Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-01-14 Board of Survey Minutes F � Board of Survey Meeting of January 14, 1985 Page I A meeting of the Board of Survey convened in Room 16, Municipal Building at 8:00 P.M. Present were Chairman Barker, Secretary Hampson, Board Members Wood, Polychrones and Griffin, Supt. A.V. Fletcher, P.E. and Asst. Supt. William A. Redford. Secretary Hampson read the notice of Public Hearing regarding plans for the extension of Lilah Lane and the reconstruction of Sanborn Lane and was followed with an introduction by the Chairman of the Board along with a brief synopsis of the form being used to conduct this hearing. Atty. Latham then gave a detailed presentation of the plan given to the Board. Using a visual map proposed roadways were pointed out to those in attendance. Several waivers were mentioned with regard to the proposed development that would allow for exceptions to the general standards. (Roadway widths, culvert crossings, entrance to the roadway and sidewalks). Next, Mr. William Jones, the Engineer representing Dana Perkins and Associates described Phase II of the five lot subdivision where an opening will be left through to Cedar Glen and also a place where a new future subdivision could continue. He went on further to explain the reason for the waiver with regard to the culvert crossing where plans were designed to use a minimum amount of fill. He noted that this area was also covered by the Wetland Protection Act. Mr. Jones also went on to say that Phase III included a 42 foot layout that provided for future extension of Sanborn Lane. Proposed Rivers Lane would also be a temporary cul-de-sac. Proposed Verde Circle would be planned as a permanent 250 foot dead end. Board of Survey Meeting of January 14, 1985 Page 7 Water service will be picked up on the present service. Sewerage will also be brought in for service in the same way. All storm drainage will include a plan for excess runoff to drain off into the Ipswich River with the design, keeping in mind protection of the surrounding wetlands. The Chair then asked to hear from the Department of Public Works. Asst. Supt. Redford proceeded to address a list of 17 concerns from the Engineering Division (See attached list). This discussion was followed by a letter read by Chairman Darker that addressed concerns from the Conservation Commission. The two points of issue stressed by the commission were in the area of wetland protection associated with the proposed roadway crossing and a concern over the increase peak drainage from runoff water into the Ipswich River and surrounding areas. The Conservation Commission also informed the Hoard that this project will require the filing of a Notice of Intent to the %0a Commission. The next order of business was a question and answer period for Board Memhers and the attending public. Mrs. Wood made several comments about her concerns regarding the preliminary plans. She asked Mr. Jones if there would be a problem seeing the cars as they try to exit this street. She was worried about the peripheral vision due to the angle of the proposed roadway. She also addressed the possibility of a water loop. Mr. Jones replied that it is not possible now but perhaps could be possible in the future. In the area of sewer mains Mrs. Wood felt that they do not belong on private property because it makes it hard for the Town to have access to these lines. In regard to runoff water, Mrs. Wood wondered what would be done to control this runoff and what kind of an impact would be felt both up and downstream. She also asked for an explanation regarding the proposed Board of Survey Meeting of January 14, 1985 Page 3 Verde Circle having been planeed so narrow. Jack Rivers, the developer, responded by saying that it was to make better use of the land. Mrs. Wood reminded Mr. Rivers that a narrow roadway, especially at snow times, creates a car parking problem. As a final comment Mrs. Wood expressed her disapprovalof a plan without sidewalk because she felt they were needed and used by the citizens. By providing sidewalks now, it prevents the residents from petitioning the Board for them later. Mr. Hampson agreed that sidewalks should be included and does not care for the idea of a narrow roadway, however, he did not see a problem with an easement on private property. Mr. Griffin voiced his concern over the flow of runoff water being forced back in a northerly direction. Mr. Jones assured him that grading was above the flood plain level. Mr. Polychrones requested that the development be required to have sidewalks and also stated that he was not in favor of a waiver that would allow a narrow street. Mr. Polychrones also expressed his concern regarding the pumping station at Collins Avenue and how much more sewerage it would be able to handle. He pointed out that this pumping station was not designed with consideration of the development of Cedar Glen and was now overloaded. Mr. Harold Hulse of 17 Sanborn Lane and a member of the Conservation Commission, told those in attendance that increased runoff of water in this area would be addressed at a C.C. hearing. Mr.Hul=,e asked if during reconstruction the entrance to Sanborn lane would be shut down for any length of time. ' Mr. Jones responded that it would always remain open. Board of Survey Meeting of January 14, 1985 Page 4 Supt. Fletcher noted that it would be required to remain open by law for fire and ambulance access. Marie Duale of 98 Sanborn Lane expressed concern over the drain pipe installationv she felt its size would not be sufficient enough to handle the water runoff. With the loss of trees in the area due to new construction she found that there is now more runoff water in the brook and requested a larger culvert. She also experienced a problem with odors in the spring because of high rising waters and she was not sure what was the cause. Other residents voiced their agreement with this problem. Supt. Fletcher explained that when decaying matter is brought to the surface from flooding it is common to have a sewerage smell . Mrs. Poole wanted to know what would happen to the existing Sanborn Lane. Asst. Supt. Redford did not realize that it was to remain open. Supt. Fletcher stated that he would like to see it abandoned. Atty. Latham explained it would be a legalmatter to close the existing roadway. Everyone would have to give a recorded release in order to close the street. Mary Jo Mappi of 92 Sanborn Lane asked about the relocation of the mailboxes and stressed the need for a larger culvert. Richard Doucette of 102 Sanborn Lane was concerned about the "overall plan" for houses up the road. Gloria Hulse of 107 Sanborn Lane also voiced a concern over mailboxes. Asst. Supt. Redford felt it was a problem to be worked out ' between the developer, abuttors and the postal authorities. 1 Board of Survey Meeting of January 14, 1985 Page 5 r The Chairman ruled the discussion outside the Board of Survey and Secretary Hampson motioned to close the public hearing. It was moved, seconded and voted 5:0 to close the hearing at 10:00 P.M. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Secret y:��� TOWN OF READING BOARD OF SURVEY PRELIMINARY HEARING Sanborn Vi 3. loge Phase IIT January 14, 1985 In accordance with current State statutes, no person shall make a subdivision of land unless they have first submitted to the Board of Survey. The Board must hold a public hearing and act on the submission (approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove) within 60 days. The Board uses the forum of the public hearing to obtain reports, information and concerns specific to the submitted plans from the developer, Board of Health, Conservation. Commission, various Boards and Committees and effected public. The Board may use the remaining time within the 60 day limit to deliberate on the information presented and review the subdivision for its conformance with State requirements, local zoning ordinances and the Town's Subdivision Rules and Regulations. In the case of this Preliminary Plan Hearing, a more detailed submisison of these subdivision plans is required and an additional hearing conforming to the requirements previously described must he held prior to any utility or housing construction. The Board of Survey encourages all individuals affected by this planned development to offer input consistent with the provisions of . Subdivision Control Law during the hearing process. The Reading Department of Public Works Engineering Division, after review of the information filed to date, submits the following list of concerns: 1. Formal action on this subdivision is required by February 4, 1985, 2. The proposed sidewalk layout (station 9+0 to 14+0) does not conform to the required roadway cross-section (it angles in to a position against the road pavement - no tree lawn). 3. The proposed 2 to 1 side slope exceeds the maximum (3 to 1). 4. Insufficient roadway layout information (centerline or sideline curvature data) has been submitted from station 13+50 to 13+SO. S. The proposed utility layout results in a conflict with the Drain and the Water systems station 12+50 to 15+0. 6. The proposed sewer main should be located within Rivers Lane and not in an easement on lots 14 k IS (no sewer services lot 3). 7. The name Rivers Lane may conflict with Riverside Drive. B. The proposed sewer indicates servicing two (2) large undeveloped tracts of land. A master plan of the area must be compiled prior to the definitive sizing of the proposed system. 9. The two partial lots at the end of Rivers Lane must be combined with abbutting lots that have sufficient legal frontage. 10. The substantial fill (6') indicated on Sanborn Lane will impact the existing seperately owned abbutting properties. 11. Additional catchbasins will be required on Rivers Lane. 12. The applicant's indicated 'stilling basins' do not address the impact of the additional storm water runoff. 13. The proposalshows adding additional runoff directly into the existing undersized 18" Drain Pipe under Sanborn Lane. 14. The 150' vertical curve at station 11+50 does not conform to AASHO recommendations. 15. The proposed Verde Circle is less than the required 50' width. 16. The proposed Verde Circle does not have any sidewalks. 17. The proposal does not combine the large tracts of land to the West with any lot having frontage. If� I