HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-02-10 Board of Survey Minutes Board of Survey Meeting of February 10, 1986 Page 1
i
A meeting of the Board of Survey convened in Room lh, Municipal
Building at RAS P.M. Present were Secretary Hampson, Board Members
Griffin and Boucher, Supt. A.V. Fletcher, P.E. and Asst. Supt. William A.
Redford,
Secretary Hampson assumed the Chair in Mr. Barker's absence.
Mr. Griffin read the Notice of Public Hearing at 8;05 P.M.
regarding the approval, disapproval or modification of plans for a
proposed roadway extending westerly off County Road (between numbers 106
and 128 County Road) which proposes to resubdivi.de an existing lot
referenced by the Reading Assessors as Plat 361 Lot 1 into five (5) lots
and a proposed roadway extending westerly off County Road a distance of
approximately three hundred forty-five (345) feet.
There were approximately 12 albullors present.
Chairman Hampson -introduced the members of the Board and
Department and welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Mr. David Beede, Engineer for the applicant, gave a presentation
and explained the existing lot has 231 feet of frontage. The tntal area is
123,250 square feet. This enables the land to be divided into five
conforming lots, two fronting on County Road and three on the cul-de-sac.
He stated we are proposing four four-bedroom homes and one three-bedroom
home.
Asst. Supt. Redford explained his handout and his 14 concerns and
comments (copy attached?.
Chairman Hampson read the letter from the Conservation Commission
into the record (copy attached).
Mr. Griffin stated I have particular concerns with Item #ll of
Mr. Redford's memo and the nead for retaining the drainage within the
configuration of the roadway proposed. He stated he has concerns with the
Board of Survey Meeting of February 1.0, 1.986 Page 2
drainage and the runoff and is not convinced that there are no wet
conditions in the area.
Mr. Boucher asked directly across, from this proposed street, we
have a sharp drop-off don't we?
Mr. Redford replied yes, and there is an existing new home built
right there in the last year.
Mark Nichols of 117 County Road stated I hope there will be some
kind of catch basins put in to keep the water from going on my property.
Supt. Fletcher stated we would prnbably look for channelization
at the crown of County Road, so it couldn't wash off of the road.
Mark Nichols stated five more houses will drop the water pressure
in the area substantially.
Asst. Supt. Redford replied we are basically at the limit of our
1 water pressure new.
Philip Johnson of 106 County Road stated there is a heavy runoff
of water in this area in the Fall and Spring.
Richard DuLong of 1.34 Cnunty Road stated Mr. Jnhnson is right, it
is like a torrential river when it rains.
John Shemi<us of 11 County i2oad stated I have the same concerns.
Additionally, the land slopes into my land in two directions, and T am
concerned whether or not that i.s going to cause a problem to me.
Mr. Shemkus asked formalaction is required by February 24 - is
this the final decision2
Chairman Hampson replied no, this i, not a final decision, it i._
just an approval or disapproval of a preliminary plan. There will be a
Definitive Hearing held and you willbe notified.
It was moved, seconded and voted 3: 0 to close the hearing at 8:35
P.M.
Board of Survey Meeting of February 10, 1986 Page 3
Mr. Boucher read the Notice of Public Hearing at 8;35 F.M.
' regarding the approval., disapproval, or modification of plans for a
proposed roadway extending southerly off Forest Street (in an area known
as Rice Road) and a proposed roadway extending easterly off Rice Road and
which proposes to resubdivide two existing lots referenced by the Reading
Assessors as Flat 136, Lots 1 and 2 into four (4) lots on Rice Road, and
fourteen (14) lots on Road "A" (the proposed roadway extending easterly
off Rice Road a distance of approximately seven hundred ninety five (795)
fee+.
There were approximately 20 ib,!ffors present.
Chairman Hampson introduced the members of the Board and
Department and welcomed everyone to the hearing.
Also present were B. Bradley Latham, attorney for the applicant,
and Carl. Balsley, Fngineer from Hayes Fngineering.
Atty. Latham stated there is a useable area of 6.4 acres of land.
Mr. Bal=.ley explained the project from an engineering standpoint.
Asst. Supt. Redford explained his handout and list of 1.9 concerns
and comments (copy attached).
Chairman Hampson read into the record the letters from the
Conservation Commission and the Board of Health (copies attached).
Mr. Boucher reported that the Reading Council for Cirls
cnrrespandence should he sent c/o Craver at 7 Woodland Street, Reading.
Mr. Griffin stated he has a problem with the proposed road
crossing a wetland.
Mr. Frank Dalyrympl.e of 6 Rice Road stated the existing water
main only gnec, one lot past my house.
Mr. Donald Welford of 184 Fnre=.t Street stated nowhere do l see
anything that addresses my drainage nasnment. He also asked if there will
be any blasting involved.
Ctoard of Survey Meeting of February 10, 1986 Page 4
Asst, Supt. Redford replied we assume there will be ledge
' involved. As far as the legal issue, I would leave that up to the
proponents counsel . Any person blasting must get a permit from the Fire
Department.
Frank Dalyrymple stated the drainage ditch was 3 -4 feet wide
when we bought our house 40 ,years ago. The Town has never cleaned it and
it's completely filled in now.
Supt. Fletcher stated this is part of the proposed Aberjona III
project.
Mrs. Shirkoff of 210 Forest Street asked will Rice Road be a
finished road?
Asst. Supt. Redford replied the Hoard of Survey has not indicated
any specific requirements.
Mrs. Berl of 246 Forest Street asked what have the developers
done in Reading comparable to this?
Atty. Latham replied the three homes on the old Prospect Street
School Site.
John Hockley of 178 Forest Street asked who, is going to guarantee
that we don't get any addi.tiona] water because of this dovelopment2
Chairman Hampson replied the developer has to guarantee to us and
the Conservation Commission that you will be no worse off. They are
required to submit the hydrau.ulics at the Definitive Hearing.
Jim Valentine of the Reading Council for Girls stated we are the
principal abuttor to this project. I would like to say that we will have
some written comments on this. I feel It is unfortunate we have not had
an opportunity to meet on this. He added that Molly 7i.egler should also he
sent future rorrespondence.
Board of Survey Meeting of February 10, 1986 Page 5
Jim Mc Sherry, construction manager for the Girl Scout Camp stated
' the key concern that we have is vehicular access and safety. We are also
very concerned with the concept of a buffer zone to maintain the existing
vegetation and trees.
It was moved, seconded and voted 3:0 to close the hearing at 9;75
P.M.
The Board next discussed the Sanborn Village Phase IIT
Subdivision bond reduction.
Tt was moved, seconded and voted 3:0 to reduce the Performance
Bond on Sanborn Village Phase III from €995,578 to $850,000 with the
stipulation that no further reduction request will be submitted until ALL
the UTILITY work has been completed.
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
ry
Secreta ( )
The Reading Department of Public Warks 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 March 7, 1986.
2. Substaintial excavation (with retaining walls?) is required.
3. No sight easements are shown at the County Road intersection.
4. The cul-de-sac configuration does not conform to the standard.
5. The proposed sewer does not meet the standard depth.
6. The proposed drain lacks the required 4' cover.
7. The proposed water main and hydrant should be extended to the
end of the roadway (lot line between lot 3 & 4).
B. The proposed roadway profile does not comply with the Board of
Survey regulations (verticle curves).
9. The proposed water main should be a minimum of 8" (not 6").
10. What provisions are being considered to provide adequate water
pressure to these lots.
11. Additional catchbasin configurations should be required due to the
run-off velocity.
12. Proposed sidesloping exceeds 3: 1 on lot 3.
13. No wheelchair ramps are indicated.
14. This proposed subdivision, due to the size, may be required to
conform to the Board of Public Works' 2 for 1 Sewer I/I policy.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
�^ 6 LOWELL STREET
READING, MASSACHUSETTS 01867
942-0500 EXT 69
February 10, 1986
Mr. Douglas Barker, Chairman
Board of Survey
16 Lowell Street
Reading, Ma. 01867
RE: Preliminary Plan, Emerald Drive, Reading
Dear Mr. Barker:
The Commission has reviewed the above-referenced plan
for its significance to the wetland values of the Wetland
Protection Act and the Reading Local Wetland Bylaw.
This project, as proposed, does not specifically alter
any wetland area or land subject to flooding. However, the
increase in off-site runoff will require some form of on-site
detention. The Commission will be available to work with
the applicants in an effort to solve this potential problem
with the proposed development.
�Sincerely,
Charles T. Costello
Administrator
.�Ue
ad to the P....—&-- 4— //atura�Kedourced
TOWN OF READING
BOARD OF SURVEY
PRELIMINARY HEARING
RTCF ROAD & ROAD ' A '
February 10, 1986
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
developer, Board of Health, Conservation Commission, various Boards and
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.
In the case of this Preliminary Plan Hearing, a more detailed
submisison of these subdivision plans is required and an additional
(Definitive) hearing conforming to the same requirements described above
must be 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.
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.
S. 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 March 17, 1986 (probably on February 24,
1986); 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 March 17, 1986.
2. The limits of the zoned 'Wetland Protection District' are not
shown.
3. No sight or sloping easements are shown.
4. No improvement of Rice Road to Board of Survey standards is
indicated.
S. No water main extension is shown to connect to Road 'A".
6. The back lot line of lot 10 may conflict with the current plans of
the Welford and Woods properties.
7. The proposed sewer lacks the required cover land may better serve
the development by an extension from Birch Meadow Drive area).
B. What provisions are being proposed for grade conflicts between the
various utilities?
9. Additional hydrants are required.
10. Full intersection design at Rice Road is not complied with.
11. No storm water retention or runoff mitigating device is indicated.
(it appears that the additional run-off will be discharged
directly into an existing system, after upgrading by the
developer, in an area of known drainage problem area)
12. The roadway design does not conform to standard (vertical curve).
13. The proposed sewer changes from 10" on Rice Road to 8" on Road
'A' with a unsatisfactory slope..
14. The proposed grading may significantly effects the existing lot
owned by the School Department.
15. What provisions are being examined for the grading of lots 1, 21
and 3 to conform to the existing conditions on the abutting Town
of Reading lot to the south?
16. This proposed subdivision, due to the size, may be required to
conform to the Board of Public Works' 2 for 1 Sewer I/I policy.
17. How does this subdivision filing effect the Board of Appeals case
previously issued for this land?
18. What provisions for looping of the water main is being developed?
19. The length of Road (A' added to the length of the proposed Rice
Road exceeds the current 900' limitation.
aF CONSERVATION COMMISSION
;._
6 LOWELL STREET
READING, MASSACHUSETTS 01867
942-0500 EXT 69
February 10, 1986
Mr. Douglas Barker, Chairman
Board of Survey
16 Lowell Street
Reading, Ma. 01867
RE: Preliminary Plan, Rice Road Subdivision, Reading
Dear Mr. Barker:
The Commission offers the following comments on the above-
referenced project:
(1) As a result of the project' s impact on wetlands, it will be
required to submit a Notice of Intent with this Commission.
(2) In Lots 17 and 18, large areas of wetlands are proposed to
be altered for the purpose of putting houses on the lots.
The Commission will look very critically at this proposal.
(3) The increased runoff from the project, as proposed, will be
directed into storm drains and the surface drainage system
tributory to the Aberjona River. It is a well-known fact
that a flooding problem exists in this area. The project
will be requited to provide on site stormwater detention to
minimize the increased runoff.
(4) The delineation of the bordering vegetated wetland area on
the plan does not appear to be accurate. Also, the Wetland
Protection Zoning District present in this area is not shown
on the plan.
(5) It would appear that the roadway crossing the wetlands would
require significant side sloping and additional wetland
destruction. The Commission has required headwalls in
similar situations in the Town.
The Commission has recently adopted new regulations for the
implementation of its local wetlands bylaw. The applicant would be
prudent to carefully review the Standards the Commission will require
of this project.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the Commission's comments.
Sincerely,
&wls b
Charles T. Costello
/ Pie
Administrator
c7�
eUe,h.led to toe 3..tion .1.. //alum[®
R. o-.ee
I
TOWN OF READWG, MASSACHUSETTS 01867
YN P i
zeo BOARD OF HEALTH
52 Sanborn Street, Room 12A
Tel. 942-0500 - Ext. 56, 57, 58
PAUL I.OASELLE.DDS.CXm M.JANE GA LLXOE.M.P.X..C.X.O
JAMES J.NUGENT.JP..R S..L.X.O. NA.EN OnMor
JILL G DUGAN.85.
January 31, 1986
William Redford, P.E.
Department of Public Works
Town Hall
Reading, MA 01867
Dear Mr. Redford,
Our Health Inspector, Mr. Tabbi, has reviewed the preliminary plan, Road A, off
of Rice Road and has the following concerns;
1. No water line is shown on Rice Road to service the sub-division.
2. A greater than 500 foot dead-end water line was proposed.
Please feel free to call us if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
M. Jane Gallahue, M.P.H.
Health Director - -
MJG:sa yy�ee
RE4aE,1-VED
BOARD OF PUBLIC'RORKS
3 // /P86
PM W2
TOWN OF READING