1936-04-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

427 question of his paying for two lots, while he could not have stopped the improvement, he would not have signed ' the petition as he did not want to assume the betterment of $760.00 this year. The Chairman stated that he could have stated this at the time so that the Board might know the situation. They assumed that all the property owners had been given an opportunity to express an opinion. The Chairman asked Mr. Cosgrove why Tower Road was laid out without provision being made to take care of the drainage from the street. Mr. Cosgrove stated that since Smith Avenue was accepted it had been the policy of the Bepartment to install drainage so that the abutters would have to assume the whole cost. He stated that there was no drainage in Mass. Ave. totake care of Tower Road drainage. The Chairman thought that it was not good engineering practice to take drainage to a main road and let it overflow there. Mr. Cosgrove stated that there were two things suggested to him. One was to make the water tm vel northwesterlyto the State Road which would be diverting water and the first prop- erty owner which it would strike would be Ryder. The other would be to install drainage to Curve Street, Mr. Costrove stated that if a 24 inch pipe were laid in Mass. Avenue it should, of course, be laid to the proper ' grade. If laid from Tower Road to the catch basin opposite Maple Street, you would have the same condition at Tower Road as if no drain were built in Mass. Avenue. The reason for this is that the grade of the catch basin Tower Rd. is 22 inches higher than the flow line of the new drain. Drainage. A 12 inch pipe would have a grade of seven thousandths and would take only about one-third of the water from Tower Road. If a 12 inch pipe were laid, the water flow- ing down Tower Road would fill two 12 inch pipes and a six inch pipe in Mass. Avenue to full capacity. He talked over the matter with Mr. Raymond and his only change in recommendation was instead of outle tting the water at Mass. Avenue, he would outlet it on Tower R6ad. ,It would then flow over the sidewalk. The Chairman asked what the objection would be to connecting with the catch basin at Marrett Road. Mr. Cosgrove replied that it would divert the water. The Chairman felt that if all this had b een explained to the Board previously it probably would not have con- sidered building the road until such time as proper drainage had been Installed. He felt that Cosgrovets recommendations as to drainage should have been made to the Board. ' Mr. Cosgrove replied that Metcalf and Eddy's drainage report had been turned over to the Board. The Chairman said that he still felt that it was up tothe ' Town Engineer and the Supt. of Public Works to make the recommendations. Mr. Giroux stated that if the Board was going to avoid criticism, they should go ahead with these things in the right way.