested the Department review the Board of Survey Rules and Regulations with regards to current legalities and technicalities, including granting of waivers. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 P.N. Respectfully submitted, Secret y MEMORANDUM To: A.V. Fletcher, P.E. From: W.A. Redford Date: December 7, 1984 Subject: Colonial Drive Extension Subdivision Definitive Filing The department has received revised plans for this subdivision that addresses most of the items of concern presented at the September 27th hearing. 1 recommend the following Board action: 1. The Board APPRDVF the subdivision entitled "Colonial Drive - dated October 1, 1984, revised November 19, 1984 subject to the following conditions: a) The submission of a satisfactory Covenant Agreement by December 31, 1984; b) The submission of a satisfactory Conveyance of Fasements & Utilities by December 31, 1984; c) The submission of two (2) modified sets of mylar plans by December 31, 1984; [ d) The submission of satisfactory Center tine and Street Line h. coordinates by December 31, 1984; ` e) The submission of a satisfactory transferable Rights of Easements over land of Symes by December 31, 1984 f) The Developer's agreement to maintain the integrity of the existing sewerage system on Brewer Lane and to protect the existing pumping station from damage arising from the proposed construction and connection. g) The Developer's obtaining all required sewer connection permits prior to any request for building and conveyance restriction release. h) Submission of an acceptable roadway name (in place of Federal Circle). i) Submission of the following modifications/additions to the plans, acceptable to the Department of Public Works: 1. Placement of bounds in front of lots 7a, 1.0a, and 11; 2. Revising the grading on lot IOa and IOb to provide a minimum of four (4) feet of cover over the sewer main; 3. Detailing the water main connection on Brewer Lane (includ- ing an additional water gate); 4. Detailing the Drain/Sewer crossing at sta. 1.5+33, and the two (2) Water/Sewer crossings in the easement; and S. Revising the water main and hydrant layout at sta. 17+90 and within the easement. MEMORANDUM Tot A.V. Fletcher, P.E. From: N.A. Redford Date: December 7, 1984 Subject: Chestnut Road Preliminary Subdivision After review of the submitted plans for this subdivision and the input received at the November 26, 1984 Public Hearing, I recommend the following Board action: A. The Board DISAPPROVF the Preliminary Subdivision Plan entitled "Chestnut Street - dated October 2, 1984" due to the ten items listed below. 1. No sidewalk is shown on the plan (Reading Board of Survey Rules and Regulations Section 5.R.Street Cross-Section .1). 2. No Drain Easement is shown on Lot "C" (Reading Board of Survey Rules and Regulations Section 5.B.Fasements.1) 3. No tree lawn area is provided at the end of the proposed roadway - side sloping starts a gutterline and ends at property line (Reading Board of Survey Rules and Regulations Section S.B.Street Cross-Section.l). 4. The proposed sloping at the end of the roadway (2: 1) exceeds the required maximum of 3: 1 (Reading Board of Survey Rules and Regulations Section 5.B.Street Cross-Section .I.e). S. The roadway layout does not extend to the property line to accomodate any proposed connection (Reading Board of Survey Rules and Regulations Section S.B.4). 6. The indicated type of curbing does not conform to the Board of Survey specifications. 7. The proposed Drain Configuration does not have the required drain manhole (combination catchbasin-manholes are not permited). 8. The proposed water main does not have the required 5' of cover. 9. No sewer manhnle is indicated at the end of the proposed sewer main. 10. The hydrant location shown within the 2: 1 side sloping is ' precarious, undesirable and obstructs any future extensions and snow plowing operations. B. The Board CONSIDER including the following item (if appropriate): The Board would consider a waiver of the 'connec- tion with uncompleted extensions of adjacent ways" require- ment of the Reading Board of Survey Rules and Regulations Section 5.B.4 at the Definitive filing of this subdivision. MEMORANDUM To: A.V. Fletcher, P.F. From: W.A. Redford Date: December 7, 1984 Subject: Pine Grove Fstates Preliminary Subdivision After review of the submitted revised plans for this subdivision and the input received to date, I recommend the following Board action; A. The Board DISAPPROVE the Preliminary Subdivision Plan entitled "Pine Grove Estates - dated Sept. 26, 1984, revised Nov. 20, 1984" due to the two items listed below. 1. Roadway "A" far exceeds the maximum length of 900' (1,335'). 2. The proposed Drain Configurations on Haverhill Street and Rustic lane DO NOT have the required drain manholes (combination catchbasin-manholes are not permited). B. The Board include the following in the letter of disapproval: In addition to the previous requirements, the Board is very concerned about the sensitive nature of the existing wetlands included within this tract of land. Any Definitive Plan suhmission will require a comprehensive Environmental Impact and Evaluation Statement, detailed surface water drainage design, and detailed final grading plan. C. The Board CONSIDER including the following item (if appropriate) : In view of the nature of this tract of land and the previous approvals granted to the developer, the Board would consider a waiver of the "shall not be more than nine hundred feet in length" requirement of the Reading Board of Survey Rules and Regulations Section 5.8.6. if the looping of the utilities and the providing of a satisfactory paved emergency access is addressed in the Definitive filing. LATHAM AND LATHAM, P.C. 843 MAIN STREET READING, MASSACHUSETTS 01897 KENNETH C. LATHAM AREA CODE 817 O. BRADLEY LATHAM TELEPHONE: 944-0805 DAVID J. LATHAM WILLIAM C. WAGNER SANDOR RASKIN KATHLEEN M. MITCHELL November 27, 1984 Board of Survey Municipal Buildings 16 Lowell Street Reading, Massachusetts 01867 Re: Preliminary Plan, Pine Grove Estates, Reading, Massachusetts; Stoneham Savings Bank -- Applicant We enclose herewith a copy ofthe revised preliminary plan together with a transmittal letter dated November 21, 1984 from Dana F. Perkins & Associates, Inc., the engineers for the project. The engineers and the applicant have made diligent,good faith efforts to address the issues as raised by the engineering department of the Board of Public Works. Request is hereby made that the plan be approved as revised with appropriate waivers being granted. Request is made that both this office and the project engineers be advised in advance as to when this subdivision will be further discussed by the Board of Survey so that we may attend such meetings. Sincerely, LATHAM AND LATHAM, P.C. 0. Bradley Bradley La am OBL:tld Enclosures Aotltm&2 3i /?Sy DANA F. PERKINS & ASSOC., INC. ConduLtln9 �s�ineere November 21, 1984 Town of Reading Board of Survey Municipal Building 16 Lowell Street Reading, Massachusetts 01867 RE: Preliminary Plan Pine Grove Estates Reading, Massachusetts Ladies and Gentlemen: This correspondence is in response to the Town of Reading Department of Public Works Engineering Division's comment list submitted at the public hearing on November 1, 1984 regarding the above captioned subdivision. In response to the Engineering Division's comment list, our firm has revised the preliminary plans for the project and herewith submits the revised plana for your consideration. The following is a review of the Town's comments, one by one, as they were contained in the Town'a list: 1. "Formal action on this subdivision is required by November 25, 1984". This statement is really not a comment with respect to the subdivision but rather a comment as to the time by which action is required by the Board. By letter to the Board of Survey from Latham and Latham, Attorneys for the petitioner, an extension to December 25, 1984 has been requested. 2. "Lots 5 and 12 have insufficient frontage to be considered separate building lots (must have a minimum of 80 feet along a 50 to 200 foot radius curve).' On the revised plan, the lot line for Lot 5 has been changed to allow for 120 feet of frontage along the proposed roadway. I believe the Engineering Division has reviewed this comment and found Lot 12 on the original plan to have contained sufficient frontage to be considered a separate building lot. 3. "Catch basin configuration at the end of roads are unacceptable as proposed". On the revised plan the configuration of catch basins at the end of the roadways has been revised. 4. "Catch basins are required at all roadway intersections". ' The applicant has revised the preliminary plan to indicate one catch basin to be installed at the uphill side of "C" Street at Haverhill Street. A careful review of the profile of "A" Street will reveal that at the intersection of "B" Street there is a high point in the profile (on both streets). Therefore it is not necessary from a practical point of view to locate catch basins Civil • Environmental • Land Surveys 125 Main Street, Box 506, Heading, Meas. 01867 — 944-3060 43 Lakeview Avenue, Box 1322, Lowell, Mass. 01852 — 452-9871 Reading Board of Survey -2- November 21, 1984 at this intersection. Based on this, the applicant is requesting a waiver of the requirement for catch basins at the intersection of "A" Street and "B" Street. At the intersection of Rustic Lane and "A" Street a catch basin has been added on the uphill side. 5. "Drain outlets are shown as straight discharges (without any velocity of volume reducing devices)." The Board will note that the requirements of it's Rules and Regulations indicated that the preliminary plan is to show the drainage system in a general manner (pg. 4, item 4) . As in the past when definitive plans are submitted, the velocity reducing and runoff control devices will be shown in detail. These are not required to be shown on a preliminary plan. It is adequate to say that the type of devices employed, and the effects of the subdivision on the overall drainage in the area, will be in line with the effects of the modification plan approved by the Town of Reading Board of Survey in 1982. 6. "The plan does not indicate the protection or handling of the stream on Lots 8 and 9 (or what equalizing effect this Swale has on overflow from the two wetland areas)." As indicated at the public hearing, the two wetland areas located to the west and east of "A" Street do not communicate with each other even in a one hundred year flood. Therefore there is no equalizing effect or overflow ' between these areas (reference is made to detailed calculations submitted to the Board of Survey in 1982). At the request of the Town Engineer, our firm has added a proposed drainage easement around the wetland areas located to the west and east of "A" Street. 7. "A number of lots may not comply with the 12,000 sq. ft. outside the floodplain or wetland protection district." As stated by the Town Engineer, he did not check the areas and this comment is based on a visual observation. Our firm has calculated the areas within each lot which are located outside the floodplain and wetland protection district and finds these areas to all comply with the 12,000 sq. ft. requirement. 8. "Drain easement on Lots 13, 14, 19, and 20 must be 30 feet." The revised plan attached hereto has been modified to provide for 30 foot easements. 9. "The proposed roadway far exceeds the 900 foot length limit and the previous waiver of grant of 1050 feet (proposed is 1335 feet) ." As stated at the public hearing, the applicant previously submitted to the Town of Reading Board of Appeals for permission to cross the floodplain area which prohibits connecting "A" Street and "C" Street (to form a through street within the subdivision). As the Board is aware, in 1983, this application for a variance was denied. In September of 1983, the applicant submitted to the Town of Reading for a re-hearing of the case based on modified plans. This application for re-hearing was denied and the status of crossing the floodplain remains unanswered. A court suit involving the denial by the Board Reading Board of Survey -3- November 21, 1984 of Appeals has been filed by Stoneham Savings Bank against the Town of Reading. In an attempt to resolve this matter, and at the suggestion of the Board of Appeals, the applicant has entered into agreements with the two abutting property owners on Rustic Lane in order to secure rights to cross the "paper street" in that location (which rights were not secured in the approval and conveyance of Rustic Lane). In order to obtain these rights, it was necessary to agree to convey Lots 1 and 23 to the abutting property owners upon approval of the subdivision. A review of this situation will indicate that the length of "A" Street from the southern property lines of Lots 1 and 23 to the end of the cul-de-sac is 1055 feet or just slightly in excess of the previous waiver granted (1050 feet). It is necessary for the owner to build 280 feet of road to reach his first building lot. Our firm completely understands the Board's concerns relative to lengths of dead end streets, however we believe that a waiver of the dead end rule is appropriate in this case because 1) The water line from Rustic Lane will be looped through the subdivision to Haverhill Street resulting in no dead end main in excess of 900 feet. 2) By letter submitted to the Board from Latham and Latham, the applicant has agreed to provide a stabilized gravel area between "A" Street and "C" Street for the passage of emergency vehicles. 3) Owing to the circumstances of topography, land ownership, and the burden placed on the property by the restrictive overlay zones, the joining of a street between Haverhill Street and Rustic Lane has been effectively denied. If the Board were not to grant the waiver with respect to the roadway length, this would place a further burden on the property owner. I trust the Board will take the opportunity to review the revised plans and the above comments prior to making it's decision. Very truly yours, DANA F. PERKINS & ASSO INC. Wes Project Manager WAJ/dlb