Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-04-18 Correspondence DEF SUB E E LAND GGNSU L T A N T S March 7, 1997` E Mr. Benjamin C. Osgood, Jr. New England Engineering Services, Inc. 33 Walker Road North Andover, MA 01845 RE: Old Center Lame DeveloI nrent Johnson Street; North Andover, N" Gear Mr. Osgood: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEN&AIT This document evaluates the potential impact of the proposed residential development at Old Center Lane on the envirbnment associated with the established Watershed Protection District in the town of North Andover. In particular, we will report on the potential this project has for significant degradation on the quality of Lake Cochichewick waters. The preparation of this report comes from our office performing a thorough review of "Watershed Special Permit Plan" of land on Johnson Street prepared by New Lngland Eng- ineering Services, Inc,; North Andover, MA and dated 12/20/96 (w/ revisions 3/3/97). ! Potential LStaLtdurd_l.)e :idatigns f E (1) Site grading within 100' buffer zone; ' i (2) House construction within 100' buffer zone; (3) Unsite sewage disposal systems; (4) Stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces; j (5) Lawn care fertilizer runoffs. I'ropasecl 6Specifrc� Solutions (1) Prior to any site work (logging, excavating, tilling, regrading, etc.) erosion control measures (combination silt fence and staked hay bales) should be installed, inspected, and E maintained until such time as soil is stabilized; I E 43 Rockingham Street • Concord, New Hampshire 03301 • SQ31228•,5775 Mr. Benjamin C. Osgood, Jr. Old Center Lane Development Page 2 Johnson Street March 7, 1997 North Andover, MA i (2) l)o not allow housing (permanent structure) construction to take place within 100' of delineated wetland boundary; (3) Housing wastewater and sewage should not be deposited into the subsoil; but rather, pumped or piped out of the Watershed Protection District; (4) Impervious surface water runoff should not be discharged directly into the delineated wetlands; but rather, the runoff should be treated (filtered) by overland sheet flow to allow a natural percolation into subsoil; (5) Organic fertilizers should be required for lawn treatments in this development. i If the above-mentioned solutions are applied and conditionally adhered to, the high concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorous and other dissolved inorganic chemicals will be greatly reduced or eliminated all together in the runoff water and ground water. It is our opinion, this single-family residential development wili_not significantly degrade the quality of water in or entering Lake Cochichewick. Respectfully submitted, BAG LAND CONSULTANTS i � •� I i Bruce A Gilday i Senior Environmental Scientist BAG:K22 i i i I I i ., 11 NEW ENGLAND ENGINEERING SERVICES E INC March 8, 1997 Mr, John Chessia,P.E• Coler and Colantonio, Inc. 101 Accord Park Drive, Suite One Norwell,MA.02061 Re: Old Center Lane Definitive Plan,North Andover, MA Dear Mr, Chessia: Enclosed is a set of revised plans for the above referenced definitive plan submittal. This new set of plans is totally revised since the concept of how the lots will be accessed has changed from being a fully constructed subdivision roadway to a 20 foot wide private drive. The reason for this change is to lower the impact of the subdivision on the community. The roadway as it has been redesigned will require waivers of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land in North Andover. A list of the waivers needed is included in a letter sent to the Planning Board. A copy of that letter is included in this submittal for your review. The major changes to this plan include increasing the slope of the drive to 10%in order to reduce the amount of fill needed to construct the roadway, narrowing the paved width of the drive to 20 feet so as to decrease the amount of impervious area, and reducing the impact of the detention pond construction by flattening out the sideslopes of the pond and holding the bottom of the pond closer to the natural grade existing in that area. A copy of the soil log that was taken in the location of the old pond is enclosed in this submittal. The test pit is not located in the area of the new pond design, but the log is consistent with what would most likely be found in the area of the new pond. As you can see in the letter to the planning board it is the applicants intention to make.maintenance of all of the utilities and roadways on the property the responsibility of the homeowners. Also, it is the applicants intention to make the installation of a residential sprinkler system a requirement in the homes. These requirements, and the idea of making the roadway smaller,were suggestions that were made by the Towns staff members at the very first Technical Review Committee meeting for this project. If you have any questions or need any clarifications please do not hesitate to call. Also,when you have a letter ready to send to the planning department I would appreciate you forwarding a copy to my office by fax at 508-685-1099. Yours truly, Ben'at�[ui C Osgood,Jr' E J President 33 WALKER RD. - SUITE 22 - NORTH ANDOVER, MA 01845 - (508) 686-1768 Memorandum {. To: Joseph V. Mahoney, Chairman, Planning Board From: Susan Ford, Watershed Council Date: March 14, 1997 Re: Old Center Lane Subdivision This memo is in regards to the proposed Old Center Lane Subdivision, The Watershed Council is aware that the Planning Board has two construction options for access to the property. The council would ask that the board consider the driveway Roon. The installation of a driveway rather than a road will effectively reduce the pa vement and grading needed at the site. Due to the property's location within the .......... lake C chichewick Watershed we feel that any possible reduction of disturbance .6 ,,beneficial to the town's water supply, ................... .................... ...... ...... TIM yQ for your consideration in this matter. An. ........... ---------------------- ........... ........... .......... ................. ............ ............ ............ 1 Town of North Andover O MCE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES 146 Main Street +� North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 WILLIAM J. SCOTr SSacHuse Director Memorandum To: Joseph V. Mahoney, Chairman, Planning Board From: Kathleen Bradley Colwell, Town Planner Date: March 19, 1997 Re: Old Center Lane -Rights to Subdivision Ways and Easements In reviewing the issue of the Roderigues' right to create a lot off of Old Center Lane, I came across the following information in the Handbook of Massachusetts Land Use and Planning Law. In the case of Dolan v. Board of Appeals of Chatham, 359 Mass. 699 (1971) the court found that the approval of a definitive plan confers no rights on the general public to use the ways shown on the plan. Thus a landowner with frontage on a private subdivision way whose land is not within the subdivision has no rights to make use of the private way for purposes of establishing frontage. This case states that"the only three methods by which one can acquire the right to pass over private land are: adverse user, grant, or act of public authority. ... The suggestion that the planning board's approval of the way... vests some rights to use it in the plaintiffs whose lot was not within the subdivision finds no support in the statute, whose principal object is to ensure sufficient access to the lots within the subdivision —."(emphasis added) This implies that unless the road is accepted as a public way or an easement in the road is granted to the Roderiques (or the general public), they are not able to use this roadway to create frontage. As the Planning Board has determined that the"driveway" option would not become a public way, unless an easement is granted to the Roderigues to use the road, they could not create a lot. I then reviewed the ANR requirements. The definition of a subdivision as found in Mass. Gen. L. ch, 41, sec. 81L states that "the division of a tract of land into two or more lots shall not be deemed to constitute a subdivision ... if, at the time when it is made, every lot within the tract so divided has frontage on ... (b) a way shown on a plan therefore approved and endorsed in accordance with the subdivision control law...." This is further explained in Richard v. Planning Bd. of Acushnet, 10 Mass. App, Ct. 216, 219 (1990) which states that the way shown on the endorsed subdivision plan must be either actually laid out and constructed on the ground or certain to be constructed because adequate security exists to guarantee performance. Lam Therefore, as Old Center will not be laid out and constructed, nor will sufficient bond money be posted it would appear as though an ANR lot could not be created under the"driveway" option. Please let me know your thoughts. You have more legal resources available than I regarding these issues. cc. Planning Board BOARD OIL APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 f April 7, 1997 North Andover Planning Board Joseph Mahoney - Chairman Alison Lescarbeau AM? John Simons Richard Nardella Richard Rowan Alberto Angeles cc: Kathleen Colwell Bradley Members of the North Andover Planning Board: Listed below are our concerns regarding the proposed waivers submitted by Benjamin Osgood for the Olde Center Lane subdivision. We believe our objections to these specific waivers are in the best interest of the safety and well being of the neighborhood. There may be additional objections raised by our engineer based on the technical specifications. 1. Reference 7B3. Allow inspection of the roadway by a private party in lien{ of public works. This private way should be inspected by the town public works department subject to the standards set forth by the Town of North Andover. This proposed private way is in a thickly settled area with small children. All town safety regulations must be observed. 2. Reference 7B4. Construct the roadway layout as shown of the plan. Two independent engineering firms have found serious flaws in the referenced plans. Plans should be amended to address the documented engineering concerns. 3. Reference 7B5. Eliminate the fill turn around to the design as shown otl the plat?. For safety of the potential homeowners this request must be denied. You cannot back out onto Johnson Street safely. Residents, police, and fire must be able to turn around to safely enter on to Johnson Street. 4. Reference 7F. Waive the requirement for a street sign. This request is totally inappropriate based on safety concerns. Johnson street is very difficult to access or egress from all the driveways in the immediate area. The entrance to the proposed private way needs to be well marked and well lit. Also, the Johnson Street numbering scheme is very confusing. It is in the fire department's, police department's, and potential homeowner's best interest to have "Olde Center Lane" addresses. 5. Reference 7H4. Waive requirements for easements granted to the town. It is in the town's and the neighborhood's best interest for the town to maintain all easements to proposed subdivision. This proposed subdivision is in the middle of the watershed and the town needs to be able to maintain future influence over this private way. 5. Reference 70. Waive the requirements for afire alarm system. The back portion of these lots is very heavily wooded and all standard fire protection devices should be in place. ............ Z. There hill he no additional homes with fiontage on or access onto the private driveivay. This request may be in violation of the Town of North Andover subdivision by-laws. All abutters should have every right to benefit from this new private way. ............................................ fi TO St I n k­q • This new plan and proposed waivers saves the developer a significant amount of money in construction costs. Portions of that money should be allocated to additional landscaping in the proposed subdivision designed to mitigate the impact to the watershed and enhance the appearance of the subdivision. The savings from the sidewalks should be applied to the improvement of the sidewalks in the neighboring area on Johnson Street, • The impact of the potential growth of wetlands on or near the detention pond needs to be fully evaluated by the Conservation Commission. The Rodriques should be compensated by the developer if wetlands growth occurs on portions of their property where there was none before. • The issue of the reserve strip has not been adequately addressed. The Rodriques should have full access to this new private way in the form of a right way in accordance with the Town of North Andover's subdivision by-laws. Sincerely, Peter Rodriques Martha Gaffney Rodriques r Definitive Subdivision Plans Submittal Requirements Project: Old Curter Lane Growth Management Bylaw Form: submitted: Filing Forms: C, D, E: submitted KeyMa at scale of 200' = 1": on plan p p �- Locus Map as scale of 600' = 1": not to scale Septic tests: not required/on sewer- private lines ????? '` 1Gt� Drainage Analysis prepared by Registered Professional Engineer: submitted A"D �)Q Y�eOC'CSLA Ownership/Encumbrances: on plan Construction Schedule: submitted in EIS Soil Map: submitted with drainage analysis Review fees: submitted Erosion Control Plan: submitted in EIS Specialized Engineering: Plans at V = 40': Name of Applicant/Owner: John J Burke&Ben Osgood Jr. Johnson Street Zoning Information: R-3 Subdivision Name: Old Center Lane Abutting Property Owners: on plan North Arrow: ' shown on plan Boundary Survey: shown on plan Existing/Proposed Streets need to submit street name to E911 coordinator for review road should project through to the end of the property line. Lot Dimensions: need to be shown in tabular form Easements: drainage easement shown Drainage Improvements: shown on plan Topography: contours need to extend fifty feet to show Rodrigues property Existing Tree Line: walnut tree shown on plan Location of Septic Test Holes: not required/on sewer Major Site Features: large tree on plan Survey: shown on plan Street Profiles: shown on plan Street Cross-sections: shown on plan Signature: on plan Location of Existing Septic Systems/Wells: not required/on sewer& water Land Not Subdivided: all land will be subdivided Statement of Environmental Impact: submitted Additional Comments: Roadway needs to extend to end of property line j7(A)(d)] Reserve strips along adjacent property not allowed unless Board deems in public interest - should road be moved to edge of Rodriques property ??? Provide landscaping to buffer neighbor??? �s vn A-n-e Waws"c_CA - n e- c , Vb CD-Y�1 vy--\ Whe_AYneY-- ol- n a-V a 'z6pe Ck a1 9erV_1(\`k A- Cu>y)eA `o cn�- W bk C s\open aKP k� boy-- WOJO � 1 cc oeve �o CP�rr� a a �G C c uv_AWv-- kbwn �bc be or a �.6�c� u� `,ram Cam ck�a , u�� c�veincn,k d\,E� Y-,e c_"c -) m%,()'�mil.-e !i a.re CVr ak6enbcrl. pc , M W N OF NORTH ANDOVER, MA8,S>ACHUSETT', DIVISION OF PUBHC WORKS U4 08 G 0 0 D 8 1 BF F T, 0 18 4 5 lephohe(508)685-0950 GEORGE PERNA Te Fax(50B)688-0,1373 0 R T k March 4, 1997 Mr. Joseph V. Mahoney, Chairman Planning Board 126 Main Street Ei North Andover, Ma 01845 Re: Old Center Lane Dear Mr. Mahoney; The Division of Public Works has reviewed a modified plan of the Old Center Lane subdivision showing the homes being accessed by a private driveway in lieu of a subdivision roadway with cul-de-sac as proposed in the original subdivision plan. The Division believes that a subdivision roadway to serve two lots is an excessive construction of infrastructure consequently we prefer that the property be developed by constructing a private driveway. The driveway construction in lieu of a roadway will eliminate Town responsibility for maintenance of roadway and utilities and significantly reduce the environmental impact caused by the construction and future existence of the subdivision. The reduced scope of construction will eliminate extensive grading and filling for the roadway and detention pond, and eliminate installation and future maintenance of water and sewer mains, roadway, drainage and trees. The reduction in impervious pavement area will create a design which significantly mitigates the hydrologic impact to the down stream areas which are in the Lake Cochichewick watershed. The proposed driveway and site development meet what might be considered minimum design criteria for a common driveway, which would provide 16 to 20 foot wide pavement, a slope of less than 10%, a distance not greater than 500 feet from a fire hydrant, and an area to turn around at the end of each driveway. J. William Hmurciak, P.E.. Interim Director Division of Public Works I December 17, 1996 Old Center lane-subdivision Ms. Lescarbeau read the legal notice to open the public hearings. Ben Osgood of New England Engineering showed the Board some plans of Old Center Lane a two lot subdivision off of Johnson Street. The property consists of 3 acres. There are no wetlands on the site. Town sewer and water will be provided. Mr. Rowen questioned about having 16'of fill with a 2:1 slope. Mr. Rowen suggested increasing the road slope to reduce the fill. Ben Osgood stated that this plan meets all rules and regulations, and plans to landscape along the Rodriques property. Mr. Osgood will look at an 8% roadway to see how the fill is reduced. Mr. Simons stated that they should not build the road but, should construct a driveway instead. Mr. Nardella asked if there was an opportunity that they could connect the cul-de-sac on Heritage Estates to Old Center Lane. Ben Osgood stated that they could get to the backside of Heritage Estates however the slopes are too steep to have a road connect all the way through. Ms. Colwell stated that a reserve strip is shown on the plan which separates the Rodriques property from the street. This would require a waiver from our rules and regulations. The sidewalk requirement should be waived. There are no major issues with the drainage per our consultant John Chessia. Ms. Colwell stated that when she was out at the site with John Chessia looking at the drainage she noticed that there were a row of trees and wondered if there was away to save them. Ben Osgood stated that there were about seven (7)trees there and the ones that aren't so great are the ones they will be taking down. Peter Rodriques, 128 Johnson Street has some concerns about the plan and has hired an engineer to review the plans. Robert Gill of Gill &Associates, 418 Bridge Street, Lowell was present to represent the Rodriques. He stated that there was an 18' differential between the front and the rear of the site. He had concerns about the grade in the cul-de-sac and if they put 16'of fill for the cul-de-sac, it would be unsightly for neighbors, also that if they put 16'of fill they made need a retaining wall. There were concerns about the detention pond being 22' lower than the cul-de-sac and thinks it will be too deep, that it should have a V slope. Mr. Gill also stated that guard rails may to be required. Mr. Gill had some concerns about creating wetlands in the future at the outlet of the detention pond, also about hydrology of the detention pond. 4 ' Bill Crawford, 144 Johnson Street has concerns about whether the roadway would be accepted by the town and would prefer that it be a public road. Mr. Simons stated that the choice may be between a 24' road or a driveway, i Garwood Platt, 74 Johnson Street stated that the plan is a stretch to make it buildable and wants to know why the Board would approve it. Mary Armitage, 12 Sutton HIII Road has concerns about the drainage in the area and problems with water in her basement. Phil Nyman, Esq., Mr. Rodriques lawyer stated that they have not seen a plan without a reserve strip and they don't know what an alternative is and are against the whole subdivision.They also oppose the reserve strip and do not want anything waived until this issue is reviewed. Mrs. Crocker, 140 Johnson Street has a concern about having a street at the end of her driveway, and was concerned about the more traffic. Ben Osgood stated that there would be about 20 vehicles per day. Ben Osgood also stated that the plan meets all safety factors. Mr. Mahoney stated that the Board does not have control over house location or design under subdivisions. Ben Osgood stated that they will build a quality home of at least 3,000 SF. Ben Osgood stated that they could make a larger right of way to deal with the reserve strip issue. Mr, Osgood asked if Attn. Nyman could put his concerns in writing. Mr. Nardella asked Ben Osgood to look at the change in the grade of the roadway and a future connection to Heritage Estates. Mr. Rowen asked to look at a plan with the amount of fill up to 8%- 9% grade to see the effect on the grade. Martha Rodriques asked who was going to develop the property. Ben Osgood stated that it is unknown at this time. Mr. Simons stated that the Planning Board can only turndown a subdivision for three (3) reasons; if it doesn't comply with the Zoning Bylaw, if it doesn't comply to the Rules&Regulations of the Planning Board and Board of Health. Garwood Platt, 144 Johnson Street has concerns about the Town's Rules& Regulations. Mary Armitage, 12 Sutton Hill Road is concerned about the house style and design in the neighborhood. Continued to January 7, 1997 meeting. 1 li I January 7. 1997 Old Center Lane-subdivision Ms. Colwell outlined the letter from Robert Gill,the Roderiques engineer. Ben Osgood Jr.was present to represent Old Center Lane showing plans with an 8% grade. Mr. Osgood showed a plan with a driveway,with a 10% grade and 20'of pavement. Mr. Osgood would like a waiver from the subdivision rules&regulations in order to construct a reduced roadway. The private road would not be maintained by the town. The drainage calculations would have to be redone also. Mr. Osgood stated that a small detention pond would be required. The Fire Chief thinks this is a better plan and would like to have sprinkler systems in the house. Mr. Nardella questioned the access to Heritage Estates. Mr. Osgood stated that to have access to Heritage Estates a road would have to have a 14% grade if connected directly and a 12.5% grade to connect with a curved road. Mr. Simons stated that he is in favor of the reduced roadway plan. Martha Roderiques asked how the frontage could be obtained with a driveway. Mr. Mahoney stated that we could give them a waiver on the pavement width. Ms. Colwell stated that they have frontage on Old Center Lane. Mr. Simons stated that it is a legitimate proposal that meets our subdivision rules&regulations. Mr. Rowen stated that he thought that John Chessia should review the 8% grade plans. Julie Crocker of 145 Johnson Street, is concerned about the reduced pavement. Mr. Osgood stated that with the reduction in pavement the detention pond will be a lot smaller and have less fill and that the pond would not have water in it. Ms. Crocker is concerned about the safety of her children with the detention pond at the end of the cul-de- sac. And also has concerns about the shared driveway width. Ms. Colwell stated that there are no town regulations on the width of a shared driveway but, that a fire truck needs 12'of road. Mr. Osgood stated that he proposed 20'of pavement. Mr. Roderiques stated that he wanted to have his engineer go over the 8% grade plan. Ms. Crocker also had concerns about the designs of the houses. Ms. Colwell stated that the Planning Board has no right to discuss the house design under subdivision rules. Russell Karl of 95 Johnson Street, asked about the drainage changes with the 8% grade. Mr. Osgood stated that there is a reduction in the sheet flow onto the adjacent properties. The 8% grade plan is going to be submitted to Coler&Colantonio. The meeting is continued until January 21, 1997, January 21. 1997 i Old Center Lane-subdivision Ben Osgood Jr. has requested a continuance until February 4, 1997. ,I February 4, 1997 Continued until February 21, 1997 February 21, 1997 Ben Osgood Jr. was present representing Old Center Lane, a proposed Not subdivision. John Chessia, consultant to the Planning Board, had 25 comments to the subdivision. Mr. Osgood stated that he had some minor issues left with Mr. Chessia's comments. Mr. Osgood stated that that he should have revised plans within 2 days and give them to Mr. Chessia. Mr. Osgood stated that he would like a waiver of the construction requirements for the roadway. Mr. Osgood stated that the proposed subdivision layouts were sent to DPW, Police Chief and Fire Chief and they support this configuration. Mr. Osgood stated that a slender parcel between the roadway and the abutting Roderiques property would be given to the Roderiques to do what ever they want to it. Mr. Nardella asked if the Roderiques had enough land to build another house on the property. Ms. Lescarbeau stated that a common driveway can serve only 2 houses. Mr. Nardella asked if they were taking land that would be part of the road. Mr. Osgood stated that the road is a private way with the two houses owning it. Mr. Nardella stated that it would be a paper street. Mr. Mahoney asked if the Roderiques had any intentions of building. Mr. Roderiques stated that it is like an insurance policy, if they want to build they have a chance to. Mr. Mahoney stated that we require subdivision roads to connect to the abutting property. Mr. Nardella asked if the Roderiques get the sliver of land would they get a waiver of construction for 2 lots. Mr. Nardella stated that it looked like the Planning Board had created another developable piece of land. Mr. Mahoney said that if Mr. Osgood can meet the requirements he has a subdivision. Bill Crocker, 145 Johnson Street, asked why the Board would allow Mr. Osgood get away with this. Mr. Simons stated that the Board would rather see a driveway then a huge cul-de-sac for 2 houses. i I I Mr. Nardella asked what the number of acres is with the sliver of land and the Roderiques property. Mr. Roderiques stated that it was 1.98 acres. Mr. Nardella stated that it was enough to build a home. Mr. Osgood stated he was proposing only 2 houses. On a motion by Ms. Lescarbeau, seconded by Mr. Nardella the Board voted unanimously to grant a 60 day extension. Continued until March 4, 1997. March 4. 1997 Old Center Lane-subdivision Mr. Osgood requested a continuance until March 18, 1997 March 18, 1997 Old Center Lane-subdivision Ben Osgood Jr.was present representing Old Center Lane. Mr. Osgood submitted a list of waivers to the Planning Board. Mr. Osgood stated that the two major items that they have addressed to reduce the impact. They have cut down the pavement from 24'-20'. The detention pond has been moved uphill and now has a 3-5' slope on the inside. Mr. Osgood stated that he received Mr. Chessias comments at 4:55 p.m.today. Mr. Osgood would like to know which way the Board would like to go with the plans. Mr. Mahoney stated that he thought it would be much more desirable with a shorter road. Ms. Colwell read a letter from Bill Hmurciak,Asst. Director of DPW, stating that they are strongly in support of the waiver because it will eliminate the need for maintenance by the Town as it would become a private way. Ms. Colwell read a letter from the Watershed Committee which is also strongly in support of the waiver as it will reduce the amount of disturbance in the watershed. Mr. Nardella asked if there will be sidewalks. Mr. Osgood stated that they requested a waiver on the sidewalks. Mr. Nardella stated a donation should be made to the sidewalk fund equivalent to the cost of sidewalks on both sides of the street. Mr. Rowen stated that an easement should be given to the,Roderques for access to the road in the future. Mr. Osgood stated that he believes this plan is better than the original plan. Mr. Rowen stated that if you create a road in the back yard of people they should be able to be into the road. Mr. Mahoney asked Mr. Osgood what he is looking for. Mr. Osgood stated that he is looking to close the public hearing. Robert Gill, Gill Associates,was present representing the Roderiques. Mr. Gill stated that he would like to have the list of waivers read into the record. The waivers were read and are on file in the office. tl Ms. Colwell stated that she would like to have consensus to go with the driveway plan. I Mr. Gill submitted a list of comments to the Board. Mr. Gill stated that this is a subdivision created by the Rules and Regulations with no reserve strip. Mr. Gill stated that the developer is building a road in his clients back yard and his client has no ability to fie into it. Another concern is the new construction of the new detention area and how it is constructed in a town right of way. Ms. Colwell stated that it is not going to be town owned. Martha Roderiques, stated that they would not buy the piece of property to build on. Ms. Roderiques stated that she knows they are going to build but, would like access to their property from the road. The meeting was continued until April 1, 1997. April 8. 1997 Old Center Lane-subdivision Ben Osgood Jr.was present representing Old Center Lane. Mr. Osgood stated that he has addressed all of John Chesslas comments. Ms. Colwell stated that Mr. Chessia could not get back comments back because he needs 2 weeks to look over the new plans. Mr. Rowen stated that the first step is to verify this is a buildable lot. Mr. Osgood stated that the basin at the bottom of the detention pond holds water and then let s it seep out. These will have water in them so wetland vegetation growth in them. Mr. Osgood stated that Mr. Chessia thought that wetland vegetation might be a concern with the abutters. Ms. Colwell asked who would maintain the detention pond. Mr. Nardella asked if it was on someone's property. Mr. Osgood stated that it was on lot 38A. Mr. Nardella asked what do we need to do to make sure that it would be maintained. Ms. Colwell stated + that it would have to be put in the decision and the deed restrictions. Mr. Osgood stated that if the pond did fill up it has another access to get out up higher than the other one so it would never stay filled up. Mr. Rowen stated that Mr. Osgood needs to put together a plan with 2 lots with access to the detention pond with the house moved over to the South for the record on file. Mr. Osgood stated that he can provide a sketch not a mylar. Mr. Osgood stated that he is only asking for a waiver for the sidewalks. Ms. Colwell stated that she did some research on the access and the only way this could happen is adverse possession, grant easement or public acceptation of the road. The only way you could get a lot and use this road is if the property owners grant an easement. Mr, Nardella stated that if the Roderiques wanted to split off the parcel of their land and build on it they would have a lot of problems. Ms. Lescarbeau stated that the road could be accepted if someone fought long and hard for it. Mr. Nardella asked if our bylaw allowed a reserve strip. Ms. Colwell stated that it does not recommend them to. Mr. Rowen stated that if it is not going to be a Town road then we need to make sure it will never be a Town road. Peter Roderiques spoke about some comments he wrote in his letter. Mr. Roderiques is concerned with the detention pond damaging his property. He also is concerned about eliminating the full turnaround because of emergency issues. Ms. Colwell stated that it was a driveway. Mr. Rowen stated that there will be sprinkler systems in the houses. Mr. Roderiques stated that the drainage calculations have been modeled incorrectly. Ms. Colwell stated Mr. Chessia has not gotten to address the issues because he needs two weeks to look over the plans. Mr. Nardella stated that we either build to Towns standards with the cul-de-sac or go with this plan. Mr. Rowen stated that the Board will make sure that all the abutters will be protected. Mr. Rowen stated that he would rather live near something that was maintained by someone. Ms. Colwell stated that the DPW and Fire Department does not want a cul-de-sac. Mr. Rowen stated that he would like to move forward with this design. Mr. Rowen stated that pending Mr. Chessias review come back next week. Patricia Carl of 95 Johnson Street, stated that she has concerns with safety on how a fire truck can get down to the houses and does not believe that if there is land it has to be built upon. Mr. Rowen stated that there will be a 16`wide driveway with a stone monument with both addresses on it and they will have a Johnson Street address. There will also be full sprinkler systems in each house. Mr. Nardella stated that we can not say no to this if it meets all the requirements. The Board directed Ms. Colwell to draft a decision. Continued until April 15, 1997. I i i