HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 Response Comments SPR WITHDRAWN architects and FIVE: �:.'
�'4 j , s
Limited
5 20Q3
Memorandum NOFi`*H AN1)A0 NN1
Date: 24 September 2003
To: Planning Board Members
Justin Woods North Andover Planning Department (NAPD)
Tim McIntosh Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB)
From: Jon Oxman AIA DiNisco Design Partnership (DDP)
Project Foster Farm Elementary School
Project No. 02458.0
Subject Response to Planning Board Review Memo
1. RESPONSE TO PLANNING BOARD CONSULTANT'S REVIEW MEMO
1.1. This Memorandum responds comprehensively to outstanding issues in Vanasse
Hangen Brustlin's Review Memo dated 04 August 2003.
1.2. Our response includes the following materials which are attached to this
memorandum:
• Planning Board's Consultant Review Memo by William J. Cotter, Vanasso
Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB), 04 August 2003.
• Letter from Fred King, Schofield Brothers New England, Inc. (SBNE), 22
September 2003.
• Letter from Gene Kingman, Robert W. Sullivan, Inc. (RWS), 19 September 2003.
• Letter from Ignacio Campillo, Moriece & Gary, Inc. (M&G), 24 September 2003.
• Letter from Kien Ho, Bruce Campbell & Associates (BC&A), 12 August 2003.
• Letter from Kevin Murphy, Thompson Engineering Co. Inc. (TE), 23 September
2003.
• Soil Test Report, Additional Testing on 9/12/03, SBNE, 17 September 2003.
• Planning Board Submission Drawing Set, Revision 1, 19 September 2003 (This
is a complete set including those drawings that were not revised, as requested
by VHB. See the title sheet of the drawing set for a list of drawings).
Kenneth DiNisco Richard N, Rice Gary E. Ainslie Christopher Huston Donna DiNisco
8 7 S u m nt e r S t r e e t B o s t o n M A 0 2 1 1 0 6 1 7 4 2 6 2 8 5 8 f a x 4 2 6 1 4 5 7
w w w . d i n i s c o . c o m
MEMORANDUM Foster Farm Elementary School, 24 September 2003 Page 2
1.3. In addition we are forwarding you copies of the Conservation Commission's
Consultant Review Letter and our response:
• Conservation Commission's Consultant Review Letter by Lisa Eggleston,
Eggleston Environmental (EE), 18 July 2003.
• Letter from Fred King, SBNE, 30 July 2003— First response to EE Conservation
Commission Review Letter.
• Letter from Fred King, SBNE, 22 September 2003 — Response to VHB Planning
Board Review Memo (This letter is part of both the Planning Board Response
and Conservation Commission Response and is included only once in the
Planning Board Package).
• Letter from Fred King, SBNE, 24 September 2003-- Second response to EE
Conservation Commission Review Letter.
• Stormwater Management Report Revisions, 23 September 2003.
• Soil Test Report, Additional Testing on 9/12/03, SBNE, 17 September 2003 (This
letter is part of both the Planning Board Response and Conservation
Commission Response and is included only once in the Planning Board
Package).
• Drawing of Possible Snow Storage Sites, SBNE, 23 September 2003.
• Conservation Commission Drawing Set, Revision 1, 19 September 2003 (See
SBNE letter dated 24 September 2003 for list of revised drawings that were
resubmitted)
1.4. The specific issues addressed in the VHB memo are referenced below by section
and item number as identified in VHB's memo.
2. REQUEST FOR WAIVERS
2.1. We are requesting in this memorandum, as we did in the original application, waivers
to defer specific requirements of the Site Plan Review. As stated in the memorandum
included with the original application:
"It is anticipated that construction on this project will not start until 2007—2010 time
period because of conditions put on town funding for the Foster Farm Elementary
School at the May 2003 Town Meeting. Accordingly the project will be submitted to
the Department of Education (DOE) in August 2003 as a "deferred construction"
reimbursement project, that is construction must begin once the Town of North
Andover receives notice from DOE that reimbursement payments are about to begin.
Because there is a limited time frame to complete the project construction documents
and submit required local project approvals to DOE once the Town receives the
reimbursement notice from DOE, the School Building Committee is submitting this
project for approval by the Planning Board at this time. By so doing it is hoped that
any future resubmission to the Planning Board due to the delay in constructing the
project can be accomplished in an expedited manner so as not to jeopardize the
state reimbursement needed to construct the school."
MEMORANDUM Foster Farm Elementary School, 24 September 2003 Page 3
We therefore request the Planning Board issue the requested waivers, identified in
this memorandum, as part of the conditions in your Notice of Decision, that would
defer further review of these items until we prepare final construction documents and
resubmit this project to the Planning Board in the time frame discussed above,
3. SECTION 6 — SIGNS AND SIGN LIGHTING REGULATIONS
3.1. The ground sign location has been revised to comply with the required 10 feet
minimum setback. See drawing 1.1.5.
3.2. We maintain that the zoning code allows for a sign oriented to the street to have a
maximum size of 10 square feet per section 6.6.A.3 of the zoning bylaw. The sign will
be revised to a size of 5 feet by 2 feet. We request a waiver for revising the sign
detail at this time for the reasons discussed in 2.1 above. Also, as was the case for
the Calzetta Farm School/Sargent School, ultimately the school department may
elect to rename the school.
3.3. We request a waiver from providing details of the wall sign at this time for the reasons
discussed in 2.1 above.
3.4. We request a waiver from providing details of signage illumination at this time for the
reasons discussed in 2.1 above.
4. SECTION 7 -- DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
4.1. 7.4 Building Height—The maximum height of the main roof is 30 feet above grade.
This complies with the maximum height allowed of 35 feet in Table 2 of the zoning
Bylaw. The structure above the main roof, with a maximum height of 39 feet above
grade, is for light monitors and as such qualifies under section 7.4.2 of the Zoning
Bylaw as an "accessory structural feature"which is exempt from the height limitation
of 35 feet.
S. SECTION 8.1 — OFF STREET PARKING
5.1. 8.1 Off Street Parking —At VHB`s request we are providing data for other schools
DDP has designed in North Andover and compare this to the proposed Foster Farm
Elementary School in the table below:
Design Total Parking 1
Student Parking Student
School Enrollment Space Ratio
Foster Farm Elementary School 850 185 0.218
Sargent Elementary School 650 89 0.137
Thomson Elementary School 375 40 0.107
North Andover Middle School 1,200 209 0.174
t
MEMORANDUM Foster Farm Elementary School, 24 September 2003 Page 4
6. SECTION 8.3.5 — SITE PLAN REVIEW INFORMATION REQUIRED
6.1. 8.3.5.c Stamp— See RWS letter, page 1, item 8.3-5.c.
6.2. 8.3.5.e.v Topography- Grading has been revised. See Planning Board Submission
Drawing Set, Revision 1.
6.3. 8.3.5.e.vil Stormwater Drainage — No response asked for in this section of VHB
memorandum.
6.4. 8.3.5.e,xii Wall Sign-Details—See item 3.3 above.
6.5. 8.3.5.e.xiii Access Drive Cross Section —See Detail 9 on drawing 1.1.12 of Planning
Board Submission Drawing Set, Revision 1.
6.6, 8.3.5.e.xv Landscaping Plan — See M&G letter, page 1, item 8.3.c.e.xv.
6.7. 8.3.5.e.xvi Refuse Areas--See Details 10,11 & 12 on drawing 1.1.12 of Planning
Board Submission Drawing Set, Revision 1.
6.8. 8.3.5.e.xvi i Liahtina Facilities— See TE letter, page 1, item 2.
6.9. 8.3.5,e.xviii Drainage Basin Stud — No response asked for in this section of VHB
memorandum.
6.10. 8.3.5.e.xix Traffic Im ac1-5 tudy— No response asked for in this section of VHB
memorandum.
6A 1. 8.3.5.e.xxi Utilities--See RWS letter, page 1, item 8.3-5.c. As noted in the RWS letter
we request a waiver for providing station and offset information at this time for the
reasons discussed in 2.1 above.
6.12. 8.3.6.a.ii.b Refuse Disposal — See M&G letter, page 1, item 8.3.6.a.ii.b.
6.13. 8.3.6.a.ii,c Sanitary Sewer—See RWS letter, page 2, item 8.3.6.a.ii.c. As Noted in the
RWS letter we request a waiver for the sewer extension permit, the narrative
description; design calculations and further design development of the Boxford Street
Sewer Extension at this time for the reasons stated in 2.1 above.
6.14. 8.3.6.d Drainage System — No response asked for in this section of VHB
memorandum.
6.15. 8.3.6.E Soil Erosion Plan — See M&G letter, page 1, item 8.3.6.f.
6.16. 8.3.6.g Protection of Adjacent Properties from.Light Intrusion—See TE letter, page 1,
item 2.
6.17. 8.3.6.11 Noise—We anticipate the following noises to come from the site when the
school is operational: children playing outside; school bells; site traffic.
MEMORANDUM Foster Farm Elementary School, 24 September 2003 Page 5
7. GENERAL. COMMENTS
7.1. 1. Site Drive Profile —See M&G letter, page 1, item "Page 3, Section 1"
7.2. 2. Coordination of Grading and Utilities— Grading and Utilities work have been
coordinated. See drawings 1.1.4— 1.1.8; 1.2.1 — 1.2.2; 1.3.1 — 1.3.2; 1 .3.4— 1.3.5;
and 10.1.1 of the Planning Board Submission Drawing Set, Revision 1,
7.3. 3. Drawings —The clutter on drawings has been reduced, See drawings 1.2,1 — 1.2.2
of the Planning Board Submission Drawing Set, Revision 1.
7.4. 4. Spot Grades—The clutter on drawings has been reduced. See drawings 1.2.1 —
1.2.2 of the Planning Board Submission Drawing Set, Revision 1.
7.5. 5. Access Drive --- See M&G letter, page 1, item "Page 4, Section 5"
7.6. 6. Site Utilities— Site utilities have been coordinated See drawings 1.2.1 — 1.2.2;
1.3.1 — 1.3.2; 1.3.4— 1.3.5; and 10.1.1of the Planning Board Submission Drawing
Set, Revision 1. It is not our practice to show all utilities on the Site Utilities Plan for
the following reasons: DDP uses different consultants for different utilities and it is not
appropriate to show all utilities on the site utilities drawing. This creates a liability
issue; the potential for mistakes when utility information is shown on two drawings;
and the possibility of confusion over"ownership" of an item of work among the
respective, responsible subcontractors.
7.7. 7. Wheel Chair Ramps — See drawings 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 of the Planning Board
Submission Drawing Set, Revision 1.
7.8_ 8. Handicap Parking Spaces— See detail 11 on drawing 1.1.11 of the Planning Board
Submission Drawing Set, Revision 1.
7.9. 9. Stationing of Site Drive and Boxford Street--See M&G letter, page 1, item "Page
4, Section 9"
7.10. 10, Driveway Cross Section — See detail 9 on drawing 1.1.11 of the Planning Board
Submission Drawing Set, Revision 1.
8. TRAFFIC COMMENTS
8.1. 1. Si ht Distance Review— See SBNE letter, page 1, item 1.
8.2. 2. Parking — See BC&A letter, page 1, item 2,
8.3. 3. Traffic Generation — No response required.
8.4. 4, Salem / Boxford / Foster Street Intersection —See BC&A letter, page 1, item 4.
MEMORANDUM Foster Farm Elementary School, 24 September 2003 page 6
9. DRAINAGE COMMENTS
9.1. 1. C Values— See SBNE letter, page 1, item 1.
9.2. 2. Pipe Calculations—See SBNE letter, page 1, item 2.
9.3. 3. "Cart Path"..Crossing — See SBNE letter, page 1, item 3.
9.4, 4. Mosquito Brook Impact—See SBNE letter, page 1, item 4.
9.5. 5. Roof Cistern— See SBNE letter, page 1, item 5.
9.6. 6, Catch Basins — See SBNE letter, page 1, item 6.
9.7. 7, Leaching Basins -- See SBNE letter, page 1, item 7.
9.8. A. Surface Ponds—See SBNE letter, page 1, item 8.
9.9. 9. Rip-Rai— See SBNE letter, page 1, item 9.
9.10. 10. Ground Water Elevations — See SBNE letter, page 1, item 10,
10. DISTRIBUTION OF THIS RESPONSE AND FOLLOW UP
10.1. We are forwarding to the Planning Board:
• Planning Board Consultant Review Package — 10 copies with half size drawing
sets and 3 copies with full size drawing sets care of Justin Woods; 1 copy w/full
size drawing set to Tim McIntosh,
• Conservation Commission Consultant Review Package —3 copies w/full size
drawings care of Justin Woods; 1 copy w/ full size drawing set to Tim McIntosh.
10.2. Please contact Rick Rice or myself if you have any questions.
iWwl
Jon Oxman IA
DiNISCO ESIGN
cc: Tim McIntosh, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Louis Minicucci (Memoranda and letters only)
Paul Szymanski
Nancy Kurtz
Patrick Saitta
Kenneth DiNisco (Memoranda and letters only)
Richard Rice (Memoranda and letters only)
Enclosures: See items 1.2, 1.3 and 10.1 above,
W2458.0 SkePfanRvwResponse i
b
4
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
ZONING BYLAW AND STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE
Site Plan Title: Foster Farm Elementary School VHB No.: 06716.75
Location: Boxford Street
Owner: North Andover School Department
Applicant: DiNisco Design Partnership,Ltd., 87 Summer Street,Boston,MA 02110
Applicant's Engineer: Schofield Brothers of New England,Inc., 1071 Worcester St.Framingham,MA 01701
Plan Date: July 15,2003 Review Date: August I,2003
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. (VHB)has been retained by the Town of North Andover to provide an engineering
review of the Site Plan Special Permit for the Foster Farm School. This review is conducted in accordance with the
Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw and standard engineering practice. VHB has received the following drawings
and documents for review;
• Site Plans(38 sheets)dated July 15,2003
■ Application for Site Plan Special Permit dated.July 16,2003
• Drainage Calculations (Attachment 5)dated June 26,2003
• Site Soils and Geotechnical Information dated January 28,2003
• Foster Farms Elementary School Notice of Intent dated June 26, 2003
The following comments note non-conformance with specific sections,eonstructability issues and
questions/comments on the proposed design.
Section 6:Signs and Sign Lighting Regulations
The ground sign shown on sheet 1.1.12 is not consistent with the description provided in the Application for site plan
special permit(section 6.1). The sign in the drawings exceeds the 10 square feet listed in the application and exceeds
the 2 square feet listed in section 6.6, of the Zoning regulations. The sign does not appear to conform to section 6.6
of the zoning regulations,which require the sign to be set back a minimum of 10, from the property line. The
applicant should provide a detail for the wall sign described in the application,and discuss any illumination of these
signs?
Section 7: Dimensional Requirements
7.4 Buildin Hei hts
Table 2 of the Zoning Bylaws,defines the maximum building height as 35 feet. On the application for Site Plan
Special Permit submitted by the applicant,the proposed building height is listed at 39% The Applicant should
request a waiver or revise the building height.
CADocuments and Se11ings\wcotter\Desk1op\fos1er farm school 11671675.doc 1
c
Section 8: Supplementary Regulations
Section 8.1 Off Street Parkin
1. The applicant has requested the Building Inspector determine the parking requirements because schools are not
listed in the North Andover Zoning By-law, VHB defers comment on required number of parking spaces to the
Building Inspector,but suggests the applicant consider providing data from similar size schools.
2. The plan should show the width and ]gngth of the proposed parking stalls.
Section 8.3 Site Plan Review
8.3-5 information Required
e) Several sheets have been stamped by a registered mechanical engineer. Section 8.3.5.c requires
plans to be stamped by architects,landscape architects and/or civil engineers. A civil engineer
should stamp these sheets to conform with this section.
e)v) The topography shown on the grading plan,is not consistent with the grading shown on the
stormwater drainage plan. The civil engineer responsible for the site drainage and for the other
utilities should stamp all drawings that could be relevant to the utilities, including construction
details and grading plans.
e)vii) Stormwater drainage has been shown. Please see comments under the Drainage Comments
section.
e)xii) The applicant should provide a details for the proposed wall sign.
e)xiii) The applicant should provide a typical cross section for the access drive.
e)xv) Have all trees over 12"DBH been shown?
e)xvi) The applicant should provide a detail for the dumpster screening.
e-xvii) The lighting facilities have been shown,however there appears to be some light escaping the
property labeled map 104D lot 57.
e-xviii) Drainage Basin Study: See Drainage Comments.
e-xix) Traffic Impact Study: See comments on Traffic in the section labeled Traffic Comments
e)xxi) The applicant has shown proposed utilities, however the following should be addressed:
• The survey points should not print on the utility drawings. The points make the drawing
difficult to read.
• Station and offset information should be provided in the plan and profile views,
• Utility appurtenances should be.referred to in terms of station and offset.
• The applicants engineer should review all utilities for vertical conflicts such as on sheet
1.3.7 in the plan blow up of the planted rock area. The 8"pvc and the 18"pve pipes
appear to have a vertical conflict,
8.3.6,a.ii.b There appears to be only one dumpster located within an enclosure on the north easterly side of the
main access road. The applicant should consider trash receptacles in the parking areas and along
the access road to prevent trash from vehicles and pedestrians,including vehicles using the night
program spaces,from collecting on the property and from blowing into abutting locations. The
applicant should also demonstrate that the single dumpster proposed will meet the needs of the
school.
2
C:\Documents and Settings\wcotter\Desktop\foster farm School 0671675.doc
8.3.6.a.ii,c, Sanitary Sewer
The applicant should provide a copy of the sewer extension permit to be filed with the State, to the
Town. A narrative description of the system and the design calculations for the pump system
should also be provided so that the reviewer can review and comment on the sanitary system. Of
primary concern is the daily volume of wastewater entering the system, capacity of the existing
system, pump station storage capacity,back up power,cycle time, volume of wastewater held in
the force main,and possible odor issues.
Please provide a detail for the force main connection into the gravity system.
Generally, 8 inch plastic pipes are designed to be installed at a minimum slope of OM4 ft/ft to
maintain self cleaning velocities and to allow some construction tolerance during the installation.
The applicant should explain why the sewer system is designed at 0.0035 Mt.
Will the sewer extension be made available to abutters on Boxford Street? If so,the calculations
should reflect those volumes. There appears to sections of Boxford Road with limited cover
material over the ledge. This could be a controlling factor in the design and function of private
septic systems. Has the applicant queried the Town and/or the abutters about the need for sanitary
service? Given the ledge restrictions in the force main section, it will be difficult to install a
gravity line after the force main is installed without damaging the force main.
Is it possible that the design of the pressure system could be such that low pressure connections
from abutting properties could be made at a later date?
The Site Utilities plan—South is not consistent with the Sanitary Sewer plans. (e.g. location of the
pump chamber)
Type and specification for all utility lines should be provided on the plans. There appears to be a
condition of low cover from 22+00--25+00 the design engineer should show that the type of pipe
specified is adequate for the bury conditions and will not deflect excessively,and cause damage to
the pavement structure.
The applicant should show the sill elevations of the houses on Boxford Street on the profile
drawing of the sewer. This comment is only valid if abutting properties on Boxford Street may
have access to the sewer system in the future.
It is standard practice that sanitary sewer drawings are stamped by a civil or sanitary engineer.
8.3.6.d. Drainage system, See comments labeled Drainage Comments.
8.3.61 The applicant should provide details on the plan that match the slope stabilization methods
referred to in the Notice of Intent,
8.3.6.g. The lighting plan indicates light will reach property map 104D parcel 57. Can the lighting be
adjusted?
8.3.6.h. The applicant should provide a narrative description of noises expected to come from the site.
General Comments;
1. The applicant should provide a profile drawing of the site drive.
2. The applicant has made an outstanding effort to provide the required information. The applicant should review
and coordinate the work from each consultant to provide consistent grading and utility plans. It appears as
though in several instances revisions have been made that were not changed on every plan.(e.g.pump chamber
location and grading at the entrance at Boxford Street,) The applicant should review the submittal and confirm
the consistency between the various consultants.
3
C:\boa"menis and Settinxs\wcotter\besktop\foster farm school 9671675.doc
4
3. The drawings should be cleaned up to reduce clutter. Individual survey points do not need to be seen on the
plan and make it difficult to read design information.
4. Some spot grades may be helpful in areas where the contour interval does not allow accurate representation of
the conditions,but every spot grade on the site does not need to be shown.
5. The access drive should be stationed and all utility manholes labeled with station and offset values.
6. The Site Utilities plans should show all utilities(water,gas, sewer,drainage,electrical and cable.) The Utilities
should be laid out in a consistent manner to avoid crossing where possible. All plans in the set should show
consistent utility layout.
7. Wheel chair ramps should be provided at the limits of the sidewalk, both on the site and on Boxford Road.
8. The detail of Handicap parking spaces is not consistent with the spaces shown on the plan. In this case,the
Handicap spaces and access routes on the site plan should be listed with dimensions.
9. The site drive and Boxford Street should be stationed along the centerline,and the geometry should be shown on
the drawing.
10. The applicant should show a typical cross section for the driveway. This should list cross slope and width
information.
Traffic Comments:
1. VHB recommends a more detailed sight distance review be completed for the main driveway on the site.
2. Circulation throughout the site appears to be reasonable. VHB suggests that the Applicant check the parking
numbers to make sure they are adequate to support the number of teachers and users of the soccer facility.
Although it does not appear to be a problem, the applicant should verify.
3. Traffic Generation and distribution appears reasonable.
4. VHB recommends that the applicant give additional attention to the intersection of Salem Street/Boxford
StreetA otter Street, This intersection is projected to operate at Level of Service(LOS)F in the future. The
applicant should consider developing solutions to the projected poor operating levels as this will be the major
route for busses into and out of the new school.
Drainage Conunents:
The applicant has provided a very thorough report. VHB suggests that the design engineer confirm that all the plans
in the plan set submitted match the other sheets in the set,and all assumptions and calculations in the drainage report,
and in the Notice of Intent.
I. Please list the C values used in the computation of infiltration values in attachment 6. It appears as though 100
has been used for most calculations,but simply listing the value will avoid confusion. Some of the implied
values appear very high.
2. Generally pipe calculations and inlet capacities are determined using the rational method. The applicant should
discuss why the SCS method was used for the 25 year pipe design. The applicant should also provide inlet
capacity calculations showing depth of runoff at the curb,width of spread and amount of bypass flow.
3. There is no formal culvert under the cart path to the athletic facilities. If the stones clogged,what would happen
to the hydrology in the area.
4
CA DMUMCnts and Settings\wfolter\Da kto0toster farm school 0671675.dot
4. Is there any expected impact from the minor 0.5 cfs increase to the main wetland to mosquito brook during the
10 year storm? Please have the applicant express the increase in terms of total flow to the wetland from the
entire basin,
S. If the roof cistern is full at the start of the storm,where does the overflow go and how does it get there.
6. Three(3)of the proposed catch basins will not have deep sumps. The applicant should address how this will
effect the TSS removal. According to the Notice of Intent(NOI) the applicant is taking the full 25%for TSS
removal even though not all the basins will have the deep sumps.
7. The applicant should consider the use of filter fabric or material around the outside of the leaching basins,
particularly in the sandier and gravel soils.
8. VHB recommends the surface ponds are equipped with a method to measure the amount of sediment collected
in the pond. The device will serve as an indication of maintenance needs and will also prevent excessive
excavation during maintenance.
9. Please provide calculations for the sizing for the rip-rap at the outlets of the drainage system.
10. The applicant should list estimated ground water elevations,in the area of infiltration, on the plan,
It is recommended that the applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments contained
herein.
Reviewed by: !/�
Date. r 2�3
William J.Cotter,PE
Project Engineer-Highway and Municipal Engineering
5
CADocoments and SelBn¢s\wcotter\beskloo\foster farm school 0671675.doc
N L R V 1: 1 f; P LA N'I X f;
M -,c Scholoeid Brothers or Na::E-�i;a. nd. 1:
1071 Ylor:oster Road
IM. 11 WEI.
Fmmm,ham.MA 0170 1-5298
508-87'MO30- 1-800-696-2271
September 22, 2003 Fax 5,',3-871)-j797
21652
DiNisco Design, Partnership
Attn: Rick Rice
87 SLIHIMC1'Sti-eet.
Boston, MA 02138
RE: Foster Farms Elementary School in North Andover, NIA
Dear Rick,
The following is information provided in response to the comments dated ALIc'USt 4, 2003). prepared
C7
by William Cotter, P.E. of VHB relative to the Stormwater Drainage System. The numbered items
below pertain to the item numbers in Mr. Cotter's comments and we have repeated the comment to
facilitate review. All storinwater related items have been addressed.
Drainage Comments
1. Please list the C values used in the co"11)[11ation of h1filtrution values in Attachment 6. It
appears m though 100 licis been used fi);-most culculation, but simply listing the value will
avoid confusion. Some of the implied ivilues al-)pear vet-Y high.
Response: Attachment I to this letter contains the Table from Attachment 6 to which Nir.
Cotter is referring. We have updated that Table to include the C value used for each soil
sample. Mr. Cotter is correct that 100 was used in most cases. The only sample that was
different was the glacial till sample from Test Hole#03-10. That soil had an appreciable
,11110L]Ilt of fines, so 60 was used as a more appropriate valtic. We concur that some of the
values appear high which is why we Used a IONVC1-VaILIC for the design of the exfiltration
systems. The locations for the leaching pit designs were in clean sand and gravel areas and a
permeability of 32 inches per hour were used in those cases. The Cultec Leaching Chambers
are in areas of sandy glacial till. For those systems, a permeability of 2.1 inches per hour was
used. Also, in response to comments fi-on-i the Conservation Commission's consultant,
Eggleston Environmental, additional soil tests were CO1ldUCtCd in each of the proposed sites of
the infiltration BIMPs to verify the soil conditions. The additional soils information is
contained in Attachment 2. The testing did confirm the soil conditions and estimated seasonal
groundwater elevations and no changes in the design parameters was necessarv.
C� 1
2. GeneivIlY pipe caludolions and inlet capacities (we defer-mined using the rational mellif)(1.
The applicant should discuss wh-v the SCS method was used for the 25 j-
.yeapipe design. Tlw
applicant Should also Provide inlet capacii'v calculations showing dcj,)ih qj'runqjj'ai the curb,
width of spread and a amount oj'Uyjwiss,110W.
Response: The storniNvater inlets and pipe system are designed for free flow of 25 year pipe
l
capacity, Since the pipe and inlet system is relatively simple in this case^ we used the SCS
methodology to be consistent with the genet-at stormwiter hydrologic model for the site. If we
were grouping a larger, complex system of catch basins intO Sl_ib-\szaersheds to simpliFv the
IT 13110'1'11[18�i
� \I;i�l tKlti�, it k+ tll\�
21652
Foster Farm Elementary School Project
September 19, 2003
Page 2
stormwater model, we Concur- that use of the rational method is often easier. but in this case,
the use of the SCS method is appropriate,
The inlet capacity parameters used for the design were the standard as follows:
- Using square grate (F-type) catch basin grates with no curb inlet.
- To minimize flow-by, use a single inlet For up to 2 cfs, Use additional catch basins along the
curb for over 2 cfs, or use a double inlet from 2 to 3.5 cfs.
To address (lie comment, we checked the inlet capacities for the catch basins that are not at low
points (Catch Basins 5, 7 and 10, that are along the curb where the road is sloping). The
compttations are contained in Attachment 3 and the computations determine the depth of
gutter flow and the inlet capacity at that depth. 1n all cases (lie flow depth is mininial Inc] the
inlet capacity significantly exceeds the 25 year storm flow, confirmintr that any bypass flow
will be minimized.
3. 7Yiet-e is no jbt-mal culvert under the caa path to the athletic facilities. ll the stones clogged,
what would happen to the hYdrology of'the area?
Response: The existing crossing is a similar stone fordway, that is lose in profile and is
presently partially clogged and the surface of the cart path gets wet and muddy during the
spring. However, it has served the function for-many years. The proposed crossing will
perform better than the existing but will certainly be subject to clogging in tirne. The proposed
design is to replace the existing structure so as not to change the hydrology as discussed with
the Conservation Commission. The design includes a geo-fabric to prevent the cart path
surface from migrating into the stone and Keep the surface from becoming muddy. The
intermittent stream usually only flows during the spring and very severe storm events during
other times of the year. III the future, if the path becomes impassible for foot traffic due to
-wetness, the installation will need to be replaced. The project proponents did look at a foot
bridge as an alternative, but the proposed stone crossing was a simple solution that has worked
in the past at this location. A formal culvert would change the hydrology of the immediate
upstream area which we are trying to avoid.
d. Is there ant• expected impact fi-om the mirror 0.5 cfs increase (in peak flow) to the nnain
ivetland to Alo-5quito Brook? Please have the applicant evpress the iliac>ase in terms of total
flow to the wetland from the entire basin.
Response: Mosquito Brook and another tributary stream identified as the "Winter Street
Tributary"converge in the basin to the east of the project area and flood that basin frequently.
The downstream outlet to the basin is at Lost Pond Lane and this flooding was the subject of a
study dated August 2002 by VHB, Inc. Mosquito Brook is over 5 miles in length above Lost
Pond Lane and the Winter Street Tributary is 1.5 miles in length with many square miles of
watershed. Storm peak flows for this system are in the hundreds of cfs.
3
-� 21652
Foster Farm Elementary School Project
September- 19, 2003
Page 3
There have been several revisions to the proposed drainage system to address comments from
Eggleston Environmental for the Conservation Commission. The changes have reduced the
computed minor increase in peak flow from 0.5 cfs to 0.25 efs for the 10 year storm. These
numbers are truly insignificant given the size of the basin and can not change the flow in
Mosquito Brook. Also, the time of the peak flow in Mosquito Brook from a given storm event
coilles hours after this minor increase has entered the stream so it can not increase the peak
flow in the brook. More importantly relative to flooding, the voluble of runoff from the site
will be reduced so that increase In blooding Call not oCCUr Within the Mosquito Brook flood
plain. The revised stormwater management report is being submitted for review with the
detailed changes to the site drainage and stormwater model.
5. If the roof cistern is fall at the start of the stow((, where sloes the overylolu go and how(toes it
get there?
Response: In the stormwater model, the conservative assumption is made for design purposes
that the cistern is full prior to the start of the storm. All stormwater overflows the cistern to
Drain IVlanhole 411 located just west of the cistern. The flow is then conveyed in a 12 inch
RCP pipe to the northwesterly infiltration (Cultec) chamber. This BIMP is identified in the
model as Basin 4.
6. Three of the proposed catch basins it-ill not have sleep sumps. The applicant should aridness
how this will effect the TSS rerrrorcrl.,..
Response: Tile catch basins ill questions are not "catch basins" in the treatment stream. They
are actually special overflow control structures but they are. essentially designed sirnilar to
catch basin structures and share the same design detail oil the plans. There are actually 4 of
these structures in the current revised plant (CBS 13, 14, 15 and 16). No credit is being taken
for these structures for TSS removal.
7. The applicant should consider the use of filter fabric or•nrater-iol around the orttside of the
leaching basins, parlicrrlar"lr in the saintlier, gravel soils,
Response: We concur with this reconlnlendation and have added that to the detail of the
leaching basins.
S. VHB recommends the surface ponds are equipped with a method to 111eaSure the amount of
sediment collected in the pond. The device will serve as ab indication of maintenance needs
and also prevent excessive excavation diu-ing maintenance.
Response: We concur with this recommendation and have added a "Sediment Depth Indicator
Post" to the plan for each basin and a detail.
9. Please provide calculations for the sizing of rip-r-ap at the outlets of the drainage s}°stem.
Y
F. 1;IN LF.RI NIARM
ME 21652
Foster Far€n Elementary School Project
September 19, 2003
Page 4
Response: Calculations and design information are provided in Attachment d.
10. The etpplicant shoulcl list estinutted grot whc Ater elevrolions, in the orea of infiltration oil the
Plan.
Response: Complete Estimated Seasonal High Groundwater information at each of the
infiltration sh•uctures is contained in Attachment 5. This also includes sec60€1 sketches of
Basin 1 and 7 for easier review of those two facilities. The other*structures are relatively
simple and the elevation of groundwater at each structure is fou€td in the table on the first pale
of the Attachment 5.
In addition to the above, note that the "Planted Rock Filters" have been eliminated from the design
as a result of the Green Design Grant no longer being applicable for this purpose. As stated in the
June 26, 2003 Stormwater Report, these were added features and were not needed to meet the
requirements of the Stormwater Management Policy and no credit Nvas taken for those in the
former design plan. The removal of the Planted Rock Filters simplifies the design of Basin 1 and
the outfall of Basin 2, which should clear up some of the confusion reviewers had in how those
systems worked with the drain system.
We believe this addresses all of the stormwate€-related comments contained in the VI-IB review. It
is my understanding that this response letter and attachments will be included in your next
submittal to the Planning Board. If you have any questions or concerns do not hesitate to contact
me.
Very truly yours,
Schofield Brotliers of New England, Inc.
Fredric W. King, P.E.
Senior Engineer/
Wetlands Specialist
Enclosures
21652
ATTACHMENT I
FOSTER FARM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROJECT
UPDATE OF TABLE FROM SOIL TEST REPORT
ENTITLED
"SOIL AINALYSIS FOR STORINIWATER EXFILTRATION PROPE11TIES"
DATED January 28,2003, revised 9-19-03
Page I of 3
1:!terC I ` rT Y ( I
5Arvi'P r D, Q3; 131c Cu C•c Dray: f�T-(< //V GrYr�Skc i��i�t: r�/�Tr� a �
rn p.
W m
` krUG 12 �. �D (�. 83 � �t4r� �ao,rjY gfadFcC Q-��p .22.. � C33 n
} Z D. q2 To or l d ratc-ad mv di uAx-) O.p La 225- 03. CO
�0 C m
]�
CO 0 C C.13
to , tL
`n4 Z C2-_ 1 .2 D.�q 0-IS' 8 OA5 Poorly dyad c O.D2Z9- t3J . 9 v. 6N
D(�2-
O � �
# 03-4- C2- 2. O.Z�` D.D ZS '�(� aoY l races v . 3
8 D. 5a. d D. 0O(a4- �. D4- "�
z
C T.tuJ � n
T 03 -.S C2 1 I O. b 0. 10 110 6.32 }m000Yj�1 Yided SaL ipC D ( 4--•Z r
c;feu
nrtD� - (a C 2 1 .2 0. 18 0.0.S- 24- T)Oar)Y 6y- CDt S� � ~It
�} o� --9 G 1� 7-Le p.�-b G L-)L D. U (-, 3
L?T?
in
m m
GC Coe �L r rP�'ti r O c C c3�1 u U G�' �C
/u
w r__L L- G f Z tq O l t2 L/Z_ C > C +i✓ t nr j r wJ 3 -
ti�:;�c c Gt�r? � � SIrND Cu
- �:)_i A j A L -S --R 7,`-RtNl WA-7 f�X% 1
lei 'rZ / 1?1 r ,y —
AlN\P D4- � !]ro Cu C c T,-: t'rroy c /S 1Y-r/i t�, r��Frrh a
m o
f Iv n.h I L L 7 1-= \Z
T4 ?ooy raaocc scLy,d
Q
71} o3- ice �. o _ � a. 15 � 0,4� boat-i� nroc� sc.ndc , d_ oZ�s �� . � �. C*�Q
�-
� <D (D o Otero �
i'*'E
co
� � n
� o
N
c
I
7 C�
n n
T41
° o
C
ro
s
- ----
ref �arrllfTY
b TS
v f cZ r-�V
Sri�r'17 -- �` ��.•� f'�a�i�'C: � C,• f
q O
21652
ATTACHMENT 2
FOSTER FARM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROJECT
SOIL TEST REPORT
ADDITIONAL TESTING ON 9/12/10
Sep ember 17,2003
THIS ATTACHMENT IS UNDER
A SEPARATE COVER
THAT ACCOMPANIES THIS DOCUMENT
Prepared By: Schofield Brothers of New Ennfand, Inc.
P
21652
ATTACHMENT 3
FOSTER FARM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROJECT
STORK WATER CALCULATIONS TO CIIECK INLET CAPACITIES
OF CATCH BASINS 5, 7 AND 10
September•19,2003
Prepared By: Schofield Brothers of New England,Inc.
Page I of 4
Drainage and Erosion Control 10-89
a '
I
louA11D+: a.D.tt�T��s40,�'
10000 n » •oua•.frf eDtrrleuwT Iu u.e,Ls .10
9000
foRV LRA V..Ora.S[ TO «Al[eI.L I•
8000 toTTOY Of t«ArrtL
7000 r Is •ECI—O—L or c.Dss twwt .06 1.0
5000 .1r(094tt.w 1l • reOC[[DIr41 It's. .07
5-000 ..0 roD,spvAvou u.F .SO
.06
4000 F .70
.
loo LL 05 ,60
3i00 r0
EXAMPLE LL LL so F\- .04
30 LL.
L 000 �� �— -�� 2 0 st
71— lt.
,40
`—oats ,o .03 z
M z
1000 ?
.30
Doc r Oz
800
C: 700 I
�\ GOO x Q
P .e
500 x '�
a
Q 400 = Z
INSTRUCTIONS 0 I
~ 300 01 Q
Q Cr-f .or w 0.
t/n s.Tlo .Il« sLott U1 Q AS Z
1f .wo co••tCT DISC...st lol.0 _ a3 Z 008
-� 200 -0tr Tw to) 1«ttt Two t-j$ wVlt U
of Q .007 Lo .10
x.rt..[pf At luw+u. uut rp•
COYh[ft lOLVS,O+ O ,01 ,006 IL
.fl6
t.Ta• s«Auos - ""'r e •005 w
100 t-tw.rto t«.++tt .OT
&O 0
At s«o•r;s[ .owosw.r« Q .004 .06
70
w
60 (L. Q .05
50 t-to piTi•wl+f r ° 0 .003
40 olsswA.se p, Ir T 1 V) [' ,04
�p•iq« a t«..wil ?�J
w Atir( •Itiw [: �—' U
30 p(f(• i.[ 0[•ir Is FOR TOTAL 012C...41 I• ,002
Lull*( 11cf10• Is1«tu VIE 00"D•..r« to } 03
20 PtIU«11rL 01 w "C"o• • FOR
OIrTw 4
I
..To otrt..,ut oat.«,est ,02
I.Cowrof,Tt 1CCTIp. 1, E . 1LaL�'
! f.
10 To O.T.I. 011D«,.01 Ir 001 0
xctlou . .l .tsvwto ,e,lr•s'i
WIN t I 0.1ei. 0, 104
SLOPE ■Ally 1 —0 otrl« IF', T.I. 0, p• 0.
.01
NOMOGRAPH FOR FLOW
IN TRIANGULAR CHANNELS
Reference: Drainage of Highway Pavements, HEC #12, FHWA. l741_ L
Figure 10-30. Gutter Capacity Example Problem
SCHOFIELD BROTHERS OF NEW ENGLAND, INC. JOB
Engineering * Surveying • Planning SHEET NO. 3 of
1071 Worcester Road CALCULATED BY4✓ LATE
FRA,MINGHAM, MASSACHUSFTTS 01701-5298
(508) 879-0030 CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
L'f3 S �^/
rZ
4 T.
C.�
1}
rL ra �
I
.. . .......
j=1.� `1y �..✓ ��_� ^7- ,� r� r, 1, I
_.
E, 7 Cr`�
:
A__il
.............
:
i
- _ ...
I F I r � r« n wslf�"I c�a�
r �
SCHOFIELD BROTHERS OF NEW ENGLAND, INC. ico � t r �?
Engineering o Surveying ► Planning SHEET NO. y of �
1071 Worcester Road CALCULATED DATE
FRAMINGHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 01701-5298
(508) 879.0030 CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
:
f _
. . .. , 53_ ._ S„
r : >>
ice. . - . s -_ t"I 1�: �- •• r .. 0. .�� 1.�.
_C
.�� F"t.�r;_
G1"•}='x < i �` . 1s �� l� C� CQ, �,�
s i
:
I i -
_.....
21652
ATTACHMENT 4
FOSTER FARM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROJECT
STORIIWATER OUTFALL APRONS
RIP-RAP AND DESIGN CALCULATION
September 19,2003
Prepared By: Schofield Brothers of New linglind, Inc.
Page 1 of 3
SCHOI"IELD BROTHERS OF NEW ENGLAND, INC. JOB
Engineering • Surveying • Planning SHEET NO. of 7
1071 Worcester Road CALCULATED B
FRAMINGHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 01701-5298 DATE
(508) 879-0030 CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
i
i
i
.. _ -
:ram . �
rtt'w s t p�1c r �•/ F tt'1� I
_. . .
..... .±„4s ram' r ya (T i�a7 F t f L 4 m l I fly[y
f
......_ U
r S
�j�' pai,
.....> r 7 } =- r,c� ✓ off: ?al ? r 3 7 qs
r -._. .. _ _-. .. ..—
'-- E - .�.
-.;.f-.�• �'..A-:.�.:. .1- r' `� __ L `� .. ! �f (�S �I f•�-•:C �--f_'�l,� (-t�l G \'1 I\/ 11i�.,.
.......... _ _ ...._
i
�1 i�.��{--- 1 t ri 11 [ f ✓ V !
E �
_. o ....4 '
{
i
r
-� c�.� .._ .t 6+`11:... . (3'_ ,T".a.0
I -
i i
l...........<
... c��_i_ l � row r ry'i
> i
rw: I ..
r'
t
. ,
�. .,'._ -
.. .........
,...-. I}t S n [`,-
.
a*
I €
:
i
-.....i.. ._ .. __ _... f ._ ... _ .�. --
f
t r_ -(
1 f
'� 1 J� y1
f� '
" di i yL i 1 f } tar �iT-
r.
�. .. ._r......... �3 .... c _
` ...
: ) rf >
€L'�+7:E - h.. . :: I r.n F�
! !
I
! �>
!
r I � ' I
_i � i
E � � ��� ,tom �- .. �. �� ...�r
���'�s-��S- f �W.�.�� I.l \ � �O /�i�
f
G!4-itj OF*,,MJT1_LT FRC---ECT1 PC FROM A :ROUND PPE F4 QU1ftf1 FULL
90 — 1—
BO
Outlet N • D° } La 11] p
Pipe
0{amc[cr, D° � Eye j I!I.`I!i''�i;-..r-• ." ' . (:.,.�:. 4" "
La --+a {Qn•� 60
rtir water < 0.50° �� i'::= : : : i: e'L b +...
OE �rsl ',,t •'i:i:i:,��� !II ��'.I III. : :.: '.. 4i:�i �•�`1r ��
-- '�b•
�e SO i •ij I i
V ��nl � I i [ � it• :I •i�=••sl i.!; 'ij`.:.:,i::'.' i ; b.: .c�I.; i:'" .[..;: -�: � I f
i r I 4 f
4 — �.-"T= I^r • Ti L`j'a� r ;. '.1,;,:i.... .,. .,.
I.. I 1 � Il I -r: ,L .�I t... ,t 'ZAP .. �':-•
—p 3 i1 � ill •� � ,�Ij .:. Z �� I�+ :�:. .. ;I:�.I. Y
/LJ I L I ;,.•. i.
O 20 I I•I- I ]'' ,(j �lif f.!• I ..,. •[I .. .. _ ir• •�
111 I I 2 d * 'I•�I��'.I�I• .r., ..il ....:r..
44
�� 1 •f'-r I: i_1. i'Ei .II _. i•. ,,:i ..I:..l r. ... ...I. O � W a.l i
CL
17.
1 :iI I I �: .:;:�' •>� : all rri�:�a:.� a A. t a>
]II I'� I � I I� 1.� .,I. .I I,, II ,, ;.I, ;.•r I: ' + T- 44 ,I� ..I. "'
3 5 10 20 50 100 200 500 1000 :>
0[schargc. (i./sec.
21652
ATTACHMENT 5
FOSTER FARM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROTECT
STORMWATER INFILTRATION STRUCTURES
ESTIMATED SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER
AT EACH STRUCTURE
September 19,2003
Prepared By: Schofsekd Bro(hers of New England, Inc.
Page I of 4
j
1
.... ......_-._............. .._ ..............
I
-� ...... ..._.r......._ rLr
rE
v
°F iP�i �7r�_r �,•�t' 4 �r' ' r7YZvc"Tv1� ^� _'
--- ra
—
I
D �
1
G N
-, to i I .., .. ....: (p m p
�..,_...- ...
Rom to r�*i* ' W M ova
_ - ... r .. . �� • rri
_ _...
%vo
F)ail
-
_ '-......_.............. . .............:................. .....- ago
:
�... ... :. .v_... z/..
co
........ .. C�`... ��_.... r_ 5.•. �.
r r ;
k I , 1 -
._ i
..
- r am
m Z
r
......_ p m
� a
I i o ry g' r .
K {�
Y�z `i
.1
�Q ..... ...... ._,.i. 3 Al:
1. . i
._.T.r .....1.... _ �.., f V _ / 1
D 1 F»x
,
...�. ..:.. .. ... .., .,..,.... ---... ... ..
r -. ..,.._..... .............
................. ......................._.... .. ....,.,... ..... ...., ..,. .....,. .,.,. ... ......
_... .. ..... ... ...... .. . ... _ ....--- _._ .......
.
O
w}
.., a..,........�.._....._ ., ..... - - .. .. __....,_, ... .......... .... - .. _ ... ...
., ... _.----
- ....... .... ..
s. - ,
. .. _.............. ' ....... ._..-_. ... _. , .. __. ...._...,......._ - -- = —
t
..
.. _......... ........ ..... ...,.. ..- .. ..
--• -....-...-..-....: ...... .. ....... .............'..... - -.-._.._.- ....., ... .. ..... ` __ 1l .... -. .... ... _....._ ...... --•-_ -••-•_f --
! J
. ..... ..._......
LL
f 7
- - ,
.... .,
.. ....................
t _d _ -
...a1
-.....o: t . .._.... .. _
...L- -. .... -i- .. .;_. ..._.
co
LiGl _ ..., .. ... .........
to U U r �—
m LU aLLJ
y
W l r ...L t G 1....a..-.`
i
00
----------------------
�a 4
J
L•.
P
--
on F 3 � y
..,..... ..mil+—LLJ
i j !
41
CD AM
oc
n _ 4
._
La
1�4
...... ..... ... .. . ... ..... -
..... . . — - --
j
SCHOFIELD BROTHERS OF NEW ENGLAND, INC.
Engineering a Surveying • Planning SHEET NO. � � OF
1071 Worcester Road ® CALCULATED BY DATE
FRAMINGHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 01701-5298
(508) 879-0030 CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
co
1'
t
:AL [ 1
ci
1j1
- y -
r
� 1
r
...... ..
F
;
...
f
.. _ _ ..
- ..... _
i
:
1 _ _ _ _E _i ._.�
lL
,
i
September 19, 2003
Robert W. Sullivan, Inc.
Consulting Engineers
DiNisco Design Partnership Union Wharf Condominiums
343 Commercial St., Unit 4302
87 Summer Street Boston, Massachusetts 02709
Boston Ma 02110 (677)523-8227
(Fax)523-8016
www.rwsullivan.com
Att: Jon Oxman A. Eugene Sullivan P.E.
Paul D.Sullivan PE.
Mark J.Sullivan
Re: North Andover Foster Farm Anthony r. Dlsretano PE,
BanigA, Kaldas RE.
Plarniing Board Comments Eugene B. 1(ingman
RWS Responses Steven P Quieto
RWS Project No. 7158.04
Jon:
We have reviewed the Planning Board review of the July 15 submission and offer our
responses below. We address only those items that pertain to our design. Any items not
addressed here are considered by RWS to not pertain to our design.
For ease of reference, we will use the same numbering scheme as the original review
document. We do need to remind one and all these are Design Development drawings,
that will be "put in the drawer" for a number of years, and will undoubtedly need to be
reviewed and probably revised at that time in the fixture when the project is taken out of
the proverbial drawer and prepared for bidding and construction. We also have the
client's desire to avoid spending any more money now than required, given that much of
this work may have to be repeated when the project comes back to life.
Page 2, 8.3-5
c) Massachusetts professional engineering registration regulations allow a duly
registered engineer, who believes hint or her self to be competent in the field
being designed, the stamp drawings that he or she has prepared. We propose
to stamp these drawings ( the water , sewer and gas plans and profiles) with a
mechanical engineering stamp as was done with the previous submittal.
e)v) We have revised the grading on the sewer, water and gas drawings.
e)xxi) -The sewer extension (off-site)plans and profiles have the stations indicated,
only as an aid for design and estimating at this time. We request a waiver
from the requirement for on-site stations and offsets at this time. We will add
the offset information, and the on-site information, when the project is
actually being prepared for bidding and construction. We are reluctant to do
this now because the intervening years can bring about any number of
program or design changes, resulting in site and building changes, that could
require repeating these efforts, thus requiring the client to pay for the same
task twice.
-We have reviewed the water, sewer and gas design for conflicts with the
storm drainage system and the grading and have resolved the one or two we
found.
James D. Albanese, P.E. Stephen A. Beliveau Kenneth 5, Charest
Robert V. DeBonls Edwin A. Kotak, Jr., P.E. Michael E Vlachos
Septeinber 19, 2003
DiNisco Design Partnership
Foster Farm Elementary School
North Andover, Massachusetts
Planning Board Submission Review Comments
Page 2
Page 3, 8.3.6.a.ii.e.
-Sewer extension permit and narrative description—we request a waiver from
this requirement, since the project will not be bid for some number of years.
-We will provide a detail of the force plain connection to the gravity sewer.
-The 0.0035 ft/ft slope was used to allow as inuch of the new sewer as
possible to be gravity. At 0.0035 ft/ft, the gravity sewer can be substantially
longer, due to minimum cover issues, than it could be at 0.0040 ft/ft. An
increase in slope is certainly desirable, but this would shorten the length of
gravity sewer that could be installed in this area,thus limit the number of
private connections that could be made to this sewer. We believe the trade-off
of a lesser slope, and the attendant installation and possible maintenance
issues, for an increased number of homes and businesses that can be
connected to the sewer (thus reducing the number of Title 5 septic systems) is
to the Town's benefit and recommend the 0.0035 ft/ft be allowed.
-Availability of the sewer for abutters on Boxford Street had been
contemplated, but had not been confirmed as being required by the Town. Due
to the force main, a separate gravity sewer, leading back to the pump station,
would have to be added. We agree with the reviewer's comment that if a
gravity sewer is to be installed here, it should be done at the same time as the
force main.
-The ledge indicated by the borings and probes would be removed from the
path of the force main as part of the sewer project.
-Given the length of the force main and the elevations change that has to be
overcome, a low pressure type of system would not be a viable option here.
-We have revised these drawings to be consistent with each other.
-Pipe material and specification have been added to the sewer and water
drawings. Gas piping on the site will be furnished and installed in a contractor
provided trench and the materials are dictated by the gas utility company.
-Low cover will be dealt with by providing reinforced concrete cover to help
dissipate the imposed vehicular and overburden loads.
-We will add the sill elevations at the time the project is being prepared for
bid and construction, to avoid having to do this over again.
-It may be standard practice, but a duly registered professional engineer who
believes him or her self to be competent in the discipline involved is permitted
to stamp these drawings. That is the situation here.
Page 3, General Comments
2. -We have revised the grading to be consistent with that of the civil engineer
and landscape architect.
September 19, 2003
DiNisco Design Partnership
Foster Farm Elementary School
North Andover, Massachusetts
Planning Board Submission Review Comments
Page 3
3. -We have cleaned up the clutter to make the drawings easier to read.
5. -We request a waiver as stated above in item e)xxi) above
&. —Because there are 4 separate corporate and professional entities involved in
the design of these site utilities, this will not be practical. It would also present
legal liability issues that we can not assume.
We believe these are the items that pertain to the sewer, water and gas site systems
design.
Please call if there are any questions.
Respectfully,
ROBERT W. SULLIVAN, INC.
EUGENE B. KINGMAN
Principal
RWSResponsesPlanningBo�irdReviewCornments.doa
\ Morlece & Gary
Site Planning,l_andsc,7pcArchilccture environmental Design
September 24,2003
Jon Oxman
DiNisco Design Partnership
87 Sumner Street
Boston, MA 02110
Dear Jon:
In response to.thc memo by WM regarding the 811.e Plan Special Permit for the Poster Farms School, dated
August 1,2003. Here is our written.rospousc.
Responses to the Planning Board 12ngincering Review of Site Plan,
Page 1.
Section 6: See drawings 1,1.5 and 1.1.12,we will review the detail to make the sign 2'X5' to fulfill
the required size.
Page 2.
Section 81 2 See drawings 1..1.5 and 1.1.6
Section 83 c)v) Sce drawings 1.1.7 and 1.1.8,grading is coordinated.
e)xl11 Sce drawing I.1.12
o)xv All trees 4"or bigger have been shown in the drawings.
e)xvi See drawing 1.1.12
Section 8.3.6 a,ii.b For trash receptacles please see drawings 1.1.5 and 1-.1-6
The dumpster location and capacity(864 cubic feet) was initially approved by
the facilities manager of the North Andover Public School District.
Page 3-
Section 8.3.6.f. All the Slopes of the project are 1:3 or less.All surfaces to be disturbed will be planted,
lava and seeded, to warranty the stability of the slope. See drawing 1.1.9 and I.1.10
Section 1. This is riot standard practice for a project of this scale
Section 2. See drawings 1.1.7 and 1.1.8
Page 4
Section 3. See drawings
Section 4. See drawings
Section. 5. This is not standard practice for a project of this scale
Section 6. See drawings
Section 7_ See drawings 1.1.5 and 1.1.6
Section 8. See drawings 1,1.1 1
Section 9. This is not standard pvwtkc,the contractor gets the information directly from the
electron is file.
Section 10. See drawings 1.1.12
I ci tfn R1,A
I 1,
Fitly-Six Roland StrM1et bparygQ r S�arUs
nprj.conl Chado.-town.Mahetts 07,17,0
Telephone;(617)776.7600 T Far,:(617)776.1075
B C Bruce Campbell srAssOCiates
r A Transportation Engineers&Planners
August 12, 2003
Mr. Rick Rice
DiNisco Design Partnership
87 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02110
Re: Foster Farin Elementary School
Supplemental Traffic Impact Study J-2531
Dear Mr. Rice:
We have received review comments, prepared by Vanasse Hanger Brustlin, Inc. (VHB), dated July 7,
2003 related to the Traffic Impact Study and Supplemental Traffic Impact Study prepared for the subject
project. We have prepared the following responses to the comments relating to the Traffic impact Study
and Supplemental Traffic Impact Study. For ease of review, our responses are in the order of the VHB
comments.
I. Sight Distance Review
Stopping sight distance and intersection sight distance were both evaluated for the Foster Farm
Elementary School site driveway. As outlined in the report, the posted speed Inuit along Boxford
Street is 35 MPH, and the observed travel speed was 39 MPH. Sight distance was studied based
on American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
requirements for both a 35 MPH and 40 MPH design speed.
Intersection sight distance at the driveway for viewing traffic approaching from the left
(westbound traffic) is 600 feet and fi•oan the right (eastbound traffic) is 430 feet. According to
AASHTO, The required intersection sight distance is 390 feet for a 35 MPH design speed and
445 feet for a 40 MPH design speed. Therefore, intersection sight distance meets AASHTO
requirements for viewing traffic approaching from the left and right based on a 35 MPH design
speed, but not for a 40 MPH design speed for viewing traffic approaching from the right
(eastbound). Sight distance in this direction is restricted by a crest vertical curve on Boxford
Street and would require significant roadway work to modify the horizontal and vertical
alignment of the roadway.
According to AASHTO, the required stopping sight distance for a 40 MPH design speed is 305
feet; therefore, both the Boxford Street eastbound and westbound approaches to the proposed
sight drive meet AASHTO requirements.
Safety improvements such as the installation of a school speed limit sign (20 MPH) coupled with
school zone signing and enforcement will reduce vehicular speeds at the study area and improve
sight distance conditions based on reduced travel speeds at the school driveway.
315 Norwood Park South,Norwood,MA 02062 - Phone(617)542-1199 - Fax(617)451-9904 - e-mail;info@SCA-engineers.com
A BEM Group Company
Mr.Rick Rice
August 12. 2003
Page 2
2. Parldng
The Town of North Andover has reviewed and approved the 185 proposed parking spaces as
documented in a letter dated July 18, 2003. A copy is attached for your reference.
3. Trip Generation and Distribution
No response required.
4. Salein Street/Boxford Street/Fostea• Street Level of Service
The Salem Street northbound approach is projected to drop from Level of Service (LOS) E under
2007 No-Build conditions to LOS F under 2007 Build Conditions in the Cominuter PM Peak
Hour. The Build conditions in the Stipp]ern ental Traffic Impact Study include impacts of both
tl.e Foster Farn Soccer Complex and the Foster Fann Elcuientaiy School. The original Traffic
Impact Study included only impacts of the Elementary School which has minimal impact on the
intersection. Again, we like to note that impacts which further deteriorate the intersection to
LOS F in the Commuter PM Peak Hour are related to the soccer complex not the proposed Foster
Faun Elementary School. We performed a signal warrant analysis on the intersection and found
that it does not sleet any of the 8 warrants identified in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD). Other minor intersection iinproveznents which the Town may want to
consider is widening the Salem Street northbound intersection approach to provide a "flare type"
approach. The flare approach will provide room for right-turning vehicles to bypass left-turning
or through vehicles queuing at the approach and thereby improve intersection capacity.
We trust that this information sufficiently addresses the comments related to the Traffic Impact Study
and Supplemental Traffic Impact Study. If you should require any additional information, please contact
our office.
Very truly yours,
Bruce Campbell &Associates
Mr, Kien Y. o, P.E.
Associate
WILLARD Yl.THOMPSON
/V t935 1972 ,I
' NORIVIAN W WRPHY
1966 1999
iholorlpson engineeringm , an
FOUNDED 93s Inc.
KMN E MURPNY CHAHL 160 NORTH WASHINGTON STREET • BOSTON • MASSACHUSETTS 02114 - 2170
CFIARLES F.PAZ
JAMES A.DILLON
(617) 227-6818 (617) 227-7561 FAX
E L E G T R I C A L E N G I N E E R S
September 23, 2003
Mr. Jon Oxman
DiNisco Design Partnership, Ltd
87 Summer Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
Subject: Foster Farm E1cmentary School
North Andover, Massachusetts
Mr. Oxman:
We are in receipt of the site plan review comments and we offer the following response:
1. TEC has coordinated the underground utilities with RWS and SBNE. The electrical
ductbank shown on the revised site plan has been coordinated with all other utilities to
minimize utility crossings and conflicts. As the projects progress and develops, we will
continue to coordinate these items.
2. The four lighting fixtures located adjacent to the property line will be furnished with glare
shields to eliminate the"back spill" light on the neighboring property. Refer to the lighting
site plan drawing 10.1.3.
If you find during your review of the above that you require more information or clarification,please
do not hesitate to call me.
Very ily yours,
Kevin.W. Murphy
S ! E
a r c h i t e c t s and planners
Limited
Memorandum NOV Q ?003
Date: 27 October 2003 J�01,111-1 AMavER
€ i r%PJNIi�(:�ULPA!I fivl�:l�iT
To: Planning Board Members
Heidi Griffin North Andover Planning Department (NAPD)
Tim McIntosh Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB)
From: Jon Oxman AIA DiNisco Design Partnership (DDP)
Project Foster Farm Elementary School
Project No. 02458.0
Subject: Response to Second Planning Board Review Memo
1. RESPONSE TO PLANNING BOARD CONSULTANT'S REVIEW MEMO
1.1. This Memorandum responds comprehensively to outstanding issues in Vanasse
Hangen Brustlin's Review Memo dated 06 October 2003.
1.2.. Our response includes the following materials which are attached to this
memorandum:
• Planning Board's Consultant Review Memo by William J. Cotter, Vanasse
Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHS), 06 October 2003.
• Memorandum from Fred King, Schofield Brothers New England, Inc. (SBN1=), 23
October 2003.
• SKL- 01 Revisions to Access Drive Section, 22 October 2003.
1.3. In addition we are forwarding you copies of the Conservation Commission's
Consultant Review Letter;
• Conservation Commission's Consultant Review Letter by Lisa Eggleston,
Eggleston Environmental (EE), 22 October 2003.
1.4. The specific issues addressed in the VHB memo are referenced below by section
and item number as identified in VHB's memo.
Kenneth DiNisco Richard N. Rice Gary E,Ainslie Christopher Huston Donna DiNisco
8 7 S u m m e r S t r e e t B o s t o n M A 0 2 1 1 0 6 1 7 . 4 2 6 . 2 8 5 8 f ;t x 4 2 6 1 4 5 7
www . dinisco . com
MEMORANDUM Foster Farm Elementary School, 27 October 2003 Page 2
2. REQUEST FOR WAIVERS
2.1. By copy of this memorandum we are requesting waivers as noted below from The
Zoning Bylaw - Town of North Andover(ZBTNA) referenced to the section and item
numbers of VHB's memo.
2.2. Waivers Requested Until Submission_.of Final Design Documents—Some of the
waivers requested below are for the purpose of deferring compliance with
requirements for additional information. DiNisco Design Partnership is not authorized
by the North Andover School Building Committee to complete construction documents
at this time due to the wording of the Town Meeting article that effectively defers
construction until certain "triggers" are met, Accordingly we have requested waivers
from providing more complete information for some items as noted below until such
time as completion of design documents is authorized.
3. SECTION 6 — SIGNS AND SIGN LIGHTING REGULATIONS
3.1. We requesta waiver from section 6.6 of the ZBTNA to defer further review until we
submit final construction documents to the Planning Board'for approval.
4. SECTION 7 — DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
4.1. 7.4 Building Height— No further response required.
5. SECTION 8.1 — OFF STREET PARKING
5.1. 8.1 Off Street Parking—No further response required.
6. SECTION 8.3.5 — SITE PLAN REVIEW INFORMATION REQUIRED
6.1. 8.3.5.c Stamp--We request a waiver from the requirement of section 8.3.5c of The
Zoning Bylaw of North Andover that specifically requires drawings to be stamped by
a certified architect, landscape architect, and 1 or civil engineer. The drawings prepared
by RWS are stamped with a mechanical engineering stamp. As previously stated in
the RWS letter included in our response to the first review memo by VHB:
"Massachusetts professional engineering registration regulations allow a duly
registered engineer, who believes him or her self to be competent in the field being
designed, to stamp drawings that he or she has prepared."
6.2. 8.3.5.e.v Topography— No further response required.
6.3. 8.3.5.e.vii Stormwater Drainage— No further response required.
6.4. 8.3.5.e,xii Wall Sign Details--We request a waiver from section 6.6 of the ZBTNA to
defer further review until we submit final construction documents to the Planning Board
for approval.
MEMORANDUM Foster Farm Elementary School, 27 October 2003 Page 3
6.5. 8.3.5.e.xiii Access Drive Section —The access drive sections have been revised in
response to VHB's comments. See the attached drawing SKL-01 of the access drive
sections and the attached Memorandum from Fred King. We request a waiver from
revising the grading plans until we submit final construction documents to the Planning
Board for approval.
6.6. 8.3.5.e.xv Landscaping Plan — No further response required.
6.7. 8.3.5.e.xvi Refuse Areas— No further response required.
6.8. 8.3.5.e.xvii Lighting Facilities— No further response required.
6.9. 8.3.5.e,xviii Drainage Basin Stud — No further response required.
6.10. 8.3.5.e.xix Traffic Impact Study— No further response required.
6.11. 8.3.5.e.xxi Utilities — Boxford Street Sewer Extension —We intend to provide
stationing and offset information for the Boxford Street Sewer Extension. We request
a waiver from providing complete stationing and offset information for the Boxford
Street Sewer Extension until we submit final construction documents to the Planning
Board for approval.
6.12. 8.3.5.e.xxi Utilities —On Site —We-do not intend on providing stationing and offset
information for on site utilities. As was stated in our previous response, this is not
standard practice for on site utilities for a project of this scale. Our standard practice is
to provide the contractor with electronic CAD files that are used to locate site work.
This has been our practice on the North Andover High School project currently under
construction.
6.13. 8.3.6.a.ii.b Refuse Disposal _As shown on the revised drawings submitted with the
last response we are providing 9 trash barrels (see drawing 1.1.5): The locations are:
2 By the walk between the Parking Lot close to Boxford St and Boxford St
1 By the walk between the building and the Parking Lot close to Boxford St
1 By the Parking Lot in front of the Main Entrance of the Building
1 By the Main Entrance of the Building (south of the Building)
1 By the Cafeteria Entrance of the Building
1 By the North West Entrance of the Building
1 By the North East Entrance of the Building
1 By the North Entrance of the Building
6.14. 8.3.6.a.ii.c Sanitary Sewer—We request a waiver for the sewer extension permit, the
narrative description; design calculations; sill elevations of houses on Boxford Street
(if access is to be provided to sewer extension) and further design development of
the Boxford Street Sewer Extension until we submit final construction documents to
the Planning Board for approval. A request for a waiver from the civil engineer stamp
has been requested in item 8.3.5.c above.
6.15, 8.3.6.d Drainage System— No further response required.
6.16. 8.3.0 Soil Erosion Plan— No further response required.
MEMORANDUM Foster Farm Elementary School, 27 October 2003 Page 4
6.17. 8.3.6..g Protection of Ad'acent Properties from Li ht Intrusion— No further response
required.
6.18. 8.3.6.h Noise — No further response required.
7. GENERAL COMMENTS
7.1. 1. Site Drive Profile—We request a waiver to defer providing a profile drawing of the
site drive (for the purpose of determining if there will be any potential site distance
concerns) until we submit final construction documents to the Planning Board for
approval.
7.2. 2. Coordination of Gradina and Utilities— No further response required.
7.3. 3. Dra.winas— No further response required.
7.4. 4. Spot Grades— No further response required.
7.5. 5. Access Drive— For the same reason given in item 8.3.5.e.xxi above we do not
intend on providing stationing and offset information for the access drive or utility
manholes,
7.6. 6. Site Utilities—We do not intend on showing all utilities on the Site Utilities Plan for
the reasons given in our previous response: DDP uses different consultants for
different utilities and it is not appropriate to show all utilities on the site utilities
drawing. This creates a liability issue; the potential for mistakes when utility
information is shown on two drawings; and the possibility of confusion over
"ownership" of an item of work among the respective, responsible subcontractors.
We will require the contractor to prepare multi-discipline site utility coordination
drawings.'(using the CAD files referred to under item 6.12 above) for review by the
architect and our consultants.
7.7. 7. Wheel Chair Ramps—At the end of the pedestrian crosswalk coming from the
handicap parking spaces by the dumpster location a wheelchair ramp is provided.
See drawings 1.1.5 and 1.1.11,
7.8. 8. Handicap Parking Spaces— No further response required.
7.9. 9. Stationing of Boxford Street—As previously discussed in item 8.3.5.e.xxi Utilities—
Boxford Street Sewer Extension, we intend to provide stationing and offset
information for the purpose of the sewer extension. We request a waiver from
providing complete stationing and offset information for the Boxford Street Sewer
Extension until we submit final construction documents to the Planning Board for
approval.
7.10. 9....Stationing of Site Drive —As previously discussed in item 8.3.5.e.xxi Utilities—On
Site and in item General Comments 5 - Access Drive, we do not intend on providing
stationing and offset information for the site drive for the reasons previously given.
7.11. 10, Drivewa Section — See item 8.3.5.e.xiii - Access Drive Section above.
MEMORANDUM Foster Farm Elementary School, 27 October 2003 Page 5
8. TRAFFIC COMMENTS
8.1. 1. Si ht Distance Review— No further response required.
8.2. 2. Parkina— No further response required.
8.3. 3. Traffic Generation — No further response required.
8.4. 4. Salem/Boxford/ Foster Street Intersection — No further response required.
9. DRAINAGE COMMENTS
9.1. 1. C Values— No further response required
9.2. 2. Pipe Calculations —The outstanding issue of the site drive cross section has been
addressed in item 8.3.5.e.xiii - Access Drive Cross Section above.
9.3. 3. "Cart Path" Crossing — No further response required.
9.4. 4. Mosquito .Brook Impact— No further response required.
9.5. 5. Roof Cistern— No further response required.
9.6. 6. Catch Basins— No further response required.
9.7. 7. Leaching Basins-• No further response required.
9.8. 8. Surface Ponds — No further response required.
9.9. 9. Rip-Rap -- No further response required.
9.10. 10. Ground Water Elevations— No further response required.
MEMORANDUM Foster Farm Elementary School, 27 October 2003 Page 6
10. DISTRIBUTION OF THIS RESPONSE AND FOLLOW UP
10.1. We are forwarding to the Planning Board:
• Planning Board Consultant Review Package, Response 2— 13 copies care of
Heidi Griffin and 1 copy to Tim McIntosh. The Conservation Commission's
Consultant Review Letter is included in this package.
10.2. Please contact Rick Rice or myself if you have any questions.
azr
r
Jon Oxma '`
v
DiNISCO ; ESIGN
cc: Tim McIntosh, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Louis Minicucci
Paul Szymanski
Nancy Kurtz
Patrick Saitta
Kenneth DiNisco
Richard Rice
Enclosures: See Items 1.2, 1.3 and 10.1 above.
02458.0 SiteP1anRvwResponse2
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN
FOR CONFORMANCE 'WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
ZONING BYLAW AND STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE
Site Plan Title: Foster Farnn Elementary School VHB No.: 06716.75
Location: Boxford Street
Owner: North Andover School Department
Applicant: DiNisco Design Partnership, Ltd., 87 Summer Street, Boston,MA 02110
Applicant's Engineer: Schofield Brothers of New England, Inc., 1071 Worcester St. Framingham,MA 01701
Plan Date: July 15, 2003 Review Date: October 6,2003
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. (VHB)has been retained by the Town of North Andover to provide a second
engineering review of the Site Plan Special Permit for the Foster Farm School. This review is conducted in
accordance with the Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw and standard engineering practice. VHB has received the
following drawings and documents for review:
• Site Plans dated July 15, 2003, revised September 19, 2003
• Letter from DiNisco Design Partnership dated September 24,2003
• Letter from Schofield Brothers dated September 22,2003
• Letter from RSW dated September 19,2003
• Letter from Moricce&Gary dated September 24,2003
• Letter from Bruce Campbell&Associates dated September 12,2003
• Letter from Thompson Engineering dated September 23,2003
• foster Farms Elementary School Stormwater Management Report dated September 23,2003
• Soil Test Report from Schofield Brothers dated September 17,2003
The following comments note non-conformance with specific sections,constructability issues and
questions/comments on the proposed design.
Section 6: Signs and Sign Lighting Regulations
The ground sign shown on sheet Ll.12 is not consistent with the description provided in the Application for site
plan special permit(section 6.1). The sign in the drawings exceeds the 10 square feet listed in the application and
exceeds the 2 square feet listed in section 6.6. of the Zoning regulations. The sign does not appear to conform to
section 6.6 of the zoning regulations,which require the sign to be set back a minimum of 10' from the property
line. The applicant should provide a detail for the wall sign described in the application, and discuss any
illumination of these signs? The applicant has addressed these comments and requested waivers from sections 3.2,
3.3,3.4 to avoid making revisions to certain items until the applicant re-submits the construction dralvhrgs to the
Planning Board.
Section 7: Dimensional Requirements
1
AdmimAdmin ProjectTroject Files 2002:02458.0 NA Foster FarmA2458.0 Corr Public Agencies:02458.0 Planning DeparimenH02458.0 IN FOLDL2:02458.0 CorPlan€7ept
:ci n.r.....::q..a r.aa...a.ncv5 cac r...:...t.........t....J-
7.4 Building Heights
Table 2 of the Zoning Bylaws,defines the maximum building height as 35 feet. On the application for Site Plan
Special Permit submitted by the applicant, the proposed building height is listed at 39'. The Applicant should
request a waiver or revise the building height. The applicant has addressed this comment.
Section 8; Supplementary Regulations
Section 8.1 Off Street Parking
1. The applicant has requested the Building Inspector determine the parking requirements because schools are not
listed in the North Andover Zoning By-law. VHB defers comment on required number of parking spaces to the
Building Inspector,but suggests the applicant consider providing data from similar size schools. The
applicant has provided parking data from other-similar schools for discussion with the Planning Board.
From the data presented, the proposed parking to student ratio exceeds the same ratio for similar schools.
2. The plan should show the width and length of the proposed parking stalls. The plait submitted shows both
length and width of the propose parking spaces.
Section 8.3 Site Plan Review
8.3-5 Information Required
c) Several sheets have been stamped by a registered mechanical engineer. Section 8.3.5.c requires
plans to be stamped by architects,landscape architects and/or civil engineers. A civil engineer
should stamp these sheets to conform with this section. The applicant will have a Mechanical
Engineer as alfowedfor by the State Board of Registration. The applicant shoiilrl request a
waiver fr•orn this section because[lie section sped/ically lists civil engineer.
e)v) The topography shown on the grading plan, is not consistent with the grading shown on the
stormwater drainage plan. The civil engineer responsible for the site drainage and for the other
utilities should stamp all drawings that could be relevant to the utilities, including construction
details and grading plans. The applicant has addressed this comment.
e)vii) Stormwater drainage has been shown. Please see comments under the Drainage Comments
section. The applicant has addressed this comment.
e)xii) The applicant should provide a details for the proposed wall sign. The applicant has requested a
waiver from this requii-ement.
e)xiii) The applicant should provide atypical cross section for the access drive. The proposed drive
cross slope is listed as 0.5%. 1.5%- Z%is more commonly found to aid in channeling runoff
and preventing ice build rip during the winter. The typical cross section.should also show the
cross slopes and widths for grass plot,I sidewalks and maximmil sideslopes.
e)xv) Have all trees over 12"DBH been shown? The applicant has addressed this comment.
e)xvi) The applicant should provide a detail for the dlnnpster screening. The applicant has addressed
this comment.
e-xvii) The lighting facilities have been shown,however there appears to be some light escaping the
property labeled map 104D lot 57, The applicant has addressed this comment.
e-xviii) Drainage Basin Study: See Drainage Comments. The applicant has addressed this comment.
e-xix) Traffic Impact Study: See comments on Traffic in the section labeled Traffic Comments The
applicant has addressed these comments,
e)xxi) The applicant has shown proposed utilities,however the following should be addressed:
• The survey points should not print on the utility drawings. The points make the
drawing difficult to read.
2
Admin:Admin Projecr:Project Files 2002:02458.0 NA Foster Ferm:02458.0 Corr Public Agendes:02458.0 Planning Departmen002458.0 IN FOLDLR:02458.0 CorPlanDept
• Station and offset information should be provided in the plan and profile views. The
applicant has requested a waiver to avoid providing station and offset information until
the final construction documents are prepared.
• Utility appurtenances should be referred to in terms of station and offset. The applicant
has requested a waiver to avoid providing station and offset information until the final
construction documents are prepared.
• The applicants engineer should review all utilities for vertical conflicts such as on sheet
1.3.7 in the plan blow up of the planted rock area. The 8"pvc and the 18"pvc pipes
appear to have a vertical conflict. The applicant has addressed this comment.
8.3.6.a,ii.b There appears to be only one dumpster located within an enclosure on the north easterly side of
the main access road. The applicant should consider trash receptacles in the parking areas and
along the access road to prevent trash from vehicles and pedestrians, including vehicles using the
night program spaces, from collecting on the property and from blowing into abutting locations.
The applicant should also demonstrate that the single dumpster proposed will meet the needs of
the school. The design engineer has.shown what appears to be trash receptacles, however the
symbol on the drawings do not match the symbol on the legend.
8. 3.6.a.ii.c. Sanitary Sewer
The applicant should provide a copy of the sewer extension permit to be filed with the State,to
the Town. A narrative description of the system and the design calculations for the pump systern
should also be provided so that the reviewer can review and comment on the sanitary system. Of
primary concern is the daily volume of wastewater entering the system,capacity of the existing
system,pump station storage capacity,back up power,cycle time,volume of wastewater held in
the force main, and possible odor issues. The applicant has requested a waiver for the
completion of the state sewer extension permit until such time as the final glans for construction
review are submitted.
Please provide a detail for the force main connection into the gravity system. The applicant has
addressed this comment.
Generally, 8 inch plastic pipes are designed to be installed at a minimum slope of 0.004 ft/ft to
maintain self cleaning velocities and to allow some construction tolerance during the installation.
The applicant should explain why the server system is designed at 0.0035 ft/ft, The applicant has
addressed this comment.
Will the sewer extension be made available to abutters on Boxford Street`? If so, the Calculations
should reflect those volumes. There appears to sections of Boxford Road with limited cover
material over the ledge, This could be a controlling factor in the design and function of private
septic systems. Has the applicant queried the Town and/or the abutters about the need for sanitary
service? Given the ledge restrictions in the force main section, it will be difficult to install a
gravity line after the force main is installed without damaging the force main. The applicant has
addressed this eonnnent.
Is it possible that the design of the pressure system could be such that low pressure connections
from abutting properties could be made at a later date? The applicant has addressed this
continent,
The Site Utilities plan—South is not consistent with the Sanitary Sewer plans. (e.g, location of
the pump chamber) The applicant has addressed this comment.
Type and specification for all utility lines should be provided on the plans. There appears to be a
condition of low cover from 22+00--25+00 the design engineer should show that the type of
pipe specified is adequate for the bury conditions and will not deflect excessively,and cause
damage to the pavement structure. Prior to the approval for construction, the design engineer
should provide calculations showing that the specrfred pipe as sufficient structural capacity at
the depth of cover shown.
3
Admin:Admin Projecl:Project Files 2002:02458.0 NA roster Fann:02458.0 Carr Public Agencies:02458.0 Planning DeparlmenW02458.0 IN FOLDER:02458.0 CorPlanDepL
The applicant should show the sill elevations of the houses on Boxford Street on the profile
drawing of the sewer. This comment is only valid if abutting properties on Boxford Street may
have access to the sewer system in the future. The applicant has addressed this continent, and
will provide the requested information on the construction drawings to be subrrrilled for review
at a later date.
It is standard practice that sanitary sewer drawings are stamped by a civil or sanitary engineer.
Front a prgfessional standpoint the reviewer does not have objection to the Mechanical Engineer
stamping the drawings. The sanitary design is well presented. The Town regulations however
specify acceptable registration. Please submit a request.for a waiver to comply with section
8.3.5.e. This comment is not meant to reflect on the design engineer's capabilities or
qualifications, but solely on strict conformance with the above quoted.section.
8.3.6.d. Drainage system. See comments labeled Drainage Comments. The applicant has addressed this
conrnrent.
8.3.6.f. The applicant should provide details on the plan that match the slope stabilization methods
referred to in the Notice of Intent. The applicant has addressed this comment.
8.3.6.g. The lighting plan indicates light will reach property map 104D parcel 57. Can the lighting be
adjusted? The applicant has addressed this conrnrent.
8.3.6.h. The applicant should provide a narrative description of noises expected to come from the site.
The applicant has addressed this conrnrent.
General Comments:
I. The applicant should provide a profile drawing of the site drive. The applicant's engineer has stated that the
profile is not standard practice for a project of this scale. VHB reconrnrends the profile is pr•ovitled becartse
the length of the drive and to determine if there will be mt}�potenlial site distance concerns.
2. The applicant has made an outstanding effort to provide the required information. The applicant should review
and coordinate the work from each consultant to provide consistent grading and utility plans. It appears as
though in several instances revisions have been made that were not changed on every plan.(e.g,pump chamber
location and grading at the entrance at Boxford Street.) The applicant should review the submittal and confirm
the consistency between the various consultants. The applicant has adeh•essed this comment.
3. The drawings should be cleaned up to reduce clutter, Individual survey points do not need to be seen on the
plan and make it difficult to read design information. The applicant has addressed this conrnrent.
4. Some spot grades may be helpful in areas where the contour interval does not allow accurate representation of
the conditions, but every spot grade on the site does not need to be shown. The applicant has addressed this
comment.
5. The access drive should be stationed and all utility manholes labeled with station and offset values. In most
baseline driven civil engineering projects, such as during the construction of a toad or way, station and offset
information is provided. YHB recommends the Planning Board require station and offset irforrnation for the
consh•itclion submittal.
6. The Site Utilities plans should show all utilities(water,gas,sewer,drainage,electrical and cable.) The
Utilities should be laid out in a consistent manner to avoid crossing where possible. All plans in the set
should show consistent utility layout. DDP has responded that they prefer not to show all utilities to avoid
coordination problems with the sub-consultants. YHB understands the liability concerns involved with
.showing other consultant's work on the drativings, however,fi•orn the review perspective, it is the applicant's
responsibility to show that all the proposed utilities and work will be constructible. That will require
sameone to prodrtee fully coordirrrited dr•aivirrgs. These drawings are not needed until the resubmission for
construction approval.
4
Admin:Admin PrujectTrojeet Files 2002c0245$.0 NA Coster Farm:02458.0 Corr Public Agencies:02458.0 Planning Department:A2453.0 IN COLDL•R:02458.0 CorPlanDept
7. Wheel chair ramps should be provided at the limits of the sidewalk, both on the site and on Boxford Road.
The applicant has addressed this conrnrent, however an additional ramp should be provided across fr'onr the
dumpster location at the service drive.
8. The detail of Handicap parking spaces is not consistent with the spaces shown on the plan. In this case,the
Handicap spaces and access routes on the site plan should be listed with dimensions. The applicant has
addressed this comment.
9. The site drive and Boxford Street should be stationed along the centerline,and the geometry should be shown
on the drawing. VHB would like to see stationing provided our the plan set sabrrritted for review at the time of
construction
10. The applicant should show a typical cross section for the driveway. This should list crass slope and width
information. The applicant has addressed this comment.
Traffic Comments:
I. VHB recommends a more detailed sight distance review be completed for the main driveway on the site. The
applicant has addressed this comment.
2. Circulation throughout the site appears to be reasonable. VHB suggests that the Applicant check the parking
numbers to make sure they are adequate to support the number of teachers and users of the soccer facility.
Although it does not appear to be a problem,the applicant should verify, The applicant has addressed this
comment.
3. Traffic Generation and distribution appears reasonable. The applicant has addressed this comment.
4. VHB recommends that the applicant give additional attention to the intersection of Salem Street/Boxford
Street/Foster Street. This intersection is projected to operate at Level of Service(LOS)F in the future. The
applicant should consider developing solutions to the projected poor operating levels as this will be the major
route for busses into and out of the new school. The applicant appears to have addressed this comment.
Drainage Comments:
The applicant has provided a very thorough report. VHB suggests that the design engineer confirm that all the
plans in the plan set submitted match the other sheets in the set, and all assumptions and calculations in the
drainage report, and in the Notice of Intent.
I. Please list the C values used in the computation of infiltration values in attachment 6. It appears as though
100 has been used for most calculations, but simply listing the value will avoid confusion. Some of the
implied values appear very high. The applicant has addressed this cormnent.
2. Generally pipe calculations and inlet capacities are determined using the rational method. The applicant should
discuss why the SCS method was used for the 25 year pipe design. The applicant should also provide inlet
capacity calculations showing depth of runoff at the curb,width of spread and amount of bypass flow. The
applicant has addressed the ftr.vt par-of this comment. Tire design engineer•shotdd be alarare that a cross
slope of 0.5%is shown for the standard cross section of the drive. The design engineer's calculations are
based on 2%cross slope. The cross.slope.should be consistent betiveen the plan and the drainage
calculations.
3. There is no formal culvert under the cart path to the athletic facilities. If the stones clogged, what would
happen to the hydrology in the area. 77te applicant has addressed this comment.
4. Is there any expected impact from the minor 0.5 cfs increase to the main wetland to mosquito brook during the
10 year storm? Please have the applicant express the increase in terns of total flow to the wetland from the
entire basin. The applicant has addressed this comment.
5
Admin:AdDiN Project.Prn}ect Files 2002:02458.0 NA Poster Parm:02458.0 Corr 11crblic Agencies:02458.0 Planning Deparlment:S02458.0 IN FOLDE R:02458.0 CorPlanDep3
ui n�a....:a...�r..i.x...o-ncai cac r.....,..r......•A..,.�onn
S. If the roof cistern is full at the start of the storm, where does the overflow go and how does it get there. The
applicant has addressed this connnent.
6. Three(3)of the proposed catch basins will not have deep sumps. The applicant should address how this will
effect the TSS removal. According to the Notice of Intent(NOI)the applicant is taking the full 25%for TSS
removal even though not all the basins will have the deep sumps. The applicant has addressed this comment.
7. The applicant should consider the use of filter fabric or material around the outside of the leaching basins,
particularly in the sandier and gravel soils. The applicant has addressed this comment.
8. VHB recommends the surface ponds are equipped with a method to measure the amount of sediment collected
in the pond. The device will serve as an indication of maintenance needs and will also prevent excessive
excavation during maintenance. The applicant has addressed this comment,
9. Please provide calculations for the sizing for the rip-rap at the outlets of the drainage system. The applicant
has adch•essed this comment.
10. The applicant should list estimated ground water elevations,in the area of infiltration,on the plan. The
applicant has addressed this comment.
It is recommended that the applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments contained
herein.
Reviewed by: Date:
William J. Cotter, PE
Project Engineer-Highway and Municipal Engineering
6
Adinin:Admin Project:Project File$2002:02458.0 NA Foster Farm:02458.0 Carr Public Agencies:02458.0 Planning Departmenl:!02458.0 IN FOi.DEI1:02458.0 CorPlanDept
.11 I111..-41..A 1.nco1—r...l....r...... __1,.,..r inn
Uct 24 03 12: 41p Schofield Brothers 5088791797 p. 2
SCHOFIELD BROTHERS
ENGINEERING • SURVEYING PLANNING
Scholield Brothers of New England, Inc-
1071 Worcester Road
Framingham,MA01701-5298
508-879-0030•1-800-696.2874
21652 rax 508-879-1797
MEMORANDUM Websile wvaw.schofieldbros.corn
To: Rick Rice VIA FAX
From: Fred King Kn'�-
Date: October 23, 2003
Subject: Foster Farm Elementary School--VHB Comments, 2"`I review.
I have reviewed the Site Grading Plans and Site Details relative to the comments 83-5
e)xiii, and Drainage Comment 2.
1 concur with VI-IB that, to promote good surface drainage, their recommended cross slope
for driveways is .1,5 to 2 percent is standard practice. This is particularly important along
roadways and driveways where the drainage is to be directed to a gutter and water is picked
up by a catch basin located along a gutter grade (not at a low point), It is less critical for
larger parking areas and for catch basins at low poinus, In a linear roadway, however, 2
percent cross slope is generally standard.
The driveway section provided on Sheet SKL-01. dated Oct. 22, 2003 shove the typical
section for the first 260 feet of the driveway from Boxford Road plus a typical section for
the other portions of the drive. The cross slopes shown for the drives and sidewalks are
now shown as 2 percent. This provides good surface drainage to the curb and confines the
gutter flow to a narrower area and addresses the VHB comment. It will take only minor
adjustments of the grading plan to coordinate the driveway grades with these details.
My calculations for gutter flow are based on a cross slope of 2 percent which will now be
consistent with the driveway grading as shown on SKL.-01.
Note that the longitudinal grade on the driveways appears to be OK.
s GONGRETE SirJEWALK IBERM
f
ti
SHOULDER St PLANS 5HOUL5R SEE PLANS 01
01
I
i
I I
B -N-T.51DCWALK
ll1M 4
8'
I �2�
I
I l
I
S�GTIOAt � .
3
AGGEI
DATE: OCT. 22, 2003 87 Summer Streat
Boston,MA 02110
(61 SCALE: 114"=1'-0" FAX 617)4 6826.1457 S KL 01
FAX( 17)
TITLE: REVISIONS TO ACCESS DRIVE SECTION
Oct 22 03 02: S4p Eggleston Environmental 97tih439z6� r
L GGLESTON ENVIRONMENTAL
October 22,2003
Mr. Scott Masse, Chairman
North Andover Conservation Commission
27 Charles Street
North Andover, MA 01845
RE: Ston-nwater Management Review
Foster Farm School Site
Dear Mr. Masse and Comrnission Memhers:
1 am submitting this fetter in follow_up to my previous letter of July 18, 2003 regarding
the stonnwater tnanagentent review of the above-referenced project. Since that tune I
have received and reviewed the following materials:
■ September 24, 2003 letter from Fredric W. King, P.E, of Schofield Brothers of
New England to Mr. Scott Masse,North Andover Conservation Commission re:
Foster Farm Elementary School Project.
■ Design Plans entitled"Foster Farm Mernentary School,North Andover, MA",
Sheets 1.1.4 to 1.1.12 by Moriee&Gary, Inc;Sheets 1.2.0 to 1,2.1 by R.W.
Sullivan,Inc.;and Sheets 1.3.1 to 1.3.7 by Schofield Brothers of New England;
all revised 9/19/03.
■ Attachment 5, "Storrnwater Management Report Revisions for the Proposed
Foster Farm Elementary School Project", prepared for DiNisco Design
Partnership by Schofield Brothers of New England and dated 9/23/03.
Attachment 2, "Soil Test Report-additional testing on 9/12/03,Foster Farm
School Site",by Schofield Brothers of New England,dated 9I17/03.
■ Plan Entitled"Exhibit—Possible Snow Storage Areas"by DiNisco Design
Partnership Ltd, dated 9/19/03.
September 22,2003 letter report with 5 Attacbments from Fredric W. King, P.E.
of Schofield Brothers of New England to Rick Rice, DiNisco Design Partnership
re: Foster Far=Elementary School(response to VHS comments).
In general, all of the issues raised in trey July 18, 2003 letter have been satisfactorily
addressed in the revised plans and calculations submitted by the applicant, and additional
requested information has been.provided.My comments are summarized below.
55 OLDCoACt]R0i3D Sumui?YMfI 01776 TE1,1 Axg7&443.9262
l
Oct 22 03 02: 54p Eggleston Environmental 9764439262 P. 3
i
i
s Oster rarill School. 1'eclinical Review
October 23, 260;
Groundwater Recharge
per my request, Schofield Brothers has conducted a more detailed analysis of the
hydrologic budget for the site that breaks out the distribution of recharge on a sub-
watershed basis. The analysis is based on annual vs. design storm flows and
demonstrates the need for additional groundwater recharge in the subarea tributary to the
vernal pool. This has been met through the redirection of roof runoff in the revised plans
and the addition of a fourth leaching pit. Z have reviewed the hydrologic analysis and the
adjusted distribution of flaws and am satisfied that the design currently proposed will
best replicate existing conditions with respect to Row distribution on the site.
Screening o,f RoojDownspouts
The applicant has agreed to provide a detail for the roof screens in the final design plans
and suggested that this item be included in the Order of Conditions. i concur with this
suggestion,
Planted Rock Filters
The planted rock filters originally proposed have been removed from the design.
Flaw Through StormwalerBasin #I
The flow through this basin has been simplified through the removal of the planted rock
filters and the addition of subdrains in the basins to facilitate flow to the drywells. The
beehive inlets have also been identified. 1 have no further comment on the design of this
system.
Grading Near.i`amficapped Parking Space
The grading shown on the Sheet 1.1.7 satisfactorily addresses this issue.
Flaw to Catchbasin f112
This comment is no longer pertinent with the removal of the planted rock filter.
Stor•mceptors
Y concur with the applicant that the Order of Conditions should identify the approval
process required for any substitution of the specified Stormceptors.
Drywells
The influent lines to the multiple-drywell infiltration systems have been relocated per my
recommendation to facilitate flow distribution among the drywells and prevent short-
circuiting of the system.
Oct 22 C13 02. 54p to le5ten Environmental s7e4�439202 P•
C ester Farm Sclioul, Technical 1Zi:vicry '
October 32, 2003
3
Soil Testing
The additional soil testing performed by Schofield Brothers on September 12, 2003
confirmed the soil conditions in the vicinity of the proposed infiltration structures, hence
the design of these systems is appropriate.
Culvert,Replacement at Carl Path
We are ail in agreement that the design for the work to be done at the intermittent stream
crossing of the cart path is intended to replicate the existing flow capacity as well as to
stabilize the crossing, however this needs to also be clear to whoever constructs the
project. I suggest that a note to that effect be added to the design detail shown on Sheet
1.3.3. If the rocks are to be hand-placed, that should also be noted.
Miscellaneous design details
The design plans have been revised to show whether drywelis are to have grated or solid
covers and the locations of double-grated catchbasins. Inspection ports have also been
added to the Cultcc infiltration systems, I have no:lu lher comment on these issues.
Erosion and Sediment Control Plant
The designated locations for stockpiling of materials during construction have been
revised to keep them away from the proposed infiltration areas, and the new locations
shown on Sheets 1.3.1 and 13.2 appear to be more suitable. The locations of the
Proposed infiltration basins should be flagged prior to construction to minimize soil
compaction in those areas,
The Order of Conditions should address the review of the Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (S'WPPP) and construction monitoring.
O&M Plan
Review of the O&M Plans developed for the site should also be included in the Order of
Conditions.
Snow Storage Areas
The September 19, 2003 Exhibit of Possible Snow Storage Sites shows two potential
locations for snow storage and designates other locations that are not suitable due to
environmental sensitivity or the presence of drainage structures. I suggest that snow
storage over the two infiltration areas to the north of the school building should also be
excluded and that sorne means of preventing storage in these areas (e.g, snow fences) be
identified in the O&M Plan. To the extent that snow storage needs exceed the available
space in the two designated areas, it will need to be accommodated off-site.
Oct 22 03 02: 54P Eggleston Environmental 9764439262 - P. b �
`,w,icr Farm School. :"cclillicaE Reviev,, 4
October h2. 7()0j
Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to assist the North Andover Conservation
Commission with the review of this project, and hope that this information is suitable for
your needs. Please feet free to contact me if you or the applicants have any questions
regarding the issues addressed herein.
Sincerely,
F-WLT-STON ENV IRONW-NTAL
Lisa D. Eggleston, P.E.
C: Fred Icing, Schofield Brothers
11/21/2003 12:11 FAX f]001
Limited
a i r t, i t e c t s a n d p l a n n. e s a
Transmittal 87 suri,t„er street Bo91t)
To: (),ommunity Development Division Date: 21 November_ 200D
Town of North Andover Project: t ar
Project No.;02-458 0 -
Attn: Heidi Fax No.: 97 - 88-954
We are sending the following: Via:
0 Letter(s) N Fax
❑ Print(s) 0 Courier
❑ Shop Drawing(s) ❑ Mail
❑ Specifications(s) ❑ Overnight Mail
❑ Other: ❑ Other:
Date Description By Action
11/30102 Letter from Ken DiNisco to Julie Parino
f. Approved as submitted 3. Revise and resubmll 6. For your Information 7. Reviewed,no approval required
2. Approve as noted 4. Approved as submitted 6, For your approval 6, Other
Comments:
Dear Heidi,
Please see the attached letter regarding the proposed terms of a Memorandum of Agreement
with the Conservation Commission for continuing the hearing for an extended period of time, As
Rick and I discussed with you on the phone,the Conservation Commission first suggested
extending the hearing and we offer this for the Planning Board's consideration.
Please contact Rick Rice or myself if you have any questions.
By: Jon 9xman_ _ cc:
Rick Bice
This is Page 1 of 3 Please call 617-426-2858 If you do not receive all pages. Fax 617-420.1457
Notice of confidentiality:This transmittal Is intended only for the addresses fisted above and may contain information
that is confidentlat and privileged. If you are not the addressee, contact us as soon as possible. Any use, disclosure,
rnnvinn nrrnmminrnntfnnc of lhm,+%roanrc of thra tranemicclnn le nrohlhitori
11/21/2003 .12:11 FAX 1a002
Vtiv,'/� DX4+ '
axciti teets and planners
l.imlted
30 October tow
Julie Parrino
Conservation Administrator
North Andover Planning Board
27 Charles Street
North Andover, MA
Reference: Foster Faun Elementary School
North Andover, MA
Subject: Conservatiori Commission-Order of Conditions
Dear Julie:
The following is our understanding of the Continued Wetlands Hearing that took place on
10/22/03.
Schofield Brothers of New England(SBNE)reviewed the latest review report prepared by
Eggleston Environmental dated 10/22/03 with the Commission. Ms. Eggleston agreed that
SBNE had addressed all of the issues raised in her July 18, 2003 letter and most of her
comments contained In the new letter wore recommendations for the Commissions as to
conditions that should be included in the Order of Conditions. New comments with
recommended plan changes are as follows:
1 Screening of Roof Downspouts; Details of the roof drain inlet screens should be
Included on the final cQnstruc#ion plans. .
2. Culvert Replacement at Cart Path:Add notes to the detail on Sheet 1.1.3 to make the
intent of the design ant"the method of construction clear to the contractor.
3. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan: Add•a note to have the locations of the proposed
infiltration structures flagged to prevent stockpiling of.materials on those areas during
construction.
No other issues were raised by the Commission relative to the plans and submitted materials,
and the Commission appeared to agree that they had sufficient information to issue an Order
of Conditions for the Project. There was considerable discussion of the timing and of when to
issue the Order.
In response to Chairman Scott Massey's suggestion that the applicant consider continuing the
hearing for an extended period of time which would be in the best interest of the proj
behalf of the School Building Committee, we agreed subject to reasonable safeguards,ecti on
Kenneth DilViwo Richard N.Rice Gary E.Ainslie Christopher Huston Donna DiNisco
87 S um me.s_ 5 t re•et Boston hf A 021 10 61 7 . 42 .6 . 2858 Fax 126 . I457
W %V W din isc0 . c0m
11/21/2003 12:11 FAX f7]Ob3
,.a, a 1 Julie Perrino, 30 October 2m'
;} At this time we recommend the following:
That the Applicant and the North Andover Conservation Commission en
Memorandum of i4greement that sets forth the following ter into a:
1 . As long as the project is in the hearing process it would be exempt r
from changes in the wetlands laws that could affect the project and that the
ethered)
Commission/Applicant periodically re-assess this status_
2: That a draft Order of Conditions be prepared for review by the applicable parties within
SO caledar days.
3 The Applicant may request at any time during this extendecr continuation
the final Order of Conditions be issued within 45 calendar days. The intent is to a
final draft ready in-the Commission's file for final vote when needed_
4 Based upon our discussion at•the 10/22/03 meeting it was agreed that the hea
would be continued the second Commissi ring
on meeting in April 2004
Applicant could requea st another six month continuance. at Which time the
g
We trust that our undersiandirag.of the discussion,and these recommendai tons are consis
tent
and acceptable to the Commission.
Your response and suggestions are welcome.
Sincerely,
� y
Kenneth P. DiNisco
DiNISCO DESIGN
KPD/dd
cc: Louis Minlcucci
Paul Szymanski
Fredric King
Richard Rice
02458.0 CorCancam 23
I
i