Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-02-22-BOS-min Hearing r r SOD Street Hearing on Construction and Chapter 90 Streets February 22, 1978 On Wednesday, February 22, 1978 a formal hearing was held by the Board of Selectmen in Cary Memorial Hall, Cary Memorial Building for the purpose of establishing streets to be presented at the Annual Town Meeting in March of 1978 Those present were Mrs Margery Battin, Chairman of the Board, Mrs Mary Miley, member of the Board, Mr John J McSweeney, Director of Public Works/Engineering and Mr Peter M. Chalpin, Senior Engineer The meeting was called to order by Mrs Battin, who read the minutes of the February 8, 1978 meeting which was postponed due to snow Mrs Battin went on to say that we were there to hear the pros and cons of all concerned and to see which streets the Board will vote to layout at their Board Meeting on Monday, February 27, 1978 She also stated that these hearings were required by law and that each person would be given an opportunity to speak in favor or opposition, and to ask questions Mrs Battin then introduced Mr McSweeney and Mr Chalpin and asked Peter Chalpin if he would give a short outline on betterments Mr Chalpin held up a formal petition and referred to assessments and outlined procedure by which they were determined The hearing opened on Banks Avenue The description, 800'+ from Chase Avenue to Carville was read by Mrs Battin who also stated that all the plans were on the wall and any questions regarding those plans would be answered after the hearing Mrs Roberta Cochran - 10 Banks Avenue asked if they were or were not going to include sidewalks Peter answered that the plans still call for sidewalks, but it is up to the Board Mr Cochran also of 10 Banks Avenue said that for the past couple of years he has taken the petitions around, and all the residents are against having a sidewalk Mrs Battin asked if there would be any difference in price Peter answered that at the time of construction it would not be that great, but in 3 to 5 years there would be a significant difference Mr Robert King - 9 Banks Avenue asked what side of the street the sidewalk would be on Peter Chalpin answered on the odd numbered side Mr King asked how wide the street would be Mr Chalpin aswered - 24 ft Mr McSweeney explained that there would be two separate better- ments One for streets, and one for sidewalks Trudy Smith - 108 Pleasant Street asked if the long drainage problem would be solved Mr McSweeney answered, "yes it will be " 1.5(3 Street Hearing February 22, 1978 Ms Smith also wanted to know if the street would be coordinated with the driveways Peter answered that when the streets are designed a "drive-way apron" is included so that water will not run into the driveways Mr Robert King asked if the street is approved, would it be constructed this year Mr McSweeney answered, hopefully, yes Mrs Battin asked if there were any other questions Trudy Smith - 108 Pleasant St asked if Banks Avenue was a priority street Mr McSweeney answered that all three were priority streets, and said that is why they are in this budget There were no further questions and the hearing was declared closed on Banks Avenue Cushing Street Description, 425'+ from Sullivan Street to the end Read by Mrs Battin Mrs Ann Norcott Taylor - 16 Cushing Street asked what the colors on the map meant Peter Chalpin stated that green represented grass, yellow-pavement, and the red indicated the trees which were coming down Mrs Taylor asked why the sidewalk stopped before the turn-a-round Peter answered that this seemed like a reasonable point for cut- off as there were no houses in the turn-a-round Mr Thomas Sullivan - 2 Cushing Street stated that the people definitely do not want sidewalks There were no further questions and the hearing was declared closed on Cushing Street Tucker Avenue Mrs Battin read the description, 175'+ from Chase Avenue to Tarbell Avenue Mr Stephen Weiss - 50 Tucker Avenue asked how it was decided if street is to be accepted Mr McSweeney answered that it was based mostly on the "need", which streets need it more; and also on the signatures, how many sign the petition Mr Weiss went on to say that his is the only portion of his area that is not accepted, and that it is in such poor condition that trucks ride over his property; he has trouble getting into his drive- way because of pot holes, and has had general hardship for years, not just recently (Mr Weiss presented us with pictures of the condi- tion of the street in front of his property ) He also asked if a s/w would be installed Peter answered, "yes" Mr McSweeney explained that until past at meeting, and until shown that there is a definite need for it, the sidewalk is usually deleted unless engineering comes out very strongly for them Mr Julian Bussgang - 43 Peacock Farm Road stated that he was in favor of the acceptance of Tucker Avenue 157 Street Hearing February 22, 1978 Mrs Ilda Field - 20 Chase Avenue also spoke in favor of the acceptance of Tucker Avenue Mr Paul J Nicholson a member of the Street & Sidewalk Design Advisory Committee stated that when they contemplate putting in sidewalks they take into consideration the needs of children, the elderly and the blind He went on to say that they get many complaints from people regarding these sidewalks Mr McSweeney and Mrs Battin told the residents to write letters in opposition of the sidewalks to the Board There were no further questions and the hearing was declared closed on Tucker Avenue Mrs Battin explained that the last street up for consideration was Adams Street and that this was not a formal hearing She said that this was an excepted street but was up for reconstruction under Chapter 90 (State funds) and that the Board would like to keep the people up to date on what is going on, also explaining that if it is accepted for reconstruction it would not be done for 4 years Mrs Battin stated that Mr Robert Kent, a member of the Board of Selectmen could not be present this evening as he had a previous commitment in North Lexington Mr McSweeney went on to explain that Adams Street was the street voted by the Board of Selectmen for reconstruction under Chapter 90, funded under 376 A second street which must be desig- nated (required by law) was East Street, from Lowell Street to the Burlington Town Line Mr McSweeney read the description, Adams Street - 3,400' long, layout width 50' , roadway 28' wide, the sidewalk as it exists, no takings and approximately 38 trees to be removed He said that there were 3 critical spots - 1 ) Adams Street at East Street, 2 ) At the Guard Rail and 3 ) North St at Adams St on North Street going towards Burlington. Mr McSweeney also said that there would be no change in the alignment from North Street to Emerson. Mr Edward Owens - 82 Adams Street asked if this was the same proposal up for consideration a few years ago and defeated, and wanted to know why it was being considered now Mr McSweeney answered because of the many requests from the people in town, and the need for realignment One resident asked if the Town knew that Adams Street at the Burlington line was private property Mr McSweeney said that we would check into it Mr George Bacigalupo - 89 Adams Street (Against Reconstruction) says it is heavily travelled now and will turn into a raceway Mr Edward Jervis - 111 Adams asked, 1 ) Where is the existing street 28 ft wide, and secondly, said that he had requested accident reports from Captain Lima, and that most of the accidents occurred at the intersection of East & Adams Sts , and that he cannot see 158 Street Hearing February 22, 1978 changing the character of the entire street when onlya few spots are g g P hazardous Mr McSweeney stated that he said it was hazardous at East Street, but he did not say the entire street was 28' wide Mr Joseph Doherty - 74 Adams Street asked if it were voted down at Town Meeting, would the State take precedence Mr McSweeney answered "no " Mrs Jervis - 111 Adams Street asked what the actual cost of con- struction would be Mr McSweeney said $180,000 to $220,000 and that we are request- ing $60,000 per year over a 3 year period He also explained that what was left over from the Hancock Street (Chapter 90), approximately $100,000 could be applied to the Adams Street project after the com- pletion of the Hancock Street project (1 more year) He also said that this money had to be transferred by Town Meeting Mr William Warner - 71 Adams Street asked if the existing side- walk will stay as is Mr McSweeney answered, "yes" Mr Alvar Melvin - 81 Adams Street questioned the tree takings, and wanted to know what would be used as a retainer Mr McSweeney said that where they have to they would put up a small stone wall Mr Bayliss - 92 Adams Street questioned the alignment and the speed of traffic Mr McSweeney stated that there would not be ideal conditions or control, and said that the design speed would still be 30 mph He also said that to improve the alignment both vertically and horizon- tally you would have to get at least 28 ft of pavement for good de- sign if spending that kind of money Mr McSweeney said that there would be a small taking at the corner of Burlington and Adams Street Mr Jervis - 111 Adams Street asked why change it if the resi- dents like it the way it is Mr McSweeney said because it is an arterial and collector street Mr Jervis asked what would happen to the drainage problem Where will it drain to? Mr McSweeney said that it will drain into the Vine Brook Mr Joseph Doherty - 74 Adams Street asked if the drainage prob- lems would be alleviated Mr McSweeney answered, "yes" A resident asked if the signatures on the petitions mean anything Mr McSweeney said they always have in the past Another resident said to be sure to look into the statement that Adams Street at the Burlington Line was private property Mr McSweeney assured him that we would There were no further questions and the meeting was adjourned at 9 30 p m. I 1 Submitted by Mary B Winsor