March 4 2008
MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: |
Doug Moglin, Chairman |
|
Roz Terry, Vice Chairman |
|
Bob Johnson |
|
Sam Santaniello |
|
Cal Chunglo |
|
Richard Utzinger, Associate |
OTHER: |
Marcus Phelps, Town Planner |
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mr. Moglin.
TOWN PLANNER’S REPORT: 7:00 p.m.
1. Sent a memo to Jeff Neece, DPW Director, requesting a current cost estimate for completing the improvements required for the Lexington Circle Subdivision. A copy of the letter sent to Doug Williams on January 16, 2008 and the Planning Board Decision amending the Definitive Subdivision Plan on October 16, 2007 were attached. A reply was received with cost estimates for fencing and the guard rail, but none for the roof drains.
2. Contacted Mike Werman regarding the 797 College Highway Site Plan that was approved by the Board on December 5, 2006. He agreed to use this Site Plan for reconstructing the building to be used for motor vehicle sales.
3. Received a letter from Bacon & Wilson confirming a new meeting date of March 6 at 7:15 PM for the developers of the proposed Noble Steed subdivision to meet with the Water and Sewer Commission regarding an agreement for waterline construction.
4. Received a request for a site plan for 555 College Highway (Sunoco service station) from a party interested in purchasing the property for use as a service station. The site plan on file is not signed.
5. Contacted Baystate Environmental Consultants on the status of the proposed Williamsburg subdivision Definitive Plan review. They will have a report to the Board by March 18 and will attend the March 25 public hearing.
6. Drafted decisions for the proposed Southwick Inn (KAYDUB), Walt’s Garage (KKQB) and JAYDUB Special Permit and Site Approval applications. The decisions need to be signed by the April 22 Planning Board meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: 7:05 p.m.
There were no public comments.
APPOINTMENTS:
7:10 p.m. 31 & 37 Pineywood Drive ANR
Mr. Shute for Mr. Koivisto & Mr. Johnson presented to the Planning Board an ANR on 31 & 37 Pineywood Drive.
A MOTION was made by Mr. Johnson and seconded by Mrs. Terry to approve the ANR on 31 & 37 Pinneywood Drive. The vote was unanimous.
7:15 p.m. 264 South Longyard Road Estate Lot Public Hearing
Marc Shute represented Gary B. Liquori and presented an application to the Planning Board requesting a Special Permit for an Estate Lot plan for 264 South Longyard Road. Mr. Shute said that the site consists of 30 acres and is bordered on the West by a brook. The zoning is split zoning a section is zoned AC the rest is zoned R40. There is an existing house which will either be demolished or moved. There is also an existing horse barn that is in use. The plan is to build a house in the rear of the property. The drive way grade is 9% for 400 feet and then levels out to 1/2%. Mr. Moglin asked what the change was in the plan. Mr. Shute replied that he met with Fire Chief Morris and he wanted to reconfigure the turn around so a fire truck could pull in and back out. Mr. Phelps said that the report from the Conservation Commission
issued an order of conditions. One said that the driveway may be paved for the entire length. Mr. Shute said that the driveway would probably not be paved. Mrs. Terry asked is there was any drainage plans for the lot. Mr. Phelps replied that they are installing a drainage swale on the west side of the driveway all the way down the grade. Mrs. Terry asked if DPW had commented on this Estate Lot. Mr. Phelps replied that no comments were made.
Patricia Schmidt of 299 South Longyard Road asked what is an Estate Lot? Mr. Moglin explained it is a lot of greater than 5 acres that has less than the required amount of frontage. It must have a minimum of 50 feet of frontage on a public way allowing an access strip back to the large piece of property. The 5 plus acres cannot include the access strip. She also asked if any other house can be built on the Estate Lot. Mrs. Terry replied that no additional house can be built using that driveway.
Dick Benoit of 268 South Longyard Road expressed concern as to how close the development would be to his. Mr. Moglin replied that according to the bylaws there is supposed to be a 75 foot buffer around the property that is not to be touched. He also asked if the house can be built anywhere else on the property. He was told it must be constructed as shown on the plan or they have to come back to the Planning Board. He also expressed concern about water coming from the new house to his house. Mr. Shute explained how the water will be brought to drainage swales.
Mr. Phelps asked about the existing driveway that goes to existing house and if it was going to be removed. Mr. Shute replied it was going to be taken out along with the house. Mrs. Terry said that it was a problem because it still showed on the plans that will be signed. Mr. Phelps said that the plan must include a note that the existing driveway will be removed.
Cherie Benoit of 268 South Longyard Road asked about the pine trees on the property and would they be left. Mr. Chunglo said that any trees in the 75 foot buffer must remain. A discussion ensued about specific trees and the size of the house. Mr. Moglin explained that the house must be built on the footprint shown on the plan. He also explained that the water from the house is the same whether it is one story or two stories. They have to account for drainage for the envelope on the plan where the house will be built. Mr. Shute said that a lawn will absorb more water than a forest.
David Cassells of 292 South Longyard Road asked if another house could be built on the Estate Lot. Mr. Phelps replied that no other house can be built on the lot. Mr. Cassells also expressed concern about the increase in traffic.
7:45 p.m. 253 Hillside Road Estate Lot Public Hearing
Marc Shute represented Gregory & Beatrice Siwek for an application of an Estate Lot on 253 Hillside Road. The lot is in zone R40. The plan shows the creation of one normal lot and one estate lot. They live in a house on the lot. There is an old garage on the lot that will be razed. The lot size is 5.63 acres. There is plenty of frontage. Mr. Phelps said that the Conservation Commission has no issues with the plan. Mr. Moglin asked if the drive way was to be paved. Mr. Shute said that they probably would.
8:15 p.m. Honey Pot Road Public Hearing
Jeff Neece, DPW Director, presented an application for approval to remove trees on Honey Pot Road between address 13 and address 85. The applicant proposed a plan to remove trees, and reform drainage patterns on the road edge, re-grade the road surface, and place stone rip raff at drainage out flow areas. The proposal is in compliance with the Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40, section 15 C. Mr. Moglin said that this was a unique hearing for the Planning Board. Under State Law when anyone wants to remove trees, or modify or touch stone walls on a Scenic Road the change there must be heared before the Planning Board. There was a hearing on this matter several months ago. There has been some serious deterioration to road since the last hearing. Therefore, the Planning Board has agreed to re-hear the application from Mr. Neece. Mr. Neece
said that there have been several meetings with residents and Town Boards to solve the problem of Honey Pot Road. He also asked the Planning Board to move as swiftly as possible on this matter, because there are a few steps that need to be completed on this plan before the work can actually happen. There still has to be a Public Hearing with the Board of Selectmen on specific tree removal. He reviewed the road maintenance to date. DPW has spent $15,000 of Town funds to repair Honey Pot Road. He said what is needed is 5 to 10 feet on either side of the road for drainage. The problem is that there is no place for the water to go. The plan is to remove the tree stumps and the trees and re-create the road side swales. It will not be a clear cutting along the road. He said they do not want to change the road. He will send in an application for Massachusetts Highway funds for the repairs on the road. The required Environmental Impact statement for the application asks if the Planning
Board has approved the project. He is waiting for this. The Board of Selectmen approved $60,000 for this project over a year ago. He added that it does not make sense to spend $15,000 a year on repairs for one road.
Mr. Santaniello asked if we will be in the same situation again after cutting down the trees. Mr. Neece replied that maintaining a gravel road is not an exact science. The lack of water drainage on that road is a direct contributor to the condition of the road today. There is no guarantee.
Mr. Johnson asked If Mr. Neece planned to black top the road. Mr. Neece replied If the Board of Selectmen did decide to pave the road this process would have to precede the paving.
Mr. Chunglo asked what is the proposed lane width when you are done grading? Mr. Neece replied that they will try to establish a consistent lane of 10 to 11 feet. They are not proposing to widen the road. They would like to keep the scenic nature of the road.
Kirk Sanders, Southwick Safety Officer, said he thinks we are all in agreement we have to do something to make the road safe and passable.
Chief Morris, Southwick Fire Department, said that for an emergency vehicle point of view, the road is terrible the majority of the year must drive 2 to 5 miles an hour with an ambulance or fire truck. Aside from the damage that might be done to the vehicle there is the possibility that further damage would be done to someone’s house or someone’s life. In addition, we have to return down the road and if we have a patient they are bounced around in the vehicle. He would rather see every road in town paved for emergency safety.
Mr. Moglin read the following into the minutes:
ATTACHMENT A – Fire Department
Mr. Bob Watkins of 76 Honey Pot Road. See ATTACHMENT 1
Susan Davis of 41 Honey Pot Road. See ATTACHMENT 2
Mr. Satterlee of 61 Honey Pot Road . See ATTACHMENT 3
School Bus Drivers See hard copy at Town Clerks Office ATTACHMENT 5
Mr. Ken Haar of 22 Ferrin Drive said that Honey Pot Road has been a constant problem. In the past 16 years there has not been one year without a problem with the road. As a tax payer he is offended by the fact the Town has spent an inordinate amount of money, time and resources to repair one mile of highway.
Mr. Satterlee of 61 Honey Pot Road. asked if Southwick has a bylaw that defines Scenic Roads and tree removal? Mr. Moglin replied that the Board refers to the state law in the absence of a local bylaw
Tom Longo of 55 Honey Pot Road asked the Board how many Board members have been on Honey Pot Road. All members of the Board indicated that they have been on the road. He stated that the road is ten inches above his driveway and it was not that high three years ago. If more material is added to the raod there will be a more serious drainage problem with water draining onto driveways. The water does not drain into the street anymore it drains onto driveways. He feels that 65 trees removed would not be missed.
David Desilets of 81 Honey Pot Road said he likes the quiet scenic road. If the road is paved there will be speeders on the road. He does not want to lose the trees on his property.
Jon Higgins of 33 Honey Pot Road said that he has several large trees on his property that he would rather not lose. He said that he did not want to see the road paved. He also said that he felt the road has not been maintained properly.
Scott Ricker of 20 Lakeshore Drive. See ATTACHMENT 4
Janet Beneitone of 53 Honey Pot Road said she is in favor of paving the road. She asked if the road has to be widened in order to repair the road and if the trees are removed would the foot print of the road be changed. Mr. Neece replied that they would maintain a consistent width of the road. The plan is not to widen the road. They are not going to work outside the right of way on the road. He explained the process indicated on the plan.
Greg Johnson of 23 Honey Pot Road said that the DPW should know how take care of this road.
Pete DelBuono of 64 Honey Pot Road said lets keep the conversation to public safety.
Gerard Deslauriers of 27 Honey Pot Road said he has lived on the road for 29 years. Since Loupinski came through he left the property a mess. The Town cut the trees and left them right where they were. The road has always been bad. We need an engineering survey to go up there and do what is right. There has to be a scientific way to do this correctly.
Mr. Satterlee of 61 Honey Pot Road said the practices that were used on the Loupinski property were within all guide lines . There are enough seed trees left and it was a proper cut. There is not one scenic vista along the road. There is not one stone wall along the road. The road was originally built to service a wood lot. The people of the town cut down all the cedar trees that were up there. There is not one left. We have to put our faith in the people who we pay with our tax payer dollars. We have a scenic road that we cannot drive down to enjoy. You cannot have a well maintained gravel road without proper drainage.
Jon Higgins of 33 Honey Pot Road asked if there has to be a hearing to cut down trees on every dirt road in town. Mr. Moglin replied no. When trees are to be cut on a scenic road, according to the state law, it must be heard before the Planning Board.
Ruth Harper of 65 Honey Pot Road asked if the road was to be paved or graveled would the same number of trees have to be removed. Mr. Neece replied that it would generally be the same number of trees. Mr. Neece believes that the specific trees to be cut will have to be approved by the Board of Selectmen.
Scott Ricker of 20 Lakeshore Drive said that there are towns that bring in a certified arborist to help make decisions about trees.
Mr. Moglin stated that it was his understanding that Honey Pot Road was voted a Scenic Road in 1978 by Town Meeting. The residents wanted the road to remain a dirt road.
Diane Pebbles Pittello of 37 Honey Pot Road asked if the trees have to be removed. Mr. Neece replied that the trees cannot come down without the approval of the Planning Board.
Ralph Pittello of 37 Honey Pot Road asked where the drainage is going? If poles have to be moved how long will they be without power? Are there plans to do more than cut trees and put in drainage? How likely is it to improve the roads if the trees are cut. Mr. Neece replied that there are some trees on the left of the road that will need to be removed to create drainage and there are some trees on the right of the road to be removed to create drainage. Drainage will be on both sides of the road. Mr. Neece said that eleven poles have to be moved. He also stated that it is very likely to improve the road.
Mr. Johnson asked those in attendance to indicate if they wanted the trees to stay as to those who wanted the trees cut. The majority indicated that they wanted the trees removed. The Hearing was closed at 9:45p.m.
A MOTION was made by Mrs. Terry and seconded by Mr. Johnson to remove up to 75 trees on Honey Port Road.
Doug Moglin
Being no further business to be brought before the Board, A MOTION was made by Mr. Johnson, SECONDED by Mr. Chunglo to adjourn at 9:50 p.m. Vote was unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth Preston
Recording Secretary
ATTACHMENT A
Southwick Fire Department
To: Southwick Board of Selectmen
From: Southwick Fire Department
Re: Honey Pot Road
Gentlemen,
I understand the concerns that if paved Honey Pot Road will become a racetrack, shortcut, or less than a scenic road but I am more concerned with public safety.
The Fire Department has found that the normal poor conditions that exist on a dirt road, such as Honey Pot, cause a slower response to calls in that area with the added possibility that damage may be done to expensive fire apparatus. This is especially true during the winter but also is true the majority of the rest of the year.
Time can be critical for a fire response but of an even greater concern is the time required for a medical response. The response time is only part of the concern, consider any type of illness or injury where movement elicits pain and then imagine what a patient endures while trying to negotiate the ambulance around, or through pot holes, washouts and any other maladies that a dirt road can fall victim to.
From a Public Safety point of view I would like to see Honey Pot and for that matter any and all other dirt roads, that are under Southwick's control, paved.
Sincerely,
Don W. Morris
Cc: CAO
AAO
ATTACHMENT 1
Robert M Watkins
76 Honey Pot Road
Southwick, MA 01077
Town of Southwick February 13, 2008
Board of Selectmen
Southwick, MA 01077
Re: Honey Pot Road
Unintended consequence.
The first inaction occurred in 1987. By not proceeding then with the design phase of Honey Pot Road, the unintended consequence is that the work remains to be accomplished now, 20 years later at today's higher cost. This work now requires engineering the road, surveying the boundaries, and laying out the road. The plan in the town files was never acted upon, drainage easement was not taken, and no land was purchased from the land owners. To rebuild the road today as a "non scenic road" requires this be done based on today's highway manual. My research indicates this work may include installing sidewalks? ,and creating a 50 foot wide right of way. Since none of these features exists today, survey work and land takings must be accomplished from scratch. The unintended consequence of taking none of the actions recommended for
the dust, pot holes, etc. during many meetings throughout the 1990's today requires such action now be taken at considerably greater expense.
The intended lack of follow-up maintenance and repair from 2005 to the present has prompted a few residents of Honey Pot Road to consider removal of the "scenic road" status of the road. The unintended consequence of this action would require that Chapter 90 money be spent and work done under the regulations and guidelines of the most recent 2007 rules and regulations, including design, creation, and installation of side walks?, complete drainage, guard rails, etc. This, in turn, will mean new, and additional maintenance costs. For example, if sidewalks are installed along the Loupinski Preserve property, clearing them after each snowstorm will become the responsibility of the town. The unintended result from the lack of supervision of the highway department head, the DPW head, and the town Manager will result in considerable
expense to the town of Southwick in order to meet the state highway requirement for a connector road. (In 2007, the projected/estimated cost was in excess of $500,000)
Currently Honey Pot Road is governed by the scenic road status rules and regulations. This allows the easing of many -if not all - design standards which apply to non-scenic roads. Because the Board has failed to supervise the town manager, who has failed to supervise the DPW head, who has failed to supervise the Highway superintendent, the town is facing an extraordinary (and likely unnecessary) expense. All of this could be avoided if Best Management Practice for Dirt Roads (manual given to you 2/11/2007) is implemented. All of the BMP's will be required if you wish to pave the road. Relaxed rules apply to roads with scenic road status. Furthermore, a paved surface obviously will not prevent potholes and deterioration and obviously will not relieve the town of future maintenance responsibilities and costs. In general, the costs of
repair are greater for paved roads than for dirt and gravel roads.
I'm not a civil engineer and the town does not have one on board. But common sense is that water flows down hill. In 2007 we asked the DPW head to have the windrows removed from the side of the road. They hold the water on the road. We asked that a new base, and surface be installed. We asked that, minimally, a crown be created on the road. All during the summer of 2007and the fall of 2007 nothing was done. This shows a lack of supervision. This has nothing to do with the existence or location of trees or with the road width or the with presence or absence
of asphalt. This is poor management by your employees and, by extension, my employees. If this occurred in the private sector, the head of the company would have been long since replaced. I'm asking that you give the Highway dept head, and the DPW director a deadline to finish the work that was agreed upon in the spring of 2007, i.e., base, surface, crown, and remove the windrows. The DPW director should be put on notice, along with the Highway head, to complete the work that was agreed upon in the Spring of 2007. If they do not comply, they should be removed and replaced with someone capable of implementing best management practices
As for the immediate conditions, common sense would indicate adding and compacting large aggregate to the road should firm up the road enough until spring, at which time the more permanent work could be done according to BMP's.
I have been driving on dirt roads for 50 years, as have some of you, and you may have observed various techniques being used to maintain safe and easily traveled road surface, winter conditions, potholes and deterioration not withstanding. None of these ever included the inaction and inadequate or incompetent work that has taken place here.
CC: Southwick Planning Board,
Karl J. Stinehart, Chief Administrative Officer,
Jeff Neese, Director of Public Works
Sincerely,
Robert M. Watkins
ATTACHMENT 2
SUSAN DAVIS
To: Southwick Planning Board and Southwick Board of Selectmen
From: Suzanne Davis Date: Feb 14, 2008
41 Honey Pot Road
Southwick, MA 01077
It is regrettable, but certainly understandable, that the deterioration of Honey Pot Road has again become the source of controversy, animosity, and unfavorable media attention. It is downright pitiful that positions appear to have hardened to a matter of EITHER "widen, build ditches, and cut trees" OR "live with it" as an unsafe, marginally navigable, menace of a road.
To pave or not, to cut trees or not, to widen or not, and even to keep or to revoke its scenic road status are all red herrings. DPW Director Jeff Neece was cited in a Westfield Evening News article dated Feb. 12, 2008 as saying that "the only option" left to Public Works is to keep patching and grading. Nobody would deny that approach would be both wasteful and futile. Solving the problem of a flat tire by continuing to drive on the rim has a predictable outcome. However, buying a new car to replace the one with the flat tire is not the "only solution" available.
The following statements are taken verbatim from the U.S. EPA manual, "Environmentally Sensitive Maintenance for Dirt and Gravel Roads," [US] and the" Massachusetts Unpaved Roads BMP" Manual [MA]. The manuals are available on the internet in pdf. format. They apply to Honey Pot Road as it exists in its present footprint, present status, and present condition. They indicate several possible alternatives to the "either/or," "only way" arguments circulating in Southwick that have brought us to our resurrected debate.
MAINTENANCE
"Most maintained dirt and gravel roads are quite old. Current maintenance crews
were not involved in the construction. If poor quality materials were used or the workmanship was substandard, maintenance crews inherit numerous headaches with the road." [US p. 4]
"Clearly, many traditional practices are counterproductive. They should be replaced with more productive measures that incorporate our knowledge of roads and natural systems. The result will be better roads…and lower maintenance costs." [US p. 1-7]
"As our machinery has become larger and more powerful, in many cases, we have lost touch with basic principles of nature and natural systems; we have fallen into a belief that we can work to set standards, forcing nature to comply to our will. Often the natural consequence of our actions is in direct conflict with our maintenance goal. Environmentally sensitive maintenance practices take into account road maintenance goals and natural principles to provide cost effective longer-term solutions to traditional
cyclical maintenance activities." [US p. 6.1]
"Aside from their value as a scenic and often historic resource, unpaved roads have the advantage of lower construction costs than paved roads, require less equipment and skilled operators, and generate lower speeds than their paved counterparts. Yet, like paved roadways, dirt and gravel roads require regular maintenance to keep them passable and safe. Well-maintained dirt and gravel roads can serve traffic very satisfactorily, and should be considered as a legitimate road surfacing option, not just something a community grudgingly maintains while it waits for paving." [MA p. 1] (emphasis mine)
ROAD PROFILE
"The road surface acts as our first line of defense against water, and the first component of a good surface drainage system is the road crown….The crown must be maintained to allow water to flow off the road. Problems develop quickly when a gravel road has no crown….Water will quickly collect on the road surface during a rain, softening the surface crust. This will lead to rutting, which can become severe if the subgrade also begins to soften. Even if the subgrade remains firm, traffic will quickly pound out smaller depressions in the road where water collects, and the road will develop potholes. A dirt and gravel road must have a crown." [US p. 3-5 & 3-6]
"Basic road maintenance practices are designed to produce a structurally sound road capable of supporting traffic with a good hard surface and proper crown for good drainage." [US p. 3-16]
"Gravel road deterioration, like any paved road, will develop in stages…. Sooner or later, however, the road loses crown and enough material has been lost off the roadside or by way of erosion or dust that there is not enough remaining material to simply regrade the road. Then we must add new material in order to re-establish the crown and have an effective road profile….Blading a road is needed when surface distresses appear but the road still needs a good crown." [US p. 3-17]
"…when the road loses crown and more severe distresses appear, a reshaping or regrading to re-establish proper crown is required. With the moldboard tilted slightly backward and sufficient down pressure to produce a cutting action, the road is reshaped to restore proper crown and cross-slope for good drainage. A minimum of four passes may be required….This operation should include a compaction effort. Using rollers for proper compaction of the disturbed material will result in a stronger road for a longer period of time." [US p. 3-18]
"Basic to any good road, especially unpaved roads, is proper design, construction, and maintenance. Yet few unpaved roads were designed correctly in the first place." [MA p. 4]
"General Road Surface Principles: Preserve and maintain a proper road crown for good drainage (free water cannot be allowed to stand in ruts or potholes or it will soak into the surface.) Keep the road surface tight and impervious." [MA p. 7]
"The most important aspect of maintaining a gravel road surface is to preserve and maintain a proper road crown for good drainage, accomplished through grading. Equally important is good compaction of the road surface which quickens the removal of runoff and protects the road surface from erosion." [MA p 8]
"Crown roads ? to ? inch for each foot of road width, measured from the center of the roadway to the outside edge, to ensure good drainage." [MA p. 9]
ROAD MATERIALS
"Road materials play an important part in a road's structural stability. Additionally, good quality road materials reduce erosion, sediment, and dust pollution.... In addition,,,we need to be concerned about other factors such as hardness, soundness, pH, and plasticity (cohesiveness/stickiness) to adequately protect both the road and the environment. [US p. 3-9]
"One thing to remember - using the best material available will prolong the road's life, decrease required maintenance work, and further protect the area's natural environment." [US p. 3-10]
"But there are major differences between surface aggregates and base course aggregates. Base course aggregate is not designed to withstand traffic and the constant, direct grinding of wheels….A free-draining fill aggregate may be great as fill material for building sites, but the high sand content that allows for good drainage will remain loose and unstable as a surface aggregate on an unpaved road…..Aggregate meeting base material specifications will probably not meet unpaved road surface requirements." [US p. 3-10]
"Well-graded means the aggregate has a variety of sizes from a maximum coarse material down to a fine material and everything in between….Please note that we are describing road "surface" material. The amount and plasticity of this fine material determines how effectively it locks in place to form a tight surface that will shed water and provide a smooth driving surface. Road "base" material plays a different role in effective drainage…..The best approach, particularly in those areas of poor drainage, would be to specify two types of road aggregates, one for the road surface and one for the road base." [US p. 3-11]
"Quality road aggregate with good gradation, shape, plasticity, hardness, durability, and proper pH will compact well, developing a tightly bound surface to withstand traffic loads, and reduce washboarding, rutting, erosion, sediment, and dust for less maintenance and a better environment."
[US p. 3-12]
"Thinking about Paving an 'Old' Gravel Road? …you will be wasting money if you pave a gravel road that does not have a proper road base." [MA p. 8]
"As the surface falls apart, the loose material is thrown to the shoulders and ditches by traffic, and into the air as dust. Ruts, corrugations, and potholes then appear." [MA p. 8 & 9]
"The loose fines and aggregate should be spread on the road surface to help build the crown and stabilize the road surface." [MA p. 10]
"Ravelling is the loss of coarse aggregate from the road surface. Correct by grading or blading with the addition of a binder to improve surface composition….Repair {potholes} with spot grading (undercut potholes with grader blade - don't just fill them in!)" [MA p. 12]
"…Correct [washboards] by improving the cohesive qualities of the road surface: remix with a good percentage of fines, scarify the road surface while damp, regrade, re-crown, and roll the surface." [MA p. 13]
ROADSIDES
"To Ditch or Not to Ditch? The first question in ditching should always be 'Do we need a ditch?' If the road surface drainage can continue to sheet flow away from the road without causing any problems, then a ditch only becomes an impediment....If we can let the road drain naturally by sheet flow into a vegetated area, flows are spread out and thereby slowed down, resulting in the least erosion….At many sites, however, this natural sheet flow drainage condition is not possible,….Ditches should be shaped and sloped to prevent standing water and must have an outlet. Safety for errant vehicles should also be a consideration." [US p. 5-9]
"Roads without a properly sloped shoulder or berm area often develop a 'secondary ditch' that will not allow the water to drain off and away from the road….Improper grading techniques can also leave a windrow of road material along the edge that acts as a dam, keeping water on the roadway….Look at a road where the roadside slope drops immediately from the road edge into the adjacent road ditch, and you will probably find road edge deterioration. Shoulders also allow the water to flow further away from the road, maintaining better drainage, letting the water off and away more effectively.." [US p. 3-7]
"Maintain natural buffers and drainage ways. …If these drainage way are stable and well vegetated, they should be preserved….Minimize the creation of steep slopes….Maintain as much of the natural vegetation as possible. Vegetation absorbs water which will reduce the amount of stormwater runoff the road drainage system needs to handle. Large trees are especially important because their roots help to hold soil in place, and should be protected from damage during any planned roadwork." [MA p. 4]
"Vegetation is a principal component of effective erosion control that performs functions such as shielding soil surface from falling rain, holding soil particles in place, and slowing the velocity of runoff….Special consideration should be given to the maintenance of existing vegetative cover." [MA p 60]
"The vaulting tree canopies over Massachusetts back roads are one of the state's important scenic resources for residents and visitors alike….Removal of large, healthy trees along the road should only be done when absolutely necessary….Replant areas where trees are removed with native trees to provide for new canopy and revegetation….Cleaning ditches does not mean clearing all of the vegetation around them…." [MA p. 69]
ATTACHMENT 3
MR SATTERLEE
To The Planning Board Members (Town of Southwick), MARCH 4, 2008(corrected copy)
In regards to the DPW (Town of Southwick) application to the Planning Board seeking your approval for the removal of certain trees along Honey Pot Road, a designated 'scenic road', I respectfully submit the following words for your consideration.
"The Planning Board...are responsible for overseeing land use within the town to ensure that the residents live in a safe and healthy environment." These words are extracted from the Town website and form the basis of my understanding of part of what the Planning Board is elected to do. Keeping that in mind, my position on the matter before the Planning Board is as follows.
During extended periods throughout any given year, Honey Pot Road serves as an excellent example of a road unsafe for public use. The countless pot holes are at the very least an impediment to the safe operation of vehicles using the road. The overall conditions that persist put the general welfare and public safety at risk. Emergency vehicles should not be prevented or, hindered from reaching any scene when and where they are needed. One cannot schedule an emergency such as a heart attack, a house fire, or some other critical situation where the preservation of a human life or property may require a rapid response. We cannot hope for good road conditions to coincide with such an emergency. We must provide good road conditions as a matter of policy. Please keep in mind, Honey Pot Road is not only used by those residents who reside there.
Honey Pot Road is used by school buses, postal workers, delivery vehicles, police and fire vehicles, ambulances, as well as residents of surrou nding communities. This roadway is used by; and, belongs to the public.
Besides the unsafe conditions and the damages to vehicles caused by the countless potholes, other criteria should be considered. During dry periods, the dust generated by vehicles traversing the road renders the air quality unhealthy for residents and visitors alike. The heavy concentration of dust particles prevents many residents from opening windows or, enjoying the yards surrounding their homes. The various seals in vehicles regularly using the road are packed with this dust causing unwarranted wear and tear. These are just a few examples of ways in which this road causes the residents to incur excessive maintenance costs and loss of enjoyment of their property.
In conclusion, Honey Pot Road has and will continue to cause excessive amounts of taxpayer dollars to be expended for maintenance if nothing is done and the status quo persists. Please, remember this is an accepted public way; and, as such, requires that the public safety and general welfare be considered. The wishes of the few residents who would like to prevent the cutting of some trees is not, in my opinion, in the best interest of the public safety or the general welfare of the rest of the residents; nor, of the general public. If the DPW is to perform the duties required of them, they must be granted the authority to proceed with their proposed project.
Respectfully,
John Satterlee
ATTACHMENT 4
Scott Ricker
Southwick Planning Board
454 College Highway
Southwick, MA. 01077
Re: Removal of trees along Honey Pot Road
Dear Planning Board,
With the recent developments concerning Honey Pot Rd. and the plan by the DPW Director to pursue the removal of approximately 70 trees, in my opinion, I believe this plan would not only be detrimental to the scenic value of this road, but it would also have a significant negative impact on the wildlife that use Loupinski's and the surrounding area as a safe haven!
The management of the storm water run-off can be attained, in my opinion, without devastating the trees that absorb a portion of the water along this road. If we continue to remove trees along our roads, the impact on our communities will show itself more and more with a recovery rate that will take decades, or a recovery that may never occur at all! The residents of Honey Pot Road should be able to receive their mail, travel the road in safety and not have to be burdened with the continued repair of their vehicles! I don't believe that these factors should be resolved at such a high impact on the environment, by removing 70 trees!
In closing, I am requesting that a Certified Professional Arborist be retained to evaluate Honey Pot Road and determine the impact, the DPW' plan will have on this area, I also requesting that a mitigation plan be developed in the event that the 70+trees are removed. Allowing an Arborist with the most recent education and information will indeed be in the best interest of this sensitive area and should contribute to a good resolution for the entire community.
Sincerely,
Scott Ricker
| 
