Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - 116 SHERWOOD DRIVE 6/11/1999 � — FORM U LOT RELEASE FORM uu( C�) 0"eo 'UC,°IONS: This form is used to verify that all necessary approval0/permi relieve INSTIL Boards and Departments having romjurisdiction ante with any applicable ab This drequirements. the applicant and/or landowner p ****-,*,***********************APPLICAiNT FILLS OUT THIS SECTION******************* ** c �� PHONE `r — APPLICANT l L� LOCATION: Assessor's Map Number PARCEL LOT (S) SUBDIVISION �CA r-e-� STREET ��"Z- ST. NUMBER_a2 OFFICIAL USE /0 / / RECOMMENDATIONS OF TOWN AGENTS: ,z�,�/Z C, R �w J G-� S DATE APPROVED CONSERVATION ADMINISTRATOR DATE REJECT/ED COMMENTS rv�' �� �r1 T DATE APPROVED OWN PLANNER DATE REJECTED COMMENTS DATE APPROVED FOOD INSPECTOR-HEALTH DATE REJECTED DATE APPROVED ,.SEPTIC IN CTOR-HEALTH DATE REJECTED IL 3 L COMMENTS PUBLIC WORKS - SEWERIWATER CONNECTIONS DRIVEWAY PERMIT FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE_______ RECEIVED BY BUILDING INSPECTOR Revised 9197 jm FORM U - LOT RELEASE FORM INSTRUCTIONS: This form is used to verify that all necessary approvals/permits from Boards and Departments having jurisdiction have been obtained. This does not relieve the applicant and/or landowner from compliance with any applicable or requirements. *****************************APPLICANT FILLS OUT THIS SECTION******-****************-* APPLICANT 2 PHONE �� LOCATION: Assessor's Map,,Number PARCEL SUBDIVISION C) F(qC-e- LOT (S) _ STREET �V1C���d �� JI�L ST. NUMBER (�tv ******************************** ********0 F F I C IA L USE ONLY*****************'t't".� RECOMMENDATIONS-OF TOWN AGENTS: CONSER AT ON ADMINISTRATOR DATE APPROVED �5 DATE REJECTED COMMENTS �u TOWN PLAt�IfJ R DATE APPROVED Z DATE REJECTED lei COMMENTS FOOD INSPEf,;gOR-HEALTH DATE APPROVED DATE REJECTED _SEPTJ,C INSPECTOR-HEALTH DATE APPROVED - � DATE REJECTED COMMENTS PUBLIC WORKS - SEWERIWATER CONNECTIONS 'T DRIVEWAY PERMIT FIRE DEPARTMENT i. WJ- DATE RECEIVED BY BUILDING INSPECTOR l FORD U - LOT RELEASE FORM INSTRUCTIONS: This form is used to verify that all necessary approvals/permits from Boards and Departments having jurisdiction have been obtained. This does not relieve the applicant and/or landowner from compliance with any applicable or requirements. a,aaw*rrr*rxe�** ****w *r *�w14i^°f^°LIVHrV i FILLS ('31U11' THIS SECT IVfV***��rarr*,rrr�*ar,r*,r,ra APPLICANT CC r_.' PHONE i, rnp �n nAOt'rl _ 1 01 ATION. Assessor's IV ai./ IYUIIIUGI 1 AI\V LL '. L V Cl V/'1 1 SUBDIVISION r� J �� . �� — LOT (S) STREET 1C IAL USE RcLIJiViiYIEI,4'DATiLiY.7 OF 1 OVV114 AGENTS; 1 CO==N��S--E--RVATION ADMIN! TRATOR DATE APPROVED /<J n A Tr pG !CP`TCn VRI V 1\LJ L.V 1 L✓ COMMENTS u) I - /_'� - TOWN PLANNER DATE APPROVED ✓f1.1 L \LJ L- i I L✓ COMMENTS FOOD INSP OR- LTH DATE APPROVED nATr_r nr /EC�rrn ✓r't 1 L RLJL 1 L✓ EP C!' 'SPECTOR-HEALTH -- - .--DATE APPROVED -- - - — MATC rJCC.a%EVTED - COMMENTS PUBLIC WORKS -SEWER/WATER CONFECTIONS rLgX V EYY/A% P L,-%IWS I FIRE DEPARTMENT n ATr 1lcrrnrrn ov nlnl n 1►ICnr_nrnn vnlL RECILEI•L✓ B 1 LJVILL/117U 11\Jf L\+1 V l\ Town of North Andover NORTH OFFICE OF o m COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES 30 School Street 04 North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 �9SSACHUS���y WILLIAM J. SCOTT Director April 6, 1998 Mr.Thomas Neve 447 Old Boston Rd. Topsfield, MA 01983 Re: Lot 9 Sherwood Dr. N. Andover, MA 01845 Dear Tom: This is to inform you that the proposed plans for the site referenced above have been approved. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call the Board of Health Office at the number below. Sincerely, Sandra Starr, R.S. Health Administrator S S/rel cc: R.L.I. Corporation File BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 THOMAS E. 14EVE ASSOCIA"rES, INC. Engineers o Land Surveyors o Land Use Planners 447 Roston Street US #1 TOPSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 01983 DATE ` y JOB NO. '........ (508) 887.8586 ATTENTION FAX (50 ) 887-3480 S t-A Y '-- ­rAMR TO a! _S-rARK RE: 1 � VT 45 j WE ARE SENDING YOU Attached L1 Under separate cover via the`following items: ❑ Shop drawings )9, Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Sample ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ COPIES DATE NO- DESCRIPTION 1 THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ,„For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints 7 ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FORBIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS .-A . 1Nt4 t 1 rwJ 1 L f 0 7 "" oo—K 1 7 I 7 T kA6 96Y1610-15, ti*2 r ,8D -rc' r146' P i°►" m `r_ &x> L, ',/A- to A J t> e-14 I M 015Y r4r PP60 TO c I i "J �re oProy 4Aae 0C r� °ICC°e o e�a a i lC 6e C° e,k* + cw �✓�eo aat�s 4 6 ­r t° beA -6 COPY TO 234> Jet � �sky 1 RECYCLED PAPER: SIGNED: G�Contents:40%Pre-Consumer•10%Post-Consumer If enclosures are not as noted,kindly notify us at once. p Town of North ,ORThI Andover °a .11,° OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES 146 Main Street * t North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 SgcfHUS�t�� WILLIAM J. SCOTT Director i i January 7, 1997 Thomas Neve Neve Associates 447 Old Boston Road Topsfield, MA 01983 Re: Lot#9 Sherwood Drive Dear Tom: This is to inform you that the proposed plans for the site referenced above have been disapproved for the following reasons: 1. Basement floor is not minimum of 1 foot above base flood elevation. (N.A. 4.17 2. Insufficient leaching. (3 10 CNIR 15.002, definition of bedroom - 10 rooms= 5 bedrooms) 3. Need manhole within 6 inches of grade. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call the Board of Health Office at the number below. Sincerely, Sandra Starr, R.S., Health Administrator S S/cjp BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST ADDRESS:. 2 ` 4�) ENGINEER lz_..� -GENERAL, 3 COPIES STAMP LOCUS ,,/--' NORTH ARROW e,-"" SCALE 'S CONTOURS - PROFILE ... SECTION "' BENCHMARK """ SOIL & PERCS WETS . DISCLAIMER &,, -."- WELLS & WETS ELEVATIONS— WATERSHED (El�v) WATER LINE FDN DRAIN'"""""'- SCH40 �" TESTS CURRENT? �^'"" SOIL EVALwr' - C SEPTIC TANK MIN 150OG . 17 INVERT_.DROP GARB. GRINDER-L-(2 camps +200) 10 t T(7 FDN C s MANHOLE ELEV ,�' GW - # COMPS«� GB D-BOA SIZE # LINES . FIRST 21 LEVEL STATEMENT INLET)s', °_ OUTLET (2 it OR 17 FT) TEE REQ D. 0 _LEACHING MIN 440 GPD? RESERVE AREA2-' 41 FROM PRIMARY? ° 20 SLOPE 1001 TO WETLANDS " 100 ' TO WELLS ° 4 ' TO S .H.GW 201 TO FND & INTRCPTR DRAINS l-" 400 ' TO SURFACE H2O SUPP - 41 PERM. SOIL BELOW FACILITY L." " MIN 12" COVER L---""F ILL? (15 ' ) ( t BREAKOUT MET? .„ lj TRENCHES p MIN 440 gpd SLOPE (min .005 or 611/100 ' ) SIDEWALL DIST. 3X EFF. ' RESERVE BETWEEN TRENCHES?1--f'' IN FILL? MUST W OR D (MIN 6 ) BE 10 ' MIN. ' n Ott PEA STONE? '""j VENT? (2 -_-- (>3 t COVER; LINES >50 ' ) BoT C; _ + SIDE % �p � '.N -- X LDNG � _ TOT 4 (L x W x #) (DxLx2x#) (G/ft2) Copyright 0 1996 by S.L. Starr U COLANTONIOZ ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS a, September 15, 1995 PLANNING BOARD ,f Ms. Kathleen Colwell Mr. Michael Howard Town of North Andover 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: Supplemental Engineering Review Jared Place Phase II - Revised.Plans Planned Residential Development Dear Ms. Colwell: Coler & Colantonio, Inc. is in receipt of revised plans and calculations from Thomas E. Neve Associates, Inc. (TENA) dated September 1, 1995 and September 5, 1995 respectively. The revisions represent a modification to the original submittal. Specifically, the entrance to the subdivision has been altered and the number of lots has been reduced. The drainage calculations have been revised to incorporate the above modifications and to address some of our concerns in previous correspondence on the project. We reference our previous correspondence of July 18, 1995 and June 16, 1995. This correspondence is intended to address issues in previous correspondence and any issues which may have resulted from the modifications to the plans. Where a comment has been satisfactorily addressed we have so stated. If additional information is required, the comment has not been,addressed satisfactorily or a new comment is required we have described our concerns. We offer the following comments: 1. No response required. 2. Satisfactory. 3. No response. 4,/ e defer to the Planning Board and Conservation Commission with regard to showing the FEMA line on the plans. A properly labeled FEMA line should not 101 Accord Park Drive, Suite One 617-982-5400 Norwell, MA 02061-1685 Fax: 617-982-5490 confuse future reviewers of the plan. The FEMA flood plain is required to be shown under the Wetlands Protection Bylaw and Wetlands Regulations. 5. The limits used to develop the hydrology study for the project should be acceptable given the extent of the downstream wetland system. 6 The length and slope of the storm drain outlet near Pond 3 has been indicated on the plans, however, the inverts have not been indicated. 7. Satisfactory. 8. t appears that the proposed retaining walls have been removed from the revised — plans. In two locations the proposed slope is identified as l:l. This is not a stable slope. No rip rap revetment or other structural stabilization is proposed for these areas. TENA should address how this slope is to be stabilized and provide a detail of their proposed stabilization method. 9. `Test pit data has been provided with a legend to identify abbreviations used in the log \'--- book. The log book names are not consistent with the identification numbers on the plans, therefore we cannot check specific areas. The logs indicate that most of the soils are pervious sands with gravel, which is consistent with the assumptions used in the model. We recommend test pits be excavated in the proposed retention basins. Without test pit data in the location of the basins, it is not known if the proposed retention basins will be in groundwater or if suitable soils exist to accommodate the infiltration of runoff into the ground. This information is also required under the subdivision regulations. Test pits in the proposed retention basins should be performed by a certified soil evaluator and include information on estimated maximum groundwater elevations in the area. Wetland vegetation adjacent to f 3 proposed retention basins exists at the same elevation as proposed for the bottom of the retention basins. Groundwater is usually close to the surface in wetland areas. — # The Planning Board and Conservation Commission could approve the project subject to soil testing, however, the applicant should be made aware that a filing for a modification to the subdivision plan may be required if soil testing does not concur a with the original assumptions. 1 The proposed retention basins have been modified to include a subdrain trench at the ` bottom. This should provide a means for water to infiltrate into the surrounding soil and avoid ponding in the basin. This subdrain trench will require some maintenance to assure that it does not become clogged over time. This seems to be a reasonable solution, we recommend that the operation of the facilities be observed over time to evaluate their effectiveness. I L)The revised basin design is satisfactory from a slope and top width standpoint. We would recommend that details of the overflow spillway including stone size, construction requirements, etc. and dike cross section indicating materials slope treatment and compaction requirements be provided. I 12..According to TENA, a"V-Notch" weir was used to model outflow from the retention i' basin since it gives conservative results, i.e. predicts a higher outflow, over using a channel or broad crested weir model. We have compared the discharge rates predicted for a V-Notch weir vs. a triangular channel and find that the V-Notch weir has a similar discharge at very low depths (up to 0.3 feet). At depths greater than 0.3 feet, modeling the spillway as a channel would result in greater discharge. We assumed the same configuration as used by TENA with a manning's n of 0.017 and a slope of 0.005 feet per foot for the channel. For this project, the 100-yr. flood elevation in the pond is within the tolerance range for flows through the V-Notch weir for all ponds except Pond 3 which has a 0.4 depth during a 100 year storm. It will be difficult to construct the spillway to the tolerance used in the model, i.e. to a tenth of a degree angle. f 13.,�e recommend that the outlet inverts into retention basins be lowered to the 10-yr. storm flood elevation. The impact of backwater into the drainage system will be infrequent and insignificant if the invert into the nearest upstream manhole is unchanged from the current design. No support calculations to substantiate the proposed design of the rip rap have been provided. C14. ime of Concentration (Tc) calculations have been revised to reflect a maximum sheet flow length of 100 feet. We still have concerns with some of the assumptions used to develop Tc values. The previous calculation package indicated that the majority of the woods were considered "light woods" from a Soil Conservation Service (SCS) perspective. In the revised calculations, most wooded areas are identified as "dense woods." This may reduce the predevelopment and post development Tc values somewhat. We do not anticipate a significant impact to the model, however, this should be considered in future submissions. SCS personnel have informed me that dense woods is not typical in New England. In the proposed case flow along the edge of roadways has been identified a shallow concentrated flow in an unpaved section. In addition, some of the flow paths are shown adjacent to driveways although the grading indicates the slope pitching into the driveway. In both cases using a paved surface in the Tc calculations will result in a shorter Tc and a higher peak rate of flow. We have discussed typical construction standards used for subdivision roadways with the DPW and have reviewed the subdivision regulations with respect to the typical cross section required and disagree with the assumption. According to the DPW, flow occurs along the pavement in the majority of roadways built in conformance with the regulations and in fact the gravel section becomes planted with grass. The subdivision regulations require that the section between the right of way and the pavement pitch to the pavement. For these reasons we recommend that flow paths in these locations should be considered paved. This may not have a significant impact on the design where flow discharges to a retention basin, however, it should be evaluated. In addition to the areas described above, we disagree with the Tc values for proposed subareas 3, 20 and 23. Subareas 3 and 23 should have shorter Te based on a comparison of predevelopment subarea 1 Tc and the flow paths used. Subarea 20 the flow paths are inconsistent with the proposed grades. The limits of subarea 4 and resultant Tc is not consistent with the grades on the plans. 15. TENA has provided an average of the Tc values for the majority of the subareas. This is beyond the requirements of our comment. Our concerns were specific to the long narrow subareas at the edges of the upland peninsular. TENA should consider this in future projects. 16. Drywells have been eliminated from the proposed design. 17. We would be satisfied with easements being added to the plans at the final stage of the project. We recommend that no permanent structures, i.e. buildings, pools etc. be installed in easements and that easements be located as discussed in our letter of June 16, 1995 18. Wastewater disposal systems have been removed from the power line easement, 19. This project proposes an increase in the runoff rate from the site for most storm events. Adjusting the Tc values as discussed above may further increase the peak rate of runoff from the site. The regulations require no increase in runoff rate from the site after development. We acknowledge that there are significant wetlands surrounding the site. Historic flooding data, if available, should be reviewed to determine if flooding occurs downstream of the site which may be exacerbated by the proposed project, 20. The storm drain pipes in reaches 13 and 20 would be surcharged in a 100 year storm event. Since this would be an infrequent condition, we do not anticipate any problems with the above storm drains. We appreciate the opportunity to assist the Planning Board on this project and hope that this information is sufficient for your needs. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, COLER& COLANTONIO, INC. John C. Chessia, P.E. xc Thomas E. Neve Associates i 4 J� Y TH0MA, S vie'NEVE ASSOCIALTES,,INCO 1 Y R June 22, 1995 JUN 2 6 1995 Mr. John chessia PLANNING BOAP Coler &Colantonio 101 Accord Park Drive i Suite One Norwell, MA 02061-1685 Re: Engineering Review Jerad Place Phase IV - Planned Residential Development Dear Mr. Chessia: We are in receipt of your report dated June 16, 1995, and have the following comments or additional information to offer in hopes to receive your positive recommendation as to the drainage design of this subdivision. The numbering format of your report has been reproduced for ease of reference. 1. Narrative in form, needs no response. 2. Any reference to Lot 29 will be removed from the interior contents of the plans. Lot 28 is the highest lot number being created. 3. Narrative in form, needs no response. 4. We have analyzed the FEMA flood zone in the proximity of this subdivision. We have "digitized" the FEMA line and have superimposed same on our drawings. As you know, the line is a line estimated and is without detailed study. The digitized line resembles the toe of slope of the peninsula being developed as the PRD Subdivision. Our design clearly shows that alterations will not occur near any flood plain or BVW line. Putting the FEMA line on our drawings will only confuse anybody who reviews the plans in the future. This issue was discussed with the Conservation Commission and they seemed to be comfortable from our plans that no alteration of BLSF would occur. The FEMA line has been added to the Key Map on the Title Sheet. No work for the PRD portion of this subdivision shall take place within the FEMA 100 year flood plain. • ENGINEERS • • LAND SURVEYORS • • LAND USE PLANNERS • U.S. Route #1 Topsfield, MA 01983 447 Old Boston Road FAX (508) 887-3480 (508) 887-8586 John Chessia Paae 2 b -/une 22, 1995 5. We have selected to use the wetland and property line boundaries as our design points. The wetland and beyond to the streams which conduct wetland flow to downstream properties are outside the scope necessary to determine this subdivision drainage impacts. Since it has been determined and agreed that wetland resource areas will be altered, including BLSF, selecting the BVW line and property lines in some instances, as the design points is appropriate. We see no need to expand this study beyond the limits if the purpose has been achieved. — 6. Information regarding the existing storm drain on Boxford Street, near Pond #3 is attached. This information has been added to the Definitive Subdivision Plans. n 7. ) Alternatives as to the design of the roadway sideslopes in the vicinity of wetland flags A82 and A86 have been requested by the Conservation Commission. The final treatment of this sideslope shall be settled through our negotiations with the Planning Board and Conservation Commission. The roadway will not be moved. Shoulders may be reduced and retainment structures may be built in order to increase the separation from the toe of any new slope to the existing BVW edge. 8. We have added a stone retaining wall detail to the subdivision plan (find attached a copy of the wall detail). This design shall be employed as required in order to meet the grading requirements of Lots 17, 18 & 19. 9. Find attached copies of our field books which indicate the soil excavations which were done on the site. We have included a representative sample of logs which have been verified by our soil scientist and soil evaluator as being equal to the SCS soil types shown on our plan. No test pits were dug in any proposed retention ponds, however, a bottom of pond elevation has been selected which in our opinion will be approximately 2 feet above the seasonal high water table. Excavations can be made in the spring of 1996 and the top of pond elevations can be raised if necessary in order to .provide the cumulative storage of our design (I do not expect this to be necessary, however). 10. Retention ponds shall be loamed and hydroseeded typical of any other altered areas within the subdivision. I do not recommend installing any structure below the bottom of the ponds since I want to maintain a filter medium between the bottom of the pond and the seasonal high water table to control water quality. 11. We have constructed ponds of this type in several subdivisions over the past few years. We would be happy to show you some. The berms are typically built with parent material with the use of a large excavator. An experienced backhoe operator can easily shape the sideslopes and top of berm with the use of the flat portion of the bucket. The stability is excellent and the quality of the work meets or exceeds our design. Some hard work is required in order to establish a top of pond elevation. The ponds are then hydroseeded and maintained until a stable turf is established. The ponds are designed lr, John Chessia Page 3 June 22, 1995 with rip-rap spillways which will require no maintenance. Piping leading to these ponds can be easily cleaned from a manhole being provided upstream of these locations. 11 The V-Notch weir used in our hydrologic model is not a thin plate structure. We have created cross-sections at each restriction in the surface ground contour and have mathematically calculated, using statistics, the intersection of two "best fit" lines to determine the notch angle. Many of our designs of the past have employed these techniques and it has proven to be a reliable method. We see no need to install a thin metal plate in the ground at these locations. We do not agree that the outlets should be modeled as a broadcrested weir. 13. Lowering any inlet culvert would create a submerged condition which would create backwater into the designed drainage system. The peak velocity at the most aggressive outlet is 7 FPS. This velocity can easily be controlled as to not create erosion of the sideslopes of the pond. Rip-rap (heavy 12-24" diameter with smaller stones as grout) shall be used from the inlet of all ponds to the bottom of all ponds. 14. We have checked our flow paths and find that the selection of flow length is appropriate. It is our opinion that sheet flow will exist throughout the subcatchment and shallow concentrated flow characteristics will not occur. We are not inclined to change our design. 15. We had discussed this issue in the last subdivision that we designed and you had reviewed. It is clear from TR55 that the selection of the flow path that generates the longest time of concentration is appropriate in this case and that is what was used. 16. The dry wells have been added to the design plans. Find attached a detail of the dry well being selected in order to control roof runoff on Lots 2, 14, 15, 16 & 17. We are confident that these dry wells will mitigate roof runoff as design. 0,17. All easements are added to the subdivision plans prior to endorsement, this has been our policy for 18 years. This prevents changes to the easements as designs are being _ reviewed and sometimes revised. Easements are provided for maintenance purposes. ,Its is our opinion that the drain line can be maintained and replaced if required even though the dwelling is proposed within the easement area.- 18. Our lawyers have indicated to us that as long as the grant of easement to NEPCO is not interfered with then the land, owned by the developer, can be used for any purpose which does not interfere with said grant. We have several situations where sanitary disposal system Have b een built under power line easements in the Town of North Andover. These systems are underground and do not interfere with NEPCO's rights under their easement. John Chessia Page 4 June 22, 1995 I trust that these responses satisfy your concerns. The Planning Board is meeting on Tuesday, June 27, 1995, and I would appreciate your final response to this matter. Very truly yours, THONIAS-P;NEVE ASSOCIATES, INC. Thomas E. Neve, PE, PLS President, CEO TEN/km cc: North Andover Planning Board North Andover Conservation Commission #1449 COLERMPS 1G:•95 1G: 1 ' CCiLEF. �_GLANTON10 . 508682299C, HO. 564 P02 LP L/ .�i I ! _ 1 ? �y . 1 1 9 1995 9 RNNING BOAR June 16, 1995" .5 P�__ ..�-. Ms, Kathleen Caldwell Planning Director 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: Engineering Review Jared Place Phase 1I Planned Residential Development Dear Ms, Caldwell: C.oler& Colantonio, Inc. has visited the above site and reviewed the submittal Package as described in our proposal of April 12, 1994. Our review has been limited to drainage deslgil and associated issues. We also compared the design assumptions and calculations with standard practices outlined in SCS ruIloff calculation documents and other standard engineering references. We have previously prepared a memorand-un'i on the project which addressed our initial brief review of the project. This correspondence is our complete review of material submitted to date and includes our comments on the submittal package. The submittal package included the following inforniatio)t: Plans Enti tied: "Planned Residential Development Modification of a Definitive Subdivision • Plan of Lot 29 - Jared Place phase II Sheets I through 10 dated 3/31/95 Designed for Robert J. Jaijtlsz, Prepared by Thomas E,Neve Associates Inc. • "Pre-Development Hydrology" 2 Sheets • "Post-Development Hydrology" 2 Sheets Also included was a report entitled "Hydrologic Analysis of A Planned Residential Developmept Modification of a Definitive Subdivision Plan o','Lot 29 - Jared Place phase II" dated March a 1, 1995 \�'e offer the corrinients: J6,16 95 16: 12 C-OLEr- 1-:OLAHTON I O • 50816812299G. 1,10. 564 DGt3 ,y./The site is located on the easterly side of on the south side (ii'Boxlbrd Road, A stream tributary to Fish Brook flows from the Nvesterly side of the property,around tile, south side of the parcel. Additional wetland areas are located on the easterly side of the property. NEPCO ovA?ns an easement, currently used for electrical transm.ission lines, which runs in a north-south direction through the site. A portion of the site has been mined for gravel. The site currently consists of wetland areas, wooded areas, and the remains of the open pit gravel mining operation. Twenty seven house lots are indicated on the plans. It is our understanding that one additional lot would be developed 011 Sugarcane Lane. an abutting developed road west of.'the site, The total land area o('the parcel is reported to be 96,02 acres of which 50.68 are included in the Planned.Residential Development Subdivision, ?, Lot numbering is inconsistent on the plans, The cover sheet indicates 28 numbered lets, one Open Space Parcel, Parcel A and Parcel B. The "Survey - Lotting" plans indicate a Lot 29. Since the"Survey - Lotting" plans do not encompass the entire site it is not clear if this is a typ;) or if another lot is proposed. 3, The Planning Board and the Applicant may wish to consider shortening the length of the Cut De Sac, It appears that the Cut De Sac could be shortened without impacti»g the number of developable lots, This, would reduce construction cost to the Applicant and maintenance cost to the Town, ..�j 4. Portions of the site appear to be located in a FEMA flood zone, The FEMA Zone A limits are not indicated on the plans, The FENIA 1 flood zone eterindicated ined tin the FIRM maps graphically, however, no flood elevation area by FEMA. No information has been provided regarding the existing stream which farms part of the property line of the site. The limits of the hydroi_,gY stud 5 Were outside of the stream, The drainage subareas developed for the Report extend to the property line or wetland limits, This method of defining subareas is not typically recommended by the SCS to develop hydrologic reports. Typically, subareas are identified which are tributary to a control point such as a stream or culvert, if one exists. This allows the designer to f�u�off to�the edge in the wetland s frequently development. We note that analysis requested by Conservation Commissions to assess the impact of site development to the wetland itself. We recommend that the Engineer provide descriptive information including, estimated stream flow, area tributary to the stream, etc, sufficient to demonstrate that a study inclusive of the stream should not be required as part of this project. C() No information has been.provided on the existing storm drain outlet near Pond 3. 1n,`D5 1G: 17, COLEk ._0LANTC11410 . 508682299G, NO. 5ES4 PO4 7. It will be difficult to cozlstruct the roadway in the vicinity of wetland flags A82 and 486 without altering the wetland. The proposed slope is itldicated to be 1,5' horizontal to 1° vertical. This is not an acceptable slope without rip rap stabilization. No stabilization has been proposed, The Applicant should consider adjusting the roadway to the west in this area to provide room for grading. K. Three retaining walls are indicated oil the flans, One of the retaining walls is eight :Feet high and another is ten feet high, exposed face height. No details have been provided to indicate the construction of these walls. We recommend that details, stamped by a professional engineer, be provided for retaining walls. Walls over six feet in height should be given particular attention., 9. No test pit data has been provided with the "Hydrologic Analysis" (Report). This irtform.ation is useful to compare field information with Soil Conservation Service (SCS)mapping of the area. In addition, test pits should be excavated in the proposed retention basins, Without test pit data it is not known if the proposed retention basins will be in groundwater ol,if suitable soils exist to accommodate the infiltration of ru loff into the ground. This information is also required under the subdivision regulations. Test pits in the proposed retention basins should be performed by a certified soil evaluator and include information on estimated maximum groundwater elevations in the area. We recommend this information be provide prior to approval since the retention basin design is a significant aspect of the proposed plan. 10. A detail of the surface treatment of the retention basins should be provided. We are concerned that the retention basins may not drain properly between storm events depending upon the treatment proposed in the base. We recommend providing a low spot with a drop inlet leaching pit to provide positive recharge into the ground. 11. No details have been provided for construction of the dike for the retention basins. It appears that the top of the dike is less than two feet wide in some locations, This is insufficient for the top width from both a stability and construction quality standpoint. Hand operations would be required to properly compact a strip of this width. Hand operations would be complicated since the barrow width and steep side slopes would tend to make control of coii�paction equipment difficult. In addition, access for equipment to the inlet tend outlet should be provided. We recommend a width of 10 feet be provided for access to the spillway and inlets. A narrower width of six feet could be provided in areas not proposed for access. 12, The hydrologic model uses a"V-Notch"weir as the outlet for both existing ponding areas and for proposed retention basins, No details of the "V-Notch"weirs have been provided in the platys. A."V-Notch" weir is a thin plate structure. The plates and site walk did not indicate this structure at the existing ponding areas. The outlets should be modeled as a broad crested weir which will change the outflow, _ir. I G, 95 15: 14 COLEk",' riLHNTOF,I I O . 50S&B-212996 110. 564 PFJ5 13. The plans indicate that the storm drain outlet inverts into retention basins are located near the top of the basins. The basins have a 2:1 slope down from the outlet into the basin. The retention basins should be normally dry prior to a storm event to provide the storage necessary to mitigate runoff impacts, Our experience with this type of` design is that erosion at the outlets will be a problem, We recommend that the outlet inverts be lowered and that the rip-rap erosion protection be sized to accommodate the flow froth the outlet. Support calculations to substantiate the design should be provided, 14. Time of Concentration(To) calculations indicate sheet flow lengths of up to 300 feet in several instances. We have discussed this issue with SCS personnel and the SCS has issued a guidance which states that sheet flow is typically in the range of 50 to 100 feet except in rare cases. It does not appear from the contours and surface types indicated on the plaits that a sheet flow length of 301 'Feet is appropriate in this case. 15. Some of the subareas are narrow, 50 to 100 feet wide, and several hundred feet long, Runoff from these subareas flows overland to the wetlands across the entire edge of the subarea. To assess the impact of this flow pre and post construction we recommend investigating several flow paths for the time of concentration and using a reasonable average Tc. 15. The report identifies mitigation to be provided for lots 2, 14, 15, 16 and 1.7 via on- site drywells. 'These dry wells would reportedly capture roof runoff for recharge into the ground. Neither the plans nor the report indicate any information on proposed drywells. The calculations did not account for the area of the houses for the lots listed above under proposed conditions as discussed in the report since recharge via drywell is proposed, however, no calculations of the capacity of the drywells or details of their construction has been provided. It is difficult for the Town to be assured that this type of system will remain functional. The future homeowner could abandon. the system if it becomes plugged with no recourse available to the Town. 17. No easements have been indicated on the plans for proposed drainage facilities. Easements encompassing the limits of grading associated with retention basin construction should be provided and a 20 foot wide easement centered on drainage pipes should also be provided. Note that the proposed house on Lot 19 is within three feet of the proposed storm drain. This is not acceptable from a maintenance standpoint. The house should be outside the required easement area. Existing low areas utilized for storage should also be encompassed by easements so that future owners do not fill the area and limit the storage capacity of the natural depressions. 6 b 95 16: 15 C CILDk- CI OLRHT H I C' __ ____- 110. 564 P O6 l.$. Wastewater leaching areas for Lots 12 and 13 are in the New England Power Company (N1JpCQ) Easement. The Applicant should provide written documentation from NEPCO that this is acceptablc. We appreciate the opportunity to assist the Plalmiing board on this project and hope that tilis infor.nation is Sufficient for your needs. It is anticipated that some of the issues raised in this correspondence.may be addressed by the Applicant providing copies of support data used in the development of the calculations. We would be pleased to 1neet with the Board or the design engineer to discuss this project at your convenience. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, COLER& COLANTQN10, INC. 1 John C. C'he551a. P.E. 16 :-�5 1 i;20 C:OLER -"ILHI JOH I CI . 50,?rdS:,22 9C- NO. 421 P02 MEMORANDUM Date: 199505 16 To; Kathleen Caldwell, Planning Director From: Coler & Colantonio John. C. Chessia ,Subject: Jared Place Residential Development As we discussed, I am forwarding our preliminary findings on the above referenced site. At this tinge our review of the project has not been completed and additional comments will be included in our formal review correspondence. This memorandum is intended to assist you in discussions at the Planning Board hearing scheduled for this evening. Conlrnents: 1. Portions of the site appear to be located in a FEMA good zone. The FEMA Zone A limits are not indicated on the plans, The FEMA flood zone is indicated on FIRM maps graphically, however, no flood elevation has been determined in the area by FEMA. 2. No test pit data has been provided with the "Hydrologic Analysis" (Report). This information is useful to compare field information with Soil Conservation Service (SCS) mapping of the area. In addition, test pits should be excavated in the proposed retention basins. Without test pit data it is not low if proposed retention basins will be in groundwater or if suitable soils exist to acconuiiodate the infiltration of runoff into the ground. 3. No information on infiltration capacity of the basins has been presented in the report, therefore, it is not clear that they will function properly, 4, Time of Concentration (Tc) calculations indicate sleet flow lengths of up to 300 feet in several instances. We have discussed this issue with SCS personnel and the SCS has issued a guidance which states that sheet flow is typically in the range of 50 to 100 feet except in rare cases. It does not appear from thu contours and surface types indicated on the plans that a sheet flow length of 300 feet is appropriate in this case. ILR -10. 421 PO:3 11:21 COLEF A-AHT&,i 10 - 50E:6822996 2 5, The hydrologic model uses a "V-Notch" weir as the outlet for both. existing ponding areas and for proposed retention basins. No details of the "V-Notch" weirs have beer► provided in the plans. A "V-Notch" weir is a thin, plate structure, The plans do not indicate this stlucture It the existing ponding areas. It is more likely that the Outlets should be modeled as a broad crested weir, This will be determined during our site walk, to be scheduled. 6. The drainage subareas developed for the Report extend to the property line or in e wetland limits, This method of defining subareas is not typically recon iend d by tile SCS to develop hydrologic reports. Typically, subareas are identified which are tributary to a control point such as a stream or culvert, if one exists. This allows the designer to assess flooding impacts in the vicinity of the development. We note that analysis of runoff to the edge of a wetland is frequently requested by Conservation Commissions to assess the impact of site development to the wetland itself. Field inspection of the site and discussion with the Commission may clarify where the limits of subareas should be in this case, 7. Sol-ne of the subareas are narrow. 50 to 100 feet wide, and several hundred feet long, Runoff from these subareas flows overland to the wetlands across the entire edge of the subarea, To assess the impact of this flow pre and post construction we recommend investigating several flow paths for the time of concentration and using a reasonable average Tc. 8. No details have been provided for constructio" of the dike for the retention basins. It appears that the top of the dike is less than two feet wide in some locations. This is insufficient for top width from both a stability and cc)n,struction quality standpoint, Hand operations would be required to properly compact a strip of this width. Hand operations would be complicated since the narrow width and steep side slopes would tend to make control of compaction equipment difficult. In addition, access for equipment to the inlet and outlet should be provided. 9. A slope of 1.5 horizontal to I vertical is proposed adjacent to wetlands. This is tiot a stable slope, Nvithout rip rap protection. No rip rap 1.s indicated on the plan. 10. Leaching areas for Lots 12 and 13 are in the New Et.1gland Power. Company (NEPCO) Easement. The Applicant should provide documentation from NEPCO that this is acceptable. elleChiaie, Pamela From: DelleChiaie, Pamela Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 10:41 AM To: Starr, Sandy Cc: Lagrasse, Brian Subject: 116 Sherwood Drive Importance: High Note: File is in your inbox with a copy of this e-mail Sandy, At 9:50 a.m. today, I received a call from Jane Armstrong of 116 Sherwood Drive. She bought this property in 1999. The septic was ceritified by the BOH on 9/27/99. Last year, she received a plot plan from the Assessor's office, and they told her that she could not have a septic system on an easement. The easement is part of NEPTO (New England Power Supply Co.). NEPTO told Ms. Armstrong that they would grant her a variance if she paid them $500. Ms.Armstrong's question is this: If she goes to sell her house, or needs an upgrade or work done on her septic, etc., is she going to run into any problems? She does not know what the correct answer is, as she has a COC from the BOH, yet the Assessor's office told her she could not have the septic on an easement. Please call Ms. Armstrong at: 978-686-2289 to follow-up on her questions. Thank you. flame/a DelleC h ai , Health Dept. Asshstant Town of Noith Andover Community Developinent& Services 27 Charles Street North Andovei, MA 01845 deallechiaie@to wnofriortthandover.com Tel. 978-588-9540 Fax 978.888.9542 Form No.2 Town of North Andover, Massachusetts BOARD OF HEALTH /� AORTH - `� 19 - pf 1,yO - r H p ;. ,>`$ DESIGN APPROVAL FOR b4SACo.a SOIL ABSORPTION SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM Test N o. Applicant q Site Location Reference Plans and Specs. ENGINEER DESIGN DATE for an individual soil absorption sewage disposal system to be installed Permission is granted in accordance with regulations of Board of Health.. CHAIRMAN,BOARD OF HEALTH Site System Permit No. �- Fee SEPTIC PLAN SUBMITTALS LOCATION: NEW PLANS: YES 1 $60.00/Plan REVISED PLANS: YES $25.00/Plan DATE: DESIGN ENGINEER: � _ 3 ' When the submission is all in place, route to the Health Secretary , SEPTIC PLAN SUBMITTALS LOCATION: NEW PLANS: YES $60.00/Plan REVISED PLANS. YES $25.00/Plan DATE: DESIGN ENGINEER: When the submission is all in place, route to the Health Secretary