The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2000-05-18 Engineering Review SPR { 1 Transportation Land Development • • • Environmental • Sery -ices • imagination innovatloli energy Creating results for our clienis and benefits for our communities _Vanasse Qen Rru_stunjac—..... December 16,1999 Ref; 06716.06R E C E I Heidi A. Griffin DEC 2 1 1999 Town Planner Community Development&Services Nt'1N AP1DVi r_; Town of North Andover PLANNING 27 Charles Street North Andover,MA 01845 Re: Site Plan Review-Lawrence Municipal Airport North Andover,MA Client Authorization—Site Plan Review Dear Heidi: Enclosed please find two(2) signed copies of the Client Alltlforization for the above referenced project. Please countersign the agreements and forward the one original to my attention and retain one for your records. Should you have any questions or require any additional information,please feel free to contact us at your conveniece. Very truly yours, VANASSE HANGEN BRUSTLIN,INC. ?Richard H.Carey, E. ect Manager Attachments:Client Authorization-Lawrence Municipal Airport 101 Walnut Street Post Office Box 9151 Watertown, Massachusetts 02471-9151 617.924.1770 ® FAX 617.924.2286 K:\06716\does\contract\CawrAirp-llr.cfoc email: info@vhb.com wvvw.vlib.com Transportation Lanr.'i Development Environmental, a services RECEIV 4h:,c: 7� DEC (�(] 101 Walnut Street Vanasse HGL"YLee" Bynu,swn.. Luc, uc, C 2 2 199g Post gffice Box 9751 Watcrtown NO PITH AM.1"' t I assachusetts 02.471 PLANNIN6a[�t-H,vl i f•I�iJ li 617 924 1770 FAX 617 9�4 2236 FAX . Transmittal Deliver To: Steve Langlis Frorrl: Timothy B. 1€clntosh,P.R. Company: DuFresne-Henry VH13 Project No.: 99901 Telephone No.: 207-775-3211 PAX No.: 207-775-6434 Original of Telecopy: Will not be sent Date amid Time: December 21,1999 Total Number of Pages(Including Transmittal Form): 1 RE: Lawrence Municipal Airport—Airplane Hangar Site Plan Review Steve, I enjoyed speaking with you yesterday. Per our conversation,I have included a list of additional information required before a thorough review of the site plan can occur. Please note that this list is based on a brief overview of the submission and additional items may be required as the review progresses. As you will be on vacation next week,I suggest that you provide a cdntact in your absence in case additional information is required. Additional Information Required: 1. Larger scale topographic plan that covers the driveway limits,wetland area and surrounding terrain. 2. Parking lot pavement design and materials. 3• Existing drainage pipe sizes and proposed drainage pipe sizes. 4• Proposed drainage calculations, 5. Gravel driveway layout and detail. 6• labeling of existing contours. 7. List of easements,legal encumbrances or conditions placed upon the site(airport property)by any public body or agency with the authority to place conditions on the site's development. 8• Plans submitted have not been signed and stamped, 9. Basis of e.,dsting topographic survey including ute dates the survey was preformed and who preformed the survey. ' Other areas of concern are the proposed lack of water and sanitary services, The Applicant should discuss fire protection issues and sanitary issues with the Planning Board. I understand that the Plashing Board hearing is scheduled for January 18,2000. As such,it is critical that this additional information be provided so that the review can be completed in advance of the hearing. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Timothy B.McIntosh,P.E. • I. r \\MIAWATR\te\06716\don%VARIOUS\AIRMRT•HANCARN(u-["O&doc . i 3 i TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD i ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAW Site Plan Title: Grading Plan—LWM Development Company VHB No.: 06716.06 Location: Lawrence Municipal Airport Owner: Lawrence Municipal Airport,Marshall A.MacKinen,Manager Applicant: LWM Development Company,Dan Turrisi,Director Applicant's Engineer: Dufresne-Henry,Inc„Steven G. Langlais,P.E.,Senior Project Manager Plan Date: 01-13-00 Review Date: 01-17-00 LWM Development Company submitted plans and documents to VHB for review on December 6, 1999. VHB briefly reviewed this package and determined that additional information was required to perform an adequate review. VHB sent a facsimile,dated 12-21-99,to the Applicant's engineer that listed additional information required. On January 14,2000,VHB received a revised site plan submission with the additional information included. The revised site plan submission was reviewed for conformance to Section 8 of the, 1972 Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw reprinted in 1998. The following continents note non-conformance with specific sections and questions/comments on the proposed design. 1) Section 8,1.1: The site plan does not show any provisions for off street parking. 2) Section 8.1.5: The proposed building use is listed as airplane stovige. Since this use does not match the uses listed in the Use/Minimum Spaces Required Schedule of this section, the Applicant must make application to the Board of Appeals to determine a sufficient quantity of parking spaces to accommodate automobiles. 3) The following information is required by Section 8.3.5 and VH13 offers the following continents: • NORTH ARROWILOCATION MAP: While a location map was provided,it does not show the adjacent land uses and is not at a scale of 1"=1500'. The location map provided is at a scale of 1"=500', • SURVEY OF LOT/PARCEL: A boundary survey has not been provided, The Applicant has requested a waiver from this requirement. • EASEMENTS/LEGAL CONDITIONS; Identification of casements or legal encumbrances that are related to the site's physical development has not been provided. Also, a listing of any conditions placed on the site by the Board of Appeals,Planning Board, Conservation Commission or any public body or agency with the authority to place conditions on the site's development has not been provided. • 1 \T:\0671606\does\repor is\s i te-review-report-1.doe j i 3 • STORMWATER DRAINAGE: See comment number 5 below. 1 • LOCATION OF PARKINGIWALKWAYS: The Applicant has stated that no parking is proposed , for this site. Refer to comment number 2 above. • LANDSCAPING PLAN: A landscape plan was not included. The Applicant has stated that the perimeter shall be seeded. • DRAINAGE BASIN STUDY: See comment number 5 below. • UTILITIES: The Applicant has stated that proposed electric lines will be constructed,however the plan does not include any details for the construction of any utilities. 4) VHB offers the following comments regarding Section 5.3.6: a) Environmental • (8.3.6.a.ii.d.) As there are no proposed mitigation measures to handle the increased runoff resulting from the development, the adequacy of the proposed drainage system cannot be determined. Refer to comment number 5 below. • (8.3.6.a.ii.e.) As previously stated,no landscaping other than seeding the perimeter has been proposed. • (8,3.6.a.ii.f.) There are no soil erosion control measures provided in the plan. VH13 reco►nmepds the use of lay-bales and sedimentation fence around the perimeter of 'The Applicant's engineer should include details and layout of hay-bales and construetign. sedimentation fence on the plan. b) Traffic/Parking • As previously stated,no provisions for parking have been provided. 5. ' In our facsimile dated 12-21-99,VHB requested that the Applicant submit drainage calculations. VHB has received these calculations and offers the following comments regarding the proposed drainage design: • The proposed drainage design is an open drainage system and no catch basins are proposed. Runoff will flow off the proposed pavement and down the proposed slopes to existing ground. This runoff will eventually infiltrate into the existing ground or will flow to the wetland area to the northeast. Several drainage pipes are proposed and will extend the existing drainage system beyond the proposed development. Finally,a detention basin is proposed at the terminus of the proposed extension of the existing drainage system. • The drainage design as proposed does not provide any mitigation for the runoff resulting from the proposed development. Although the site is not within a wetland buffer zone,VHB recommends that the drainage design apply the 1997 Department of Environmental Protection(DEP) Stormwater Management Standards to the maximum extent practical, There is a potential down stream impact to the existing wetland if the runoff is not mitigated. • It is not clear why the detention basin has been proposed as shown on the plan. The purpose of a detention basin is to detain(or slow down)an increase in runoff resulting from a developed area. The extension of the existing drainage system alters the path of runoff but does not increase the runoff and therefore does not require a detention basin. VHB recommends that this basin be designed to serve as an erosion control or a settling basin. • 2 \T,\0671606\does\reports\si te-review-report-1,doe E j� j • A detention basin that collects the increase in runoff resulting from the developed area is reconunended. The Applicant's engineer should also consider deep sump catch basins,water quality swales and a detention basin. If a proposed detention basin that collects the increased runoff is located at the terminus of the proposed extension of the existing drainage system,it must be designed for the runoff coming from the existing drainage system as well as the increased runoff from the development. The Applicant' engineer should consider locating the proposed detention basin away from the terminus of the proposed extension of the existing drainage system. • VHB recommends that TR-20 or Hydrocad software be used in sizing the detention basin. • The proposed drainage pipes and manholes should show rim and invert elevations. j I • It is not clear why the size of the proposed 24 inch HDPE pipe is larger than the existing 15 inch HDPE pipe. The Applicant's engineer should provide an explanation. • Construction details of the detention basin inlet and outlet should be provided. The plans should also include details for emergency overflow. The plans should show the actual size of the detention basin and should show proposed contours of the detention basin. VHB does not . recommend that the layout/sizing of the detention basin be done during construction. • A proposed drainage manhole should be provided at the change in direction of the proposed 24 inch pipe and where the existing 48 inch pipe meets the proposed 48 inch pipe. A construction detail of a drainage manhole should be included in the plans. It is recommended that the applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and continents contained herein. Reviewed by: Date: 7 X22 Timothy B.McIntosh, P. E. Senior Project Engineer Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. m e 3 \T:\0671606\does\reports\site-reviesv-report-l.d oc JAN.18.2000 10:07AM VH)3 HO.502 P.1 Transporteltion Land Development Environmental s a r v t c a a 101 Walnut Street Post Office Box 9151 I Watertown Massachusetts 02471 r 617 924 2771D 11AX 617 924 2296 FAX Transmittal beliverTo: Heidi A.Grxiffin From Timothy B.McIntosh,P.)r_ Town Planner r-n-parry: Town of North Andover VHB Project No.; 06716,06 ` i Telephone No.: 978-688-9535 I;AY Na.! 978-688-9542 Original of Telecopy: W W be sent on 1-18-99 Dote and Time: January 18,2000 Total Number of Pages(Including Transmittal Form): 4 Heidi, Please find enclosed'VHB's engineering review report fox the Lawrence Municipal Airport Airplane Hangar Site Plan in the Town of North Andover. I have not faxed this to the Applicant'.q engineer (Dufresne-Remy),but I would be happy to if you like. if you prefer to fax them yourself,their fax Pumber i5 207 775-6434. If you have any questions,please feel free to contact me. Tim ��/U�1✓ \\MA WAIR\cc\OG71806�datsl�ipar t�\rdX•01]SOO.ftOt TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAW Site Plan Title: Grading Plan—LWM Development Company VHB No.: 06716.06 Location: Lawrence Municipal Airport Owner: Lawrence Municipal Airport,Marshall A.MacKinen,Manager Applicant: LWM Development Company,Dan Turrisi,Director Applicant's Engineer: Dufresne-Henry,Inc., Steven G.I.anglais,P.) .,&-nior Project Manager Plan Date: 02-11-00 Review Date: 01-17-00 Re-review Date: 03-30-00 This report represents the second engineering review completed by VHB for this project. The revised site plan submission was reviewed for conformance to Section 8 of the 1972 Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw reprinted in 1998. The following comments note non-conformance with specific sections, questions/comments on the proposed design and comments from the previous VHB review dated January 17,2000 that the Applicant did not address. 1) Section 8.1.1 &8.3.5: The plans and Attachment 'A' indicate that parking will be accommodated inside the proposed airplane hangers. Has coordination with the Board of Appeals been made by the Applicant in regard to parking issues? 2) Section 8.1.5.c; The plans submitted have not been signed and stamped by a civil engineer registered in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 3) The following information is required by Section 8.3.5 and VHB offers the following comments: • SURVEY OF LOT/PARCEL: The Applicant has requested a waiver from this requirement, As the development appears to be within the airport property,VHB sees no reason why this waiver should not be granted, • STORMWATER DRAINAGE: See comment number 5 below. • DRAINAGE BASIN STUDY: See comment number 5 below. • TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: The Applicant should request a waiver from this requirement. 5) VHB has reviewed the drainage calculations submitted and offers the following comments regarding the proposed drainage design: • The proposed plans and drainage calculations do not indicate the elevation of the existing groundwater. Without the groundwater elevation,it is not clear whether this detention pond will function as designed. The Applicant's engineer should verify the groundwater elevation by means of soil survey maps and/or test pits. r a 1 \CAN'orlh Andover\site•revlew-alrporl-2.doc i • VHB recommends that the Applicant's engineer consider proposing a flared end section and stone pad for erosion control at the outlet of the 48-inch reinforced concrete pipe, • The proposed contours indicate that the swale located at the southeast side of the proposed pavement conveys water across the proposed gravel driveway. VHB recommends that the Applicant's engineer provide an appropriately sized drainage culvert under the proposed gravel driveway with stone for erosion control. • Drainage areas were not submitted with the drainage calculations. The Applicant's engineer has committed to sending VHB the drainage area calculations and plans on March 31,2000. VHB will check the areas and if necessary supplement this report with additional comments. VHB assumes that the area calculations will coincide with the drainage calculations and that supplementing this report will not be necessary. It is recommended that the applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments contained herein, Reviewed by: Date: Timothy B.McIntosh,P.E. Senior Project Engineer Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc, Daniel Ho-Yin Wong,E.I.T. Highway Engineer Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. • a$ 2 \CANorth Andover\s{ie-review-airport-2.doe APR. 13.2000 9:50AM VHB NO.513 P. 1 Transportation i Land Development Environmental 5 lot Walnut Street Post Office Box 9151 Watertown Massachusetts 02471 6I7 9241770 FAX 617 924 228 6 FAX Transmittal Deliver To. Heidi A.Griffin From Timothy B.McIntosh,P,B, Town planner Company: Town of North Andover VI3B Project No: 06716-06 Telephone No.. 976-688-9535 FAX No,: 978-688-9542 orig'nal of TelecOPY: Will be sent on 4-13-00 Date and Time, April 13,2000 Total Number of Pages(1►uluding Transmittal Form): 3 Heidi, Please find enclosed VHB's second engineering review report for the Lawrence Municipal Airport Airplane Hangar Site Plan in the Town of North Andover. Regarding continent 45,Drainage Areas,'VHB has received the areas calculations from the Appiicant's engineer. We have checked the areas and they coincide With the drainage calculations. If you have any questions,please feel free to contact me. Tim ��acnwarit�re�asndaa�a��raperts�fax�af3Ao.doe til-K 1,; UU rJl llrl'I vr7ts 1 r. 1 Transportation Land Development Environm4ntal ser'%; Ices 101 Walnut Street POS Office Box 9151 Yanasse Flc�nen Rr�t_c_t.,r_r.`a�� Inc Watertown, Massachusetts 02471,91S1 617.924.1770 FAX 617.924,2286 eY FAX Date Transmitted �Jr Transmittal rme Transmitted Deliver to C �flil,it<.,� �r� ._ Frsm Company VHB jab Number Telephone Number VHBAroject Name °t ,IAc � chfr* a . FAX Number Total Number of Pages(Include Transmittal Form) Original of Telecopy Message 0 Will Kwill not 0 Be sent, on(date) 4 VA L U W" A�'"- ':fir. � '`rji� '?s•�: f'.;�j''•;3 13?ir Z- &-r r7is ' -`7 ce- ALL.C w► & - �o - oil r -7{ Goa- T`c'2 mtoa�u;enry,w[trta,+n.lu•wt.y65 '. 4-H-N 1u WU VJJ: C3 COMM ;Si1 7ZLd I F'.G it The Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Ethics Commission Jahn W. McCormack State Office Building, Room 618 One Aohbu►tort Place, Bastan 02108 Telephone (017) 727-0000 Fax 1817) 723.5851 FAX TRANSMITTAL FORM DATE: April I3, 20Q0 CONFIDENTIAL FAX TO: Frank DiPietro Project Manager Vanasse Hangen Brustin, Inc. FAX NO: 97A-2286 TEL. NO: FROM: Christopher N. Popov, Staff Counsel, Legal Division NUMBER OF PAGES: 6 (pages including this transmittal page) REMARKS: "Legal Opinion Request Letter" Included with this facsimile transmittal sheet contain information from the State Ethics Commission which may be confidential by statute. M.G.L. c. M8A and c. WB. This information is intended to be for the use of the addressee named an this transmittal sheet. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, photocopying, distribution or use of the contents of this faxed informmation may be prohibited. If you have reWved this facsimile in error, please notlfE us by telephone immediately. ?Take"call'(617) 727-Wif there is any probTe h with the trap imissibti of This . document. .-isi K l� 'elf 0i: 1,1H1 VHbiIG5 COMM! t0_17 zza 5e51 Commonwealth of Massachusetts STATE ETHICS COMMISSION John W.M°Carmack Oflics aullding•One Ashburton Place-Room 619 Boston, Massachusetts 02100-1501 April 13, 2000 CONFIDENTIAL Prank DiPietro Project Manager Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. 101 Walnut Street P. 0. Box 9151 Watertown, MA 02741-9151 Dear Mr. DiPietro: I am writing in response to your recent request for advice under ft conflict of interest law, G. L. c. 258A, You are an engineer employed by Vanasse Hangen Brusdin, Inc. (VHB). The following is based on the written materials you provided, my telephone conversation with you on April 4, 2000 and my telephone conversation with VHB's attorney, David Thomas, also on April 4, 2000, You are seeking advice on behalf of VHB and another VHB employee, Richard H. Carey, who has agreed to your seeking advice on his behalf. You are currently assigned as the Project Manager for one of VHB's clients, the Lawrence Eagle Tribune newspaper. In October 1998 and again on October 14, 1999, the Tribune secured VHB's services to provide planning and engineering services for the preliminary evaluation, of two undeveloped parcels in North Andover. In general the preliminary evaluation involved assessing the site constraints on development. You report that the preliminary evaluation did not involve VHB's interaction with the Town. In December 1999, the Eagle Tribune hired VHB in the preparation of civil engineering plans, documents, and calculations for a proposed exparision of its facility in the Town of North Andover. By way of background, VHB provides civil engineering consulting services to many ,.. _ rip vase s®Cda�a�..�lunit�tal_G1t0LtS�. �T1tt,Aielpalit3es ha'y,�.,�rite[� iPm contr8cts _4.._..._ with VHB to provide technical review consulting. In May 1999, VHB responded to a request for proposals (RFP) to provide civil engineering consulting services for municipal plan reviews of submissions to the Town of North Andover's Planning Board. VHB and the Town entered into an agreement on October 12, 1999. The title of that agreement is "Agreement for Professional Services Between Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc, and North Andover Office of Community Development;, Subdivision Plan Review and Construction Inspection Services North Andover, Massachusetts" (Contract). The RFP specifies that the Consultant "will have available the following staff within the firm or as past of their joint proposal:".a Registered Professional Engineer; a Professional PHONE: 617/727-0060 or 888/486-4766 FAX.,617/723.5851 www.magnet.state.ma.us/ethice 4-HFk 1,:, 'UW Ui; i,PF'N VHbiicz ",rmm ;e' 7 fza 56t• ! :{ u Z e Frank DiPietaro April 13, 2000 Page a Wetland Scientist; a Structural Engineer, and a Traffic Engineer. Thin: RFP also requires the Consultant to submit the names and resumes of the people who have these credentials. Neither the Contract nor the RFP, however, specifies that any of the identified individuals mast be the ones to fulfill the specified roles, Moreover, nothing in these materials requires VHB to obtain the Towns consent in assigning qualificd personnel to the work. According to Mr. Thomas, the on-going nature of the work requires that VHB be able to assign qualified people as they are available, For example, the individuals who performed a review of one set of . subdivision plans might not necessarily be the same VHB personnel who reviewed another set of plans for a different,project. VHB, rather than the Town, chooses who will dry the work, provided that the personnel it assigns have the basic qualifications specified in the Contract. You and Mr. Thomas report that Mr: Carey, is the project manager for the Contract. He, however, is not identified in the Contract. He and the staff of VHB who perform work pursuant to the Contract are part of a VU division that is different from yours. As a result, neither you nor any of the staff-in your division who =y work on the Tribune project will work on anything pursuant to the Contract. You report that VHB currently employs approximately 700 individuals among its divisions. VHB, through a letter from Mr. Carey darted December 28, 1999, notified the Towrn's Office of Community Development that the,Tribune, an existing client of the first,. would be presenting a.proposed project to the Town and that VHR would be providing civil engineering consulting services for that project. The letter states, "S1 me VHB will be preparing site plans for the Eagle Tribune, there is an obvious conflict with our contract with the Town, Therefor (sic), we are requesting,that VHB be absolved from site plan review for this site." The Contract includes the following paragraph: Conflict of Interest: Both the Town and the Contractor stipulate to the applicability of the State Conflict of Interest Law (General Laws Chapter 258A) and this contract expressly prohibits any'activity which shall constitute a violation of that law. The Contractor shall be deemed to have investigated its applicability to the performance of this contract; and by executing the contract documents the Contractor certifies to the Town that neither its not its agents, employees or subcontractors are thereby in violation of General Laws Chapter 268A. In light of the Contract, VHB notified the Town, both verbally and in writing (by letter dated December 28, 1999), that the Eagle Tribune, an existing VHB client, would be presenting a proposed project before the Town and that Wm would be providing consulting services for the project. In accordance with the Contract, VHB requested that it not assist the Town in reviewing the Eagle Tribune's submission to the Planning Board, Town Counsel f I HPR 13 '00 01; 13PH VHB''L' LJMIh 3 •�ao F.5 = i Frank DiPietro April 13, 20M Page 3 reviewed the December 28, 1999 letter and suggested that VHB consult with the State Ethics Commission,. You report that the Town's Community Development Director agreed to VHB's representing the Eagle Tribune on its project, rather than the Town. The Town planned to use another consultant to review the Eagle Tribune project, Based upon the information you provided as described above, you ask how the conflict of interest law applies. As a preliminary matter, we must determine whether Mr, Carey or any of the VHB staff performing work pursuant to the Contract are deemed to be municipal employees as defined under the conflict of interest law.1/ For the reasons described in detail below, we conclude that the Contract does not make them municipal employees of the 'down for purposes of the conflict law,V In determining whether an individual employed by a firm which is under contract to perform services for a public entity is a public employee for purposes of the conflict law, the Ethics Commission reviews several factors. In EC-CO192-6, for example, the Commission set forth a multi-factored analysis to determine whether employees of a corporation that contracts with the Commonwealth are deemed state employees, which is the same analysis Use to determine municipal employee status. In general, such individuals will not be considered state employees unless the contracting state agency specifically targets them to perform services. To determine this issue, all of the following factors are considered and balanced basest on the totality of the circumstances. No single factor is dispositive: (a) are the individual's services expressly or imgliedly contracted for? (b) how large is the entity? how many employees? what types of services are provided by it? ""Municipal employee, a person performing services for or holding an office, position, employment or membership in a municipal agency, whether by election, appointment, contract of hire or engagement, whether serving with or without compensation, on a full, regular, part- time, intermittent, or consultant basis, . . . ." G. L. c. 269A, J 1(g). VAlthough you arc entitled to receive a formal opinion issued by the Commissioners of the Ethics Commission if you believe one is necessary or desirablc, this informal advice from the Legal Division of the Commission is based upon relevant.Commission precedent. Please also note that the Legal Division of the Ethics Commission provides only prospective guidance tinder the conflict of interest law, and this informal opinion is not intended to address or evaluate the propriety of conduct that has already occurred or the applicability or effect of any other body of law or regulation about such conduct, y_tIir1f�1J Ou , lJI,•_13HI VHB�ICS �,�+M :G! T 7a3 5se' P.6 # -F Frank DiPie= April 13, 2000 Wage 4 (c) to what degree is specialized knowledge or expertise required in the performance of the services? (d) to what extent does the individual personally perform the services under the contract, and to what extent does he or she control and direct the terms of the contract or the services provided thereunder? (e) has the person performed similar services in the past to the public entity? EC-COf 89-35; 89.6; 87--19, 87 8. Here, the information you provided does not indicate that the Town expressly or impliedly contracted for any specific individual at VHB. Mr. Carey, for example, has not been named as a key employee under the Contract, See EC-COI-89-6. VHB is not a small company. Compare EC-COI-89-35 (entity employed thirteen full-time and six part-time employees), The services, however, are specialized but VHB, rather than the Town, controls who will perform the work on the contract. Finally, although VHB has a history of providing such services to municipalities, it is not clear that Mr. Carty himself has a history of being the individual who provides these types of services to the Town. I also note that while the paragraph in the Contract concerning conflict of interest alerts the Town and the Contractor to the applicability of G. L. c. 268A, it does not expressly state that the Contractor's personnel shall be deemed to be "municipal employees" as that term is defined in the statute. Based on all of these factors, therefore, we informally conclude that Mr. Carey and the other VHB personnel performing work for the Town pursuant to the Contract are not municipal employees for purposes of the conflict law. As a result, the circumstances described above do not raise issues under 0. L. c. 268AN regarding your work for the Eagle Tribune in expariding its facility in the Town,v a'Again, this opinion is limited to the applicability of G. L. c. 268A.. I offer no opinion as to the applicability of any engineering professional code of conduct that may apply. A'Even if Mr. Carey or other members of his division were deemed to be municipal employees of the Town because of the Contract, the conflict law would not prohibit you from being paid by, or acting as agent for, the Eagle Tribune in preparing or presenting its plans for Town approval because you are not a municipal employee of the Town for purposes of the convict law. Similarly, even if Mac. Carey were deemed to be a municipal employee of the Town, because VHB is a corporation rather than a partnership (see e,g, EC COI-93-24), nothing in the conflict law would prohibit other employees of the corporation, who are also not municipal employees of the Town, from performing the Eagle Tribune work you have described. ,_HFR I- 'tJU ,01:14FN LHE,cs comm ,s 1 7 -E.] 986' P.is �� E Frank Dipietro April 13, 2000 Page 5 I hope that this advice is helpful. The Ethics Commission may not diselosc your identity nor any ocher identifying information about your request without your canseM You, however, may disclose this advice to anyone, but if you publicly disclose that you have requested or received advice from the Commission, the Commission may determine, after reviewing the specific circumstances, that you have consented to our making the full text of this letter available to the public. See G. L. c, 268B, § 3(g); 930 Code Mass. Regs. 3,01(8), If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Christopher H. Popov Staff Counsel, Legal Division g:\ig%popov\DiPierro,Frank(cup).wpd i MAR.30.2000 4:45PN VHS N0,387 P.1 Transportation Land Development ErlvironmentOl 8 e r v t a e s 101 Walnut Street Vana,cse Hansen Brustlin Inc, cost Office nox 9151 Watertown Massachusetts 02+k71 617 9241770 FAX 617 924 2U6 FAX Tranarnittal l)eliirer To: Heidi A.Griffin From: Timothy B.McIntosh,PS Town plainer Company: Town of North Andover VRB Project No.; 06716,06 Telephone No.: FAX No.: 978-688-9542 Or4ftal of Tetecomr Will be sent on 03-30-00 Date and Time: March 30,2000 Total Number of Pages(Including Transmittal Fom)-. 5 Heidi, Please find enclosed engineering reviews of 2 site plans in the Town of North Andover,MA. The first project is the Brooks School and the second project is the Lawrence Municipal Airport. If you have any questions or require additional Information,please call. Tim \\\NorthAndomVoxynf rt-W0Dadoe Transportation Land Development Environmental s e r v I c e s 101 Walnut Street hanasse Haneen Br-ustlin., Mc.._ Post Office Box 9151 Watertown Massachusetts 02471 617 9241770 FAX 617 924 2286 i FAX Transmittal Deliver To: Heidi A.Griffin From: Timothy B.McIntosh,P.E. Town Planner Company; Town of North Andover VHB Project No.: 06716.06 Telephone No.: 978-688-9535 FAX No.: 978-688-9542 Original of Telecopy: Will be sent on 4-13-00 bate and Time: April 13,2000 Total Number of Pages(Including Transmittal Form): 3 Heidi, Please find enclosed VHB's second engineering review report for the Lawrence Municipal Airport Airplane Hangar Site Plan in the Town of North Andover. Regarding comment#5,Drainage Areas,VHB has received the areas calculations from the Applicant's engineer. We have checked the areas and they coincide with the drainage calculations. If you have any questions,please feel free to contact me. Tim \\MAWATR\to\0671606\dots\reports\fax.D4l300.doc Transportation Land Development Environmental • • Services r ' • Imaginatron Innovation energy Creating results for our clients acid benefits for our communities April 19,2000 Vans �_H�ngPn Rz•uct i ,. Ref; 06716.06 Ms.Heidi A, Griffin -Town Planner Community Development&Services p Town of North Andover R E E� i,� E D 27 Charles Street North Andover,MA 01845 APR 2 1 2000 . Re; Lawrence Municipal Airport-Site Plan Review North Andover,MA NORTH ANDOVEM PLANNING DEPARTf11ENT Dear Heidi, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. (VHB)has received Dufresne-Henry's written response letter (dated 4-11-00 and enclosed)to our Engineering Review(enclosed)for the above referenced project. VHB offers the following comments; ■ Response#2. VHB requests that the Applicant's engineer forward final stamped plans to the Planning Board and VHB for our records. These final plans should include all revisions. ■ Response#3,Traffic. VHB has no record of a previously requested waiver from preparation of a Traffic Impact Study in the original submission. VHB assumes that the Planning Board has received this waiver request. VHB requests that the Planning Board inform VHB of their decision. ■ Response#5, VHB recommends that the plans be revised to show the addition of the 48-inch flared end section and 15-inch culvert. It appears that all of VHB's comments have been adequately addressed and VHB's concerns in this matter have been satisfied. No further engineering review is required at this time. If you have any questions or concerns,please call me at your convenience. Very truly yours, VANASSE HANGEN BRUSTLIN,INC. IN, Timothy B�cIntosh,P.E. Senior Project Engineer—Highway &Municipal Engineering cc: Steve Langlais,P.E.—Dufresne-Henry Rick Carey,P.E. -VHB 101 Walnut Street Post Office Box 91S1 Watertown, Massachusetts 02471-9151 \\MAWATR\te\0671606\dots\letters\airport-approv-41I900.d« 617.924.1770 r FAX 61Z924.2286 email: info@vhb.com www.vhb,com