Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-02-06-BOS-min 42 STREET HEARING & SUBDIVISION & CONSTRUCTION STREETS February 6, 1974 The Board of Selectmen held a hearing in Estabrook Hall , Cary Memorial Building on Wednesday, February 6, 1974 at 7 30 p.m. Those present were Acting Chairman, Fred C. Bailey; Mrs. Natalie Riff in; Messrs. Sanborn Brown, and Alfred Busa, members of the Board of Select- men; also, Mr. John J. McSweeney, Director of Public Works/Engineering; Mr. James Chase, Town Engineer; Mr William J. Martin, Assistant Town Engineer, and Mr. Peter M Chalpin, Traffic Engineer. Mr. Bailey, Acting Chairman of the Board opened the meeting at 7 40 p.m. and introduced those present. He then went on to explain that the purpose of the hearing was to develop information for the Selectmen to use in laying out streets to be presented for acceptance at the Town Meeting. Mr. Bailey informed the residents that there were two types of streets. I. Subdivision Streets - No Betterments (No cost to Town or the abutters) these are Nickerson Road, Carmel Circle, and Prospect Hill Road III 2. Construction Streets - Betterments will be assessed The construction streets are Tewksbury Street, Wachusett Circle, and Wachusett Drive. He stated that hopefully con- struction would start in late Summer and be finished by late Fall. He also stated that no one should receive notice of assessment of bill until Fall of "75" Mr. Bailey then stated that we would take one street at a time and that everyone would get a chance to state their opinions. Mr. Busa pointed out that after betterments were assessed payments could be carried over a period of years (5-20) at 5% interest, and could be liquidated at anytime. Mr. Patton of 30 Wachusett Drive asked, "What is meant by layout?" Mr. Bailey answered that it is the full amount of land being con- structed. ppon. Mr McSweeney stated that it starts at your front property line. The hearing was declared open upon the proposed layout of Nickerson Road a subdivision street, (from Massachusetts Avenue to Massachusetts Avenue). No one appeared in favor or in opposition and the hearing was de- clared closed on Nickerson Road. 42 b Street Hearing d Subdivision & Construction Streets February 6, 1974 The hearing was declared open upon the proposed layout of Carmel Circle, (from Nickerson Road Southerly to the end). Mr. Bailey asked if there were any questions? Mr. Greeley of the Street Advisory Committee asked if any attempt was being made to get a footway from Nickerson Road to Nickerson Road? Mr. Bailey answered "No formal attempt," and asked if there were any further questions? No one appeared in favor or in opposition and the hearing was• de- clared closed on Carmel Circle. The hearing was declared open upon the proposed layout of Prospect Hill Road from the accepted portion of Prospect Hill Road Northwesterly to Outlook Drive. Mr. Bailey read the description of Prospect Hi II Road and stated that there was no intent to reconstruct the street or sidewalk at this time. Mrs. Berggren of 47 Wachusett Drive asked if there was no inten- tion at this time of building sidewalk would it not be accepted now. Steve Murdrick of 72 Prospect Hill Road questioned the layout of Prospect Hill Road and asked if the dark lines on the map marked the edge of town property. Mr. McSweeney explained that the dotted lines were private way, and the dark lines were the layout width of the property line. Mr. Chase stated that there would be no land takings on Prospect Hili Road. Mrs. Anne Berg - 24 Wachusett Drive Mr. Steve Murdrick - 72 Prospect Hill Road Mr. Mahoney of 31A Wachusett Drive were all in favor of acceptance. Mr. Bailey read all related correspondence, he also stated that one section of Wachusett Drive is going to be changed to PROSPECT HILL ROAD, and will be accepted as a Town way. Mrs. Mahoney, 31A Wachusett Drive stated that there were no side- walks on either side and asked why, when it was resurfaced no sidewalks were put in? She asked if there were accepted streets without sidewalks. Mr. McSweeney answered, "a number of them." Mr. Greeley stated that Prospect Hili Road was accepted a great many years ago. He says its more sensible to build sidewalks when doing major repairs. Mr. Bailey explained that it will be less expensive to put in when putting in street than to go back and put in at a later date. Mr. Mahoney, 31A Wachusett Drive said that this was a point well taken. He also said that sidewalks were not needed on Wachusett Drive, but were needed on Marrett Road. No further comments, and hearing was declared closed on Prospect Hill Road. 429 5treet Hearing & Subdivision & Construction Streets February 6, 1974 Mr. Bailey declared the hearing open upon proposed layouts of Wachu- sett Drive and Wachusett Circle He informed residents that the first layout was Wachusett Drive from Prospect Hill Road easterly and included numbers (Lots) 37 & 38. 2nd. Layout - Wachusett Circle from Prospect Hill Road northeasterly around to Wachusett Drive. Mr. Bailey read a fetter for postponement of Wachusett Drive and Circle sent by abutters. He also read several letters sent in prior to 12-17-73 meeting, one being a telegram in opposition received from Carl Blake who is out of the country. Mr. Pfeil of 43 Wachusett Drive presented a notice of opposition to Mr. Bailey who also read a letter from Mr. Zehner (who was unable to attend) stating he (Mr. Zehner) was in favor of portions "A" and "B" which were discussed at the informational hearing of 12-17-73. He was opposed to Plan "C" Mrs. Mahoney stated that this was not the same plan as previously seen. Mrs. Berggren questioned the width of the right of way. Mr. Chase informed her that there would be a 24' roadway; a 40' lay- out, and a 5' sidewalk. Mrs. Berggren then questioned the grading. Mr. Chase stated that we were concerned with grading also, but were more concerned with drainage than anything. He stated that there would be no big change. Mrs. Berggren asked why, if Spring Street was 18 feet wide Wachusett Drive had to be 24 feet? Mr. Greeley said Spring Street was not 18 feet wide. Mr. McSweeney stated that Spring Street was 22 to 25 feet wide. He said the rules and regulations adopted call for a 50 foot layout with a 24 foot pavement. Mr. Bailey said that the streets were constructed on a town wide basis, with the ability to have traffic move smoothly when cars are parked on the side of the road. Mr. McSweeney asked Mr. Berggren of 47 Wachusett Drive if he had attended the Spring Street hearings? Mr. Berggren answered, "No, he had not." Mrs. Berggren said that Spring Street is narrower than 24 feet. Mr. McSweeney answered, "Yes," a point in Spring Street is narrower. Mr. Bailey stated that years ago other standards prevailed Mrs. Berggren asked how long this standard has been adopted? Mr. McSweeney answered, "Since 1965." Mrs. Berggren then asked if the cost is based on the real cost of the road? Mr. McSweeney answered, No! He stated that the cost is estimated over the past five years. 1 430 Street Hearing & Subdivision & Construction Streets February 6, 1974 Mrs. Berggren wants the acceptance postponed for economic reasons. She also stated that she would not mind the acceptance if the street was left at 18 feet, and not made 24 feet. Mrs. Anne Berg, 24 Wachusett Drive stated that it would change the whole environment of the neighborhood and that it would increase speed in traffic. Mr. Chalpin, the Traffic Engineer said that most users would be residents of that area, and he is sure they will not speed. Mr. Mahoney of 3IA Wachusett Drive asked what would happen to their trees from Wachusett Circle to Waltham Street. Mr. McSweeney answered that only 8 trees in Wachusett Circle and Wachusett Drive would be involved. Mrs. Anne Bowman of I Wachusett Drive stated that her street does not go anywhere near Wachusett Circle, and asked if in the future "Section-C" would be brought up again? Mr McSweeney answered that it was not very likely He said that if it becomes a safety hazard the Board may have to reconsider. Mr. Pfeil of 43 Wachusett Circle was in favor of acceptance, mostly because of the drainage problem. Residents of #2 Wachusett Circle, Mr. & Mrs. Vote were in favor bit stated they could see no reason for a 24 foot roadway. Mrs. Berggren, 47 Wachusett Drive stated that the one major point was drainage in Wachusett Circle, and that it would save everybody's money if they could just put in the drain without accepting the street. Mr. Bailey asked if anyone else was in favor or opposed? The following residents answered In Favor 3IA Wachusett Drive William J. & Dorothy T. Mahoney 47 Wachusett Drive Ralph R. & Gretchen Berggren (If roadway left at 18 ft, ) 39 Prospect Hill Road Frederick & Charlotte Gero 42 Wachusett Drive Luther M. , Jr. & Edith G. Hoyle 61 Prospect Hill Road Peter M. & Andrea M. Pollack 37 Wachusett Drive Richard F. & Rita E. Kiley 38 Wachusett Drive William T. & Margaret Watson 31 Wachusett Drive James D. & Elinor P. Lynch 69 Prospect Hill Road John M. & Florence M. Murray 35A Wachusett Drive Sherry Ossman Opposed 72 Prospect Hill Road Stephen & Joan Murdrick 30 Wachusett Drive William L. & Bianca S. Patton 19 Wachusett Drive Bruce S. & Eva Gordon 43.1 Street Hearing & Subdivision & Construction Streets February 6, 1974 Opposed (Can't. ) 28 Wachusett Drive Leonare W. & Mabel G. Bowles .26 Wachusett Drive Jean Mayo 23 Wachusett Drive George E. & Rose S. Ellard 24 Wachusett Drive Robert S. & Anne G. Berg 33• Wachusett Drive Jerry Ann Johnson Resident of 35 Wachusett Drive questioned where the drain was going to go. Mr. McSweeney answered that he did not know where we were going to put the drain. Mr. Chase stated that two catch basins will be put at the low point. A resident asked if they (the residents) could get together and have the drain put in. done the Mr. Baileyanswered that it is possible and has been inh past. Mr. McSweeney said in that case you are asking for "sub-division standards," and that you cannot just put in drainage. He said it was not functional , and would not work. Mr. Greeley asked if this could be done for less than their bill? Mr. McSweeney answered "no," and went on to explain that at best it would run $30.00 per foot if done privately, as to $60.00 per foot by the Town, payable 1/3 by the Town; 1/3 by the abutters; and 1/3 by both sides. The resident of #2 Wachusett Circle asked if it should be accepted and something was done wrong would they have recourse to the Town? Mr. McSweeney answered, "You sure dol" He then asked if there were anymore questions? Mrs. Berggren asked if they would hear what decision the Selectmen came to? Mr. Bailey said that as soon as we take a vote, I 'm sure the Press will publish the results. Mrs. Riff in a member of the Board of Selectmen, made several refer- ences to Spring Street. She also suggested that one of the residents of Wachusett Drive and Circle canvas the neighborhood about the flexibility of the width of the street, that is an 18 foot, as to a 24 foot, and see how many would be in favor if left at 18 feet. No more questions and the meeting was declared closed on Wachusett Drive & Circle. Mr. Bailey went on to inform everybody that their opinions were appreciated and that they would all be taken into consideration. The hearing was declared open upon the proposed layout of Tewksbury Street from Bedford Street southwesterly to Roger Greeley Village. A number of letters and petitions were read by Mr. Bailey. 432 Street Hearing & Subdivision & Construction Streets February 6, 1974 Mr. Dunbar of 98 Bedford Street is opposed to. the construction of Tewksbury Street and stated several reasons for this opposition, which include I. The impossibility of being able to exit onto Bedford Street. 2. Asphalt would not be an improvement, Mr. Dunbar says that crushed stone would make a good ecological covering. 3 Read letter of opposition. The Bettencourts of #2 Tewksbury Street are in favor of the, accept- ance of Tewksbury Street, but feel that the sidewalk should be_ kept on the even numbered side. Also in favor of acceptance is Mrs Noyes of #5 Tewksbury Street. Those in favor of Tewksbury Street acceptance were Albert H. & Elinor Bettencourt - 2 Tewksbury Street Christine Noyes - 5 Tewksbury Street Also in favor of Tewksbury Street acceptance were a number of resi- dents of William Roger Greeley Village, (copy of signed petition enclosed) which was presented at the hearing by Mrs. Florence E. Haigh, President oftheGreeley Villagers Club. Those Opposed Mary Rudd - 7 Tewksbury Street Robert & Elizabeth Dunbar - 98 Bedford Street Mrs. Carol S. Miller - 92 Bedford Street Mrs. Bettencourt asked who submitted original petition? Mr. Chase answered the Department of Public Works. Mrs. Anne Scigliano of the Lexington Minuteman asked if it would be possible to make an entrance at the other end? Mr. Chalpin, the Traffic Engineer was asked if accepted could it be made "ONE-WAY" to Greeley Village. Mr. McSweeney answered "Off-Hand, Nol" Mr. Bailey asked if there were anymore questions? No more questions and hearing declared closed at 9 10 p.m. Respectfully submitted Mary B Winsor z