Loading...
8840_DEF. PLAN - PROUTY LANETOWN OF AGAWAM Department of Public Works 1000 Suffield Street Agawam, MA 01001 Tel (413) 8210600 Fax (413) 8210631 Christopher I Golba Superintendent FUT-1 M r ,k, To Planning /'R Levesque Associates, Inc. CC Inspection Services / File From: Engineering Division Date: September 7, 2019 Subject: Lot Grading Plan — Lot 1— Prouty Lane Subdivision - # 27 Prouty Lane Per your request, we have reviewed the Grading Plan entitled "Lot Grading 'Plan — 27 Prouty Lane;- Lot;1, Agawam, MA; Prepared for: Phillip Prouty and Kerri Rooke Prepared by: R Levesque Associates, Inca 40 School St, Westfield, MA; Scale: 1" = SO Dated: 9/7/2018,''and we approve the grading plan. Engineering reserves the right to make additional comments as new information is submitted. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact this division. Sincerely, Vladimir Cdcaes Civil Engineer s:UutJiv%pron'y's ^rivat•. iAay -101 s3to;i ti. Wstti_1d Ai,xivncm� i - .-miin, p n-doc Michelle C. Chase, P.E. Town Engineer C . T—IwLo c s�rBe +r LOT 2 NOTES 1 FOR TITLE INTEREST TO THIS PARCEL: SEE HAMPDEN COUNTY REGISTRY OF DEEDS I f i I BOOK 22248 PAGE 394 PROPOSED r�M 2 SEE ALSO HAMPPUEN COUNTY REGISTRY OF DEEDS: BOOK OF PLANS 382 PAGE 34 I No- 1 13 LOING 3 PARCEL IS ZONED A(, RICULTUAAI ANDR2 AS SHOWN_ I rrJ L d. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY FROM R. LEVESQUEASSOCIATES INC. IN AUOUST, 2017.' 5 SA"Jp RY SEwaI CONNECnDH TO5EP11c sY5TEW: Sti1ALL HAVE NgI`aNA7M r4i I I. PROPOSED coVER AS REQUIRED BY TITLES�r�-' 8 WATER SERYICE TO HAVF A MINIMUM OF EO' OF C"R. 3 �. SPoA'f AV 7 I f A5.9UIL7 PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE DEVELOPER FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF DRrvEWAI' coFlsTaUcnoN (NATO aal � � � �.. • ) LArOuf Tb BE ' 8 SANITARY SEWER CLEAN -OUT SHALL BE REQUIRED EVERY 100 FEET AND AT ALL BENDS.: N r,�;a�-" 1 f �NOET� wED BY 9 FIELD VERIFY LOCATION OE WATER STUB AND OTHER UTIUTIES THAT WILL SEINE THIS a I ` / y LOT. ,ur IJ+7 I 1 Haw SYMBOL SLIN@LEGENU .O CATCH BA.SIW. Q DRAIN MANHOLE a ;EWERAAHOLF . au PROPOSED SPOT GWE — — — — Si — — — IX*TINO CONTOUR PROPOSED CONTOURPROPb5Ed 1 } ' r 11I 7REELWE/(,. r.� a N e 1' 50_ __ 25�c I I E I - PROPOSED LE0.CH FIELD I / '(SHOWN SCNEAEIRCALLY) 1 L ._ — 4.i l I SEE SEP7TC PLANTS FOR ` 1 1. II ` AppyT70kAL lNFOR.AlAT10N �- y ,} i- PRpUTY LAME PROPOSED'SUGAR 1 J f. /` t (�'.. } 1 Y = MAPLE 4Y (AIRS./v t$ $� i l I t C . _ 2 PROPOSED / l r,,.LE E ti i } I Y / l A V A1N W SEPARAMN ORTYEVOY I / J ` I I �1 I i. I I` i i fn0A1 YYA LINE CI1Re:CUT j r Y I TR�ISTOIw DA-M R L.EVESQUE ASSOCIATES, INC LOT GRADING PLAN 27 Prouty Lam, Southwick MA 40 SChwi SIBS P.D.eI"0 - Ww"Idd MR OIOH6 SCALE; 1'= 50' DATfi 917/4,018 10B ND.r 180739 ph 413 66.09B6 l-A43SG&0986 MW-4com. Phillip Prouty and K81'I'I ROOkF B k 22248 Ps 394 a37680` Premises: Lot,'I-Prouty Lane Feeding Hills, MA MASSACHUSETTS QUITCLAIM DEED KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE" PRESENTS,, THAT, BRADFORD R. PROUTY and DOREEN A. PROUTY of Feeding Hills, Massachusetts, in consideration of One and 001100($1,00) Datlar Grants to PHILLIP'PROUTY and KERRI ROOKE, husband and wife, as TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY, both of 891 South Westfield Street, Feeding Hills,Massachusetts. Wfrff QUITCLAIM COVENANTS Certain parcel of land situated in Feeding Hills, Hampden County, Massachusetts, shown as "Lot l" on a plan of land entitled "Definitive Subdivision plan- Prouty Lane -'Surveyed and Mapped for Bradford & Doreen Prouty" dated October 5, 2017 by R. Levesque Associates, Inc. Said plan is recorded in the Hampden County Registry of Deeds, Book of Plans 382, Page 34. Being (a portion of) the same premises conveyed to Bradford R. Prouty and Doreen A. Prouty by deed of Bradford R. Prouty and Doreen A. Prouty dated November 15 1991 and recorded in the Hampden County Registry of Deeds in Book 7860, Page 372. SUBJECT to and together with the Private Road Maintenance Agreement recorded inS� Hampden County Registry of Deeds, Book 2u AS , Page Subject to and together with rights of others to use streets and ways as shown on said plan. NO TITLE EXAMINATION HAYING BEEN DONE IN CONNECTION WITH THIS TRANSACTION. `F'1-- Executed as a,sealed instrument this �-� day of June, 2018 Bradford R. Prouty Doreen A. Prouty COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS County ofHAMPDEN, ss Jun0 a18 On this day of June 2018, before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared Bradford R. Prouty and Doreen A. Prouty proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification, which is/was a Driver's License, to be the person(s) whose names are signed on the preceding document and acknowledge to me that they signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose. JEAN M. WIERMASZ Notary Public COMMONWEALTH OF I�M9SAC1iV5ETS5 Ulf my Commission Expires February 10, 2023 . 1 ?1otary Public Commission E DONALD E:-ASHE, REGISTER HAMPOEV COUNTY REGISTRY OF DEEDS l~k 22248 P9396 037681 �J7-02--2018 a 0 =18P PRIVATE ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT For Prouty Lane, Feeding Hills, MA June'ZI,2018 THIS AGREEMENT for the maintenance and repair of that certain private road known as "Prouty Lane", the legal description of which is set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and made apart hereof, is entered into by Phillip Prouty and Kerr! Rooke{Owners of Lotf#1 as shown on Exhibit "A") and Bradford R. Prouty and Doreen A. Prouty (Owners of Lot#2 as shown on Exhibit "A")'for the benefit of both parties use of the private road (hereinafter referred to as "LOT OWNERS"). WHEREAS Bradford R. Prouty and Doreen A. Prouty (hereinafter referred to as "BD ") are the owners of certain real property being subdivided and developed to create two single-family tots known as Lot l and Lot 2 wherein both lots will use and enjoy the benefits of said Prouty Lane. A complete legal description of said real property is attached, here to as Exhibit A, and incorporated by reference; and, WHEREAS, Phillip Prouty and Kerr! Rooke (hereinafter referred to as "PKP') are the owners of Lott as shown on Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, 8DP and PKP and their successors and assigns mutually agree that Prouty Lane will be equally owned and shared in perpetuity; and WHEREAS, it is the mutual desire of the parties hereto that said private road be maintained in a safe and usable condition; and, WHEREAS, it is the mutual desire of the parties hereto to establish;a method for the maintenance and repair of said private road and for the apportionment of the expense of such maintenance and repair among BOP and PKP, and their successor and assigns; and, WHEREAS, it is the mutual intention of the parties that this Agreement constitute a covenant running, with the land, binding upon each successive Lot Owner of Lot 1 and Lot 2 served by the private road: NOW, THEREFORE, IT iS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Property is benefited by this Agreement, and present and successive Lot Owners of Lot land Lot 2 are expressly bound hereby for the benefit of the land. 2. The cost and expense of maintaining the private road shall be divided equally among the Cot Owners of lot 1 and Lot 2-and paid by the owners or the heirs, assigns and successors in interest of each such owners of each Lot. 3. The repairs and maintenance to be performed under this Agreement shall be limited to the following, unless the consent for additional work is agreed to by both Lot Owners: a. Reasonable and normal road improvements and maintenance work to adequately maintain said private road and related drainage facilities to permit all weather access. Repairs and maintenance under this Agreement shall include, but is not limited to, filling of holes, removing debris, and other work; reasonably necessary or proper to repair and preserve the road for all weather road purposes. 4. Any extraordinary repair required to correct damage tosaidroad that results from action taken or contracted for by parties hereto or their successors in interest shall be paid for by the party taking action or party contracting for work which caused the necessity for the extraordinary repair. The repair shall be such as to restore the road to the condition existing prior to said damage. 5. Repair and maintenance work on the private road shall be commenced when both owners agree in writing that such work is needed. Both owners of Lot 1 and Lot 2 shall obtain three bids from licensed contractors and shall accept the lowest and compliant of said three bids and shall then initiate the work. Both ;Owners -of Lot 1 and Lot shall notify the other party and each party shall have forty-five (45) days to pay all outstanding invoices. 6. Should either Lot Owner fail to pay the prorate share of costs and expenses as provided in this Agreement, then the Owner who paid the outstanding invoice shall be entitled without further notice to institute legal action for the collection of funds advanced on behalf of such owners in accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts Law, and shall be entitled to recover in such action in addition to the funds advanced, interest thereon at the current judiciary rate of interest, until paid, all costs and disbursements of such action, including such sum or sums as the Court may fix as and for a reasonable attorney's<fee. Any judgement obtained shall be an automatic lien on the non- paying Lot Owner. 7. Any liability of the Lot Owners for personal injury to any worker employed to make repairs or provided maintenance under this Agreement, or to third persons, as well as any liability ofthe ,Lot Owners for damage to the Property, or any such worker, or of any third persons, as a'result -of or arising out of repairs and maintenance under this Agreement, shall be borne equally between the Lot Owners. Each Lot Owner shall be responsible for and maintain their own insurance for their lot and for Prouty Lane. 8. It is further agreed that Lots 1 and'2 can never be further subdivided by PKB, BDP or their successors or assignees without consent of both existing owners of Lots 1,and 2 and full consent and approval of the Town of Agawam planning Board. 9. The foregoing covenants shall run with the land and shall be deemed to be for the benefit of the land of each owner and each and every person who shall at any time own all or any portion of Lots 1 or 2 or Prouty Lane referred to herein. 10. It is understood and agreed that the covenants herein contained shall be binding on the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assign of each of the owners. 11. It is'the purpose of the signatories hereto that this Instrument be recorded in the property records in Hampden County, Massachusetts, and intend that the obligation hereby created shall be and constitute a covenant running with the land and any subsequent Purchaser of all and any portion thereof, by acceptance of delivery of a deed and/or conveyance regardless of form, shall be deemed to have consented to and become bound by these presents, Including without limitation, the right of any person entitled to enforce the terms of this Agreement to institute legal action as provided in paragraph 7 hereof, such remedy to be cumulative and in addition to other remedies provided in the Agreement and to all other remedies at law or in equity. The terms of this Agreement maybe amended in writing upon majority approval of the owners. 12. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In the event that any of the provisions of this Agreement are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the validity, and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed the Agreement on this% day of June, 2D18, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS County of NAMPDEN ss June, 018 On this _ day of June 2028, before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared Phillip Prouty and Kerri Rooke proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification, which is/was a Driver's License, to be the person(s) whose names are signed on the preceding document and ackno #adlyfor its statedjPfublic 70&,JEAN M, WIERNASZNotary PublicNMALTH OF MASSACHUSETTSult Commission Expires tj February 10, 2023 Vol Z�+ Commission Exp COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS County of HAMPDEN, ss June 1, 2018 `f " on this)- day of June 2018, before me the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared Bradford R. Prouty and Doreen A. Prouty proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification, which is/was a Driver's License, to be the persons} whose names are signed on the preceding document and acknowledge to me that they signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose. h1 �f EofC JEAN M.WIERNASZ No Public tVotary Public \ !�OMMOfJWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS My Commission Expires February '10, 202a Commission Expi F, .0, 0 C L I lit I ---i -, - ___: - - 14 ti I DONALD E. ASHE, REGISTER HAMPBEN COUNTY REGISTRY OF'DEEDS Please modify #3, section "a" to read... Reasonable and normal road improvements and maintenance work to adequately maintain said private road and related drainage facilities to permit adequate all weather access for emergency vehicles. Repairs and maintenance under this Agreement =shall include, but is not limited to, filling of holes, removing debris, and other work reasonable necessary or proper to repair and preserve the road for all weather road purposes. '-744A. oe)-L� pro,"" �q�os5 0 0 Pamela Kerr From Pamela Kerr Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 10:53 AM To: Stephen Buoniconti Cc: Marc Strange Subject: FW: Prouty Lane - Maintence Agreement & Deed Restriction Attachments: Private Road Maintenance Agreement Jan 30 2018.docx Hi Steve —Can you take a look at this for the Board please? This is for a Definitive Plan for "private way" for the Prouty's. The Board asked for a document that would get recorded at the Registry that would restrict future development of the property and which spells out the maintenance of the road as the Town will not be maintaining it. The Board will be signing the plans this week but we will not release them until you have approved the document. Thank you. Pam From: Chris Karney [mailto:ckarngyC@rlaland.com] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 1144 AM To: Pamela Kerr Cc: 'Brad Prouty'; 'Rob'; 'Sofia Bitzas Williams' Subject: Prouty Lane - Maintence Agreement & Deed Restriction Good Morning, Attached is the maintenanceagreement and deed restriction as required by the Planning Board decision dated October 61" 2017. Please Jet us know if you require any other information for Thursday's meeting. Christopher Karney, EIT,-SIT' R LEVESQUE ASSOCIATES, INC. 40 School Street, PO Box 640 Westfield, MA 01085 p 413 568.0985 f 413.568-0986 www.rlaland.com PRIVATE ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT For Prouty Lane Feeding Hills, MA January 30, 2018 THIS AGREEMENT for the maintenance and repair of that certain private road known as "Prouty Lane", the; legal description of which is set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and made apart hereof, is entered into by Phillip Prouty (Owner of Lot #1 as shown on Exhibit"A") and Bradford Prouty and Doreen Prouty (Owners of Lot #2 as shown on Exhibit "A") for the benefit of both parties' use of the private road (hereinafter referred to as "LOT OWNERS"). WHEREAS Bradford Prouty and Doreen Prouty (hereinafter referred to as "BDP") are the owners of certain real property being subdivided and developed to create two single-family lots known as Lot 1 and Lot 2 wherein both lots will use and enjoy the benefits of said Prouty Lane. A complete legal description of said real property is attached, here to as Exhibit A, and incorporated by reference; and, WHEREAS, Phillip Prouty (hereinafter referred to as "PP") is the owner of Lot t as shown on Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, BDP and PP and their successors and assigns mutually agree that Prouty Lane will be equally owned and shared in perpetuity; and WHEREAS, it is the mutual desire of the parties hereto that said private road be maintained in a safe and usable condition; and, WHEREAS, it is the mutual desire of the parties hereto to establish a method for the maintenance and repair of said private road and for the apportionment of the expense of such maintenance and repair among BOP and PP, and their successor and assigns; and, WHEREAS, it is the mutual intention of the parties that this Agreement constitute a covenant running with the land, binding upon each successive Lot Owner of Lot 1 and Lot 2 served by the private road: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Property is benefited by this Agreement, and present and successive Lot Owners of Lot 1 and Lot 2 are expressly bound hereby for the benefit of the land. 2. The cost and expense of maintaining the private road shall be divided equally among the Lot Owners of Lot 1 and Lot 2 and paid by the owners or the heirs, assigns and successors in interest of each such owners of each Lot. 3. The repairs and maintenance to be performed under this Agreement shall be limited to the following, unless the consent for additional work is agreed to by both Lot Owners: a. Reasonable and normal road improvements and maintenance work to adequately maintain said private road and related drainage facilities to permit ade uate all weather access for emergency vehicles. Repairs and maintenance under this Agreement shall include, but is not limited to, filling of holes, removing debris, and other work reasonably necessary or proper to repair and preserve the road for all weather road purposes. 0 0 4. Any extraordinary repair required to correct damage to said road that results from action taken or contracted', for by parties hereto or their successors in interest shall be paid for by the party taking action or party contracting for work which caused the necessity for the extraordinary repair. The repair shall be such as to restore the road to the condition existing prior to said damage. 5. Repair and maintenance work on the private road shall be commenced when both owners agree in writing that such work is needed. Both Owners of Lot 1 and Lot 2 shall obtain three bids from licensed contractors and shall accept the lowest and compliant of said three bids and shall then initiate the work. Both Owners of Lot 1 and Lot 2 shall notify the other party and each party shall have forty-five (45) days to pay all outstanding invoices. 6. Should either Lot Owner fail to pay the prorate share of costs and expenses as provided in this Agreement, then the Owner who paid the outstanding' invoice shall be entitled without further notice to institute legal action for the collection of funds advanced on behalf of such owners in accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts Law, and shall be entitled to recover in such action in addition to the funds advanced, interest thereon at the current judiciary rate of interest, until paid, all costs, and disbursements of such action, including such sum or sums as the Court may fix as and for a reasonable attorney's fee. Any judgement obtained shall be an automatic lien on the non- paying Lot Owner. 7. Any liability of the Lot Owners for personal injury to any worker employed to make repairs or provided maintenance under this Agreement, or to third persons, as well as any liability of the Lot Owners for damage to the Property, or any such worker, or of any third persons, as a result of or arising out of repairs and maintenance under this Agreement, shall be borne equally between the Lot Owners. Each Lot Owner shall be responsible for and maintain their own insurance for their Lot and for Prouty Lane. S. It is further agreed that Lots 1 and 2 can never be further subdivided by PP, BDP or their successors or assignees without consent of both existing owners of Lots 1 and 2 and full consent and approval of the Town of Agawam Planning Board. 9. The foregoing covenants shall run with the land and shall be deemed to be for the benefit of the land of each ownerandeach and every person who shall at any time own all or any portion of Lots 1 or 2 or Prouty Lane referred to herein. 10. It is understood and agreed that the covenants herein containedshall be binding on the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assign of each of the owners. 11. It is the purpose of the signatories hereto that this Instrument be recorded in the property records in Hampden County, Massachusetts, and intend that the obligation hereby created shall be and constitute a covenant running with the land and any subsequent Purchaser of all and any portion thereof, by acceptance of delivery of a deed and/or conveyance regardless of form, shall be deemed to have consented to and become bound by these presents,, including without limitation, the right of any person entitled to enforce the terms of this Agreement to institute legal action as provided in paragraph 7 hereof, such remedy to be cumulative and in addition to other remedies provided in the Agreement and to all other remedies at law or in equity. The terms of this Agreement may be amended in writing upon majority approval of the owners. 12. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. in the event that any of the provisions of this Agreement are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the validity, and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected. E IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed the Agreement on this day of January, 2018. Witness Phillip Prouty Witness Bradford Prouty Witness Doreen Prouty COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETfS County of HAMPDEN, ss January , 2018 On this ' day of January 2018, before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared Phillip Prouty and proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification, which is/was a Driver's License, to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document and acknowledge to me that they signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose. County of HAMPDEN, ss Notary Public Commission Expires COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS January , 2018 On this, day of October 2017, before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared Bradford and Doreen Prouty and proved to me through satisfactory evidence of` identification, which is/was a Driver's License, to be the person(s) whose names are signed on the preceding document and acknowledge to me that they signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose. Notary Public Commission Expires Amanda Boissonneault From: Pamela Kerr Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 8:53 AM To: Amanda'Boissonneault Subject: FW: Prouty Lane - Maintence Agreement & Deed Restriction From: Stephen Buoniconti Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:58 PM To: Pamela Kerr Cc: Marc Strange Subject: RE: Prouty Lane - Maintence Agreement & Deed Restriction Pam- Apologies for the delay. I have one pause on the agreement, language. And I do not know how the Board has handled private ways in the past. I do recall that the Board had concerns about access for emergency vehicles on this private way. if the Board wants to ensure that the roadway is maintained properly for access, 3(a) could be amended to add after "all weather access" "adequate access for emergency vehicles". Or something to that effect. Otherwise I have no other recommended additions, deletions, or corrections. Steve From: Pamela Kerr Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 201810:53 AM' To Stephen Buoniconti Cc: Marc Strange Subject: FW: Prouty Lane Maintence Agreement & Deed Restriction Hi Steve — Can you take a look at this for the Board please? This is for a Definitive Plan for a "private way" for the Prouty's. The Board asked for a document that would get recorded at the Registry that would restrict future development of the property and which spells out the maintenance of the road as the Town will not be maintaining it. The Board will be signing the plans this week but we will not release them until you have approved the document. Thank you. Pam From: Chris Karney [mailto:ckarneX@rialand.com] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 11:44 AM To: Pamela Kerr Cc 'Brad Prouty', 'Rob'; 'Sofia Bitzas Williams' Subject: Prouty Lane Maintence Agreement & Deed Restriction Good Morning, Attached is the maintenance agreement and deed restriction as required by the Planning Board decision dated October 6`" 2017. Please let us know if you require any other information for Thursday's meeting. Christopher Karney, EIT, SIT R LEVESQL=E ASSOCIATES,; INC. 40-School Street, PO Box 640 1 To: CC From: Date: Subject: TOWNOFAGAWAM Department of Public Works 1000 Suffield Street Tel (413) 8210600 Christopher I Golba • Agawam, MA 01001 • Fax (413) 8210631 • Superintendent MEMORANDUM Planning File Engineering Division February 12, 2018 Prouty Lane Subdivision - Mylars Per your request, we have reviewed the revised-mylars for the Prouty Lane Subdivision, and they are ready for the Board's signatures. Engineering reserves the right to make additional comments as new information is submitted. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact this division. Sincerely, Vladimir Caceres Civil Engineer s.ls: hdiv'- ro ity's x watt way 89 •. si dh-.vcstfivlc,� Ian ;r;.;naa ldoe- Michelle C. Ca5e,E. Town Engineer i 4, Town of Agawam Interoffice To Engineering Department CC From: Planning Board Date: 211118 Subject: Definitive Plan — Prouty Lane — Prouty/RLA Please -review plan and mylar to be sure they are ready for the Planning Board's signatures prior to their February 15, 2018 meeting. Thank you, PRK/amb FROM THE DESK OF... AMANDABOISSONNEAULT PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tom OF AGAwAM 36 MAIN ST AGAWAM; MA 01001 aboissonneault@agawam:ma.us 413-786-0400 X 8739 Fax; "413-786-9927 September 14, 2017 1 AGAWAM ADVERTISER NEWS I Page 13 Public Notices Commonwealth of This is NOT a hear- Springfield,; MA 01103 the Petitioner. Massachusetts ing date, but a deadline ;by (413)748-8600 09/21/17 The Trial Court which you must file a written Docket No. HD17P0901EA Hampden Probate and appearance and objection if Estate of: Family Court you object to this proceed- David Craig Brayton 50 State Street ing. If you fail to file a time- Also Known As: Commonwealth of Springfield, MA 01103 ly written appearance and David C. Brayton Massachusetts (413)748-7758 objection followed by an Date of Death: The Trial Court Docket No. HD17P1725EA affidavit of objections within April 8, 2017 Probate and Family Court Estate of: thirty (30) days of the return INFORMAL PROBATE 50 State Street John William Bennett day, action may be taken PUBLICATION NOTICE Springfield, MA 01103 Also Known As: without further notice to you; To all persons inter- Docket No. HD17P1777GD William Bennett UNSUPERVISED esned in the above cap- In the matterof. Date of Death: 08/15/2017 ADMINISTRATION tioned estate, by Petition of Margret E Goss CITATION ON UNDER THE Petitioner Judith Dickinson Of; Agawam, MA PETITION FOR MASSACHUSETTS of Granville. MA RESPONDENT FORMAL UNIFOR:'V1 PROBATE Judith Dickinson of Alleged Incapacitated ADJUDICATION CODE (MUPQ Granville MA has been Person To all interested persons: A Personal Represent- informally appointed as the CITATION GIVING A Petition for Formal ative appointed under the Personal' Representative of NOTICE OF PETITION Probate of Will with MUPC in an unsupervised the estate to serve without FOR APPOINTMENT OF Appointment of Personal administration is not required surety on the bond. GUARDIAN FOR Representative has been to file an inventory or arms- The estate is being admin- INCAPACITATED led by Anne Kusekoski of al accounts with the Court. istered under informal pro- PERSON PURSUANT TO Springfield, MA requesting Persons interested in the cedure by the Personal Rep- G.L. c, 190B, §5-304 that the Court enter a formal estate are entitled to notice resentative under the Mass- To the named Respond - Decree and Order and for regarding the administration achusetts Uniform Probate ent and all other interested such other relief as requested directly from the Personal Cade without supervision persons, a petition has been in the Petition.- Representative and may peti- by the Court. Inventory and filed by Claudine M Goss of The Petitioner requests tion the Court in any matter accounts are not required to Agawam, MA in the above that: Anne Kusekoski of relating to the estate, includ- be filed with the Court, but captioned matter alleging Springfield, MA be appoint- ing the distribution of assets interested parties are enti- that Margret E Goss is ed as Personal Representa- and expenses of administra- tled to notice regarding the in need of a Guardian and tive(s) of said estate to serve tion. administration from the requesting that Claudine WithoutSuretyon the bond WITNESS, 14o n , Personal Representative M Goss of Agawam, MA in an unsupervised admiri- Barbara M Hyland, First and can petition the Court and Samantha L Goss of istrat on. Justice of this Court: in any matter relating to the Agawam; MA (or same other IMPORTANT` NOTICE Date: September 12, 2017 estate; including distribu- suitable person) be appoint - You have the right Suzanne.T. Seguin tion of assets and expenses ed as Guardian to serve to obtain a copy of the Register of Probate of administration. Interested Without Surety on the bond. Petition from the Petitioner 09/21/17 parties are >entitled to petition The petition asks the or at the Court. You have the Court to institute formal court to -determine that the a right to object to this pro- proceedings and to obtain Respondent is incapacitat-' ceeding, To do so, you or Commonwealth of orders terminating or restrict- ed that the appointment of your attorney must file -a Massachusetts ing the powers of Personal a Guardian is necessary, and written appearance and The Trial Court Representatives appointed that the proposed Guardian objection at this Court; Probate and Fancily Court under informal procedure. A is appropriate, The petition before: 10:00 a.m. on the Hampden Division copy of the Petition and Will, is on file with this court and return day of 1011012017. 54 State Street if any, can be obtained from may contain a request cfor 2 3 4 5 S 7 8 9 k17 12.16 19 2 221 1s 22 23 24 25 26 27 29 30 31 35 36 2. 33 34: 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 5 46 47 48 48 50 51 52 53 54 56 59 60 CLUES ACROSS turns CLUES DOWN 21. Long, winding 1. Storage device 36. Soviet Socialist 1'. Bathing suit ridge of sand and 4. Disagree with Republic 2. Poignantly gravel 10, Political 37. Mound different from 25. Court game organization 39. Boxer Amir what was 29.-.kosh, near 11_ Playoff 40. Away from expected Lake Winnebago appearances wind 3: A person with the 31. Variety of beet 12. Collection of 41. Exist same name as 32. Caps cops 42. Working man another 33. Rides in the 14. Balkan 48. British soldier 4. West Siberian snow mountain peak 50. Scrounge river 35,Took without 15. Island north of 51. Upset 5. Of the membrane permission Guam 52. The act of lining the 38. Tall stand to 16. Seizure of escaping abdominal cavity hold books someone's 53. Poet Pound 6. Has a positive 41. Spanish property 54. Confederate electric charge neighborhood 18. Repeat general 7. Fish -eating 43. Spanish dance 22. Beautiful youth 55. Midway mammal of the 44. Countries of 23. Bullfighters between south weasel family Asia 24. Charges a fare and east 8. Offerers 45. Make fun of 26. Not off 56. Becomes hot 9. Spanish be 46. Elk Grove High 27_ Where skaters from the sun 12. Chilean` province School ply their trade 58. Fictitious poet Capitan� 47. Network of 28. Meson Mailey 13. Father nerves 30, Guru 59. Not yet; 17. Pestilence 49. Greek apertifs 31. Cycles/second purchased 19. Songs 56. Unit of volume 34. Alternating 60.;Intersperse 2.0. Grilling tools 57.-South Dakota CROSSWORD SOLUTION certain specific authority. Commonwealth of You have the right to ob- Massachusetts ject to this proceeding. If you The Trial Court wish to do so, you or your Hampden Probate and attorney must file a written Family Court appearance at this court on 50 State Street or before 10:00 am_ on the Springfield, MA 01103 return date of 10/16/2017, (413)748-7758 This day is NOT a hearing Docket No. HD17CO189CA date, but a deadline date by In the matter of which you have to file the Ashley Nicole Greco written appearance: if you Of: Feeding fflus, MA object to the ,petition_ If you NOTICE OF PETITION fail to file the written; appear- FOR CHANGE OF NAME ance by the return date; To all persons interested action may be taken in this in petition described: matter without further notice A petition has been pre - to you. In addition to filing sented by Ashley N Greco the written appearance, you requesting that: Ashley or your attorney must file a Nicole Greco be allowed to written affidavit stating the change his/her/their name as specific facts and grounds follows: of your objection within 30 Ashley Nicole Halacoglu days after the return date. If you desire to object IMPORTANT NOTICE thereto, you or your attorney The outcome of this proceed- must file a written ,appear ing may limit or completely ante in said Court at: Spring - take away the above -named field on or before ten o'clock person's right to make deci- in the morning (10:00 a.m.) sions about personal affairs on: 1010IV2017 or financial affairs or both. WITNESS, Hon The. above -named person ,Barbara M Hyland, First has the right to ask for a Justice of this Court. lawyer. Anyone may make Date: September 5, 2017 this request on behalf of the Suzanne T. Seguin above -named: person. If the Register of Probate above -named; person cannot 09121/17 afford a la er one ma be wy , y appointed at State expense. WITNESS, Hon. Barbara M Hyland, First Justice of this Court. Date: September 18, 2017 Suzanne T.-Seguin Register of Probate 09121f 17 "Agawam Advertiser Compassionate f omecare for lyou or your (vved ones a / Civing SLLC Stay at �fome., . We can _1fef�i Long Term Care Insurance and veterans ;Benefits Accepted- Fur Bonded & insured Patricia -Lee Baskin, Sole .founder & Owner We can h4 with: V Ambulation V Meaf 'reparation and r Appointments Nutrition V Bathing r Medication Reminders V, Continence Care: � Recovery after surgery or hospitalization v 27ressirrg V 9?M Evaluations v Fkofe Moors V Shopping V 2--24 YNLOur Care v 2ozlet7ng V Housekeeping V .2417 On Cad Services v Hospice Supportive Care by Caring Sohitions Staff Cafl us w We can heo I 413-733-55 8 131 Elm Street, West Spin MA wzow. catity-sofutions.com o � go rJ Page-14 1 AGAWAM ADVERTISERNEWS1 September 14, 2017 Y Classifieds 14 WEEKLY NEWSPAPERS I SERVING 50 LOCAL COMMUNITIES' A TURLEY PUBLICATION ! wwwturley.com COMMUNITY MARKETPLACE Call us toll-- 800.824.6548 FOR SALE FOR SALE FOR SALE a WANTED SERVICES SERVICES 1 OD14 HARMAR MOBILiITY Lilt- LiFE :ALERT. 24i7. One press of r ADAM 4UENNEVILLE ROOF- 4W# lifting capacity from ground into a button sends help FAST! Medical, ��� ���� WANTED �� ��� "' ING, SIDING, WINDOWS- Shin- 1 FI nd M tat R t SI t 13o f van. Lifts powerchair or scooter. New $3,500. Asking $850. or best offer. Fire, Burglar, Even d you cant reach a phone! FREE brochure. CALL GM 209 BATCHELOR STREET Gran- 4t3.530-1644 ' 457-1917 by. Bar signs, household, toys. clothing; Christmas crafts, vintage; miscalls- ANTIQUE AND PERIOD CHAIRS LUNG CANCER? And $0 Years nexus. Ssptembar 23 & 24, gam-2pm: - Restored with new woven seats _ Old? if so, you and, your family may Marty stybs and weaves available. Call' be entitled to a significant cash award. FREE AND SALE ITEMS- Furrii- 1413)287-9580 Call 800-3644517 to learn more. lure, antiques, tools, JD attachments. No risk. No money out of pocket. Pats and pans. Friday, Saturday, BOTTLE COLLECTION FOR Sunday 9-3. 3056 Hillside, Bondsville SALE Call 413434.3406. MOSILENELP, AMERICA'S PRE. (Palmer). MIER MOBILE MEDfCAL ALERT PENCE 6' K SW GREEN,piastic w( STEM. WhaMer you're Home or LUDLLOW MOVING SALE 217 cover and VxY fence. Away. For Safety and Peace of Mind. Parlor Lane. Sat. 9123, Bam-1 pm: Full England's pellet stove with ;pipe ter No Long Term Contracts! Free Bro- house, Christmas decor, tools, small exterior wall, automatic start-up Excel- chure!'CallToday! 1-9444192401 T appfiances. Eiprything must go. lent Condition, 45;bags pellets. 413- 589.7915. PROMOTE YOUR PRODUCT, ser- vice or business to 1.7 million house- MULTI FAMILY TAG SALE Sat. MARBLE TILE 12X12 Rojo Akan. Was throughout New England. Reach 9123, 9am-4pm. Raindate Sept. 24th. le; jlerracotta color), 3 boxes. Whole. 4 mitlion potential readers quickly and 63 Charon Terrace, South Hadley. sale price $81 sf, 30 sf asking $200, 'inexpensively with great results. Use Something for everyone. 660-s61.1W3 the Buy New England Classitied Ad - - Network by calling'14131283.0393, NEW 14" VARIABLE SPEED classifiedsaturley.com. Do they work? r wood lathe, Delta 46.715 $700. Nor- 1- are read' One ci our:aids now!! mg dic Trak stepper. Like new $300. 413- Visit our website to see where your ads OLD CARPENTER TOOLS want- 2094NO2, run communftypapersne.com ea. Planes, chisels, saws, levels, etc. SAFE STEP WALK-IN TUB #1 Call Ken 14131433-2195, Keep your vintage tools working and get MONEY. Selling Walk-in tub in No. America. FIREWO®® BBB Accredited., Arthritis Founda- tion Commendation. Therapeuiic 2 YEAR SEASONED OAK g, Jets. MicroSoothe Air Therapy Sys - Hardwoods. Cut, split, delivered. 2, 3, tem. Less that 4 Inch Step -In: Wide 4 cord bads. R.T. Smart 1& Sons Door. Anti -Slip Floors. American (4t312B7.3827 www.rleanart- Made. Call 85.5-4004)439 for up to mood-eom $1500. Off. 2 YR. -SEASONED HARDWOOD SPECTRUM TRIPLE PLAY TV, quaNty & volume guaranteed. Call S & Internet &Voice for $29.99/ea, 60 MB Y, Lawn Care 800-607-5296 or 413- per second speed. No contract or com- 2673100. $2151 cord plus delivery. moment: We buy your existing contract up to $500:11.844.592-9018 - f f ge, eta - e oos, ae o Repairs, Roof and Siding Shampoo Service, Gutter Covers, decks and "***' porches. Lifetime Vinyl Siding, Win• A CALL WE HAUL doors; Skylights ''& Sun Tunnels. Call WE TAKE IT ALL (413)536.5955 WE LOAD 17 ALL - - - Lowest Rates; BATHROOM RENOVATION from accumulations, junk, estates, tub replacement to hell scale bathroom attics, garages, appliances, base- renavaBon. Free in home estimates ments, demo services 4M237.2250 10%: disc. with this ad. All Major CC's BiLODEAU AND SON ROOFING. CALL NOW 14131531.1936 Established 1976. New re -roofs and acatfwehaul gmaif.com repairs. Gutter cleanings and repairs. Licensedf insured. Call (413)967- ! 5879 r ' BOB ROBILLARD'S ODD JOB SERVICE Rubbish removal, attics, cellars, garages cleaned. Light moving. Gutters Cleaned. Call someone you know (4131537-5090 ********AA CALL •HAUL W ALL*******' BRUSH HOGGING, FIELD mow - Bulk trash removal, cleanoufs, 10% ing, light; tractor work; New environ- Wscoum with this ad. Freo Est, mentally friendly equipment. Low 1413}591.728& hourly rate or quoted jobs. Call 413- 013.7T98. CHAIR SEAT WEAVING & re- finishing - cane, fiber rush=& splint - Classroom instructor, 20+ years expe- rience. Call Watt at (4131287.9680 *******A & B HOUSEHOLD for estimate. REMOVAL SERVICE******* Ce)lars, allies garages cleaned, yard DRIVEWAYS, OIL AND STONE, debris. Barns, sheds demolished. durable but inexpensive. Choice of col - Swimming pools removed. Cheap- ors, also driveway repair and trucking er than dumpstar fees and we do ail available. FilY Loarrr Gravel- Call J. Fit - the work. Lowest rates. Fully insured. lion Liquid Asphalt (413)668.6192. 141319834512, cell (413)M a8• DRYWALL AND CEILINGS, plas- ter repair. Drywall hanging. Taping & ACE CHIMNEY SWEEPS Clean- ' All `1 MIALL SEASONED FIRE• WOODl111 Over a cord guaranteed- g STOP STRUGGLING ON THE WWI, WWii MILITARY items, WANTED- COSTUME JRWELRY, ings, inspections, repairs, caps, liners, waterproofing, rebuilds. Gutterbrusb compete inshmg. cei ing textures: Fully insured. Jason at Great Wags. Cut, Split, Prompt delivery. Call D & U STAIRS. Give your life a lift with an y° ACORN MIALIFT!Call now (or$250. American, German, Japanese. med old and silver, furs. Please call for Local family owned some 1413 W44MO7 1 - - Cordwood 413 26. ( 1 '43 OFF r stairlfft purchase and FREE ?� p ale, swords, uniforms, patches, hel- mats, photos, manuals, flight jackets, more Information or text (413 12- 15 1986.atfoC 19e6. fiT18355, Fully insured- PAINT AND PAPER Over 25 years ALL SEASONED HARDWOOD 2 DVD & brochure! 1.844-268A854 knives, boyonet5.14131885.2689 3714 7 14i3154T.8500 experience. References. Lic #08 yes. Cut, Split; Del. Prompt Del. West- 1. viewKevin Farms Creamery, LLC 413.246- 1791, 413.245 lN& FIREWOOD Fresh cut & spli€$150.00 Seasoned cut & split $204:D0 Al Hardwood. Tree length available 'Also have seasoned softwood for outdoor boilers (Cheap). Quality& volumes guaranteedH New England forest Products 1413)477-0M LOG LENGTH FIREWOOD for sale. 7.8 cords -delivered.. $700.00 delivered locally. Pricing subject to change. Piece your order today. We also purchase standing timber 14KIO- 373.4600. www:woodbundles;com FLEA MARKET YANKEE FLEA MARKET 1311 Park Street (Rt.20) Palmer, MA 01069 Over 150 vendors Over 10,000 Square feet 6 days aweek Tues-Sat 10-5, Sunday 11-3 Open 7 days during Brimfield Antique Show Year round, all indoor Antiques; Collectibles; Household furnishings and more! Vendors Welcome, Apply within Always buym9, Free estimates! 14131283.4910 Free Parking Free Admission MISCELLANEOUS A PLACE FOR MOM. The nation's largest senior living referral service. Contact our trusted, local experts to- day! Our service is FREE/no -obliga- lion. CALL 1. X"17-0524 FUNERALS CAM BE VERY EX- PENSWE. Can yourtoved ones afford it? Protect them with Final Expense insurance. Call today to learn more. SM758.0417 GOT KNEE PAIN? Back Pain? Shouider fain? ;Get a :pafn-relieving brace at We or NO cost to you. Medi- care Patients, Call Health Hotline Now! 14100-2794038 MAIL. TO. Classifieds, 24 Water St., Palmer, MA 01069 or call toll free: 800--824-5548 1 2 3 4 5 B 7 # 9 10 1i 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 Is- 2D saw 21 ea.Pao, eerie -U a*wPrJe meter 23 rm� mso 24 am.Paq sae.m 25 ewe w' ,26 sm 27 � w 28 eases 29 em*a++sa sao.w 30 easaPNIM aa+.oa 31 WNPwe >;rr.so 3E ease Paw s3zsa 33 r 34 eae'sunm 35 Oz�so '35 �r�m 37 �� 38 38 40 Sm i'mm QUABBIN & SUBURBAN - FRiDAY AT NWN 1 1 t a I ALL THREE ZONES Name; _ ---- Phone: First ZONE "base price Address'- Add a secoW ZONE 1(L00 Town: - State: Zip` Add athird ZONE Ruo rcry ad Nthe 45.00 muMasMvw: Iluasbin Number of Weeks. _ - X per week rate = $ Subtotal a Credit Card: 'Q MasterCard ❑VISA Ct Discover . 'J Cash 0 Check# x Number+7f Weeks sabrxban Card !: Exp. Date CVV TOTAL Enclosed H Iiwwas Amount of charge: Date: September 28, 2017 1. AGAWAM ADVERTISER NEWS 1 Page 15 OUR CALENDAR SECTION is intend- ed to promote free events, or those that directly affect a volunteer- driv-en organization. Paid events that are, not deemed benefits do not qualify. Nan -charitable events that charge the public for profit are not allowed as we consider that paid adveftis ing. The deadlim to submit calendar items is Monday at noon. Send to the Agawam Advertiser News at aanftrley.com, fax to 413-786- 8457, or mail to Turley Publications, 24 Water St., Palmer, MA 01069, We usually print at least one week prior to an event. The listings should be brief with only time, date, loca tion, activity explanation and contact information. Saturday, Sept 30 ANTIQUE GAS ENGINE & TRACTOR EXHIBIT at Salmon Brook Histori- cal Society, 208 Salmon Brook St., Granby, Conn. Setup at 7:30 a.m. followed by the shove from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., weather permitting. Parking and admission are free. May, OCL 6 CLASSICAL GUITAR PERFORMANCE at the Agawam Senior Center,-954 Main St. at 7 p.m. Doors open at 6:15 pm. Free and open to the public as part of the 14th season of the Agawam Cultural Council's Applause; Series. Classical guitarist Scott Sanchez will perform 'Bach, Brubeck, Beatles and Beyond." Sunday, Oct 8 THE WEST SPRINGFIELD COIN CLUB will meet at 7 p.m. at the Mittineague Congregational Church; 1840 Westfield SL,'West Spring- field. A special coin topic will be presented and discussed. Refresh- ments available, Guests welcome; For more information, call Peter Setim at 413-596-9871. Agawam Senior Center Fitness Room is open daily from 8`a.m. to 8:45 p.m. Lunch Menu Monday, Oct. 2: Ravioli with meat sauce, Caesar salad, fresh oranges. Tuesday, Oct. 3: Chicken marsala; mashed pota- toes, Oriental blend vegetables; birthday cake. Wednesday, Oct. 4: Minestrone soup, garden salad topped with tuna salad, peaches. Thursday, Oct. 5: Beef stew, mixed vegetables, bis- cuit, spinach salad, mixed fruit. Friday; Oct. & Pasta with shrimp and broccoli in white sauce, garden salad, pudding. Calendar of Events Monday, Oct. 2: S.H.I.N.E.representative available (by appt.); 8 a.m., weight training; 8:15 a.m., yoga; 9:30 a.m., a.m., line dancing; 11:30 a.m., Gentle'Yoga; 1 p.m., writing group with Bruce Cone, Bingo; 2 p.m., monthly dance with Richie Mitnidt; 5 30p.m., Zumba Gold. Tuesday, Oct. 3: S.H.I.N.L representative available THE VAUGHN MONROE'ORCHES- TRA under the direction of Dan Gabel will celebrate Big Band music in a free performance in the gym at Springfield Technical Community College,1 Armory St., Springfield at 2 p.m. Doors open at 1 p.m. Admis- sion is tee. Space is limited. Wednesday, OctI I THE ELM-BELCHER MASONIC LODGE, 53 River St.; Agawam offers an all -you -can -eat spaghetti supper at a cast of $8 for adults, $4 for chil- dren, The public is welcome: Friday, OcL 13 THE TASTE OF GREECE food festival today through Sunday at the Greek OrthodoxChurchof St. Luke, 400 Prospect St.; Fast Longmeadow. For more; information and times, visit st- lukego.orglthe-faste-of-greece. Lecral Notices_ Commonwealth of Massachusetts The Trial Court Probate and Family Court 50 State Street Springfield, MA 01103' Docket No. HD17PI777GD In the matter of: Margret E Goss Of Agawam, MA, RESPONDENT Alleged Incapacitated Person -CITATION GIVING NOTICE OF PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN FOR INCAPACITATED PERSON PURSUANT TO G.L. c. 190B, §5-304 To the named Respond- ent and all other interested persons, a petition has been filed by Claudine M Goss of Agawam, MA in the above captioned matter alleging, that MargretE Goss is in need of a Guardian and requesting that Claudine M Goss of Agawam, MA and Samantha L Goss of Agawam, MA (or some other suitable person) be appoint- ed as Guardian to serve Without Surety on the bond. The petition asks the court to determine that the Respondent is,incapacitat- ed, that the appointment of a Guardian is necessary, and that the proposed Guardian is appropriate. The petition is on file with this court 'and may contain a request for certain specific authority. You have the right to ob- ject to this proceeding. If you wish to do so, you or your attorney must file a written appearance at this court on or before 10:00 a.m. on the return date of 10116/2017. This day is NOT a hearing date, but a deadline date by which you have to file the written appearance if you object to the petition. If you fail to file the written appear- ance by the return date, action may be taken in this matter without further notice to you. In addition to filing the written appearance, you or your attorney must file a written affidavit stating the specific facts and grounds of your objection within 30 days after the return date. IMPORTANT NOTICE The outcome of this proceed- ing may limit or completely take away the above -named person's right to make deci- sions about personal affairs or financial affairs or both. The above -named person has the right to ask for a lawyer. Anyone may make this request on behalf of the above -named person. If the above -named; person cannot afford a lawyer, one may be appointed at State expense, WITNESS, Hon_. Barbara 'M Hyland, First Justice of this Court. Date: September 18, 2017 Suzanne T. Seguin Register of Probate 09/28/17 Commonwealth of Massachusetts The Trial Court Hampden Probate and Family Court 50 State Street' Springfield, MA 01103 413-748-7758 Docket No. HD06W2436PA1 Osvaldo Molina (Plaintiff) vs. Tanya Marie Kent (Defendant) (by appt); 9 a rn, sewing class, exercise class; 9:45 a.m., chair exercise class; noon, ladies;onlybilliards: 12'.30 p.m , mah jongg, movie ('Beauty and the Beast" new veision);1 p.m., Mexican Train Game; 4:30 p,m; yoga; 6 p.m., beginner line dance. Wednesday, Oct. 4: 8 a.m., weight training, yoga; 9:30 a.m., Gentle Yoga, Gary Wynn from New Ears in for hearing aid check and cleaning; 10 a.m., Friends meeting (dining room); 11 a.m., Tai Chi; 12 30 p.m., bridge;1 p.m.'. ballroom lessons, Scrabble;1:30 p.m., Golden Agers;Chapter 2 meeting; 5:30 p.m., Zumba Cold. Thursday, Oct 5: 9 a.m., exercise; 9:30 a.m., quilt- ing; 10 a.m.. line dancing; 10:30a.m., Reiki avail able ($10); 12:30 p.m., bridge; ) p.m., pitch, open art class, Mexican Train Game; 2 p.m., Melody Band practice; 4 p.m, yoga; 6:30 p.m., pitch. Friday, Oct. 6: 8 a.m.; yoga; 9:15 a.m., Let's Paint; 10 a.m., absolute beginner line dance (new class); noon, canasta; I p.m., pitch, cribbage; 4 p,m., card games; 6:30 p.m., line dance class; 7 p.m., ACC Ap- pfause Series event. Saturday, Oct.14 THE AGAWAM HISTORICAL AND FIREHOUSE MUSEUM, 35 Elm St., Agawam will be open from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Featured this year is a special exhibit celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Eastern States Exhibition. For more information, visit www:agawamhistoricalassoc. webxs.com or follow it on Facebook, GRAND REOPENING OF Feeding Hills Music Academy, formerly Mu- sic Speaks, from noon to 4 p.m,16 Southwick St., Feeding Hills in the Crossroad Shopping Center. Live music, food, giveaways, raffles, face painting and more. All are invited. `MESSAGES FROM THE :OTHER SIDE;" from 6 to 11 p.m. at Club One Sports Bar & Banquet Hall, 60 N, Westfield St., Feeding Hills fea- turing psychic medium Lisa Lanna Tickets are $30 and are available at the door or calf Denise at 413-734- 4179, Patty at 413-231-4845 or email warNorsofrenee@gmail.00m. Proceeds to benefit WORTH to as- silt people in oppressed situations through support and awareness. FALL FLEA MARKET sponsored by the Salmon Brook Historical Society from 9 a.m to 4 p.m. at 208 Salmon Brook St., Granby, Conn. Free park- ing and admission. Thursday, Oct.19 THE PRESIDENT'S OWN' UNIT® STATES MARINE BANG will appear in Concert at 7 p.m. in Springfield Sym- phony Hall, 34:Court St. at 7pm. Tick- ets for the free concert are available at ticketleap.com or by sending self-ad- dressed stamped envelope to Spirit DIVORCE SUMMONS filed by Gail A. Dunn of BY PUBLICATION Monson MA requesting that AND MAILING the Court enter a formal To the above named Decree and Order and for Defendant: such other relief as requested A complaint has been in the Petition. presented to this Court by The Petitioner requests Osvaldo Molina, plain- that: Gail A. Dunn of tiff, on Complaint for Monson MA be appoint - Modification. ed as Personal Representa- You are required to serve tive(s) of said estate to serve upon - Osvaldo Molina Without Surety on the bond - plaintiff- whose address in an unsupervised admin- is 6 Spring Meadows, istration. South Hadley, MA 01075, IMPORTANT NOTICE your answer on or before You have the ,right to December 19, 2017. If you obtain a copy of the Petition fail to do so, the court will from the: Petitioner or at proceed to the bearing ;and the -Court. You have a right adjudication of this action. to object to this proceed - You are also required to file ing. To do so, you or your a copy of your answer in the attorney must file a written office of the Register of this appearance and objection Court at Springfield. at this Court before: 10:00 W I T N I, S S`, Han. a.m. on the return day of Barbara M Hyland, Esquire, 10/19/2017. First Justice of this Court at This is NOT a hear - Springfield, this fifteenthdaying date, but a deadline by of September, 2017. which you must file a written Suzanne T. Seguin appearance and objection if Register of Probate 09/28/17 Commonwealth of Massachusetts The Trial Court Hampden Probate and Family Court 50 State Street Springfield, MA 01103 (413)748-7758 Docket No. HD17P1809EA Estate of: Ruth E Pederzoli Date of Death: 09/01/2017 CITATION ON PETITION FOR FORMAL ADJUDICATION To all interested persons:- A Petition for Formal Appointment of Personal Representative has been Please check the accuracy of your legal notice prior to submis- sion (i.e., date, time, spelling). Also, be sure' the requested publication date coincides With the purpose of the notice, or as the law demands. Thank you. of Springfield, 135D MainSt., Suite 1004, Springfield, MA 01103. Saturday, Nov. 4 HOLIDAY CRAFT FAIR at St. Caul- erine of Siena Parish Center,'1023 Parker St., Springfield from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Area crafters, game room, not lunch and more. Admission is free; ONGOING AGAWAM UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, 459 Mill St., Agawam; offers a free "Crochet Club' the first and third Tuesday of each month from 6:30 to 8p.m. All are invited to join; including men and women and beginners to experienced crochet- ers. ,Drop -ins wecome. Hooks and yarn available if needed. For more information, call 413-786-7991. THE AGAWAM ST. PATRICK COM- MITTEE meets the second Wednes- day of each month, September through June, at 6:30 p.m. in the Peirce Conference Room at the Agawam Public Library, 750 Cooper St,1=or information on how to join, call Vera Conway at 413-786-3247 or email Rosemary Sandlin at rose- marysandlin@gmail.com. THE FARMERS'- MARKET AT STCC will be open for business each Wednesday from Sept. 6 through you object to this proceed- ing. If you fail to file a time- ly written appearance and objection followed by an affidavit of objections within thirty (30) days of the return day, action may be taken without further notice to you. UNSUPERVISED ADMINISTRATION UNDER THE MASSACHUSETTS UNIFORM PROBATE CODE (MUPC) A Personal Represent- ative appointed under the MUPC in an unsupervised administration is not required to file an inventory or annu- al accounts with the Court. Persons interested in the estate are entitled to notice regarding the administration directly from the Personal Representative and may peti- tion the Court in any matter relating to the estate, includ- ing the distribution of assets and; expenses of administra- tion; Dec. 13 between Buildings' 2 and 13. Vendors will offer goods' for safe between 11:30 a.m. and -2 p.m. Free parking is available. THE SUFFIELD FARMERS ;MARKET is held, rain or shine, on Satur- days from 9-a.m. to noon on the south Town Green in the center of town now through Columbus Day weekend. Most participating farms' participate in the WIC program and some vendors are now SNAP cer- Tied. For more information, visit: www.suffieldfarmarsmarket.com or contact Ellie Sinns at 860-668- 2781 or 860-668-3648, ADULT DROP -IN SIT & KNIT meets at the Agawam Public Library at. 750 Cooper St. Tuesdays from 1-3 p.m. Bring your sticks and join other knitters for creative time. No regis- tration is required. MOM 2 MOM takes place the second Tuesday of every month October through June, 9:30 to 11 a.m. at Agawam Congregational Church, 745 MainSt, A round -table discussion hosted by a local "vet- eran' mom, this; is a great way to have further conversation on recent cafe themes and parent education events, celebrate parenting and re ceW encouragement for the trials.. WITNESS, Hon-. Barbara M Hyland, First Justice of this Court. Date: September 21, 2017 Suzanne T. Seguin Register of Probate 09128/17 AGAWAM PLANNING BOARD LEGAL NOTICE The Agawam Planning Board will hold a pub- lic hearing on Thursday, October 5,, 2017 at 6:30 PM at the Agawam Public Library, 750 Cooper Street, Agawam, MA. The purpose of this hearing will be ;to hear the petition of Prouty for a Definitive Subdivision Plan for property on South Westfield Street. By Order of Mark R. Paleologopoulos, Chairman AGAWAM PLANNING BOARD 09I21, 09/28/17 K E I E I K S I M I L E S G R A N D P A R 1 N T S F F R E A R M E D I C T S E S M L A E M A I N G A R A S p S R A T S C L E H A D O R Y S D T S T E S G E P A K A W C A S E 0 I K D E P O A R E L U A K 1 G L S E E S D fir A T P A 5 E N E R A L A R T I C U L A T E L Y B A R E L Y S' A K E` q Page 16 1 AMWAM ADVERT[SEE NEWS i September 28, 2017 Cias.sifieds 14 WEEKLY NEWSPAPERS I SERVING 50 LOCAL COMMUNITIES A TURLEY PUBLICATION I www.ludey.com COMMUNITY MARKETPLACE Call us toll free 800.824.6548 ANTIQUE AND PERIOD CHAIRS LOG LENGTH FIREWOOD for LUNG CANCER? And 60 Years TAG SALE - Restored with new woven seats - sale. 7-8 cords delivered. $700.00 Old? If so, you and your family may Many styles and weaves available. Call delivered locally. Pricing subject to be emitted to a significant rash award. MULTI FAMILY TAG SALE 79 44131267.911 change. Place your order today. We Call 800.3"0517 to learn more. Woodland St., Holyoke, Sept. 29, alsopurchasestanding Umber.14WO. - No risk. No money; out of pocket., HITCHCOCK SOLID OAK enter- 373413W. www.woodbundles.com 9am-3pm, Sept. 30, 9am-3pm, Oct. 1 Costume jewelry, furniture; tainmenl center $200, Pine dry sink MOBILEHELP AMERICA% PRE- househpm. ousehdd. Something for everyone. $50, Ar!ens snowblower $100. Call INTER MOBILE MEDICAL ALERT John 413-7864320. SYSTEM. Whether you're Home or esr FLEA MARKET HOME OWNERS, HOBBYISTS, mmmmomommommma Trades People. 3 generations of hand YANKEE FLEA MARKET tools in good working condition. iT 1311 Park Street(Rt 20) cabinet maker's table saw, 4-1/4' angle Palmer, MA 01069 grinder (newer). All reasonably priced. Over 150 vendors 413-534-1494 Over 10,000 Square feet RETIREE PAYS CASH 6 days a week Tues-Sat 10-5, Sunday 11-5 for stamp collections; 7 days during Brimfield large or small.Open round, Show Will evaluate or buy. r i Yearros, Questions4? Ron (4131896-3324 Collectibles, Antiduernishign Household furnishings and morel Vendors welcome, Apply within Always ixgirng, F I FIREWOOD 2 YEAR SEASONED OAK & Hardwoods. Cut, split, delivered. 2, 3 4 cord loads. R.T. Smart & Sons 1413)2674827 Www.rtamart- wood.com. 2 YR. SEASONED HARDWOOD qualirty $<volume guaranteed. Gall S & K Lawn /Care 800-607.5296 or 413- 267-3100. $215/ cord plus delivery. :FALL SEASONED FIRE- WOODIlR.Over a cord guaranteed. Cut, Sprit, Prompt delivery. Call D & D Cordwood 14131348-4326. ALL SEASONED HARDWOOD,2 ym Cut, SPIN, Del. Prompt Del, West - view Farms Creamery, LLC 413-246- 1721, 413-245-10S5. FIREWOOD Fresh cut & split $150.00 Seasoned cut & split $200.00 All hardwood. Tree length available `Also have seasoned softwood for outdoor boilers (Cheap). Quality & volumes guarantesi New England Forest Products (41$)477.0083 ree mates 14131983-4910 Free Parking Free Admission MISCELLANEOUS A PLACE' FOR MOM. The nation's largest senior riving referral service. Contact our trusted, local" -experts to- day! Our service is FREE/no abliga- Lion. CALL 1 800.4174524 FUNERALS CAN BE VERY EX- PENSIVE. Can your loved ones afford it? Prated them with Final Expense Insurance: Call today to learn more. GM758.0417 GOT KNEE PAIN? Bade Pain? Shoulder Pain? Get a pain -relieving brace at little or NO cost to you. 'Medi- care Patients. Call Health Hotline Now! 1. KO-2794= LIFE ALERT. 2417. One press of a button sends help FAST! Medical, Fire, Burglar. Even if you cant react a phone! FREE brochure. CALL 800• 457.1917 Away. For Safety and Peace of Mind. t I No Lang Term Contracts! Free Bro- chure! Cal Today! 141444191 WANTED TO BUY PROMOTE YOUR PRODUCT,:ser- vice or business to 1.7 million house- holds throughout New England. Reach 4 million potential readers quickly and inexpensively with great results. Use the Buy New England Classified Ad Network by calling (413)2834=, classiWsOtudeycom-Do they work? You are reading one of our ads nowfl Visit ourwebsfte to see where your ads run communitypapersne.com SAFE STEP WALK-IN TUB #1 Sell- ingWalk4n tub in No. America- BBB Ado - credited. Arthritis Foundation Commen- dation. Therapeutic Jets. MicroSoothe Air Therapy System. Less that 4 Inch Step -In. Wide Door. Anfi-Slip Floors. American Made. Call 855400-0439 for up to $1500.Off. SPECTRUM TRIPLE PLAY TV, Internet & Voice for $29.99/ea. 30 MB per second speed. No contract or com- miunent.Webuy your existing contract tip to $500.11.644.692-901S STOP STRUGGLING ON THE STAIRS. Give your life a I!R with an ACORN STAIRLIFT! Call now for $250. OFF your stairliit purchase and FREE DVD & brochure! 141"286.08S4 TAG SALE GIANT TAG SALE 84 Cosgrove Avenue, Agawam, MA 01001. Friday, Oct. 6, Sat., Oct. 7 Sunday, Oct. 8. 9 am to 3pm rY 3 a. MAIL TO. Classifieds, 24 Water St., Palmer, MA 01069 or call tall free, 800-824-e648 NEW ENGLAND ESTATE PICKERS IN THE OLD MONSON LANES BOWLING ALLEY. BUYING NOW! ALL ANTIQUES AND COLLECTIBLES COMPLETE ESTATES SETTLED! (413)267-3729 TOP DOLLAR ON THE SPOT FOR ALL GOLD AND SILVER ITEMS, JEWELRY, COINS, SILVERWARE, ETC! Items to Include, old adrrer tising signs of all subject matters! Furniture, trains, pe" cars, modeltoys, eae kits from the 70%, old Tnnmg items, military Items, sports stuff, old paintings, books, coin operated Coca Cola pinball machines, etc. com- le hooks, posWards, maga- zines, old letterman jackets, musical instruments, micro- scopes, libmulars, old W. cycles, motorcycles, vintage automobiles! WE PURCHASE CONTENTS OF BARNS, GARAGES, ATTICS, BASE- MENTS! LET US DO THE WORK AND YOU GET PAID! SIMPLY BRING YOUR ITEMS IN FORA -FREE EVALUATION AND OR CASH OFFER! THURSDAY-SUNDAY 10:00 •5.00 HONEST COURTEOUS SERVICE!:! 64 MAIN ST. IRTE.32h MONSON,-MA LINES; QUABBIN & S = A 1 2 3 4 3 6 7 a 8 10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 is 19 20 SMW 21 ewe mw 22 s.e niw arzm 23 ease mn $2730 24 a® pd.x2m. ss.ao 25 20 27 RMeei ce 20 u P9 Bwemw roam 30 ss,m 31 'B-Pd- aim 32 6wePr" r32w 33 a®Prira $nm 34 S" Price MIX 35 35 Beeep 37: `a Pry : 38 . awePr� 39 0- � A0 eeseeP ce Name: _ Address: Town: Number of Weeks: Credit Card: j MasterCard D VISA i Discover Card #: Amount of charge: Phone: State: _ Zip: X per week rate = $ ] Cash Check# Exp. Date,-.-�CVV I 1 1 ALL THREE ZONES. First ZONE base price Add a second ZONE Add a third ZONE . tkE� If Subtotal _ z x Number of Weeks _ (- TOTAL Enclosed _ � 1 OLD CARPENTER TOOLS want- ACE -CHIMNEY SWEEPS Clean- ed. Planes, chisels, saws; levels, etc. ings, inspections; repairs, caps, liners, Call Ken 14131433.2195. Keep your waterproofing, rebuilds, Gutterbrush vintage tools working and get MONEY. installations. Local family owned some 1986. HIC #118365. Fully insured. WWI, WWII MILITARY items. 14131547.8500 American, German, Japanese. med- als, swords, uniforms, patches, hel- ADAM QUENNEVILLE ROOF. mets,_photos, manuals, flight jackets, ING, SIDING, WINDOWS. Shin - knives, boyonets.(413j8852N9 gle, Fiat and Metal Roofs, Slate Roof Repairs, Roof and Siding Shampoo WANTED• COSTUME JEWELRY, Service; Gutter Covers, decks and gold and silver, furs. Please call for more porches. Lifetime Vini Siding, Win - information or bead (41315123714 doves, Skylights & Sun Tunnels. Call (413)538-5955 • BILODEAU AND SON ROOFING. Established 1976,-New re -roofs and repairs. Gueer cleanings and repairs. Licensed/ insured. Calf 14131987- 6679 BOB ROOKLMWS ODQ JOB SERVICE Rubbish removal, attics, *******AA CALL • HAUL IT cellars, gages cleaned. Lightmoving. /ILL******** Gutters Cleaned. Call someone you Bulk trash removal, cleariouts, 10% know 141316374WW Miscount with this ad. Free' Est. (413W W7266 BRUSH HOGGING, FIELD mow- ing, light tractor work. New env!ron- mentally friendly equipment. Low t hourly rate or quoted jobs. Call 413- 9113.7799. WW CHAIR SEAT WEAVING & re - *******A & B HOUSEHOLD finishing - cane, fiber rush & splint - REMOVAL SERVICE******* Classroom instructor, 20+ years expe- Cellars, attics, garages cleaned, yard Hence- Call waft at 1413)267-96aw debris. Barns, -sheds, demolished. for estimate: Swimming pools removed. Cheaper than dumpster fees and we do all the work. DRIVEWAYS, OIL AND STONE, Lowest rates Fully insured. 14131283- durable but inexpensive. Choice of col- 6512, cell (413)2224)M. ors, also driveway repair and trucking available. FdV Loam/ Gravel. Call J: FI- i lion Liquid Asphalt `1413)66"192. DRYWALL AND CEILINGS, plas- ter repair. Drywall hanging. Taping & complete finishing. All ceiling textures. ** Fully insured. Jason at Great Wails. A CALL WE HAUL /4131583 0487 WE TAKE IT ALL WE LOAD IT ALL PAINT AND PAPER Over 25 years Lowest Rates, experience. References. Lic #086220. accumulations, junk, estates, attics, Please call Kevin 978.355-6864. garages, appliances; basements. demo services'T0% disc. with this ad; PLUMBER • LICENSED AND All MajorCC's experienced. Fair prices, No trav- CALL NOW(413)531.1936 el charge. Lie. 919243. Call Ran acailwehaulOgmail:com (413)323.5697,(413)34S-1602. WATER DAMAGE, DRYWALL, ceiling repair, complete finishing job. Fully insured. Call Ray (4131348- Imp r a 9832 UBURBAN - FRIDAYAT NOON 1 al 1� _ Wt4wl -c, $10.00 Floe rmm mm, t� ca.Di) rdi-..n zaxei.): �abbin a uburban ��Ilowns WE RENOVATE, SELL & PUR- CHASE (any condition) horse drawn vehicles Such as sleighs, carriages, surreys, wagons,-dr's buggies, drive- able or lawn ornaments. Some fur- niture and +other restoration services available. Reasonable prices. Quality" workmanship. Call (413)21340373 for estimate and information. DEIMERS & SONS BELCHERTOWN, MA APPLIANCES COLEMAN APPLIANCE SER- VICE Servicing all makes and mod- els of washers, dryers, refrigerators, stoves. dishwashers, air conditioners. Also dryer verrt cleaning. 14131536- 0034 CHILD SERVICES *NEW STATE LAW. Anyone adver- Using caring of children must list a li- cense number to do so if they offer this service in their own home. COMPUTER SERVICES COMPUTERS SHOULDN'T BE frustrating or frigMering. I'll- come to you. 'Upgrades, troubleshooting, set- up, tutoring. Other electronics too. Call Monique (41312374035 ' vw1Upraq5rvqw1 CERTIFIED MAILP REC:EIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at Lvww.usps. com-. USE ---OFFICIAL ru U Rftm Reew tw&*m s Hors []A" Wabae RKuwed s ci ITOW ftetne " Fe" 1-n -1 a Certified Mail service provides the following benefits: ■ A receipt (this pofta ai the CeMad NMI label(: for an electronic return receipt; sae a retail ■ A unS z identifier for your maitplace, associate for mistara. tocaive a duplicate • Bachnic vedboation(f delivery or attempted fetum feceipt for added Wfee, Present this dellvery VSKO-posbriarked Certified Mail receiptta the ■ A record of delivery (including the reclpierin retail associato. sigoakNe) that Is retained by the PosW Service"' Resirfcted delivery service, which provides fore specified period. de}i+iery to the addressee specified byname, or 10 the addressees authanzed agent. Important Reminders Adutt signa#slse sesv ca, which requires the ■ Y(u may purchase Cerdhed Mall Service with signee to be at least 21 years of age {riot First -Class Mall, First -Class Package Smicee, available at rewl). or Priority Mail® service. AdultsignatwonsWcted delivery service, which ■ Willed Mail services not available far reguiresthe slgnee to be at least21 yew of age lntarualt al mail and pmvides delivery to the addressee specifad ■ Irmurance Coverage, is naravailable for purchase by name, at tathe addressees authorized agelK with Ceri feed Mail service. However, the purchase (PA available M retail). of Certified,Mai( swke does not change She w TO ensure that your Certified Mao Mew is fnsurance,coverage arstomaticaoy included with cerw Psiarily Mad item. acxepted as leo proof of maiiiml, it should bear WPS postmark9 you would like aposimarkon it For an adiltdanal fee; and with a proper this Certifed Mar[ receipt, please present your endorsement on the mailpias e, you may request CAN# alai(rt m at Post Offcl -for the folla)mng serofces: postmwidng.If you don't need a postmark on ftils - Retum receipt service, which provides afecarG Certified Mali receipt,'defach the bamWGd ppttim of delivery Giro Aig Me recfp(ents sWiiaturo). of this label, affix it td the maiipiece, a" You can req iem a har impy return receipt or an apptoptiate postage, and deposit the maiipiece. electronic version: For a hardcdpyrehrrn receipt, complete PS Form 3811, Ooffmv&Retum ROC*f; atbtch'PS Form 3311 to you; insYoece; IMPQRiAAl7: save tuts remWim yoer reeord3. PS Fa¢a SM, Wl20i5 (ROWWW) PSN 753"2-D0&,W47 Town of Agawam 36 Main Street Agawam, Massachusetts 01001-184 c� Tel. 413-786-0400 Fax 413-786-9927 October 6, 2017 Bradford and Doreen Prouty 891 South Westfield Street Feeding Hills, MA 01030 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Prouty: At its duly called meeting held on Oc approve the plan entitled "Definitive South Westfield Street,, Feeding Hilh documents regarding the maintenanc( limiting future development without ,oted'to '1323,891 legal strictions In addition to the waivers that were,. —.. — �LLuuir, uiv r-rrninmary Flan, the Board voted 3-0 to approve the following waiver of the Agawam Subdivision Rules and Regulations as requested: Section 159-9 to allow for the waiver of a typical roadway cross section of the roadway. Two sets of mylars and two paper copies shall be submitted for the Board's signatures. If you have any questions, please contact this office at>786-0400, extension 8737. Sncerel Mark R. Paleologopoulos, Chairman AGAWAM PLANNING BOARD MRP:prk cc: Building Insp., Eng. Dept., Town Clerk, R. Levesque, File 3 3� E El 36 Main Street October 6, 201'7 Bradford and Doreen Prouty 891 SouthWestfield Street Feeding Dills, MA 01030 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Prouty •` • it Agawam, Massachusetts 01001-180' 0 Tel. 413-786-0400 Fax;413-786-9927 Dow c 4 At its duly called meeting held on October 5, 2017, the Agawam Planning Board voted to approve the plan entitled "Definitive: Plans, Prouty Lane Subdivision, Parcel ID': E3 2 3, 891 South Westfield Street, Feeding Hills, MA" conditional upon the Board receiving legal documents regarding the maintenance of the private way and the proposed deed restrictions limiting future development without going through the subdivision process. In ;addition to the waivers that were granted during the Preliminary Plan, the Board voted 3-0 to approve the following waiver of the Agawam Subdivision Rules and Regulations as requested: Section 159-9 to allow for the waiver of a typical roadway cross section of the roadway. Two sets of mylars and two paper copies ;shall be submitted for the Board's signatures. ;If you have any questions, please contact this office at 786-0400, extension 8737. Sincerel Mark R. Paleologopoulos, Chairman AGAWAM PLANNING BOARD MRP:prk cc: Building Insp., Eng. Dept., Town Clerk, R. Levesque, File ! 0 Pamela Kerr From: Michelle Chase Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017 1:23 PM To: Chris Karney;,Pamela Kerr, Vladimir Caceres; Dawn Nims Cc: 'Rob Levesque'; `Sofia Bitzas Williams; 'Ryan Nelson` Subject: RE: Definitive Subdivision Plan - Prouty Lane (private) Thanks Chris. This addresses Engineering's concerns. Sincerely, Michelle C. Chase, P.E. Town Engineer P: 413-821-0625 F:413-821-0631 Agawam- Engineering Division 1000 Suffield Street Agawam, MA 01001 www.agawam:ma.us Please consider the environment before printing this email From: Chris Karney [ma ilto:ckarney@rlaland .coml Sent: Thursday, October 5, 20171:11 PM To: Pamela Kerr <Peerr@a_ae wam,ma.us>; Vladimir Caceres <VCaceres@aeawam.ma.us> Michelle Chase <MChase@aeawam.ma.us>; Dawn Nims <DNims@aeawam.ma.us> Cc: 'Rob Levesque' <robl@rlala_nd.com>; 'Sofia Bitzas Williams' <Sofiab rlaland.com>;'Ryan Nelson' <rvann@rlaland.com> Subject: RE: Definitive Subdivision Plan - Prouty Lane (private) Michelle, Please review the revised Definitive Subdivision plans based on engineering comments. All requests have been addressed as noted below: 1. Show location, elevation and details of proposed driveway, including profile view and slope particularly at the intersection with South Westfield Street. Grade arrow added as requested (per phone conversation) 2. Ablow-off at the high 'point "in the proposed 2" water service is required. Revised as Requested 3. As proposed in the team meeting, please contact fire the Department for the details of the connection/standpipe to pond (if required). Fire connection requirements TSD 4. A<limit on each of the deeds is required to limit access to the road to only the Lots land 2. Please add the following note to the Plan: "Any additional connections to this private way will require another full review for compliance with current subdivision standards. ;Revised as Requested 5. Please show Town Coordinates on two bound locations. Revised as Requested 1 6. A bound shall be located woe the layout of the "cul-de-sac" area chap to N81°25'49"W at Ritchie property. Revised as Requested 7. Prouty Lane street sign (private) shall be in installed at the intersection with South Westfield Street (Town Standard). Revised as Requested If you require any additional information we will be happy to assist, otherwise, please acknowledge that applicable engineering concerns have been addressed . Thank you for your understanding on this unusual project. Christopher Karney, EIT & SIT R LEVESQUE ASSOCIATES, INC. 40 School Street, PO Box 640 Westfield, MA 01085 p 413.568.0985` f 413,568-0986 www.rlaland.com From: Sofia Bitzas Williams [mailto:sofiabOrlaland.com] Sent: Thursday, October'05, 2017 9:17,AM To: 'Ryan Nelson'; ckarnev(drlaland.com Cc: 'Rob Levesque' Subject: FW: Definitive Subdivision Plan - Prouty Lane (private) Please see comments on Prouty! Sofia Bitzas Williams Director of Operations R LEVESQUE ASSOCIATES, INC. 40 School Street, PO Box 640 Westfield, MA 01085 p 413.568,0985 f 413.568.0986 c 413.552,7708 Sofiab@rlaland.com www.rlaland.com From: Pamela Kerr [mailto:PKerr(&agawam.ma.us] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2017 9:13 AM To: Sofia Bitzas Williams Subject: FW: Definitive Subdivision Plan — Prouty Lane (private) I was out yesterday afternoon when these comments came in. From: Vladimir Caceres Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2017 3:57 PM To: Marc Strange Cc Pamela Kerr; Amanda Boissonneault Subject: Definitive Subdivision ,Plan — Prouty Lane (private) 2 Hello! I See attached memo regarding Prouty Lane Subdivision. Vladimir Cdceres Civil Engineer Town of Agawam Engineering Division 1000 Suffield Street Agawam, MA 01001 Voice: 413-726-2805 Fax: 413-921-0631 Email: vcaceres@agawam.ma.us Confidentiality/Public Record Statement. Under Massachusetts Law, any email created or received by an employee of The Town of Agawam is considered a public record. All email correspondence is subject to the requirements of M.G.L. Chapter 66. This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender and delete all copies. 3. • TOWN OF AGAWAM Department of Public Works 1000 Suffield Street Tel (413) 8210600 Christopher J. Golba Agawam, MA 01001 • Fax (413) 8210631 Superintendent MEMORANDUM To: Planning CC File from: Engineering Division Date: October 4, 2017 Subject: Definitive Subdivision Plan — Prouty Lane (private) Per your request, Engineering has reviewed the Definitive Subdivision Plan entitled, "Prouty Lane Subdivision, 891 South Westfield Street, Feeding, MA; Parcel ID: E3 2 3; Prepared for: Doreen &'Brad Prouty, ;891 South Westfield Street, Feeding Hill, MA; Prepared by: R Levesque Associates, Inc., 40 School Street, Westfield, MA 01085; Scale: 1" = 40" Dated: 8/30l2017," and we have the following comments: I. Show location, elevation and details of proposed driveway, including profile view and slope particularly at the intersection with South Westfield Street. 2. A blow -off at the high point in the proposed 2" water service is required. 3. As proposed in the team meeting, please contact Fire the Department for the details of the connection/standpipe to pond (if required). 4. A limitoneach of the deeds is required to limit access to the road to only the Lots 1 and 2. Please add the following note to the Plan: "Any additional; connections to this private way will require another full review for compliance with current subdivision standards. 5. Please show Town Coordinates on two bound locations. 6. A bound shall be located where the layout of the "cul-de-sac" area changes to N81 °25'49"W at Ritchie property 7. Prouty Lane street sign (private) shall be in installed at the intersection with South Westfield Street (Town Standard). Engineering reserves the right to make additional comments as new information is submitted. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact this division. Sincerely, Z& r Ie Vladimir Caceres Michelle C.-Chase, P.E. Civil Engineer Town Engineer s:: t[lisli�-.ltiruVIWN [16%u1r w l% - 891 snulli I%VS(111011.I ArCCI III nu+a ilrlinifnr hl1i[i - [nc3uu AIOr 0- Pamela Kerr From: Michelle Chase Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017 1:23 PM To Chris Karney; Pamela Kerr; Vladimir Caceres; Dawn Nims Cc: 'Rob Levesque'; 'Sofia Bitzas Williams'; `Ryan Nelson' Subject: RE: Definitive Subdivision Plan - Prouty Lane (private) Thanks Chris. This addresses Engineering's concerns. Sincerely, Michelle C. Chase,.P.E. Town Engineer P:=413-821-0625 F: 413-821-0631 Agawam- Engineering Division 1000 Suffield Street Agawam, MA 01001 www.aeawam,ma.us Please consider the environment before printing this email From: Chris Karney [mailto:ckarnev@rlaland.com] Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017 1:11 PM To: Pamela Kerr <PKerr2agawam.ma.us>; Vladimir Caceres <VCaceres a awam.ma.us>; Michelle Chase <MChase@agawam.ma.us>; Dawn Nims <DNims@agawam.ma.us> Cc: 'Rob Levesque' <robl@rlaland.com>;'Sofia Bitzas Williams' <Sofiab@rlaland.com>;'Ryan Nelson' <rvannPrlaland.com> Subject: RE: Definitive Subdivision Plan- Prouty Lane (private) Michelle, Please review the revised Definitive Subdivision plans based on engineering comments. All requests have been addressed as noted below; 1.Show location, elevation and details of proposed driveway, including profile view and slope particularly' at the intersection with South Westfield Street. Grade arrow added as requested (per phone conversation) 2. A blow -off at the high point in the proposed 2" water service is required. Revised as Requested 3. As proposed in the team meeting, please contact Fire the Department for the details of the connection/standpipe to pond (if required). Fire connection requirements TBD 4. A limit on each of the deeds is required to limit access to the road to only the Lots and 2. Please add the following note to the Plan; "Any additional connections to this private way will require another full review for compliance with current subdivision standards. Revised as Requested 5. Please show Town Coordinates on two bound locations. ;Revised as Requested 0 0 6. A bound shall be located where the -layout >of the "cul-de-sac" area changes to N81°25'49"W at Ritchie property. Revised as Requested 7. Prouty Inane street sign (private) shall be in installed at the intersection with South Westfield Street (Town Standard). Revised as Requested If you require any additional information we will be happy to assist, otherwise, please acknowledge that applicable engineering concerns have been ;addressed . Thank you for your understanding on this unusual project. Christopher Karney, EIT & SIT R.LEVESQUE ASSOCIATES, INC. 40 School Street, PO Box 640 Westfield, MA 01085 p 413.568.0985 f 413568-0986 www.rialand.com From: Sofia Bitzas Williams [mallto sofrab@rlaland.com] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2017 9:17 AM To; 'Ryan Nelson'; ckarngy&Ialand.com Cc: 'Rob Levesque' Subject: FW: Definitive Subdivision Plan - Prouty Lane (private) Please see comments on Prouty! Sofia Bitzas Williams Director of Operations R LEVESQUE ASSOCIATES, INC. 40 School Street, PO Box 640 Westfield, MA 01085 P 413.5680985 f413568,0986 c 413,552.7708 Sofiabgrlaland.com www.rialand.com From: Pamela Kerr [mailto: PKerr@agawam.ma.us] Sent: Thursday, October'05, 2017 9:13 AM To: Sofia Bitzas Williams Subject: FW: Definitive Subdivision Plan — Prouty Lane (private) I was out yesterday afternoon when these comments came in. From: Vladimir Caceres Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2017 157 PM To: Marc Strange Cc Pamela Kerr; Amanda Boissonneault Subject: Definitive Subdivision Plan — Prouty Lane (private) 0 0 HeNol See attached memo regarding Prouty Lane Subdivision. Vladimir Caceres Civil Engineer Town of Agawam Engineering Division 1000 Suffield Street Agawam, MA 01001 Voice: 413-726-2805 Fax: 413-821-0631 Email: vcaceres@apawam.ma.us Confidentiality/Public Record Statement. Under Massachusetts Law, any email created or received by an employee of The Town of Agawam is considered a public record. All email correspondence is subject to the requirements; of M.G.L. Chapter 66. This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or, distribution by others is strictly prohibited. if you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender and delete all copies. • 1 Department of Public Works 1000 Suffeld Street Agawam, MA 01001 Tel (413) 8210600 Fax (413) 8210631 Christopher J. Golba e Superintendent MEMORANDUM To: Planning CC File From: Engineering Division Date: October 4, 2017 Subject. Definitive Subdivision, Plan— Prouty Lane (private) Per your request, Engineering, has reviewed the Definitive Subdivision Plan entitled, "Prouty Lane Subdivision, 891 South Westfield Street, Feeding, MA; Parcel ID: E3 2 3;;Prepared for: Doreen & Brad Prouty, 891 South Westfield Street, Feeding Hill, MA; Prepared by: R LevesqueAssociates, Inc., 40"School Street, Westfield, MA 01085; Scale: l" = 40"; Dated: 8/3012017," and we have the following comments:; 1. Show location, elevation and details of proposed driveway, including profile view and slope particularly at the intersection with South Westfield Street. 2. A blow -off at the high point in the proposed 2" water service is required. 3. As proposed in the team meeting, please contact Fire the Department for the details of the connection/standpipe to pond (if required). 4. A limitoneach of the deeds is required to limit access to the road to only the Lots l and 2 Please add the following note to the Plan: "Any additional connections to this private way will require another full review for compliance with current subdivision standards. 5. Please show Town Coordinates on two bound locations. b. Abound shall be located where the layout of the "cul-de-sac" area changes to N81 °25'49"W at Ritchie property. 7. Prouty Lane street sign (private) shall be in installed at the intersection with South Westfield Street (Town Standard). Engineering reserves the right to make additional continents as new information is submitted If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact this division. Sincerely, T Vladimir Caceres Civil Engineer S: AIhLIkt pkILlIVs I3inaiu' uuc - 81)1 31 Iulli xLw(lieItI mre01 1%1CII)1I'stlrlini[ir(:Idpm-memI)?.dor 7 . _ al _A14 L-ZUMe4__ Michelle C. Chase, P.E. Town Engineer Ll OFFICE OF "PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Definitive Plan Review October 2, 2017 Date Received September 5, 2017 Distribution Date: September 6, 2017 Planning Board Public Hearing Date: October 5, 2017 Mandatary Date for Final Action: December 4, 2017 NameofSubdivision: Prouty Lane Subdivision Location: 891 South Westfield Street Name of Owner Brad and Doreen Prouty Address: 891 South Westfield Street, Feeding;Hills, MA Tel. #: Name of Applicant: Same Address: Tel. # Engineer: R. Levesque Associates Address 40 School Street, Westfield, MA 01085 Tel. # 568-0985 1. Preliminary Plan Approved June 15, 2017 1I. Definitive Plan conforms with zoning regulations: III. Notice filed with Town Clerk (date): September 5, 2017 IV.- Filing Fee: $650.00 V. Contents of Application: A. State of Interest in Land: O.K. B. Attested Copy of Deed O.K. C. Updated Environmental Study Comment: O.K. -2- D. Final Plans 1. Title Sheet (l"=1200'): O.K. 2. Lot survey with road layout and lot lines: O.K. a. Subdivision name, boundaries, north point, date and scale. OK b. name and address of record owner, subdivider, and engineer or surveyor with stamp: O.K. C. Abutters as found on recent tax list: O.K. d. Existing and Proposed lines of streets, ways, lots, casements, and public common areas, new street names: O.K. e. Sufficient data to determine the location, direction and length of every street: O.K. f. Location,, names, and widths of streets bounding subdivision: OK g. Signature Block: O.K. 3. Topo sheet at 2' intervals, spot elevations, center line for road, spot elevations for septic systems, location of building and final grade 4. Road layout and profiles (utilities and curb cuts): See Engineering comments. 5. Detail Sheets: See Engineering comments. E. Time development sequence: OK 1. Town utilities and services: O.K. 2 Sale price and square footage: O.K. F. Soil Borings: OK G. Pere Test: OK H. Two (2) sets of originalslive (5) sets of copies: I. Number and type of requested waivers: Waivers were acted upon during the Preliminary Plan phase. One additional waiver has been requested at this time: Section 159.9 — typical roadway cross section requirements. 0 -3- Comments Engineering/DPW.- Board of Health`: Other: During the Preliminary Plan process the applicant's representative indicated that they will be submitting documents on the maintenance of the private way as well as a proposed deed restriction prohibiting future lots from being created. He had indicated that these documents would be submitted with the Definitive Plana They have not yet been received. Town of Agawam 36 Main Street Agawam, Massachusetts 01001-1801 Tel. 413-786-0400 Fax 413-786-9927 PLANNING BOARD' September 19, 2017 Dear Abutter: Brad and Doreen Prouty have submitted a Definitive Subdivision Plan showing the creation of two (2) lots on approximately 15 acres ofland <on South Westfield Street. The Assessor's Office lists you as an abutter (within 500') and therefore must be notified that the Agawam Planning Board will be holding a public hearing on this Definitive Subdivision Plan at 630 PM, Thursday, October 5, 2017 at the Agawam Public Library, 750 Cooper Street, Agawam. You are encouraged to attend and comment. Sincerely,, Mark R. Paleologopoulos, Chairman AGAWAM PLANNING BOARD MRPprk • • E2115 E262 E324 AGUDELO HENRY+ ASSELIN FRANCIS J BRATNICHENKO OLEG 914 SO WESTFIELD ST 97 BRADFORD DR 863 SOUTH WESTFIELD ST FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030- FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030 FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030 F2 16 E2 5 1 F2 13 BRUNO SEVERINA BRUNO SEVERINA BRUNO SEVERINA 953 SOUTH WESTFIELD ST 953 SOUTH WESTFIELD ST 953 SOUTH WESTFIELD ST FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030 FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030 FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030 F217 E229 E268 BRUNO SEVERINA CALO JENNIFER M CASSIDY KEVIN J 953 SOUTH WESTFIELD ST935 SOUTH WESTFIELD ST 41 BRADFORD DR FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030 FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030 FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030 E2 6 10 E2 2 10 E261 CHAREST EDWARD M CULLEN THOMAS R ENDERLE JOSEPH E JR LIT 21 BRADFORD DR 943 SO WESTFIELDST 105 BRADFORD DR FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030 FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030 FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030- E2;513 E267 E325 GARDNERFREDERICK D HENCE'RONALD M JAMESON BRADFORD H 60"BRADFORD DR 51 BRADFORD DR 873 SO WESTFLD ST FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030 FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030- FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030- E2 2 7 E2 64 F2 1 10 JOANIDES GREGORY A LARIVIERE RONALD EN L/T LEVINE<JOSEPH N 919 SOUTH WESTFIELD ST 79 BRADFORD DR 113 BRADFORD DR FEEDING HILLS, MA 01001 FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030- FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030- E2511 E225 E265 LOVECHIO MATTHEW'M LY THAO HAI MALEG MELISSA 40'BRADFORD DR 8 MEYERS DR 71 BRADFORD DR FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030 FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030 FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030 E2 114 E25 16 E2 6 3 MARC14ESE CATHERINE.L MILES MARK T MONTANEZ THOMASINE A 922 SO WESTFIELD ST 88 BRADFORD DR 87 BRADFORD DR FEEDING HILLS; MA 01030- FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030 FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030- E2 6 It E226 E2116 MORACE-DARREN MORRISSEY MATTHEW M OAK RIDGE GOLF CLUB INC 11 BRADFORD DR 14 BRADFORD DR 850 SOUTH WESTFIELD ST FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030 FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030 FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030 E2 1 6 E2 2 8 E2 113 OAK RIDGE GOLF CLUB INC.- ORSUCCI JOSEPH PARKER MAUREEN A P O BOX 242 929 SOUTH WESTFIELD ST 932 SOUTH WESTFIELD ST FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030 FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030- FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030- 0 0 E2517 E323 E2514 PRESTON PAULA D PROUTY BRADFORD R RANSTROM BARRY J 96 BRADFORD DR 991 SOUTH WESTFIELD ST 70 BRADFORD DR FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030- FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030- FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030- E269 E326 F2111 RITCHIE RALPH V ROY RICHARD M,JR+ SANTIAGO NANCY 31 BRADFORD DR 849 SOUTH WESTFIELD ST 112 BRADFORD DR FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030- FEE➢ING HILLS, MA 01030 FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030- E2 5 12 F2 1 12 E2 "5 18 SMIST PETER J SOLEK JOSHUA T SOPET DEBRA L 50"BRADFORD DR 5 TANNERY RD 104 BRADFORD DR FEEDING HILLS, MA O1030 FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030 FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030- E2 5 15 E2,5 10 E4 2 3 THE P & R REALTY TRUST THOMAS RACHEL M TOWN"OF AGAWAM 8013RADFORD DR 30 BRADFORD DR 36 MAIN ST FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030 FEEDING FILLS, MA 01030 AGAWAM, MA 01001-1837 E3 2 2 E2 6 12 E266 WESTERN MASS ELECTRIC CO WHITE BRUCE C WYMAN GUDRUN I L/T P.O. BOX 270 905 SOUTH WESTFIELD ST61 BRADFORD DR HARTFORD, CT 06141 FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030- FEEDING HILLS, MA 01030 11 11 AGAWAM PLANNING BOARD LEGAL NOTICE The Agawam Planning Board will hold a public hearing on Thursday, October 5,_2017 at 6:30 PM at the Agawam Public Library, 750 Cooper Street, Agawam, MA. The purpose of this hearing will be to hear the petition of Prouty for a Definitive Subdivision Plan for property on South Westfield Street. By Order of Mark R. Paleologopoulos, Chairman AGAWAM PLANNING BOARD To be run 9/21/17 & 9/28/17. �a.�. CIIJILIJ,jf To the Department Officer makin Payment: Received of obert Levesque Assoc., Inc. as Listed Above the sum of 650.00 Dollars fox the Definitive Plan ending 9/5/2017 for collections as per schedule of this date, filed in my office. C�:�_ Treasurer PAYMENT, SUMMARY RECEIPT 8 Town of Agawam TOWN HALL 36 MAIN STREET AGAWAM..MA 01001. DATE;. 09/05/17 CUSTOMER#: 000000000 TIME: :. 16 :,17 CLERX Amy.BOyd RECPT# 1265687 PREV BAL: TP/YR:: MS/2018 AMT PAID: 650.00 BILL: ADJSTMNT: EFF DT: 09/05/17 HAT, DUE: MISCELLANEOUS PAYMENT - _ --TOTALS------------------ PRINCIPAL :PAID; i650.00. INTEREST PAID; .00` ADJUSTMENTS: .00: DISC TAKEN:. .DO AMT TENDVRED: 650.00 AMT APPLIED: 650.00 CHANGE! _00`. PAID BY: PLANNING. PAYMENT METE-. CHECK PAYMENT. REF: a r- Town Interoffice Memorandum To: Fire Department, Police Department CC: From: Planning Board Date: 9/6117 Subject: Definitive Plan — Prouty Lane — Prouty/RLA Attached please find the Definitive Plan for Prouty Lane (off S. Westfield Street) by Rob Levesque Associates, Inc. The Planning Board will be holding a public hearing on this plan on October 5, 2017. Please provide any comments you may have prior to the hearing. Thank you, PRKlamb FROM THE DESK OF... A M AN D A'B o ISSO NNEAULT PLANNING &'COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TOWN OF AGAWAM 36MAIN 5T AGAwAM, MA'01001 aboissonneault@agawam,ma. us 413-786-0400 X 8739 Fax:-413-786-9927 To: Board of Health CC: From: Planning Board Date: 9t6 '17 Subject: Definitive Plan — Prouty Lane —Prouty/RLA Attached please find the Definitive Plan for Prouty Lane (off`S. Westfield Street) by Rob Levesque Associates, Inc. The Planning Board will be holding a public hearing on this plan on October 5, 2017. Please provide any comments you may have prior to the hearing. Thank you, PRK/amb FROM THE DESK OF... AMANDA BOISSONNEAULT PLANNING $COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TOWN OF AGAWAM 36 MAIN "ST AGAWAM, MA 01001 aboissonneault@agawam.ma.us 413-786-0400 X 8739 Fax: 413-786-9927' To Engineering ,Department CC From: Planning Board Date: 9/611`7 Subject: Definitive Plan — Prouty Lane Prouty/RLA Attached please find the Definitive Plan for Prouty Lane. Please review and comment for the Planning Board's October 5, 2017 meeting. Thank you, PRK/amb FROM THE DESK OF... AMANDA BOISSONNEAULT PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TOWN OF AGAWAM 36 MAIN ST AGAww, MA Q1001 aboissonneault@agawam.ma. us 413-786-0400 X 8739 Fax:-413-786-9927 Town of Agawam Schedule of Departmental Payments to Treasurer No: - DATE 9/5/2017 ORG. AND OBJECT i SOURCE AMOUNT TOTAL 22010 42400 Robert Levesque Assoc., Inc. 650.00 650.00 0 4 - - 0 0 0 _ 0 0 efinitive Plan 0 0 South Westfield StreeVProuty _ 4993 � a x� � o ;' � � ' t ; �i0L46j1�. MAaBneM11SETr8 :. 53-7177/2118 17 _l�q! E � 0 i` �!��9w+ilh•R���!b�ill/IY�iP1Y�Tl� .F w r ti� 1� DOLLARS n,:� fig = r : C "o' ': Y 3 i �e v : lie ti 0 0 0 0 Total "W. Dater 91 To the Accounting Office The above is a detailed list of moneys collected by me, amounting in the aggregate to the ;sum of 650.00 Dollars, for the Definitive Plan ending 9/5/201 7 which I have paid to the Treasurer, whose receipt l hold therefor. and Community Dew 0- 11 - 0 _ 650.00 '512017 U From: R LEVESQUE ASSOCIATES. INC. A Land Planning Services Company www.rialand.com 40 School Street, P.O. Box 640, Westfield, MA a1086 413-568-0985 {0} 413 -568-0986;(F) To: Town of Acpawam - Planning Department 36 Main Street Agawam, MA 01001 Attention: We Are TransmitFing to You: ❑ Specifications ❑ Report ❑ Form Number DWG./Revision Drawin of Copies Date Numbe LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Date:: September 1, 2017 Pro'ect No: 170402 Proied Name_ Prouty Lane Subdivision RE Definitive Subdivision Application ❑ Under Separate Cover VIA Approval of Subcontractor ❑ Order on Contract ❑ ,Original Drawings Other Description Definitive Subdivision Applicafi Subdivision Plan (24 x 36) Subdivision Plan 11 x t 7 Filing Fee - $650.00 Check These are Transmitted as Noted Below: Z For Approval ❑ Approved as Submitted ❑ For Information ❑ Approved asNoted ❑ For Action ❑ For Corrections ❑ As Requested ❑ For Review and Comments ❑ Attached 2 Copy of Letter ❑ Photographs' ❑ Proposal ❑ Resubmit Copies for Approval ❑ Resubmit Copies for Distribution ❑ Return Corrected Prints Remarks: Please feel free to contact our office shouldyou have any questions. Thank you for your time and consideration Doreen & Brad Prouty 0 r a� 4 U sEp Q 5 2017 AGAWAM PLANNING BARD By: Ryan Nelson 2 Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. a Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. N Attach this card to the back of the maitpkm, or on the front if space Dermits. to, 0 -D,644WOU M to cWNwy add nm different Vom 17 E3 Yes 9 YES, enter delivery addme below. C3 No SWVICG TW* 13 ftb* Md BVI"O A" ftnahn a 0 %&%red w- tlll1110 11111111111111111111 � 1111111 it Muk ftftMro ft&loled WV" a ftodwW IM raw*d MK�S� man 9590 9402 1804 6D74 230179 0 CarM9dMaftRnWftdDe2M El 0 Ookaon DWV" M=PAIWAft --- -- 015 0640 0002 5976 0 COBW on DQvwy RWWMd DdWy Ox*MRftTm =C 4657 *kftd Odw0y PS Form 3811, July 2015 PM 1530-02-OOD-BM DOMOSW Return ROCOW 11SPS TRACKING # 9590 9402 1804 6Q74 2301 79 Knifed StdeS Postal SeMce Fint-Cisss Mai! Postage &'rasa Paid LISPS Permit No. G-10 * Sender: Please -print your name, address, and ZIPW in this box• TON T OF AGAtf'A? l 36 MAIN STREET �OA�I ANI I, i zz 01001 PLAN-MNG BOARD PLANNING iBoARD TOWN OFAGAWAM 36 MAIN STREET AGAWAM, MA 01001 E 2 5 15 THE P' & R REALTY TRUST 90 BRADFORD DR FEEDENG HILLS, IMA 0 i 030 G r x T J.- 8'603 /23./15 RETUPN TO SEN-D-ER VACAN T UNABLE TO FORWARD -, v :z 2. B:� -7 s 9 11 11 11 11 - I i I i, I I C: I I 111.t Fro"', iii # ,' • • �r. 36 Main Street Agawam, Massachusetts-01001.1801 Tel. 413-786-0400'Fax 413-786-9927 PLANNING BOARD September 19, 2017 Dear Abutter: Brad and Doreen Prouty have submitted a Definitive Subdivision Plan ;showing the creation of two (2) lots on approximately 15 acres of land on South Westfield Street. The Assessor's Office lists you as an abutter (within 500) and therefore must be notified that the Agawam Planning Board will be holding a public hearing on this Definitive Subdivision Plan at 6.30 PM, Thursday, October 5, 2017 at the Agawam Public Library, 750 Cooper Street, Agawam. You are encouraged to attend and comment. Sincerely, Mark R. Paleologopoulos, Chairman AGAWAM PLANNING BOARD MRPprk Agawam Planning Board May 18, 2017 AGAWAM PLANNING BOARD May 18, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark R. Paleologopoulos,-Chairman Violet E. Baldwin Charles Elfrnan Nicholas Pandolfi MEMBERS ABSENT:.. Mario Tedeschi ALSO PRESENT: Marc Strange Pamela Kerr � � Nl Mr. Paleologopoulos called the meeting to or. 1. SITE PLAN— 531 River Road — Labs cm Rob Levesque was in attendance to present th 50'` x 68' private garage on a piece of business zo id River Road. He stated that this will be a Mor use it to house his personal car collection. Handicap access will be ,provided and there will be a 12' apron on the driveway (private use). The property is within Riverfront and as such a Notice of Intent has been filed with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Levesque then went over the most recent Engineering Department memo on the project and stated that he has no problem addressing them. He stated that there will be no dumpster on the site and no site lighting is; proposed other than wall mounted sconces on the building (down -lit). Cut sheets on the exact lighting will be submitted with the building plans. As far as tree removal, the applicant has seat a letter and coordinated this with his neighbor. Mr. Elfman asked if the current building on the site is a;garage. Mr. Levesque stated yes, a small garage that will be demolished. Mr. Elfman then asked about any proposed fence. Mr. Levesque stated that there will be a 4' stockade around the bank and one side and the remainder will be split rail/guard rail. Mr.;Paleologopoulos asked if this garage could be used for commercial use some day. Mr. Levesque stated that it would be limited in the future and would need an amendment to the plan, possibly. Mr. Paleologopoulos asked about snow storage. Mr. Levesque indicated that it would be handled on - site with a snow blower. Ms. Baldwin asked if any plantings were proposed. Mr. Levesque stated that they are proposing plantings in front of the bio retention basin/rainwater garden as well as foundation plantings along the front of the building. ,Ms. Baldwin reminded Mr. Levesque that the Board will want to see cut sheets on the lighting as well as a rendering of the building. Mr. Levesque asked that the plan be tabled this evening. He explained that part of the Conservation Commission process is a requirement for offsite mitigation. Commission members will be walking the site and bike, path prior to their next meeting. Agawam Planning Board May 18, 20`17 AGAWAM PLANNING BOARD May 18, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark R. Paleologopoulos, Chairman Violet E. Baldwin Charles Elfman Nicholas Pandolfi MEMBERS ABSENT: Mario Tedeschi ALSO PRESENT: Marc Strange Pamela Kerr Mr. Paleologopoulos called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. 1, SITE PLAN — 531 River Road— Labun Rob Levesque was ;in attendance to present this Site Plan which shows theconstructionof a 50' x-68' private garage on apiece of business zoned property at the corner of Leonard Street and River Road. He stated that this will be a Morton building with thee bays; and the owner will use it to house his personal car collection. Handicap access will be provided and there will be a 12' apron on the driveway (private use). The property is within Riverfront and as such a Notice of Intent has been filed with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Levesque then went over the ,most recent Engineering" Department memo on the project and stated that he has no problem addressing them. He stated that there will be no dumpster on the site and no site lighting is proposed other than wall mounted sconces on the building (down -lit). Cut sheets on the exact lighting will be submitted with the building plans. As far as tree removal, the applicant <has <sent a letter and coordinated this with his neighbor. Mr. Elfman;asked if the current building on the site is a,garage. Mr. Levesque stated yes, a small garage that will be demolished. Mr. Elfman then asked about any proposed fence. Mr. Levesque stated that there will be a 4' stockade around the bank and one side and the remainder will be split rail/guard rail. Mr. Paleologopoulos; asked if this garage could be used for commercial use some day. Mr. Levesque stated that it would be limited in the future and would need an amendment to the plan, possibly. Mr. Paleologopoulos asked about snow storage. Mr,. Levesque indicated that it would be handled on - site with a snow blower. Ms. Baldwin asked if any plantings were proposed. Mr. Levesque stated that they are proposing plantings in front of the bio retention basin/rainwater garden as well as foundation plantings along the front of the building. Ms. Baldwin reminded Mr. Levesque that the Board will want to see cut sheets on the lighting as well as a rendering of the building. Mr. Levesque asked that the plan be tabled this evening. He explained that part of the Conservation Commission process is a requirement for offsite mitigation. Commission members will be walking the site and bike path prior to their next meeting. Agawam Planning Board May 18,;2017 Motion was made by Mr. Pandolfi and seconded by Ms. Baldwin to table the Site Plan for Labun to the 'next -meeting (June 1, 2017). VOTE 4-0 2. SITE PLAN — 470 Shoemaker Lane — LTM LLC Rob Levesque had sent a letter asking for a continuance to the next meeting as they have signed a contract to take over this plan. The members felt it was appropriate to return the plan to the applicant at this time. When a revised plan has been received it would be placed on the next available agenda. Mr. Levesque agreed with that. Motion was made by Ms. Baldwin and seconded by Mr. Pandolfi to return the Site Plan for 470 Shoemaker Lane to the applicant to address professional staff comments. VOTE 4-0 Motion was made by Ms. Baldwin and seconded by Mr. Pandolfi to amend the order of the agenda. VOTE 4.0' 5. SITE PLAN — KLC Auto Sales— 1514 Main Street The applicant requested that this item be continued to the next meeting as he has hired Anderson Associates to revise their plan and prepare a filing with the Conservation Commission. The members felt it was appropriate to return the plan to the applicant at this time. When a revised plan has been received it would be placed on the next available agenda. Motion was made by Ms. Baldwin and seconded by Mr. Elfman to return the Site Plan for KLC Auto Sales, 1514 Main Street until professional staff comments have been addressed and a Conservation Commission filing has been submitted. VOTE 4-0 3. SITE PLAN — One Stop Convenience —,308 Suffield Street John Strandberg, architect, was in attendance to present this plan. He explained that per EPA, the owner must remove the existing single walled gas tanks and he will be replacing them in front of the store on Suffield Street. He stated that the Town has given the property a new Rowley Street address which now negates the necessity for a Variance application with the ZBA. He went on to say that they have applied to the ZBA for a drive up ATM which was originally shown on the north side of the building at the front corner and now has been relocated to the back corner. He went over the Engineering Department comments and how he will address them. The Safety Officer requested that a "no left turn" sign be placed at the closest driveway to 2 Agawam Planning Board May 18, 2017 the intersection on Rowley Street. Ms. Baldwin asked about fuel deliveries. Mr. Strandberg indicated that fuel deliveries are typically at 5:00 to 600 AM — not when there are cars in the parking lot. He indicated that they can remove the proposed ATM if it will pose a problem. The owner was in attendance and indicated that he would like to withdraw the ATM proposal. Mr. Paleologopoulos then asked about snow removal. The owner stated that snow removal was not a problem and that they plow to the rear. He and Mr. Strandberg agreed that if there was too much snow to pile they would have to remove it from the site. He stated that he dumpster will be in the rear corner and will be fenced with an opaque white vinyl fence. Motion was made by Mr. Pandolfi and seconded by Mr. Elfman to table the Site Plan for One Stop Convenience to the next meeting (June I") to allow for the Engineering Department comments to be addressed. VOTE 4-0 4. PRELIMINARY PLAN — South Westfield Street —Prouty Rob Levesque presented this plan that he prepared showing a two lot subdivision on approximately 15 acres of land. As discussed with the Planning Board previously, this plan shows the existing driveway being used to create frontage fora -second lot for a family member. He explained that Prouty's do not wish to put in a full subdivision and only want to create one lot. He stated that the ROW will be under joint ownership and that their attorney will prepare documents on the maintenance. It will be a gravel surface with a turn around at the end for fire apparatus. He went on to say that the existing driveway is adequate for public safety purposes and the ROW has the required width. A list of waivers of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations was submitted. He explained that they are seeking waivers of the roadway design requirements and drainage. The Engineering Department has not submitted comments on this plan as they are waiting the Law Department, Building Department and Planning review first since this is not your typical Preliminary Plan. Mr. Levesque stated that the owners have no intent to subdivide the property further in the future and will restrict the development of additional lots. He stated that due to wetland and per tests, much of the remaining land is not developable. He went on to say that creating additional frontage off ofthis private way would be difficult with the 500' dead end maximum street length. Mr. Paleologopoulos stated that he would like to table this ;item this evening and request something in writing from the Law Department on this type of plan. Motion was made by Ms. Baldwin and seconded by Mr. Elfman to table the Preliminary Plan for Prouty on South Westfield Street and to send a memo to the Law Department asking for their input on this plan. VOTE 4.0 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —May 4, 2017' Motion was made by Ms. Baldwin and seconded by Mr. Elfman to approve the minutes of May 4 2017 as written. VOTE 4-0 The meeting adjourned at 720 PM. 3 Agawam Planning Board June 1, 2017 AGAWAM PLANNING BOARD June 1, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark R. Paleologopoulos,-Chairman Violet E. Baldwin Charles E7fman Mario Tedeschi MEMBERS ABSENT: Nicholas Pandolfi ALSO PRESENT: Marc Strange Pamela _Kerr Mr. Paleologopoulos called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. 1. REQUEST TO RESCIND — Site Plan Approvals (2) — Eversource South West Street and South Westfield Street Eversource has withdrawn their two Site Plan applications. Motion was made by Ms. Baldwin and seconded by Mr. Tedeschi to rescind the Site Plan approval for Eversource on South West Street. VOTE 4-0 Motion was made by Mr. Tedeschi and seconded by Mr. Elfman to rescind the Site Plan approval for Eversource on South Westfield Street VOTE 4-0 2. SITE PLAN — 531 River Road — Labun Rob Levesque was in attendance this evening. He presented a revised plan that addresses Engineering Department comments. He also provided a photometric plan for the security and site lighting. He stated that the security lighting is 10 watts and will be on from dusk tit dawn. The site lighting is 30 watts and will be switch operated. He stated that all lights broadcast down. The members had reviewed this plan at the last meeting and were ready to vote on it tonight. Motion was made by Mr. Elfman;and seconded by Mr. Tedeschi to approve the Site Plan for Labun— 531 River Road with the condition that the June 1, 2017 Engineering Department comments be addressed. Agawam Planning Board June 1, 2017 VOTE 4-0 3. PRELIMINARY PLAN — South Westfield Street— Prouty Mr. Paleologopoulos stated that the Board requested a legal opinion from the Law Department regarding this plan and have received a memo from them. Rob Levesque stated that waivers will be needed for this "private way He went on to say that the property is large but the right of way as shown on this plan is for two lots only and that any additional lots would have to be created through the subdivision process. He stated that further development of this property would be difficult with the 500' dead end street length requirement, -steep "topography, and soil conditions. The Engineering Department has not yet provided comments on the plan as they were waiting for something from the Law Department. Today, an email was submitted stating that need additional time to review the plan. Mr. Levesque stated that he responded to that email that they would like action tonight as this is a gravel driveway with no maintenance issues for the Town. He went on to say that the-Prouty's have contacted their abutters who have no problem with the plan as proposed. Mr. Tedeschi asked about the waiver requests. Mr. Levesque stated that they have essentially asked for waivers of all of the street design standards as this will still be a gravel private way. Mr. Paleologopoulos stated that he did not ifeel this would be a negative impact to the town but asked for an opinion from the Law Department as the Board has not received or approved subdivision plans for private ways in the past. Elizabeth Stanislawski, 91 Federal Street — asked about safety purposes/access to the property. Mr. Levesque explained that there will be a turnaround provided for emergency vehicle access. Motion was made by Ms. Baldwin and seconded by Mr. Tedeschi to table the Preliminary Plan for Prouty — South Westfield Street to the next meeting (June 15a'). VOTE 4-0 4. SITE PLAN - 308 Suffield Street — One Stop Convenience John Strandberg was in attendance. He stated that he has met with the Engineering Department since the last meeting and submitted a revised plan. The Engineering Department submitted comments on the revised plan today. He went over the comments and stated that they have no problem addressing them.. He also pointed out that the plan no longer shows a drive up ATM. Mr. Paleologopoulos stated that he visited the site recently and asked what the posts are for that are in the area of the proposed dumpster. Mr. Strandberg stated they will be removed and the dumpster will be located there with a fence around it. Motion was made by Ms. Baldwin and seconded by Mr. Elfman to approve the Site Plan for One Stop Convenience with the following conditions: June 1, 2017 Engineering Department comments are to be addressed; the following landscape maintenance note is to be placed on the plan "All plantings must be maintained and that portion of the public way abutting the parcel and including the treebelt shall be maintained in a safe and attractive condition by the owner of the parcel." and three sets of revised plans shall be submitted for Planning Board signatures. 2 Agawam Planning Board June 1, 2017 VOTE 4-0 5. FORM A — Shoemaker Lane -- Zielinski This plan shows a large tract of land being divided into two lots. Motion was made by Mr. Tedeschi and seconded by Ms. Baldwin to approve the plan for Zielinski on Shoemaker Lane under "Subdivision Control Not Required VOTE 4-0 6. PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT & RELEASE OF COVENANT Lot 5 Farmington Heights The -developer -has posted a bond for construction of lot 5 Farmington Circle and signed anew Performance Agreement. A Release of Covenant can be executed. Motion was made by Mr. Tedeschi and seconded by Ms. Baldwin to sign and execute a new Performance Agreement for Lot 5 Farmington Circle and a Release of Covenant. VOTE 4-0 7. PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT & EASEMENT — Def. Plan — D' Amato Way The petitioner has ;signed a Performance Agreement and submitted the Storm Drainage Easement for the D'Amato Way subdivision. The Easement has been reviewed and approved in-house however it has not been signed by the property owner. Motion was made by Ms. Baldwin and seconded by Mr. Elfman to sign the Performance Agreement for D'Amato Way and to approve the Storm Drainage Easement. VOTE 4-0 The Chairman will sign the Easement once the owner has signed it. 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —May 18, 201'7 Motion was made by Ms. Baldwin and seconded by Mr. Elfman to approve the minutes of May 1-8, 2017 as written. The meeting adjourned at 725 PM. VOTE 3-0-1 (Tedeschi abstained) 3 Agawam Planning Board June 15, 201`7 AGAWAM PLANNING BOARD June 15, 2017' MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark R. Paleologopoulos, Chairman VioletE. Baldwin Mario Tedeschi MEMBERS ABSENT Charles Elfman Nicholas Pandolfi ALSO PRESENT:; Marc Strange Amanda Boissonneault Mr. Paleologopoulos called the meeting to order at 630 PM. 1. PRELIMINARY PLAN - South Westfield Street — Prouty An email containing; comments from the Engineering Department was received on June S, 2017. Rob Levesque responded to Engineering's comments in a memo dated June Sih, 2017. Mr. Levesque stated to the Board members that he agreed with all of the comments and would be addressing them in the Definitive Plan. Ms. 'Baldwin expressed concern about Engineering's last comment stating they will neither recommend nor oppose approval of this plan. Mr. Levesque stated the Law Department is ok with the plan as long as the Planning Board votes on the waivers. Ms. Baldwin asked if Mr. Levesque has met with John Decker to see if the water service needs to be upgraded or not. Mr. Levesque said he has not been able to meet with him yet, but will be happy to do so. Mark R. Paleologopoulos asked about having a bypass area. Mr. Levesque said there will be a turnaround area at the middle of the driveway, and the bottom of the driveway will be wideenough for two vehicles. The driveway can be widened if necessary. Mr. Tedeschi asked if there was any assurance that only the one lot will be created. Mr. Levesque said_a deed restriction can be created prohibiting any further lots from being created. Mr. Paleologopoulos spoke about how this is the first time the Planning Board has seen a plan like this, and that they have to make sure it is restrictive and in the best interest of the Town. Mr. Paleologopoulos stated he is also concerned with setting precedent, and believes any similar plan submitted would need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Ms. Baldwin said she would feel more comfortable with the plan if a precise and detailed deed restriction is created to stop any future lots from being created. Mr. Levesque said his clients have no problem; adding the deed restriction, and they will have it prepared with the Definitive Plan. At Mr. Paleologopoulos' request, Mr. Levesque read all of the requested waivers out loud. Motion was made by Mr. Tedeschi and seconded by Ms. Baldwin to approve the preliminary plan conditional upon the Engineering Department concerns being met and a legal document restricting further development of the property to be submitted with the Definitive Plan. I Agawam Planning Board June 15,;2017 VOTE 3-0 Motion was made by Mr. Tedeschi and seconded by Ms. Baldwin to approve the following waivers of the Agawam Subdivision Rules and Regulations: Section 159-8(A)(6), Section 159- 8(C), Section 159-8(D), Section 159-12, Section 159-19, and Sections 159-22 to 24. VOTE 3-0 2. DISCUSSION & VOTE TO ADOPT - Housing Production Plan Planning Director Marc Strange gave the Board members an overview of how the Housing Production Plan was created. Consultant Jennifer Goldson utilized research and two community workshops to create the Housing Production Plan. The plan will help to give the Town of Agawam a roadmap to creating more affordable housing units, and will help to establish a friendlier 40B process. The adoption of the plan by the Planning Board is the first part of the approval process; it will also have to be voted on by the City Council and by the State; The board members discussed the need for the Town to be in charge of the creation of affordable housing units. Motion was made by Ms. Baldwin and seconded by Mr. Tedeschi to adopt the Housing Production Plan as written. VOTE 3-0 3.' APPROVAL OF MINUTES —June 1, 2017 Motion was made by Ms. Baldwin and seconded by Mr. Tedeschi to approve the June 1, 2017 minutes as written. 4. Correspondences - None The meeting adjourned at 735PM. VOTE 3-0 2 Agawam Planning Board October 5, 2017 AGAWAM PLANNING BOARD October 5, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark R. Paleologopoulos, Chairman Charles Elfman Mario Tedeschi MEMBERS ABSENT: VioletE. Baldwin Nicholas Pandolfi ALSO PRESENT: Marc Strange Pamela Kerr Mr. Paleologopoulos called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. 1. PUBLIC HEARING — Definitive Plan -- South Westfield Street — Prouty Rob Levesque was in attendance to present this plan which shows the existing driveway as a right of way for frontage for one additional lot and will be a private way. He explained that waivers were granted during the Preliminary Plan phase to allow for this private way. The Engineering Department had provided comments which have been addressed. Mr. Elfman asked if there were any abutter concerns. Though no abutters were in attendance this evening, they were at the preliminary plan meeting but no concerns were expressed. There was one additional waiver submitted with the Definitive Plan filing— waiver of the cross section of the roadway. That waiver will be acted upon this evening. Mr. Paleologopoulos asked if the driveway is paved. Mr. Levesque stated that it is paved for the first 30' then gravel and that Mr. Prouty installed drainage of the end of the driveway years ago to accommodate the pitch/drainage. ;Mr. Paleologopoulos pointed out that during the Preliminary Plan review it was agreed that documents be provided on the maintenance of the private way and on restricting further development of this property. Mr. Levesque stated that he thought that information was provided with the Definitive Plan package but it was not. Mrs. Prouty indicated that these documents will be provided to avoid any confusion in the future in terms of creating additional lots on a private way. There was no public input this evening. Motion was made by Mr. Tedeschi and seconded by Mr. Elfman to close the public hearing on the Prouty Definitive Plan. VOTE 3-0 Motion was made by Mr. Tedeschi and seconded by Mr. Elfman to approve theDefinitivePlan for Prouty conditional upon the Board receiving legal documents regarding the maintenance of the private way and the proposed deed restrictions Iimiting future development without going Agawam Planning Board October 5, 20'17 through the subdivision process; and to waive Section 159-9 of the Agawam Subdivision Rules and Regulations to allow for the waiver of a typical roadway cross section of the roadway. VOTE 3-0 2. FORM A —North West Street— Hastings Art Hastings was in attendance to present this Form A that was prepared by R. Levesque Associates. The plan shows one of the houses being removed from the farm. He explained that the remaining farmland is going to his son and will eventually be combined with his land. This plan does not show the property being combined and shows the large tract of farmland with 73" frontage on North West Street. There is a note on the plan stating that "this is not a building lot at this time". Motion was made by Mr. Tedeschi-and seconded by Mr. Elfinan to approve the plan for Hastings on North West Street under "Subdivision Control Law Not Required". VOTE 3-0 3. SITE PLAN — KLC Auto Sales —1514 Main Street Ron Huot of Anderson Associates was in attendance to present a revised site plan for,KLC Auto Sales. He explained that the owners wish to re -open the used car sales at this location and plan to renovate the existing building and pave the existing hard pack parking area in the rear. He stated that there is a -stream located off of the property but this entire site is within "riverfront area" and that plan was filed with the Conservation Commission resulting in a'"Negative Determination; of Applicability". The members went through the October 3rd Engineering Department comments. The first comment recommends that a guard rail be installed from the dumpster up to the northeast side of the property line to limit encroachment into the river front area. Mr. Huot explained that during the Conservation Commission site visit, the members asked that concrete curb stops be =installed rather than a guard rail. #2 — show erosion and sedimentation controls on the plan. Mr. Huot indicated that has now been shown as well as the note requested in item #3.. #4 has also been addressed ( show extend of riverfront area on plan). #5 — please show where the runoff from the proposed area will go. Mr. Huot indicated that has been provided. #6 please show where oil/water separator flow will exit. Mr. Huot stated that they will not be doing any repairs on -site and that only detailing will be conducted in the building. He stated that he will remove it from the plan. #7 asked for proposed snow storage areas to be shown and how it would not affect the curb stops. Mr. Huot stated that he will add that information to the plan. #8 Engineering recommends but does not require several one-way signs on the site. The use of pavement markings rather than physical signs was discussed. Mr. Huot stated that he will address that comment. Mr. Paleologopoulos asked about site lighting. One of the owners in attendance stated that there is one pole for the parking lot and that they do not plan to provide new or additional lighting, only new light bulbs. Mr. Paleologopoulos indicated that all lights must be fully shielded. He then asked about proposed renovations to the building and asked if an elevation plan had been submitted. Mrs. Connor (owner) provided an 2 Agawam Planning Board October 5, 2017 elevation this evening and indicated that the coloring will be earth tones or natural tones. The roof will be pitched and the building will be vinyl sided. Mr. Tedeschi asked for the hours of operation The owner indicated that they are not sure yet and will be applying for a 36 car license. Mr. Paleoiogopoulos asked about proposed landscaping, Mrs. Connor stated that they intend to pull out the existing bushes and replace them but the existing 20' tall arborvitae will remain. Mr. Huot stated that he will provide landscaping information on a revised plan. The owners stated that they put a chain across the driveway for security at night and to prevent parking. Mr. Paleologopoulos asked if a new sign is proposed. Mrs. Connor stated that there is an existing sign pole that will be utilized. The owners must apply to the Council for their license once the plan has been approved. The members agreed to hold a special meeting if these changes are made right away in an effort to expedite the process for the applicants. Motion was made by Mr. Elfman and seconded by Mr. Tedeschi to table the Site Plan for KLC Auto Sales until a revised plan has been received. VOTE 3-0 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —August 17 & September 7, 2017 Motion was made by Mr. Tedeschi and seconded by Mr. Elfman toapprovethe minutes of August 17, 2017 as written., VOTE 3-0 Motion was made by Mr. Tedeschi and seconded by Mr. Elfman to approve the minutes of September 7, 2017 as written. VOTE 2-0-1 (Elfman abstained) The meeting adjourned at 7:40 PM. flo Prc on r� 891 Agar (map Applicant & Owner: Bradford & Doreen Prouty 891 South Westfield Street Agawam, MA 01001 RLA; Project # 170402 SE P 0 5 20 1 AVVA MI PLANT°NNG BOARD Definitive Subdivision Application Application & Supporting Documents Prouty Lane Subdivision 891 South Westfield Street Agawam, MA 01001 (Map E3, Block 2, Parcel 3) Applicant & Owner: Bradford & Doreen Prouty 891 South Westfield Street Agawam, MA 01001 RLA Project #170402 A LAND PLANNING SERVICES COMPANY 40'School StrEet,_P.O. 'BOX 640, Westfield„MA OJOBS p 413.568 0985 + f 413.568.0986 • wiuw.r1a1and.com SEP 0 5 2017 B TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 891 SOUTH WESTFIELD ROAD (MAP E3, BLOCK 2, PARCEL 3) AGAWAM, MA ITEM TITLE` PAGE SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS COVER LETTER & WAIVER REQUESTS ................................................. ..... 1 LOCUSMAP .................................................... ...... ..... .. 2 NOTARIZED STATEMENT OF INTEREST......................................................... 3 DEED............................. .......... .............._...... ... ....................... 4 APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF DEFINITIVE PLAN (FORM C) & FILING FEE ................. 5 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY...... .._... _...................... STATEMENT OF THE TIME -DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCE.. .......................................... 7 TOWN DEVELOPMENTRELATIONSHIP STUDY .................................................. 8 SOILBORING LOGS ....................... .... ......................................... 9 APPENDIX "PROUTY' LANE SUBDIVISION" PLAN BY R LEVESQUE ASSOCIATES, INC. DATED AUGUST 30, 2017 SECTION 1 COVER LETTER & WAIVER REQUESTS 7, p 413 SCLZO985- August 31, 2017 Mr. Mark Poleologopoulos, Chairman Town of Agawam Planning Board 36 Main Street Agawam, MA 01001 RE: Definitive Subdivision Applicafion 891 South Weaffield Street Agawam, MA 01001 (Map E3, Block 2, Parcel 3) RLA Projed # 170402 Dear Chairman Paleologopou{os & Board Members, On behalf of the applicant, Bradford and Doreen Prouty, we are herein submitting a Definitive Subdivision Application for the above referenced property. The proposed subdivision will create one (1) new single-family building lot. The remaining land with existing single-family residence will fully conform to all Agawam zoning regulations. Both lots will be accessed by the existing, fully functioning gravel driveway. As part of this project a portion of the existing driveway will be converted into a right-of-way; this will ensure viable access to South Westfield is created if/when either parcel is sold. Due to the minimal size of this project the Prouty's are forced to request waivers of Agawam's subdivision control regulations. Simply put, it is not economically feasible for the Prouty's to construct a fully conforming subdivision roadin order to service one (1) additional building lot. In order to eliminate all maintenance responsibilities and liability for the town of Agawam, the Prouty's propose to maintain the new right -of way as a private way. This concession gives the Town of Agawam access io the tax revenue associated with a typical building lot without incurring any additional maintenance costs or lability. In order to for this project to proceed the applicant requests waivers from the following regulations-, § 159-8 (A) (6) - The proposed subdivision is located approximately 200'from the nearest intersection, not 300' as required. The proposed subdivision is expected to create 20 vehicle trips (10 new trips & 10 existing trips). Due to the minimal volume of trips generated we request this regulation is waived. § 159-8 (C) - We request typical roadway design standards to be waived due to the project size and private classification of the proposed roadway. § 159-8 (D) - The proposed "way" does not have the required fifteen foot property line radius. Instead the way is laid out of sixty feet wide. We feel the intention of this regulation is met with the ample right of way width. A LAND PLANNING SERVICES COMPANY 40'Sr.hu ,l St-cO § 159-9 - We request typical roadway cross section requirements to be waived due to the project size and private classification of the proposed roadway. § 159-12',- The proposed subdivision will not alter drainage patterns or flow rates therefore we request typical drainage requirements to be waived. § 159-19 - We request typical roadway design standards to be waived due to the project size and private classification of the proposed roadway. § 159-22 to 24 - Due to the project size and private classification of the proposed roadway, we feel these regulations are not applicable. Enclosed herewith, please find the required application items. We look forward to meeting with the Town of Agawam staff in order to discuss the proposed project. We appreciate the discretion and positivity shown by the Town in prior meetings regarding this project. It is the intention of the applicant and RLA to make appropriate concessions in order to satisfy the concerns of the town. Should you have any questions regarding this project, please do not hesitate to contact our office at your convenience. Sincerely, R;LEVESQUE ASSOCIATES, INC. Robert M. Levesque, RLA, ASLA President Cc: Bradford & Doreen Prouty A LAND PLANNING SERVICES COMPANY LOCUS MAP SECTION 3 NOTARIZED STATEMENT OF INTEREST TOWN OF AGAWAM 36 Main Street Agawam, Massachusetts Tel. 413-786-0400 FORM C APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF DEFINITIVE PLAN File one completed form with the Planning Board and a copy with the Town Clerk in accordance with the requirements of Section III-B. Agawam S L ZI L 20 To the Planning Board: The undersigned herewith submits the accompanying: Definitive Plan of property located in the Town of Agawamforapproval as a subdivision under the requirements of the Subdivision Control Law and the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land of the Planning Board in the Town of Agawam. I. Name of Applicant: Doreen & Brad Prouty Address:891 South Westfield Street, ;Feeding Hills, MA 2, Name of Engineer or Surveyor: R Levesque Associates,, Inc. Address:40 School Street, Westfield, MA 01085 3. Deed of property recorded in Hampden Registry of Deeds Book 7 8 6 0 Page 3 7 2 CAI rT 4. Location and Description of Property: Please see Environmental Stud r_ 5. A list of the documents included in this application shall accompany notice to the Town Clerk.- a. Notarized Statement of Interest in the land; b. Environmental Study; C. Plans and specifications; d. Statement of time -development; C. Plan of sequence of development; f. Town -development relationship study; g. Reports of test borings, etc.; and h. Certified copy of Deed. Your attention is directed to Section III, B. 8 of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations requiring the posting of a'bond or recording of a covenant BEFORE approval can be given. Signature of Ownerr� Address: �ze,,D rP0 -tit 5l O I O O SECTION 4 DEED M,®e■�rr+r 7860 rJ'3 7 2 Is t� M ALLAN N By 7tD� PlI S Fs71503 '1W WE, MiAMM R. PA(8717f and DOPM A. MU1Y. itaf—ly'MFM A. fAMW of reading ILLU9 (Age), Haepdsn troaemy. eMaKw m awuiiaraden of ---CW MAD) WLLAR went to MKFM R. PMJIY and DMMM A. PRW f iwaband aM wife. Loth of :891 South (iegtfield Gttwt, L-dirs Hill@ (AaawS0 s Ilanpden Cbunty, Messaol+uaetta as 'lets by the Fhtirety ,and not are 7ienant9 in Cbm— VdIh wwr w% rnora9aft x CIITAIA reel estate situated is ACUMAN (loading Hill*). Dsnpdan 0—rY, 11usa¢hrsetts located on the;Dastarly side of south Westfield Street and above as Pares[ 2 (tero) on "llaa of Land in Agarse, Mass., 7e Be Divided by Dradfetd lroutyr War. 1981 Seale l" a 6o" Gad raeordod in Nupdea ibrmtr Registry of Deals io Book of Plans 209. Page* 66 and 67. Said perSal 400tnios MOld Gore@ of land. Being tb save premises -Conveyed to the grantors hereto by dead of Mwerett IL Nand at use, dated [larch 10, 1981 and'rewrded is B@moden Caftty Register of 04a48 in Book,50g2, Sage"200. silo 15th day of lion 10 91 ! . s lonm A. letr3ey tip,, HAlPM0 sL r4vmber 15► 19'91 TW pessft appsw9 to m*mm.A BRAMW R. PROM and: DOP M A. P1iDM f/k/a Doreen A'. laity aM1 +arwdtW ile towsotsp impommom a he their andNI p ,$ ly�aw er P11 M FM MORN�OIINQ it....rr.a eyitil. l9 WM r �Ealaidjtl• r4se� Imfif itho ah tit Vd6j .d4mwp,* db ��k0 SECTIO DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FORM C & FILING FEE Agawam Planning Board STATEMENT OF INTEREST Date MAY �,, ;L0 i7 The petitioner hereby certifies that he is the owner of all lands contained within the description of the subject petition. Agawain Planning }hoard Case No, 4 ( (Name) (Address) Eel sM A o o a: I C`U G01VIONWEALTH ' 4F MASSACHUSETTS HAMPDEN se Data NttuV Q( There personally appeared before me, on the above date, "5 to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing document, t i"+ -z.02:2, Notary Pub is My come-aigsion expires MELINDA STONE Alatary Pubiia G4k1iAD�TH i7F AIASSACHUSETiS My �ommiesinn Expires November 25. _7022 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY Environmental Study For Definitive Subdivision 891 South Westfield Street (Parcel ID: E3-2-3) Agawam, MA 01001 RLA Project No. 170402 1. Introduction The subject property is located east of South Westfield Street and is designated as parcel E3-2-3 with the Town of Agawam Assessors Database. The applicant proposes to create ❑ two (2) lot subdivision as shown on the attached plan entitled "Definitive Plans — Prouty Lane Subdivision", dated 8/30/2017 prepared by R Levesque Associates, Inc. The property is recorded in the Hampden County registry of Deeds in Book 7860, Page 372-. The subject parcel is 15.016-t acres. A Locus Map is also included in Section 2 of this application package. The subject parcel is mostly within the Agricultural zoning district with a road frontage portion of the property zoned Residence A-2. Adjacent properties to the west and south are also single-family residences within the Residence A-2 and Agricultural zoning district. According to current Agawam Assessor's information, the abutting property to the north consists of vacant forested land owned by Western Mass Electric Company. The abutting property to the east is a large tract of vacant forested land that is owned by the Town of Agawam. The proposed subdivision is designed to be in compliance with appropriate Agawam Subdivision Rules and Regulations (Chapter 159), Agawam Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 180), and other applicable municipal and state regulations. 2. Existing Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses The subject property currently contains a driveway with access from South Westfield Street to service a single family home proximate to the northwest corner of the property. Surrounding the existing home is a generous lawn area, multiple accessory structures, and a pond with an area of approximately 14,500 square feet. The remaining property to the east of the lawn area is wooded, consisting of mainly deciduous trees. At the for eastern end of the property, Philo Brook, a perennial stream with adjacent wetlands, flows southerly through the property. The property generally slopes to the southeast with the highest elevation at the northwest corner of the property. The attached site plan shows elevation contours in greater detail. As shown on the attached NRCS soil map, the property contains Environmental Study for Preliminary Subdivision 891 South Westfield Street, Agawam, MA Page 2of3 Raynham silt loam, Belgrade silt loam, Amostown fine sandy loam, Ninigret fine sandy loam, Woodbridge fine sandy loam, and Meckesville- loam soil series. Please refer to the attached NRCS soil map for location of said mapped soils. The subject parcel is not Located within a Special Flood Zone area according to Flood Insurance = Rate Map 25013CO391 E, dated 7/16/2013. The subject parcel is not located within Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) jurisdiction.. Please refer to the attached site plan for more detail regarding the existing site conditions. 3. Proposed Development Impacts The applicant proposes to create two (2) lots to be serviced by a private way. It is the intent for "Lot 1 ", shown on the attached plan, to comprise 1.452 acres and be improved witha single-family residence and accessory improvements including access driveway and utility connections. "Lot 2" will comprise the remaining 12.722 acres of Land and remain essentially unaltered. No alteration to the existing single-family home, accessory structures and driveway located on "Lot 2" are proposed as part of this project. Proposed alterations on "Lot 2" are restricted to water/utility connection alterations. The proposed project is minimal in terms of overall development relative to the remainder of the site and is not expected to adversely affect pedestrian/vehicular traffic within the surrounding area, solid waste storage and disposal, or air/water quality. The proposed home on Lot 1 will be serviced by a public water supply line in South Westfield Street and a private septic disposal system. Lot 1 consists of previously cleared land, therefore the future construction of a single-family home will not disturb historic, architectural, or archaeological features within the site. The effect on outdoor recreation opportunities will not be affected as the subject property is currently privately owned and the lots created by this proposed subdivision are intended to remain as such. The remainder of the subject parcel, shown as Lot 2 on the attached plan, will remain essentially unaltered and preserve existing forest lands thus protecting the watershed to Philo Brook, Limiting development to only one.lot, in a previously cleared area, will limit habitat fragmentation and retain continuity with the adjacent tracts of forest to the north and east. Should the proposed construction of a single-family home on Lot 1 be deemed within Conservation Jurisdiction, the applicant will be required to file with the local Conservation Commission and Massachusetts DEP under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. Environmental Study for Preliminary Subdivision 891 South Westfield Street, Agawam, MA Page 3 of 3 For further information on site layout, please see the attached site plan. END OF NARRATIVE ADDENDUM SECTION 7 STATEMENT OF TIME DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCE Page 1 of 1 Statement of Time Development Sequence For Definitive Subdivision 891 South Westfield Street (Parcel ID E3-2-3) Agawam, MA 01001 RLA Project No. 170402 STATEMENT OF TIME -DEVELOPMENT Because the size of the proposed subdivision is relatively small with two lots, the construction of the roadway and subdivision will be completed in one phase. The absorption rate of the lots within the subdivision will be rapid; Lot 2 will be retained by the current owner and Lot 1 will be deeded to a descendent of the current owner. The proposed subdivision is intended to be completed within twelve months from the date of Planning Board endorsement. The roadway construction phase is anticipated to begin in the spring of 2018 and commence by the autumn of 2018. After the completion of subdivision construction the development of the proposed building lots wit( commence. Construction on Lot 1 is intended to begin in the spring of 2018 after permitting has been completed. Lot 2 will remain essential unaltered given the previously developed nature of the parcel. Development of both lots is expected to be completed by the end of 2018. PLAN OF SEQUENCE OF DEVELOPMENT As stated above, only one phase will be needed to complete the roadway and subdivision. The following list indicates the anticipated sequence of development: ■ Establish erosion controls including silt fences and inlet protection ■ Trench for water line and/or other utilities ■ Pave roadway apron Pave (gravel) roadway bypass area ■ Establish turf on all disturbed areas adjacent to the road ■ Monument lots persubdivisionplans TOWN DEVELOPMENT RELATIONSHIP STUDY Page 1 of 1 Statement of Time Development Sequence For Definitive Subdivision 891 South Westfield Street (Parcel ID: E3-2-3) Agawam, MA 01001 RLA Project No. 170402 TOWN -DEVELOPMENT RELATIONSHIP STUDY The proposed subdivision will have the same overall character as the existing neighborhood. The surrounding area is residentially and agriculturally zoned and the proposed residential subdivision will relate well to the intended use of the area. The proposed house (Lot 1) will be approximately 2,000 square feet and will have an anticipated value ranging of $250,000 to $300,000. The proposed subdivision will tie-in to town water. Electric and telephone services will also service the development. SECTION SOIL BORING LOGS 3 � $ z' ❑ d p Ao a El a: yYY y 1 . �vv L i F - to l Id V6 I': RA E LU u 40 w D` s v � 0 Q 411 Q 0 0CD 06. u m It I I Ell 13 F Z fk E CZ �s kmm 11 k: �i Cl� FA1 ul on L' 1 0 UAL M V q 8.:.ug: 19: W. 40 t r IN M ay t 0 A a Comimonweaffli of city/'rown ofb Percolaflon twodot A SKb li VWMNLVOM isms on 00awpftr pH l . we t Cara e1 char- — kw- Na Lml r t atf AM by 0* Boards of HMM Cowftm OW be Md. but a w VWe MM Bdwe whV is ftM do* WO 4F RP t a0 NNA . 0100% 2t 1:OC7PM Pi 4 ri" P 1 47 R M. 2=Oz'?-M 5-Zp. - 5:01 F.M. 3 = O-T P.m . 2 minj i RC Test Passed: Wiest Faled• z7 - R.S . vWWASO"d or. MSTA - I :!ND P PZ -05 4S 1- 4---*� ! rA 3 03 F.M. a,.C6 P.M. 3 M,11A Z- -2 nvAjlvAC;j Ted Passed._ Test FARS& 0 "PROUTY LANE SUBDIVISION" PLAN SET BY R LEVESQUE ASSOCIATES,, INC. DATED AUGUST 30, 2017 MASSACHUSETTS STREETS AND WAYS FOR SURVEYORS F. Sydney Smithers, Esquire Cain, Hibbard & Myers, PC 66 West Street Pittsfield, MA 01201 (413) 443-4771 (413) 443-7694 (Facsimile) Copyright, all rights reserved 2011 CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1. 2. a s 5. :.1 DEFINITIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS 1.1 PUBLICWAYS 1 LIA STATE HIGHWAYS 5 LIB COUNTY WAYS' 9 L I C TOWN WAYS 12 I.1D STATUTORY PRIVATE WAYS 13 1.2 DETERMINING WHETHER A WAY IS "PUBLIC" 17 13 PRIVATE WAYS 23 ESTABLISHMENT AND ACCEPTANCE 2.1 STATE HIGHWAYS 25 2.2 COUNTY HIGHWAYS 25 2.3 TOWN AND STATUTORY PRIVATE WAYS 27 2.4 PRIVATE WAYS 28 MAINTENANCE OF WAYS 29 INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES IN WAYS 32 OBTAINING TITLE FOR PUBLIC WAYS 5.1 EMINENT DOMAIN 34 5.2 DPICATION' 37 5.3 ADVERSE POSSESSION/PRESCRIPTION 39 5.4 BOUNDARY ON A WAY 41 5.4A FEE INTEREST (DERELIC FEE STATUTE) 41 5.413 EASEMENTS BY ESTOPPEL/IMPLICATION 57 DISCONTINUANCE OF STREETS AND WAYS 6.1 STATUTORY 61 6.2 ADVERSE POSSESSION 70 6.3 DAMAGES 72 6.4 TITLE" TO DISCONTINUED PORTIONS 73 7. SUBDIVISION CONTROL 75 MASSACHUSETTS STREETS AND WAYS FOR SURVEYORS BY F. SYDNEY WITHERS 1. DEFINITIONS AND CLASSIFICATION OF MASSACHUSETTS STREETS AND WAYS; 1..1 PUBLIC WAYS "Public ways" as a generic term includes state highways, county highways, town ways and statutory private ways. Generally speaking an existing way in a city or town in the Commonwealth; is not a "public way" - that is, one which a city or town has; the duty to maintain free from defects (see Massachusetts General Laws ("G.L. hereafter) c. 84, §§ I, 15 and 22 and First National Bank of Woburn v. Woburn„ 192' Mass. 220 (1906)) unless it: has become public in character by one of three ways: (i) a laying out by public authority in the manner prescribed by statute (for example, M.G.L. c. 82, §§1-32); (ii) prescription; and (iii) prior to 1846, a dedication by the owner to public use, permanent and unequivocal (see Lonaley v. Worcester, 304 Mass. 580 at 587-589 (1939)), coupled with an express or implied acceptance by the public. McLaughlin v.�Town of Marblehead, 68 Mass. App: Ct. 490,495 (2007); Fenn v. Town of Middleborough, 7 Mass.App.Ct. 80, 83-84 (1979). For the creation of a publicwayby prescription, see G.L. c. 187, §2, Carmel v. Bailly arg_eon, 21 Mass.App.Ct, 426, 429-31 (1986); . Fenn v. Town. of Middleborough, 7 Mass.App.Ct. 80, 83-84 (1979); Schulze v. Huntington, 24 Mass.App.Ct. 416, 417 (1987). For the creation of public ways by dedication, see G.L. c. 84, §23, 1846 Mass. Acts 203, §1; LorioI v. Keene, 343 Mass. 358, 360-61 (1961). Given the unavailability i of dedication as a means of establishing a public way after the effective date of 1846 Mass.Acts 203, § 1 and the difficulties in establishing a public way by prescription, most public ways now assume their public character by laying out by a public authority under statute. Public ways in Massachusetts consist of state highways, highways/county ways, town ways and statutory private ways; each of which is governed by statute. The manner of layout, alteration, acquisition of land and easements, discontinuance, construction, maintenance and repair of state highways is set forth in G.L. c. 81, which dates from 1893. G.L, c. 82 (which dates to 1693) governs the method of layout of town and county ways. Unlike the usual situation ,in state highways, a town or county way is usually a mere easement. This is so because of a long standing judicial doctrine that there will not be created a greater interest or estate than is essential for the public use. Thus an easement for travel is to be presume d unless otherwise stated. When a public street or highway is laid out and constructed under the general laws of this Commonwealth, the public acquires an easement in the land, which includes a right to occupy it for every kind of travel and communication of persons and every movement of property, that is reasonable and proper in the use of a public street. [Citation omitted]. Subject to this paramount right, the owner of the fee retains his ownership of ;every valuable interest in the land, and he may use it in: any way that does not interfere with the right of the public to the enjoyment of its easement. Opinion of the Justices, 208 Mass. 603, 605 (1911). It has been the presumption of the courts that a public way is limited to an easement. In City of Boston v. Richardson, 95 Mass. (13 Allen), 146, 159 (1866), the court made a declaration of public policy by stating: "the right of the public -in-a highway, even when so ancient that its origin is unknown, isordinarilylimited to an easement for the purposes of travel, and upon the taking of land for a highway by authority of the 2 legislature, very clear words are necessary in order to vest in the public the fee in soil." This theory of law was explained in Smith v. Slocomb, 75 Mass. (9 Gray), 36, 37 (1857) as follows: "in this commonwealth,...by taking land for a highway the public take an easement only, and not a fee; and that the fee must be in somebody, and not in abeyance, and remains in the abutter; and that the public easement so completely takes all that can be made serviceable to the owner, that whatremains cannot be considered of much value;—" It should also be noted that the term "highway" in Massachusetts is an expansive term, including not only the paved surfaces of a roadway but areas other than and outside of those surfaces, so long as the purpose of the area is to assist in travel. The term 'highway', as generally understood, does not have a restrictive or static meaning. It denotes ways laid out or constructed to accommodate modes of travel (and other related purposes) that change as customs change and as technology develops. [Citations omitted.] 'In the most primitive state of society the conception of highway was merely a footpath; in a slightly more advanced state it included the idea of a way for pack animals; and, next, a way for vehicles drawn by animals... And thus the methods of using public highways expanded with the growth of civilization until today our urban highways are devoted to a variety of uses not known in former times, and never dreamed of by the owners of the soil when the pubtic;easement was acquired.' [Citation omitted]. Because of this 'viewof the scope of the term 'highway', a footpath has been considered to be a part of a highway [citation omitted], and a sidewalk beside a roadway has been deemed part of that way [citation omitted] . .. The same reasoning has led to the inclusion of bicycle paths along roadways within the scope of those ways. [Citation omitted.] Opinion of the Justices, 370 Mass. "895, 901-902 (1976). [This case held that highway trust fund moneys could be expended on the construction and maintenance of bicycle pathways in Massachusetts], Thus, "the word 'highway' in a popular sense includes all public traveled 3 ways, whether county or town ways_ [citation omitted]. So, of the word 'road,"' Clark v. Hull, 184 Mass. 164, 166 (1903). But see the technical distinctionbetween "highways" and town ways in Newburyport Redevelopment Authority v. Commonwealth, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 206, 223 (1980) where it is stated: The distinction between highways and town ways, which has existed since at least 1693, lies in the fact that the former are and have been laid out under G.L. 'c. 82, Section 1, or its statutory predecessors, while the latter are and have been laid out under G.L.-c. 82, Section 21, or its predecessors. [While now a city council or board of aldermen may, if their city charter so provides, layout highways, previously G.L. C. 82] Section 1 provided for the laying out of highways by authorities having jurisdiction throughout a county [now county commissioners], while the predecessors of Section 21 provided for the laying out of town ways by a board of selectmen with the approval of the town meeting.. An important distinction between highways and town ways is that highways may not be discontinued without notice to towns and abutters and concurrence of the county commissioners (G.L. c. 82, Sections 1 and 3), while town ways may be discontinued by town meeting vote or vote of a -city council without notice to abutters (G.L. c 82, Section 21). Upon discontinuance, a state highway becomes a town way. As to the effect of ;a discontinuance, see Section 6 herein on Discontinuances and the discussion ,of Nylander' v. Potter, 423 Mass. 158 (1996). 1.1.A STATE HIGHWAYS A state _highway, as distinguished from other streets and ways, is laid out and maintained by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Division of Highways {"MDT"). See G.L. c._6c. The layout or assumption of maintenance of a state highway can be by petition of county commissioners or selectmen (G.L. e. 81, Section 4) or on MDT's own determination that the public convenience and necessity require the 4 layout (G.L. c. 81, Section 5). Although MDT may abandon any land or rights in land which may have been taken or acquired by it provided that it follow the procedures required under G.L. c. 81, Section 12, after layout and construction of a state highway, MDT has no authority to abandon any portion of such highway once the same has been committed to the charge of the Commonwealth. See 2 Qp.Atty, Gen. 378 (1902). See also, general discussion in Gillis v. Bonelli-Adams-Co., 284 Mass. 176 178-79 (1933). The statute also provides for limited access ways (G.L. c. 91, Section 7C) and grants to the MDT very expansive powers, to acquire needed land outside the existing way (G.L, c. 81, Section 7), alteration of connecting ways, be they town or county ways (G.L. c. 81, Section 7A), to dispose of excess lands or rights in land (G.L. c. 81, Section 7E), to enter on private property for surveys and test borings (G.L. c. 81, Section 7F), to relocate public utilities and to acquire land and easements to do so (G.L. c. 81, Section 7G) and the right to acquire land to provide road building materials (G.L. c. 81, Section 11). When the MDT lays out a limited access highway it is sometimes necessary, in order to provide access to a public way for abutting properties whose; access has been cut- off by the limited access highway, for it to take land, not needed for the highway itself but rather to provide private access to a public way (G.L. c. 81, Section 7A). While originally not viewed as constitutional by some because such a taking was viewed as the expenditure of public funds for private benefit, a challenge to this aspect of the law failed in the case, Luke v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, 337 Mass. 304 (1958): In the Luke case, the Court acknowledged that the eminent domain pourer may not be exercised for private purposes but found that the public purpose was served by taking easements for E private use, because to do otherwise the Turnpike might have had to be laid out "over a length of miles" to avoid a taking which would otherwise'landlock a parcel of land Landowners who had frontage on a state highway have a cause of action for damages for diminution in value of their holdings if the highway is thereafter made a limited access highway. Petitioners in such a situation are entitled to recover the damage to what remains of their real estate after the appurtenant easement is taken away from them and as a result of losing the easement. G.L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 79, § 12. Nichols v. Commonwealth, 331 Mass. 581 (1954). "Nothing turns on the fact that the petitioners' acreage was the same before the taking [citations omitted]." Wenton v. Commonwealth, 335 Mass. 78, 80-81 (1956). Section 12 of G.L. c. 81 deals with; discontinuances or abandonment, about which there is later discussion at Section 6 et sec of these materials. Sections 13-21 of G.L. c. 81 set forth the obligation of the state to maintain its highways including snow removal, at its expense and, for the purposes of maintenance, "state highways" includes "such public roads in state forests, parks and reservations outside of the metropolitan parks district, and such public roads within the limits of any property [under the control of the Commonwealth] as may ... be designated ... as roads for public use .." (G.L. c. 81, Section 13). The Commonwealth is liable to motorists damaged by its failure to maintain its highways (G.L. c. 81, Section 18). Section 21 of G.L. c. 81 was amended in 1975 to add a new provision, as follows: In the case of a driveway opening on a state highway, the said department shall not grant a permit for a -driveway location or alteration if the board or department in a city or town having authority over public ways and highways has notified the department by registered mail, return receipt requested, of their objection to the Cj driveway; provided, that such objection shall be based on highway safety and accepted by the said department. In April, 1988 G.L. c. 81, Section 21 was substantially revised, creating a further requirement for state highway access. Prior to such amendment, the section had provided that an abutting land owner wanting to build or expand a business or residential use which would generate a substantial increase in or impact on traffic, could be required to bear the expense of up to 75% of the cost of necessary highway improvements. Now Section 21 of G.L. c. 81 requires an abutting landowner, whether intending to use an existing or a new access toga state highway ("curb cut"), to obtain a permit from the state before building or using the access and the landowner can be required to bear 100% o of the cost of improvements installed by the department. Depending upon the administration then in office, the MDT has on occasion had a very expansive view of its powers under this amendment to the extent of imposing a year long curb cut moratorium on at least one highway and strictly regulating the number and location of curb cuts in many other locations. Section 22 of G.L. c., 81 was amended in 1985 and now provides in part: "No length of possession, or occupancy of land within the limits of a state highway, by an owner ... of adjoining land shall give him any title thereto [and any encroaching objects] other than a building used for residential purposes [may be removed by the state if not removed by the owner]. This amendment is designed, obviously, to protect dwellings against summary removal to the nearest MDT maintenance area, presumably a dwelling may be removed only after further process. By G.L. c. 81, Sections 24-28 the ,MDT is given the right to expend public funds on town or county, as opposed to state, highways. 7 Under G.L. ;c. 85, Section 2, municipalities must seek the approval of MDT with reference to (1) a way which intersects a state highway;:(2) any project which is or was federally aided, in whole or in part; (3) any traffic control signal or flasher in any city or town which does not employ a registered professional engineer to design, redesign or change the timing and sequence of signal or flasher (4) any sign excluding 'heavy commercial vehicles; (5) any school zone establishment or signing in relation to which a city or town intends to seek reimbursement from the Commonwealth; and (6) certain one- way street signs If any city or town installs and maintains any of the above control devices without requesting and obtaining the required approval, MDT may withhold or withdraw the unexpended balance of any funds assigned to the city or town for certain highway purposes. G.L. c. 8 1 A established the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and authorized it to issue revenue bonds for the purpose of constructing a "toil express highway" from Boston to the New York State line and this was 'later amended to permit the take over of the Sumner Tunnel and the construction of the Callahan Tunnel, and now the Third Harbor Tunnel under Boston Harbor. Chapter 81A of the General Laws has been repealed by Chapter 3 of the Acts of 1997 and the operations formerly of the Turnpike Authority are> now vested in the Department of Transportation. Nowhere in G.L. c. 81 is it required that the state acquire the fee in land over which it lays out the state highway, and in earlier times, it may be some state highways were mere easements, where the fee remained in the land owner over whose land the E highway was laid out. It is now usual, however, that the MDT makes an eminent domain (G.L. c. 79) taking of the underlying fee for the purpose of state highway construction. 1.1.13 COUNTY WAYS/ HIGHWAYS G.L. c. 82, Section 1 gives authority to the county commissioners, councils of governments or other duly authorized councils committees or boards to "lay out, alter, relocate and discontinue highways and order specific repairs thereon . ." Such highways are commonly known as "county ways". Section 1 of c. 82 was amended to provide jurisdiction to additional entities as follows: "A council of governments shall have authority to designate the powers of the council with relation to county roads to a subgroup of the council, duly constituted under its charter. In counties abolished in Chapter 34B or by Section 567 of Chapter 151 of the Acts of 1996 where no council of governments exists, the designated regional planning agency shall create a regional adjudicatory board comprised of four members of the regional planning agency advisory board and the district highway director of the Department of Highways or his designee, to act as county commissioners under this Chapter. County roads in Berkshire County shall be exempt from the foregoing provisions and shall be subject to Section 364 of Chapter 159 of the Acts of 2000." The commissioners may on their ;own motion (G.L. c. 82, Section 1) or on a petition by others (G.L. c. 82, Section 2), after hearing (G.L. c. 82, Section 3) and a view (G.L. c. 82, Section 4), adjudicate that public convenience and necessity requires the layout, alteration, relocation or discontinuance of a highway. Inhabitants of Pembroke v County Commissioners of Plymouth, 66 Mass. 351 (1853). A court cannot overturn a factual determination of common convenience and necessity. Denman v. County of 0 Barnstable, 346 Mass. 412, 415 (1963), citing Blackstone v. County Comm'rs , 108 Mass. 68,69 (1971). As is the case with state highways, specific statutory authority is given to the commissioners (G.L. c. 82, Section ;11A) and their agents, including; surveyors, to enter' on private land without creating a trespass, for the purposes of "reconnaissances, surveys, soundings, inspections or examinations to obtain information for the layout and construction of highways". G.L. c. 82, Section 1 highway construction is performed by towns, the county apportions the expense between the county and the town or towns within which the highway is constructed, or with the state as well (G.L. c. 82, Section 8). Towns thereafter have the responsibility to maintain highways and can be required to make specific repairs (G.L. c. 82, Section 10) in addition to routine maintenance, repairs and snow removal. If a town refuses to construct a highway laid out by the commissioners, the commissioners may contract with another party to have it constructed, at the expense of the town (G.L. c. 82, Section 14), and prior to 1917, commissioners could be compelled, in :a mandamus action, to complete a highway laid out by them (Richards v. County Commissioners of Bristol, 120 Mass. 401 (1876)). Section 14 of G.L. c. 82 was subsequently amended to provide that the commission "may" complete a; highway and mandamus will not lie (Marcus v. County' Commissioners of Norfolk, 344 Mass. 749 (1962)) to compel construction of a highway. Prior to Chapter 276, Acts of 1985, which repealed Sections 26 and 27 of G.L. c. 82, the county commissioners could override the refusal of the selectmen to lay out a 10 town way (G.L. c, 92, Section 26) or the refusal of the town meeting to accept such a way (G.L. c. 82 Section 27). Interestingly, the county still has the power (G.L. c. 92, Section 34) to override the will of a town and discontinue a town way or statutory private way. It should be noted that with the abolition of certain county governments pursuant to G.L. c. 3413, and in particular, Section 6(d) thereof, responsibilities for the maintenance, method of layout, relocation and discontinuance of ways laid out by those counties shifted to either a council of governments or, if none, to the towns within which such county way is located. 1.1.0 TOWN WAYS The selectmen of a town or city council of a city may lay out a town way in accordance with G.L. c. 82, Sections 21-23 and, upon acceptance by the city council or town meeting, the way becomes a city or town way. Only a town meeting may discontinue a town way (see further discussion, at Section 6 herein). Each step of the process must be followed or the layout or acceptance is invalid. In Loriol v. Keene, 343 Mass. 358 (961),'Mrs. Loriol owned land at the end of a way known as Fairfax Street. The Keenes owned land adjoining Mrs. Loriol, on either side of Fairfax Street. The Keenes blocked off Fairfax Street so Mrs. Loriol could ;not use it to get to her property and she sued. A map of Fairfax Street leading to plaintiffs' property had been recorded in 1913, and in 1929 the Town voted to "accept" Fairfax Street without -stating which portions or whether all of it was to be accepted. No plan of Fairfax Street was filed with the town clerk prior to the acceptance vote in accordance with Section 23 and no "notice of intention" was given defendants in accordance with Section 22. 11 The giving of notice and filing of a layout required by the provisions of G.L. C. 82, Sections 22 and 23 are not mere procedural technicalities. [Citation omitted]. The requirement that a layout be filed '.. was manifestly not intended to prescribe a mere formality, but to lay down the indispensable conditions upon compliance with which the right of appropriating private property to public uses of this kind can lawfully be exercised. As one [safeguard . . . against inconsiderate or capricious action on the part of municipal authorities, it establishes a rule to secure precision and exactness of descri Lion on the part of the selectmen as to the changes which they propose to make. Loriol v. 'Keene, 343 Mass. at 361 (emphasis supplied). But see, Reed v. Mayo, 220 Mass. 565 (1915), discussed below. 1, LD STATUTORY PRIVATE WAYS Note that, Sections 21 through 24 of G.L. c. 82 refer as well to "private ways." Massachusetts is alone, so far as the authors know, in having this anomalous creature called a "private way" which is laid out by public authority. The existence, in the statutes, of this creature has been the ;cause of much litigation and uncertainty. A statutory private way is open to use by the public. It is laid out by the selectmen by the same procedure as a town way, although: usually on the petition of one or more persons to whom the way will be of most benefit. The costs of the layout, necessary land acquisition, construction, maintenance and repairs are chargeable to "the persons upon whose application such way is laid out, relocated,;;aitered or discontinued or upon whose application specific repairs are made ...." (G.L. c. 82, Section 24). The town has no obligation to maintain a statutory private way and, while such;a way is laid out upon the petition of individuals) it is not only he (they) who have the right to use the way; the public likewise has an easement of passage over statutory private ways. A private way laid out across land of Denham from a public way to land of Slade, which Denham alleged to be for the "use of a single individual, and not for any public use; that the effect [of the layout was] to compel them to sell an casement in their land [to 12 Slade, and was therefore an unconstitutional action]" led to the Supreme Judicial Court in Denham v. County Commissioners of Bristol, 108 Mass. 202, 204 (1871) to say: It is true that ways of this description are denominated 'private ways' [by the predecessor statute, and they are allowed] to be laid out for the use of one person, who may be, and in this case is, ordered to pay the whole amount of land damages thereby incurred. It appears to us however that such a way is not distinguishable in any other respect from ,a town way, properly so called. The easement or right of passage, created by laying it out, is not the private right of the individual whose for special accommodation it may have been laid out, nor is it meant exclusively for his individual travel. It is laid out on his petition; but it is not his way, in the sense of belonging to him personally, or as one of the appurtenances or easements of the farm or estate with which it communicates. He has no power to close, alter, widen or control it; and he has no right in it, except in common with all others who have occasion to pass over it. The public easement is exactly the same as it is in all other ways laid out by public authority. All the different ways, which towns are authorized by law to lay out, are in truth public highways, for the public without discrimination has the right to use them. It is wholly immaterial by what name they are called [citation omitted]. Our system for the laying out and establishment of public roads recognizes three different kinds: 1. Highways, technically and properly so called, which are laid out by county officers, and in which the land damages are paid from the county treasury; 2. Town ways, which may be laid out by town authorities, and in which the town is required to pay the land damages; and 3. Private or particular ways, in which the selectmen (or in case of appeal, the county commissioners) may order the whole or part of the land damages, as they deem reasonable, to be paid by the persons or persons specially and peculiarly benefited by the laying out. In all these different kinds of ways, the towns are to pay all the expense of construction with their respective limits; and as has been shown, all are public roads. A distinction has existed between three types of "public roads" since the laws of the Province of Massachusetts' for the years 1693-94 and 1713-1714. It has been claimed that the statutory private way "descends" from the third of these type of ways. First, there were highways, laid out and paid for by the county. Prov. Laws 1693-1694 ch. 6 §3. Second, there were town ways, laid out and paid for by the town. Prov. Laws 1693-1694 ch. 6` §3. Third, there were certain "particular ways" necessary for access to "the lands of particular persons or proprietors". These were also laid out by the town, but they 13 might be paid for by either thetownor the "inhabitants or proprietors who desire and reap the benefit of the same". Prov. Laws 1713-1714 ch. 8 §I Such a road is public in the sense of providing access, but its latter day descendant is the "statutory private way", a kind of road for which neither town, county nor Commonwealth bears upkeep responsibility.. United States v. 125.07 Acres of Land, More or Less, 707 F.2d 11, 14-15 (lst'Cr. 1983). Thus, a "statutory" private way is a way laid out by a town, but the land damages occasioned by the layout, are charged to the petitioner (G.L.c. 82, Section 24). In other words: The "private way" known to themodernstatutes differs from a "town way" only in the fact that the selectmen may assess the whole or a portion of the damages of laying out, altering, or discontinuing such way upon the individuals for whose use it is laid out or altered, or by whose application it is discontinued. In other respects, it is a part of the system of town ways. Butchers Slaughtering and Melting Ass'n'v. Boston 139 Mass. 290, 292 (1885), citing Flasg v. Flagg, 82 Mass (16 Gray) 175, 178-179 (1860). A "statutory" private way is not a "public way" or a way "maintained and used as a public way" for the purposes of the subdivision control law (G.L. c. 41, Sections 81L and 81P), Casagrande v. Town Clerk of Harvard, 377 Mass. 703 (1979), and hence the division of land abutting on a statutory private way requires compliance with the definitive subdivision process and frontage on a statutory private way does not qualify for an ANR endorsement. In passing upon whether the legislature could pass a taw permitting the expenditure of public funds to remove ice and snow from "private ways open to the public use" the Supreme Court said, in [minion of the Justices, 313 Mass. 779 (1943) that while the words ...private' may occasionally be used in the statutes with a different 14 meaning [citing G.L. c. 84, Sections 12-14], they commonly ;mean ways of a special type laid out by public authority for the use of the public [citing G.L. c:_82, Sections 21-32A and Denham . Such 'private ways' are private only in name, but are in all other respects public." The Court then went on to discuss ways open to the public use by virtue of dedication (discussed infra) and then added to the confusion by saying. But the words 'private ways,` as commonly understood and as sometimes used in the opinions of this court, have a broader meaning than either of the meanings here mentioned [citations omitted]. The words may well mean or include defined ways for travel, not laid out by public authority or dedicated to public use, that are wholly the subject of private ownership, either by reason of the ownership of the land upon which they are laid out be the owner thereof [citations omitted] or by reason of ownership of easements of way over land of another person. Opinion of the Justices, 313 Mass. at 782, 1.2 DETERMINING WHETHER A WAY IS "PUBLIC" As discussed at the outset of this chapter; a way does not become public unless (1) by Iayout by a,public authority in the manner prescribed by statute, (2) by prescription, or (3) by dedication, if prior to 1846. McLaughin v. Town of Marblehead, 68 Mass., App. Ct. 490, 495 (2007), Fenn v. Middleborough, 7 Mass.App.Ct. at 83-84 (1981). Determining whether a way has become public under the first of these three methods can require a great deal of circumstantial evidence where direct evidence only establishes that the way in question was laid out as a "highway" under the colonial laws. The courts are unwilling to merely assume that ways are "public and require a quantum of proof that such is the case to avoid the consequences attendant to a way being 15 public, such as liability for failure to maintain, the expense of maintenance and snow removal and, not coincidentally, ready divisibility of land by ANR plans. In Reed v. Ma o, which was a registration petition in the Land Court, there was no laying ;out of the way and no plan showing the boundaries and measurements of the way prior to the 1852 town meeting which voted to accept Mayo Road as petitioned by JamesRoy. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the provisions of the statute were not complied with. The main purpose of giving seven days' notice of the intention to lay out the way was to inform the landowner as to what portion of his land was to be taken. [Citation omitted.] In this instance the only owner interested was James Roy who had petitioned the town to lay out Mayo Road and had given the land needed for the purpose. Even though evidence of notice and filing does not appear in the town records, it may be presumed or inferred after 60 years that the statutory requirement was complied with. All reasonable presumptions are to be taken in favor of such ancient records. Reed v. Mavo, 220 Mass. at 568. It should be noted that the Land Court found that since 1852 Mayo Road had been used by the public and had been maintained by the town. It may have been that uninterrupted adverse use of Mayo Road since 1852 was enough to establish a way by prescription. The distinction between the Loriol case discussed earlier, and its requirement for exactly following the statutory scheme, and the Reed and dark v. Hull cases, cited above, deserves mention here. Both the Reed and Clark cases found a public way on evidence which would not now be sufficient. In Reed there was no evidence of notice and filing of the layout but its 16 existence was "presumed." In Clark„ based upon "ancient records" and "ancient deeds referring to the 'road"' the Court found a public way. Loriol is the first case where strict evidence of compliance with the statute was required, but not the last. The burden of proof is on the party claiming a public way who must show that the way: has become public in character in one of three ways: ('1) a_laying out by public authority in the manner prescribed by statute (see G.L. c. 82, Sections 1-32); (2) prescription; and (3) prior to 1846, a dedication by the owner to public use, permanent and unequivocal [citations omitted], coupled with an express or implied acceptance by the public. Fenn v. Town of Middleborough, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 80, 83-84 (1979); See also Schulze v. Huntington, 24 Mass. App, 416, 417 (1987), and Rivers v. Town of Warwick, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 593, 594 - 95 (1994). The trial lawyer in the Fenn case had obviously read the Clark case as he put into evidence the same type of evidence as had satisfied the Supreme Court, in 1903 that the "road leading to Jeffries Neck" was a public way. Thesameevidence was insufficient in 1979 to convince the Appeals Court that Tispaquin and Short Streets in Middleborough were public. The Court observed rather acidly that "[a]ge by itself is a neutral factor, there being ancient private, as well as ancient public ways ...." Fenn, 7 Mass. App. Ct. at 85. Reference is made to a -helpful small pamphlet by Attorney Alexandra Dawson, ANRs Ancient Ways and the cases ;selected therein at Appendix A. This helpful pamphlet is available at www.thetrustees.orglputnameonservationinstitute.cfm and was prepared for the Putnam Conservation Institute of The Trustees of Reservations. A 1995 Appeals Court decision confirms that although mere age and use are insufficient, the courts may nonetheless show some leniency in their interpretations of the 17 types of evidence that will satisfy the statutory requirements, even where the court acknowledges that the evidence may support "different and possibly; contrary inferences. Martin v. Building Inspector of Freetown, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 509, 512 (1995). In Martin the court found that a public way was validly established where the evidence included (1) plans dating back to June 7, 1763, (2) testimony of an experienced local surveyor who was also director of the town's historical society, (3) minutes of a town meeting in 1764 including as among those items of business that required action the decision as to "what they think proper in respect of highways laid out by the selectmen of Freetown on June 7, 1763" and a notation in the margin stating "voted", and (4) a high degree of congruence between the 1763 plans and the town's assessors maps and the 1979 U.S. Geological Surrey map. Martin; 38 Mass. App.;at 511. In Moncy v. Planning of Scituate, 50 Mass.App.Ct. 715 (2001), which upheld a Land Court decision by the same name, 6 LCR 322 (Lombardi, J., Nov. 18, 1998), the bar was raised substantially concerning the quantity and quality of evidence required of those parties claiming a way to be public. Although both the judge in the lower Land Court decision and the appeals court had found that the way in question had been laid out as a "highway" by the town selectmen in 1725, this evidence was inconclusive as to the public status of the way. Moncy, 50 Mass:App.Ct, at 716. Despite the fact that the plaintiff had produced evidence that (1) the way in question, Bates Lane, was laid out as a "highway" by the selectmen in;1725, ;(2) the town had voted to accept the layout in 1726, (3) Bates Lane was shown on an 1831 map as a highway in Scituate, and (4) all town ways in Scituate were historically public ways during that time period; the Court in Moncy found that Bates Lane, as a matter of law, 20 could be deemed to constitute a statutory private way, thereby disqualifying it as a "Public way" under the Subdivision Control Law_ Moncy, 50 Mass.App.Ct, at 720. In reaching this finding, the court analyzed each of the forms of evidence submitted by the plaintiff. The first of such evidence discussed by the Court was actually evidence that the plaintiff had failed to submit; evidence addressing why the way had been laid out in the first place. This type of evidence can be shown, according to the Court in Moncy, by proving who paid for the layout. Id. at 716, citing United States v. 125.07 Acres of Land, More or Less, 707 F.2d at 14. Without proof that damages were paid toanyone;for the layout of the way, the Court in Mona upheld the Land Court's conclusion that "it was just as probable that the 1725 layout: was intended as a private way." Id. at 716, Evidence that the Town had appointed someone in 1858 to ascertain if Bates Lane belonged to the Town and evidence that the Town assessed fees for the rental and use of Bates Lane during the 1800's were also pieces of circumstantial evidence that the Court found as being "inconsistent with its use as a public way." ld. at 717, citing Cohasset v. Moors, 204 Mass. 173, 176477 (1910). Because acceptance by the Town was required for both private and public ways under a 1718 Town meeting vote, the Town's acceptance of Bates Lane in 1726 was discounted by the Court as being insignificant evidence in proving whether the way was private or public. Id. at 717-718. The depiction of the way on a map, by itself, was also held by the Court as failing to prove that the way was public.. Id. at718. The Court in Monc further found that "the mere fact that the selectmen in the 1725 layout stated that they "laid out a high way in Scituate does not in and of itself 21 denote a public way....the term `highway' is susceptible of many meanings. It can refer generally to a road or way, including a county, town or private way." ld. at 718, citing Jones v. Andover, 6 Pick 59, 60 (1827). The application of the colonial laws in place at the time Bates Lane was laid out received much discussion in Money. The Land Court had stated in its decision the it "eonsider[ed] Bates Lane to have been laid out as a `particular or private way' now known as a statutory private way. 6 LCR 322, at 326. The plaintiff in Moncy, on appeal, argued that a "private way" did not exist before 1836, and that Bates Lane could not, therefore, have been laid out as a private way. The appeals court held, however, that because there was "no difference in the power granted to the selectmen to lay out town and private ways by the Revised Statutes of 1836, §§66-69, and by the Province Laws 1693-1694, c. 6, §4, and 1713-1714, c. 8, §l," the Land Court could properly conclude that "Bates Lane constituted a private way, now known as a statutory private way." Id. at 719-720. Therefore, in order to establish that a way laid out prior to the enactment of the Revised Statutes of 1836 is public, several types of evidence should be shown. First, it should be proven that the way was laid out by the selectmen and accepted by a vote at a town meeting. If the actions taken by the selectmen and the town are ambiguous as to whether the intention was to lay out a public or private way, "evidence of use, construction, or repair, from which a court could infer whether the road was laid :out >as a town or private way" should be gathered. United States v. 125.07 Acres of Land, More or Less, 707 F.2d at 15_ In addition to :submitting maps depicting the way as a public way, survey work should be done to show the exact location of the way, identifying (a) owners 22 of the land traversed by the way over its course during the time period in which the way was laid out, and (b),any important location likely to have been frequented by the public to which the way in question provides access. Such evidence would be helpful in establishing why the way was laid out. Any evidence of attempts to discontinue the way could also be helpful in whether or not a way is private or public in nature. In any event, the law has shown that it is wise For a party seeking to prove that a way is public to gather as much direct and circumstantial evidence as possible in its favor if that party hopes to establish that the part_y's land does in fact have frontage on a public way. 1.3 PRIVATEWAYS In distinguishing the "statutory" private ways from the more commonly understood private way last referred to in the Opinion of the Justices, supra, it can be seen that there is also in Massachusetts a "private way" which ,is not available for public use. In W.D. Cowls, Inc. v. Woicekoski, 7 Mass. App. 18 (1`979), the plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendants from interfering with its use of Old Stage Road in Belchertown, claiming that Old Stage Road was a public way and defendants could not maintain a barrier across it. "If a road has never been dedicated :and accepted, laid out by public authority, or established by prescription, such a road is private [citations omitted]. If any road could be made public solely by acts of the landowners, with no accompanying act by public authorities, the municipality would be responsible for the maintenance and repair of countless roads. W.D. Cowls, 7 Mass. App. Ct. at 19. 23 After reviewing the facts in the case including words in deeds describing the way as a "town road" and "the highway" and an 1830 map showing Old Stage Road, the Court held "no conclusive evidence was presented which would have shown that the road came, under the 'public , rather than the 'private' designations. '" Id at 20. See also Witteveld v. City of Haverhill, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 876 (1981), The W.D. Cowls case and several of its progeny, including Fenn v. Town of Middleborough, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 80 (1979),-Casagrande v. Town Clerk. of Harvard, 377 Mass. 703 (1979), Rivers v. Town of Warwick, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 593 (1994), Moncy v. Planning Board of Scituate, 50 Mass.App.Ct. 715 (2001), and McLaughlin v. Town of Marblehead, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 490 (2007), make it clear that: (1) the burden of proof as to whether a way is public or private can no longer be met, as it was in 1915 in Reed v. Mayo, by a "presumption" that all necessary public actions were accomplished; (2) that there can be ancient private ways as well as public ways; (3) that the burden of proof as to the status of the way as public or not is on he or she who claims it is public Rivers v. Tawas of Warwick, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 593 (1994), Witteveld v. City of Haverill, 12'Mass_ App. $76 (1981)); (4) that the proponent that a way is public must prove it "conclusively"; and (5) that a statutory private way (G.L. c. 82, Section 21) is not a "Public way or a "way maintained and used as public way" under the Subdivision Control Law, G.L. c. 41, Sections 81K-81 G. Private ways most commonly known to us in our practice are subdivision ways; private ways are in all respects private, being laid out, constructed and maintained by private individuals for their private purposes. The public uses such ways only with the consent of the owner, although such consent is so often given in the case of residential 24 subdivisions it is often assumed by laymen that subdivision roads are "public" long before they area accepted by town meetings. 2. ESTABLISHMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF STREETS AND WAYS 2.1 STATE HIGHWAYS G.L. c. 81, Section 4, permits the county commissioners, aldermen or selectmen to petition' the, MDT to lay out:a highway to betaken charge of by the Commonwealth," and Section 5 provides that the NOT may, on its own motion, lay out a state highway after a public hearing and a determination that the public necessity and convenience require it. The MDT then files with the appropriate county commissioners' and town clerks' offices a certified copy of the highway plan and a certificate to the effect "that it has laid out and taken charge of said way" whereupon the proposed highway becomes a state highway. "[T]hereafter said way . . . shall be constructed at the expense of the Commonwealth [unless] abandoned or discontinued as provided in section: twelve. 2.2 COUNTY HIGHWAYS The procedure for layout of county highways is more cumbersome (see generally G.L. c. 82, Sections 1 through 7). The commissioners (G.L. c. 82, Section ) or another party by petition in writing to the Commissioners (G.L. c. 82, Section 2) start the process to layout, alter, relocate or discontinue highways. If a petition commences the process the commissioners may require a suitable bond to assure reimbursement of the county's expense if the petitioners do ;not prevail (G.L. c. 82, Section 2). The procedures by county commissioners can be exercised by other boards and commissioners. G.L. c.82, § 1, G.L. c.34B 25 The commissioners must hold a hearing regarding the layout to "adjudicate" whether common convenience and necessity require the layout (G.L. c. 82, Section 4). On their own motion, or if requested by any party interested, the commissioners will hold a "view" of the premises (G.L. c. 82, Section 4). Notice of the hearing (and view, if applicable) must be ;given to the town clerk 15 days before the date of each, together with a copy of the petition, and also publish and post notice of the proceeding seven days before the hearing or view (G.L. c. 82, Section 3). G.L. c. 82, Section 3 also requires notice by regular mail to the "recorded owners of land subject to a taking" seven days before the ,hearing, with copies of the layout plan, if prepared, or if not prepared, copies must be provided at least seven days before the final approval of plans. After hearing, G.L. c. 82, Section 5 provides that if "no person interested objects, the commissioners may, within twelve months thereafter, lay out" the highway, but if such a person objects another hearing, with new notice, must be held. Obviously, if the layout is the subject matter of private petition the expense, if the petitioners do not prevail, can be substantial. If it is adjudicated that public convenience and necessity do require the layout, the commissioners must make the requisite takings (G.L. c. 82, Section 7) and determine the sharing of expenses thereof (G.L. c. '82, Sections 8 and 12) and shall order the construction to be undertaken by the respective towns within which the layout is ;made '"unless other provision is made. 26 Finally, the commissioners must filewitheach town clerk description and a plan of the location and boundsofthe highway (G.L. c. 82, Section 8). 2.3 TOWN WAYS AND STATUTORY PRIVATE WAYS G.L. c. 82, Sections 21 through 24 set forth the manner in which selectmen (and certain other parties if authorized) lay out and have the town meeting accept town ways and statutory private ways, which can be on their own motion; or upon petition. Chapter 41, Section 811 provides (in towns not having adopted an official map) that "no public way shall be laid out, altered, relocated, or discontinued" unless the proposed action has been referred to the planning board for its report or the passage of 45 days without a report. Seven days prior to adopting a layout the selectmen must give notice of their intention to do so to land owners whose land will be taken for such purpose (G.L. c. 82, Section 22). After the selectmen vote to accept the layout, it is not established until the layout, with the boundaries and measurements of the way, if filed with the town clerk "not less than ;seven days thereafter", is accepted by the town meeting (G.L. c. 82, Section23). The town meeting vote to accept a layout requires only a majority vote, but if funds for construction are to be appropriated, or land taken, those votes require a two- thirds vote. Section 24 of G.L. c. 82 requires that the selectmen adopt an order of taking for the -layout within 120 days of the town meeting vote accepting the layout; obviously, this is not required if the way is to be given to the town as would be the case with a private subdivision way. 27 NOTE:_ There is no statutory requirement for the MDT, county or towns, to record hi hwa- plans at the registry of deeds! 24 PRIVATE WAYS Private ways, if they are intended to constitute frontage for zoning purposes, must be laid out and constructed in accordance with the provisions the Subdivision Control Law, G.L. c. 41, Sections 8'1K-81GG, otherwise a landowner may create such private ways crossing his property as he wishes. A landowner whose interests will be served by the layout and acceptance of a public way may make a voluntary gift of the land or an easement in the land over which the way is constructed or to be constructed. All governmental entities are authorized to accept gifts of land or interests in land, but must do so by some; objective, overt act (such as accepting a deed of the land at the time the layout is accepted by the town meeting or city council);, mere acquiescence to a purported gift is insufficient. A common form of voluntary transfer is the conveyance to a town of an approved subdivision way and the town's acceptance of the developer's layout of such way by town meeting vote. A town clerk's certificate that a parcel of land is maintained and used as a way pursuant to G.L. c,41, §81L, twelfth par (of the subdivision control law; an endorsement, "subdivision approval not required" pursuant to c41, §81P shall not be withheld unless the plan shows a subdivision and the word "subdivision" is defined to exclude a parcel if, inter alia, "every lot within the tract so divided has frontage on (a) a public way or a way which the clerk of the city or town certifies is maintained and used as a public way." c.41 §S IL twelfth par) is not conclusive, irrebuttable evidence that a parcel is maintained and used as a public way for purposes of obtaining an ANR Endorsement. Facts in the 28 clerk's certificate may be genuinely disputed and susceptible of different interpretations; the clerk's records do not necessarily reflect ;how a particular parcel is maintained and used. Such a certificate is merely prima facie evidence that a parcel of land is so maintained. Matulewicz v. Planning Board of Norfolk, 438 Mass. 37 at 44 (2002). 3. MAINTENANCE Public ways are maintained at public expense. Chapter 81 state highways must be maintained by the state and G.L. c. 82 highways and town ways must be maintained at town expense (some of which may be reimbursed by the state). For taking gravel for roads, see G.L. c. 82, Section 38; G.L. c. 81, Section 11. Failure to maintain a state highway results in the imposition of liability on the state (G.L. c. 81, Section 13) and such is also the case as to G.L. c. 82 highways and town ways for a town (G.L. c. 84, Sections 1, 15, 22). G.L. c. 84 ,sets the obligations of a town, not only to maintain, repair and remove snow and ice from highways and town ways, but also dedicated (see discussions infra' ways (G.L. c. 84, Sections 23-25) in certain circumstances. Section 23 of G.L. c. 84 states in part: "A way opened and dedicated to the public use, which has not become a public way, shall not except as provided in the following two sections, be chargeable upon a town as a highway or town way unless laid out and established in the manner prescribed by statute. G.L. c. 84, Section 24 imposes liability for failure to maintain, dedicated ways where the town fails to maintain barriers between a public way, and an unsafe dedicated y Ua, and Section 25 imposes, liability if it can be proven that the town maintained the dedicated way at any time within six years prior to the accident. 29 Private, ways and statutory private ways are maintained at the expense of abutters (G.L. c. 84, Section 12 and see, United States v. 125.07 Acres of Land More or Less, 707 F.2d 11 (151 Cir. 1983); and see Popponesset Beach Association, Inc. V. Marchillo, 39 Mass, App. Ct. 586 (1996), review denied, 422 Mass. 1104 (1996), which suggests that c. 84, Section 12 is the proper and adequate legal remedy for a homeowners' association to collect road maintenance costs from reluctant non-members) but public monies may, if the; town so votes, be expended on private ways for removal of snow and ice (G.L. c. 40 Sections 6C and 6D)and temporary repairs of private ways may be authorized in municipalities adopting a bylaw pursuant to G.L. c. 40, ;Section 6N The; expenditure of public funds to remove ice and snow does not make the private way become public. Bruggeman v. McMullen, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 963 (198`8), Rivers v. Warwick 37 Mass. App. Ct:.593, 597 (1994). United' States v. 125.07 Acres of Land More or Less, 707 F.2d 11 (1st Cir. 1983) assists in understanding the distinctions among ways. There, the issue was whether the Town of Truro or private parties had the burden of maintenance of a way (the estimated cost of upgrading Pond Road was subtracted from an eminent domain damage award in:a Cape Cod National Seashore taking). The Court said that the fact that Pond Road is public for purposes of access, does not show that Truro has an obligation to maintain it The court observed that;a statutory private way (G.L. c. 82, Section 21) is a kind of road for which neither town, county nor Commonwealth bears upkeep responsibility. The ancient statutes make clear that whether a road is public or private for upkeep purposes depends, not just upon whether it was laid out, but upon wl� it was laid out. The 'why' of it is best indicated by who paid for it, [the town or the private petitioner] . . . . " 125.07 Acres of Land, 707 F.2d at 14 (emphasis added). 30 The court went on to state: Whether the town has an obligation to pay for its upkeep, however, depends, at a minimum, upon whether the layout was made under [present G.L. c. 82 town and county ways statutory authority] and, if under the [latter] who was meant to pay for it_ The landowners presented no evidence [on this issue] [citations omitted]. Since the landowners had the burden of showing that the town had an upkeep obligation, the District; Court correctly ruled against them. Id at 14. 4. INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES IN WAYS The installation of utility lines in public ways is not often a matter of controversy as such installations have been made since the advent of such utilities. Installations are governed by G.L. c. 82, §§40 through §40E governing installation of underground utilities, G.L. c. 166, §22, and §§22A through 22N relative to the removal of overhead lines and G.L. c. 166, §25 relative to underground utility ,lines and are largely under control of local government. The matter of installation of utilities in private ways is governed by G.L. c. 187, §5 and the right to install utility lines in private ways depends upon how the parcel of land along the private way in question was conveyed to the property owner seeking such installation. Where a lot bounded on private ways is conveyed "together with the right to use `Private Street' for all purposes for which streets or ways are now or may hereafter be used in the `Town of Locus"', this conveys a perpetual„ non-exclusive appurtenant easement to use the entire width and length of "Private Street" for the installation and maintenance of pipes, wires and lines for all commonly used utilities, including cable TV and cable modem. See Hovey, William V., Utility Lines In Private Ways: An Overview, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, September25, 2000, p. B3, 29 MLW 215. 31 If the lot abutting a private way is simply conveyed with "a right of way to use `Private Street". the property owner would have to utilize G.L.-c. 187, section 5 in order to get the necessary utility lines to the parcel. Section 5 of G.L. c. 187 provides, in relevant part, that: The owner or owners of real estate abutting on a private way who have by deed existing rights of ingress and egress upon such way or other private ways shall have the right by implication to place, install or construct in, on, along, under and upon said private way or other private ways pipes, conduits, manholes and other appurtenances necessary for the transmission of gas, electricity, telephone, water and sewer service. G.L. e. 183, section ;5 is retroactive in its application. Nantucket Conservation Foundation, Inc. v. Russell Management, Inc., 380 Mass. 212 (1980). Therefore, in order for this statute to apply: (1) the rights of ingress and egress must be "by deed"; (2) the way must be a "private way"; and (3) the property must be "abutting" the private way. The term "abutting" as used in the statute has been defined to mean "to touch at the end; .-.. end at; reach or touch with any end." Barlow v. Chongris, 38 Mass.App.Ct. 297, 299 (1995); quoting Black's Law Dictionary 11 (6" ed. 1990). Compare G.L. e. 183, Section 5 and Emery v. Crowley, 371 Mass. 489, 494 (1976), where the term "abutting" property means property abutting along the length of the way. Accordingly, if an abutter to a paper street which is definitely laid out on a recorded plan is granted easement rights over such way in a deed then such abutter has the authority to install utilities; in such way pursuant to G.L. 183, Section 5, provided that such utilities do not unreasonably obstruct or interfere with the way or are not inconsistent with the use thereof. See Ciejka, Gerald P., Paper Streets, Feb. 18, 1998. It also appears that a holder of an express driveway easement would likewise be entitled to 32 the benefit of G.L. c. 187, Section 5. See Barlow v. Chongris, 38 Mass.AppCt. 297 (1995). As case ;law has developed to date, both an; easement in a private way arising by implication or necessity (Adams v. Planning Board of Westwood, 64 Mass. App. Ct, 383, 392 (2005)) and by estoppel (Lane v. Zoning Board of Falmouth, 65 'Mass. App. Ct. 434, 439(2006), and Post v. McHugh, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 200 206-207 (2010)) have been held to be easements "by deed" as required by e.187, §5. Only an easement by prescription is not an easement "by deed." Cumbie V. Goldsmith, 387 Mass. 409 (1982). Where -a grantee of lots abutting on a private way has an easement by estoppel due to the fact that the lots were conveyed with a description bounding on a way, or by reference to a plan depicting a boundary on a way, such grantee would be deemed to have rights of access by deed whereby G.L. c. 187, Section 5 would apply to provide an implied easement for utility lines. See Hovey, Supra. Any prescriptive access rights, however,, can never be transferred into "deeded rights" and accordingly cannot benefit from G.L. c. 187, Section 5. A., see also Cumbie v. Goldsmith, 387 Mass. 409 (1982). 5. OBTAINING' FEE TITLE OR EASEMENTS OF PASSAGE FOR PUBLIC WAYS 5.1 EMINENT DOMAIN Usually, common convenience and necessity requires the lay out or alteration of a public way where a voluntary transfer is impossible, either because the landowner is unwilling to make a gift or because of the numbers of landowners who have: to be dealt with. In this situation, the Massachusetts Constitution, Pt. 1, Art. 1,0, amend. Art. 39 authorizes takings for highway purposes: 33 "Art. X... [A]nd whenever the public exigencies require that the property of any individual should be appropriated to public uses, he shall receive a reasonable compensation therefor. "The legislature may be special acts for the purpose of laying out, including or relocating highways or streets, authorize the taking in fee by the commonwealth, or be a county, city or town, of more land and property than are needed for the actual construction of such highway or street ...." G.L. c. 79 provides the mechanism by which a landowner is paid compensation for the taking. A landowner is entitled to recover the market value of the property taken at the highest and best use to which the land could reasonably be put. The Nantucket County Superior Court has found that damages may be awarded under G.L. c. 79 even where the plaintiff is unable to prove that she is the owner of a way taken by a town provided that the plaintiff has suffered "special and peculiar injuries" that differ from those "of the general public" as a result of such taking. Soedery, DeSrocher, Sup. Ct. Civ. Action No. 97-019,, J. Volterra, Sept. 1, 1999. Although several plaintiffs who have had portions of their property taken have attempted to claim an easement by necessity over the taken portion where the remainder of their land has become; landlocked due to a taking by eminent domain, the Massachusetts courts have essentially held that the only relief such a plaintiff may receive is in the form of monetary damages. See Darman v. Dunderdale, 362 Mass. 633 (1972); Morse v. Benson, 151 Mass. 440 and New England Continental Media, Inc. v. Town of Milton, 32 Mass.App.Ct. 374 (1992). See also Mugar v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, 28 Mass.App.Ct. 443, 445 (1990), where it was held that "[tlhe principles of interpretation designed to give effect to the express or implied intent 34 of parties contracting for or acquiring an interest in land ... are, in general, inapplicable to eminent domain, proceedings." But see, Flax v.'_Smith, 20 Mass.App.Ct. 149 (1985), further review denied, 396 Mass. 1102 (1985) where the court found that property adjacent to a parcel which has been taken for nonpayment of taxes was burdened by easementsforwater and sewer lines in favor of an adjacent parcel. The court in Flax stated that where there are such involuntary conveyances as those resulting from a taking, "the degree of necessity required must be greater than in the case of a voluntary conveyance. Id. at 154. Because the court believed that continued water and sewer services to occupants of residential property constituted the required higher degree of necessity, an easement of necessity was found despite the taking for nonpayment of taxes. A full discussion of G.L. c. 79 and damages is beyond the scope of these materials, but it should be pointed out that there are restrictions on the taking of land already dedicated to other public purposes for highway purposes (G.L. c. 79, Section 5) and,; fortunately, a taking cannot be made without recordation of the order of taking at the appropriate registry of deeds (GI, c 79, Section 3). (But see Boston Water & Sewer Commission v. Commonwealth, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 611 (2005) where special legislation authorized the University of Massachusetts to take land by eminent domain for its campus and "fulfill all other requirements of Chapter 79.._." An order of taking of a parcel of land on Columbia Point, Boston, was not recorded with the Suffolk Registry of Deeds within thirty days of taking, but the Court found title- had already vested in the Commonwealth, Id., at 616-617.) The state's power of eminent domain as to state highways is set forth in G.L. c. 81, Sections 7, 7A, 7C, 7G and 7M. Where parcels of 35 land are deprived of all or some means of access to an existing public way by construction of a turnpike, the taking authority has the power to take easements over other parcels for the purpose of access. See Luke v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, 337 Mass. 304 (1958). Damages can be awarded to the owner of a parcel of land not taken if there is "special and peculiar injury to such parcel" (G.L. c. 79, Section 12. Compare this statute with Nylander v. Potter, 423 Mass. 158, at 163, :fn. 10 (1996), discussed infra). G.L. c. 40, Section 14 permits municipalities to take land, not already appropriated to public use, for any municipal purpose. See also G.L. c. 82, Section 7 for authority for county commissioners to make eminent domain takings and G.L. c. 81, Section 24 for similar authority for towns. Under G.L. c. 40, Section 14, the taking must be approved by the city council or town meeting, the appropriation of money damages must be approved by a, two-thirds majority of the city council or town meetingand a taking for highway purposes must be for the "public convenience and necessity." 5.2 DEDICATION In Hemphill v.- Boston, 62 Mass. 195 (8 Cush. 195) (1851), dedication was described as "the gift of land by the owner, for a way, and an acceptance of the gift by the public, either by some express act of acceptance, or by strong implication arising from obvious convenience, or frequent and long continued use, repairing, lighting or other significant acts, of persons competent to act for the public in that behalf." Hemphill, at 196. The gift must also be permanent. Hobbs v. Lowell,,19 Pick. 405 (1837). The burden of establishing that a way is public as the result of a dedication by a land owner and 36 acceptance by the municipality is upon he who avers the way is public. Witteveld v. Ci of Haverhill, 12 Mass. App, Ct. 876. Since St 1846, G.L, c. 203, now appearing as G L, c. 84, Sections 23 and.24, "a public highway or town way cannot be created in; this Commonwealth by dedication and acceptance." Longley v. Worcester, 304 Mass. 580, 585 (1939). The reason for the statute is to prevent municipalities from being charged with the responsibilities of maintenance of ways which may not be laid out and constructed in a manner prescribed by law. Cases decided construing the state of the law prior to 1946 (Hemphill v. Boston, supra, and Morse v. Stocker, 83 Mass. 150 (1 Allen 150) (1861)), approved the dedication of land by a landowner where he prescribed terms and limitations on his gift and, if it were given for a special and limited use or purpose, as for a footway, it must be accepted and held for that purpose only. See Longley v. Worcester, supra, at 587. Obviously such a set of circumstances would be unthinkable; now, for topermita landowner to subject the municipality to liability for failure to maintain a way (particularly where conditions limiting the way's usefulness to the public are present) would soon bankrupt municipalities. But dedication is one of the means by which public ways can exist and, particularly with ancient ways, this should not be dismissed where one wishes to prove, for ANR divisions of Land or other purposes, that a way is "public". Unlike prescription, proof of a public highway by dedication requires no -minimum period of time. Abbott v. Cottage City, 143 Mass.:521 (1887). 5.3 ADVERSE POSSESSION/PRESCRIPTION 37 It is well settled that the creation of,a public way by adverse use depends upon a showing of 'actual public use, general, uninterrupted, continued for [the prescriptive period].' Jennings v. Tisbury, 5 Gray, at 74 (1855) [other citations omitted]. It is sometimes said that 'to establish such a use the further fact must be proved, or admitted, that the general public used the way as a public right; and that it did must be proved by facts which distinguished the use relied on from a rightful use by those who have permissive right to travel over the private way. Bullukian v. Franklin, 248 Mass. 151, 155 (1924) [other citations omitted] Other cases indicate that the necessary adversity and lack of permissiveness may be inferred by the finder of fact from the uninterrupted use by the public, unexplained for the prescriptive period. See, Bassett v. Harwick, 180 Mass. 585, 585, 587 (1902). Fenn v. Town of Middleborough, 7 Mass. App, Ct. 80 (1979). The common law relating to prescriptive use is reviewed in detail in Edson v. Munsell, 92 Mass. 557 (1865). The party seeking to establish that a way is public by virtue of prescriptive use of the way by the public has the burden of establishing the same. "When the fact of a -public way is disputed, the burden of proof falls on the party asserting the fact. [citations omitted]" Witteveld v. City of Haverhill, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 876, at;877 (1981). Establishing a public way by prescription is extraordinarily difficult: to meet her burden of proof a claimant must show not only that the use of the way was open, continuous and notorious for 20 years; but also that the use was non -permissive and by the public generally - not simply by users who may have gained their own prescriptive rights but whose use did not constitute a "public" use. See Rivers v. Warwick, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 593 (1994). The public adverse use must constitute the corporate action of the municipality, which usually takes the form of some kind of ratification,: expenditure of public funds for improvement, or other corporate acknowledgment that the way in question is public. See Cerel v. Framingham, 342 Mass. 17 at 21 (1961), Reed v. Inhabitants of Northfield, 30 Mass. 94 (1832) (maintenance and repair of the way) and Teague v. City of Boston, 278 Mass. 305 (1932) (maintenance of utilities within the way). That a highway may be proved by long and continued use and enjoyment by the public, upon the ground that a conclusive presumption arises from such use that it had been; originally laid out or established by competent authority, is well settled in the Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Coupe, 128 Mass. 63 (1880). While St. 1846, c. 203 prevented the creation of public ways by dedication, that statute (now G.L. c. 84,, Section 23) has no application to the creation of public ways by prescription. See Coupe, 128 Mass. 63. It should be noted that in each of the cases of eminent domain, dedication and adverse possession/prescription, the quality of 'title, whether it is fee simple or a mere easement of passage, is a separate and distinct question. As stated earlier, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, an easement of passage (which comprehends within it expansive rights to use and occupy the way for every kind of travel) is to be presumed. In the Coupe case, cited above, it is clear that the Court focused on the distinction when it held that "[w]ays by prescription .. . [are] established upon evidence of user by the public, adverse and continuous for a period of twenty years or more; from which use arises a -presumption of reservation or grant, and the acceptance thereof, or that it has been, laid out by the proper authorities, of which no record exists." Id. at 65. 5.4 BOUNDARY ON A WAY 5.4.A Fee Interest In A Way 39 G.L. c. 183, Section,58, or the "derelict fee statute", was enacted asanaid in the construction of deeds bounding on a way (and water courses, walls, fences and other linear monuments). This statute provides that such conveyance will include any fee interest of the grantor in such way unless (a) the grantor retains other real estate abutting the way, in which case (i) if the retained real estate is on the same side of the way, the division line between the conveyed land and retained land extends into the way to the extent the grantor owns the fee, or (ii) if the retained estate is on the other side of the way between the division lines extended, the title conveyed shall be tothecenter line of the way, if the grantor owns so far, or (b) the instrument evidences a different intent by an express exception. The statute is retroactive. See e.g., Tattan v. Kurlan 32 Mass. App. Ct.,239 (1992), review denied, 412 Mass. 1105, where the way was as yet unconstructed. As subsequently amended, the derelict fee statute reads: Every instrument passing title to real estate abutting a way, whether public or private, watercourse, wall, fence or other similar 'linear monument, shall be construed to include any fee interest of the grantor in such way, water -course or monument, unless (a) the grantor retains other real estate abutting such way, watercourse or monument, in which case,;(i) if the retained real estate is on the same side, the division line between the land granted and the land retained shall be continued into such way, water -course or monument as far as the grantor owns, or (ii) if the retained real estate is on the other side of such way, watercourse or monument between the division lines extended, ,the title conveyed shall be to the center line of such way, watercourse or monument as far as the grantor owns, or (b) the instrument evidences a different intent by an express exception or reservation and not alone by bounding by a side line. Section 2 of c. 684 provides in part: [The Derelict Fee Statute] shall apply to instruments executed on and after said effective date and to instruments executed prior thereto, except as to such prior executed instruments this act shall not apply to land registered and confirmed under the provisions of chapter one -hundred and eighty-five before said effective date or to the extent that any person or his predecessor in title has changed his position as a result of a decision of a;court of competent jurisdiction. 40 The Derelict Fee Statute is thus retroactive in its application, as well as prospective, governing the construction and interpretations of deeds whenever executed, with the exceptions noted. The statute was adopted to end confusion which existed as a result of generations of judicial decisions construing the effect of deeds employing words such as "bounded by" a way and "bounded on" a way as contrasted with bounded on or by the "side line" of a way. The common law was that a parcel described as bounding "on" or "by a way, without restricting words conveyed title to the center line of the way if owned by the grantor, but a parcel boundary on or by a "side line" of the way conveyed no fee interest in the way. Casella v. Sneierson, 325 Mass. 85, 89 (1949). The statue was also adopted to "clarify ownership and ease the difficulty of identifying the owners of the small strips of land that lay beneath highways, streams, walls, and other similar boundaries" and to "quiet title to sundry narrow strips of land that formed the boundaries of other tracts." Rowley v. Mass. Elec. Co., 48'Mass. 798, 799, 803 (2003). The derelict fee statute constitutes a rule of construction of deeds and other instruments. As was said in Tattan v. Kurlan, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 239, at 242-243 (1992), "General Laws c. 183, §58, establishes an authoritative rule of construction for all instruments passing title to real estate abutting a way, whether public or private and whether in existence or merely contemplated (so 'long as it is sufficiently designated, see Niu�pr by v. Mart Realty of Brockton_, Inc., 348 Mass. 675, 677-678 (1965); Brennan v. DeCosta, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 1968 (1987) (Footnote and additional citations omitted). Section 58 mandates that every deed of real estate abutting away includes the fee interest of the grantor in the way -to the center line if the grantor retains property on the other side of the way or for the full width if he does not -unless `the instrument evidences a different intent by an express exception or reservation and not alone by bounding by a side line.' The statute incorporates the basic common law principle of presumed intent with regard to conveyed land abutting an actual or contemplated way owned by the grantor. The common law presumed that the grantor intended to pass title to the center of the way.,, 41 Similarly, the effect of the derelict fee statute is to "strengthen `the common law ... presumption that "a deed bounding on a way conveys the title to the centre of the way if the grantor owns so far! (citations omitted.) Hanson v. Cadwell Crossing, LLC, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 497, at 499 (2006). In a case decided not long after the adoption of the derelict fee statute, the Supreme Judicial Court, Smith v. Hadad, 366 Mass. 106 (1974) was called upon to determine the beginning point of a deed of parcel of land excepted from a conveyance where the excepted parcel was bounded in part as follows: Thence turning southerly by Main 'Street to a point on Main Street distant eight hundred (800) feet north of the junction of Main and Short Streets, thence turning at a right angle to said Main Street and running westerly one hundred seventy five (175) feet; thence turning and running southerly and parallel to Main Street and distant one hundred seventy-five (175) feet therefrom, eight hundred (800) feet more or less to said Short Street. Nichols thus reserved a 175 foot -wide parcel fronting on Main Street to the east, which was later conveyed to the respondents' common predecessor in title. Left ambiguous in the deed was whether the 175 foot measurement begins at the western edge or in the center of Main Street. Since the street is sixty-six feet wide, the answer affects a 33-foot wide strip at the boundary between petitioners' and respondents' land. It is the dispute over the ownership of this strip has brought the issue to this court. Id.,at 107. Main Street, a state highway, was taken as an easement and thus the fee to the underlying land remained in the adjoining private owners but, as the court observed, unless the way were discontinued, the fee ownership rights underlying the easement were "effectively useless". The Court restated the common law as follows: The presumption has long been that, even where the specified boundary line is clearly at the side of the way (as where it runs between two stakes, each of necessity at the side rather than in the center), the deed was intended to transfer the abbreviated rights to the fee of the way as well [citations omitted]. The rationale of such decisions is apparently that the grantor is unlikely to want to 42 reserve title to the fee of the way; if he does, he may avoid the effect of the presumption by contraindicating. The ultimate issue here the distinct question of the starting point for a measurement, which was dealt in Dodd v._Whitt, 139 Mass. 63, 65-66 (1885); `A majority of the court is of the opinion, that it is a common method of measurement in the country, where the boundary is a stream or a way, to measure from the bank of the stream or the side of the way; and that there is a reasonable presumption that the measurements were made in this way, unless something appears affirmatively in the deed to show that they began at the >centre of the stream or way.' We believe this is dispositive of the instant case. That a grantor probably had no intention to retain the fee under the adjoining way does not make it at all likely that he would therefore make a measurement from the center of the way affecting the placement of the boundary at the opposite end of the property.... the Dodd case clearly implies that the presumption shall be operative in the absence [of evidence of the grantor's contrary intent.] It is significant that the Dodd case recognized that such a presumption was widely made. It has been ever since. To change it now would create chaos in land titles, defeat the reasonable expectations of conveyancers, and cause substantial financial hardship to may innocent landowners.. Accordingly, we hold that in the absence of a clear showing of a contrary intent, a measurement given from a stream or a public or private way shall be presumed to begin at the sideline of that stream or way. Id., at 437-438. The derelict fee statute first came to the Supreme Judicial Court in the 1976 case of Emery v.Crowley, 376 Mass. 489 (1976). There the Emerys petitioned the Land Court to register title to three parcels of land in North Weymouth pursuant to G.L. c. 185, § 1. The defendant Crowley took issue with the petitioners' claims with respect to two of the parcels sought to be registered and, when he lost at trial at the Land Court, took an appeal to SJC. His appeal required that the Court construe the derelict fee statutefor the first time At issue were the property rights in a paper street running perpendicular to a public way, known as North Street. The paper street was labeled on one plan as "Parcel 2" and on another "Mount Vernon Road East." At the time of trial, plaintiff Crowley was 43 the sole owner of land abutting the paper street and claimed that the derelict fee statute operated to give him fee ownership of the paper street. Emery's predecessor in title had conveyed to Crowley's predecessor in title land; abutting the paper street, but in the deeds of conveyance described the paper streetnot as away or street but as "other land of the grantor" and "land of Elsie C. Emery. Not only did Crowley's property abut the "other land of the ,grantor' and "land of Elsie C. Emery" but it abutted the paper street at its end and indeed, Crowley owned the fee 'in an extension of the paper street labeled "Mount Vernon Road East" extending from the end of Parcel 2 easterly. The Court stated that the derelict fee statute "sets out an authoritative rule of construction for instruments passing title to real estate abutting 'a way" (Id. at 492) but pointed out that the ;statute didn't define the terms "abutting" and "way" so it turned to the established rules of judicial definition to do that. The Court held: We conclude that parcel 2 did not constitute a `way' in the instruments passing title to the property abutting its north and south boundaries from grantor Emery to [Crowley's predecessor in title]. Both the metes and bounds descriptions of the lots conveyed and the plans incorporated in the deeds clearly delineate the property now known as parcel 2 as belonging to the grantor or his spouse. The parties obviously intended and understood that this land was retained by the grantor...A prospective purchaser examining the deeds to the land abutting parcel 2 on its north and south boundaries would have no reason to think he would acquire any interest in parcel 2 beyond the express easements [stated elsewhere in the deeds]. Thus, §58 does not apply to those instruments. One of the deeds to Crowley's predecessor in title conveyed land that abutted parcel 2, the paper street, at its end. The Court held: By its terms [the derelict fee statute] includes, in `abutting' real estate, land `on the same side' of the way in question, see G.L. c. 183, §58 (a)(i) and land `on the other side of such way,' see G.L. c. 183, §58(a)(ii). The statutory silence with regard to real estate at the end of the way signifies that suchreal estate does not `abut' the way in the traditional or statutory sense of the word. Indeed, logically 44 the owner at the end of way cannot acquire any fee interest in the way without encroaching on the property rights, if any, of the abutting side owners. The term `abutting'" in the context of fee ownership of ways after conveyance of property bounded on a way, thus refers to property with frontage along the length of the way (emphasis supplied). Id., at 494. See Boudreau v. Coleman, 29 Mass. App. Ct. 621, at 622, fn. 3. See also, McGovern v. McGovern, 77 Mass. App. Ct.-688 (2010). Most important case construing the Derelict Fee Statute to date is Tattan v. Kurlan, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 239 (1992). Tattan owned a ;substantial parcel of land which abutted two alder subdivisions. The original subdivision developers had designated connector streets, as many subdivision regulations required, providing possible access from internal subdivision roads to adjacent properties which might be subdivided in the future. Tattan -had ;acquired the two connector strips described in the opinion as they were described on plans of record, one being referred to as a "future 'roadway" and the second as a "prospective street", for $500.00 from the original subdivider. Shortly afterward Tattan informed the defendants that he intended to build connector streets over the reserved streets to connect his adjoining tract of land with the public way. In determining that the lot owners abutting the two "future streets" owned those future streets to the center line thereof the Court held, at 242-243: "General Laws c.183, § 58, establishes an authoritative rule of construction for all instruments passing title to real estate abutting a wa whether public or private and whether in existence or merely contemplated (so long as it is sufficiently designated "[interior citations omitted). §58 mandates that every deed of real estate abutting a way includes the fee interest of the grantor in the way...."(emphasis supplied) In discussing the common laws presumption that in such circumstances a grantor intended to pass title to center of the way, the Court stated: "this presumption was strong 45 but could be overcome by clear proof of a contrary intent of the parties .... [interior citations omitted] Section <58's mandate that title in the way is conveyed to the abutting grantee, however, is stricter than the common law rule which it codified and superceded. The statutory presumption is conclusive when the statute applies, unless (for the purposes of this case) the 'instrument passing title' evidencing a different intent (by an express.... reservation.' Other 'attended' evidence of the parties' intent is no longer probative." Id., at 243-244. A rescript opinion from the Appeals Court in Brennan v. QcCosta, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 968 (1987) arose in the context of a paper street and a dispute among neighbors abutting on the paper street as to who had the rights to use it. The Court stated "as a general rule, the title of persons who acquire land bounded by a street or way runs to the centerline of the way, G.L. c.183, §58, and carries with it the right to use the way along its entire length. Goldstein v. Beal,_ 317 Massa 750, 755 (1945). Casella v. Sneierson, 325 Mass, 85, 89 (1949). Murphy v. Mart Realty of Brockton, Inc., 348 Mass, 675, 677 678 (1965). The rule is applicable even if the way is not physically in existence, so long as it is contemplated and sufficiently designated. Id. at 968. For many years Brennan occasioned some confusion among practitioners arising out of its brief statement of the law, quoted above. Adams v. planning Board of Westwood, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 383 (2005) put to rest confusion as to the effect of the Derelict Fee Statute on title and easement rights, In Adams, a confusing case arising out of the exchange of a number of deeds among three landowners adjoining a private way which created varying ownership rights in the way 46 under the Derelict Fee Statute the parties contested one lot owner's easement rights in the disputed way for the purposes of access to and utilities for his interior, otherwise landlocked, parcel. The Adams court held: "while it is true that since passage of the derelict fee statute ... 'extrinsic evidence may not be used to prove the grantor's intent to retain [a] fee in [a] right of way,' Rowley v. Massachusetts-Elec. Co., 438 Mass. 798, 804 (2003), extrinsic evidence is available to determine the existence, nature, scope and extent of easement rights in a way;; the Derelict Fee Statute pertains only to the _question of ownership of the fee. With respect to the existence of an easement, we look, 'rather, to the intention of the parties regarding the creation of the easement ornightof way, determined from 'the language of the instruments when read in light of the circumstances intending their execution, the physical condition of the premises, and the knowledge which parties had or with which they are chargable,' Boudreau v. Coleman, 29 Mass. App. Ct. 621, 629 (1990), to determine the existence and attributes of a right of way." (emphasis added) See also BTR Ventures LLC V. Ra to oulos 18 LCR 73 (2010), fn. 24, at 76, where Justice Sands observed: "I am_ aware of the general rules stated in Brennan v. DeCosta [citation omitted], stating that: 'the title of persons who acquire land bounded by a street or way runs to the center line of the way, G.L. c.183, § 58, and carries with it the right to use the way along its entire length [citations omitted]. I read Brennan's rule as two separate assertions based on two distinct doctrines. The first is grounded in Section 58, and relates only to the title of a street or way to its center line, The second assertion involves rights appurtenant to land bounded by a way or streetand is grounded in the doctrine of easement by estoppel. It is noteworthy that Goldstein, Casella, and Mart Realty, as cited above in Brennan, all involve easements by estoppel and not easements by Derelict Fee. In some, I do not read Brennan :as stating that Section 58 automatically confers easement rights. Rather, I; agree with Adams, which states that Section 58 applies to fee ownership only. Silva v. Planning Board of Somerset, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 339 (1993) involved the application of the derelict fee statute in the context of a definitive subdivision plan where 47 the subdivider proposed to construct a definitive subdivision road over a strip of land title to one-half of which was in an abutter, Silva, who did not join in the definitive subdivision application. As such, he claimed that the Board's approval of the subdivision was a nullity because he was not an applicant or named as an owner of the premises being subdivided. The Silva court found that Silva did indeed own to the center line of the strip of land proposed to be developed as a definitive subdivision road and as such he either should have been named in the application as a "subdivider" or the Planning Board should have waived trict compliance with its regulations requiring that all owners of record to the proposed site be subdivided be named in the application, which it did not do. That didn't mean that the subdivider couldn't use the strip of land for its proposed street. The Court held "[11n this case, unlike the Bachelder case, where the abutter challenges the applicant's title to the entire locus, the plaintiff claims an interest only in the proposed street. Even if the plaintiff owns a fee simple interest in the proposed street, at the very least the [subdividers] as grantees of land abutting the proposed street would have an easement- in the way and the right to make reasonable improvements in the way without the consent of plaintiff." Rowley v. Massachusetts Elec. Co., 438 Mass 798 (2003) is another important casein the line of cases construing and applying the derelict fee statute. In Rowley, the plaintiffs were owners of land abutting a former railroad location, later acquired by the defendant, Massachusetts Electric Company. When Massachusetts Electric Company proposed to permit the railroad location be used as a bicycle trail, plaintiffs sued alleging ownership rights in the former railroad location and sought to prevent the use of the former railroad as a public bicycle path. The former New Haven and New Hampton Railroad Company had obtained legislative authority to extend its tracks from New Hampton to Williamsburg, Hampshire County, and filed "location plans" with the County Commissioners identifying the location for its new tracks. The railroad acquired some of its track layout by deeds from abutters but most of the railway location was acquired by filing location plans for the County Commissioners which automatically result in the railroad obtaining an easement over the land required to extend the route with the fee interests in the land remaining in the owners of the parcels affected by the taking. Hazen v. Boston & M M;R., 68 Mass. 574 (1854) and Aaostini v. North Adams Gas Light Co., 265 Mass. 70 72-73 (1928). In the Rowley case,, the determination of the case turned on two issues: whether a railway location is such a "way" or "other similar monument as will implicate the application of the derelict fee statute and, secondly, whether the plaintiffs deeds, which would described their respective properties as either bounded by "land of the [railroad]" or as "land now or formerly of said [railroad]," is the same as deed descriptions describing the lands as bounded by the "railroad". Expressed anotber way, the Court stated: "the only issues we must decide are whether G.L. c. 183, §58,;applies to property which in fact abuts a 'way' or 'other similar linear monument' even if the language in the deed does not specifically describe it in those terms; and, if so, whether a railway is a 'way' or'other similar monument' within the meaning of §58." After restating the Emery v. Crowley rule that "abutting" means "property with frontage along the length of the 49 way" the Court stated, "a plain reading of the statute is that it applies to instruments that convey real estate that in fact that has frontage along thelengthof a way orothersimilar monument. There is nothing in the statutory language itself that suggests its effect is limited only to instruments that describe the real estate conveyed as bounded by 'way' or 'other similar linear monument'. If that was the legislative intent, the wording of the statute could have easily reflected it [fn. 9 Language such as '[e]very'instrument passing title to real estate described in such instrument as abutting a way' would have; been adequate to accomplish such a:purpose (emphasis added).] It does not. Stating again that the derelict fee statute embodies an even stronger presumption in favor of vesting title in ways in abutters than did the common law, the Court stated, at 804: "If we were to construe §58 not to apply to instruments conveying real estate parcels abutting ways or similar linear monuments that failed to describe their boundaries as such, the ownership of the small strips that make up such ways and linear monuments which would once again be derelict. In the present case, that would mean that the fee interests in the railway would reside with the unknown heirs of those who owned the parcels when the railroad filed its location plans more than 125 years ago. Such a result would defeat the very object of the statute and leave in place the >imperfection it intended to remedy. The Court went on to hold, at 805: "We conclude that the plain meaning of G.L. c.183, §58, consistent; with the words used and considered in connection with the imperfection to be remedied, applies to real estate, such as the plaintiffs' that in fact abuts a 'public or private [way] ... or other similar monument,' regardless of how it is described in the instrument of its conveyance." The Court had little difficulty in determining that a railroad is a "way" or ''other similar monument" for the purposes of the -derelict fee statute, finding that railroads had long historically been akin to highways and turnpikes in Massachusetts providing for 50 "similar means for linear travel along;a defined course, for the convenience of the public and private parties alike." Id., at 805. See also, McGovern v. McGovern, 77 Mass. App. Ct; 688';(2010). The case of Hanson v. Cadwell Crossing, LLC; 66 Mass. App. Ct. 497 (2006) discusses another variation on the Rowle theme, that is that the derelict fee statute applies to every deed conveying property which in fact is bounded by a way, "regardless of how it is described in the instrument of its conveyance." In Hanson, a dispute arose as to the ownership of Lot A as shown on;a definitive subdivision plan known as Falcon Heights in Wilbraham, Massachusetts. Lot A was a narrow strip of land between abutting Lots 3 and 4 on the subdivision plan extending from a cul de sac on that plan to the boundary line of an adjacent parcel of land later owned by Cadwell Crossing, LLC. The strip of land, 50 feet in width, was labeled on the plan "not a building lot.,, The deeds of Lots 3 and 4 to abutting owners, conveyed those lots by reference to the lot number and subdivision plan of record and made no reference to Lot A. Defendant Cadwell Crossing, LLC acquired title to Lot A and used it as a connector road from the Falcon Heights subdivision into its new subdivision for which it obtained definitive subdivision approval in August-2004, Immediately the plaintiffs filed suit claiming ownership to Lot A pursuant to the derelict fee statute. Finding no ambiguity in the deeds and plans of record the Land Court held did not permit the plaintiffs to introduce extrinsic evidence that in fact Lot A was intended to be used as street or way even though it was not so identified on the plan. The plaintiffs, had, they been permitted to do so, would have introduced evidence from; surveyors that 51 Lot A.had been shown as a connector road from the Falcon Heights subdivision to a new subdivision to the north on office work plans, that the chairman of the Planning Board had described Lot A as;a strip "put there with the potential of becoming a road," and that the Wilbraham subdivision regulation required an inference that Lot A was intended to be a street because those regulations provided that satisfactory provision for access to property not yet subdivided shall be shown on each subdivisionplan. The Appeals Court upheld the Land Court's determination that extrinsic evidence should not be admitted, that there was no ambiguity in the relevant plans and documents, that none of the relevant plans and documents referred to Lot A as a proposed way and therefore the plaintiffs did not own Lot A 'under the Derelict Fee Statute ;and could not prevent its use as a connector road to a new subdivision road. The plaintiffs claimed that the derelict fee statute applies to every deed conveying property which is in fact bounded by a way, "regardless of how it is defined in the instrument of its conveyance. (Rowley, 438 Mass, at 805) Quoting then from Rowley, the Hanson Court stated, at "a plain reading of the statute is that it applies to instruments that convey real estate that in fact has frontage along the length of a way or other similar monument. There is nothing in the statutory language itself that suggests that its effect is limited only to instruments that describe the real estate conveyed as bounding on a 'way' or other similar linear monument." Rowley, 438 Mass. at-802 (Hanson, at 501). "For G.L. c.183 §58 to apply, the way need not be in existence on the ground, as long as it is contemplated and sufficiently designated. Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, it is not enough that the metes and bounds of a strip are described; 'the strip has [to be] sufficiently defined as a proposed street.' Murphy v. Mart Realty of _Brockton, _Inc., 348 Mass. 675, 678 (1965). In making that determination, 'reference may be made to the plan.' Ibid. In contrast to the record evidence in Ro� wley, the documents of record here (deeds and plan) designate no proposed way. They do not indicate that Lot A was intended as anything other than a small lot 52 retained by the developer for any number of possible purposes such as open land, additional parking, a road, or other permissible use." Hanson, 66 Mass. App. Ct. at 502 That the derelict fee statute relates only to determination of title in streets, ways and other linear monuments, but not casementrights or compliance with zoning, is pointed out by the case of Sears v. Building Inspector of Marshfield, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 913 (2009). There, Sears, the owner of a 4,800 square foot parcel of land, appealed the denial by the town's building inspector of his application for designation that his lot was a residential lot of record which, under the towns zoning bylaw, required a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet. There was no doubt that Sears owned the fee to the center line of a private way abutting his land to the southeast; If the land underlying the private way could be counted as his minimum lot area his lot would have totaled 5,700 square feet in area. In holding that the Derelict Fee Statute could not operate to provide the plaintiff with additional buildable area the Court pointed out that ownership of the fee underlying a private way did not include the right to build thereon. Indeed, since there could be rights of passage in others to use the full width of the private way. Further, the Court held that the plaintiffs construction conflicted with the purpose of the statute which is to clarify ownership of small strips of land underlying highways, streams, walls and other similar boundaries. A statute designed to deal with enforcement of property rights was not intended by the legislature to apply to add lot area for zoning purposes. The Court held that the Marshfield Zoning Board of Appeals acted reasonably in construing the bylaw to exclude from the calculation of minimum lot size, fee ownership interest 5`3 underlying private ways. The Court did not, but could have pointed to the definition of "lot" in G.L. c. 41, §81L, the Subdivision Control Statute, where a lot is defined as "an area of land in one ownership, with definite boundaries, used, or available for use, as the site of one or more buildings." The requirement that lot area be available to be used as the site of a building would obviously preclude lot area underlying private ways as being included in thecalculation of minimum lot size. G.L. c. 183, Section 58 is retroactive in its application and applied to paper street provided that the street has been sufficiently designated on a recorded plan. Tattan, 32 Mass.App Ct. at,-240, fn 2; Silva v. Planning Board of Somerset, 34 Mass.App.Ct. 339, 341-43 (1993); and Brennan, 24 Mass.App Ct. at 969. This is true as long as the grantor has not reserved his or her right in the fee of the roadway. Note however that reference on a plan marked "reserved for a future roadway" does not constitute a sufficient reservation of rights to prevent the application of G.L. c. 183, Section 58. Tattan, 32 Mass.App;Ct. at 245. The reservation must; be contained in the deed. Id. at 247. Application of G.L. c. 183, Section 58 creates obvious difficulties in the event of a discontinuance. It is not at all certain that G.L. c. 183, Section 58 improves the situation too much, since the underlying title at the time of the layout and the extent of the property interest taken by the laying out authority will still have to be determined. 5.4.B Easements by Estoppel and by Implication The early case, Farnsworth v. Taylor, 75 Mass. 162 (1857) stands for the proposition that an appurtenant right of way is created by necessary implication where a parcel of land is conveyed by a deed description bounding on a -way or by reference to a plan which shows a boundary on a way. That case established the doctrine "that where 54 land is conveyed which is situate on.a street or way, and reference is made in the deed of conveyance to a plan on which said street is delineated, the plan exhibited at the sale, and subsequently recorded by the grantor in the registry of deeds, is made a part of the deed, and;estops the grantor and those claiming under him to deny the existence of the street as delineated on the plan, is well maintained by authority and sound in principal." Farnsworth, 75 Mass. at 166. Such an easement exists even if there are other streets or ways providing access to the land (Hill v. Taylor, 296 Mass. 107 (1936)), and there is created by implication, or estoppel, a perpetual easement appurtenant to the premises conveyed providing the owner of such premises with a right of passage over such streets or ways as shown on the plan for the entire distance of the way, as it is then actually laid out or clearly indicated and described. See Oldfield v, Smith, 304 Mass. 590 (1939)_ The easement by implication is created even if the way is not then in existence, so long as it was clearly contemplated and sufficiently designated. See Murphy v. Mart Realty of Brockton Inc., 348 Mass. 675 (1965). In the Murphy case, the way shown on the plan was, in fact, treed and overgrown, stoney and rocky; it was not passable by motor vehicle or on foot and was entirely undeveloped. The court found that the way had been sufficiently delineated as a proposed street on a plan and was thus "adequately designated" and the owner of the adjacent parcel had the right to develop the formerly unusable way for ingress and egress by blacktopping it. Therefore, an easement by estoppel can apply where (1) a property description contains a course either bounding on a way or refers to a plan showing that the property 55 bounds ;on a way; (2) the way is laid out or clearly indicated on a plan; (3) the chain of title is out of the same grantor; and (4) rights in the way are not reserved by the grantor. A property description which describes the property bounding along "other land of the grantor" when such "other " land is a paper street is not a sufficient ;course description to invoke the principle of easement by estoppel. Ems, 371 Mass. At 495. Easements in "paper streets" can be abandoned. See, ems., Sindlery_. William M. Bailey Co., 348 Mass. 589 (1965). Not only may there arise an implied easement to use a street abutting upon a parcel of land, but by further' implication a property owner can use other streets and ways shown on a plan to the extent that such use is necessary to reach a public way. See Fox v. Union Sugar Refinery, 109 Mass. 292 (1872). In a case which probably would not now be decided in the same way, the Supreme Judicial Court held in 1909,:in Downeyv. H.F. Hood and Sons, 203 Mass. 4 (1909), that an owner whose property is bounded by a way which connects at each end with a road leading to the highway, is entitled to have access going in either direction if all roads appear on the plan. Later cases have limited the doctrine established by Downey which is, in essence, that a property owner, although having access (by virtue of an implied easement arising by conveyance of a lot by reference to a plan) can elect to take either of two means, including a less convenient one, to reach a public way. Now, it is the general rule that an implied easement of this type will be implied only to the extent necessary for the enjoyment of the land conveyed, in the absence of a clear intent to the contrary. See, ems, Prentiss v. City of Gloucester, 236 Mass. 36 (1920) and, Wellwood v. Havrah Mishna Anshi Sphard Cemetary Corp., 254 Mass. 350 (1926) 56 More recent cases, Murphy v. Donovan, 4 Mass; App. Ct. 519, 527 (1976) and Boudreau v. Coleman, 29 Mass.AppCt. 621, 628 (1990), have held, notwithstanding the doctrine of implied easements arising by virtue of conveyance by reference to a plan, that the intent of the parties is determined from (1) the language of the instrument "when read in light of the circumstances attending" at the time the deed was given; (2) the physical condition of the premises; (3) knowledge of the parties; (4) reasonably necessity of the easement; and (5) whether there existed open and obvious use of the street prior to conveyance. A mere reference in a deed to a plan and a lot number which bounds on a street or roadway does not give the grantee an easement in all ways shown on the plan. Walter Kassuba Realty Corp v. Akeson, 359 Mass. 725, 727 (1971). Nor does it prevent the grantor of the property from utilizing his or her property or making changes as long as such use or changes are not inconsistent with the rights of the easement holders. Id. Prentiss v, Gloucester also held that no easement can arise by implication where the rights of way appurtenant to the premises conveyed are expressly described and defined in the deed of conveyance. Further, an easement by implication, as it is appurtenant to the parcel conveyed, may not be used for the benefit of other land adjacent to the original tract without overloading the easement. See Mumhy v. Mart Realty. of Brockton Inc., 348 Mass. 675 (1965). Anderson v Healy, 36 Mass. App. Ct. 131 (1994) reveals an interesting dilemma for the defendant who abuts a town highway layout and had a right of access to the town way which, at that point was not wrought on the ground and existed only as an easement, 57 on plaintiffs land; the defendant was found to have exceeded his easement rights in constructing a driveway to his land. 6. DISCONTINUANCE OF STREETS AND WAYS 6.1 STATUTORY Section 12 of G.L. c. 81 sets -forth the procedure for discontinuance of state highways as requiring concurrence of the county commissioners and the filing by the MDT of a plan of the way so discontinued and a certificate of discontinuance with the commissioners and town clerk; "and thereafter the way or section of way so discontinued shall be a town way." Assume the Commonwealth had taken ,the fee in the way, then discontinued it. Does the fact that the way thereafter is a town way mean that the town now owns the fee? We think not; the town now has the maintenance obligation, but not the fee interest. G.L. c. 81, Section 12 „goes on to provide that the MDT "mgy ;also abandon any land or rights in land which may have been taken or acquired by it ..." by the same filing of plans and certificates procedure, and also by filing in the registry of deeds "a description and plan of the land so abandoned; and said abandonment shall revest the title to the land or rights abandoned in the persons in whom it was vested at the time of the taking, or their heirs or assigns." In the event of the discontinuance a state highway resulting from an alteration in the state highway layout, it would be better practice that the discontinuance be accompanied by an abandonment of the former layout if the two routes substantially parallel each other, as where the new layout straightens and widens the former layout. Many such new layouts, in our experience, are not coupled with an abandonment, 9.9 however, which has the legal effect of leaving a town liable for maintenance of portions of the former layout. A town by its meeting vote may discontinue a way which became a town way be virtue of a state highway discontinuance, and may do so without notice; it is not an "alteration" requiring a: layout. See Boyce v. Town of Templeton, 335 Mass. l (1956), Chapter 82, Section l gives authority to the county commissioners (and now other entities) to discontinue (note, not "abandon") highways, and G.L. c. 82, Section 21,gives the same authority to town meetings. In Mahan v. Rockport, 287 Mass. 34 (1934) where the Land Court judge found the Town of Rockport had takenaneasement for layout of a highway forty years previously but never entered on the portion of the land in question nor constructed a way thereon, and consequently ruled the Town had abandoned its easement, the Supreme Judicial Court held, It is settled that a public way once duly laid out continues to be such until legally discontinued... A town way may be discontinued by vote of the town and not otherwise ... The rights of the public in the whole width of the way as laid out by the selectmen, and accepted by the town in town meeting, were not lost by using less than the whole width of the way. Mahan, 287 Mass. at 37. Contrast this holding with Perry v. Planning Board of Nantucket, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 144 (1983) discussed infra. N lander;v._Potter, 423 Mass. 158 (1996). An alteration of a county highway or town way automatically constitutes a discontinuance of the portions of the former layout no longer needed. Inhabitants of Cohasset v. Moors, 204 Mass. 173 (1919) ; Commonwealth v. Westborough, 3 Mass. 406 (1807). The fact that specific portions of the old road are officially discontinued by The .Moors case cited above is one of only avery few cases holding that an individual can obtain title as against the Commonwealth or its political subdivisions by adverse_ possession. See generally G.L. c. 260,'Section 31, as most recentlyamended by G.L. c. 654 of the Acts of 1987. Massachusetts is in the distinct minority on this rule. 59 direct action of the county commissioners will not save the; remaining portions of the old road from discontinuance as well. Recore v;. Town of Conway, Land Court Misc. Case No. 248455 (Sept. 18, 2000) (Green, J.) upheld on appeal in Recore v: Town of Conway 59 Mass. Ct. 1 (2003). In Recore, the plaintiffs attempted to meet the Town's frontage requirements by utilizing a certain road which they claimed was a public way. In 1845, a new road was laid out by the county commissioners which essentially replaced the portion of the road being utilized by the plaintiffs, and in 1847 other portions of the old road were officially discontinued by the county commissioners. The Land Court held that the "subsequent actions of the county commissioners to discontinue portions of the old road do not establish that it remained an active county highway at the time of such discontinuance," and that whether or not the portion of the old road utilized by plaintiffs was within the portion specifically discontinued by the 1847 discontinuance, the construction of the new road "just to the west of the locus effected a discontinuance of that portion of [the old road] by operation of law" Id. The Land Court further held that an official discontinuance action on the part of the county commissioners was not necessary to effect a discontinuance by law, that the old road could no longer be considered a public way, and that the plaintiffs could not employ the old road to meet frontage requirements. Id. Better practice, however, would require an actual discontinuance of the unneeded portions. It is obvious that there remains much confusion about the distinction between a "discontinuance" and an "abandonment." Many towns vote to "discontinue and abandon" 31 town ways some do one, some do the other. At least one Berkshire County town has voted to "close" town ways. The town which voted to "close" a town way, a 1946 vote of the Town of Hancock to close Tower Mountain Road from the driveway of Norman McVeigh to the Hancock -Pittsfield town line, was held by the Appeals Court, in an unpublished decision (Meudt v. Dus, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 1109 (2009)), not sufficient to discontinue the way as a town road. The Land Court trial judge had found the use of the word to "close" to be ambiguous and thus admitted extrinsic evidence in the form of other town meeting votes where the Town of Hancock voted properly to "discontinue" town roads pursuant to G.L. c.82, §2`1. Because the town had employed the word "discontinuance" in other votes, its vote to "close" the road was insufficient to discontinue Tower Mountain Road. It is helpful to contrast three statutory sections, G.L. c. 81, iSection 12, G.L. c. 82, Section 21 and G.L. c. 82, Section 32A. GL. c. 81, Section 12 relates to state highways reads as follows Discontinuance or abandonment. The department, with the concurrence of the county commissioners, may discontinue as a state highway any way or section of way laid out and constructed under the provisions of section five by filing in the office of the county commissioners for the county and in the office of the clerk of the town in which such way is situated a_certified copy of a plan showing the way so: discontinued and a ;certificate that it has discontinued such way; and thereafter the way or section of way so discontinued shall be a town way. Said department may also abandon any land or rights in land which may have been takers or acquired by it by filing in the office of the county commissioners for the county and in the office of the clerk of the town in which such land is situated a certified copy of a plan showing the land so abandoned and a certificate that it has abandoned such land, and by filing for record in the registry of deeds for the county or district in which the land lies a description and plan of the land so abandoned; and said abandonment shall revest the title to the land or rights abandoned in the persons in whom it was vested at the time of the taking, or their heirs and assigns. 61 This section was originally enacted in 1900 and has not been amended since 1931; it speaks of discontinuing state highways as ways which the state is obliged to maintain and, secondarily (and not always) to the process of relinquishing the Commonwealth's interest inland. G.L. c. 82, Section 21 reads as follows: Authority to lay out ways. The selectmen or road commissioners of a:town or city council of a city may lay out, relocate or alter town ways for the use of the town or city, and private ways for the use of one or more of the inhabitants thereof, or they may order specific repairs to be trade upon such ways; and a town, at ;a meeting, or the city council of a city, may discontinue a town way or a private way. This section was originally enacted in 1693 and has not been amended since 1917; it speaks of laying out and discontinuing town ways, generally easements. Section 32A of G.L. c. 82, prior to a 1983 amendment, read as follows: Discontinuance of public ways. Upon petition in writing to the board or officers of a town having charge of a public way, the county commissioners may, whenever common convenience and necessity no longer require such way to be maintained in a condition reasonably safe and convenient for travel, adjudicate that said way shall thereafter be a private way and that the town shall no longer be bound to keep the 'same in repair, and thereupon such adjudication shall take effect; provided, that sufficient notice to warn the public against entering thereon is posted where such way enters upon or unites with an existing public way. This section shall not apply to ways in cities. This section was adopted in 1924 and remained the same until amended, first in 1983, and then in 2006, so it now reads; The board or officers of a city or town having charge of a public way may, after holding a public hearing, notice of which shall be sent by registered mail, return receipt requested, to all property owners abutting an affected road and notice of which shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the ;city or town once in each of two successive weeks, the first publication to be not less than fourteen days before the day of hearing and by posting in a conspicuous place in the office of the city or town clerk for a period of not less than fourteen days 62 before the day of the hearing, upon finding that a city or town way or public way has become abandoned and unused for ordinary travel and that the common convenience and necessity no longer requires said town way or public way to be maintained in a condition reasonably safe and convenient for travel, shall declare that the city or two shall no longer be bound to keep such way or public way in repair and upon fling of such declaration with the city or town clerk such declaration shall take effect, provided that sufficient notice to warn the public that the way is no longer maintained is posted at both ends of such way or public way, or portions thereof. Upon petition in writing of the board or officers of a city or town in which a county highway is located, the county commissioners, whenever common convenience and necessity no longer require such way to be maintained in a condition reasonably safe and convenient for public travel,- after giving notice in the manner prescribed in section 3, and after viewing the premises and hearing the interested parties in the manner prescribed in section 4, may adjudicate that the town shall no longer be bound to keep the way in :repair, and thereupon the adjudication shall take effect; provided, that sufficient notice to warn the public that the way is no longer maintained is posted at both ends of the way, or portions thereof. The use of the word "abandonment" in the caption of G.L. c. 82, Section 32A may simply be a mislabelling of the statute. Because of the presumption that only an easement for public passage is acquired by towns and counties (See Opinion of the Justices, 208 Mass. 603 (1911)), there is no provision in G.L.,c. 82 (except for the misleading section heading in Section 32A) relating to "abandonment. A discontinuance does three things: first, the public`s easement of passage disappears and the underlying fee reverts to the owners thereof, free of such easement. Nylander v. Potter, 423 Mass. 158 (1996)). Second, the town's obligation of maintenance ceases. And third, abutting owners on the former highway have a.cause of action for damages to the value of their land occasioned by the fact that they have lost a valuable bundle of rights (GL. c. 82, Section 24. Rivers v. Warwick, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 593 (1994)). Damages consist, obviously, of the loss of subdivisability of land, the loss of assurance of town maintenance and snow plowing and 63 the attendant increase in private expenditure and the probable loss of access by emergency vehicles, together with any particular loss which they may be able to show. Coombs v. Board of Selectmen of Deerfield, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 379 (1988), review denied, 403 Mass. 1104 (1988) contains a helpful discussion of the statutory history and application of G.L. c. 82, Section 32A in holding that Section 32A does not permit the selectmen of a town to discontinue maintenance of county highways. Prior to N_ylander v. Potter, 423 Mass. 158 (1996), a practitioner had to assemble several cases to satisfy oneself that there was no private easement of passage over a discontinued road.. Now we know, absent- a private easement of passage in the road location which predates the layout of the way, by grant, prescription or implication, upon discontinuance of a way an interior landowner has no so-called "abutters easement" to travel over the discontinued road. Id. at 162. In deciding Nylander the Court upheld long settled Massachusetts law and struck down a novel right of passage which was argued would have been very disruptive to real estate titles and, not unimportantly, to long settled municipal practice. In the latter connection, for example, it was pointed out in an amicus brief (Brief>Amici Curiae, The Massachusetts Conveyancers Association, Inc. and the Abstract Club, p. 18), that if the Appeals Court was correct in finding an "abutters' easement" in a discontinued town way, municipalities now must do something more than a simple discontinuance if they wish to insure that what was a public way will not be used for passage by abutters. In the case of anew discontinuance, the municipality presumably must both discontinue the way (under M.G.L. c. 82, §21), and take, under M.G.L. c. 79, the subsisting private right of passage that otherwise still would exist in favor of the abutters. In the case of a discontinuance made years ago, the municipality may well need to act anew to take the abutters' right of passage, if the municipality desires to complete a process it felt it had been done with long ago. Doing so would reopen municipalities to damages for this later taking, a prospect few municipalities will have anticipated or contemplated in their budgets. 64 The novel right of; passage fashioned by the Appeals Court in its decision, Nylander v. Potter, 3`8 Mass. App. 605, at 609 (1995), was that although a "discontinuance of a public way terminates the public easement of travel, we hold that the discontinuance does not terminate the private easement of travel which abutters enjoy." The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed "atid:conclude[d] that Potter does not have an easement of travel over the Nylander stretch of [the discontinued] road.. We reject both the Appeals Court's theory of a so-called 'abutters easement' and the Superior Court's theory of a 'public access' private way as contrary to settled Massachusetts ,law."' Nylander, 423 Mass, at 162. Although the Supreme Judicial Court's decision is viewed as a vindication of what had long been thought settled law, several features of the Court's decision leave a few questions unanswered. For example, in footnote 7 at 161 of the decision, the Coa t- states in dicta that "a discontinuance of maintenance under [G_L. c. 82] §32A would create a 'public access' rin vate ways" (emphasis added). However, it could be argued that a discontinuance under G.L. c. 82 Section 32A of maintenance does not change the status of the way as a public way, it merely avoids town liability for maintenance. Although it is true that the Nylanders owned the fee in the first 100 foot stretch of the disputed Bachellor Road, but they also owned the fee in the westerly half of the next 788 feet of the road (Nylander, 423 Mass. at 161)the Court's remand to the Superior Court, dealing as it does with only the first 100 feet of the road also appears to leave some issues unresolved. It may have been more helpful to have clear enunciation of the principle that Potter couldn't travel over any part of Bachellor Road owned by Nylander. 65 Finally, the Court stated, again only in dicta in fn. 10, at 163 of the decision that "[a] claim for monetary damages is only available if a parcel is rendered landlocked by the discontinuance of a public way (emphasis added). Under G.L. c 82, Section 24 and G.L. c. 79, Section 12, it appears that an action for damages lies for a taking which does less than landlock a parcel, While not explicitly holding that abutting landowners continue to have some easement of passage over a discontinued town way, the Land Court and later the Appeals Court in Schuffels v._Bell, 21 Mass. App. Ct. 76 (1985), preserved for such landowners a right of access to parcels withoutotherfrontage on the ground that the plaintiffs predecessors in title had gained prescriptive rights to use "Old County Road" for access. The Land, Court in its decision clearly reached very far to come to the conclusion; there was none of the usual detailed evidence of continuous and uninterrupted adverse use of the way discussed in Judge Randall's decision. The Appeals Court merely noted "in stating the facts; we avoid details. The opinion of the Land court, with which we agree in substance, has a fuller and more graphic statement." Id. at 77. It is probable that both courts were offended by the defendants efforts to impede plaintiffs efforts to reach their land and even though plaintiffs could not (and did not) prove adverse use by persons in the 1840s and '50s, the courts said they had. Contrast Lynch v. Town of Groton, I 1 Mass. App. Ct. 1008 (1981). If a town acquired the fee in the location of a town way or county highway prior to its discontinuance,, and if the fee interest in land were considered surplus and unnecessary to the municipality after discontinuance, affirmative action by town meeting e• (M.GL. c. 40, § 15) is required before that interest in land can be abandoned and conveyed, 6.2 ,ADVERSE POSSESSION/PRESCRIPTION The simple answer to a claim that a public highway can be lost by adverse possession or prescription is that such is not the law in Massachusetts, with the exception hereafter noted. See G.L. c. 81, Section 22 as to state highways, discussed above, and G.L. c. 86, Section 3 as to public ways, both providing in essence that if the boundaries of the way are known or can be established, no length of possession within the limits of the way gives any title in the way to an abutter exce t in the case of a building used as a residence (G.L. c. 81, Section 22). It is interesting to note that there is no comparable exception for dwellings in c. 86, §3. We conclude that the residential exception in G.L. c. 81, Section 22 is not authority to continue to maintain the encroachment represented by the dwelling, but rather protection against summary removal. A certain few cases arising before the 1917 enactment of the latter statute, and turning, it seems to me, more on a -difficulty in determining the location of the way, did allow a claimant to establish a street line by the location of his abutting; fence. See; e.g., Holt v. Sar ent, 81 Mass. 97 (1860). Another early case which permitted adverse possession of a "highway" as against a town, was Cohasset v. Moors, 204 Mass. 173 (1919). There,, in the original division of lots in Cohasset in 1670 there was a reservation of land for highways in various places, and, among others, along the shore, between the nearest lot laid out for an individual, and the sea, which reservation covered locus. Cohasset sought to register title to locus (a thirty acre parcel described by the Court as being "the rough, rocky, irregular indented 67 shore of the sea") while Mrs. Moors claimed title to it by adverse possession. In 1867 the county commissioners altered, improved and directed repairs on Jerusalem Road and defined it on a plan (containing much less than 30 acres of land). The court held that by so doing the county commissioners automatically discontinued so much of any highway as might have been reserved previously and that "at least since 1867, the title of the town [to the area reserved for a highway in 1670] has been like that of any other private owner" and went on to hold that Mrs. Moors had disseized the flown. 6.3 DAMAGES FOR DISCONTINUANCE Because a state highway discontinuance creates a town way, it is only upon the subsequent discontinuance of the town way that a right to damages vests in an abutter (G.L. c. 82, Section 24). An action for monetary damages is the exclusive remedy for a landowner damaged by the discontinuance of a public way. Nylander v. Potter, 423 Mass. at 163, n. 10: G.L. c, 82,; Section 7 provides for damages in the event of the discontinuance of a county highway. Note that a person damaged by a G.L. c. 82, Section 24 discontinuance of a private way is entitled to damages and an indemnity can be <required by the town prior to discontinuing. Damages for discontinuance, like damages for a taking, ;are governed by G.L. c. 79 and vest upon recordation of the discontinuance order. In the first instance, a determination must be made as to whether the public convenience and necessity requires that a way be discontinued as no longer needed for the public use or convenience. See Newburyuort Redevelopment Authority v. Commonwealth, 9 Mass. App, Ct. 206 (1980), "the question whether to discontinue a town way is political or legislative rather than adjudicatory. (Emphasis supplied.) (we think a G.L, c. 82, Section 32A decision is adjudicatory in nature as certain findings must be made before maintenance can be discontinued). Because the closing of a public highway is a "taking" of some portion of the value of an abutter's land he becomes entitled to damages (G. L. e. 82, Section 24, G.L. c. 79, § 12). It has been held that damages are not allowed if the plaintiff's land "does not abut on the portion of the way discontinued if there is access by any public way, because in such a case the damage suffered is only from loss of the enjoyment of a public right which is also suffered in greater or less degree by every member of the community." Harte v. Town of Dartmouth, 45 Mass.AppCt. 779, 782 (.1998) quoting Randv. Boston, 164 Mass. 354, 363 (1895) (Knowlton, J. dissenting). Compensability in such cases turns on "the distinction between, on the one hand, impairment of access which if substantial may 'figure as a special and peculiar injury deserving compensation, and on the other hand, diversion of traffic which ties outside the compensable category even if it results in a decline in the property's market value." Harte, 45 Mass.App.Ct. at 781 quoting Malone v. Commonwealth, 378 Mass. 74, 78 (1 979).The measure of damages is outside the scope of these materials. 6.4 TITLE TO DISCONTINUED PORTIONS Since the beginning of reported cases in the Commonwealth, it has been black letter law that an easement for public travel over a person's land leaves the underlying soil in the individual. "By the location of a way over the land of any person, the public have acquired- an easement, which the owner of the land cannot lawfully extinguish or unreasonably interrupt. But the soil and freehold remain in the owner although M encumbered with a way." Perlev v. Chandler, 6 Mass. 454, 455 (1810). Nylander v. Potter, 423 Mass. 158, 161 (1996). A ;natural corollary to this proposition is that if the way is discontinued, the freehold, free of the encumbrance of the highway, reverts to the owner. Title reverts in abutters to the center line of the way. But if the authority laying out the way took the fee, upon discontinuance, title remains in the public. Hence the necessity, in G.L. c. 81, Section 12 for an abandonment by the state in the event of a discontinuance of a state highway. A discontinuance relieves the laying out authority of its obligation to maintain a way; an abandonment relinquishes the interest of the authority in any rights to land. It is curious that no words of "abandonment" are used in G.L. c. 82 relating to county highways and town ways except, as noted previously, in the section caption of Section 32A. An important distinction between highways and town ways is that highways may not be discontinued without notice to towns and abutters and the concurrence of county commissioners (G.L. c, 82, Sections 1 and 3), while town ways may be discontinued by town meet or city council vote without notice to abutters (G.L. c. 82 Section 21). Before a town can discontinue a town way it must refer the contemplated action to its planning board for its recommendation and give the board 45 days to respond (G.L. c. 41, §81I). In those few municipalities that have not established a planning board under G.L. c. 41, Section 81A, and that have a board of survey, see G.L, c. 41, Section 73, which regulates the opening of private ways for public use. 70 Previously, a town way could be ,converted to a private way by the county commissioners by G.L. c. 82, Section 32A; as amended, I suggest that Section 32A: leaves the way a public way, but absolves the town of its maintenance obligations. Pursuant to G.L. c. 40, Section 15 a town may vote to abandon "any land, easement or right taken for such ... town,; otherwise than by purchase ..." upon a two- thirds vote of the town, and authorize its conveyance upon such terms and conditions as the town may fix. 7. SUBDIVISION CONTROL, PLANS AND PUBLIC WAYS Under G.L. c. 41, Section 8IL, an endorsement of "Approval Under Subdivision Control Law Not Required" will only be given to a division plan where all of the lots which result from the division of a tract of land have frontage on a "public way or a way which the clerk of the ....town certifies is maintained and used as; a public way." The question of what constitutes legal frontage on a public way has become quite complex to resolve. The Subdivision Control Law, G.L. c. 41, Sections 81K-81GG, was enacted as a "comprehensive statutory scheme", Nantucket Land Council, Inc. v. Planning of Nantucket, 5"Mass. App. Ct. 206 (1977), requiring "adequate access" (G.L. c. 41, Section 81 M to lots within a subdivision and lots having frontage on an inaccessible way (limited access highway) do not have frontage on a "public way" as those words are used in the Subdivision Control Law. Hrenchuk v. Planning Board of Walpole, 8 Mass. App. Ct:-949 (1979). It was always assumed, until the Tristam's Landing case, Gifford v. Planning Board of Nantucket, 376 Mass. 801 (1978),;Hrenchuk, Casa rg ande (discussed previously) 71 and Perry, discussed hereafter, that a "public way" was a public way, for the purposes of considerations of title, ;status, laying out, etc., and for Subdivision Control Law. Such is not the case (and see, LeBlanc v. Board of Appeals of Danvers, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 760 (1992) which holds that ;an unconstructed, paper street can provide the necessary "frontage" to afford a lot abutting thereon a G.L. c: 40A, §6 zoning dimensional freeze). Whether a way provides the required legal frontage for lots which may be divided without planning board approval ("ANR Plans") is no longer the sole question. Rather, the question has become, by a series of decisions, whether the way provides vital access to the buildable area of the lot. The transition from a mere question of ;frontage to a much more subjective issue of actual accessibility can be traced in the following cases: Rettig v. Planning Board of Rowley, 332 Mass. 476 (1955) Malaguutiy. Planning"Board of Wellesle , 3 Mass. App. Ct. 797 (1975), CasagEande su ra , Spalke v. Board of Appeals of Plymouth, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 683 (1979), Perry v. Planning Board of Nantucket, 15Mass. App. Ct. 144 (1983), and Hutchinson_ v. Planning. Board of Hingham, 23 Mass. App. Ct. 416 (1987), Sturdy v. Planning Board of Hingham, 32_Mass. App. Ct. 72 (1992), Ball v. Planning Board of Leverett, 53 Mass. App. Ct. 513 (2003), all dealing with the adequacy of the way, and Cassani v. Planning Board of Hull, 1 Mass App. Ct. 451 (1973), Gifford v, Planning Board of Nantucket, 376 Mass. 801 (1978), McCarthyv. Planning Board of Ed artown, 381 Mass 86 (1980), Gallitano v. Board of Survey and Planning Board of Waltham, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 269 (1980), DiCarlo v. Planning Board of Wayland, 19 Mass. App. 911 (1984), Fox v. Planning Board of Milton, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 572 (1987), and Corcoran v. Planning;Board of Sudbury, 406 Mass. 248 (1989) and Stefanick v. Planning Board of Uxbridge, 39 Mass.App.Ct. 418 72 (1996), review denied, 422 Mass. 1104 (1996), to adequacy of access from the way to the buildable portion of the lot. [We are greatly indebted to Donald J. Schmidt, Editor of the Land Use Manager, a publication of the Executive Office of Communities and Development for his insightful analysis entitled "THE ANR HANDBOOK",- May, 2000, Department of Housing and Community Development], The Perry court added an additional, judicial, requirement for approval of ANR plans, saying "we conclude that whatever status might be acquired by ways as 'public ways' for the purposes of other statutes by virtue of their having been 'laid out' .. such ways will not satisfy the requirements of the 'public way' exemption in Section 81 ... unless they in fact exist on the ground in a form whichsatisfies the previously quoted goals of Section 81M." Perry, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 392. In effect, two categories of access on public ways come into focus out of this decisional history. "There is the 'could be better but manageable' category and the `illusory' category. The first category warrants an [ANR} endorsement; the second does not." Gates v. Planning Board of Di hton, 48 Mass.App.Ct. 394 (2000), review denied 726 NE 2d 414 (2000). In Gates, notwithstanding technical compliance with frontage requirements, the planning board could deny an ANR endorsement where access to lots ,is "nonexistent" for the purposes of the statute, An example of the first category of cases is Sturdy v. Planning Board of Hingham, 32 Mass.App,Ct. 72 (1992). In this case, Robert Sturdy was confronted with.a not uncommon dilemma; his land fronted on a way which had not been maintained by the town and was not passable. He proposed an ANR division of land abutting Side Hill Road. Whether Sturdy was entitled to the endorsement depended upon whether Side Hill 73 Road was a public way and whether the access it afforded was illusory. The Hingham Planning Board -denied the endorsement. On appeal to the Superior Court the judge found Side Hill Road to be a public way but in its then condition it did not afford safe access to the lots in question and thus the Board's decision was not in excess of its authority. Sturdy moved for a new trial and, relying on G.L. c. 84, Sections 1 and 4, brought an action in the nature of mandamus seeking to compel the town to make Side Hill Road accessible. The two cases were consolidated and the Superior Court judge reconsidered his earlier ruling, now ruling that Sturdy was entitled to the ANR endorsement, not- withstanding deficiencies in Side Hill Road and allowed the town's motion for summary judgment in the mandamus action, Both sides appealed. After restating the Fox v. Planning Board of Milton (24 Mass. App. Ct. 572, 574 (1987)) test as to whether or not access provided by a public way is "illusory in fact" (Sturdy, at 75), the Court held: Deficiencies in a public way are insufficient ground fordenyingthe endorsement. The ANR endorsement for lots fronting on a public way, provided for in G.L. c 41, Section 81L (note 3, su ra , is a legislative regulation that ordinarily 'lots having such a frontage are fully accessible, and as the developer does not contemplate the construction of additional access routes there is no need for supervision by the planning board on that score.' Gifford v. Planning Board of Nantucket, 376 Mass. App. Ct. 807. Moreover,, since municipal authorities have the obligation to maintain ,such ways, there is already public control as to how perceived deficiencies, if any, in such public ways are to be corrected. Sturdy, 32 Mass. App. Ct. at 76. The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's denial of mandamus: In doing so, it noted that public officials are presumed to do their duty, particularly when it is pointed 74 out to them (Sturdy, 32 Mass. App, fn.15 at 78) but if not, there is at least the possibility of criminal ,sanctions (Sturdy, 32 Mass. App. at 77). An example of the second category of cases is Poulos v. Planning" Bd. of Braintree, 413 Mass. 359 (1992) where the owner presented a plan that showed twelve lots with the required frontage along an existing paved public way. Parallel to that way was a guardrail installed by the Department of Public Works to keep vehicles from pitching down a steep slope. Practical access was barred until the DPW took down the guardrail which it would not do unless the owner filled in the grade that produced the dangerous; slope.; Although removal of the guardrail and regrading might occur, in the sense the neither was an impossible task, the court held that "in absence of present adequate access from the public way of each of the plaintiffs lots," the planning board had rightly refused endorsement under G.L. c. 41, Section 81P. Id. at 362. A case similar to Poulos was decided by the Appeals Court in, 2000 with a different result. In Hobbs Brook Farm Property CompanyLimited Partnership _ v. Planning Board of Lincoln, 48 Mass.App.Ct. 403 (2000), review denied, 726 N.E. 2d 414 (2000), the planning board denied ANR approval to the plaintiff's plan because frontage on a state 'highway for 4 out of 5 proposed lots was partially obstructed by a metal guardrail or concrete_ Jersey barrier and curb cut permits had not been obtained from MHD. The -court found that "it is simply not correct...that the entire frontage required for a lot under [the town's] zoning by-law must be unobstructed .... As to guardrails, Jersey barriers, and Cape Cod -berms, those partial obstructions do not have the physical barrier effect described in Poulos v. Planning Board of Braintree." Hobbs, 48 Mass. App. Ct. at 406. 75 The court in Hobbs also went on to state that ``the requirement that one obtain permission from the commission to make a curb cut and to build a driveway across the green did not constitute a physical or legal barrier to access. Securing permission is a necessary step to be taken in the ,development process, but it is not the business of the planning board to anticipate that the grant of the -requisite permit by the responsible governmental body would be improvident or might not occur." Id. at 405 Likewise, as MHD has exclusive authority to regulate driveway openings on a state highway, a town planning board may not, as a condition for its aapproval of a definitive subdivision plan, prohibit curb cuts on a. state highway, Sullivan v. Planning,_ Board of Acton, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 918 (1995). It should also be noted that a "public way" properly laid out, is not necessarily a "Public way" for Subdivision Control Law purposes. Proving that a way is in fact public can be extremelydifficult for an applicant seeking subdivision approval. In Matulewicz v. Planning Board of Norfolk, 438 Mass. 37 (2002), the Supreme Judicial Court dealt at some length with the provisions of M.G.L. chapter 4 1, section 8IL which permits a planning board to grant an ANR endorsement for a lot having frontage on "a public way or a way which the clerk of the city or town certifies is maintained and used as a public way,"' In Matulewicz, a landowner sought an ANR endorsement for two parcels of land shown with frontage on Frederickson Road in Norfolk. The applicant accompanied the ANR plan to the planning board with a town 'clerk's certification to the 'effect: "that according to the records of Norfolk, Frederickson_ Road from Grove Street to the dwelling 76 of...Matulewicz_as shown on assessor's map 13, a total distance ;of 2,415 feet, more or less, is maintained and used as apublic way in the Town of Norfolk." The planning board declined to issue it's ANR endorsement on the basis that the town had only accepted 1,953 feet of Frederickson Road at town meeting with the remaining 462 feet being a driveway to the Matulewicz home which had never been accepted as a public way. The applicant appealed to Superior Court and, unusually, the planning board filed its own action in Superior Court seeking the annulment of the clerk's certificate and a declaration by the Court that the plaintiffs plan in fact showed a subdivision. The town clerk's certification was based upon a conversation with the town highway department superintendent who apparently confirmed that the town maintained the road by paving, snow removal and repair. The 'Superior Court judge concluded, based on the certificate, that the road was maintained and used as a public way and thus ordered the board to make the ANR endorsement. The applicants argued to the Supreme Judicial Court that the town clerk's certificate, absent fraud, misrepresentation, or duress, should be considered conclusive, irrebuttal evidence that the way in question was used and maintained as a public way. Holding that the plaintiff had established a prima faciecase that the way in question was used and maintained as public way by introducing the clerk's certificate, the Court held that the planning board may rebut the prima facie affect of the certificate by introducing evidence and warranting a finding that the way was not so maintained and used. While the Court held that the clerk's certificate should be rebutted, it found that the Superior Court's decision that Frederickson Road was, in fact, maintained and used as 77 a public way was warranted by the evidence which she heard at trial including that the town's maintenance of the road was uniform throughout and that the way had significant width for its entire length and that the town maintained it in all seasons of the year. The matter was remanded with an order that the plaintiffs plan did not require approval under the subdivision control law and that the planning board should issue that endorsement. 1n Duddy v. Mankewich, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 789 (2006) it was determined that an ANR endorsement by two members of a five member board was insufficient to constitute an endorsement even though those two members constituted a majority of the three membersof a five member board who were present at the planning board meeting. This was so because ;the statute contemplates action by a full majority of the board's members. iN Z; 1" C� C` W a w n z z � o �0 LLJs z W Z J C a. 0 M � Ul ■� C> w . W ]NI toLn t m �► a u �O nj _ i W i 3... ......... . e� L ® U O VIia W w a 1 0 a _ ■ ,y N tn U! SO � /� u� ■� Ln cL Ln �°u N m = LU Lb IL p Q� fu C.p Ul LL a °o `" J �j�di UL tn scn 0 n t a E Z W L a W 4 F s W d g °z 2 ly U U li 9 o: gz� Wy wq ~ �g�w a 30 ? _a g Wpm'Q�Z 50 g 4 Z4�4�Q�o OO z 88 W U pUZO gdgd aa p �� u S' Xp. Vry <V p Z�O p o ..y22Z w Q j. m �Z� hqq�qq O�: 4 ooFN p S�Q 2�:� F4 FUN f W Zy O OIL �` 0W����goo �cs o R ym p�8 f�S�1Z.9 �C� y�1�V. V lJsml WK W mo O�IT}Q£ F- p� 4 a�u W zdl tiu �[�yyuu H W w a o o m bw in — o` 0w E A D ore v J o O W Q N ea o O`u $ nD n` LL ai�01-6 W sxm cle j_Q Ln m Q y. O c. LL w 7 ®. o t" a a n O • O ■ m wWy� �ppn I 4 697.72' -ilk i cw, Z�4h 7- k S IK 3 y i � :�� ax {� W3; H W,a c P a a M o f b►W `SIIlH 5WPDD� 43�45 PIql#sqM +�4nPS 168 E 2 E3'OI 13�e,d ohs ° o 0 �N �W 3 NV'1d SNO111 ti z a Z U I' CJ � W C I NY�n u gW zYzgM pyyj W �.�a LI.Wi, Cf pV,'� p +n zz �q�ab g�q�W o q o O � p2 n W s� mz m �Z��QQy++aa YYY ){ tSWw maw m �W QS�Yw� Fsz • w^ LL z � 3 a� zw0 rbyo.:y¢Z Y�,�-� �Z �i -_. y � '�.li ,•i ,.�/ : n Sam ;w°�W'-�� :g x� -. --_ � _ �' I :� ` .. ^• `•' w� I� N 41 W -� •' — �b W ��d �� j2_Vd02 . y� _. r W Me f� a"+23 yO pZ �Oj}�S 3 ..: ••-• } J �/R��ZW� �... b3 VsiaU Vi KU U�2 AGRlCUL7i1RAL ., WO wOq W ��tl \fpu Sam'4N '.• /� X -"C _ I el `� �❑❑� R b r Cd ONO3 3.aP•1111:�i10 - Z6ktiLilOf. I!�F�l��atl `PiI Plalll�At=R�oS 16B • �+d - i0YUL11LI0I1��d1�5 r �N Wa� trW �SIIIH 6ulp��� �33J�S PI�I}}53/tij� Lj?np5 I6$ IE2E30A1137aP,d7�� � o < � - 1 W � sNo�id�n�aasb aNd aN3�3� o uN OC4 V � 3NI s3 iO8WA5 �5310N 4 FIM g 3 � 2 �� �w a I- W W¢ � b li y ❑yam g �� �Itl�Uu �y ��n3� 5 W 12 12 LLg2 1Fz Yw c �i �.W �7$q❑ �� �; �x2 b �D Iw- UtO� CCCC j`yc'�5 �� wp W x i eo¢c y y� llo-Q.aM.U3.. D N p 4' x y Q3 �h" Qw�_ pxC ti k a a < ❑�. a �O �W �yN�w=W � � Up O �KT W i7i �� a �❑ t�i2 ❑� a 3 qq is ❑w��m�n w"��� a� _ �z �� +� � � w $`^¢ � o ��p� ;z � �Np�. �Z V �I`ii � w u�QS �� �Foo. RR4 a yy❑ a $$3 ¢ �� Vo p- pT� �. :h ry £ ¢¢� N$. �p ID ❑�:0�$Di O �z❑ p $ yy a py w ism ppop� a� WyW w Wti Q iicc}}p � i � �Wp WW _�¢¢ < ydu �Iti^ �Z4W4 �� da4 x¢ 0 � py� � �O� ❑� P4� Op� y W 03 hC V�: ��� _ «w"�s_� c' w❑ Ixn°5�'3- gy3 ' p p$ Qgz um pz zW a -8 yp�a az uSS.a�� �w� '�Z2"'4 -y-rr 53:ps gp y3 z� awwe L22,�"aw �.u❑ `�'tiYYnn `pp�aaTy`y.Ip��I❑ pypg&g �!zWz �yZ� czi �cn�Ia4,. V GW~P".❑❑yg; W2� i2 W2¢ L~i ❑Y 0NKmm:NH T < o q Yam. p 2� UW WG>.y ate. ��Z y£.ti p 0 y 2 Nj p Rig 0 �w nz a po w r �T yppy �ti $a �$�. y m � - ��z 'y, ([ 4. y Vl44 qh y2W V.W Nz K[pQq� �ti pg�,�wc d a ?w. u� ¢ a2 32�w+ p a L2�W - tiQ wWpW p-�'�� SN :ZN1;��p Zc.V�W y ��WW2:4 pyiyw.1- 2 2Q� W4 tl Spy zq �k WW� �> �°a'aF``" G� �" " o� �>.�`z'p� km�� tip � ��y �a� a ��w�.. Fs� rcN � � ❑ apwG u$ �., tn i zw �^, rS pQ}ii"'p j W 11f w 2 Vaypm�W ry xz x X cWuW' �y8yy�C�.� �I3 g ¢¢q W ctii0 �¢j a R`�i� W m� p SK �Wi❑ �N4z m m� m z� zQ `wL" _Z W 3z w�oivs�N.�w�j RhzQ ✓-- �� ��_ �� >ip�� N yi �o a zw azW``do�� �Qwcn � `r p3o0 �I,;.aq Al ..�$ � o-� �ZZ.. �.:� "� h is pp� �. '`� z�e� � '��'❑p �. Q U ❑ yb v:�� C Y : '�^ ia�ezp qUW Y °S� 7 a`@p �Fi.W p ��oa a 3 WW ��- wp �iq 4� O:�Z� �.O �tl ¢a a� �� m¢In ✓iZp W.��� W `i] Ai� 22� p ac Z.�.. �iy� 2GIy 2m � � C R OY awe ii 4�"yx �S 4 c$y�~zz� ❑zQ W 4IY QZU Uh V ¢s_ W �.y�i 2y❑ Zw W R� Q �] �W r G pW pp2�3 ..a Z Off. �$_:� iuyV��gFaC 2� p �ti q ��3b0�oo Z:� n Z2 i3qc�¢ 2w(innW ✓i.� WTWF W .�V O pptaQS m0 21. U �2 2q p O W 4 WW N O Ya Op� zz �S�ypo m N Q Jg W4p1 I�W Z W� 7 T - ❑ ph 7 IX W W ❑ �2 UI`I 2>Q¢ pV ti.I'yo yam- W'+I W@y �y. �Wap yRy~� 4 iu- l `.2 �'�y ¢�?_rn mT¢.�Z.� wy rnW Ww Wa�W Up =�� •¢y a -ay :WZioaW.jN W. llll4� Z �2 �iW �i i�u a7bQ yp aN H3� �3.. u5❑s- g�q ❑"- �p LL paw cw,mz ..I �" ym"6 g� :� I❑�� Ci.> �ppOO�,,.zWy�7ti w$g._ �'�. wa W�' wa �u13'� awy���}}ypy,�pypw �5w d w 4 L'a hpo' G�:. 12 Wry. WLL y�� �0:� WWw W X 4w�w �T2Z❑j� wU W4 h y 4 -.3p W wa y2 �b WW 4 W p U W. W Wi y � dui �ti rho z�xi H H O h3�a q $w Qy$ ������� W���m � �w $ z� �z 1 ���y Yaa , h $�� u� � H N ti qpp .y C! %.9 pm"' WWI NE j fit. 2ryLq tiV... Q 2 x ti� Q t❑p I�1 w �20"' 0.$z �. '�-�z. ❑ ��'� ya �'❑�li t W _ z kpp O 2 -�T QW 4p W ZZa2p av� 4v) 3 Z VWi �. �g aq� � �U '^. i mp o aW `� a... a. 13 qq pp � ti�ggma - yy �zz>�J� � �¢N K yI SUM ��W y. gyp'" 04f��i h ❑ svi pZ �� �p q�+. o rQa M, 3, pi -��M aaa a� u'w gy 4 � x�� o � � xw Tx ❑ �po --' fi� �� ((}��'�& aq �.t'�� � i.� �5���nn� ❑yD; � y`�'��m'z..� �o�. W 2 � �ti� x QU � K 4 �:� OW.. # � W mw2 N Ar ❑ qs a ^ 0 2 �z�n G1❑p z [.. 90 m y� y y p ¢ 2 �1 a3 p,ti+wpWa� U s(� ❑ aY h Q2 4K x4xF'UQwC �Z.�R �f3 b ay W pp pp IW,� yy 4 y U tc h U k a t1 �ym�"I OO y $O �21 2pJ> >> I� 4 OS V� NZ h Ob z 11uu aa p j- o p U ZO 2u 4ym wpy W �- b N 42 ZaL ah❑ C�y¢�U: �ni< yy'y �� Q pq` 2�WQW�� yj 0�� ���� k �03 I%i4 �y OO W� a ❑: Q W U 2W �-I d wm�jT 4 2�p W yN� ❑y Up pti V $: 4 w a W r- w �p z❑� o zoawwmo °�WCW� o� z� Uz Z boy ;zZ;AA p$4o waN o poi$ wta �� F- Y�¢ SyN��-p 2�ak3�g TW �2 �gg4a N ✓wi \a SW.� ��y�VW �N �IQr y6� y�¢� z F�2 W� �..y �y> >qR gmw��Wpy ZW N Z p 2 UWW Nd �� pR tr_NF ap VW�1p pZ I- 211 aIi }- 2-'{j4 p❑ "i OW p�qm j Y❑ yp:pov mmT�yT wqqw Nfl.. O�4i ZN9 ppU:: w ��W07 "Y xi i. pT 4�4� pjR+ 9 4R 63WyP ��y1'vi ddZin t]. 3.❑ � T� .M . <�!2-i�zV � xi I-' �p�' 3ry�aY 0..G, 4 tiVt.W 4D' v�yi F y-�V d. trl Ci: w z a � Ci 2. ._ N. ni: r fA � .i ti I-> w � o x U W U P w w❑ � � w y a Tarn a � 2 O��� p W z.W y � a o� z.� � w� q�❑ q.� � w W i'o h a J {em{uu q �a o xz �`'� g z c' Z G� P. ❑ z o wo �z¢4- ;uy�'� w zWI�W o gx.T Ia � qR 7 O O OO hh,2m 1�Q.Q.Q mW.�mmUU UUUV❑O�0❑0�41W 4�iW WWG ii �i 4�t�4 �'�2 �20 pR4 a�Ra��:�Nu1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I til2a� �oom�-s �� ��:j;WE � v �Yzntic�uofL�v �Twx ao 'Gov ` d ¢.cc m.✓a a.��mV UpV VV49.410odO�wWww W4i.�ti �$:d ��g�.zoO4a4LLu4a K.� to [n rn :y�Hti ,i�� W O b W $ z o U w w❑ i y a z a z fi g a 3 w w aza n w ¢� „ w w o cn � �. w 3 3§ 2 p [� vl. [� o❑❑ 2 O 4� �^ W v'. U a g 4 fJ � �" c7i Z p��, a Li c9 u u U c9 c� c9 c� U. Iwn t� C9 V c9 y IWiI ap rW. z 3 2. 2? 2. 2 `1W' uWi a z 2 O 2 i z z O z b :J W ((�. � 2 �- w C: ✓` 4 4 W 2 2 ZZ:VI y to O O y. y. In I� p O In :q W h. y o 9 V w In N O O O p is % �t Y= G a`c X t s( k 'a a 8 k X k 4: O m W ril ¢ Y, � k X K% a V U U W: W W U W W W W W a 4 W W W W 4 4 V� O 4 �: W W W 4 4 w W W W W W. W W :5 I v I 1 d � tl I! it 1I 1`I�II� �N � d � g tlW 'SIItH 6uIP3�� ;����5 PI31�53eIV14�na5 l6B r. � ` th WO Lu a, ��..11 �Gji mOQ2 Zh pYI Wh � i a ox y. tS}`W ys o �W�L�`<.w � :o5a � N.c�„ _ y� °T i zz�ZZZ �yI� Apt, w� N YN �j $ U 2p2p Yj � pW O a oZ ri WpV C rt 2 C1 O NAll F m 17i °dK ��y� .gym 2 w ��F a� Q� 4 VY2 � 4 pWp U SiWW 2 2 ppEll W� �yya K 3 O F � 2 �4 ;5yZL5� �� � Wix6¢ 2 C N � S"' yi1 Q F-yn zF¢� RS oQO�O�O� U A y.� > p0 N� WWI¢ w QO CV Q a 26 WWW�yWW WW R my haw q �� Q��� s' ��� t� LH.w �lS. z SY F'6.i- gp2�x�g$:.�wQy F a � Vo wwo $z3 °gg�_ WW22oF� Q i gYc�v �y paaW ��@ Z2 MN zp Z Lpzi YmF A dW IYp G U � UU _ d A V � � dY � Q �q�� 7��� cKi �. gal, nq? o ci, 0 2 oo���.: �f�,fy �F Z V ag 4 q W px Yyz i rrr333 gg4 �U 4 Om�V USX E43 22N.O �6 :�< ° W �a:� ). a G CW ` N 2�f��a N i ju �' o q4�I kill, 44 P.E'4 x n �o$2pp IVS a -z5 tgQcw n w q x�p 3 w wN a a _ �W mp ttC vkv�� `�Cqqo y�'�}�- ��W?W?��j �� �. w xG O -�.t h" `,�" yWV. ZiZ nny: ? O yy ZZ O U Oy�yy a U }$? a5 44 �i O �F�+ � 'r- � z �� z '� M 3pN a�w �Fc 0 0 ' W � fi3r- °d Sixa zw w y w z a a q a }k ° U� 3 w ' -' zaK i u yu`� i„W & �z o ¢¢ g m d s„ m YYgg F z eQ } W�Z k F �b C� 2 q� W w N 2 y 4 2 U Imo, a V° xi C] a�za N E a� o Nye x� a � � n t gk �� ° � ��" w9z 3¢ �. 2£ �. S a,: rJ' �.Q-'wg ma Gam, °�� E U �w zQ u s a- o a �,Ku rcp oz � � sP3 wa d yo � Rzz2$ J ii8 Cf l��y Ua Z p a < A� �,yz ��j{ o a q pti. cr pCZyu�`I y� o� }� �. w: g .� qy� �.. �i � o S� 3 �' g�a(pg�yngly ��z a wpp� yy22l mm W U� 32 ii� X�aS p"}6O q D'.a❑pwpaW ZZ662 U �uj0 9 O qqF ^W i7i� C 3N Ux ti2� Z 4�N y aSyVVV»iq V� W rcrcw� 2SS�yyp x LpLp x .k9° yy WWo Z. w W Al, u yy 55r>r 4 w 2a Tom] !� Tz°S --�{{cc Yyy��z11�.. ^^{{ W R¢V O� ...OWNq � �N U 41 s A VONE dO�KV ME Q§Hffl F�� m U�.�a a�mG�.° �F�H� �Q4 �`�. QF.W� a❑ :� �R x m��11,9hft Eiy 4H o ti N' y 1 4 O N d FW.. € N Q s Wo " m a E v g VVY 'SIM 6111P33j p3J45 PI31j4S3M 44�oS 16B E 2 E3 :a1133Jed J e x $ a o 8 o 5 ° 0 4 <� s' �® 8 s e Is _. ❑z o �.. g $ NNnd ')OUINO7 NOIIVIN91NICBS A3; NOISOa3 `.11l,Ili `9NIO1WHE) Ix a w W 4 maZ�!'W ZY W.. ❑. YL OF�.z... W o cn 9 � > 5 000�"mw 2OwY� z��l�3n yw wa u z �2� gi❑ ���o z: 'd �� � q� � �. W � $ � W G zU��. uF. O G12W y�i v�❑ Z. � �p.� �iil � ��kr�Z C�'�. 2 �4 � z �. z z �a�k WzzH w o Qwq �pw m� o Q mQ zzdm yd d'l".� ow o z o IS w. s ti ' e woo o z ❑ n n � ati wkfmw ° ¢Wypyp b N:- w33 4 $4 ❑ ZR a 2 µv'i %❑w ,� 4 ❑: 3Ctt o o ���n� 2.� z � u �❑ �.g fiFE 9M �ylv oAo � 99 �p'^ V=i ON OI p � we�� a a ON; �w' z �. in p�� � i`D®R� §R.. & ¢ �i S '6 R4.. wzv� z� Ci o'�q a z o" w wh y wa u _ y �.� u a3"x vsi zo a: ��.' za WL F � 0�p�`�1--t-y g 2 9 A OW Q✓� �� �2. 2�� C.z �2b � i Wmw Zi.: �Vf a1'oWFw, � � pW y W �" ❑ Ll V W �� �° zpu PO� %�%� �3j �q � �2V2 O��LZ w?S]� OOw¢p Zw �qW O ��❑yy.. � 6,(ynz �� zYQ g2 ��a � Q-' a �� W W� W 4 � aW � � �h w� 4T rm F- a3 � ��.2 �z� w(�2V ❑, �WqW `L�y'/ 4WW u O<N 6�j7 fl- o0 2 ? 3 Uo v� L ? g <m ��.Qom z _ ry' ") a ui Y � ❑ ..: �+I. ri v: :� b � 'Qf W: P •� �i V � N. +i v vl :b �: m a _ .`-. g m � trW `s!f!H 6up3g3 jq�45 PIg1�53M 4 f Definitive Plans Prouty Lane Subdivision ZONING INFORMATION LOT INFORMATION ZONE RESIDENCE A-2 AGRICULTURE SITE PLAN INFORMATION REQUIRED REQUIRED MINIMUM LOT SIZE 15,000 S.F. 20,000 S.F. MINIMUM ,FRONTAGE 110, 120' MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK 30' 35' MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK 15' 15' (RES. A-2) MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK 20' 20' (RES. A-2) MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE 40% NONE' MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 35V2.5 STORIES 35/2.5 STORIES RLA project Number; 170402 Parcel ID: E3 2 3 891 South Westfield 5 Feeding Hills, MA AS PREPARED FOR Doreen 6 Brad Prouty 891 South Westfleld Street Feeding Hills, MA BY OPAWINI. IN17FX SHEET NO. SHEET NAME ISSUE DATE REVISION DATE TITLE SHEET 8130117 DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION FLAN 1015117 EX-1 PARTIAL EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN 8130117 1015117 C-1 NOTES, SYMBOL & LINE LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS 8130117 C-2- CONSTRUCTION NOTES 8130117 C-3 GRADING, EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN 8130117' 10/5/17 r-;- 1 DETAILS 813011'-7 FEB" 0 ; 2018 GI; ALnA PLANNING BOARD PERMITTING SURVEY NOTES Q CI I4.1F! T DADfIrf nrtiKera a&u+ , r . ,,,,�� . MAKES NO CUARANTFF THAT TNP i lh1nr-Dr--Jw1! min i rm lrfCc [^i.rniA/ki a frn — a VAM 1RD DIVISION JIRED - DATE I CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN HAS BEEN PREPARED IN LERK OF THE ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES AND REGULATIONS Y THAT THE OF THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS. AN BY THE WED AND HAT NO DURING THE RECEIPT AND PROFESSIONAL LAND SUR OR SYMBOL & LINE LEGEND O IRON PIPE FOUND • IRON PIPE TO BE SET o CONCRETE BOUND FOUND ■ CONCRETE BOUND TO BE SET Owner BRADFORD & DOREEN PROUTY Definitive Subdivision Plan Prouty Lane Easterly of South Westfield Street Feeding Hills, MA Surveyed and Mapped for BRADFORD & DREEN PROUTY 891 South Westfield Street Feeding Hills, MA 01030 s October 5, 2017 Scale: 1 "=50' Prepared by AV a TL %lk" ML ph- 413.568.0985 fax.- 413.568.0986 40 School Street • P.0, Box 640' Westfield, MA 01085 Plaland.com 50 0 25 50 100 SCALE: 1 "=50' RLA Project Number: 170402 SURVEY NOTES 50 0 25 50 100 SCALE. 1 "=50' ?i. Bradfopd Drive MAKES NO GUARANTEE THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN I4F1 ?Fnm rnAjox?mi7 At f cr iru SYMBOL & LINE LEGEND O IRON PIPE FOUND o CONCRETE BOUND FOUND -� EXISTING SIGN EXISTING WELL UTILITY POLE -0 GUY ANCHOR �1 TEST PIT LOCATION P-t PERC" TEST LOCATION TREE LINE — -- — — -- 219— — — — — EXISTING CONTOUR" LEVESQUE ASSOCIATES z Landscape Architects Civil Engineers Land Surveyors Environmental Consultants ph: 413.568.0985 fax:413.568.0986 40 School Street Westfield, MA 01085 rlaland.com z 5 CL M z .�.r W 0 L �• rn Ln Z 0 m W r ., N 'iA 'i�!� W rrrr 3: qn V L. � ■wrr ui Ln C. ® W U. u' �r ai 00 CL PREPARED FOR: Doreen & Brad Prouty 891 South Westfield Street Feeding Hills, MA 01001 ISSUANCE DATE: August 30,2017 REVISIONS. DATE: A: Engineering Comments 10/5/2017 UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS A VIOLATION OF MASSACHUSETTS STATE LAW SCALE: AS NOTED RLA PROD. NUMBER: 170402 SYMBOL. & LINE LEGEND O IRON PIPE FOUND 0 IRON PIPE TO BE SET o CONCRETE BOUND FOUND ■ CONCRETE BOUND TO BE SET COMPUTED POINT O Nr EXISTING SIGN Mw EXISTING MONITORING WELL EXISTING LIGHT POLE UTILITY POLE -0 GUY ANCHOR 0 EXISTING ELECTRIC MANHOLE EXISTING TELEPHONE MANHOLE EXISTING WELL LOCATION wv EXISTING WATER VALVE EXISTING WATER SHUT-OFF EXISTING HYDRANT H 1'R0f'DSED WATEff V/AVLE PROPOSED HYDRANT EXISTING GAS VALVE O EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE ❑ EXISTING CATCH BASIN EXISTING DRAIN MANHOLE © PROPOSED CATCH BASIN • PROPOSED D OSED MANHOLE SB- SOIL BORING LOCATION �I OBSERVATION HOLE LE LOCATION P-1 PERC TEST LOCATION 'wF-r WETLAND FLAG LOCATION r R-1 M.A. H. W. FLAG LOCATION A'd` ,L WETLAND EXISTING STONE WALL TREE LINE x 102.4 EXISTING SPOT R G ADE - -- - = -219- - -- EXISTING CONTOUR x 94.7 PROPOSED SPOT GRADE PROPOSED CONTOUR 214 EDGE OF FLAGGED WETLANDS OHw EXISTING OVERHEAD WIRES oHw UE EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UEL TEL EXISTING TELEPHONE LINE TEL GAS EXISTING GAS LINE GAS wAT- EXISTING WATER LINE wAT sD EXISTING STORM DRAIN SD ss EXISTING SANITARY SEWER ss Low LIMIT OF WORK LINE Low EROSION CONTROL BARRIER 7" ABBREVIATIONS A. F. F. - ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR A.F.S. - ABOVE FINISHED SLAB APPROX. - APPROXIMATE A. T. F - ABOVE TOP OF FOUNDATION BLDG. - BUILDING. BLK. - BLOCK BOT. - BOTTOM B. 0. W. - BOTTOM OF WALL BRG. - BEARING CB. - CATCH BASIN CL - CENTERLINE C.I. - CAST IRON CLR. -- CLEAR CONC. - CONCRETE CONT. - CONTINUOUS CONTR. -- CONTRACTOR D BL. - DOUBLE DET. - DETArL D.I. - DUCTILE IRON DIA. - !A D METER DIM. ` DIMENSION DT'L. - DETAIL DWG. - DRAWING EA; - EACH EG - EXISTING GRADE ELEC. - ELECTRlC ELEV. - ELEVATION EXIST. - EXISTING EXT. - EXTERIOR FFE - F7N1SN ELEV FLOOR AT1 O ON FG - FINISH GRADE FIN. -- FINISH FLR - FLOOR FOUND'. - FOUNDATION FT. - FOOT OR .FEET INSTL. - INSTALLED LT. - LIGHT MAX. - MAXIMUM M.A. H. W. - MEAN ANNUAL HIGH WATER MH.- - ,MANHOLE MIN. - MINIMUM MISC. - MISCELLANEOUS N. T. S. - NOT To SCALE O.A. - OVERALL O.C. - ON CENTER PCB - PROPOSED CATCH BASIN PDMH - PROPOSED DRAIN MANHOLE PFES - PROP. FLARED ENDSECTION POCS - PROP. OUTLET CONTROL STRUCT, PSMH - PROP. SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE PW U - Q PROP. WATER QUALITY UNIT P.S.I. - POUNDS PER SQUARE Q E INCH REINF, - REINFORCING R.H. - RIGHT HAND SHT. - SHEET SPEC. - SPECIAL OR SPECIFICATIONS SQ. - SQUARE ST. - STEEL STA. - STATION T.O.F. - TOP OF FOUNDATION T.O. W. - TOP F , a WALL T.S.- TOP OF STEEL TYP - TYPICAL W/ - WITH WTR. - WATER W. W.M. - WELDED WIRE MESH EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES MANAGEMENT STRATE GIES 1. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE. 2. CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE SHALL BE PHASED TO AVOID LEAVING :LARGE AREAS EXPOSED FOR LONGPERIODS OF TIME. 3 TEMPORARY 0 ARY SEED AND MULCH :SHALL BE APPLIED IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING .ROUGH GRADING. 4. SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSPECTED CONTINUOUSLY, ESPECIALLY FOLLOWING STORM EVENTS TO LOCATE FAILING CONTROL MEASURES AND CONDUCT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS. 5 THE CONSTRUCTION SUPERINTENDENT SHALL INFORM ALL ON -SITE WORKERS OF THE SEDIMENTATION E ATION CONTROL PROGRAM.. VEGETATIVE CONTROL PRACTICES 1. TOPSOIL STO CKPILING: TOPSOIL SHAL L BE STRIPPED .FROM .AREAS. TO 8E DISTURBED AND STO CKPILED FOR LATER. USE. STOCKPILE LOCATIO N .SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE OWNER AND ENGINEER AND BE WITHIN LIMIT OF WORK. 2, TEMPORAR Y SEEDING. THE TEMPORARY E PORARY SEDIMENT A B SlN, TOPSOIL STOCKPILE AND .ROUGH GRADED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED WITH WINTER RYE AT A RATE OF 30 LBS. PER .ACRE ANY SOILS THAT ARE LEFT EXPOSED AND UNDISTURBED FOR MORE THAN 30 DAYS SHALL BE TEMPORARILY SEEDED. A. SITE PREPARATION • COMPLETE ALL ROUGH GRADING ACTIVITIES • REMOVE AL L ROCKS AND DEBRIS LARGER THAN 3 IN DIAMETER FROM AREAS TO BE TEMPORARILY SEEDED. -EVENLY APPLY LIME TO ACHIEVE A PH VALUE OF 6.0. • EVENLY APPLY 14 LBS. OF 5-10-10 ANALYSIS FERTILIZER TO A DEPTH " OF 4 USING' SUITABLE EQUIPMENT, • SEEDBED IS TO BE LEFT 1N FIRM AND SMOOTH N I co D r1oN. THE LAST TILLAGE OPERATION SHALL BE PERFORMED ACROSS THE SLOPE. B. ESTABLISHMENT • EVENLY APPLY SEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIES AND RATE INDICATED ABOVE BY MEANS OF BROADCASTING OR HYDROSEEDING. • UNLESS HYDROSEEDED, COVER SEED WITH 114" TO 1 2" OF TOPSOIL • APPLY MUL CH OR EROSION CONTROL BLANKET IMMEDIATELY FO LLOWING OLLOWlNG SEEDING. • VERIFY SEEDING DATES WI TH ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE. .ARCHITECT. IF ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT DETERMINES THAT SEED CANNOT BE APPLIED DUE TO CLIMATE, TOPSOIL SHALL NOT BE ±SPREAD AND MULCHING SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE EXPOSED SURFA CE TO STABILIZE SO ILS UNTIL.. THE NEXT RECOMMENDED E DED SEEDING PERIOD. • PERMAN ENT SEEDING SHALL BE APPLIED BETWEEN APRIL 15 AND SEPTEMBER 30. TEMPORARY SEEDING SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS OUTSIDE THIS TIME FRAME, UPON APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. C. MAINTENANCE • ALL SEEDED/MULCHED AREAS SHALL BE INSPECTED REGULARLY TO SEE THAT A GOOD STAND IS MAINTAIN ED. AREAS SHALL. BE REPAIRED AS NECESSARY. NONSTRUCTURAL CONTROL PRACTICES 1. SCARIFICATION: EXPOSED SLOPES EXCEEDING 4:1 SHALL BE SCARIFIED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE SLOPE. PROVIDE PERIODIC UPGRADING OF SERRATIONS DURING EXPOSED PE RIOD UNTIL VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED. PROVIDE VEGETATIVE' COVER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. 2. STRAW MULCH: STRAW MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED IN CONJUNCTION WITH TEMPORARY PERMANENT SEEDING AND TO GRADED AREAS WHICH REMAIN EXPOSED OUTSIDE OF RECOMMENDED SEEDING DATES. MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED AT 90 LBS. PER 1000 S.F. CONTRACTOR SHALL PERIODICALLY INSPECT AND REAPPLY AS NECESSARY, PARTICULARLY FOLLOWING SIGNIFICANT STORM EVENTS. J. TOPSOIL: DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE TOPSOILED PRIOR TO SEED APPLICATION. APPLICATION STANDARDS • - *R EMOVE ALL .ROCKS AND DEBRIS OVER 1 1 i 2 IN DIAMETER.. • SCARIFY SURFACE PRIOR TO SEED APPLICATION. • APPLY 6 DEPTH OF TOPSOIL. 4. SILT FENCE. E SILT FENCE SHALL. BE INSTALLED AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE SITE, AT CULVERT OUTLET LOCATIONS, OR AS INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS. SILT FENCE SHALL BE INSPECTED AND REPAIRED ROUTINELY, ESPECIALLY FOLLOWING` STORM EVENTS UNTIL THE SITE HAS ,BEEN STABILIZED (COVER > 709.) BY VEGETATION. STRUCTURAL CONTROL PRACTICES 1. RIP -RAP OUTLET PROTECTION: RIP -RAP SHALL BE PROVIDED AT ALL PIPE OUTLETS. MATERIAL SHALL BE HARD, DURABLE FIELD OR QUARRY STONE WHICH IS ANGULAR AND RESISTS BREAKING DOWN WHEN EXPOSED TO WATER OR WEATHERING. 2 CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE: CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAWINGS. 3. DUST CONTROL: A WATER TRUCK SHOULD BE LOCATED ON -SITE FOR DUST CONTROL WHILE WORK IS PROCEEDING. MAINTENANCE SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE CHECKED WEEKLY AND AFTER EACH SIGNIFICANT RAINFALL EVENT. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHALL BE CHECKED IN PARTICULAR: A. RIP --RAP OUTLET PROTECTION SHALL BE CHECKED REGULARLY FOR SEDIMENT` ACCUMULATION. IF SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF SEDIMENT ACCUMULATE, RIP -RAP SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED, B. SILT FENCING SHALL BE INSPECTED REGULARLY FOR UNDERMINING AND DETERIORATION. REMOVE SEDIMENT FROM BEHIND FENCE WHEN IT BECOMES 6 INCHES DEEP. C. SEEDED/MULCHED AREAS SHALL BE INSPECTED REGULARLY TO SEE` THAT A GOOD STAND IS MAINTAINED. AREAS SHALL BE REPAIRED AS NECESSARY. SILT FENCE INSTALLATION NOTES 1. THIS SEDIMENT BARRIER UTILIZES MIRAR ENVIROFENCE "(100X) OR EQUAL. IT IS DESIGNED FOR SITUATIONS IN WHICH ONLY SHEET OR OVERLAND FLOWS ARE EXPECTED. 2. THE HEIGHT OF THE BARRIER SHALL NOT EXCEED 36 INCHES (HIGHER BARRIERS MAY IMPOUND VOLUMES OF WATER ! SUFF CIENT TO CAUSE FAILURE U E OF THE STRUCTURE), IDEALLY THE FILTER FENCE SHALL BE PL ACED 10 FEET AWAY FROM THE TOE OF SLOPE.. 3. WHEN JOINTS ARE NECESSARY, FILTER FABRICS SHALL BE SPLICED' TOGETHER ONLY AT A SUPPORT STAKES WITH A MINIMUM 6-INCH OVERLAP, AND SECURELY SEALED. SEE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATION. 4. STAKES SHALL BE SPACED A MAXIMUM f UM OF 10 FEET APART AT THE BARRIER LOCATION AND DRIVEN E SECURELY :INTO THE GROUND (MINIM UM UM OF 12 INCHES). IN APPLICATIONS WHERE HEAVY FLOWS ARE EXPECTED SUCH AS IN -STREAM INSTALLATIONS STAKE SPACING SHALL BE PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS AND/OR THE :ENGINEERS RECOMMENDATIONS. 5, A TRENCH SHALL BE EXCAVATED APPROXIMATELY 6 INCHES WIDE AND 6 INCHES DEEP ALONG THE LINE OF STAKES AND UPSLOPE FROM THE BARRIER IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. 6, THE PRE ASSEMBLED SILT FENCE SYSTEM S EM SHALL BE UNROLLED, LL POSITION THE STAKES ON THE DOWNHILL SIDE OF THE TRENCH AND HAMMER THE STAKES AT LEAST 12 INCHES INTO THE GROUND. 7. THE BOTTOM SIX 6 INCHES OF THE FABRIC SHAL L LL BE LAID INTO THE TRENCH TO PREVENT UNDERMINING BY STORM WATER RUNOFF. 8. BACKFILL THE TRENCH OVER THE FILTER FABRIC AND COMPACT SUFFICIENTLY TO PREVENT THE RUNOFF FROM ERODING THE BACKFILL. 9. THE FABRIC' SHALL NOT EXTEND MORE THAT 36 INCHES ABOVE THE ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE FILTER FABRIC SHALL .NOT BE .STAPLED TO EXISTING :TREES: OR SUPPORTS OTHER THAN THE STANDARD STAKES. 10. INSTALLED SILT FENCE BARRIERS SHALL BE MAINTAINED ON A REGULAR SCHEDULE 'WHICH MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY THE LOCAL STATE OF FEDERAL REGUL ATORY AUTHORITY, BUT, AT MINIMUM SHALL BE CHECKED WEEKLY AS WELL AS AFTE R EACH STORM EVENT. MAINTENANCE SHALL CONSIST OF AN INSPECTION OF THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE BARRIER TO DETERMINE IF IT IS FUNCTIONING AS INTENDED. ALL BREAKS, DETACHED FABRIC, SLUMPED FABRIC, CLOGGED FABRIC, AND UNDERMINED AREAS SHALL. BE FIXED THE DAY THAT THEY ARE DISCOVERED. 11. WHEN A MAXIMUM OF SIX 6. IN CHES CHES OF SEDIMENT HAS O ACCUMULATED BEHIND THE SILT FENCE THIS SEDIMENTA SHALL BE REMOVED AND THE FENCE SHALL BE INSPECTED FOR TEARS, CLOGGING OF BREAKS. ALL DEFICIENCIES, SHALL BE CORRECTED IMMEDIATELY EITHER BY REPAIR OF REPLACEMENT OF THE SILT FENCE BARRIER AND/OR STAKES AS NEEDED. 12. SILT FENCEBARRIERS B ERS SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN THEY HAVE SERVED THEIR USEFUL. PURPOSE BUT NOT U O BEFORE :THE. UPSLOPE ARE A HAS BEEN CLEANED OF SILT AND PERMANENTLY STABILIZED._ NAY BALE INSTAL LATION & MAINTE NANCE SAS REO D 1. HAY BALES SHALL BE PLACED IN A SINGLE ROW, LENGTHWISE ON THE CONTOUR,- WITH ENDS OF ADJACENT BALES TIGHTLY ABUTTING ONE ANOTHER. 2. AL A L BALES SHALL BE EITHER WIRE BOUND OR STRING. TIES. BALES SHALL BE INSTALLED SO THAT BINDINGS ARE ORIENTED AROUND THE SIDES RATHER THAN ALONG THE TOPS AND BOTTOMS OF THE E BALES TO PREVENT DETERIORATION OF THE BINDINGS. 3. THE BARRIER SHALL BE ENTRENCHED AND BACKFILLED. A 'TRENCH SHALL BE EXCAVATED THE WIDTH OF A BALE AND THE LENGTH OF THE PROPOSED BARRIER TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF FOUR (4) INCHES AND A MAXIMUM DEPTH OF SIX (6) INCHES. AFTER THE BALES ARE STAKED AND CHINKED THE EXCAVATED SOIL SHALL BE BACKFILLED AGAINST THE BARRIER. BACKFILL SOIL SHAL L CONFORM TO THE GROUND ' LEVEL ON THE DOWNHILL. SIDE AND SHALL. BE BUILT UP TO FOUR 4 INCHES AGAINST .THE. UPHILL SIDE OF THE BARRIER. 4. EACH .BALE SHALL BE SECURELY ANCHORED BY AT LEAST TWO (2) STAKES OR REBARS DRIVEN THROUGH THE BALE. THE FIRST STAKE IN EACH BALE SHALL BE DRIVEN TOWARD THE PREVIOUSLY LAID BALE TO FORCE THE BALES TOGETHER. STAKES OR REBARS' SHALL BE DRIVEN DEEP ENOUGH INTO THE :GROUND TO SECURELY" ANCHOR THE BALES.. 5. THE GAPS BETWEEN BALES SHALL BE CHINKED (FILLED BY WEDGING) WITH STRAW TO PREVENT WATER FROM ESCAPING BETWEEN THE BALES. (LOOSE STRAW SCATTERED OVER THE AREA IMMEDIATELY UPHILL FROM A STRAW BALE BARRIER TENDS TO INCREASE BARRIER EFFICIENCY.) 6. HAY BALES GENERALLY DETERIORATE IN 2-6 MONTHS AND THUS NEED REPLACEMENT. 7. INSPECTION SHALL BE FREQUENT AND REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT SHALL BE MADE PROMPTLY AS NEEDED. 8. BALE BARRIERS SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN THEY HAVE SERVED THEIR USEFULNESS BUT NOT BEFORE THE UPSLOPE AREAS HAVE BEEN PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. SI TE PREP 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL RELOCATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ALL UTILITIES, STORM DRAINAGE, SIGNS, TRAFFIC SIGNALS & POLES, ETC. AS REQUIRED. ALL WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNING AUTHORITIES SPECIFICATIONS AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY SUCH. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL ERECT AND MAINTAIN SAFETY BARRICADES AND POST PROPER NOTICES PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. J. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT EXISTING SITE IMPROVEMENTS, APPURTENANCES, AND LANDSCAPING' TO REMAIN. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN EXISTING UTILITIES TO REMAIN IN SERVICE AND PROTECT THEM FROM DAMAGE DURING DEMOLITION OPERATIONS. 5. DO NOT DAMAGE EXISTING UTILITIES TO REMAIN WITHIN PROJECT AREA. ALL DAMAGE TO EXISTING UTILITIES TO REMAIN SHALL BE REPAIRED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE UTILITY OWNER. 6. THERE SHALL BE NO BURNING OF DEMOLISHED MATERIAL ALLOWED ON SITE. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH OWNER FOR ANY ITEMS TO BE TURNED OVER TO OWNER. 8. DEMOLISH AND REMOVE' ALL PAVEMENT, SLABS, FOOTINGS, SUBSURFACE ELEMENTS, MISCELLANEOUS DEBRIS, ETC. WITHIN PROPERTY LINES UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 9. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTROLLING DUST SO THAT DUST DOESNOTCREATE A NUISANCE ON ADJACENT ROADS OR PROPERTIES SITE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR STREET SWEEPING AND CATCH BASIN CLEANING AFTER EACH PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION AND AS NEED IS DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER. 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ANY ABANDONED SUBSURFACE SOIL ABSORPTION SYSTEM (SAS) AND MISCELLANEOUS DEBRIS. 11. NO ACTIVITY OTHER THAN NORMAL MAINTENANCE SHALL OCCUR OUTSIDE OF LIMIT OF WORK LINES AS SHOWN ON PLAN WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER. 12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL, NOTIFY DIG SAFE ® 1-888--•344-7233 PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY DEMOLITION/CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. LANDSCAPE NOTES 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY FINAL SELECTION OF PLANT MATERIALS WITH THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND OWNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 2. NO PLANT MATERIAL WILL BE ACCEPTED WHICH DISPLAYS MAJOR IRREGULARITIES OR DAMAGE. THE OWNER LANDSC P A E ARCHITECT RETAINS THE RIGHT GH TO REJECT ANY PLANT MATERIAL DEEMED UNFIT. 3. WARRANTEE: A E. FOR A PERIOD OF TWO GROWING SEASONS FROM THE DATE THAT THE :WORK UNDER THIS CONTRACT IS CERTIFIED AS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL: 1) WARRANTEE ALL PLANTS AND SEEDED AREAS UNDER THIS CONTRACT; 2 REMOVE AND REPLACE DURING THIS GUARANTEE PERIOD PLANTS WHICH DI R E 0 ARE. ,!N POOR CONDITION ONDlT ON AS DETERMINED BY THE -OWNER, 3) ..REPLANT WITH STOCK OF SAME SIZE AND QUALITY ORIGINALLY Q AS OR Gf ALLY SPECIFIED,. 4) GUY AND .MAINTAIN A5 SPECIFIED HEREIN AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. 4. ALL NEW LAWN AREAS SHALL RECEIVE A MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES TOPSOIL OF THE PROPER pH AND ORGANIC CONTENT SUITABLE FOR THE HEALTHY GROWTH OF LAWNS. THESE AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED WITH A FINE BLADE LAWN GRASS SEED OR SODDED. ADDITIONAL OFF -SITE TOPSOIL MAY BE REQUIRED. 5. ALL ARE AS TO BE MULCHED SHALL RECEIVE 4 :INCHES MINIMUM 100% .SHREDDED BARK MULCH WITHIN 4 ITN! 8 HOURS OF PLANTING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED O ED 1N PLANTING DETAILS. 6. ALL TREE AND SHRUB PITS SHALL BE AT LEAST 2 FEET WIDER AND 1 FOOT DEEPER THAN THE TREE OR RUB ROOT T BALL TO BE .PLANTED IN IT. BACKFILL SHALL BE HIGH QUALITY LOAM OF THE PROPER pH AND ORGANIC .CONTENT SUITABLE FOR THE HEALTHY GROWTH OF PLANT MATERIALS. 7. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE NURSERY GROWN AND CONFORM TO THE LATEST EDITION OF ';4NS!' Z60.1. AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK". 8. EACH PL ANT TO BE FREE FROM DISEASE INSECT INFESTATION MECHANICAL INJURIE S, AND IN AL L RESPECTS BE SUITABLE FOR. FIELD PLANTING. 9. EACH PL ANT TO BE IN THE TOP OF ITS SIZE CLASS AFTER SNEAKING AND PRUNING. 10. ADJACENT TO THE TOP OF ANY WALLS OVER 36" A FENCE OR WALL SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED' P LA PER PLAN THAT MEETS LOCAL BUILDING CODE :AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS. 11. SEE DETAIL SHEETS' FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS & SPECIFICATIONS. 12. SHOULD GC OR ANY SUBCONTRACTOR ENCOUNTER A DISCREPANCEICONFLICT IN THE PL AN AN THE ACTUAL LOC ATION OF A SITE FEATURE THE CONTRACTOR ' SHALL CONTACT THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ENGINEER AND OWNER IMMEDIATELY. 13. ALL AREAS DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION NOT DESIGNATED TO RECEIVE OTHER TREATMENT SHALL BE LOANED TO A MINIMUM P F DEPTH 0 4 :AND SEEDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING: A. INCORPO RATE GROUND LIMESTONE INTO ALL. AREAS TO BE SEEDED AT A RATE OF 50 LBS/1,000 S.F. B. APPLY 10-6-4 FERTILIZER TO ALL AREAS TO BE SEEDED AT A RATE OF 2 LBS/1,000 S.F. C. THOROUGHLY INCORPORATE LIME AND FERTILIZER INTO SEED BED TO DEPTH OF 3" BY DISCING OR OTHER APPROVED METHOD. D. SEED WITH THE FOLLOWING MIXTURE, APPLIED AT A RATE OF 10 LBS/1,000 S.F. SEED MIX: NAME OF SE ED % BY WEIGHT MIN. % PURIT Y MIN. GERMINATION IN MIXTURE POS PRETENSES 50 90 75 "BARON" BARON BLUEGRASS F ST= E UCA RUBRA 25 95 85 PENNLA WN PENNLAWN FESCUE LOLIUM PERENNE 25 98 95 PENNFINE" PENNFINE E. MULCH ALL SEEDED AREAS WITH STRAW AT A RATE OF 5 LBS/1,000 S.F.UNLESS HYDROSEEDING WAS USED. F. ALL SLOP ES ES OF 3.1 OR GREATER AFTER BEING LOANED, SEEDED AND MULCHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE SHALL SECURED WITH EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS NO. AMERICAN R N GEE S150 OR EQUAL.. OVERLAP ALL NETTING JOINTS A MINIMUM OF 6" AND SECURE WITH DOUBLE ROW OF STAPLES. PERMITTING r R LEVESQUE V A`SVC A►TESZ _ Landscape Architects i C vil ors Engineers � Land Surveyors Y Environmental Consultants. ph:413.568.0985 fax:413.568.0986 40 School Street Westfield, NIA 01085 rrlaland.com Ln z W O z .� iab > �W 0 0 'z W Z Z W V W J W W L.4.0 m tn Q N:22 W m .. W 'I,- _ ..r • w W ® .0 W D1 W C ■i La-+ W a. o fu W UL Ln W' . 00 Lk 416 9T � PREPARED FOR: Doreen & Brad Prouty 891 South Westfield Street Feeding Hills, MA 01001 ISSUANCE DATE: August 30, 2017 REVISIONS: DATE: UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS A VIOLATION OF MASSACHUSETTS STATE LAW SCALE: AS NOTED RLA PROD. NUMBER: 170402 7 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES LAYOUT NOTES 1. PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHALL CONVENE A PRE -CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE CITY/TOWN REPRESENTATIVES, CONSULTING ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, UTILITY 1. ALL CONSTRUCTION IN CITY/TOWN RIGHT-OF-WAYS AND/OR EASEMENTS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY/TOWN STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. COMPANY REPRESENTATIVES, AND ANY OTHER AFFECTED PARTIES. 2. IN THE EVENT OF DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN LOCAL SPECIFICATIONS AND SITE SPECIFICATIONS, THE MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENT SHALL GOVERN. 2. THE OWNER, R LEVESQUE ASSOCIATES, INC., AND/OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, IN PREPARING THESE PLANS HAVE ATTEMPTED TO LOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES IN THE J. SITE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL BENCHMARKS AND PROPERTY MONUMENTATION PROJECT AREA. HOWEVER, THERE MAY BE UTILITIES THAT WERE NOT OR COULD NOT BE AND SHALL REPLACE OR REPAIR, AT HIS OWN EXPENSE, BENCHMARKS AND LOCATED. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ON THE PLANS ARE IN APPROXIMATE MONUMENTATION DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION. LOCATIONS ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. THE CONTRACTOR 4. ALL STRIPING, PAVEMENT MARKINGS, AND TRAFFIC SIGNAGE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE SHALL CALL ALL APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES FOR LOCATIONS OF THEIR UTILITIES AT WITH THE MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, LATEST EDITION, UNLESS LEAST 48 HOURS BEFORE COMMENCING EXCAVATION. IN THE EVENT THAT A UTILITY IS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE PLANS. SITUATED SUCH THAT CONSTRUCTION CANNOT PROCEED AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS, THE PROJECT ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND OWNER SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. 5. ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL CODES AND ORDINANCES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: AASHTO, OSHA, EPA, DEP, MASSDOT , ETC. THE.R LEVESQUE 3. THE SITE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES WHICH OCCUR DUE TO HIS FAILURE TO LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UTILITIES. GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY FOR ALL PERMITS AND SHALL PAY ALL PERMIT RELATED FEES. ALL NECESSARY PERMITS SHALL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO THE START OF U ASSOCIATES z WORK. 4. ALL FILL WORK REQUIRED TO BRING THE PROPOSED ROADWAY UP TO SUB -GRADE LEVEL Landscape Architects SHALL CONFORM TO MHD SPECIFICATIONS SECTION 150. 6. ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ARE TO BE VERIFIED BY Civil Engineers - Land Surveyors THE CONTRACTOR. IF FIELD CONDITIONS VARY SIGNIFICANTLY ENOUGH TO REQUIRE A Emironmental Consultants 5. CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE GOVERNING CODES AND BE CHANGE TO THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, THE PROJECT PROPONENT AND ENGINEER SHALL ph: 413.568.0985 fax: 413.568.0986 CONSTRUCTED TO SAME BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. 6. ALL WORK IN THE CITY/TOWN RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENTS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY/TOWN SPECIFICATIONS AND MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION, 7. THE SITE/GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL CONTACT THE OWNER AND ENGINEER SHOULD HE FIND ANY CONFLICT OR INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE WORK SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND NORMAL ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, OR HE 40 School Street Westfield, MA 01085 LATEST EDITION, SHALL ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CORRECTIONS. r1alland.com 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL GIVE THE CITY TOWN A MINIMUM OF 48 HOURS NOTICE BEFORE BEGINNING EACH PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION. d. ANY GUKKI_GHUN5 KtOWHLU kUH HLVI510NS 10 THE CONTRACT DRAWINGS INITIATED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTORS WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE OWNER AND OR THE ENGINEER SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED AT THE CONTRACTORS RISK. 8. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIRS OF DAMAGE TO ANY EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION, SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DRAINAGE, UTILITIES, PAVEMENT, STRIPING, CURB, ETC. REPAIRS SHALL BE EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN EXISTING CONDITIONS. 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REMOVAL & LEGAL DISPOSAL OF ALL MATERIAL NECESSARY TO PREPARE THE SITE FOR THE NEW CONSTRUCTION AS SHOWN ON THE SITE DRAWINGS. 9. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 10. REPAIR DAMAGED CITY/TOWN ROADS AND CURBS IN ACCORDANCE WITH MASSDOT AND/OR OUTLINED IN ALL STATE AND LOCAL PERMITS. COPIES OF THE CONDITIONS ARE INCLUDED THE CITY/TOWN REGULATIONS, WITHIN THE PROJECTS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REVIEWING THIS INFORMATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL SAWCUT PAVEMENT EDGE WHERE PAVEMENT TO REMAIN IS ADJACENT CONFORMING TO THE CONDITIONS AS REQUIRED DURING CONSTRUCTION. TO PAVEMENT TO BE REMOVED. 10, 11. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN THE JOB CLEAR OF TRASH AND DEBRIS. THE WORK AREAS ARE TO BE PICKED UP AT THE END OF EACH WORK DAY. ANY TEMPORARY FACILITIES FOR THE STORAGE OR PROTECTION OF TOOLS, EQUIPMENT OR MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM TO LOCAL REGULATIONS AND SHALL BE THE GENERAL CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY. THESE DOCUMENTS DO NOT INCLUDE THE NECESSARY COMPONENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION SAFETY. SAFETY, CARE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING CONSTRUCTION, AND COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS REGARDING SAFETY SHALL BE THE GENERAL CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY. 12. CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE SITE AS NECESSARY FOR CONSTRUCTION SHOWN ON THE PLANS. EARTHWORK NOTES 1. THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OF tn w Fm 0 z w w M Ul ni 12. 13. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND HIS SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL VISIT THE SITE AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH ALL CONDITIONS PRIOR TO SUBMITTING HIS PROPOSAL. NO EXTRAS DUE TO UNFAMILIARITY WITH THE EXISTING SITE OR WORKING CONDITIONS WILL BE ALLOWED. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PERFORM FINAL CLEANUP CONSISTING OF CLEANING EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS BASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES, AND WHERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE RELIED ON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR MUST CALL THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES AT LEAST 72 HOURS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. z 0 U m rw w. Km Ul w 3: 14. THE PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND SEWER SYSTEMS OF ALL DEBRIS PRIOR TO THE ACCEPTANCE BY THE OWNER. ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSED ROADWAY SHALL BE CLEANED AND SWEPT BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE. ALL EXCAVATION SHALL COMPLY WITH OSHAS LATEST STANDARDS. ALL REQUIREMENTS OF OSHA'S EXCAVATION STANDARDS SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE PROVISION FOR A COMPETENT PERSON ON SITE MANAGER AND 2. 3. 4. ALL CUT OR FILL SLOPES SHALL BE 3:1 OR FLATTER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. STORM PIPE SHALL BE AS NOTED ON PLANS. EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURES TO BE INSPECTED AND REPAIRED AS NEEDED, AND EXISTING PIPES TO BE CLEANED OUT TO REMOVE ALL SILT AND DEBRIS. Ln w U C. C. 0 W U. Ul 15. ANY REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION THAT MAY REQUIRE CERTIFICATION BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. THE OWNER, THROUGH ITS ENGINEER, SHALL EXPRESSLY NOT PROVIDE ANY OF THE ABOVE REQUIREMENTS DESIGNATED BY OSHA'S EXCAVATION STANDARD. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COST OF LAYING OUT ALL ITEMS OF THE WORK BASED ON :CERTAIN :HORIZONTAL CONTROL AND BENCHMARK SUPPLIED BY THE SURVEYOR OF RECORD. ANY DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY REPORTED TO THE ENGINEER. 5. 6. 7. EXISTING GRADE CONTOUR INTERVALS SHOWN AT 1 FOOT INTERVALS. PROPOSED GRADE CONTOUR INTERVALS SHOWN AT 1 FOOT INTERVALS. IF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES TO REMAIN ARE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO REPAIR AND/OR REPLACE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AS NECESSARY TO RETURN IT TO EXISTING CONDITIONS OR BETTER. z 0 U (n 16. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL MATERIALS, LABOR, EQUIPMENT, PERMITS AND APPURTENANCES NECESSARY TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE PROJECT AS INDICATED ON THE 8. ALL STORM PIPE ENTERING STRUCTURES SHALL BE SEALED TO ASSURE CONNECTION AT STRUCTURE IS WATERTIGHT. PLANS AND IN THESE SPECIFICATIONS. 9. ALL STORM SEWER MANHOLES FRAMES AND GRATES ARE TO BE SET EQUAL TO FINISH 17. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A THOROUGH SITE EXAMINATION IN ORDER GRADES, AND SHALL HAVE TRAFFIC BEARING RING & COVERS (H2O). TO PREPARE SITE FOR CONSTRUCTION. 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL ADJUST AND/OR CUT EXISTING PAVEMENT AS NECESSARY TO ASSURE 18, ANY AND ALL DEMOLISHED TREES, STRUCTURES AND OTHER RUBBLE MATERIAL PERTAINING A SMOOTH FIT AND CONTINUOUS GRADE. TO THIS PROJECT SHALL BE DISPOSED OF BY THE CONTRACTOR OFF -SITE AT HIS EXPENSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL OF THE CITY/TOWN ORDINANCES AND ALL 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSURE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM BUILDINGS FOR ALL NATURAL APPLICABLE STATE AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS. AND PAVED AREAS. 19. ALL PAVEMENT DISTURBED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS SHALL BE REPLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS AND AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. 12. ALL UNSURFACED AREAS DISTURBED BY GRADING OPERATION SHALL RECEIVE 4 INCHES OF TOPSOIL. CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY STABILIZATION FABRIC TO ALL SLOPES 3H: 1 V OR STEEPER. CONTRACTOR SHALL GRASS DISTURBED AREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE R VA DF 20. 21. ALL STREET EXCAVATIONS SHALL BE COMPLETELY CLOSED AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY BY BACKFILLING OR COVERING WITH STEEL PLATES. ALL MATERIALS AND METHODS ARE TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY/TOWN DPW STANDARDS OR MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (MASSDOT) (WHERE APPLICABLE), UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. 13. 14. SPECIFICATIONS UNTIL A HEALTHY STAND OF GRASS IS OBTAINED, CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE GOVERNING CODES AND BE CONSTRUCTED TO SAME. IF CONTRACTOR RELOCATES OR SETS NEW BENCHMARKS, THE VERTICAL ELEVATIONS OF THE BENCHMARKS SHALL BE SET WITHIN A TOLERANCE OF 0,010 FT. Vo IL 76 22. PERMITS WILL 13E REQUIRED BY CONTRACTOR WHEN WORKING WITHIN OR OCCUPYING PUBLIC WAY. CONTRACTOR 15 RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED WORK PERMITS AND MAINTAINING A COPY OF ALL PERMITS IN A THREE RING BINDER OR 15, CONTRACTOR SHALL LEAVE GRADE BEHIND CURB IN ALL PLANTER AREAS A MINIMUM OF 4" LOW FOR THE PLACEMENT OF SUITABLE TOPSOIL OR PLANTING MIX. PREPARED FOR: PROJECT BOOK AND ON -SITE AT ALL TIMES. 23. BACKFILL WILL BE PLACED IN SUCCESSIVE LAYERS NOT MORE THAN TWELVE INCHES IN THICKNESS AND SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 95% OF MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY DETERMINED Doreen & Brad Prouty BY STANDARD PROCTOR TEST (ASTM 696) FOR ALL APPLICABLE TYPES OF BACKFILL MATERIAL. NO FROZEN MATERIAL SHALL BE USED AS BACKFILL. IF, IN THE OPINION OF THE ENGINEER OR THE DPW, THE EXCAVATED MATERIAL IS UNSUITABLE, THE ENTIRE 891 South Wesff leld Street Feeding Hills, MA 01001 MATERIAL F9f? BACKFILLIN9 SHALL ON515T QF APPROYED GRAYEL 9R APPROOY_Fg BORROW, AS DIRECTED. AFTER THOROUGH TAMPING AROUND AND BENEATH THE UTILITY, A SIX-INCH LAYER OF BACKFILL WILL BE THOROUGHLY COMPACTED AS FOLLOWS. IF DRY, SHALL BE MOISTENED AND THEN COMPACTED WITH MECHANICAL TAMPERS OR BY ISSUANCE DATE: August 30,2017 REVISIONS: DATE. HAND TAMPERS HAVING A TAMPING FACE NOT EXCEEDING 25 SQUARE INCHES IN AREA. THE FINAL TWELVE INCHES OF FILLING WILL, IN ALL CASES, CONSIST OF APPROVED GRAVEL THOROUGHLY TAMPED. 24. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE FIELD COMPACTION VERIFICATION UTILIZING ASTM D5195-02, STANDARD TEST METHOD FOR DENSITY OF SOIL & ROCK IN -PLACE AT DEPTHS BELOW THE SURFACE BY NUCLEAR METHODS. 25. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE FIELD COMPACTION RESULTS TO ENGINEER WITHIN 24-HOURS PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE OR BITUMINOUS BINDER. 26. ALL FILL TO BRING PROPOSED ROADWAY UP TO THE SUB -GRADE LEVEL SHALL EXTEND PAST THE EDGE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AT A 2:1 SLOPE. THIS IS TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS A VIOLATION OF MASSACHUSETTS STATE LAW SCALE: AS NOTED RLA PROJ. NUMBER: 170402 PERMITTING ■ ik D1. 6 13 i t SIGN: "PROUTY LANE -PRIVATE- INSTALL SILT FENCE AT DOWN --GRADIENT LIMIT OF WORK PROPOSED BIT. CONC. ROAD APRON (2-WAY) LOPE RErdIN Ii�llNlJ4iUiv1 � AT INTERSECTION (FG,4EG) O MATCH EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT ALONG SOUTH WESTFIELD STREET INSTALL SILT FENCE - AT DOWN -GRADIENT LIMIT OF WORK INSTALL INLET PROTECTION AROUND EXISTING CATCH BASINS 410 0 20 4.0 :0 = E• 1111111 � N/F WESTERN MASS` ELECTRIC CO. 1 i- ,✓-ti - BUILDING SETBACK 4, t f I 7 -EX�STINC 'EACH r ki. N F..,. RICHARD M. ROY, JR HOLLY A. DEYO; DEED BOOK, PAGE: 10586, 543 yr # j £ tz t jf[ i Lot 2 Remaining land t c 4 AREA =12.722 ACRES t... BUIL6ING�SE`T13ACK }m 41 j N11 J 5 1 fIlk100, PEER I } /{/ BUILDING SETBACK41 r 1 / POND N/F # . , OLEG BRATNICHENKO " t LOT I ', J DEED BOOK, PAGE: 20551, 550 0 AREA:=1.452 ACRES ' 1 , PROPOSED {w f; 1 l BUILDING ;h ENVELOPE , X 252.6 254.2 o -� s . 1 PROPOSED WATER SERVICE SHOWN SCHEMATICALLY)NIF V BRADFORD H. JAMESON &` LAURIE A. JAMESON, f DEED BOOK, PAGE: 12465, 247 St PROPOSED WATER SERVICE SHOWN SCHEMATICALLY) PROPOSED LOT ? 1 S'� _w r f I IC TRENCHES SEPT INSTALL 1 1 BLOW OFF ,. # I 1 f VALVE " PROPOSED f DRIVEWAY r .-. ------- -. ... '� i I `' S G SBA KTIN 1 - - - it µ rr s 5 F.J1v,K � �:,.w '•fps, J.'`-. (' AAA,,,,,,:. �.w,, yJ { �.('� .N 238. ] rlr �--- } :.. 2rs.1 K i` A 4 228.8 ti Lane PROPOSED Pr'®uty . ne e WAY W rREELINE /t r g�E V1IID•CH 5 )7.5 ,� ;'E 1 / ;AVARIA CER PROPOSED GRAVEL 1 1 AREA 0.843 A ., BYPASSAREA (FGPJEG) `'r '� € I , PROPOSED' GRAVEL TURNAROUND (FGroEG) N, tiM E �: }. :i r 1 is : 4`'.1 •.. s , ,y f 243.7 f ` I f 3 INSTALL SILT FENCE 1 1 AT DOWN -GRADIENT LIMIT OF WORK t BUILDING SETBACK :2 840 950.86 I ;337,906.82 1 N/F DARREN MOR� & MARLYCE EDWARDNM. CHAREST/F BRUCE C. WHITE MOR CE RALPH V. RITCHIERl& DEBRA G. DEED BOOK, PAGE: 19942, 475 RITCHIE DEED BOOK, PAGE: 7563, 259 DEED BOOK, PA 19975, 195 DEED BOOK, PAGE: 3703, 374 N/F KEVIN J. CASSIDY & LYNN W. CASSIDY DEED BOOK, PAGE: 14699, 510 N/F RONALD M. HENCE DEED BOOK, PAGE: 14856, 136 SUBDIVISION. NOTE5 1. ALL LOTS IN THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WILL BE SERVICED BY PRIVATE SEPTIC SYSTEMS. 2. ALL LOTS' IN THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WILL BE SERVICED BY A PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY LINE IN SOUTH WESTFIELD STREET J. THE EXISTING GRAVEL PAVED DRIVEWAY WILL SERVE AS THE SUBDIVISION ROAD. NO ROAD GRADING IS PROPOSED AS PART OF THIS SUBDIVISION. 4. PRE -DEVELOPMENT AND POST-DEVELPMENT DRAINAGE PATTERNS AND FLOW RATES WILL REMAIN THE UNCHANGED. 5. THE PROPOSED ROAD 'PROUTY LANE" IS, CLASSIFIED AS A PLACE AS DEFINED BY AGAWAM SUBDIVISION REGULATION 159-7 (B)(1)(A). SHORT-TERM EROSION CONTROLMAINTENANCE TENANCE 1. THE CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING EACH CONTROL SHOWN ON THE SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN. 2. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED DURING ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION UNTIL THE COMPLETION OF ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND ALL DISTURBED AREAS HAVE BEEN STABILIZED. ADDITIONAL CONTROL MEASURES WILL BE INSTALLED DURING CONSTRUCTION IN ORDER TO CONTROL EROSION AND/OR OFF -SITE SEDIMENTATION IF DEEMED NECESSARY BY ON -SITE INSPECTION. J. ,EFFECTIVE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES .SHALL BE INITIATED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF CLEARING, GRADING, EXCAVATION, OR OTHER OPERATIONS THAT WILL DISTURB THE NATURAL PROTECTION. 4. ALL SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE INSPECTED AT LEAST ONCE EVERY SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS AND AFTER ANY STORM EVENT GREATER THAN 0.5 INCHES; OF PRECIPITATION DURING ANY 24-'HOUR PERIOD, AND THE INSPECTION SHALL BE DOCUMENTED IN WRITING. DAMAGED OR INEFFECTIVE DEVICES SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED, AS NECESSARY. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS TO AVOID EXCESS EROSION OF THE SITE DUE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT. 6. SILT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM BEHIND BARRIERS IF GREATER THAN 6-INCHES DEEP OR AS NEEDED. SEDIMENT THAT IS COLLECTED IN STRUCTURES SHALL BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY AND COVERED IF STORED ON -SITE. 7. DAMAGED OR DETERIORATED ITEMS WILL, BE REPAIRED IMMEDIATELY AFTER IDENTIFICATION. 8. ALL BITCHES/SWALES SHALL BE STABILIZED AS SOON AS 1S PRACTICABLE TO MINIMIZE EROSION. 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES IN A GOOD, WORKING STATE OF REPAIR UNTIL THEIR USE IS NO LONGER WARRANTED. AT THAT TIME, THE EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE REMOVED UPON' DIRECTION FROM THE CITY/TOWN AND DISPOSED OF SO AS TO CAUSE NO OFF -:SITE SILTATION. 10. INSPECT AND MAINTAIN CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE STONE SUCH THAT SEDIMENT DOES NOT TRACK ONTO THE STREET. ANY SEDIMENT TRACKED ONTO THE STREET SHALL BE CLEANED DAILY. 11. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL ALL DISTURBED EARTH HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY STABILIZED. AFTER REMOVAL OF MEASURES, DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE REGRADED AND STABILIZED AS NECESSARY. 12. THIS PLAN IS PROVIDE D AS A BASIS FOR THE INITIAL SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO UPDATE AND EXPAND THIS PLAN AS SITE CONDITIONS DICTATE. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PREVENT THE OCCURRENCE OF SILTATION TO WETLAND RESOURCE AREAS AND THE MOVEMENT OF SEDIMENT BEYOND THE SITE ;BOUNDARIES. CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE 1. CONTACT THE TOWN OF AGAWAM AT LEAST FORTY-EIGHT HOURS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY DEMOLITIO N, CONSTRUCTION, OR EARTHWORK ACTIVITY ON THIS PROJECT 2. INSTALL ANY REQUIRED INLET PROTECTION AS DEPICTED ON THE PLAN. 3. INSTALL SILT FENCE AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. 4. UPON COMPLETION OF EROSION CONTROL MEASURES,- CLEARING AND GRUBBING AND EARTHWORK MAY COMMENCE.- 5. CLEAR AND GRUB SITE. STOCKPILE ANY CHIPPING OR TOPSOIL MATERIAL TO REMAIN ON SITE FOR LONGER THAN 14 DAYS AND INSTALL SILT FENCE AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE STOCKPILE 6. COMMENCE EARTHWORK BY EXCAVATING FOR THE CUT/FILL SLOPES AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. STABILIZE/SEED ANY SLOPES THAT HAVE ACHIEVED FINAL GRADE. 7. INSTALL UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON PLANS INCLUDINC ELECTRICAL AND COMMUNICATION SERVICES. 8. GRADE THE ALIGNMENT OF THE ROADWAY TO ACCEPT PAVEMENT SECTION MATERIALS. 9. INSTALL PAVEMENT AS SPECIFIED ON THE PLANS. 10. FINAL GRADING AND STABILIZATION OF ANY REMAINING EXPOSED AREAS. 11. AT THE DIRECTION OF THE TOWN OF AGAWAM, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE REMOVED. PERMITTING R LEVESQUE ASSOCIATES z Landscape Architects Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors Environmental Consultants ph:413.568.0985 fax: 413,568,0986 40 School Street Westfield, MA 0'1085 rlaland.com z Lb < CL J 0 0 M �- W z E 0 L) .j z O w W 1 z z w to w V1 4-0 W L. 4j m VI Q N wr1-r► W urr A Ul ■r ® W .r.r W u t L. W CL O ILL tn (n W FILIPE J. IED FOR: Doreen & Brad Prouty 891 South Westfield Street Feeding Hills, MA 01001 ISSUANCE DATE: August 30, 2017 REVISIONS: DATE: A: Engineering Comments 10/5/2017 UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OF THIS DOCUMENT ISAVIOLATION OF MASSACHUSETTS STATE LAW SCALE. AS NOTED l RLA PROD. NUMBER: 170402 1.5"X1.5" OAK STAKE FILTER FABRIC (MIRAF1 ENVIROFENCE 100K OR EQUAL) EXISTING GRADE 20" MIN. PROPOSED GRADE FLOW 16" MIN. COMPLETELY BURY END OF FILTER FABRIC IN TRENCH .SECTION SILT FENCE DETAIL NO SCALE 2 EACH DUMP 5 DUMP STRAP I" (25mm) REBAR FOR BAG REMOVAL FROM INLET SILT SACK EXPANSION RESTRAINT P14" (6mm) NYLON ROPE, 2" (51mm) FLAT WASHERS] INLET PROTECTION - SEDIMENT FILTER SACK NO SCALE CATCH BASIN OR MANHOLE HAY. BALE INSTALL FILTER FABRIC UNDER GRATE MIN. 4" OVERLAP WOOD STAKE NOTE INSTALL BARRIER AT EACH CATCH BASIN AND DRAINAGE BASIN. CATCH BASINS IN PAVEMENT AREAS ARE TO RECEIVE ONLY THE FILTER FABRIC'TREATMENT. INLET PROTECTION - STRAW BALES NO SCALE [ 1 /'In! An 11 - . I — .. . 4- PROCESSED GRAVEL (COMPACTED TO 957. STANDARD PROCTOR) 8" COMPACTED BANK RUN GRAVEL BASEJ BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVING DETAIL NO SCALE STAPLE OR PIN BLANKET IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS .. ......... EROSION CONTROL FABRIC EQUAL TO .. NORTH AMERICAN GREEN SC 150 .... .. . ANCHOR BLANKET IN A TRENCH ALONG THE TOP OF SLOPE BACKFILL AND COMPACT 3 (TYP.) PREPARE SLOPE BEFORE APPLYING SLOPE IN MATERIALJ 4" LOAM BORROWPROTECT&OHYDROSEED SLOPE PROTECTION MATERIAL INSTALLATION (AS REQ'D) NO SCALE 12" COMPACTED BANK RUN GRAVEL BASE`J GRAVEL PAVING DETAIL NO SCALE 1-314" TO 3" ANGULAR CRUSHED STONE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC too� — — — — - — — — — — — — -- 6jP MIN. — 15MINIMUM SECTION A —A MINIMUM A 15' MIN.MINIMUM A 4-- MAIWAIN V097WALM THROUGH ENTRANCE (IF PRESENT) NOTES 1. EACH SITE ENTRANCE IS TO HAVE A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE. 2. STONE IS TO BE 1-3/4" TO 3" ANGULAR CRUSHED STONE. 3. PLACE GEOTEXTILE OVER THE ENTIRE AREA PRIOR TO PLACING OF STONE. 4. ANY SEDIMENT TRACKED INTO THE ROADWAY NEEDS TO BE CLEANED IMMEDIATELY. 5. ADDITIONAL STONE IS TO BE ADDED TO THE PAD AS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN THE ORIGINAL DEPTH. 6. ANY SIDEWALK DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION MUST BE REPLACED AT THE CONTRACTORS/DEVELOPERS EXPENSE. 7. SIDEWALK MOST REMAIN PASSABLE, IF THE SIDEWALK BECOMES UNSAFE OR IMPASSABLE, A TEMPORARY SIDEWALK/ SIDEWALK DETOUR MUST BE PROVIDED. ANTI -TRACKING APRON AS REQ'D) NO SCALE PERMITTING R LEVESQUE tj ASSOCIATES z Landscape Architects Civil Engineers - Land Surveyors Environmental Consultants ph: 413.568.0985 fax: 413.568.0986 40 School Street Westfield, MA 01085 Pialland.com 4j w w r. m ni Ul M w W Ui ow Vill U Im. L. M w CL 0 wtL Ul PREPARED FOR; Doreen & Brad Prouty 891 South Westfield Street Feeding Hills, MA 01001 ISSUANCE DATE: August 30,2017 REVISIONS: UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS A VIOLATION OF MASSACHUSETTS STATE LAW SCALE: AS NOTED RLA PROJ. NUMBER: 170402