HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-04-03 Planning Board Supplemental Materials (51) Eggleston Environmental
32 Old Framingham Rd Unit 29 Sudbury MA 01776 tel 508.259.1137 fax 866.820.7840
March 26, 2012
North Andover Planning Board
1600 Osgood Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Attn: Judy Tymon, Town Planner
RE: Stormwater Review – 498 Chickering Road
Dear Ms. Tymon and Board Members:
Per your request, I have reviewed the February 27, 2012 Special Permit Application for
packet for the above-referenced project. Included in the materials I received and
reviewed were the following:
· Application for Site Approval, Lowell Five, 498 Chickering Road, prepared by
Merrimack Engineering Services, Inc. and dated February 27, 2012.
· Project Drainage Report, Proposed Bank Facility, 498 Chickering Road, prepared
by Merrimack Engineering Services, Inc. and dated February 16, 2012.
· Site Plan (5 Sheets), Proposed Bank Facility, 498 Chickering Road, prepared by
Merrimack Engineering Services, Inc. and dated January 20, 2012.
The proposed project is a bank facility to be constructed on the site of a former Mobil gas
station. The project site currently has no drainage infrastructure, and runoff from the site
flows overland to the northeast, toward Franklin Street. As proposed, the project will
result in a net decrease in impervious cover on the site and will include a drainage
collection system with deep sump catchbasins to collect runoff. The closed drainage
system would discharge to a grassed swale extending into and terminating within the
Franklin Street right-of-way.
My comments on the application are outlined below:
1. In accordance with the Site Plan Review requirements, the proposed plan will not
increase either the rate or volume of runoff from the site. It will concentrate the
discharge at a single point within the Franklin Street ROW; however it appears to
be at a suitable location given that it is immediately adjacent to an existing outlet
from the Town drain in Chickering Road. (I presume, therefore, that that portion
of Franklin Street will remain a paper street.)
2. The addition of deep sump catchbasins and the outlet swale will also provide
some degree of water quality treatment of the flow discharged from the project
site. Provision should be made for periodic maintenance of these facilities on an
ongoing basis.
498 Chickering Road, Technical Review 2
March 26, 2012
3. The project site is subject to a Sensitive Use Restriction on the Deed, presumably
due to subsurface contamination from the former gas station. Among other things,
the restriction calls for engineering controls to prevent the migration of vapors
and/or liquids containing Hazardous Materials into any underground utilities or
stormwater ponds, including vapor installation systems, vapor barriers, sealed
sumps and the like. It also calls for specific measures to be taken in any common
areas, including gardens, yards and open space areas. No such control measures
are identified on the Site Plan for the proposed project, e.g. with respect to the
drainage infrastructure and the proposed landscaping, and there is no reference on
the plan to the Sensitive Use Restriction.
4. Erosion and sediment control measures employed on the site during construction
should also take into account the possible contamination of exposed soils.
5. There are no gutters or roof drains shown on the project plans, therefore it appears
that roof runoff will sheet off the building directly to the ground below. To the
maximum extent possible the roof runoff should be directed toward pervious
ground surfaces where it can infiltrate, rather than running across the parking lot
to the closed drainage system.
6. The proposed project calls for sprinklers and drip irrigation to maintain
landscaped areas of the site. Consideration should be given to using a cistern to
capture roof runoff for reuse on the site.
7. I note that the architectural plan calls for copper roof elements on the proposed
building. The Planning Board should be aware that recent studies have shown that
when exposed to acid rain, the runoff from copper roofs can carry levels of ionic
copper that are potentially toxic to aquatic life. Filtration of the runoff through
natural soils or through iron filings will generally convert the ionic copper to a
less toxic form.
I appreciate the opportunity to assist the North Andover Planning Board with the review
of this project, and hope that this information is suitable for your needs. Please feel free
to contact me if you or the applicants have any questions regarding the issues addressed
herein.
Sincerely,
EGGLESTON ENVIRONMENTAL
Lisa D. Eggleston, P.E.