Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-05-28 Board of Survey Minutes Board of Survey Meeting of May 28, 1985 Page 1 A meeting of the Board of Survey convened at 8:00 P.M. in Room 16, Municipal Building. Present were Chairman Barker, Secretary Hampson, Board Members Polychrones, Griffin and Boucher, Superintendent A.V. Fletcher, P.E. and Assistant. Superintendent William A. Redford. Mr. Hampson read the Notice of Public Hearing at 8:00 P.M. regarding the approval, disapproval or modification of plans for the extension of Lilah Lane, reconstruction of Sanborn Lane, and two (2) new proposed roadways located off Sanborn Lane. The proposed subdivision will provide for eighteen (18) building lots. There were 17 abuttors present as well as Jack Rivers, the developer, William Jones, Engineer for the developer, and D. Bradley Latham, Attorney for the developer. Chairman Barker welcomed everyone to the hearing and introduced the members of the Board and the Department. Bill Jones stated this is the Definitive Plan for Phase III of Sanborn Village. This development will involve extending Lilah Lane westerly in the direction of Sanborn Lane to a point which is 700 feet from the end of the existing paving. At that point, the roadway extension of Sanborn Lane will terminate. We are proposing to rename Lilah Lane to Sanborn Lane and callthe extension Sanborn Lane. We would then call these new roadways Lilah Lane and Verde Circle. Water and sewer mains will be extended with stubs for future connections. The roadways will be constructed as 50 foot wide layouts. The developer requested two waivers, provided information on i 1 Parcels B and C ownership and requested the roadway name changes in j/ writing (copies attached). Asst. Supt. Redford then went through his list of 29 concerns - (attached). He stated most of them are technical in nature and probably will be addressed. Board of Survey Meeting of May 2B, 1985 Page 2 Secretary Hampson read letters from the Conservation Commission and the Board of Health (attached). Mr. Hampson stated I too, am very concerned about flooding downstream of this development. This is a large development of 18 homes and I personally would like to see some type of retention pond in this area, isn't this area part of the Aquifer Protection Plan area? Mr. Jones replied yes. He added that we are filling 3600 square feet of wetlands. This is not a tremendous amount of fill. Mr. Griffin asked is there a tree lawn area near the sidewalk at all? Mr. Jones stated there is five feet of sidewalk and a five foot "area". There is a section of two feet which was suggested by the Conservation Commission be planted with low juniper and then a retaining wall. Mr. Griffin stated junipers might create an additional safety hazard. Mr. Rivers stated this is a rug-type juniper being proposed which requires almost no maintenance. Mr. Griffin asked have any requests been made for underground oil tank storage? Mr. Redford replied none have been made to me, they would be made at the time of building to the Fire Department. Mr. Polychrones stated I am concerned with the pumping station on Collins Avenue. Has the Department done a survey on the capacity of that pumping station? Supt. Fletcher replied at the Preliminary Hearing I asked for the figures. The total sewerage flow in gallons per day is not very large. These 18 houses are well inside the design, but anything beyond this would necessitate a redesign of the station. Board of Survey Meeting of May 28, 1985 Page 3 Mr. Boucher asked what is the status with the cellar floor elevations? Is there any plan for these houses to have drains around them? Mr. Jones replied no, we have not proposed this here. The soil in this area is fairly silty and is not conducive to that type of installation. Mr. Polychrones inquired if there are any underground oil tanks in the existing Lilah Lane. Mr. Rivers replied there are two existing. Harold Hulse of the Conservation Commission stated the Commission conducted a hearing because we did not have sufficient information to have a consultant analyze the situation. We did request retaining walls on both sides of the roadway. We did request further input and we do intend to have our own consultant analyze the entire area and the impacts of runoff and backflow. Mr. Barker asked when do you intend to have that information? Mr. Hulse replied we have a meeting scheduled on June 3 and we will have the Administrator submit whatever information we have to your Board. Gloria Hulse of Sanborn Lane asked will Phases I and II be completed totally before you start on Phase III? Attorney Latham replied not necessarily, but we will stay within the constraints of your regulations. Mr. Rivers stated I expect to have the finish coat and the sidewalks done within the next couple of weeks on Phases I and II. Mrs. Hulse stated I am very concerned about the posts in the middle of the road and a very muddy section at the end of the paved Lilah Lane on to Sanborn Lane. Board of Survey Meeting of May 28, 1985 Page 4 Attorney Latham stated we have contacted the Light Dept. and the jtelephone company many times to remove these poles, hopefully they will 1 respond very quickly. Asst. Supt. Redford stated the Department can contact these two utilities. Mr. Rivers stated for the most part, this has been reasonably maintained. Barbara Boviard of Sanborn Lane asked please explain what is going to happen on my side of the road near the brook? Mr. Jones replied we will be extending your driveway out and grading it up about two feet to meet the proposed new roadway. The guardrail is on the back of the sidewalk and ends at the curve of where we propose to bring your driveway in. Donna Spelman of Sanborn Lane asked how did we end up with a guard rail? I don't remember hearing this at any of the other meetings. Asst. Supt. Redford stated this was shown only on the Definitive Plan, a decision has not been made. There is a current drop off where the stream crosses Sanborn Lane, they are proposing to raise the road two feet, which creates a larger drop off. Harold Hulse stated the reason that I was in favor of the guard rails is because in times past that hill is very icy and cars have gone into the brook. Mr. Jones stated the steepness of the roadway is being cut to 2/3 of what it is now and the curve is now much smoother. 1 Ron Strandberg of Sanborn Lane stated my concern is for the kids. The guardrails and 10 foot retaining wall would be a safety factor hazard. I think a pipe rail fence would be a better idea. Dick Arnone of Lilah Lane stated I have two things I would like to address. First, the changing of the name of the street, I am very Board of Survey Meeting of May 28, 1985 Page 5 ' opposed to this. The second point is the opening of the third development. He stated he is not at all happy with the situation there. We would like to have a finished prr:Tduct and put mailboxes on Lilah Lane, I would like to get some action. Mr. Redford replied the sidewalks in that area are not going to stay that way. As far as progress to date, Mr. Rivers is still within his two year limitation, he is not in default of that. Mr. Arnone stated we are paying taxes, we would like to see the work done. Mr. Redford stated the Town does not have the right to limit any further construction. Mr. Tony Fueto of 15 Lilah Lane asked are we going to have another exit out of this development? My concern is for the safety of the children. Secondly, he does not want to change his address again either. Mrs. Gail Wood stated I hope you do come up with a much more attractive compromise to safety than the guardrails. I am particularly concerned with the sidewalk near the culvert area and the direct proximity to the street. If there is any way of leaving the tree lawn area between the street and sidewalk it would be a very good idea. I would ask you to consider keeping the tree lawn as the buffer between the street and the sidwalk. Bruce Nappi of Sanborn Lane stated 10 acres of trees were stripped behind my land, the runoff is substantial and I am feeling the effects of it. Mr. Boviard of Sanborn Lane asked how soon do you expect to start construction? Board of Survey Meeting of May 28, 1985 Page 6 Mr. Rivers replied perhaps mid-July before the plan is approved and we can begin work. This will move along very quickly, I am sure. It was moved, seconded and voted 5:0 to close the hearing at 9; 55 P.M. with the understanding the Board will take action on this on June 17th. Respectfully submitted, //�'�— Secreta -cj4i2/ ' DEFINITIVE PLAN Sanborn Village - phase III Reading, Mass. The following waivers are requested from the Town of Reading, Massachusetts, Board of Survey Rules and Regulations Covering the Subdivision of Land: 1. Waiver of required tree lawn between Ste 10+0 and Ste 12+25, Sanborn Lane and construction of sidewalk adjacent to pavement to reduce fill required at wetlands crossing as shown on the plans. 2. Waiver of slope requirement (3:1) to 2:1 between Ste 10+30 and Ste 11+80, Sanborn Lane to reduce fill at wetlands crossing as shown on the plans. ' LATHAM AND LATHAM, P.C. 868 MAIN STREET READING. MASSACHUSETTS 01867 KENNETH C. LATHAM AREA CODE 617 O. BRADLEY LATHAM TELEPHONE: 944-0505 DAVID J. LATHAM WILLIAM C. WAGNER February 1 1 SANDOR RASKIN KATHLEEN M. MITCHELL BOARDqHO{'� William Redford FLrb/ZuAR%� /PPs� Board of Public Works Town Hall Reading, Massachusetts 01867 -^/e,ar,1 OF READ'O Re : Property Northerly of Sanborn Lane, Reading, Massachusetts Dear Bill : You have expressed your dissatisfaction with the fact that the property known as Parcels A, B and C situated on the northerly side of Sanborn Lane are held in different ownerships. As I understand your position, you feel that because at one time title to the three parcels was in Robert B. Carlson, the parcels themselves merged into one large piece of land. It is your concern that one might seek a building permit to build a single family home on either Parcel B or C, which parcels do not have actual frontage on Sanborn Lane. While you acknowledge that retaining the parcel in separate ownership does not violate the Subdivision Control Law, your central concern involves the zoning by-law and the possibility of building permits. I have outlined to you our position. Historically, there have been three distinct and separate chains of title with reference to the three parcels. Physically the parcels are clearly divided by stone walls and other markers. The three parcels have always been described separately. In addition, the Town has always assessed and taxed the parcels as separate parcels and shows them as separate parcels on the Reading Assessor' s map. Old plans show the parcels as being separate from each other. I have indicated to you that it was our judgment that the parcels should be held in separate ownership for various reasons including arrangements as to partial releases of existing mortgages and for the purpose of Land Court registration. It was important that we were able to petition the Land Court to confirm title to Parcels B and C in separate petitions because the title issues requiring Land Court proceedings differ significantly between the parcels. We would not have been able to file separate petitions had those two parcels been combined or were the two parcels to have been held in common ownership. Based upon our January 30, 1985 telephone conversation with you, at which time you expressed that your precise concern was the possibilty of someone seeking a building permit on Parcels B and C ' without providing such frontage as required by law, we have obtained the enclosed statement from the titleholders to Parcels B and C indicating that an improper building permit would not be sought. We hope that the foregoing accurately expresses our respective Positions on this matter and that the enclosed letter will allay your concerns. Sincerely, LATHAM AND LATHAM, P. C. O.O. Bradley OBL:tld r February 7 1985 Sohn R. Rivers Rivers Development Corp. Combined Development Group, Inc. William Redford, Town Engineer Town Hall Lowell Street Reading, Massachusetts 01867 Re: Property known as Parcels B and C, Northerly of Sanborn Lane, Reading, Massachusetts This is to confirm that Parcels B and C are held in separate ownership in order to facilitate the Land Court proceedings and because of mortgage arrangements. Undersigned has no intention of seeking to build a single house on Parcel B or a single house on Parcel C without providing adequate frontage as defined by the Reading Zoning By-Law and the Subdivision Control Law to those parcels. Sincerely, n R. iv RIVERS DEV P OPMENT P. BY: COMBINED D ELOPMENT GROUP, INC. BY: oCaw 011iad LATHAM AND LATHAM, P. C. 663 MAIN STREET READING. MASSACHUSETTS 01667 KENNETH C. LATHAM AR.A Coo. 617 O. BRADLEY LATHAM T.L.�lerv.: p6<.0605 DAVID J. LATHAM WILLIAM C. WAGNER SANDOR RASKIN KATHLEEN M. MITCHELL May 7, 1985 Anthony Fletcher, Superintendent Board of Public Works Town Hall Reading, Massachusetts 01867 Re: Sanborn Lane/Lilah Lane, Reading, Massachusetts Rivers Development Corp. requests that the new roadway known as 11Lilah Lane" which enters off of Mill Street and connects at its westerly terminus with Sanborn Lane, be changed to be known as "Sanborn Lane". Such a change is a logical one. It would mean that the developed roadway from Mill Street westerly would all be known as Sanborn Lane. It is obvious that what was formerly known as"Sanborn Lane" near Mill Street will be discontinued as the new roadway becomes used generally. Such change will avoid confusion and will allow Rivers Development Corp. to name the new roadway being developed in Phase III to be known as "Lilah Lane". Mr. Rivers wishes to name the major roadway in the Phases III and IV subdivision as "Lilah Lane". Lilah is his mother's name. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Sincerely, LATHAM AND LATHAM, P.C. 0. Bradley Latham OBL:tld cc: William Redford .� TOWN OF READING BOARD OF SURVEY DEFINITIVE HEARING Sanborn Village Phase III May 28, 1985 In accordance with current State statutes, no person shall make a subdivision of land unless they have first submitted a plan and filing 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 Applicant, Board of Health, Conservation Commission, various Boards, Committees and effected public. The Board uses the remaining time within the 60 day limit to deliberate on all the information presented and reviews the subdivision plan and filing for its conformance with State requirements, local zoning ordinances and the Town's Subdivision Rules and Regulations. The Board of Surveyencouragesall individuals affected by this planned development to offer input consistent with the provisions of Subdivision Control Law during the hearing process. This hearing will follow the procedure described below: 1. Chairman calls the hearing to order. 2. Secretary reads the legal notice of the Public Hearing. 3. Chairman introduces Board, Department, Applicant, etc. 4. Presentation of proposed Development by Applicant. - 5. Comments on the proposal and Review of submitted information: a) Department of Public Works - Engineering Division; b) Attending Boards and Officials; c) Written correspondence by any Boards, Officials, and/or public. 6. Chairman opens the hearing to discussion: a) Board of Survey; b) Attending Boards and Officials; c) Attending Public. 7. Chairman indicates that the Board intends to close the hearing, deliberate on the information presented, and act on the submittal prior to June 17, 1985; and indicates that the plans and the department are available for additional review and comments. B. Secretary makes motion to close the hearing. 9. Board votes on motion to close the hearing. The Reading Department of Public Works Engineering Division, after review of the information filed to date, submits the following list of concerns and comments' 1. Formal action on this subdivision is required by June 17, 1985. 2. The proposed sidewalk layout (station 10+0 to 12+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. Traverse calculations have not been submitted. S. Roadway coordinates have not been submitted (to be provided after approval?). 6. The proposed 50 foot layout of Sanborn ends at the intersection of Lilah should extend (with utilities) to the end of Lot 1. 7. The proposed connection to the 'old' Sanborn Lane should be revised. B. The sewer main layout should be revised on Verde Circle. 9. Documentation of existing easement rights have not been provided. 10. Has the Light Company been advised on the shifting of the existing overhead wire service. 11. No minimum cellar floor elevations are shown on the plans (sheets _ 1 & 2). 12. The proposal adds additional storm water discharge to the south of Sanborn Lane (Collins Avenue side). 13. Water Main should be designed to have 5'. of cover. 14. The substantial fill (6') and guard rail indicated on Sanborn Lane will impact the existing seperately owned abbutting properties especialy Butcher). 15. All catchbasins will require 3.0' sumps. 16. The catchbasin locations at the intersection of Verde & Lilah must be revised. 17. The applicant's indicated 'stilling basins' do not address the impact of the additional storm water runoff. 18. The detail of the culvert crossing of the sewer must be provided. 19. The design specifications of the Retaining Wall must be provided. 20. The applicant should consider the excavations along the retaining wall in relation to creating additional safety concerns. 21. Additional bounds are required (lot 1, 6, and lot 7). 22. The sight easements provide should be wider than those shown. ' 23. What are the legal constraints to the limiting of Butcher's access due to the guardrail) to their Sanborn Lane frontage. 24. The proposed water main and hydrant layout should be revised to accomodate the following: ' a) add a line gate at the end of the existing line; b) shift the location (into the roadway area) near Lots B-1 & B-2; c) add a hydrant on Lilah Lane (near Lot 4?); and d) revise the hydrant located near Lots B-1 & B-2. 25. The sewer connection detail should show 1/4" per foot slope. 26. The chimney connection detail must be revised to Reading's requirements. 27. Due to the proposed Aquifer Protection Plan: a) containment of oil & gas polution discharge (due to the storm water runoff system); b) limit underground storage tanks in the subdivision's covenant agreement. 28. This subdivision will require compliance with the Board of Public Work's 2 for 1 I/I policy. 29. A master plan of the abbutting property's servicing by sewer should be provided. CONSERVATION COMMISSION fio 52 SANBORN STREET, ROOM 1 .,.pow^'• READING, MASSACHUSETTS 01867 942-0500 X44 May 28, 1985 RECEIVED Mr. Douglass Barker, Chairman BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS Board of Survey Town of Reading RE: Sanborn Village Definitive Plan G{'�,3o P• Dear Mr. Barker: TOWN OF READING The Conservation Commission has reviewed the plans and calcu- lations for the above-referenced project. The proponent has pre- sented a Notice of Intent to the Commission and a Public Hearing was held on May 6, 1985. This hearing was continued to June 3, 1985 , pending changes to the proposed plan. At this point the Commission offers the following comments: 1) The road crossina at Sanborn Lane will destroy a signifi- cant portion of naturally-occurringwetlands vegetation. The Commission would encourage a design that included a headwall structure on both sides of the road -- eliminat- ing the need for a steep side slope of filled material and lessening the impact of the stream crossing. 2) The increased peak runoff from the site is a concern for the Commission. Incremental increases in the peak drain- age runoff into the Ipswich River will cummulatively combine to cause flooding problems downstream. The size of this project and the known future development in this subject area have prompted the Commission to consider some method to minimixe the off-site runoff. Sincerrtpe�plryy�, Sally M. Hoyt Chairperson e[_/e�ecalad Eo E�ie P.. o� our grsEural �eeonrem TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS 01867 er "'ARD OF HEALTH ''•�<a C- ItTE1 r 5�Sanborn Street, Room 12A WARDRD iillrr KI91. 942-0500 - Ext. 56, 57, 58 OOF PNB!!C WOFIF /D PAUL..C PSE LLE OORSC"` .Cam. �I/�/'/ (y� I MJANE GPLLAXUE M.PN_CM O. JAMES J.NUGENi,JR. RSC.XO. OO__11�`��((VV D HLYcnONE, JILL C.OUGAN,BS. MARY POLVC.—NV Secretary TOWN OF READINWCx May 22, 1985 Mr. A. V. Fletcher Clerk, Board of Survey Municipal Building Reading, MA 01867 Dear Mr. Fletcher: The Board of Health reviewed and approved the definitive subdivision plan of Sanborn Village, "Phase 3" on May 13, 1985. Sincerely yours, ��y M. Jane Gallahue, M.P.H. HEALTH DIRECTOR MJG:j