Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-01-13-BOS-min Hearing 555 STREET HEARING ON CONSTRUCTION I & SUBDIVISION STREETS I 1/13/76 On Tuesday evening, January 13, 1976 a formal hearing was held by the Board of Selectmen in Cary Memorial Hall, Cary Memorial Buildin , at 7 30 p m., to discuss unaccepted and subdivision streets up for acce tance by the Town; a corner round at Clarke and Forest streets and the reconstruc- tion of Hancock Street which is a Chapter 90 street Present at the hear- ing were, Mr Fred C Bailey, Chairman of the Board of Selectmer., Mr Alfred Busa, Member of the Board, Mr John J McSweeney, Director of Public Works/ Engineering, Mr James E Chase, Town Engineer and Mr Peter M. Chalpin, Senior Engineer Also present were Mr Malcolm Graf and Mr Herbert Eisenberg of the Street & Sidewalk Design Advisory Committee The meeting was opened at 7 40 p.m by Mr Bailey, Chairmar of the Board, who explained that the purpose of the meeting was to gather information for the Selectmen to use in laying out streets to be presented for acceptance at Town Meeting He also went on to explain that there were two types of streets; subdivision streets which have no betterments, i e , no cost to the town or the abutters, and construction streets which will be assessed. The hearing was declared open upon the proposed layout of Crescent Road Mr Bailey read the description stating that it would be 1100 ftlong, lay- out width to be 40 ft , roadway width 24 ft , sidewalks (if any) to be on the III even numbered side, no takings and no trees to be removed Mr Bailey went on to say that at the informational hearinc in November, the abutters made it clear that they definitely did not want sidewalks He then asked if there were any questions There were none He then proceeded to ask Mr Chase the Town Engineer to give a brief description as to how betterments were assessed Mr Chase read the betterment procedure from a betterment calculation sheet written specifically for Town Counsel, stating that this years price is $14 69 per linear foot of frontage Mr Walter Pedroli - #4 Great Rock Road asked if the cost is still in keeping with the estimated betterment which was shown on the petition Mr Chase answered, "Yes, it is " Mr Pedroli said he understands there is to be no takings, and no trees removed and would like to know what would be the condition of the edging? Mr Chase said that we are going to go with granite curing.' Mr Flannery - #9 Briggs Road asked if there was any specific time in which these betterments had to be paid? Mr Chase explained that when billed the resident would reeive a form with his bill on which he could determine the length of time (5-10-15 or 20 yrs , @ 5% int ) over which he wished to carry this betterment, and then would return the signed form to the Assessors office, with his billIII 55 ' Street Hearings January 13, 1976 II/ Mr Pedroli asked when construction would start? Mr Chase answered, "probably in 1977 " Mr. Bailey asked if there were any further questions? There were none and a hand vote was taken on Crescent Road As proposed without sidewalks 2 Mr Desmond - #1 Great Rock Road Mr Ballbach - #11 Crescent Road Against 0 There were no further questions and the hearing was declared closed on the proposed layout of Crescent Road The hearing was declared open upon the proposed layout of Briggs Road. Mr Bailey read the description - Length 380 ft. , layout width 40 ft , roadway width 24 ft , sidewalk on the even numbered side, no takings and no trees removed. Mr Bailey asked if there were any questions? Mr Fiedler - #1 Briggs Road questioned the sidewalks Mr Bailey said that he already explained that the board has no desire to put sidewalks in if they do not want them He also said that the board does not want to spend any money that they do not have to, and that this is 111 the only way they can keep the tax figure at a minimum. There were no further questions and a hand vote was taken on Briggs Road As proposed 0 As proposed with sidewalks 3 Mr Collins - #12 Briggs Road Mr Fiedler - #1 Briggs Road Ms White - #10 Briggs Road No further questions and the hearing was declared closed on the proposed layout of Briggs Road. The hearing was declared open upon the proposed layout of Great Rock Road Description was read by Mr Bailey - 350 ft in length, layout width 40 ft. , roadway width 24 ft. , sidewalk on the even numbered side, no takings and no trees removed Mr Bailey asked if there were any questions? Mr Fisher - #8 Great Rock Road said that he lives at the end of the cul-de-sac and wanted to know if it would be possible to connect to Crescent Road? Mr McSweeney said that sewerage for Great Rock Road is presently being designed Mrs Morris - #9 Great Rock Road questioned the stakes that were put in, she was wondering what they were for Mr McSweeney said that they were strictly for sewer construction, and assured her that there was nothing to worry about No other questions and a hand vote was taken on the construction of Great Rock Road 1 558 Street Hearings January 13, 1976 As proposed 0 As proposed without sidewalks 4 Mr Gittleman - #5 Great Rock Road Mr Desmond - #1 Great Rock Road Mr Fisher - #8 Great Rock Road Mr Pedroli - #4 Great Rock Road Against 0 There were no further questions and the hearing was declar .d closed on the proposed layout of Great Rock Road The hearing was declared open on the rounding at Clarke and Forest Streets Mr Peter Kelley - #24 Forest Street who was representing his grand- mother, (Mrs Edna Schuh of #24 Clarke Street) , said that he had a couple of questions which his grandmother would like answered 1 Will she be bettered on Forest Street? Mr Chase answered, "On Forest Street - YES " He said that it would be approximately $180 00 (estimated) , at a cost of $1 50 per foot Mr Chase also informed Mr Kelley that there would be no betterment on Clarke Street. 2 Will she receive any compensation for damages? Mr Chase answered that an appraisal was being made 3 Will she receive a letter or any information regarding damages? Mr Chase said "Yes, she would " 4 Will her trees and/or shrubs be relocated? Mr Chase answered, "Yes, they would " One resident wanted to know if there were any plans for sidewalks on the opposite side of Forest Street Mr McSweeeney explained that redevelopment plans for the entire Cen- tral Block have been in the budget for the past three years, an that we will resubmit them again next year He said that we have done vell to have accomplished as much as we have A hand vote was taken on the rounding at Clarke and Forest Streets No one appeared in favor or in opposition and the hearing was declared closed on the rounding at Clarke and Forest Streets Next came the subdivision streets, namely Hartwell Place, Brookwood Road and Fairfield Drive Mr Bailey asked if anyone needed any information and went on to ex- plain that the subdivision streets were set out by the developer and that when up for acceptance by the town no betterments are assessed. The hearing was declared open upon the proposed layout of Hartwell Place, (660 ft from Hartwell Avenue to the end ) Mr Bailey asked if there were any questions on Hartwell Place No one appeared in favor or in opposition and the hearing Was declared closed on the proposed layout of Hartwell Place The hearing was declared open upon the proposed layout of Brookwood Road, (726 ft from Grant Street to the end ) 1 559 Street Hearings January 13, 1976 Mr Bailey asked if there were any questions on Brookwood Road. No one appeared in favor or in opposition and the hearing was declared closed on the proposed layout of Brookwood Road. The hearing was declared open upon the proposed layout of Fairfield Drive, (600 ft from Brookwood Road to the end ) Mr Bailey asked if there were any questions on Fairfield Drive No one appeared in favor or in opposition and the hearing was declared closed on the proposed layout of Fairfield Drive Mr. Pedroli - #4 Great Rock Road asked if any further discussion was to be held on the streets Mr Bailey answered "no", the hearing has been concluded on the streets Mr Pedroli asked, "what is the next step?" Mr Bailey said that he (Mr Pedroli) could attend the town meeting and any further questions that he has may be brought up then There were no further questions and the hearing was declared closed on the proposed layout of Fairfield Drive Mr Bailey then opened the hearing on the reconstruction of Hancock Street which is a Chapter 90 street Mr Bailey explained that by Chapter 90 we mean that we (the Town) pay the full amount for the work but we are reimbursed 75% of this figure by 111 the State He went on to say that once the plans are submitted to the state they can either accept them or not, it is up to them. Mr Bailey also said that the state has a final hearing before they do anything, meeting with their staff and our engineering staff before making a decision. Tonight, he said we are just looking for guidance from the residents of Hancock Street and have no desire to push anything on anybody that they do not want It was stated that the principal reason for considering reconstruction was pro- file trouble Mr Bailey informed the residents that the Board of Selectmen and the Town want Hancock Street to come out looking the same as it does now One resident wanted to know why, if we have an overwhelming resource for a 26' roadway, we would submit a plan for a 28' roadway also Mr McSweeney said for engineering purposes He also said that we in- tend to send both plans to the State indicating which one we prefer Mr Rooney - #20 Hancock Street wanted to know why we were putting in curbing? He said it would not save anything, would not cut down on speeding, and residents would have nowhere to park, whereas they now can park half on the street and half on the sidewalk Mr Chase agreed that this is so but said that this is illegal and we only tolerate it because we have had no complaints Mrs Bevan - #56 Hancock Street informed us that the curbing had helped to keep some cars out of her front yard and said that she would like to see more of it She also stated that at one time there was a "no heavy trucking" sign on Hancock Street and wanted to know why it had been removed Mr Chalpin explained that at one time there was a sign to this effect but that there was no legal regulation governing this, making it unenforce- 111 able, therefore, the sign was useless and the town had it removed Mr Bevans stated that she would rather see curbing instead of berm. 560 Street Hearings January 13, 1976 Mr Kenneth Wright - #53 Hancock Street stated that curbing would make riding a bicycle on the sidewalk more difficult Mr McSweeney said it was illegal to ride a bicycle on thelsidwalk anyway, and said that the new curbs would be built with ramps for handi- capped people and he is sure a bicycle could get up the ramp as easily as a wheelchair Mr Bailey asked if there were any further questions. No questions and the hearing was adjourned at 9 00 p.m 1 I