Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-10-22 Board of Survey Minutes A Meeting of the Board of Survey, October 22, 1985 Page I 1 A meeting of the Board of Survey convened in Room 16, Municipal Building at 7;50 P.M. Present were Chairman Barker, Secretary Hampson, Board Members Polychrones, Griffin and Boucher, Superintendent A.V. Fletcher, P.E. and Assistant Superintendents McIntire and Redford. The Board reviewed the memo from Assistant Superintendent Redford regarding the Preliminary Plan of Sussex Village. There were five abuttors present, as well as the owner of the land, and O. Bradley Latham, attorney for the developer. Assistant Superintendent Redford stated one of the reasons I am requesting a disapproval of the preliminary plan is because the proposed roadway exceeds the nine hundred (900) foot limit. Attorney Latham stated in this case I request that you indicate in your vote of denial that you will give a waiver as to the road length limitation. He added that we have a problem with planning unless we tie into Pleasant Street. He stated they will, in fact, loop the water and sewer utilities. Mr. Griffin asked if we disapprove the plan, then call for a vote on the waiver, is that in any way infringing upon Departmental philosophy of protecting the Town through the vote? Assistant Superintendent Redford replied I would strongly request that you use the wording that you would "consider" a waiver. He added that he had a very productive meeting with the developer since the last meeting and he feels that a lot of these concerns will be addressed. Mr. Griffin stated I urge the Board to vote in favor of the denial of the plan and ask for a poll on its feeling regarding the establishment of a waiver. A Meeting of the Board of Survey, October 22, 1985 Page 2 Mr. Steve Schilling of 27 Smith Avenue stated I have concerns about the wetlands, and whether or not these concerns have been addressed. The area back there now is extremely wet and additional water would be almost certain to flood my back yard. Assistant Superintendent Redford stated this is only a preliminary plan. Before anything can be done, a definitive hearing will be set up and at that time hydraulics will have to be submitted. Mr. Hampson stated the water problems on Smith Avenue were mentioned by a number of people at the preliminary hearing. Gail Faller of 23 Smith Avenue stated I am asking about the westerly direction of the water flow. I would ask that the flow be directed in an easterly direction away from the homes. Attorney Latham stated the direction of flow is not intended to be changed from the way it is now. We also have a requirement to file with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Schilling stated the quantity of the water will be increased. Attorney Latham replied no, the rate of runoff will be increased, not the quantity. It was moved, seconded and defeated 0:4: 1 (Mr. Polychrones abstaining) to approve the Preliminary Plan of Sussex Village as presented on August 15, 1985. It. was moved, seconded and voted 4:0: 1 (Mr. Polychrones abstaining) that a letter of disapproval of the preliminary plan of Sussex Village be sent to the applicant for the items listed in the memo attached, and that in addition, the Board is very concerned about the sensitive nature of the existing wetlands included within the tract of land. Any Definitive Plan submission will require a comprehensive Environmental Impact and Evaluation Statement, detailed surface water drainage design, and detailed final grading plan. � j A Meeting of the Board of Survey, October 22, 1985 Page 3 ' It was moved, seconded and voted 4:0: 1 (Mr. Polychrones abstaining) that 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 concerns are addressed in the Definitive filing. It was moved, seconded and voted 4:0: 1 (Mr. Polychrones abstaining) to close the hearing at 8: 10 P.M. The meeting adjourned at 8: 10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ' / w Secret I MEMORANDUM To: A.V. Fletcher, P.E. ' From: W.A. Redford Date: October 18, 1985 Subject: Preliminary Plan Sussex Village After review of the submitted plans for this subdivision and the input received at the October 15, 1985 Public Hearing, I recommend the following Board action: A. The Board DISAPPROVE the Preliminary Subdivision Plan entitled "Preliminary Plan - Sussex Village - dated August 15, 1985 due to the eleven (I1) items listed below. 1. This proposed roadway exceeds the nine hundred (900) foot limit. 2. No proposed sewer system is shown to service the existing two homes that are remaining. 3. The proposed drain system lacks the required cover over the pipes. 4. The proposed intersection of Pleasant Street Extension does not conform to Board of Survey layout standards. S. The proposed roadway layout does not allow for full sight and sidesloping/tree planting easements in certain areas. 6. The proposed catch basin configuration at the Salem Street intersection is not acceptable or desired. 7. No proposed wheelchair ramps are indicated on any of the inter- sections. B. The proposed provisions for future roadway extensions and con- nections and the turnaround design is not acceptable. 9. Full curbing and sidewalks are required around the cul-de-sac. 10. The sidewalk configuration at Salem Street does not meet require- ments. 11. No acceptable water main stub configuration (or looping) is shown. 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 submission 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 S.B.6. if the looping of the utilities and the providing of a satisfactory paved emergency access concerns are addressed in the Definitive filing. TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS 01867 BOARD OF HEALTH ✓d 52 Sanborn Street, Room 12A Tel. 942-0500 - Ext. 56, 57, 58 PAUL E CASELLE DD.S_DNm, M,JANE GALLAXUE,M.P.X,.C H O. JAMES J.NUGENI,JR,P S,O.RO. IM IP,Diexlor JILL C.DUGAN,6 S. October 7, 1985 Anthony V. Fletcher, P.E. Clerk Board of Survey Municipal Building 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Mr. Fletcher, The Board of Health has reviewed the Sussex Lane sub-division and wish to bring the following items to your attention: 1. The plan shows an area greater than 500 feet of dead end ' water line, therefore a loop service should be installed. 2. Although the attorney's letter states that the property will be 'sewered by the Municipal sewerage, plans do not indicate the same. 3. The plan of any developer should indicate the existence of the municipal sewerage system. The Board recommends a negative report be given to this preliminary sub- division until such time as the above issues are addressed. Sincerely yours,,' Mr Jane Gallahue, M.P.H. Health Director MJG/sma RECEIVED BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS TOWN OF READING CONSERVATION COMMISSION 52 SANBORN STREET, ROOM I READING, MASSACHUSETTS 01867 942-0500 X44 October 7, 1985 RECEIVED BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS; Mr. Douglas Barker, Chairman Board of Survey 16 Lowell Street o Reading, Ma. 01867 Re: Preliminary Plan, Sussex village TOWN OF READING Dear Mr. Barker: The Commission has reviewed the Preliminary Plan for the above-referenced proposed access road and offers the following concerns: (1) The proposed roadway involves the destruction of a large quantity of vegetated wetland without a clearly described means of replication. The Commission would recommend the use of concrete- poured headwalls on either side of the wetland crossing to minimize the intrusion into the wetlands. (2) The proposed plan does not include a means to control the increase in the runoff from the con- struction of the access roadway. The area down- stream of this project has serious flooding problems. The Commission will critically review any increase to this existing situation. Thank you for this opportunity to present the Commission's comment. Sincerely, Charles T. Costello Administrator ' cc: Stephen Schuster Bruce Stameski dJediaaled Fa !�e /�•eeeroafion onr //alusa[ Keeouncae EAaQUNtTE0.5 READING FIXRE DEPARTMENT < READING, MASSACHUSETTS 01867 JNARD'OJ._REDFERN, Chief October 15, 1985 267 WOBURN STREET PHONE 944-3131 Department of Public Works Municipal Building Reading, Mass. 01867 Attn: Wm. Redford Dear Bill, In regards to the proposed town house development on the Adams, Gentile property at the end of Pleasant Street, one primary access road from Salem Street would satisfy our needs. Another access from the end of Pleasant Street, while it may be desirable is not essential since our response route is easier from Salem Street. I do agree that if there were to be a second access that it be preferable to have it open rather than constructing a barrier across it. Very �ruly yours, onard J. fern L'2 hi ef of De rtmen[ 1 LJR/jam RECEIVED BOARD OF PUBi1C 1+ORKS ' pc7 a 0A41 LJ 2 TOWN OF READING. j Fire Prevention Pays F POLICE DEPARTMENT n .e° Reading, Massachusetts 'EDWARD W.°MARCHAND CHIEF OF POLICE October 21, 1985 Mr. Anthony V. Fletcher, Supt. Board of Public Works Reading, Mass. Dear Mr. Fletcher: Re: Sussex Village We do not recommend an entrance on to Pleasant Street from Sussex Village for the following reasons: 1 . There would be additional traffic on Pleasant Street in the area of the ball park and playground . 2. The additional traffic would pass several school bus stops on Pleasant Street and intersecting streets . 3. We already receive numerous complaints of excessive traffic on Pleasant Street and intersecting side streets. 4. Traffic problems are compounded in the winter when the roads are narrowed by snow. 5 . If an access onto Pleasant Street was approved, we would not be in favor of any type of barricade across the roadway . We feel that Salem Street is more suitable to handle the additional traffic. Very truly yours , Safety Officer' 77 q;�JV:cmk IVSD BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS TOWN OF READING