HomeMy WebLinkAboutConsultant Review - 1003 OSGOOD STREET 9/10/2010 (2) DJK Dermot J. Kelly Associates, Inc.
Traffic Engineering/Transportation Planning
280 Main Street, Suite 204
North Reading, MA 01864-1300
Office: 978-664-2205
Fax: 978-664-2444
www.DJKINC.com
REF: 804
September 10, 2010
Mr. John Grasso
1003 Osgood Street, LLC
160 Pleasant Street
North Andover, MA 01864
RE: Response to Traffic Peer Review Comments
1003 Osgood Street, North Andover, MA
Dear John:
The following is our response to VHB's Traffic Peer Review Comment Letter dated July 26,
2010 which was received on August 20, 2010. The Peer Review was prepared in response to
the Traffic Impact and Access Study, Proposed Mixed Use Development Project, 1003 Osgood
Street, North Andover, MA, dated June 24, 2010 prepared by Dermot J. Kelly Associates, Inc.
Each comment is repeated below with our response directly following each comment.
Comment No. 1
Peer Review Recommendations
VHB recommends that the following issues be addressed by applicant:
1. Crash data from the North Andover Police Department and MassDOT should be reviewed along
Osgood Street for the most recent three-year period available.
Response
The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) most recent available accident
data was researched for the last three years for the study area intersections located along the
section of Osgood Street between 1000 Osgood Street and 1060 Osgood Street, inclusive. The
results of this research are reproduced in the appendix of this document. A total of 6 accidents
were reported over the three year period, one during 2006, two during 2007 and three during
2008. One of the six accidents involved a personal injury, the other five accidents involved
804-RtC1.doex
DJK Dermot J. Kelly Associates, Inc.
Traffic Engineering/Transportation Planning
Mr. John Grasso
September 10, 2010
Page 2
property damage only. Two accidents were reported as an angle type accident, one head-on,
one side swipe, one rear-end and one manner of collision was not reported. Three accidents
were reported to have occurred under wet roadway conditions, two accidents occurred under
dry roadway conditions with the remaining accident occurring under unknown roadway
conditions. Two accidents were reported to occur at 1019 Osgood Street, one at 1060 Osgood
Street, one at 1025 Osgood Street, one at 1018 Osgood Street and one at 1000 Osgood Street.
Comment No. 2
2. Intersection Sight Distance triangles should be considered when determining the area of
vegetation maintenance along the site frontage.
Response
The sight distance maintenance areas are shown on the attached plan titled Curbcut Permit and
Sight Distance plan dated August 31, 2010.
Comment No. 3
3. Figures 2 through 4 should be corrected to show the appropriate traffic volumes.
Response
Figure 2 is correct as presented in the Traffic Impact and Access Study. Figures 3 and 4 have
been corrected and are attached to this document. We concur that the Level of Service
analysis as presented in the Traffic Impact and Access Study remains valid.
Comment No. 4
4. Mitigation measures should be considered at the common site driveway.
Response
All feasible and practical mitigation measures have been considered for the common site
driveway. The attached Curbcut Permit and Sight Distance Plan dated August 31, 2010
presents all mitigation measures for the common site driveway.
804-RtC1.docx
9/10/10; 2 of 8
804-RtC1 signed w-appendix
Dermot J. Kelly Associates, Ine.
DJK Traffic E rig ineering/1'ran sportation Planning
Mr. John Grasso
September 10, 2010
Page 3
"This completes our formal response to the Peer Review. Upon Your review of this response,
please do riot hesitate to contact me if You have any questions, comnnent,,s, and/or if You require
any additional information.
Sincerely,
DERMOT J. KELLY ASSOCIATES, INC.
A
Dermot J. Kelly, PE,""PTOE
President
DJK/djk
Enclosures
cc: John Smolak, Smolak & Vaughan LLCM
Chris M, TymUla, MHF Design Consultants, Inc.
File
804-RtCl docx
APPENDIX
o 2006-2008 Accident Data
o Curbcut Permit and Sight Distance Plan, dated 8/31/10
o Revised Figures 3 and 4
804-RtC1.docx
9/10/10; 4 of 8
804-RtC1 signed w-appendix
N ❑ N ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ x
°a °O p O: O O O
o"Z
C9 (DW C7�_ (DW CDW OW a)
c� of �� OFII o� o � o� n
W
10 rn W orn U) o W o U) oo U) LO U) @
V5 a`�.
N,� C: O aJ N >j
� r r
Q@ O � O O � '.i O O O a
Z, fn `- (n I W N
C
0 .2)
O U
cu
a U -o �I @ n
N o: U W UI N U U p U
U U
p
C 3 L L L p
L' ° N _ N _ O) oo
C
E ❑
m ? c ❑ O@
Q
0 3
o
o v j III ❑ ❑
U U U O al U
N a) a) N
N
75 ILO m O)O a
L N @ a7 N a) N a)
@ N N N N ' N N N
y.. N@ N@ O O N@
V. a 0. d d Z N O@. d d
> > > > >>II > > >
.ry. N C C C C C C C C
Ci > L C O N L C.9 d) L C � N L L C � a)
j c) o O U > U_ O L U > U�, ��i O t U > U_ o'C 9 E > U
p_ N a7 N al 4-61 N a) � N N N a)
> > ° - > > ° @ > > ° m o 'o 0 > > °
`m ° o \ o 0 0\ O o o \ o . m o\ o
_ Z Z V o o f V o.4 E U o o E U V o o E
o' > E m w > E m > E m > > E m
a a
7 N.. r 3 'O 7 "O j 'O 7 j : C
° o 3 0 ° o o o ° o
°. o .° on °a.. oa a °.o
:R 7 7 r N
"p Z° ? w z Z 2 W� z3
> > > > > > > > > j >CA
o
rn m e S, U m rn
a •@ m- o
0- 5 7 N C O O)N N I .T > m N
C L O)F- O)W � C_ .`. O) O)N L O)'°
O N; C ~ @ C
N > U O U L N N
Q V, > > m F m > @' c> L > @
N @ m m-o .. CL Lo I W m m
a@i > o F- c
N N > @ ..
> " > @ > @ > >
N O _ N O N 3Eo a)
O".!�, O o U co C N N U C
U'. Z _ N Q L a) Q LD
Ea
@ N
C O o o O O O
!-4L_.
N N. II
m W
lo- �o�, o 0 o' o 0
Z"c
`w ! a)
E O=! N N NI N N
2 j a
T T T o
C C C N
C C O ° T ° O
c. m a a) m e a w C N rn
o 0 0 o arno N ° o-rno o rno
C >: Z Z O@ v�. c "C O@ C O@ C 7 01
) a m ci !' Z._ a @,mac a E"c a
O 6 O x
W
"E Oa � a V' a�I � a �a ° a N
U oo c� v r) o 0
0
\ N a) L La) W O W a) co U r a)
@ 6 o Z o ❑ O U O ❑ O O 04(�❑- N N N N NI N N N N v
U
Q
r
C) #
O Z gar
Z Q F-
<
J w n
d
w ex A 2 0.
Ct W m r
n o
H Ct m
g V U)w V)LU
> >
c
d<oo OQ
O d
I--N 0Z 0Z
- O U)< NQ
O Q
......... ........ n =� OQ OO
C7 N Z _Z1
k'
z
gym,
uplr� M1`.V 4'y1 z
=g� wG
0
o�
-Z 2 z
vi
�• m
<_< w
v Sa
z iw
o
Al
- G 9 4mna �a
' \ r
4 '
}
�r t
r
� i I
w,
4 !
h ,
r1; `
a.
Fi g c! 13, 2015 No Build
Wfo,'AWDAY MORNING PIDIK 1101V
WEEKDA IF EVENING PEUK' HOUR
DJKrraffic Engineering/l"t aa spor°t tion 11arinin 6/25/10� 10111W,10; 7 of s
r�,r ��� 1e�C�� �i� ! � :�,
:'IM, Oy r,'11, 804 RptI w4
M lure : 201 Bt,tHd
Peak Hour saffic Volumes
WEAKDAY MORNING PRAff HOUR
r u'
y OIA
IM
xx Total Vehicle Trip
r"t rtF
x
�' W ,115,L'Jw Coo,l�r,u gl Ct.
�{rF�"4'✓ � �� Irr ��s�
�h ( ) xx) .;id.a- a;one4xs9,ed Rips Only
irfi,77 i°CAA Y EVENING PEAK HOUR
rnr F��1rrC� Pv,'ir�f.
� 7a
i
-,..fir rvY
t
"h
r rt ! r
`
VI TT"
Out
n,
V r, 4111; (f U) Schematic
Dermot J. rTrafH En e i g 'ransp ftrtion Planning 6/2510, 1EGOIDMO; 8of8
s^, TH r a m^r; w us m r o w -) 80 4-Rptl tN$0'4 fktC'l� ,tigrfod�GV4dppot dix-,w
NNOW OW
MMEW om
amm A own ONNOMMOM
44 Stiles Road -Suite One- Salem, New Hampshim 03079
TEL (603) 893-0720 - FAX (603) 893-0733
MHF Design Consultants, Inc. www.mhfdesign.com
September 27, 2010
North Andover Planning Board
1600 Osgood Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Attn: Judy Tycoon, Town Planner
Re: 1003 Osgood Street
Osgood Properties, LLC
Sub: Response to VHB Review
Comments Dated July 26, 2010
Dear Ms. Tymon and Board Members: ,
Please find enclosed revised plans and supporting documentation regarding the
above referenced project located at 1003 Osgood Street. The plans have been revised to
address the comments made in the VHB review letter dated July 26, 2010. The following
is our response:
Town of North Andover Zoning_Bylaw:
1. The southwest comer of the proposed building has been relocated outside of the
non-disturbance zone.
2. In accordance with a letter from the Building Inspector dated June 23, 2010, see
attached, a variance is not required for the relocated barn structure.
3. The wetlands boundaries have been confirmed by the Conservation Commission,
please refer to attached correspondence prepared by Mark West of West
Environmental. The buffer zone has been revised as suggested,
4. The wetland setback dimension has been labeled as suggested.
5. The 325' Non-Discharge Zone has been revised on the Existing Conditions Plan.
The entire parcel is now within the Non-Discharge Zone, based on the most recent
wetland limits, and the limits of said zone do not show up on the other plan sheets
and therefore no labels are shown as requested.
6. The building has been revised and relocated outside the non-disturbance zone.
7. It is not anticipated that the proposed development will create any excessive
contaminants into the groundwater system. Per the BMP Certification letter
submitted with the Special Permit application, the lawn fertilizer is to be organic
and a reduced nitrogen content. Additionally, a note has been added to the plans
stating this requirement.
8. It has been previously discussed with the Planning Board on numerous occasions
that it was the desire of the proponent to promote shared parking between 1003
Osgood Street and the development located at 1025 Osgood Street. This shared
parking also reduces the amount of impervious area and the parking reduction is
ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
MoNMENgUMMEW WMEEW MM on=
MM _WMW
Ms. JudYTY114011 A
September 27, 201 Q
Page 2 of'3 MHF Design Consultants, Inc.
also explained in the Special Permit application as prepared by Attorney John
Smolak from Sinolak&Vaughan LLP dated 6/18/10.
9. Building heights have been added to the plans as suggested.
10. A detail for the proposed sign has been added to the plans as suggested.
11. The current table shown on the plans has been revised to show the minimum
required landscaping per Town by-laws.
12. The detail and Lighting Plan have been revised for consistency.
13. Sewer profiles have been added to the plans as suggested.
14. A waiver was requested in the Special Permit Application package for a Fiscal
Impact Study.
15. A waiver was requested in the Special Permit Application package for a
Community Impact Study.
16. Section 16.7.4 refers to requirements in the Corridor Development District and
this site is not part of said zoning overlay and therefore no changes have been
made to the plan relative to this comment.
General Comments:
17. Utility lines including electric, telephone, cable and gas have been added to the
plans as suggested. A Sewer Pump Station has been designed for the relocated
barn structure and calculations are attached hereto for reference.
18. Both systems have 12"+ cover over the top of the pipes and are rated with an H2O
loading, see attached specifications cut sheets from the manufacturer.
19. The temporary stockpiling area has been moved away from the infiltration
system.
20. The detention system is a closed pipe system and does not have a separation
requirement from the ESHWT. The infiltration systems have been revised
providing the maximum offset to the ESHWT. If necessary additional testing
onsite will be performed to verify offsets within the area of each system.
21. The entrance in question has been revised as a right in only and therefore there
should be no encroachment issue.
22. In the event larger vehicles such as WB-50 or similar are required onsite, delivers
will occur during off peak hours to minimize any potential conflict with the
internal parking lot layout.
23. Dermot J. Kelly from DJK Associates, Inc. has filed the appropriate application
permit with MassDOT and the approvals will be forwarded to the Town once
obtained.
24. The wood guardrail detail has been removed as suggested.
25. The 4 removed parking spaces are being relocated south of the proposed trash
enclosure and as stated in response #8 above, the intent of the development is to
promote shared parking between both 1003 and 1025 Osgood Street. A note has
been added to the plans indicating the removed and relocated parking spaces.
26. Trash removal will occur during off peak hours and scheduled accordingly, a note
has been added to the plans indicating this requirement.
ff2mommumpaw ffmmLvw a= Wom
Ms. J1.1dy TY11101.) WAWM�
Septetriber 27,2010
mow
Page 3 of 3 MHF Design&o=n���s:�41 t a-.n-t�s, l n c
27. Comment acknowledged, full access to the building will be made at the north and
south sides of the building. No access is proposed along the east and west sides
of the building.
28. Accessible parking spaces have been moved to the relocated barn building
location.
29. The maximum allowable running slope for an accessible sidewalk is 5% with a
maximum cross slope of 2%. These maximums are met on the current plans.
30. Handicap ramps have been added at the end of the sidewalk to the existing
driveway in the rear of the site and the grades have been revised appropriately.
Ramps and accessible access are not required to the proposed spaces along the
proposed western driveway location as there are no accessible spaces shown in
this area. A "1-directional" style ramp has been added to the details sheets as
suggested.
31. The handicap ramp detail has been revised accordingly.
32. The plans and detail have been revised accordingly.
Traffic Review:
(See response comments by Dermot Kelly, attached hereto)
Please contact our office if you have any comments or questions.
Sincerely,
MHY- ign Consul nts,Inc.
F ign Consul
is
t
Project Man r
Project �4 _
F:\Projects\Eng\230207\VHB Review--Response 9-24-10.docx,
cc: John Grasso—Osgood Properties, LLC
Timothy McIntosh—VHB
John T. Sinolak—Smolak&Vaughan LLP
Dermot J. Kelly—DJK Associates, Inc.
Town of North Andover
Community Development
pORTH
of tt�w ,b q'►'O
Q
M
M�SSncHUSe��y
John T.SmoIak,Esq. June 23,2010
Smolak&Vaughan LLP
East Mill,21 High Street, Suite 301
North Andover,Massachusetts 01845
Re: Property: 1003 Osgood Street
Zoning Confirmation Letter
Dear John:
I have reviewed your June 22,20I0 letter with enclosed site plans dated June 17,2010 concerning 1003
Osgood Street,as well as your June 18,2010 application filed with the Planning Board. I have also reviewed the Zoning
Bylaw as it pertains to the proposed project. Accordingly,I have made the following zoning determinations.
1. The proposed uses of the project for office,retail and restaurant uses as described hi your Application are uses
permitted by right in the Business 2(B-2)zoning district subject to the issuance of a site plan review special permit
(Section 8.3).
2. The property lies within the Watershed Protection District(Section 4.136 of the Zoning Bylaw), and the lot is
shown on a plan recorded in 1966,before the date of enactment of amendments to Section 4,136 on
October 24,1994, so Section 4.136(s)(f) provides that the zones in effect after that date do not apply
to the Property.
3. I have also determined that the following uses and activities are allowed,subject to the issuance of a watershed
protection district special per►nit:
a. All of the proposed uses described above are permitted within the Watershed Protection District,consistent
with past approvals of projects within this District.
b. The relocation of the existing bairn to the southern portion of the lot shown on the site
plans is a"replacement of a permanent structure"' described under Section 4.136(3)(c),and grading,
parking and stormwater management improvements,are all allowed without the need of a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
c, The new building,parking,dumpster,landscaping,stormwater management and other
improvements shown on the plan are permitted under Section 4.136 without the need for a
variance from the Zoiung Board of Appeals.
4. The existing barn is considered a preexisting lawful nonconforming structure,and the
relocation of the existing barn to the proposed new location will not constitute a change,extension
or enlargement of a preexisting lawful nonconforming use or structure within the meaning of
Section 9.2 of the Zoning Bylaw, so long as the height of the building and the size of the building do
not increase,
Torun of North Andover
Community Development
tAORty
OO'A
ACNUg���y
Let me know if I can be of further assistance,
Sincerely,
Gerald Brown
Building Coninnissioner
GB/
cc: Zoning File
WEsT �N-
ENVIRONMENTAL
48 Stevens Hill Road, Nottingham,NH 03290
603-734-4298 4 Fax 603-734-4316 + mark@westenv.net
MEMORANDUM
Date: 9/24, 2010
To: Christopher Tymula , MHF Design Consultants
From: Mark C. West
West Environmental, Inc.
RE: Wetland Boundaries at 1003 Osgood Street, North Andover
The wetland resource boundaries shown on the Existing Conditions Plan Sheet 2
of 10 in the attached Plan Set prepared by MHF Design Consultants dated
September 22, 2010 were flagged as follows.:
• The wetland resource boundaries west of the site were delineated by West
Environmental, Inc. on March 19, 2002. This wetland boundary was revised
in November of 2008 as a result of site grading performed in October of 2008
and this boundary was inspected by Jennifer Hughes at that time.
• The wetland resource boundaries on the eastern portion of the site west of the
proposed development were delineated by Norse Environmental Services Inc.
in September 2008 and reviewed by Jennifer Hughes at that time.
• The wetland boundary shown in the southeast comer of the site was delineated
by Wetlands and Land Management Inc. in 2003 and is shown for reference
Only.
ADS, Inc. Drainage Handbook Swe* co/='s * 1-20
ADS RETENTkONMETENTUON PIPE SYSTEM SPECNFNCA ["1014
Scope
This specification describes ADS Retention/Detention Pipe Systems for use in non-pressure gravity-flow
storm water collection systems utilizing a continuous outfaUstructure.
Pipe Requirements
ADS Retention/Detention systems may utilize any of the various pipe products below:
• N-120 ST |0 pipe (per AASHTO) shall meet AAGHT(} KA204' Type SorASTW4F23OO
• N-12ST |B pipe (per ASTN1F2O48) shall meet ASTKAF2648
• N-12 MEGA GREEN rmST |B shall meet A8TKAF2O48
• N-12VVT |B pipe (per AASHTD) shall meet AASHTON1284. Type GorASTMF23O6
• N-12VVT |B pipe (per ASTK8F2O48) shall meet ASTK8F2048
• N-12 MEGA GREEN rm VVT |B shall meet ASTyWF2O48
All products shall have a smooth interior and annular exterior corrugations. All ST |B pipe products are
available ae perforated ornon-perforated. VVT |B pipe products are only available asnon-perfonahsd.
Prod uot-epeoifio pipe specifications are available inthe Drainage Handbook Section 1 Specifications.
Joint Performance
using ST IB o b� & spigot joint. The bell &spigot joint shall meet the soil-tight
requirements' ofAGbell M F2306 and gaskets shall meet the requirements ofASTM F477.
Plain End pipe&fittings connections ehoU be joined with coupling bands covering at least two full
corrugations on each end of the pipe. Gae dooi|-tiQhtnuup|ingbandconneotinnaehaUinoorporatea
closed-cell synthetic expanded rubber gasket meeting the requirements of ASTM D1 056 Grade 2A2.
Gaskets, when applicable, shall be installed by the pipe manufacturer.
Watertight WT 113)
` ' joined using abell & spigot joint. The joint shall be watertight according tnthe
requirements or*o/w u3212, Gaskets shall meet the requirements ofAGTNF477. 12-through O
60-inch (300
to15OO mm) diameters shall have mbeUreinfwroedvvithopV|ymercompomihaband. ThebaUb)|erancadevioe
shall be installed by the manufacturer.
Pipe &fitting connections shall be with a bell and spigot connection utilizing a spun-on or welded bell and
valley ur saddle gasket. The joint shall meet the watertight requirements mfASTM D3212' and gaskets shall
meet the requirements ofAS^K8F477. Detention systems are subject to greater leakage than typical single
run storm sewer application and therefore are not appropriate for applications requiring long-term fluid
containment orhydrostatic pressure. For additional details refer toTechnical Note 7.01 Rainwater Harvesting
with HDPEQatema.
Fittings
Fittings shall conform toASTyW F23OOand meet joint performance indicated above for fitting connections.
Custom fittings are available and may require special installation criterion.
Installation
Installation shall be in accordance with ASTM D2321 and ADS recommended installation guidelines, with the
exception that minimum cover in non-traffic areas for 12—through 60-inch (300 to 1500 mm) diameters shall
be one foot(O. '�3rn\ Minimum cover in trafficked areas for 12-through 36-inch (300 to 900 mm) diameters
and 42 through h (1O5Ob» 15OOmm> �iamet�re the minimum cover shall
ahe|| beonmfoot (O�3 m) mn r - pnug -no . .
be 2 �(U0 m). B`ck�U ehmU'. oneiotofClass 1 (compacted), orL�|aee2 /minimum 9O96 8PD> material, with
the exception� ` — that 60-inch fittings ahoU use{�|aoa 1 material only, Minimum cover heights do not account for
pipe buoyancy. F�mf�rtoADSTanhnima| Nohe5.O5HDPEPipeHo�tionforbuoyancydeaignoonaideodiono.
~~/~ �
N1 system i standard aximumooverov�reya muengaa -
height may be exceeded. Additional installation requirements are provided in the Drainage Handbook Section
GRebanbonlDohpnbbn.
0 ADS`inc.`October 2OO9
ADS, Inc. Drainage Handbook Specifications ® 1-21
TYPICAL ENTI / Elm ,NTION CROSS u I
- , - 1v tiSi�Z:z7r�S��FzS3T'>lx`/Fy
H H H
(GRASS AREA) / (FLEX PVMT.) (RIGID PVMT.)
FILTER FABRIC --- \� j �- UNDISTURBED
(WHERE REQUIRED \� - ___-- /.,.�\F EARTH
BY ENGINEER) \ti X
7771=77
l\� L
'CLASS I OR II MATERIAL `BEDDING(CLASS I OR II MATERIAL)
PLACED AND COMPACTED IN C --- SUITABLE - =4"MIN.FOR 12'-24"PIPE
ACCORDANCE WITH FOUNDATION =6"MIN.FOR 30"-60"PIPE
ASTM D2321 IN PIPE ZONE
MINIMUM H(GRASS)=12"FOR 12"THROUGH 60"HDPE PIPE 'CLASS I BACKFILL REQUIRED AROUND 60"DIAMETER FITTINGS.
MINIMUM H(FLEX PVMT),H(RIGID PVMT)=12"FOR UP TO AND INCLUDING 36"HDPE PIPE
=24"FOR 42"THROUGH 60"HDPE PIPE
MAXIMUM FILL HEIGHT LIMITED TO 8-FT OVER FITTINGS FOR STANDARD INSTALLATIONS.CONTACT
REPRESENTATIVE WHEN MAXIMUM FILL HEIGHTS EXCEED 8-FT FOR INSTALLATION CONSIDERATIONS.
ADDI'll"IONAL REFERENCES
Drainage Handbook Section 6 Retention/Detention
Technical Note 6.01 Retention/Detention System Maintenance
Technical Note 7.01 Rainwater Harvesting with HDPE Cisterns
Standard Detail 701 Typical Plan View
Standard Detail 702 Retention/Detention System Cross-Section Installation
Standard Detail 703 Riser& Cleanout Installation
Standard Detail 704 Flowable Fill for Riser Installation
All references are available for download at www.ads-pipe.com
ADS,Inc.,October 2009
NoRTH
�M11 yt;,.d r h•, 6 oL
H
Town of North Andover
* x 1600 Osgood Street
Bldg.20,Suite 2-36
��SSacH
US� North Andover,MA 01845
Phone: 978-688-9545
Fax: 978-688-9542
Gerry Brown,Inspector of Buildings
December 15,2010
John T. Smolak,Esq.
Smolak& Vaughan LLP
East Mill,21 High Street, Suite 301
North Andover, Massachusetts 01 845
Re: Property: 1003 Osgood Street
Zoniniz Confirmation Letter
Dear John:
I have reviewed your December 13,2010 letter with enclosed site plans dated
June 17, 2010(Revised December 8,2010)concerning 1003 Osgood Street. I have also
reviewed the Zoning Bylaw as it pertains to the proposed project. Accordingly,based
upon our discussions and my review of the materials above, I have made the following
zoning determinations.
1. The proposed uses of the project for office,retail and restaurant uses as described in
our discussion and the revised Site Plans are uses permitted by right in the underlying
Business 2 (B-2)zoning district subject to the issuance of a site plan review special
permit(Section 8.3).
2. The property lies within the Watershed Protection District(Section 4.136 of the
Zoning Bylaw), and the lot is shown on a plan recorded in 1966,before the date of the
amendments to Section 4.136 on October 24,1994,so Section 4.136(s)(f)provides that the
zones in effect after that date do not apply to the Property.
3. I have also determined that the following uses and activities are allowed, subject to the
issuance of both site plan review, as well as a watershed protection district, special
permits:
a. The proposed Project uses,as described above,are permitted in a B-2 District
and the Watershed Protection District, since the WPD zoning overlay district does not
specifically prohibit those uses in the underlying B-2 zoning district
b. I have reviewed the calculations shown on the Site Plans related to the
existing barn and expansion of the structure located within the 100-foot Non-
Disturbance Zone. These improvements are permitted uses as an expansion of any
existing structure by less than twenty-five(25) percent of the gross floor under section
4.136(3)(c),including section 4.136(3)(c)(ii)(6) of the Zoning Bylaw.
c. The uses described above,as well as the proposed redeveloped and renovated
building,parking,dumpster,and related improvements and activities shown on the Site
Plans,are permitted within the Watershed Protection District by special permit issued
by the Planning Board under Section 4.136 without the need for a variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to 4.136(3)(c)(ii)(6) described above.
4. The existing barn is considered a preexisting lawful nonconforming structure as to
building height, and the renovation of the barn in its current location is not a change,
extension or enlargement of a preexisting lawful nonconforming use or structure under
Section 9.2 of the Zoning Bylaw,as long as the height of the building does not increase.
The expansion of the building(assuming no increase in height)would be permitted by
site plan review special permit.
This letter supersedes my June 23,2010 letter issued for the formerly proposed project.
Let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Gerald Brown
Building Commissioner
GB/
cc: Zoning File
Eggles'U',)n Envir,onmen-tal
January 6, 2011
North Andover Planning Board
1600 Osgood Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Attn: Judy Tycoon, Town Planner
RE, Stormwater Management Review
1003 Osgood Street
Dear Ms. Tymon and Board Members:
I am writing this letter in follow-tip to my previous letters of August 5 and October 5,
2010 regarding the stormwater management review of the above-referenced project.
Since that time I met with the project design team and town staff on November 16, 2010
to discuss my comments, and have subsequently received and reviewed the December 8,
2010 revised site plan and Stormwater Management Report prepared by MIJF Design
Consultants, Inc.
The revised plan reflects a significant downsizing of the proposed project and its overall
area of impact on the site. It also reflects a significant revision in the proposed
stormwater management for the site, with an increase in the size of the two infiltration
systems, and the removal of the underground detention system and the two proposed
bioretention areas. As currently proposed, runoff from the pavement areas on the project
site would drain through a closed drainage system and one of two Stormceptor 4501
treatment units, then into the subsurface infiltration system(s) for infiltration/recharge and
flow attenuation. Overflow from the infiltration systems would be discharged through an
outlet apron to the grassed area to the northwest of the development. All of the
stormwater BMPs and their discharges in the revised plan would be located outside of the
wetland buffer zones. They would, however, remain within the Zone A for Lake
Cochichewick and the Non-Discharge Zone of the Watershed Protection District, since
these areas include most of the project site. The drainage analysis and infiltration system
design submitted with the revised plan have also been revised and, consistent with the
DEP Stormwater Handbook, are based on the Rawls infiltration rate for the mapped
(HSG C) soils on the site.
My comments are outlined below:
1. My primary concern with the revised design is that it does not provide adequate
treatment of the pavement runoff to meet DEP Stormwater Standard 44, since less
than one third of the required 2,700 of water quality volume (WQV) would be
infiltrated under most storm conditions. Based on the calculations provided, the
total dead storage volume in the infiltration systems is only 604 ef, or 22 percent
of the required WQV. Even taking into account the infiltration that would occur
55 Old Coach Road Sudbury MA 01776 tel 508,259.1137 fax 866.820.7840
1003 Osgood Street, Technical Review 2
January 6, 2011
during a storm event, the HydroCAD calculations for the 1-inch rainfall event (a
smaller storm than that needed to produce 1-inch of runoff) indicate that both
infiltration systems would overflow. Infiltration is a necessary component of the
treatment train provided for the site, since the upgradient structures (catchbasins
and Stormceptors) only provide pretreatment. They also only treat solids and
floatables (e.g. oil & gas), whereas the filtering of flow through the ground
reduces phosphorus and other pollutants of concern in the watershed. The
infiltration capacity of the proposed systems needs to be increased, (e.g. through
expansion of the system footprints or raising the outlet inverts to capture more
flow) or an additional BMP suitable for use in a Critical Area should be added to
treat the excess flow discharged from the systems. (I believe that there is space for
something between the overflow outlet and the buffer zone). Given the sensitivity
of the site and the requirements of the Watershed District to both maximize onsite
recharge and protect the water quality of the lake, some combination of the two
may be warranted.
2. The proposed emergency shear gate valve at DMH-1 is downstream of both
infiltration systems, rendering it useless in the control of any spills.
3. It is not clear what the basis is for the tailwater elevation modeled at FES-1 in the
HydroCAD analysis. The drainage system should be modeled as having a free
discharge at this location.
4. Additional soil testing will be needed in the vicinity of the new/expanded
infiltration system locations to verify depth to groundwater prior to their
installation.
5. The O&M Plan calls for minimizing the use of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides
and deicing chemicals on the site. The application of any such products should be
prohibited since the proposed development is almost exclusively in the Zone A.
Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to assist the North Andover Planning Board and
Conservation Commission with the review of this project, and hope that this information
is suitable for your needs. Please feel fi•ee to contact me if you or the applicants have any
questions regarding the issues addressed herein.
Sincerely,
EGGLESTON ENVIROONMENTAL
Lisa D. Eggleston, P.E.
C: Jennifer Hughes,North Andover Conservation
|
�
�
ERUW
44 �hh�� ��md °�u�e �Me °S�erM. NewHampsh�eQ3O79 |
TEL (603) 893-0720 " F/\X (605) 893-0733 �
www.RMhfdesigo.c&m
MHF Design Consultants, Inc.
January 20,2011
Ms, Judith Tymon Town Planner
Planning Department
|00O Osgood Street
North Andover, K4A01045
HAND DELIVE,RE,D
Re: ]0O3 Osgood Street
Map 35`Lot 50
Osgood Properties LLC
Sub: Revised Plans |
Dear Ms. 1ymon:
On behalf of our client,please find enclosed revised plans and supporting documentation regarding
the above referenced project|000bdsdl8030sgood0�eot, l pkn�have been revised based muthe
comments made bothe Eggleston Environmental dated January 6.2011. Ve are hereby submitting the
following information tothe Planning Board for Site Plan Review:
o 2 sets ofthe full sized Site Plans(Copy of Plans sent via email)
o 2 sets ofll"zl7°Site Plans
o 2 copies of the Stormva1 rMoua@emeo(Repod
o 2 copies of the Building Inspector's Determination letter dated 12/15/10
m %copies ofthe Eggleston Environmental Response letter dated |/\9/\|
Wm look forward to meeting with the Planning Board o1 the upcoming hearing on February l,20|\.
Please contact our office iF you have any questions.
Very Truly Yours,
��ign Consultants, Inc.
C ristopher
Project Manager
290207- Site Plan Revised Submittal—1-\9-1l.doc
CQ23O207
oc'` John Grasso—Osgood Properties LLC
Jennifer Hughes—North Andover CC(2 Copies of the above submitted material)
Lisa Eggleston—Eggleston Environmental
Timothy McIntosh—VBB
John 7. Souolak—Smoluk6t Vaughan LLP
DemootJ.KeUy—DJK Associates, Inc.
Mark West—West Environmental, Inc.
Mike Howard—Epsilon Associates, Inc,
ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
�
�
�
EMEMW MW WMM
44 Stiles Road ° Suite One"Salem, New Hampshire 03079 |
--- TEL (603) 893-0720 FAX (603) 893'0733 �
�
MHF Design Consultants, Inc. NAww.Mnhfdesigi,i.con0
January 20`20l\
North Andover Planning Board
l600 Osgood Street
North Andover,K4& 0 184
Attn: Judy 7ymoo,Town Planner
Re: lOU3 Osgood Street
Osgood Properties,L.LC
Sub: Response to Eggleston Environmental
Review Comments Dated January 6,
2011
Dear Ms.7vouoo and Board Members:
Please fiudenclosed revised plans and supporting documentation regarding the above referenced
project located at 1003 Osgood Street, Tboplans have been revised 0o address the comments made.iothe
Eggleston Environmental review letter dated January 6.2011. The following im our response:
1. The water quality volume(WQV)has been significantly increased up to an arnount of 2,719
c.f. which now exceeds the minimum required 2,700 c.f of WQV required in Standard#4.
This was accomplished by increasing the stone depth fi-om 6"to 12"in Infiltration System#1,
by raising the low flow orifice elevation 9"in Infiltration System#2 and by the addition of a
8io-reteo{iou area downstream of the drainage system. All three changes were necessary bm
obtaining the required VYOV.
2. &n additional Emergency Shear Gate Valve has been added oo the inlet side of the Outlet
control structures and this will work to restrict any potential spills in each system. Therefore,
each infi)bo{iousystem will have one emergency shear gate valve
3. The tudvvater elevation ia automatically calculated when using the Dynamic-Storage-
Indication(Dyn-Stor-Ind) method ioHvdrouad which assigns 1ai|n/a(er elevations 10 each
node based oil the headwater created bz the downstream structure.
4. Comment acknowledged, additional soil testing shall be performed prior to installation of
Infiltration System#2 and the Qio-retention oyuteuu.
5. The O&M Plan has been revised to state that any fertilizers,pesticides or herbicides used
shall be Organic or All Natural and approved by the Conservation Department,prior to use.
No Deicing chemicals shall be stored uooi<e,
Please contact our office if you have any comments orquestions.
Sincerely,
mmYtonim,Knu.
C�� mD ly Za
Project Manager
F:\P 'e 30207\E8Beviop+'Rooponme |'20-li.doox
cc: John Grasso—Osgood Properties,I.LC
Lisa Eggleston—Eggleston Environmental
John T. Somlok-0uuo|nk&Vaughan LLP
JeouiferHuohom—C000ervodonCommiaoioo
ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
���U������� �n��^r��n rn��Ui t�8K
_��� _��' _ _
February 1, 2011
North Andover Planning Board
l60O Osgood Street
North Andover, M/\ 0l845
At o: JudyTy0000, Town P|uoocc �
RE: Storuzu'nter Management Review
1003 Osgood Street
Dear Ms. ?vinou and Board Members:
I ano writing this letter in follow-up 1onnyprevious letters ofAugust 5, 2010, (]cLnbcr 5,
2010 and January 6, 2011 regarding the o1oronvuturrnunogeuzeoU review of the above-
referenced project. Since that time l have received and reviewed the January /?, 2011
revised site plan and January 20, 2011 revised 8toroowutcz Muongscoerd Report prepared
byMDn Design Consultants, Inc.
The revised plan addresses several of the 0000cnuuta outlined in ray January 0 m letter;
however do still have ocnup|e of concerns which l discussed with the design engineer
today: �
|. The surface of the proposed bionten1iou system is commensurate with the high
groundwater elevation in that location, therefore on uxfikcutioo should be �
amannood in the runoff calculations. In conjunction with the other design cevioinua,
however, the system will provide the added water quality volume (WQV) needed
b`meet I)6P Skoroovvntcr Standard 44.
2. The emergency shear gate valves are still located downstream ofboth infiltration
myotnrue' rendering them ineffective in protecting the groundwater inthe event of
a spill. The valves should be moved to a location upgradient, e.g. at the outlet of
the Sto[umeptorunits.
3. The Stormcopior sizing oukoio1k/oy uuK for 450i units, but the design detail is for
the larger 3TC-900 units. ] question whether this is oc000sory, and whether the
STC-900s can be used with the inlet configurations shown. It is also worth noting
that the Sto,noonp1oc 450i is the only model that has received Technology
Acceptance and Reciprocity Partnership (TARP) approval for iu-Uos use, with
][SS removal rate or about 50percent.
Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to assist the North Andover Planning Board and
Conservation Cocoroimmiou with the ,cvicvv of this project, and hope that this information
55 [}[d �Qa[h Road SUdbUrVMA 01776 te[ 508,259.1137 fax 866.820.7840
100') Osgood Street, Technical Review 2
February 1, 2011
is suitable for your needs. Please feel free to contact me if you or the applicants have any
questions regarding the issues addressed herein.
Sincerely,
EGGLESTON ENVIRONMENTAL
r A
Lisa D. Eggleston, P.E.
C: Jennifer Hughes, North Andover Conservation
christoeher M. T mule
From: Lisa Eggleston [lisa@egglestonenvironmental.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 4:10 PM
To: Christopher M. Tymula; Jennifer Hughes; Judy Tymon
Cc: john@grassoconst.com
Subject: RE: 1003 Osgood St
agreed.
Usa D. Eggleston, P.E,
Egglest,on Environmental
55 Ud Coach Rd.
SudbUry, MA 01776
tO 508,.259.1137
fax 866,820,7840
Lisa@ggWest_oneriviroiirnental,corn
..............
From: _cmt@0mhfd1esig—n-cor► ow_nofnor(h_andoyeLcorn
To: Lis a
Ca)eWlestoil_en\(iroqi-nental_com; bughes&t_ownofnorthandover.cgom; Ufflon@L
-L
CC: john@-grassocorLs—t-com
Subject: RE: 1003 Osgood St
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 201116:03:42 -0500
Thanks Lisa,
Just to clarify the comment letter and the discussion I had with Lisa today.
Comment #1: The removal of the infiltration rate as agreed to by us will have little to no impact on the design
calculations and we will get Lisa the revised information.
Comment #2: We have agreed to install the emergency gate valves either inside the Stormceptor Units (if the
manufacturer can indeed incorporate that into the system) or we will be adding a gate valve in a hand hole
structure between the Stormceptor and the Infiltration Systems.
Comment #3: We have agreed to use the Stormceptor 450i and will replace the detail in the plan set
accordingly.
Chris M. Tymula
MHF Design Consultants, Inc.
44 Stiles Road, Suite One
Salem, NH 03079
(P) 603.893.0720 ext 33
(F) 603.893.0733
gmt@ Lnhfd i
-gsign.cQI-n
www,.M.tIfde i9n.com
From: Lisa Eggleston [rn AffIto,:11_s_ eg
a glestonenvironnientalcorrf
@
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 20113:45 PM
To: Jennifer Hughes; Judy Tyrnon
Cc: Christopher M. Tyrnula
Subject: 1003 Osgood St
See attached.
!..Lisa D. Egglestor�, P.E.
Eggleston Environmental
55 OW Coach Rd.
SUdbury, MA 01776
tel 508.259,1137
fax 666.620. 840
!Lisa aLeggLes ton environmentalcom
2
Enright, Jean
From: Tymon, Judy
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 2:21 PM
To: Enright, Jean
Subject: FW: 1003 Osgood St
Attachments: 110201 Lisa Review#4.pdf
Jean,
Could you Put this email in the file and the attached letter from Lisa? thanks
From: Lisa Eggleston [inai tLo�tisci_pegglestonenVironm—ental.com'j
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 20114:10 PM
To: Christopher M. Tymula; Hughes, Jennifer; Tymon, Judy
Cc: jpbn@grassocon5t&orq
Subject: RE: 1003 Osgood St
I'arnl>head> meta http-equiv="Contcnt-Type" eontent="text/htrnI; charset=utf-1 6"> /head>body>
agreed.
Lisa D. Eggieston, P.E.
Eggleston Environmental
55 Old Coach Rd.
Sudbury, MA 01.776
tel 508.25 .113'7
fax 866,820.7840
Lisa dgge lestonenvironmental.com
—
............. ..........
From: cmt(bmhtfdesicn.com
To: lira( lestonenMLiroomentgLcoM; jLiu es@t�ownof`nQrth—andoyer.com; jt
--g_q— _qb-- )Lr-non0d tovy-nofnorLhaqdovQr.com
CC: jglin@grasspconst.com
Subject: RE: 1003 Osgood St
Date: Tue, I Feb 2011 16:03:42 -0500
Thanks Lisa,
Just to clarify the comment letter and the discussion I had with Lisa today.
Comment #I: The removal of the infiltration rate as agreed to by us will have little to no impact on the design
calculations and we will get Lisa the revised information.
Comment #2: We have agreed to install the emergency gate valves either inside the Stormceptor Units (if the
manufacturer can indeed incorporate that into the system) or we will be adding a gate valve in a hand hole
structure between the Stormceptor and the Infiltration Systems.
1
Comment #3: We have agreed to use the Stormceptor 450i and will replace the detail in the plan set
accordingly.
Chris M. Tymula
MHF Design Consultants, Inc.
44 Stiles Road, Suite One
Salem, NH 03079
(P) 603.893.0720 ext 33
(F) 603.893.0733
www.Mhfdesign.cQm
From: Lisa Eggleston EMailtTr
i�q-cC��,gLq5-tQtigiivii°onmental.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 20113:45 PM
To: Jennifer Hughes; Judy Tymon
Co: Christopher M. Tymula
Subject: 1003 Osgood St
See attached.
Lisa D. Eggleston, P.E.
Eggleston Environmental
55 Old Coach Rd,
SU&Ury, MA 01776
tel 508.259.V.137
fax 866.820.7840
h5a@999LQstonenv lronmental.com
br>hr> font face="Arial" color="Gray" size="I'5Please note the Massachusetts Secretary of State's office has
determined that most emails to and from municipal offices and officials are public records. For more
information please refer to: http.'CLNyAA�A.se�c.s(�- e.trra.us/pre/preid)x._lrtn�.U)r> br> Please consider the environment
before printing this email.br> /font>/body>/html>
2
�
�
�
�
44 Stiles Road ° Suite One~ Salem, New Hampshire U3O79 �
TEL (603) 893-0720 ° F/\X (603) 893-8733 �
MHF Design Consultants, Inc. wm*w.nlhfdesign.com
February 4,20|l
North Andover Planning Board .
l6O0 Osgood Street
North Andover, &4& 0l845
Attn:Judy Tyn000,Town Planner
Re: lO03 Osgood Street
Osgood Properties,LLC
Sub: Response tn Eggleston Environmental
Review Comments dated
February l, 2Ol|
Dear Ms.?vnuou and Board Members:
Please fiodenclosed revised plans and supporting documentation regarding the above referenced
project �
mot|wcut�duil003Oa�ood� emt. The plans have been revised to address the comments made iuthe
Eggleston Environmental review letter dated February 1,2O\]. The following ia our response:
|. The exfiltration rate has been removed from the Biu-reteckion area as suggested. Please not
the removal of this rate had little impact on the overall Pre vs. Post Development results. As
a result of this,only the Stormwater Management Report Executive Summary and
HydroCAD printouts for the Design Point Summary#I and Bio-retention area have been
submitted which show the changes.
2. The emergency shear gate valves have been relocated upstream of the infiltration systems and �
directly downstream of the Stormceptors. They will be placed within a riser structure in-line �
with the Stormceptors to prevent possible intrusion of spilled materials into the infiltration
ayateoou. We also contacted Jim Lyons from Rinker Materials, a S1oroiceptordimt,ibodnr,
inquiring whether a shut off valve can be equipped within the units. According to Mr. Lyons,
a shut off valve cannot be installed with the units due to the internal layout of the devices.
3. The Storniceptor 900 series details have been removed and replaced with the 450 series
details nasuggested.
Please contact our office if you have any comments orquestions.
Sincerely,
MR7 D��' ign mtm,Imc.
Cb
inu
Project Mana�'�r
CR 230207
P:\P 'octs\Boo\2302O7\EBReview--Response 2-4'l|.dnox
cc: John Grasso—Osgood Properties, LLC
JeomiferHoobes—Cooae,veinoC000miyoion
Lisa Eggleston—Eggleston Environmental
Jwbu7. Snoo|ok—SouolokUb Vaughan LLP
ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
WASUMMOMMW MEOW OM WMM
44 Stiles Road° Suite One" Salem, New Hampshire O3O7S
TE� (G0�\ 8��-O��O ° F/�}( (G03) 893-O733 |
` ^ wvvw.nahfdesi0nxom
MHF Design Consultants, �
February 4,20l1
K4o. Judith Tymon,Town Planner
Planning Department
lb00 Osgood Street
North Andover,K4/&0\845
HAND DELIVERED
He: |O03 Osgood Street
Map]5, Lot 5O
Osgood Properties LLC
Sub: Revised Plans �
Dear Ms.TyooVn:
On behalf of our cUeok please�ndenclosed revised plans and auppodiugdoounoeckutiouregarding
»v�
o z� ��^
the b t�,�uoedpr '�c1io~°a1edu1 \O03Oegond8troci. Th:planmbavebemnre/ioedbomedootbe comments made io the B~-�estou B i mo�uNldatedFebrunry !`2011.
Ve are hereby submitting the
Planning Board fbr�be9|auR�vi�m
following dowin�iotbnuooutothe anuo�
o 2 sets of the full sized Site Plans(Copy ot Plans sent via email)
o 2 sets uf\l^"x|7"Site Plans
�opnd�x�uudv� �uooury
o 2copieso[tboStocop�erMauugcoeot
o 2 copies of the Hvdoo(�&I)zemuUs for the Design Point#1 ��Bio-ru�utiooarea
' Environmental R�epouoe)e�ord�ed2/3/|\
m 2copiuooftheB��ic�nn
u 2 copies of email correspondence between MBF and Lisa,Eggleston dated 2/l/\|
VVe took forward k/meeting with the Planning Board u1 the upcoming hearing ou February l5,2O||.
Please contact our office i[you have any questions.
Very Truly Yours,
esign Consultants,Inc.
Pro'Ject Manager
CR23O207
F:UP 'eotoDEoo\2]O207\2]0207-Site Plan Revised Ouhnoh1ol-'2'4-|l.doc
co: John Grasso—Osgood Properties LLC[%(� i fduoabovcaubnui�edou»1mdul)
J�uui��|luob�m—��odh/kndov�rCC . Copies ^
Lisa Eggleston- —Eggleston Bnviooun�eota John?. Suo\ k Souo lok& Vaughan LLP
Mike Howard—Epsilon Associates,Inc.
ENGINEERS 0 PLANNERS SURVEYORS
® ® ® A
®_ ®_ 44 Stiles Road • Suite One° Salem, New Hampshire 03079
® = TEL (603) 893-0720 ° FAX (603) 893-0733
MHF Design Consultants, Inc. www.mhfdesign.com
February 4,2011
North Andover Planning Board
1600 Osgood Street
North Andover,MA 01845
Attn: Judy Tymon,Town Planner
Re: 1003 Osgood Street
Osgood Properties,LLC
Sub: Response to Eggleston Environmental
Review Comments dated
February 1,2011
Dear Ms.Tymon and Board Members:
Please find enclosed revised plans and supporting documentation regarding the above referenced
project located at 1003 Osgood Street. The plans have been revised to address the comments made in the
Eggleston Environmental review letter dated February 1,2011. The following is our response:
1. The exfiltration rate has been removed from the Bio-retention area as suggested. Please not
the removal of this rate had little impact on the overall Pre vs. Post Development results. As
a result of this,only the Stormwater Management Report Executive Summary and
HydroCAD printouts for the Design Point Summary#1 and Bio-retention area have been
submitted which show the changes.
2. The emergency shear gate valves have been relocated upstream of the infiltration systems and
directly downstream of the Stormceptors. They will be placed within a riser structure in-line
with the Stormceptors to prevent possible intrusion of spilled materials into the infiltration
systems. We also contacted Jim Lyons from Rinker Materials, a Stormceptor distributer,
inquiring whether a shut off valve can be equipped within the units. According to Mr.Lyons,
a shut off valve cannot be installed with the units due to the internal layout of the devices.
3. The Stormceptor 900 series details have been removed and replaced with the 450 series
details as suggested.
Please contact our office if you have any comments or questions.
Sincerely,
M WManar
ultants,Inc.
is
Project
CR 230207
F:\Proje cts\Eng\230207\EE Review--Response 2-4-11.docx
cc: John Grasso—Osgood Properties, LLC
Jennifer Hughes—Conservation Commission
Lisa Eggleston—Eggleston Environmental
John T. Smolak—Smolak&Vaughan LLP
ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
Egglestori Env~rorn nentaU
, February 9, 2011
North Andover Planning Board
]60O Osgood Street
North Andover, M/\ 0|045
Attn: JudyTyinnu, Iorvu Planner
RE: Stornnvvo1er Management Review
1003 Osgood Street
Dear Ms. 7vnnon and Board Members:
In th||on+up 10 my previous noonuoute on the above-referenced project, I have received
and reviewed the February 3, 2011 revised site plan and calculations prepared by MRP
Design Consultants, Inc.
The revised submission satisfactorily addresses all of the outstanding 4)nno/sodooutlined
in my most ,00cn1 (February |, 2011) oonurueni letter, and at this time I believe that my
review of this project is complete. l do want to remind the Board that confirmatory soil
testing will uood 10 be cnudnoicd o1 the proposed infiltration system #2 lnou1ioo prior to
construction; this should boruode u condition ofapproval. The Board may also want 1n
consider prohibiting the use of any sodium based deicers and landscaping chemicals on �
the entire project skomiooebisa|000s| eoJire|y°/hhiotboZour }\n[L.akeCoobeobivvick.
Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to assist the North Andover Planning Board and
Conservation Commission with their review of this project, and hope that this �
information is suitable for your needs. Please feel iioo to contact ouc if You or the
applicants have any questions regarding the issues addressed herein.
Sincerely,
fiGGUG9I00BNVlR0mN)CN]&L
Lisa D. Ecoh;nb7n, P.B.
C: Jennifer Hughes,North Andover Conservation
55 O[d [OaCh [�Oad SUdbUn/ MoA 01776 Lel 508.759.1137 fax 866,820.7840
|
�
�
am
44 Stiles Road °Suite One~Salem, New Hampshire 03O79 �
TEL (603) 893-0720 ° F/\X /603\ 893-0733
MHF Desion Consultants, Inc. vuVvVv.nlhfdesign.com
February |
18,20(|
Ms.Judith Tymon,Town Planner
Planning Department
|600 Osgood Street
North Andover, MA0|845
HAND DELIVERED
Re: L0O3 Osgood Street
Map 35, Lot 50
Osgood Properties LLC �
Sub: Revised Plans
Dear Ms. 7vmon: |
Ou behalf o[our client, please fiudenclosed revised plans and supporting doouoeutabnuregarding
the above referenced project|ouatedai |OU30sgoodS[reet. The plans have been revised based nnthe
comments made by the Conservation Commission and the VHB review letter dated February 11,2011. We �
herby submit the following information: .
m 2 sets nf the full sized Site P\uoo
o 2 sets ofll^"x|7"reduced Site Plans
o 2 copies of the Operation &Maintenance Plan
u 2 copies o[the VBB response letter
We look forward to meeting with the Planning Board at the upcoming hearing on March 1,2011.
Please contact our office i[you have any questions.
lVer Tru y Yours,
e Yours
sign Consultants, Inc.
YIICA
ger
230207'Site Plan Revised Submh1ul--2-|0'll.doc
CBL23O207
cc: John Grasso—Osgood Properties I.LC
Jennifer Hughes—North Andover CC(2 Copies of the Site Plans&0&cK4)
Timothy McIntosh—VBB
John?. Smoluk—Smo|ok&: Vaughan LLP
Mike Howard—Epsilon Associates, Inc.
ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
ffmomw EM No=
MEMW sm .W.WMW=
ffMNW WMW
44 Stiles Road o Suite One o Salern, New Harnpshire 03079
TEL (60 3) 893-0720 - FAX (603) 893-0733
www,mWesign corn
MHF Design Consultants, Inc.
February 18, 2011
North Andover Planning Board
1600 Osgood Street
North Andover,MA 01845
Attn: Judy Tymon,Town Planner
Re: 1003 Osgood Street
Osgood Properties,LLC
Sub: Response to VHB Review
Comments dated February 11,
2011
Dear Ms. Tyrnon and Board Members:
Please find enclosed revised plans and supporting documentation regarding the
above referenced project located at 1003 Osgood Street. The plans have been revised to
address the comments made in the VHB review letter dated February 11, 2011. The
following is our response:
Town of North Andover Zonin&pylaw*
1. Comment acknowledged, no action required.
2. The proposed sewer profiles to the existing barn and proposed building have been
added to the plans as suggested.
General Comments:
3. Based on the reduced scale of the development, the total weekday daily vehicle
trips have been reduced from 1206 vpd (per DJK report dated June 24, 2010 with
revisions), down to 800 vpd (see attached Table 1), a 33% reduction. Project
generated right turn movements into the hoowillebe tdM ebe 23 vph and the weekday PM peak ur 26 vph. This equates to
approximately one additional vehicle every 2-3 minutes during the peak hours
turning right into the site at the common driveway. This should have a negligible
impact on queuing and circulation. avoid being located
4. The temporary stockpile area has been moved as suggested to
over infiltration system #I- vehicle accessing the site, vehicles driving
5. a. In the event of an emergency
northerly along Osgood Street would move int o the right lane rendering this lane
useless to the emergency vehicle. The emergency vehicle would then access the
site via the left lane, as currently shown. This was discussed and agreed to at the
February 15, 2011 Planning Board meeting.
ENGINEERS 0 PLANNERS SURVEYORS
MENNOMMMOW N=WW am YAK=
Ms. Judy Tymon FANOW Elm
Febatary 18, 2011
11,,ige 2 oft MHF Design Cons tank ants, Inc.
b-d. The driveway entrance radius has been increased to allow a "40' vehicle" to
enter the site without encroaching into the exiting lane. In addition to this change
the proposed signage along the driveway has been shifted slightly to eliminate
potential conflicts with the vehicles overhang.
6. It is not anticipated that deliveries from a WB-50 or similar size vehicle will occur
regularly, if at all. Deliveries will typically be from a UPS delivery truck and SU-
30 "box truck" and access in and out of the site is adequate. In the event a larger
vehicle delivery is necessary, the vehicle would access the site via the common
driveway and proceed down the common driveway turning left into the parking
area to the rear of 1025 Osgood Street and then back into the rear parking lot of
1003 Osgood Street for off-loading. This would occur on off peak hours to
eliminate any potential conflict with passenger car vehicles.
7. The intent of the two developments is to share the trash enclosure as currently
shown. This was explained and agreed to at the Planning Board meeting on
February 15, 2011.
Please contact our office if you have any comments or questions.
Sincerely,
M e ign Consultants, Inc.
Project Manqag
CR 230207
F:\Projects\Eng\230207\VHB Review--Response 9-24-1 O.docx
cc: John Grasso—Osgood Properties, LLC
Timothy McIntosh—VHB
John T. Smolak—Smolak&Vaughan LLP