September 14, 2017
Town of Douglas Planning Board
29 Depot Street
Douglas, MA 01516
Re:Response to
DEF-170222: Gilboa Court Extension Definitive Subdivision Plan
Town Engineer Review Comments #1
ASE Project #2016-211
Dear Board Members:
On behalf of Carol A. Gogolinski & William S. Cogley, we have received and subsequently prepared responses for the comments submitted to your office by William J. Cundiff, Town of Douglas, Community Development Department, dated March 27, 2017.
The following portion of the letter follows the same order and numbering as William Cundiff’s letter, for clarity. Below please find Mr. Cundiff’s comments from the March 27thletter (included in standard text font), Andrews Survey & Engineering Inc.’s responses includedin italicized text font preceded with “ASE”.
General Comments:
1)The Definitive Plan Submittal for this Application was filed with the Town on 2/22/17. No Preliminary Plan Was previously filed. Accordingly, the Planning Board has 135 days (7/7/17) to issue a decision pursuant to MGL Ch 41 Section 81U, unless the applicant and the Board agree to an extension.
ASE ~ The applicant has requested that the decision deadline for the project be extended to October 31, 2017.
2)Soil Testing submitted was not witnessed by the Town Engineer. Soil Testing/Evaluation logs and reports should be included on the Plan Sheets and within the Stormwater Report. Field Testing Results must be witnessed to demonstrate compliance with the Stormwater Policy Manual.
ASE ~ ASE conducted on-site soil testing for the purpose of identifying estimated seasonal high groundwater (ESHGW) in effort to ensure compliance with DEP’s storm water management requirements per the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. Initial test pits were performed on January 1, 2017 and were not witnessed by the representatives Town of Douglas or their agent(s). Subsequently, additional deep soil test holes were performed on May 17, 2017 in the presence of Wlliam Cundiff, Town Engineer Town of Douglas Community Development Department. The project plans have been revised to include test pit data, date performed, test hole location and indication of whether the hole was witnessed (and if witnessed the name and title of the witness) on sheet C-3.0 Existing Conditions Plan.
3)Please show the metes and bounds of the existing Gilboa Court right of way for some distance so the Board may understand the width of the pavement and the corresponding width of the Right of Way.
ASE ~ The project plans have been revised to provide additional metes and bounds descriptions for the public ROW of Gilboa Court to the west of the proposed project entrance (portion of existing Gilboa Court). Bearing and distances have been added to sheets C-3.0, C-4.1, and C-4.2. More specifically, the width of existing pavement in Gilboa Court varies; at the project entrance is 14.8’ as measured along the property limits, the existing pavement width at its most restricted point is 14.5’±approximately 10 feet west of the proposed project entrance.
4)Please provide a paved apron some distance outside of the cul-de-sac before transitioning to rip-rap. The goal is to maintain the integrity of the cul-de-sac paving.
ASE ~ Please see the project plans which have been revised to provide a paved apron between the proposed cul-de-sac and the proposed rip rapped slope into infiltration basin #2.
5)Typically, new subdivisions have a central mailbox unit. Please provide a letter supporting your mail delivery proposal from the Douglas Post Master.
ASE ~ The project plans have been revised to provide a detail for the central mailbox unit. ASE will provide the Board with relevant correspondence from the Douglas Post Master prior to construction.
6)Please show the Grades along the existing Gilboa Court road for some distance in the road profile so the transition between the existing road grade and the proposed road grade may be observed.
ASE ~ The project plans have been revised to provide additional information along existing Gilboa Court with regards to existing pavement grades. Specifically, sheet C-6.0 Roadway Plan & Profile has been revised to include a profile of the existing pavement within Gilboa Court within 200 feet of the proposed project entrance.
7)Please provide full perimeter access to the proposed infiltration ponds with a minimum width access way of 12 feet.
ASE ~ The project plans have been revised to provide 12 feet of perimeter access to both of the revised infiltration basins. The project design has been revised with regard to the proposed storm water management system with the goal of providing un-interrupted perimeter access with a relatively flat area a minimum of 12 feet wide to allow and facilitate future maintenance and repair work. Providing an un-interrupted 12 foot wide perimeter is not possible due to the project design, specifically the integration of emergency rip rap spillways and proposed drainage swale inherently create depressions and grades not typically intended to allow for safe vehicular passage.
Both infiltration basins, as proposed, are directly accessible from paved surfaces (ie proposed Gilboa Court and proposed shared driveway) adjacent to the infiltration basin, and both basins have safety berms that would provide easy and safe access to the basins by maintenance equipment such as excavators, skid steer vehicles (ie bobcat), lawn mowers, etc.
8)I will redline a set of drawings for your use in making edits.
ASE ~ The Town Engineer provided a red-lined set of project plans identifying requested revisions, as well as project design comments and concerns. Additionally, ASE met with the Town Engineer on August 22, 2017 and comments from that meeting have also been addressed.
Regulatory Comments:
9)Section 4.2.2 d. states: “Any person who submits a Definitive Plan of a subdivision to the Planning Board for approval shall file with the Board … Written Narrative description of the existing conditions of the project and the proposed improvements to the project site. The description shall include sections on Environmental Impacts, Water Supply Impacts, Drainage Impacts, Sewage Disposal Impacts, Soils/Topographic Impacts, Traffic Impacts, and School Impacts, Natural and Cultural Resource Impacts;”
Staff Comments: Please note that the narrative did not address each of the items listed above. It is recommended that the narrative individually address each topic.
ASE ~ ASE has prepared a summary of the project impacts and it will provided along with the revised project plan submittal.
10)Section 4.2.2 j. states: “Any person who submits a Definitive Plan of a subdivision to the Planning Board for approval shall file with the Board … Waiver list from Definitive Plan Requirements and explanation of how the granting of the waiver would be in the public interest. Demonstrate how the subdivision could be built without any waivers from the definitive plan (MGL Ch41 §81R);”
Staff Comments: No Demonstration of how the subdivision could be built without any waivers has been made.
ASE ~ ASE has requested a waiver from this requirement and acknowledges that the proposed project plans do not necessarily demonstrate how the subdivision could be built without any waivers. The waivers requested for the project are related to the existing site constraints and the interrelation of the project design and zoning and subdivision requirements. While no demonstration plan has been provided, with the exception of the dead-end street length, the constructing the project such that no waivers are required is feasible, however, would likely result in the project design not being able to provide the Board’s requested public improvements (such as road widths). The list of all requested waivers is as follows:
Rules and Regulations governing the Subdivision of Land:
4.2.2 J) Waiver list from the Definitive Plan requirements and explanation of how the granting of the waiver would be in the public interest. Demonstrate how the subdivision could be built without any waivers from the Definitive Plan (MGL CH. 41 §81r).
To allow the project to be developed without demonstrating the subdivision could be built without any waivers. A plan demonstrating the project could be constructed without any waivers would result in restrictions to the project design that would preclude the project from being able to provide the Planning Board’s requested public improvements.
5.1.1 “B) Provision satisfactory to the Board shall be made for the proper projection of streets, or for access to adjoining property which is not yet subdivided. These access ways are to be deeded either in fee or by easement to the Town prior to release of any bond.”
To allow the project to be developed with no provisions to provide an extension of access to adjoin properties. This will eliminate a need to encumber the proposed lots and future lot owners with easements. Surrounding land adjacent to the project is not conducive to future residential development.
5.1.3.e) Grades at all street intersections and at all cul-de-sacs shall not exceed 2.0% for a distance one-hundred fifty feet (150') as measured from the centerline intersection or the end of the cul-de-sac.
To allow the grade of a cul-de-sac to be 3%. This will allow for the cul-de-sac to better match into existing grade and not create a fill area where the proposed swale will be.
5.1.4.a) Dead-end streets shall not be longer than one thousand (1,000) feet unless, in the opinion of the Board, a greater length is necessitated by topography or other local conditions.
To allow a 350 foot extension to Gilboa Court, which is approximately 1,400 feet long. This will allow for a proper area for municipal highway and emergency vehicles to turn around. The street currently dead ends without a turn around.
6.1.4) Adequate disposal of surface water shall be provided and shall meet the standards of treatment outlined in the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Stormwater Policy Manual. Catch basins shall be pre-cast concrete structures with extended base sections that are located at low points and sags in the roadway, near the corners of the roadway at intersecting streets, and at intervals along the roadway that are determined by the contributing flowrate and the inlet grate capacities but in no instance shall they be located more than 300-feet apart from each other.
To allow for no catch basins to be proposed. The project is designed as a low impact development and will sheet flow to a swale along the side of the road that will discharge to two infiltration basins. The proposed project design will meet the requirements of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) stormwater policy manual.
6.4 Sidewalks Five-foot wide sidewalks shall be installed on both sides of the proposed road. The sidewalk shall be constructed of poured concrete, shall have evenly spaced control joints, and shall have an 8-inch gravel base. All sidewalks and ramps shall be in compliance with all American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and applicable Massachusetts regulations.
To allow no sidewalks for the project. There are currently no sidewalks on Gilboa Court. This would create a small section of sidewalk that does not connect to a sidewalk system.
11)Section 4.2.3 i. #1 states: “…the Drawings shall contain… horizontal control shall be tied to the Massachusetts State Plane coordinate system”
Staff Comments: Please indicate, on the plan, at least two permanent and reproducible points with northing and easting labelled on them.
ASE ~ ASE has revised the project design accordingly. PROJECT DESIGN WILL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF MASSACHUSETTS
12)Section 4.2.3 i. #12 states: “…the Drawings shall contain… Size and location of existing and proposed water supply facilities.”
Staff Comments: Please provide better detail on the existing waterline, the proposed connection to the existing waterline, and the proposed waterline. Detail how far off the pavement the hydrants will be located.
ASE ~ ASE has revised the project design accordingly.
13)Section 4.2.3 i. #13 states: “…the Drawings shall contain… A storm drainage system will be shown on a separate sheet. The Plan shall include invert and rim elevations of all catch basins and manholes together with surface elevations of all waterways within the subdivision at 100-foot intervals. Test pits or borings shall be performed at the expense of the applicant at 100-foot intervals along the centerline of the proposed roadways to determine the foundation material for road construction and to determine the seasonal high ground water elevation. Surface elevation and approximate depth of water shall be shown at each point where the drainage pipe ends at a waterway. … Drainage calculations prepared by the applicant's engineer, including design criteria used, drainage area and other information sufficient for the Board to check the size of any proposed drain, culvert or bridge shall be included.”
Staff Comment: The Stormwater Report, specifically Section 3.4, references Table 5.4 which is not included in the submittal. Also, it references 4’ deep sump catch basins which are not on the plans.
ASE ~ ASE has revised the stormwater report accordingly.
14)Section 4.2.3 i. #18 states: “…the Drawings shall contain… Suitable space to record the signatures of the seven members of the Board.”
Staff Comments: Please provide ½” spaced signature lines for the seven (7) members of the Planning Board.
ASE ~ ASE has revised the project plans accordingly.
Section 4.2.4f. states: “Profiles shall be drawn with: Proposed centerline grades and elevations, with elevations shown at every fifty (50) foot station, except that in vertical curves elevations shall be shown at twenty-five (25) foot station and at Point of Vertical Curvature (PVC) and Point of Vertical Tangency (PVT).”
Staff Comments: Elevations within vertical curves need to be shown at a 25-foot interval.
ASE ~ ASE has revised the project plans accordingly.
15)Section 5.1.1. b. states: “Provision satisfactory to the Board shall be made for the proper projection of streets, or for access to adjoining property which is not yet subdivided. These access ways are to be deeded either in fee or by easement to the town prior to release of any bond.”
Staff Comments: This has not been provided nor a waiver requested.
ASE ~ A waiver request has been added for this requirement.
16)Section 5.1.2. states: “The minimum width of street rights-of-way shall be sixty-feet (60’)…”
Staff Comments: Please have both recordable sheets indicate 60’ wide PRIVATE way. While ultimately it may become a Public Way, that will only occur after the Layout and acceptance process.
ASE ~ ASE has revised the project plans to state “Gilboa Court ~ Proposed Public Way – 60’ Wide per the Planning Board’s request.
17)Section 5.1.3. e. states: “Grades at all street intersections and at all cul-de-sacs shall not exceed 2.0% for a distance one-hundred fifty feet (150') as measured from the centerline intersection or the end of the cul-de-sac.”
Staff Comments: A waiver from this requirement has been requested. However, before granting this waiver, It is recommended that the Engineer provide a road profile from the existing Gilboa Court in the proposed extension so the vertical alignment between the roads may be viewed.
ASE ~ ASE has revised the project plans accordingly.
18)Section 5.1.4. a. states:“Dead-end streets shall not be longer than one thousand (1,000) feet unless, in the opinion of the Board, a greater length is necessitated by topography or other local conditions.”
Staff Comments: The Applicant has requested a waiver from the above. For clarity, the existing Gilboa Court is currently approximately 1,400 feet long. The proposed cul-de-sac would add 350 feet making the total proposed road length 1,750 feet long.
ASE ~ ASE concurs with this statement.
19)Section 5.1.4. b. states:“Dead-end streets shall be provided at the closed end with a turn-around having an outside roadway diameter of at least one hundred (100) feet, and a property line diameter of at least one hundred and twenty (120) feet.”
Staff Comments: Please clearly label the diameter of the paved area in the cul-de-sac.
ASE ~ ASE has revised the project plans accordingly.
20)Section 5.2. #5. states:“Gravel drives providing access to public improvements shall be a minimum of 12' wide with an 8" layer of gravel meeting the Mass Highway specifications for gravel borrow.”
Staff Comments: Please provide the required full perimeter access to the proposed stormwater structures. While the detail shows 12’ wide, the plan view shows 10’.
ASE ~ ASE has revised the project plans provide minimum of 12’ of full perimeter access to stormwater facilities. For more discussion see the response to comment 7 of this letter.
We hope this serves your needs at this time. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact this office.
Very truly yours,
Andrews Survey & Engineering, Inc.
J.P. Connolly
Attachment(s)
ASE
Gilboa Court Extension
Douglas, MA
Page 1 of 7
C:William Cundiff, Town of Douglas, Town Engineer
Carol A. Gogolinski & William S. Cogley
F:\Acad\2016 Projects\2016-211\doc\Planning Board\Review comment response letter_9-14-2017.doc
ASE
Gilboa Court Extension
Douglas, MA
Page 1 of 7