HomeMy WebLinkAboutConsultant Review - 575 OSGOOD STREET 10/27/2016 September 16, 2016—Rev 0
September 30, 2016—Rev 1
October 18, 2016—Rev 2
October 27, 2016—Rev 3
Job No.: 15078.03
Town of North Andover— Planning Board
Jean Enright, Planning Director
1600 Osgood Street, Suite 2-36 Planning Department
North Andover, MA 01845
Re: Edgewood Retirement Community—Small Home Project
Applicant: Pond Pasture LLC (c/o Paul Hedstrom & Bob Coppola)
575 Osgood Street, North Andover, MA
Map 36, Lot 2; Zone R-1, Watershed Protection District
Town Comments to 8/19/16 Edgewood Permitting Submissions
Dear Ms. Enright:
In our response letter dated September 16, 2016, there were several items that needed further information and
documentation. The comments noted in red are the responses on 9/30/16.
Since the 9/30/16 letter, additional comments were received from DPW (10/14/16), Eggleston Environmental
(10/13/16), and TEC (10/17/16). Please find the latest comments in blue.
The final comments have been received from the Conservation Commission, DPW, and TEC and we believe all the
open items have been closed. A final response letter was sent to Eggleston Environmental on 10/26/16 and we feel
this letter addresses Ms. Eggleston's comments. No further comments were received from the Police Department or
the Health Department. These items have been added to this letter in green.
Conservation Commission,Jennifer Hughes(received 9/6/16)
1. The wetland delineation shown on the plans has been confirmed under an Order of Resource Area
Delineation under DEP File#2421686. All wetland lines shown on the plan are accurate.
9/16/16 Response:Comment noted.
2. The project is in priority habitat and is subject to regulatory review by Natural Heritage and Endangered
Species Program (NHESP). No decision should be issued until NHESP has finished their review and issued a
letter.
9/16/16 Response: The NHESP Division of Fisheries& Wildlife responded to the Edgewood Small Home MESA
(Massachusetts Endangered Species Act)Project Review Checklist submitted 8/12/16. Per the letter received on
8/24/16, the Division determined the project "will not result in a prohibited'take'of the state-listed rare
species."
9/.30/16°See attached letter from NHESP.
ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING INTERIORS ENERGY ri11inf,:,::1"n
Edgewood Retirement Community—Small Home Project
Town of North Andover Planning Board—Town Department Comments
October 27, 2016
Page 2 of 26
3. 1 reviewed sheet LP501 and note that all species on the planting schedule with the exception of Caryopteris
clandonensis/Blue mist shrub and Deutzia gracilis/Slender Deutzia are native. I recommend substitutions be
found for these nonnative species.
9/16/16 Response:Caryopteris clandonensis(Blue-Mist Shrub), while non-native, is not considered to be an
invasive species. The plant is an excellent pollinator, is drought and heat tolerant and performs exceptionally
well in New England. Deutzia gracilis(Slender Deutzia)is also not considered to be invasive, and is in fact
recommended as an alternative to many invasive species. These plants require little to no maintenance, are
drought tolerant and perform well in plant hardiness zones 5-8. The entire proposed plant list will be revisited,
and these two shrubs will potentially be replaced with native shrubs.
9/30/16:The Planting Plan has been revised to include all native plant material. Refer to updated LP101 and
LP501 for revised plant schedule.
4. The project entrance appears to be in the location of the existing HalfMile Hill parking lot which was
constructed as a requirement of DEP File# 2421398 (see conditions#86 W below). It was a condition of
that Order that the access be maintained. I do not find any details on the plan showing relocated access and
parking for the public. HalfMile Hill property lines abutting the property should be shown.
9/16/15 Response: An additional gravel area off of the existing gravel drive will be installed for parking for
HalfMile Hill users. The additional gravel area shall not impede on the existing snow storage area for the
Edgewood campus.
9/30/16:Refer to attached sketch SKC-02 for proposed designated Half Mile Hill parking.
5. A new trail is shown on HalfMile Hill to access trails on the Edgewood "Small Home" property. This trail would
require approval of the Conservation Commission who have "care, custody, and control" of the HalfMile Hill
property. Friends of North Andover Trails (FONAT) should also have the opportunity to comment on the new
trail locations.
9/16/16 Response: The Applicant intends to conduct discussions/meetings with Jennifer Hughes to review the
proposed relocated trail.
Per Order of Conditions issued under DEP File#2421398:
86. The entrance access road/drive to the Town owned Open Space area known as Half Mile Hill located off of
"Driveway G"on the approved plans shall be constructed and maintained at a minimum width of 20 feet.
Further, the current owner/applicant, Edgewood Retirement Community, Inc., and/or any future owner
acknowledges said access way and shall not imped%bstruct access to the Town owned Open Space in
perpetuity.
87. The applicant has voluntarily agreed, by letter from its Attorney referenced herein, to improve the existing
parking area and entranceway to Half Mile Hill at its own expense during construction activities.
Improvements shall include, but may not be limited to, access improvements, paving of the existing parking
area, and the installation of signage. The scope of work and project details shall be provided by the
Conservation Commission prior to the commencement of said improvement activities.As such, the applicant
shall notify the Conservation Commission at least seven (7) days in advance of anticipated activities of this
work in order for the Conservation Commission to prepare and provide the applicant's contractor with the
ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING INTERIORS ENERGY a Ir"fc,r,0IT ,O,rl,
Edgewood Retirement Community—Small Home Project
Town of North Andover Planning Board—Town Department Comments
October 27, 2016
Page 3 of 26
necessary documentation and plans to conduct said work. In addition, the Town shall be responsible for
obtaining all necessary permits and approvals prior to said work.
Additional comment received 9/19/16 received via email: "I would ask that the applicant consider that the
proposed plant species noted in my comments are not native to the United States:
http://Plants.usda.gov/core/profile?symbol=caryo3
http://Plants.usda.gov/core/profile?symbol=Degr3
There are many species that are hardy, drought tolerant and excellent pollinators that are also native to
Massachusetts, or at least New England."
0130116°The Planting Plan has been revised to include all native plant material. Refer to updated LP101 and
LP.501 for revised plant schedule.
6. Additional comments received from Jennifer Hughes on 10/18/16 via email:
• A gravel parking area and walkway have been eliminated and three designated parking spaces for Half-
Mile Hill has been added to the existing paved parking area (two already exist). Because the prior access
and parking was part of an approved Order of Conditions issued under DEP File#242-1398, the approval
of the North Andover Conservation Commission (NACC) should be obtained before construction begins.
This could be done as a general business item at a Conservation Commission meeting.
• Trail access should also be discussed and approved by the NACC. It is my understanding that the Friends
of North Andover Trails have reviewed the proposed trails and have no concerns regarding their location.
Work to connect the new trails is shown on the plans on land under the care, custody and control of the
NACC. Edgewood does not propose to do this work, but no arrangements have been made for others to
provide the trail connection. Provisions should be made to ensure the trail connection is made. Additional
trails would also require the town to seek the approval of The Trustees of Reservations (TTOR) who hold
the Conservation Restriction on the property. This too could be discussed with the NACC at a public
meeting as a general business item.
• Edgewood has responded to my comment regarding native species that all plantings used on site will be
native to New England. I have no further comments in this regard.
10/27/16 Response: The trail parking re-location and trail access point from Half Mile Hill is being handled
administratively by the Town.
ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING INTERIORS ENERGY nirfc,(',OJTI ,O,rl,
Edgewood Retirement Community—Small Home Project
Town of North Andover Planning Board—Town Department Comments
October 27, 2016
Page 4 of 26
Police Department, Lieutenant Daniel P. Lanen (received 9/6/16)
9/16/16:The North Andover Police Department does not have any issues regarding the parking or traffic safety with
project.
9/30/16:No additional comments from the Police Department.
10/18/16:No additional comments from the Police Department.
Division of Public Works,Tim Willett(Operations Manager) &John J Brogesi, PE (Town Engineer)
(received 9/9/16)
9/30/16:No additional comments from the DPW.
10/18/16:Follow up comments on#8
 received viae ail on 10/14/16.
10/27/16 Response: The Applicant received an email from John Borgesi on 10/25/16. J. Borgesi confirmed that he
and Tim Willett had no follow-up comments on the project.
1. The Applicant shall confirm that there is adequate vehicular clearance throughout the proposed development
for the North Andover Fire Department.
9/16/16 Response: The proposed development provides adequate clearance for the North Andover Fire
Department vehicles. Please refer to Sketch SKC-01.
2. It appears that the proposed development including roadways, utility infrastructure, and services will all be
private. This should be confirmed and confirmation that all future maintenance will also remain private in
perpetuity.
9/16/16 Response: Yes, the proposed roadways, utility infrastructure, and services are private. All future
maintenance will remain private in perpetuity.
3. The Engineering Department did not receive a copy of the complete stormwater report. The proposed
development includes a significant amount of underground infiltration and detention system along with
porous pavers and bioretention areas. The Board's peer review consultant shall review the proposed
stormwater design and comment accordingly for compliance with the local stormwater by-law and
Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook, as applicable.
In addition, the proposed design incorporates porous pavers and bioretention area type best management
practices (BMPs). The Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of these BMPs are very specific and require
considerable care. The long term 0&M plan shall be reviewed to ensure the required care for these BMPs,
especially during the wintertime and use of sand and salt are considered and adequately addressed.
9/16/15 Response:Please refer to the responses to Eggleston Environmental's stormwater review below. The
Long Term O&M Plan is provided and includes maintenance requirements for all elements of the proposed
development.
10/18/16:Refer to 10/17/16 S RT response letter to Eggleston Environmental's additional comments received
10/13/16.
Water
4. A tapping sleeve and gate must be used for the connection to the existing water main to prevent disruptions
to the distribution system.
ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING INTERIORS ENERGY or,Ir"fc,r,0IT ,O,rl,
Edgewood Retirement Community—Small Home Project
Town of North Andover Planning Board—Town Department Comments
October 27, 2016
Page 5 of 26
9116116 Response:A tapping sleeve and gate will be provided for the connection to the existing water main.
Refer to updated CU101.
5. A new hydrant must be added to the plan.
9116116 Response:A new hydrant has been added to the plan. Refer to updated CU101. Location will be
confirmed with the Town of North Andover Fire Department.
9130116 Fending Fire Department approval.
10118116:SMRT received verbal approval of hydrant location on 1014116.
6. Separate external shut off valves must be provided for the fire land and domestic water services lines to the
proposed building.
9116116 Response:Separate external shut off valves shall be provided for the fire protection and domestic water
service lines. Refer to updated CU101.
Sewer
7. The force main must be installed in a ductile iron sleeve for 10 feet where it crosses the proposed water line.
9116116 Response:Ductile iron sleeve shall be provided wherever force main crosses water line. Refer to
updated CU101.
8. The size and type of pipe for the force main must be added to the plan.
9116116 Response:Size and material of pipe to be finalized with pump station design. SMRT to confirm design
complies with the Town of North Andover Water&Sewer Department and Greater Lawrence Sanitary District
standards.
91. 0116:SMRT has reviewed the project with Greater Lawrence Sanitary District. District representative
confirmed that their system has capacity to support the project since the wastewater is classified"domestic
The Greater Lawrence Sanitary District will not require an industrial discharge permit, SMRT will coordinate with
Town of North Andover DPW. Fending.
8a. Comment#8 (received 10/14/16) -The size and type of pipe used for the forcemain must be on the plan.
No size or type of forcemain pipe has been added to the plans. DPW just received an email today at
approximately 3:00 p.m. indicating the Applicant is working on the design of the pump station and forcemain
and that the updated plans will be forwarded on Monday October 17, 2016. DPW will need to review the
updated design/plan set once received. We are not sure we will have our comments complete by Monday
evening for your Tuesday meeting to allow you to close out the hearing.
10118116:S RT provided updated CU101 (Site Utility Flan)and CU.504(Site Utility Details)via email to J. Borgesi
on Friday, 10114116.
10127116 Response:J. Borgesi and T. Willett have no further comments on the sewer plans.
9. The force main must have 4 feet minimum cover.
9116116 Response:A minimum of 4'of cover will be provided for force main.
10. Warning tape must be installed 2 feet above force main for its entire length.
9116116 Response: Warning tape will be installed 2'above force main for the entire length.
ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING INTERIORS ENERGY ;nirfc,,(',OJTI ,O,rl,��
Edgewood Retirement Community—Small Home Project
Town of North Andover Planning Board—Town Department Comments
October 27, 2016
Page 6 of 26
11. Sewer mitigation fees apply to this project.
9/16/16 Response:Comment noted. SMRT and Edgewood will coordinate with the Town of North Andover
Water&Sewer Department and Greater Lawrence Sanitary District.
9136/16:SMRT has reviewed the project with Greater Lawrence Sanitary District. District representative
confirmed that their system has capacity to support the project since the wastewater is classified"domestic".
The Greater Lawrence Sanitary District will not require an industrial discharge permit, SMRT will coordinate with
Town of North Andover DPW. Pending.
11a. Comment#11 (received 10/14/16)-Sewer mitigation fees apply to this project. While it is good that the
Applicant has reached out to GLSD, the DPW comment was to confirm the Applicant was aware that the
Town sewer mitigation fees will be applied to this project and will be assessed based on the proposed flows.
10/18/16:The Applicant is aware that the Town sewer mitigation fees will be applied to this project and will be
based on the proposed flows,
12. Additional comment received via email on 9/12/16: The proposed name for the access road for the
Edgewood CCRC project "Pond Pasture Lane" is too similar to existing roadways in town (Long Pasture, East
Pasture, Pond Street) and for emergency purposes (911) we recommend that the road name be changed to
something else before the project is approved.
9/16/16 Response: The project does not proposed a new access road, so there will be no new street name for the
project. The "Pond Pasture Lane"designation was for permitting/application use only.
ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING INTERIORS ENERGY ;nirfc,,(',OJTI ,O,rl,��
Edgewood Retirement Community—Small Home Project
Town of North Andover Planning Board—Town Department Comments
October 27, 2016
Page 7 of 26
Eggleston Environmental—Stormwater Review(received 9/9/161
A separate response letter based on Eggleston Environmental's additional comment letter received 10113116 was
sent on10117116. Revised storm water report,plans and calculations were provided. These comments were added
to the end of this section.
10127116 Response:A final response letter was sent to Eggleston Environmental on 10126116 regarding the
remaining outstanding stormwater design comments. At this time, the Applicant believes the stormwater design is
complete and meets all the requirements. The final comment responses have been added to this section for
reference.
1. The proposed project relies on infiltration of stormwater runoff from the proposed development to
attenuate flow, meet recharge requirements and treat the runoff. While the infiltration of runoff should
be maximized in accordance with the requirements of the Watershed Protection District, I believe that
the locations of the proposed infiltration systems and the rate of infiltration assumed in the project
design are problematic. Specifically, portions of the two larger infiltration systems and one of the
infiltrating bioretention basins would be located in areas mapped by NRCS as Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG)
D soils not generally considered suitable for infiltration.The grain size analyses provided in the
geotechnical report appear to verify the soil mapping. Also per that report only two of the four infiltration
tests conducted on the site produced usable data, and both of those were conducted in areas mapped as
having HSG C soils. Hence, the infiltration rates derived from those tests should not be assumed to apply
to infiltration structures located within the D soils.
9116116 Response: Infiltration rate(0.6 in/hr)used was based off of the two successful infiltration tests(/T-1
and IT-2). The average of these two tests were 1.2 in/hr and afactor of safety of 2 was applied which
resulted in a design infiltration rate of 0.6 in/hr. Infiltration tests IT-1 and IT-2 were performed very close to
the final placement of SIG-2 and SIG-3, therefore, the design infiltration rate of 0.6 in/hr is valid for these
two locations. However, additional geotechnical investigation will be performed at the proposed infiltration
areas to confirm infiltration rates. Part of the additional geotechnical services will include soil
classification/grain size analysis as well.
9130116.- Additional geotechnical investigation was completed on September 26, 2016. The results of the
grain size analysis were inputted into the MRCS Soil Texture Calculator to determine the soil texture
classification and associated Rawls infiltration rate. The soil classification of"sandy loom"and"loamy
sand"results confirm the soils are conducive to infiltration and the locations of SIG-1,SIG-Z and SIG-3 will
have adequate infiltration rates to meet the Massachusetts Stormwater requirements.
New Borings B-B and B-D were located in the locations of SIG-1 and SIG-3, respectively. Previous borings BB-
1 and BB-2 were located adjacent to SIG-2. Boring locations have been added to revised 0U101. The
associated Rawls infiltration rate for sandy loam(per Table 2.3.3 of the Stormwater Handbook)is 1.02 in/hr.
This value was utilized in the HydroCAD modeling,sizing of the subsurface infiltration galleries, and
confirming required drawdown time for the subsurface infiltration galleries.
Additional infiltration testing was also completed at the new boring locations. The geotechnical engineering
consultant,John Turner Consulting, has indicated favorable infiltration rates. These results further confirm
the soil classification and feasibility of the subsurface infiltration structures.
The formal geotechnical report will be forwarded next week when received from John Turner Consulting.
ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING INTERIORS ENERGY ni rfc,(',OJT I F,
Edgewood Retirement Community—Small Home Project
Town of North Andover Planning Board—Town Department Comments
October 27, 2016
Page 8 of 26
2. 1 would further note that scope and methodology of the onsite infiltration testing that was performed is
not consistent with the requirements of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook, and that when either
the "Static" or"Simple Dynamic" methods are used to size the stormwater BMPs the saturated hydraulic
conductivity should be based on the Rawls Rate associated with the slowest of the Hydrologic Soil Groups
at the proposed infiltration locations. The 0.6 in/hr infiltration rate used in the project design is more than
half the maximum Rawls Rate for HSG C soils.
9/16/16 Response: The 'Simple Dynamic"method was utilized to size the stormwater BMPs. Infiltration
analysis will be updated utilizing Rawls infiltration rates. Results of the proposed additional geotechnical
analysis will be utilized as the basis for selection of an appropriate Rawls infiltration rate/s.
9/301116: As noted in the response to Comment 1, the additional geotechnical information collected
identified the soils as `sandy loamB. Per Table 2.3.3 of the Stormwater 1-landbook, an infiltration rate of 1.012
inlhr was utilized for sizing the infiltration structures. Refer to revised water quality volume calculations in
Appendix P of the Stormwater Management Report.
The building/roof design has progressed further since the original submission dated 8/17116 and a portion of
the roof originally directed towards SiG-3, is now being directed to SiG-1, in order to more equally distribute
the stormwater runoff to the infiltration structures, a portion of the drivewaylparking lot(Subcatchment
SC20117-1)is now directed to SIG-2. This distribution of runoff results in the fallowing impervious areas to be
directed to the infiltration structures. Based on these areas, the number of chambers required to treat the
water quality volume has been revised as shown:
Infiltration Gallery Sizing Results Summary
mary
Gallery Impervious Area Number of Stormtech
Identification Treated (sf) SC740 Chambers
SICK-1 30,809 48
SIG-2 18,587 28
SIG-3 17,447 28
F__Total 66,843 sf 104
The soil testing conducted on the site was limited to soil borings, hence there was no determination of the
estimated seasonal high groundwater (ESHGW) elevation based on soil mottling.The observed groundwater
elevation (approximately 10 feet below ground surface) has not been adjusted for seasonal variation, although
the testing was conducted in June 2016 during a period of extreme dry weather.The ESHGW is likely to be several
feet higher. Several of the proposed infiltration structures would be in cuts of at least five feet, therefore it is not
certain that the design of these structures would provide the minimum two feet of separation to ESHGW
required.
9/16/16 Response: The probable seasonal high water table elevation will be assessed as part of the
proposed additional geotechnical investigation. The elevations of the proposed infiltration galleries will be
reviewed and modified as necessary based on the determined seasonal high water table. It should be noted
that only SIG-2 is within the area of a cut. SIG-1 and SIG-3 are within areas of fill.
ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING INTERIORS ENERGY nirfc,(',OJTI ,O,rl,
Edgewood RetirementCommunity—SmaUHomeProject
Town ofNorth Andover Planning Board—Town Department Comments
October 27, 2016
Page 9of26
9/30/26: Initial review ofthe field investigations completed the week of September 26-28, 2D26does not
indicate a seasonal high groundwater level within the range ofthe proposed infiltration structures. Two
piezometers were installed during the July 2O1Ginvestigations at borings 8B-5and BB-11tudepths of15
and 2Ofeetbelow ground surface(bgs), respectively. These two piezometers indicated groundwater levels
atdepths of9.3 and 9.2heetbgs/nJuly. {JnSeptember 26, 2016, these piezometers were inspected and no
groundwater was visible indicating there likely is not a seasonal high groundwater elevations within the 15'-
20'bgs. The infiltration galleries are installed approximately 6.5'6gs, therefore, /fthe groundwater level is
1S'orgreater below ground surface, there will begreater than the required 2'ofseparation between the
bottom ofstructure and the groundwater elevation.
The formalgeotechnical report will be forwarded next week when nece/vedfirornJohn Turner Consulting.
3. The proposed infiltration structures are intended to attenuate peak flows during the 10-yr and larger
storm events, therefore if the separation to seasonal high groundwater is less than four feet a mounding
analysis will also berequired under StnrmwaterStandard #3.
9116115 Response:If the separation between seasonal high groundwater is less than fourfeet, a mounding
analysis will beprovided.
9130/26: Refer toComment#3 9130116 Response.
4. Thesoi| te»t |ocatiunsshou|dbeshownonthesitep|ans, preferab|yuneitherthe0radinQoruti|itiesp|an.
The sketch included with the geotechnical report appears to be based on a different elevation datum as
vve|| asadifferentdeve|opment |ayuut, makinQitdifficu|ttocorre|atethetest |ocationsvviththe
proposed BMPs.The plan should also show the actual (versus proposed) test locations.
g//6/16Response: The soil test pit locations have been added tn[U2O1.
S. In the hydrologic analysis the 40%void volume within the soil media of the bioretention basins is included
as available storage for flow attenuation' which assumes instant saturation of the soils. The biuretendon
soil media specified in the detail would actually infiltrate runoff at a rate comparable to an HSG B sandy
loam, or at about 1.02 inches per hour, thus the full 30-inch media depth would not be fully saturated by
the infiltrated flow until about six hours after the design storm event ends.
9116116 Response: The HydroG4D model will be modified to exclude the storage within the soil media.
913(116-BRA-2has been rernomedfirornthe proposed design. The HxdroC4Dmodel has been modified to
exclude the storage within the soil media of8R4-I.
6. Much of the flow attenuation provided by the proposed drainage design would be in the subsurface
infiltration chambers, hence it needs to be demonstrated that the closed drainage system is designed to
collect and convey the flow to the subsurface structures for all design storm events, including the 100-yr
storm. To the extent that the flow is not conveyed to the subsurface structures (e.g. the calculations
indicatethatthe »edimentforebayvvnu|doverf|ovvinthe100'yrevent), thisf|ovvneedstobeaccnunted
for and alternative drainaQewaysprovided toprevent offsite flooding.
g/16/16Response:Calculations will beprovided tnshow that the dosed drainage system isdesigned to
convey o0the design storms. /frequired, alternative orz/nmgewxzys will bepnomidedfironnthe sediment
foneboytoprevent offsite flooding.
AncH|TecTuns | sms|mssn|wG PLAmm|ms |mTsn|oxs | smsnsv � mrnninccOm ���������
Edgewood Retirement Community—Small Home Project
Town of North Andover Planning Board—Town Department Comments
October 27, 2016
Page 10 of 26
9130116: All the proposed structures and pipes have been included in the HydroCAD model to facilitate
hydraulic analysis of the proposed stormwater conveyance system. Several pipe diameters have been
upsized to accommodate the larger storms. The model demonstrates that the closed storm drainage system
is sized to collect and convey the flow of all the design storms, including the 100-year storm. Refer to
updated CU101 for updated pipe sizing.
7. The hydrologic analysis is based on SIG-2 being comprised of 30 StormTech SC-740 chambers. The plan,
however, only calls for 15 chambers.
9116116 Response: The design intent was for SIG-2 to be comprised of 15 Storm Tech SC-740 chambers. The
HydroCAD modeling will be updated to reflect 15 chambers.
9130116.- The subsurface infiltration structure gallery design has been revised from the report submitted on
8117116. Refer to Comment#2 9130116 response for number of chambers provided at each SIG location.
8. The hydrologic analysis also assumes three 24-inch overflow outlet grates in each of the two bioretention
basins; the plan shows only one in each basin.
9116115 Response: The hydrologic analysis will be updated to reflect the correct number of outlet grates as
shown on the plans.
9130116:BRA-2 has been removed from the design. The HydroCAD model for BRA-1 has been updated to
reflect one grate.
9. The surface areas of the proposed bioretention basins should be treated as impervious in the drainage
analysis in order to prevent double-counting of the infiltration provided.
9116116 Response:Subcatchment areas of SC201G and 201F have been updated to reflect the bioretention
areas as impervious.
9130116:BRA-2 has been removed from the design. Subcatchment area SC201F-1 has been updated to
reflect bioretention area BRA-1 as impervious.
10. The analysis should not assume any storage volume within the sediment forebay unless it can be
demonstrated that the forebay will be fully dewatered between storm events. As sediment accumulates
in the basin any exfiltration from the forebay is likely to be minimal.
9116116 Response: Time to drain calculations will be provided to illustrate sediment forebay drains within an
appropriate amount of time.
9130115-The sediment forebay area has been regraded to provide a separation between the sediment
forebay and the dry detention pond. The forebay volume has been excluded from the storage calculations.
11. In accordance with the MA Stormwater Handbook exfiltration from the infiltration structures should be
calculated over the bottom area only. This applies to the water quality volume and drawdown
calculations as well as the hydrologic analysis.
9116116 Response:Exfiltration is only applied to the surface area of the subsurface infiltration structures
within the HydroCAD model. Only the bottom area is used for the WQV and drawdown calculations.
ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING INTERIORS ENERGY ni rfc,(',OJT I F,
Edgewood Retirement Community—Small Home Project
Town of North Andover Planning Board—Town Department Comments
October 27, 2016
Page 11 of 26
12. The water quality volume calculations should be based on storage in the infiltration structures below the
outlet invert, not the total volume of the chambers. Based on the HydroCAD analysis it appears that
several of the subsurface chamber systems would not capture the entire water quality volume even in a
2-year storm event.
9/16/16 Response: Water quality volume calculations will be revised to exclude the volume within the
infiltration chambers above the outlet invert elevation.Additional infiltration chambers will be provided as
necessary.
9/30/16:The water quality calculations have been revised to exclude the volume above the outlet invert
elevation. The chamber outlet pipes will be 8"diameter, which will result in a depth of water in the chamber
of 24". Based on the published Stormtech data, the cumulative storage volume is 48.19 cf. The water
quality/infiltration sizing calculation worksheet has been updated to reflect this volume. Refer to Appendix E
of the revised Storm water Report.
13. Water quality volume calculations are needed for the proposed pretreatment structures.
9/16/16 Response: WQV calculations will be provided for the proposed pretreatment structures.
9/30/16: Pretreatment calculations are provided far the sediment forebay and the oil/grit separator. Refer
to Appendix E of the revised Stormwater Report. Bioretention area BRA-1 will be not used for pretreatment
credit.
14. The TSS removal credit for bioretention systems is predicated on adequate pretreatment (sediment
forebay or equivalent) being provided; neither of the proposed bioretention systems includes any
pretreatment.
9/16/16 Response:Options for pretreatment for the bioretention areas will be reviewed and provided.
9/30/16: Pretreatment for the subsurface infiltration galleries has been revised and the bioretention areas
will not be utilized for pretreatment.
• The required pretreatment(44%TSS removal)for SIO'-1 will be provided by deep sump and hooded
catch basins and a sediment forebay,
• The grading,soil media, and plantings specified within BRA-1 will remain and continue to collect the
small portion of sheet flow from the drop-off pavement area. The underdrains will remain to
prevent soil saturation and convey stormwater to the sediment forebay prior to entering the
subsurface infiltration galleries.
® BRA-2 has been removed. The closed drainage system within this area has been revised. The catch
basins and oil/grit separator have been laid out to be off-line. The lawn area has been regraded to
an inlet structure which will be directed to SIG-2. All of the paved area, except for the generator and
transformer pads, will be directed through deep sump and hooded catch basins and the oil/grit
separator before entering the subsurface infiltration galleries. An isolator row will be provided in
SICK'-2 to provide further pretreatment.
ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING INTERIORS ENERGY nirfc,(',OJTI ,O,rl,
Edgewood Retirement Community—Small Home Project
Town of North Andover Planning Board—Town Department Comments
October 27, 2016
Page 12 of 26
15. Based on the plan, field inlets#3 and #5 would be at grade at the bottom of the bioretention basins.
Based on this design, any runoff flow into the basin would drain through the grates directly to the
subdrains and would not undergo treatment through the soil media or provide recharge. The design
guidelines in the MA Stormwater Handbook call for bioretention systems to have a ponding area six to
eight inches in depth above the surface of the basin to ensure that the entire water quality volume is
captured and infiltrated, and for the invert of any overflow structures to be set above that elevation. If
the bioretention system is designed to exfiltrate the underdrains should also be terminated within the
bioretention cell.
9116116 Response:Field inlet grates at bioretention areas will be set 6"above noted top of frame elevations
to provide 6"of ponding within bioretention areas. Feasibility of an exfiltration bioretention system will be
evaluated based on the additional geotechnical evaluation.
9130116: RRA-2 is being removed. RRA-1 is to remain, but no credit will be taken for stormwater quality
treatment,therefore, ponding will not be provided. Similar soil media will be installed. Llnderdrains will be
provided so area does not become saturated and stormwater will be conveyed to BMP treatment train. No
credit far exfiltration will be taken.
16. The discharge from field inlet FL1-1 should be discharged to the storm drain downgradient of CB-2 in
order to prevent resuspension of the sediments accumulated in the basin.
9116116 Response: The outlet from field inlet FI-1 has been directed to FI-2.
9130116:Layout of closed drainage system has been revised so catch basins are off-line. All drainage areas
will be routed through the deep sump and hooded catch basin and then to the sediment forebay prior to
entering SIG-1,
17. In accordance with the Stormwater Handbook, the proposed oil/grit separator needs to be installed in an
offline configuration so that storms larger than the 2-yr 24 event bypass the structure.
9116116 Response:Oillgrit separator will be installed offline so larger storms may bypass the structure.
9130116:The layout of the oillgrit separator has been revised and a diversion weir has been provided in
DMH-9 to allow storms larger then 2-year to bypass the structure.
18. The pavement runoff from Subcatchment SC201F would be undergo pretreatment in either a
bioretention basin or a deep sump catch basin, but not in both as is indicated by the TSS calculations.The
flow that drains through CB-2 does require additional pretreatment before infiltration, although it
appears that may be provided in the Isolator Row shown in the infiltration system detail.
9116116 Response:Revised TSS calculation sheets will be provided.
9130116:Pretreatment far Subcatchment SC201F-1 will be via deep sump and hooded catch basins and the
sediment forebay prior to entering SIG-1. Refer to revised TSS worksheets in Appendix F.
19. The discharge from the dry pond/sediment forebay should be connected to Isolator Row Inlet Structure
IRIS-1 downgradient of the weir. This flow will have already undergone adequate pretreatment and does
not need to be directed through the Isolator Row.
9116116 Response:Flow from the sediment forebay will be directed downgradient of the weir.
9130116:No isolator row will be provided for SIG-1 as adequate pretreatment is provided prior to entering
SIG-1,
ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING INTERIORS ENERGY nirfc,(',OJTI ,O,rl,
Edgewood Retirement Community—Small Home Project
Town of North Andover Planning Board—Town Department Comments
October 27, 2016
Page 13 of 26
20. The Stormwater Report includes the TSS removal calculations for pretreatment only. TSS removal
calculations are also needed for the proposed treatment BMPs.
9116116 Response: TSS calculation sheets will be provided for the entire BMP treatment train.
9130116:Refer to Appendix F of revised Stormwater Management Reportfor TSS worksheets for entire BMP
treatment trains.
21. The porous pavers proposed for the sidewalks and additional parking spaces on the Edgewood property
should be identified on the plan and a design detail provided.
9116116 Response:Porous paver detail is provided. Refer to A1010502.
22. The Site Grading Plan (Sheet CG101) shows two additional infiltration systems that are not included on
the Site Utility Plan or in the design calculations.
9116116 Response: There are not two additional infiltration systems. The notes have been removed from
CG101.
23. The flared outlets appear to have been sized to prevent scour as required by Stormwater Standard #1,
however I was unable to locate the sizing calculations in the Stormwater Report.
9116116 Response:Sizing calculations will be provided for the flared end outlets.
9130116:Riprop sizing calculations are provided in Appendix 1 of the revised Stormwater Management
Report. Riprop oulets will have a minimum length of 10'and minimum width of 11,5`. The d5o stone shall be
4".
24. 1 recommend that the field inlets be equipped with beehive grates to prevent blockage.
9116116 Response:Beehive grates will be provided.
25. 1 recommend against the placement of woven geotextile on the bottom of the proposed infiltration
structures as is called for in the detail on Sheet CU503 since it can be prone to clogging. A filter layer of
bankrun gravel can be used instead.
9116116 Response:Geotextile fabric will be removed from infiltration structure details and o filter layer of
bankrun gravel will be installed.
9130116:Refer to updated Detail A5 on sheet CU503.
26. Suitable snow storage locations should be identified on the plans and referenced in the O&M Plan. Snow
stockpiles should be located upgradient of stormwater BMPs, so that the meltwater undergoes treatment
prior to discharge.
9116116 Response:Snow storage locations shown on LP101. Primary location for snow storage is north of
parking lot. Snow melt from this area will runoff into sediment foreboy before entering infiltration system.
ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING INTERIORS ENERGY r,i,aI "fc,r,0IT ,O,rl,��
Edgewood Retirement Community—Small Home Project
Town of North Andover Planning Board—Town Department Comments
October 27, 2016
Page 14 of 26
27. As indicated in the Stormwater Report, the proposed project entails the disturbance of more than one
acre of land and will therefore be subject to EPA's NPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). A
construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was included with the application. Prior to
the initiation of work the selected contractor will need to file a Notice of Intent for coverage under the
CGP and finalize the SWPPP. This requirement should be clearly noted on the plans, and the Conservation
Commission should have the opportunity to review the SWPPP with the contractor prior to the start of
work.
9/16/16 Response:Note has been added to CE001 (A.3). The NPDES requirement will also be included in the
Project Bid Documents. All proposed work will be performed outside of Conservation commission
jurisdictional areas.
28. 1 recommend a minimum 2-inch stone on the stabilized construction entrance to prevent tracking.
9/16/16 Response:Minimum 2-inch stone shall be provided for stabilized construction entrance.
29. 1 have the following comments on the Operation and Long Term Maintenance Plan submitted with the
Application:
• The catch basins and oil/grit separator should be cleaned a minimum of once per year.
• The 0&M Plan references both an infiltration structure and a subsurface infiltration gallery; the
proposed project only includes the latter.
• The bioretention basins and the subsurface infiltration structures should be inspected at least
once a year following a rain event of at least one inch to ensure that they are fully drained within
72 hours.
• Inspections and maintenance of the sediment forebay should be included in the plan.
• Inspections and maintenance of the porous pavers should be included in the plan.
• The plan should include a simple figure showing the locations of all stormwater BMPs to be
maintained as well as designated snow storage locations.
9/16/16 Response:
• Frequency of maintenance for catch basins, oil/grit separator, bioretention areas, and subsurface
infiltration galleries has been added to the Operation, Inspection and Maintenance Plan.
• Reference to infiltration structures has been removed.
• Inspection and maintenance of sediment foreboy and porous and grass pavers have been included
in the Operation, Inspection and Maintenance Plan.
• Figure showing all stormwater BMPs has been included in the Operation, Inspection and
Maintenance Plan.
30. Lastly, I recommend that in conjunction with the as-built plans and certification the finished project
should be inspected by a qualified professional engineer who can certify that there are no illicit
connections to the storm drainage system.
9/16/16 Response:As-built plans and certification that project was constructed as designed will be
submitted at the conclusion of the project. The Owner's Construction Manager will monitor construction to
ensure there are no cross-connections between the sanitary sewer lines and storm drains within the building.
ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING INTERIORS ENERGY nirfc,(',OJTI ,O,rl,
Edgewood Retirement Community—Small Home Project
Town of North Andover Planning Board—Town Department Comments
October 27, 2016
Page 15 of 26
Follow up comments from Eggleston Environmental were received via email on 10/13/16:
In follow-up to my September 8, 2016 comments on the above-referenced project, I have received and
reviewed the September 30, 2016 response letter, revised Stormwater Report and revised plan set submitted
by SMRT Architects and Engineers, as well as the October 4, 2016 Supplemental Infiltration Testing Report
prepared by John Turner Consulting, Inc.
Most of my previous comments have been satisfactorily addressed by this revised submittal. I do, however,
have the following comments:
1. The additional soil testing performed on the site adequately demonstrates that the soils in the proposed
infiltration areas are consistent with the design assumptions.The testing also appears to demonstrate
that surficial soil conditions are not consistent with the HSG C and D soils indicated by the NRCS soil map,
hence the calculation of runoff rates and recharge requirements should also be based on the assumption
of HSG B soils.
10/17/16 Response: The soil cover conditions of HSG C and HSG D within the HydroCAD subcatchment areas
are currently being updated in the HydroCAD model. We are still working to ensure the post-development
peak flow attenuation is meeting the State and Town requirements. We will provide the updated model and
plans as soon as possible.
The Recharge to Groundwater(Massachusetts Standard 3)requirement calculation has been updated
utilizing NRCS Hydrologic Soil Group R(0.35 in/hr), The revised Stormwater Management Report will be
provided as soon as possible.
10/17/16 Response-REV 1: The subcatchment areas have been updated to reflect HSG B soils in both the
pre-and post-development HydroCAD models. This soil cover revision resulted in a significant change to the
pre-and post-development peak flow rates. In order to meet MossDEP Stormwater Standard 2 and the
North Andover Section 7.2(R),several modifications were made to the design to ensure the post-
development peak flow rates were less than the pre-development flow rates:
• An additional row of Stormtech chambers was added to SiG-3 providing a total o (35)chambers in
this location.
• An additional 15"of stone has been added underneath the storm chambers of SIG-1 and SiG-3.
• The roof subcatchment areas - , -5® and -6 will outlet to the dry pond prior to entering SIG-1m
• The elevation of the weir wall within the dry pond outlet structure has been modified to 173.75.
These revisions are shown on CU101 and CU503 as well as in the Stormwater Management Report included
with this letter. For your reference, the following are the revised Sections/Appendices:
• Section 3.3 Runoff Summary tables
• Section 4.3 MassDEP Standard 3—Recharge to Groundwater
• Section 4.4 MossDEP Standard 4®Water Quality Treatment-infiltration Gallery Sizing Results
Summary& Water Quality Calculations(Page 2 of 4 of Appendix E)
• Pre-development HydroCAD Report(Appendix C)
• Post- eveloment Watershed Maps C-121 and C-122(Appendix D)
• Post-development HydroCAD Report(Appendix D)
• Porous Paver Calculations(Appendix D)
10/26/16 Response: In response to Comment 5, the HydroCAD model has been updated to reflect the correct
elevations of the outlet manifolds. The updated Stormwater Management Report and HydroCAD reports have
been provided with this letter.
ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING INTERIORS ENERGY nirfc,(',OJTI ,O,rl,
Edgewood Retirement Community—Small Home Project
Town of North Andover Planning Board—Town Department Comments
October 27, 2016
Page 16 of 26
2. The test pits conducted in proposed infiltration areas SIG-1 and SIG-3 were excavated to at least two feet
below the bottom of the proposed systems and did not encounter evidence of seasonal high
groundwater. Both systems would be partially constructed in fill, thus the bottoms of the systems are
only 2 to 3 feet below existing grade. No test pits were conducted at SIG-2 however, where the bottom of
the proposed infiltration system would be 9 feet below grade, requiring a minimum depth to seasonal
high groundwater of 11 feet to meet the separation requirements of the Stormwater Standards. Water
was observed in the two piezometers installed on the site at 9.2 and 9.3 feet below grade in June 2016;
the fact that no water was present in the two piezometers in September 2016 does not negate that fact,
and the suggestion of a perched water table is not consistent with the design assumptions. I would also
point out that both readings were conducted during very dry conditions-the USGS monitoring well in
Haverhill was 7.25 feet below its high groundwater elevation on the date of the reading in June, and 9.75
feet below high groundwater on the September date, hence it is highly lil<ely that the seasonal high
groundwater elevation at the project site would also be quite a bit higher than the levels indicated by the
piezometer readings. I therefore recommend that additional soil testing be conducted at the location of
system SIG-2, and that the pit be excavated to at least two feet below the bottom of the system to allow
a MA licensed soil evaluator to confirm adequate depth to seasonal high groundwater based on soil
mottling. Whether this additional testing is done prior to or as a condition of project approval is up to the
Board, but it should be understood that if the design assumptions are not confirmed by the testing
revisions to the drainage design will be required.
10/17/16 Response: Additional geotechnical testing at SIG-2 is scheduled to be completed this week
(tentatively scheduled for Tuesday 10/18/16).
10/26/16 Response:Results of the testing completed at SIG-2 indicated this location was not suitable for
infiltration. The subsurface infiltration structures have been removed from this area. SIG-3 has been expanded
to accommodate the stormwater that was originally directed to SIG-2.
3. Since no pretreatment is being provided for BRA-1 the drainage analysis should not assume exfiltration
from the basin.
10/17/16 Response: Exfiltration has been removed from BRA-1 in the post-development HydroCAD model.
10/26/16 Response: Based on Comment 5, CU101 and HydroCAD model have been updated to reflect the
correct configuration and elevations of the outlet manifolds.
4. There are several inconsistencies between the design plans and the post development drainage model:
a. The outlet from SIG-1 is modeled as a 15-in culvert at 168.22; the inlet invert to DMH-1 is listed
on Sheet CU101 as 168.72, and the outlet fromDMH-1 is labeled as being a 12-in pipe.
10/17/16 Response: The outlet from SIG-1 is a 15-inch culvert at 168.22. CU101 has been updated.
10/26/16 Response: The 15-inch manifold header pipe enters DMH-1 at an elevation of 169.53.
The 15-inch outlet pipe exits at elevation 169.43. These values have been updated in the HydroCAD
model and CU101.
b. The outlet from SIG-2 is modeled as a 15-in culvert; the plan calls for an 18-in pipe.
10/17/16 Response: The outlet from SIG-2 is an 18-inch culvert. HydroCAD model has been
updated.
10/26/16 Response: SIG-2 has been removed.
ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING INTERIORS ENERGY nirfc,(',OJTI ,O,rl,
Edgewood Retirement Community—Small Home Project
Town of North Andover Planning Board—Town Department Comments
October 27, 2016
Page 17 of 26
c. The 12-in outlet culvert from SIG-3 is modeled at inv. 169.95, the inlet invert to DMH-7 is listed
on Sheet CU101 as 170.2.
10/17116 Response: The inlet invert is 169.95. CU101 has been updated.
10126116 Response: The 18-inch manifold header pipe enters DMH-7 at an elevation of 170.66.
The 18-inch outlet pipe exits at elevation 170.56. These values have been updated in the HydroC,4D
model and CU101.
d. The dry pond outlet is modeled as having a weir elevation of 172.75; the structure schedule on
Sheet CU101 lists the invert of the weir as 172.25.
10117116 Response: The invert of the weir is 172.25. CU101 has been updated.
10126116 Response: The invert of the weir has been adjusted to 173.75. The HydroCAD model and
CU101 have been updated.
S. Stormtech outlet manifolds are typically laid flat, however the project design (based on the hydrologic
model) calls for a drop in elevation of up to 1.83 feet from the 8-inch chamber outlets to the manifold
headers. This needs to be clearly shown on the design detail and the inverts of the 8-inch outlets need to
be specified on the plan. The inverts of the chambers should also be specified.
10/17116 Response: The design intent of the stormwater infiltration structures is to have the inlet to the
infiltration chambers enter at the bottom of the Stormtech chambers and the outlet fro the infiltration
chambers exit from the top of the Stormtech chambers. It is understood that as designed the stormwater
will back up into the inlet structure while the infiltration structures are draining. The HydroCAD model
included flood elevations(i.e. top offramelgrate elevations)showed that none of the storm drainage
structures will overtop during any of design storm events. The reason for having the inlet at the bottom of
the Stormtech chambers and the outlet fro the top of the Stormtech chambers is to minimize the depth of
the structures and outlet elevation. Minimizing the depth of the structures allows for maximum separation
from the bottom of the structures to the seasonal high groundwater levels. SMRT will provide a cross
section detail of the subsurface infiltration structures(SIG)that illustrates the inlet and outlet elevations.
10/17116 Response-REV 1: Side View Cross Section added to Detail ABICU503.
10126116 Response: The outlet manifolds from the Stormtech chambers shall be flat. The inverts of the 8"
outlet pipes from the infiltration structures and the outlet pipes have been updated in the HydroCAD models as
well as in the structure and pipe tables on CU101. Details D8 and D15 on CU503 have been updated to clarify
the 8"outlet pipes connect into a header pipe which connects into the downstream drain manhole.
6. The overflow weir elevations for inlet structures IRIS-2 and IRIS-3 should be added to the structure
schedule on Sheet CU101. Based on the response letter SIG-1 will not have an Isolator Row-the design
detail reference in the structure schedule should be revised accordingly.
10/17116 Response:
• The overflow weir elevations for IRIS-2 and IRIS-3 shall match the 8"outlets from the Stormtech
structures.
• IRIS-2 overflow elevation=170.88
• IRIS-3 overflow elevation=16.9.86
• Detail D8ICU503 has been updated.
10126116 Response: The overflow weir elevation for IRIS-3 has been corrected. IRIS-3 overflow elevation=
170.68.
ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING INTERIORS ENERGY ni rfc,(',OJT I F,
Edgewood RetirementCommunity—SmaUHomeProject
Town ofNorth Andover Planning Board—Town Department Comments
October 27, 2016
Page 18of26
7. The location of inlet structure IRIS-3 should be shifted so that it is aligned with the Isolator Row on SIG-3.
10117116 Response: Location ofinlet structure 0RIS-3 has been updated/nCU101.
8. Thestructureschedu|eonSheet [UlO1shou|da|so |isttheoverf|owvveire|evationforDMH'g' anda
design detail showing the overflow weir provided.
10/17/76 Response: Overflow weir elevation for DKM-9has been added to the structure table onSheet
CU101. Detail H5/sprovided onCll501.
A. All of my previous comments on the O&M Plan have been satisfactorily addressed except that a figure
showing the locations of the BMPs and the designated snow storage locations is still needed.
20/17116 Response:Figure 1 (StormmmterBMP Plan)has been provided.
AncH|TecTuns | sms|mssn|wG PLAmm|ms |mTsn|oxs | smsnsv � mrnninccOm ���������
Edgewood Retirement Community—Small Home Project
Town of North Andover Planning Board—Town Department Comments
October 27, 2016
Page 19 of 26
TEC Peer Review—Eric K. Gerade, PE—Stormwater Review(received 9/9/16)
10118116: Additional comment letter received 10118116.
10127116 Response: The Applicant received the final review letter from TEC via email on 10125116. Webelieve all
the TEC items have been addressed
1. The Applicant should provide a zoning compliance chart on the Site Plans indicating dimensional
requirements identified within the Zoning Bylaws.
9116116 Response:Zoning compliance table has been added to the plan. Refer to updated Drawing C-001.
10/17116 TEC: Comment addressed.
10118116SMRT. Comment closed.
2. The Applicant is currently proposing a side yard setback of ten feet, which does not meet the minimum
side yard setback of thirty feet within the Residential-1 District according to the Town of North Andover
Zoning Bylaws. The Applicant should confirm if the two lots will be consolidated to remove this common
lot line and the requisite setback. The Board may consider including the lot consolidation as a condition of
approval, or recommend that the Applicant pursue a variance.
9116116 Response: The Applicant's intent is to consolidate the two parcels after receiving all Town permit
approvals.
10/17116 TEC:If acceptable to the Board, TEC recommends that this be included as condition of approval.
10118116 SMRT. Comment noted. Final determination to be made by Planning Board.
10125116 TEC. Nofurther response required, refer to TECs previous comment.
3. The Applicant is proposing to construct a new permanent structure within the "Non-Discharge Zone" of
the Watershed Protection District; a variance request has been submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
9116116 Response: Yes. The Applicant has submitted a Variance Request to the ZBA. The project was heard
at the Tuesday,September 13, 2016 meeting. The variance hearing was continued to the next meeting on
Tuesday, October 11, 2016.
9130116.-Pending.
10/17116 TEC: Comment ongoing.
10118116SMRT. Pending. ZBA hearing scheduled for 1111116.
10125116 TEC. If acceptable to the Board, TEC recommends that this be included as a condition of approval.
4. It appears that the existing lot does not have adequate roadway frontage.The Applicant should indicate
on the plans any easements or rights for frontage.
9115115 Response: The property is accessed by an easement which has been clarified more clearly on the
plans. The parcel does not have any road frontage.
10/17116 TEC: The Applicant has provided an easement plan, identifying a proposed easement for the
parcel. Portions of the plan are not legible. The Applicant should confirm if this is an existing or proposed
easement. The Town of North Andover Building Department should confirm if this easement provides
adequate frontage.
10118116: Per email received on 10/18/16 from Donald Belanger(Building Commissioner), the frontage is
legal non-conforming, thereby meets the requirement.
10125116 TEC. Comment addressed.
ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING INTERIORS ENERGY ni rfc,(',OJT I F,
Edgewood Retirement Community—Small Home Project
Town of North Andover Planning Board—Town Department Comments
October 27, 2016
Page 20 of 26
5. The Applicant should confirm if the pedestrian connection between the existing Edgewood facilities and
the proposed project is ADA/AAB compliant. If not, the facility should be upgraded to meet current
accessibility standards.
9/16/16 Response: The proposed pedestrian connection between the existing Edgewood facilities and the
proposed development is designed to meet ADA requirements.
10/17/16 TEC: Comment appears to be addressed. The Applicant should confirm that the proposed porous
paver walkway material will comply with ADA requirements.
10/18/16: Proposed porous paver walkways are ADA compliant.
10/25/16 TEC:Comment addressed.
6. TEC agrees with the proposed number of parking spaces and accessible parking spaces based on current
regulations. However, the Applicant should confirm if the number of proposed accessible parking spaces
is adequate for the proposed use as a Continuing Care Retirement Center (CCRC), which may have a
higher demand for those spaces.
9/16/16 Response: The number of accessible parking spaces is appropriate for the proposed CCRC use. The
residents will not have private vehicles on site.
10/17/16 TEC: Comment addressed.
10118116SMRT.° Comment closed,
7. During a recent site visit, TEC observed vehicles parked on the existing grass area proposed to be
constructed into permanent parking spaces with this project. The Applicant should confirm if there is an
existing deficiency in parking supply and assess if additional parking may be warranted to satisfy the
existing demand.
9/16/16 Response:A parking analysis of the existing facility was not included in the scope of this project.As
part of this project, the additional(14)parking spaces provided on the Edgewood property should alleviate
any existing parking deficiencies and formalize existing usages.
10/17/16 TEC:Eight of the fourteen additional parking spaces provided on the existing Edgewood property
are required for the proposed development to meet zoning requirements, and an additional three are
reserved for the trail network, therefore, only three additional spaces are available to alleviate any existing
parking deficiencies. The Applicant should confirm that the existing facility has the required amount
parking according to the Zoning Bylaws.
10/18/16.5 RT.°If additional parking spaces are required, the proposed( 2)space lot can be expanded to
the north.
10/25/16 TEC:Comment addressed, however, a future expansion of the parking lot will require review and
approval from the Town of North Andover.
10127116 SMRT.•Commentclose .
ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING INTERIORS ENERGY nirfc,(',OJTI ,O,rl,
Edgewood Retirement Community—Small Home Project
Town of North Andover Planning Board—Town Department Comments
October 27, 2016
Page 21 of 26
8. The proposed circular drive at the building entrance is shown as 24 feet wide.The Applicant should
confirm if this drive is intended for two-way traffic.There may be an opportunity to improve traffic
circulation and reduce impervious area if some of the circulating areas are limited to one-way only.
9/16/16 Response: The Design Team intends to examine the possibility of making the circular drive a one-
way only circulation route. Further examination of vehicular turning radii will be conducted prior to changing
the roadway width.
9/.30/16° The smallest width possible for fire apparatus to safely navigate the circular entry drive is twenty
(20)feet wide. This roadway width is slightly too large for a one-way circulation route, as it can be deceiving
for some individuals who might believe it is a two-way circulation route. There would need to be a great deal
of signage in order to ensure safe vehicular travel throughout the site. The Design Team will revisit this
option with the Owner for a final decision.
10/17/16 TEC: Comment ongoing.
10/18/16 S RT.° The circular drive will remain as a two-way, twenty four(2 )foot wide drive. Painted
directional arrows will be provided.
10/25/16 TEC:Comment addressed.
9. The Applicant is proposing twenty-four (24') foot wide drive aisles; however, Section 8.1.5.a of the Town
of North Andover Zoning Bylaws requires drive aisles of twenty-five (25') feet for 90' parking spaces.
9/16/16 Response: The drive aisles have been updated to a width of 25'. Please refer to updated CP101.
10/17/16 TEC: Comment addressed.
10118116SMRT.° Comment closed.
10/25/16 TEC:Comment addressed.
10. According to Section 13.5.a— Minimum Lot Size, of the Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaws, a CCRC
shall be permitted only within a single lot containing a total area of not less than twenty-five (25) acres;
the Applicant is proposing the CCRC on a Lot having an area of approximately twenty (20) acres.
9/16/16 Response: The Applicant's intent is to consolidate the two parcels after receiving all Town permit
approvals. Once combined, the lot will be greater than (25)acres and meet the Zoning Bylaw requirement.
10/17/16 TEC:If acceptable to the Board, TEC recommends that this be included as condition of approval.
10/18/16 S RT.° Comment noted. Final determination to be made by Planning Board.
10/25/16 TEC:No further response required, refer to TECs previous comment.
11. The Applicant should revise the Site Grading Plan to show the same proposed subsurface infiltration
galleries as depicted within the Site Utility Plan.
9/16/15 Response: The Site Grading Plan(CG101)has been updated to reflect the infiltration structures
shown on CU101.
10/17/16 TEC: Comment addressed.
10118116SMRT.° Comment closed.
ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING INTERIORS ENERGY ;nirfc,,(',OJTI ,O,rl,��
Edgewood Retirement Community—Small Home Project
Town of North Andover Planning Board—Town Department Comments
October 27, 2016
Page 22 of 26
12. The Applicant should consider revising the location of the proposed crosswalk and sidewalk at the
driveway intersection to provide a safer means of pedestrian connectivity. The Applicant should also
incorporate a painted stop line and stop sign prior to the crosswalk at this intersection.
9/16/16 Response: The level of use of the pedestrian connectivity will be limited. SMRT feels this level of use
does not warrant a stop sign at the crosswalk.
10/17/16 TEC:For vehicular and pedestrian safety, TEC still recommends that the Applicant consider
providing a stop sign and stop line.
10/18/16 S RT.°if signage is required, we would propose pedestrian crosswalk signage("state law, yield to
pedestrians in crosswalk")in lieu of stop signs.
10/25/16 TEC: TEC recommends a stop sign and stop line at the intersection of the new site driveway to the
existing site driveway. TEC agrees that pedestrian crosswalk signage also be installed on each side of the
crosswalk.
10/27/16 S RT.• The Applicant respectively requests that stop signs not be required. On campus pedestrian
traffic does not warrant stop signs and will hinder the flow of vehicular traffic on site.
13. It appears that the existing trail head signage will be impacted. The Applicant should identify a new
location for the trailhead signage.
9/16/16 Response: The existing trailhead signage that is to be relocated is called out on CD101. The new
location of the trailhead signage is to be field located by the Architect/Owner/Town.
10/17/16 TEC:If acceptable to the Board, TEC recommends that this be included as condition of approval.
10/18/16 SMRT.° Comment noted. The existing trailhead signage is now proposed to remain in its current
location and will not be disturbed.
10/25/16 TEC:Comment addressed.
14. It appears that the Applicant is not proposing fire hydrants within the proposed development; the
Applicant should confirm all new locations with the Town of North Andover Fire Department.
9/16/16 Response:A new hydrant has been added to CU101. The new location will be coordinated with the
Town of North Andover Fire Department.
9130116°Fending Fire Department approval.
10/17/16 TEC: Comment appears to be addressed. If acceptable to the Board, TEC recommends that this
be included as condition of approval.
10/18/16 S RT.°SMRT received verbal approval of hydrant location on 10/4/16.
10/25/15 TEC:Comment addressed.
15. The Applicant should confirm with the Town of North Andover Fire Department that adequate access is
provided around the building. Currently,the site plan shows access on one edge of the facility.
9/16/16 Response: The plan has been reviewed and proposed access has been approved by the Fire Chief.
10/17/16 TEC: Comment addressed.
10118116SMRT.° Comment closed.
ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING INTERIORS ENERGY nirfc,(',OJTI ,O,rl,
Edgewood Retirement Community—Small Home Project
Town of North Andover Planning Board—Town Department Comments
October 27, 2016
Page 23 of 26
16. The Applicant should provide a truck turning analysis to confirm adequate fire truck access and access for
trucks to the loading dock area without leaving the edge of pavement.
9/16/16 Response:A vehicular turning analysis has been performed, and fire apparatus can access the
proposed development, and vehicles can access the service area. Please refer to Sketch SKC-01.
10/17/16 TEC: The Applicant provided a Fire Apparatus Turning Study, showing turning templates for a
fire truck to adequately maneuver the main drive aisle. The Applicant should confirm with the Town of
North Andover Fire Department on the largest apparatus that may service the facility. Additionally, prior
to construction, the Applicant should confirm that the loading dock/dumpster area can be adequately
accessed by the anticipated delivery/trash vehicle and make any minor curb adjustments as needed.
10/18/16 S RT.° The Fire Apparatus turning radius template that was used for the study is larger than the
dimensions provided by the N.Andover Fire Department, therefore the Applicant is confident that all Fire
apparatus will be able to maneuver the main drive aisle.
10/25/16 TEC:Comment partially addressed,the Applicant should confirm that the loading oc du Aster
area can be adequately accessed by the anticipated delivery/trash vehicle. If any adjustments are required,
they would likely be minor curb modifications, and can be handled during the construction phase.
10/27/16 S RT.• Applicant is currently reviewing trash removal operations with vendor. Applicant also
agrees that any modifications, if required, will be minor in nature.
17. The Applicant should provide a 'Common Open Space' calculation for the proposed site; the area of
Common Open Space shall equal at least fifty(50) percent of the total area of the CCRC parcel or lot and
no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the minimum required Common Open Space shall be situated
within wetlands in accordance with Section 13.5.e—Common Open Space of the Town of North Andover
Zoning Bylaws.
9/16/16 Response:Common Open Space. Zoning compliance table has been added to the plan. Refer to
updated drawing C-001.
10/17/16 TEC: Comment addressed.
10/18/16 S RT.° Comment closed.
18. The Applicant should indicate the limits of open space on the Site Plans.
9/16/16 Response: The total parcel area is 20.29 acres. Approximately, 3.8 acres will be disturbed as part of
the proposed project. Therefore, 81.3%of the site will remain undisturbed. Refer to the zoning compliance
table added to drawing C-001.
10/17/16 TEC: Comment addressed.
10/18/16 S T° Comment closed.
ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING INTERIORS ENERGY nirfc,(',OJTI ,O,rl,
Edgewood Retirement Community—Small Home Project
Town of North Andover Planning Board—Town Department Comments
October 27, 2016
Page 24 of 26
19. The Applicant's narrative states that the proposed sewer design has not been finalized and if a gravity or
force main system will be required.The sewer piping on the plans should be revised to show the final
sewer location, design and connection into the existing sewer system. The Applicant should confirm with
the Town of North Andover DPW if sufficient capacity exists within the municipal system to accept new
flows.
9/16/16 Response: The proposed sanitary sewer design will be a force main system. The final design will be
provided for the Town review. SMRT/Edgewood will confirm if there is sufficient capacity with the Town of
North Andover and the Greater Lawrence Sanitary District.
9130116:SMRT has reviewed the project with Greater Lawrence Sanitary District. District representative
confirmed that their system has capacity to support the project since the wastewater is classified
"domestic". The Greater Lawrence Sanitary District will not require an industrial discharge permit. SMRT
will coordinate with Town of North Andover DPW. Pending.
10/17/16 TEC: The Applicant is coordinating the final design with the Town of North Andover DPW. TEC
defers to the Town of North Andover DPW for final review. No further response required.
10/18/165 T° SMRT has provided updated plans and details to the DPW on 10/14/16.
10/25/16 TEC:No further response required, refer to TEC's previous comment.
10127116SMRT. DPW has no further comments on sewer plans.
20. The Applicant should confirm with the Town of North Andover DPW if sufficient capacity exists within the
municipal water system to provide water to the new building.
9/16/16 Response:SMRT/Edgewood will confirm if there is sufficient capacity with the Town of North
Andover.
9130116:Pending.
10/17/16 TEC: The Applicant is coordinating the final design with the Town of North Andover DPW. TEC
defers to the Town of North Andover DPW for final review. No further response required.
10118116SMRT.° SMRT has provided updated plans and details to the DPW on 10/14/16.
10/25/16 TEC:Nofurther response required, refer to TECs previous comment.
10/27/16 S RT.° DPW has no further comments on sewer plans.
21. The Applicant should show anticipated snow storage locations on the plan and add notes to detail
proposed snow storage operations.
9/16/16 Response:Locations of snow storage have been added to LP101. Refer to updated plan.
10/17/16 TEC: Comment addressed.
10/18/16 S T° Comment closed.
22. The Applicant should include a detail for the proposed ornamental fence.
9/16/16 Response:Ornamental fence detail(A15)has been added to C1503.
10/17/16 TEC: Comment addressed.
10118116SMRT.° Comment closed.
ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING INTERIORS ENERGY nirfc,(',OJTI ,O,rl,
Edgewood Retirement Community—Small Home Project
Town of North Andover Planning Board—Town Department Comments
October 27, 2016
Page 25 of 26
23. The Applicant should confirm if additional monument signage is needed for this new building/use along
Osgood Street as it may require permitting.
9/16/16 Response:Additional wayfinding signage is to be determined by the Owner at a later date. The
signage will be permitted separately at that time.
10/17/16 TEC: Comment addressed.
10/18/165 RT.° Commentclosed.
After review of the revised submission, TEC offers the following new comments:
24. The Applicant submitted the Trailhead/Site Access Figure depicting the existing gravel drive connecting
into the new sidewalk. It appears that there is a new three foot wide gravel trail extension from the new
sidewalk connecting to the existing Half Mile Hill Trail.TEC recommends that this new gravel walkway be
six feet wide to match the proposed sidewalk width.
10/18/16 S RT.°If space allows, the '-0"wide walk will be increased in width.
10/25/16 TEC: There appears to be sufficient area to shift the new site driveway and/or increase the curb
radius to allow for a wider trail access at this location. The Applicant can coordinate with the Town of North
Andover during construction to provide any field adjustments to provide a wider trail access.
10/27/16 ST. The trail parking re-location and trail access point from Half Mile Hill is being handled
administratively by the Town.
25. The Applicant should provide a construction detail for the proposed sewer pump station and the
proposed sewer force main connection into the existing sewer manhole. The additional details can be
reviewed and approved as part of the building permit application.
10118116SMRT.°Sewer Pump Station detail was sent to DP ( r.John Boresi)on 10/14/16 for review.
10/25/16 TEC: The Applicant is coordinating the final design with the Town of North Andover DPW. TEC
defers to the Town of North Andover DP for final review. Nofurther response required.
10/27/16 SRT.° DPW has no further comments on sewer plans.
26. The Applicant should label the width of all proposed crosswalks as indicated on the detail.
10/18/16 S RT.°All crosswalks will be dimensioned on drawing CP101.
10/25/16 TEC:A revised sheet CP101 has not been received,however, this can be included as a condition of
approval, if acceptable to the Board.
10/27/16 ST. CP101 Site Layout Plan has been provided.
ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING INTERIORS ENERGY nirfc,(',OJTI ,O,rl,
Edgewood Retirement Community—Small Home Project
Town of North Andover Planning Board—Town Department Comments
October 27, 2016
Page 26 of 26
Health Department, Brian Lagrasse (received 9/13/16&9/14/16)
9130116:No additional comments from the Health Department.
10/18/16:No additional comments from the Health Department.
SMRT received several emails from Rebecca Oldham about the Health Department's comments.
SMRT and Edgewood staff have met with the Health Department on the kitchen design, equipment specs and
material finishes in relation to the food permit for the project. Part of this application also includes trash
removal/dumpster location and a pest management program for these new kitchens.
The only item that the Health Department has opinion on related to the Site Plan Review submission is the
dumpster location. Per an email received on 9/14/16, Brian Lagrasse has no issue with the current location of the
dumpster along the west side of the building.
Additional Information
130115 Included in this package is a sketch illustrating the Proposed easement from Osgood Street to the Pond
Pasture parcel for discussion at Tuesday's meeting. Refer to S C-03,
10/18/16°No additional comments received from other parties.
SMRT and Edgewood believe we have successfully addressed all the Town Departments and Peer Reviewer
comments pertaining to the proposed project.
Sincerely,
SMRT Architects and Engineers
Kenneth D. Costello, RLA, LEED AP
Director of Site Design/Senior Landscape Architect
One Dundee Park, Suite 4
Andover, MA 01810
P 978.474.1721 f 978.474.1742 email: kcostello@smrtinc.com
Encl.: CP101 Site Layout Plan
Cc: R. Oldham—Town of North Andover Planning Department
B. Coppola—Edgewood Retirement Community
P. Hedstrom—Corporate Counsel, Boston Global Investors LLC
G. Baroni, D. Mermelstein—Trident Project Advisors and Development Group
M. Flynn,J. McMeeking, C. Piper,J. Randolph—SMRT
ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING INTERIORS ENERGY ;nirfc (',OJTI
I ----- NON 0sisc0K—AR4C0E0.0EONE Es.o_ . w1000
oo�A
ZONENOR <Ro A
0isruRej,ZONE C,VS0 vgno50,
I \
P ERIMEiER700' EERE ZONE
I; �,
SETBACK / --
+alas 1
l1
i344�tlE4 v `
qso �r v ;
qo4 \
m
.tl i o —
1\
z rwo
IT
R P-T1111
RI
\ �
q�q
q,A b
r
e
\-q,s �stlEOEs 1 RTNG
• � qz C o 36,.
q4 � d,tls
--� tlo. E 7111113, — RE o.E
s o�
RE ISSUED FOR PERMITTING
n
IT, 10-25-16
- / CURP. FSSUES W:
SEE III—C-1 IOR
\ 011YAgo uYOUT q,00.tl '
34
oqTi
qma� Eq
4
R5.14 .atl, \
eo y
6° EDOEMOOD RETIREMENT COMMUNITY
SMALL HOME PROJECT
TIE lElq 1EE73asG000sTRE
SITE LAYOUT PLAN
CP101
2 1 11 - 1 s s , . P tl NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION