Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-02-24 Board of Survey Minutes Board of Survey Meeting of February 24, 1986 Page I A meeting of the Board of Survey convened in Room 16, Municipal Building at 7: 42 P.M, Present were Chairman Barker, Secretary Hampson, Board Members Griffin and Bourher, Superintendent. A.Y. Fletcher, P.E. and Assistant Superintendent William A. Redford. The Board reviewed the memo from Asst. Supt. Redford regarding the Preliminary Subdivision - Emerald Drive. Supt. Fletcher stated the Department recommends the Board disapprove the Emerald Drive Subdivision Flan, in spite of the letter received from the applicant, the recommendation remains that the plan should be denied. It. was moved, seconded and defeated 0: 4 that the Board approve the Preliminary Subdivision Plan entitled "Preliminary Plan and Profile of Emerald Drive, Reading, Me. dated November 20, 1985 Mr. Mark Nichols of 117 County Road stated the problem I see with this is that my property will be right across the street from the road. The road will he at a higher elevation and the car headlights will came into my home all night long. The value of my home will go way down, I ask for your consideration on the plan for this. It was moved, seconded and voted 4:0 to disapprove the Preliminary Subdivision Plan entitled "Preliminary Plan & Profile of Emerald Drive, Reading, Ma. dated November 20, 19B5" due to Items 1-10 listed on the attached memo and that the Department include in the letter of disapproval the following items: 1. In view of the size of this proposed subdivision, the Developer may be, required to conform to the Board of Public Works' 2 for 1. I/I replacement policy. 2. In addition to the previous requirements, the Board is very concerned about the impact of additional runoff onto County Board of Survey Meeting of February 24, 1986 Page 2 Road and the impart to the existing groundwater problems identified by the abuttors. Any Definitive Plan submission will require a comprehensive Environmental Impact and Evaluation Statement, a +ai.led surface water drainage design, and detailed final grading plan. The Board next reviewed the memo from Asst. Supt. Redford regarding the Preliminary Subdivision entitled "Rice Read and Road "A"". Supt. Fletcher stated the Department recommends that the Board disapprove the Preliminary Plan entitled "Preliminary Plan Road "A", dated September 10, 1985. It was moved, seconded and defeated 01311 (Mr. Boucher abstaining) that the Board approve the Preliminary Subdivision Plan entitled "Preliminary Plan Road "A", Reading, Ma. dated September 10, 1985" (consisting of two sheets). It was moved, seconded and voted 3: 0: 1 (Mr. Boucher abstaining) to disapprove the Preliminary Subdivision Plan entitled "Preliminary Plan Road "A", Reading, Ma. dated September 10, 1985" (consisting of 2 sheets) due to items 1-11 listed on the attached sheet and that. the Department include the following in the letter of disapproval to the applicant; 1. In view of the size of this proposed subdivision, the Developer may be required to conform to the Board of Public Works 2 for I l:/I replacement. policy. 2. In addition to the previous requirements, the Board is very Board of Survey Meeting of February 24, 1986 Page 3 concerned about the sensitive nature of the existing wetland areas included within this tract of land. Anv Definitive Plan submission will require a comprehensive Environmental Impact and Evaluation statement, detailed surface water drainage design and detailed final grading plan. The meeting adjourned at ?1S6 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Secretary ��I MEMORANDUM ' To: A.V. Fletcher, F.E. From: W.A. Redford Date: February 21, 1986 Subject: Preliminary Subdivision - Emerald Drive 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 "Preliminary Plan & Profile of Emerald Drive, Reading, Mass. dated November 20, 1985" (consisting of 1 sheet) due to the items listed below. 1. No sight easements are shown at the County Road intersection. 2. The cul-de-sac configuration does not conform to the standard. 3. The proposed sewer does not meet the standard depth. 4. The proposed drain lacks the required 4' cover. S. The proposed nater main. is less than the minimum of B" diameter. 6. No provisions are shown to provide adequate water pressure to the proposed new lots. 7. Additional catchbasin configurations are required due to the run-off velocity. B. The proposed roadway profile does not comply with the Board of Survey regulations (verticOe curves). 9. The proposed sidesloping exceeds 3: 1 an lot 3. 10. No wheelchair ramps are indicated. B. The Board INCLUDE the following item: In view of the sire of this proposed subdivision, the Developer may be required to conform to the Board of Public Works' 2 for t I/I replacement policy. C. The Board INCLUDE the following in the letter of disapproval: In addition to the previous requirements, the Board is very concerned about the impact of additional run-off onto County Road and the impact to the existing ground water problems identified by the abbutters. Any Definitive Plan submission will require a comprehensive Environmental Impact. and Evaluation Statement, detailed surface water drainage design, and detailed final grading plan. t P411 6 February 24, 1986 4 :3;iPM (-3 READING DEPAR ENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, ENGINEERING DIVISION Reference: Concerns and Comments on the Subdivision called EMERALD DRIVE Dated February 10, 1986 Dear Site, Mr. & Mrs Cogan and Mr. & Mrs. Doherty wish to address each comment and concern on your list dated February 10, 1986. Item # 2; We understand there is substantial excavation in main- taining a 3: 1 elope. However; we feel that approximatly 460 of retaining walla would be cost prohibitive. Therefore; we prefer to opt for the excavation to maintain a 3: 1 slope. Item # 3; Sight easements- These will be shown on the Definitive Plan. Item # 4; The cul-de-sac configuration will conform on the Definitive Plan. Item # 5&6; The proposed sewer will meet the standard depth and the - drain will have the required 4' cover on the Definitive Plan. Item # 7; The proposed water main and hydrant will be extended to t eTi ern of the roadway (as required) on the Definitive Plan. Item # 8; The vertical curves will be adjusted to meet the required m'rnr�_­of 151. Item # 9; The proposed water main to Emerald Drive will be 8" to comp y with Reading's Sub-Division By Laws. Item 10, We are at the present time, attempting to get quotes of r an eight inch MI) booster pump to be installed on the lateral to the proposed Emerald Drive. Knowing that we are, at best novices in such matters, any and all help that could be given by the Board of Public Works would be .greatly appreciated. Item # 11; Two (2) additfonaLcatch basins will be added at a sus— til cost. They will be approximately halfway up Emerald Drive. Item # 12; The sideeloping (lot 3) will be in compliance on the lin t� Plan. Item # 13; Wheelchair ramps will be shown on the Definitive Plan. Item # 14; As we understand It, the 2 for 1 Sewer 1/1 policy is based on the number of bedrooms per subdivision. This is a five (5) lot subdivision 1 The maximum number of bedrooms will be 19 total, which will be controlled by covenants in the lot deeds. If, in fact the maximum allowable consumption is 100 gal/ day/ bedroom we will be well .below this at 1900 dallons per day. MEMORANDUM t To: R.V. Fletcher, P.E. From: W.A. Redford Date: February 21, 1986 Subject: Preliminary Subdivision - Rice Road & Road "A" 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 "Preliminary Plan Road "A", Reading, Hass. dated September 10, 1966" (consisting of 2 sheet) due to the items listed below. 1. The limits of the zoned 'Wetland Protection District' are not shown. 2. No sight or sloping easements are shown. 3. No improvement of Rice Road to Board of Survey standards is shown. 4. No water main extension is shown to connect to Road 'A". 5. The proposed sewer lacks the required cover and is shown with a design ' restriction (B" Cast Iron at 0.3X). 6. The proposed utility layouts result in grade conflicts between the various utilities. 7. Additional hydrants are required. B. Full intersection design at Rice Road is not complied with. 9. No storm water retention or runoff mitigating device is indicated. 10. The roadway design does not conform to standard (vertical curve). 11. The length of Road 'A' added to the length of the proposed Rice Road exceeds the current 900' limitation. B. The Board INCLUDE the following item: In view of the size of this proposed subdivision, the Developer may be required to conform to the Board of Public Works' 2 for 1 I/I replacement policy. C. The Board INCLUDE the following in the letter of disapproval: 1 In addition to the previous requirements, the Board is very concerned about the sensitive nature of the existing wetland areas 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. WRIGHT & MOE14RKE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION r�� OI/J� / COUNSELLORS AT LAW r 1' `LO REASON STREET BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 021O8 46171720­3500 February 24, 1966 Board of Surveyors Town of Reading Town Hall Reading, Massachusetts Re: Rice Road and Road "A" Proposed Development Dear Board Members: This office represents Patriots' Trail Girl Scout Council, Inc. and the Reading Council for Girls, Inc. The Reading Council for Girls is the owner of property directly across Rice Road from the above-captioned project; Patriots' Trail Girl Scout Council, Inc. operates a Girl Scout camp on that property. Both Patriots' Trail and the Reading Council for Girls have great concern with respect to the above-captioned project. In their opinion, the project as presently proposed is su€€-icient in the following respects: _DGFiBiCWF 1. ygbj_cJ_e Acces /Safe y. At present, the pro- posal calls for the entrance to the subdivision being near the opposite end of Rice Road from Forest Street. During the camp season, Girl Scouts travel up and down Rice Road on foot and potential for accident is very high. As you may be aware, the camp operates full-time for two months in the summer. In addition, program activities both outdoor and indoor go on throughout the year. We strongly urge that the subdivision be redesigned so that the entrance thereto be either at the Forest Street end of Rice Road or some other appropriate location. 2. Rlffar—Zone. At present, the proposed subdivision calls for several lots to be fronting on Rice Road. If all of the trees on Rice Road are destroyed, this will have a negative impact on the outdoor educational programs that have been conducted over the last four decades. We would urge that the project be redesigned so that entrance to the Rice Road Board of Surveyors Town of Reading February 24 , 1986 {L Page 2 lots be off a road in the interior of the subdivision and that a buffer zone of trees and other natural vegetation be preserved along Rice Road. 3. W_fftland6, My clients note that the proposed subdivison will involve the filling and/or alteration of a significant wetland area running parallel to Rice Road. Like other residents in the area, they are concerned that such activity or construction will produce flooding, and possible groundwater contamina- tion. We suggest that the project be redesigned in order to preserve this wetland area or that a more convincing demonstration be made that there will be no adverse offsite impact. 4. $€W.QL�.4llIl14Il.4� Both Patriots' Trail and the Reading Council for Girls questioned whether the existing sewer lines which presently serves the camp along Rice Road is of sufficient capacity to handle the output of 18 additional residences. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. The representatives of Patriots Trail Girl Scout Council, Inc. and Reading Council for Girls intend to be present at your meeting on February 24, 1986 to further discuss these concerns. Very truly yours, O Francis S. Wrig FSW:em cc: Latham s Latham L