Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-05-05 Board of Survey Minutes Board of Survey Meeting of May 59 1986 Page 1 A meeting of the Board of Survey convened in Room 16, Municipal Building at 7:35 P.M. Present were Chairman Hampson, Secretary Boucher, Board Members Barker, Griffin and Nitzsche, and Assistant Superintendents McIntire and Redford. The Board reviewed and discussed the memo from Safety Officer Veno regarding Pine Grove Estates and the Draft Traffic Study Report. It was moved, seconded and voted 3:0:2 (Mr. Boucher and Mr. Nitzsche abstaining) that the Board approve the subdivision entitled "Pine Grove Estates - dated January 6, 1986, revised April 11, 1986, subject to the following conditions: A. The submission of a satisfactory Covenant Agreement by June 1, 1986; B. The submission of a satisfactory Conveyance of Easements and Utilities by June 1, 1986; C. The submission of two (2) modified sets of mylar plans by June 1, 1986; D. The submission of satisfactory Center Line and Street Line coordinates by June 1, 1986; F. The developer's obtaining all required sewer connection permits prior to any request for building and conveyance restriction release. F. Submission of the following modifications/additions to the plans, acceptable to the Department of Public Works; 1. Revising proposed Accmp Pipe with reinforced concrete pipe or culvert, 2. Detailing the proposed sewer connection on Haverhill Street, 3. Revising the water main and hydrant layout vicinity of Lot 13. i Board of Survey Meeting of May 5, 1986 Page 2 Asst. Supt. Redford reported that most of the issues raised at prior hearings have been addressed satisfactorily. Bill Jones of Dana Perkins Inc. stated he has copies of the Final Traffic Study. Chairman Hampson stated I appreciate the developer not putting in "Olde Redding Lane". The Board adjourned temporarily at 7:45 P.M. to meet as the Board of Public Works. The Board reconvened at 8:00 P.M. Mr. Barker left the meeting at 8:00 P.M. Mr. Boucher read the Notice of Public Hearing at B:00 P.M. regarding the approval, disapproval or modification of preliminary plans titled "Cassidy Drive" for a proposed roadway extending two hundred and seventy-five (275) feet southerly off Oak Street (between number 120 and 106 Oak Street). The subdivision proposes to resubdivide an existing lot referenced by the Reading Assessors as Plat 23, Lot 4 into three building lots. There were 14 abuttors present as well as William Bergeron from Hayes Engineering Inc. Chairman Hampson welcomed everyone to the Hearing and introduced the members of the Board and the Department. Mr. Bergeron explained that Mr. Paul Cassidy is the developer for this project. He reported that the proposal is for a 175' roadway for the construction of three new building lots. The drainage will go into the ' existing retention pond created by the development built at the extension of Avalon Road. He added that this is a preliminary plan only. He stated the traffic impact will be minimal. Asst. Supt. Redford explained his 14 items of concern listed on the back of his handout. (list attached). I Board of Survey Meeting of May 5, 1986 Page 3 Mr•. Griffin stated regarding the drainage calculations, I recall there is a distinct problem on this property with drainage. Mr. Bergeron explained the proposed drainage system. Mr. Churchill Franklin of 106 Oak Street stated to my knowledge there is not an existing pipe in that area at all. Mr. Griffin stated I presume you also feel that any additional drainage or water created by this development will be able to be picked up by the existing retaining area created by the extension of Avalon Road. Mr. Bergeron replied yes - the retention area would be capable of picking up this drainage and the Town has an easement for drainage purposes in that area, which was granted by Mr. Cormier. Mr. Harold Mew of 120 Oak Street stated I don't think people realize the configuration of the lots. I am rather disappointed in their size. Mr. Bergeron explained the actual configuration of the lots. Mr. Franklin of 106 Oak Street asked will the sewerage require a pumping station? Mr. Bergeron replied no, it will be sloped toward Oak Street. Janet Franklin of 106 Oak Street stated I am in favor of a pedestrian walkway between the two developments. Mr. William Smith of 11 Oak Ridge Road stated I have a problem with the sight distance on Oak Stret and the curve. He feels this will create a traffic safety hazard. Mr. Sohn Miele of 100 Oak Street stated he has particular concerns about the distance of Lot R1 dwelling and the proposed sidewalk to my property. He also questioned if the developers have given any thought to privacy fences. Board of Survey Meeting of May 5, 1986 Page 4 ' Mr. Mew of 120 Oak Street thanked the Department for taking the citizens interests into consideration. It was moved, seconded and voted 4:0 to close the Hearing at 8:45 P.M. Mr. Boucher read the Notice of Public Hearing at 8:45 P.M. regarding the approval, disapproval, or modification of definitive plans entitled "Johnston Circle" for a proposed roadway extending two hundred (200) feet southerly off Forest Street (between number 262 and 246 Forest Street). The subdivision proposes to resubdivide an existing lot referenced by the Reading Assessors as Plat 126, Lot 32 into four building lots. There were eight abuttors present, as well as Attorney William ' Wagner, Donald Johnston, the applicant, and William Bergeron of Hayes Engineering. Chairman Hampson welcomed everyone to the hearing and introduced the members of the Board and the Department. Mr. Bergeron stated this is 1.6 acres of land. There are four lots proposed instead of the original five due primarily to the concerns of the adjacent vegetated wetlands. He explained that the drainage will all be collected by the roadway system and into the retention area. The balance will drain naturally to the wetlands as they currently do. Asst. Supt. Redford explained his 16 items of concern (list attached). Formal action is required on this submittal by May 12th. I have asked that the applicants consider granting the Board of Survey a two week extension. Mr. Redford added that one of his major items of concern is that this Development is within the Aquifer Protection District and must comply fully with those requirements (total y, impervious, and other usage restrictions). Board of Survey Meeting of May 5, 1986 Page 5 ' Chairman Hampson read the letter from the Board of Health into the record (copy attached). Mr. Griffin stated I have a real problem with septic problems in the Aquifer Protection District. I was desperately hoping an easement could have been obtained on to Grove Street. I foresee the prospect of failure of an Ejector Station in an Aquifer Protection Zone and I intend to vote against this project. Mr. Boucher stated I have concerns with some of the drainage. Asst. Supt. Redford stated the Conservation Commission also shares our concerns. Mr. Boucher asked have you any estimate of how much sand and salt would be added into the area of the wetlands in the back? Mr. Bergeron replied it is going into the Revay area now. We will install a deep catch basin at the end of the roadway - sediments from the roadway will be collected by the catch basins at the foot of the hill. Mr. Arthur Dyment of 89 Grove Street stated I have lived in my house for over 25 years. Nine months of the year that back area is always wet. I am the lowest of the lots on Grove Street now and I am concerned this development will make the situation worse. It was moved, seconded and voted 4;0 to close the hearing at 9; 45 P.M. The matter will be discussed again at the June 2, 1986 board of Survey Meeting. Mr. Boucher read the Notice of Public Hearing at 9: 45 P.M. regarding the approval, disapproval or modification of definitive plans titled "Maplewood Estates" for a proposed roadway named Wildwood Lane extending four hundred and eighty (480) feet northerly off Forest Street (between number 25 and 33 Forest Street). The subdivision proposes to resubdivide an exisitng lot referenced by the Reading Assessors as Plat Board of Survey Meeting of May 5, 1986 Page b ' 156, Lot 26B, into four building lots. There were 12 abuttors present as well as Robert Lynch and John Paulson of Atlantic Engineering, representing the applicant. Chairman Hampson introduced the members of the Board and the Department and welcomed everyone to the meeting. Mr. Lynch made a presentation outlining the proposed development and explained that this is a proposed four (4) lot subdivision with a retention pond proposed at Lot q1. Mr. Redford explained his list of 19 concerns (copy attached). Mr. Redford added that this submittal and filing is incomplete. Maria Silvaggi of 74 Whittier Road stated I drive on Forest Street all the time. I live in an area where the drainage is so precarious it is not built to take care of a 20 year storm. I have frequently been a critic of the drainage systems that are in place. I am very concerned about the amount of drainage that is going to overload this system. I live in an area that floods. She stated she felt the Board had an ethical and moral responsibility to protect that area. Chairman Hampson replied I do share your concern about the drainage. Mr. Lynch of Atlantic Engineering stated our proposed drainage system will not make matters worse in this area, in fact, it may alleviate some runoff in the street. Maria Silvaggi stated I am not happy with the potential for further flooding in this area. I would like the records previously ' discussed for the three homes built on Main Street brought into the record and studied by the Board of Survey very carefully. Mr. Griffin asked is any Traffic Study required because of the proximity to Van Norden Road? Hoard of Survey Meeting of May 5, 1986 Page 7 Asst. Supt. Redford replied no, but we would expect them to comment on the number of additional trips within the Environmental Impact Report. Mr. John Silvaggi of 74 Whittier Road asked would you please advise me of the procedure from this point on. Asst. Supt. Redford replied my suggestion is to take the information we have gained at this hearing, and advise the aplicant to withdraw this incomplete submittal and refile. It was moved, seconded and voted 4:0 to close the hearing at 10;30 P.M. The Board next met with Attorney David Grossack and Joseph Cicciarello of CK Associates to discuss the Criterion Road situation. ' Atty. Grossack stated my clients, C&C Associates, are not in a financial position to complete the road unless the Town is willing to loan us the money in the town-held Escrow Agreement and/or the Performance Bond. He stated we need a loan from the bonds we presently have or we can not finish the roadway. The Town might be in a better position to make the necessary arrangements to complete the project than my clients are. Asst. Supt. Redford explained that C&C tried to get a contractor to complete this job and they couldn't find a contractor to do the job at the prices offered. I would suggest that they get a letter to us immediately acknowledging to us that they are in default. Mr. Griffin stated I would ask the Department to review the amount held in the Performance Bond, check with Town Counsel, and that we ' begin to pursue the necessary roadway betterment procedures so that we can get on with the project as quickly as possible. Board of Survey Meeting of May S, 1986 Page S Asst. Supt. Redford stated we will notify all the abuttors and the Planning Board of any activity being considered on this project. The meeting adjourned at 10:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Secretary 0.0 1 TOWN OF READING BOARD OF SURVEY DEFINITIVE HEARING M APLEWOOD ESTATES May 5, 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 Definitive Plan Hearing, a submisison of these subdivision plans to the Conservation Commission, under the Wetland Acts, is required and an additional public hearing 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 June 2, 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 June 2, 1986. 2. No filing has been submitted to the Town Clerk. 3. No hydraulic calculations have been submitted. 4. No Environmental Impact and Evaluation Report has been submitted. S. No sight easements are shown at the Forest Street intersection. 6. Lot 3 does not have sufficient frontage. 7. The temporary slope and tree planting easements are not the required 20 foot width. 8. The proposed drain lacks the required 4' cover. 9. The proposal will result in grade conflicts between the various utilities? 10. A storm water retention and runoff mitigating device is indicated. (The proposal shows the additional run-off discharging directly into an existing system, after upgrading by the developer, into an area with known drainage problems) ' 11. The proposed retention area control device is not desirable. 12. No proposed roadway profile is shown station 0+0 to 0+41. 13. The proposed grading significantly effects the existing lots owned by Bray. 14. The proposed grading & drainage does not address the low area on Lot 4. IS. The proposed roadway construction does not extend to the non-subdivided adjoining property to the north (utilizing a 'temporary turnaround' ). 16. The catch basins do not have the required 3.0 foot sumps. 17. Curvature angles are required on the plans. 18. Traverse calculations have not been submitted. 19. The Department strongly suggests that the applicant withdraw this incomplete filing and re-file this proposal after addressing and/or correcting these issues. Some of these issues were included in the Preliminary Plan Disapproval. TOWN OF READING BOARD OF SURVEY PRELIMINARY HEARING CASSIDY DRIVE May 5, 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 May 23, 1986; and indicates that the plans and the department are available for additional review and comments. 8. 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 May 23, 1986. 2. No Drain catch basins are indicated at the Oak Street intersec- tion. 3. The proposed water main could potentially be looped to Avalon Rd. Extention. 4. No storm water retention or runoff mitigating device is indicated (the development discharges directly into Avalon Estates' reten- tion area without modifications shown). 5. The proposed roadway layout does not appear to allow for full sight and sidesloping/tree planting easements in some areas. 6. No detail is provided for the Forest Street sewer manhole. 7. The proposed sewer house connections for Lots 2 & 3 are shown to discharge into the manhole - this is not acceptable. B. The existing lot owners (Mentzer & Wiseman) have known water impounding problems. The existing drain line and contributary areas have been shown. 9. The hydraulic calculations indicate an increase (12X) due to the development (primarily due to 'time of concentration' changes) and, although the method employed may model the quantity of water produced fails to the calculated peak computed by O = C x I x A. 10. Based on previous hearings the Board may wish to consider a requirement for pedestrian access from the Whitehall Lane area to Oak Street. 11. The proposed sewer main does not have the desirable layout or depth. 12. The proposed easement is not centered on the lot lines. 13. The Department already has a gutter drainage problem at this location on Oak Street which should be addressed and corrected in any definitive filing. 14. A detailed grading plan should be required to insure compatibility (no additional run-off due to the filling shown) onto the Franklin property and the blocking of natural run-off patterns from the Mew & Mentzer properties. 1 i TOWN OF READING BOARD OF SURVEY DEFINITIVE HEARING JOHNSTON CIRCLE May 5, 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 Definitive Plan Hearing, a submisison of these subdivision plans to the Conservation Commission, under the Wetland Acts, is required and an additional public hearing 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: j 1. Chairman calls the hearing to order. 1 2. Secretary reads the legal notice of the Public Hearing. it 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 May 12, 1966; and indicates that the plans and the department are available for additional review and comments. B. Secretary makes motion to close the hearing. I 9. Board votes on motion to close the hearing. i 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 Nay 12, 1986. 2. This Development is within the Aquifer Protection District and must comply fully with those requirements (total X impervious, and other usage restrictions. 3. The proposed sewer system fails to adequately service this develop- ment through a gravity system. Three of the four homes would require separate ejectors. This is not desirable within the Aquifer Protec- tion District and could be avoided by the developer obtaining ease- ments from private parties to Grove Street or to the Rice Road - Henzie Street interceptor. 4. No retaining wall details are shown. S. Full sight easements and tree planting easements are not provided. 6. The water main & hydrant locations are not the desired layout. 7. Additional catch basins and drainage facilities should be considered due to the roadway slope and proposed lot grading. B. No detail is provided for the Forest Street sewer manhole. 9. The hydraulic calculations indicate an increase (12X) due to the development (primarily due to 'time of concentration' changes) and, although the method employed may model the quantity of water produced fails to the calculated peak computed by D = C x I x A. 10. The proposed berm is inadequate. Our standard consists of a concrete or clay core and at least a 8 - IS foot access area at the top. 11. No drain easement (for access around and maintanence requirements) is provided for the retention area. 12. The proposal indicates filling and alterations within the Wetlands Protection District. 13. The proposed minimum cellar floor elevations should be raised due to the the stream elevation, and be determined based on existing ground water heights. 14. No cul-du-sac gutter profile have been submitted. 15. The elevations of the existing abbutting structures have not been shown. 16. No method has been submitted to limit the discharge of roadway contaminants into the existing wetlands.