HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-12-07 Civil Review 1
I
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC REVIEW OF SITE PLAN/SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
ZONING BYLAW & STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE
Site Plan Title: Edicott Plaza VHB No.: 06716.22
Location: Osgood Street
Owner: Forgetta Family Trust, 1210 Osgood Street,North Andover,MA 01845
Applicant: Forgetta Farm Development,LLC, 1049 Turnpike Street,
North Andover, MA 01845
Applicant's Engineer: Marchionda&Assoc.,L.P., 62 Montvale Avenue,Stoneham,MA 02180
Plan Date: 09-01-00 Review Date: 09-27-00
The Applicant submitted plans and documents to VHB for review on September 15,2000. The
site plan submission was reviewed for conformance to the appropriate sections of the 1972 Town
of North Andover Zoning Bylaw reprinted in 1998 and standard engineering practice. The
following comments note non-conformance with specific sections and questions/comments on
the proposed design.
At the request of the Planning Board,VHB has not reviewed the drainage design(hydraulics and
hydrology) for this project. We have provided several general comments on the proposed
drainage system layout and constructability issues. The Planning Board requested that the Town
of North Andover Conservation Commission's engineering consultant provide the review of the
drainage design. The drainage design review will be forwarded to the Town Planner under a
separate cover.
1) Section 8.1.7. :This section requires that the dimensions of proposed parking spaces shall
not be less than 9' wide and 18' long. The parking plan indicates that some of the parking
spaces located at the east side of the proposed office building are 8' wide.The Applicant
should revise the plan to conform the requirement of this section.
2) The following information is required by Section 8.3.5 and VHB offers the following
comments:
a) NORTH ARROW/LOCATION MAP: A north arrow and the scale of the location map
should be shown on the cover sheet.The location map is typically shown in 1" = 1500'.
b) EASEMENTS/LEGAL CONDITIONS; VHB assumes that there are no easements or
legal encumbrances on the property that may prevent or place conditions on the proposed
development. The Applicant should verify this.
c) STORMWATER DRAINAGE/DRAINAGE BASIN STUDY: See comments below
under the item 4) Drainage Review.
f
\\MAWATR\to\0671622\dots\reports\671622revle w-PINAL.doc
i
i
1
d) BUILDING LOCATION: While the report indicates the number of stories for each
proposed building, VHB recommends that the number of stories, overall height in feet
and gross floor area in square feet of all proposed structures be shown on the site plans.
e) BUILDING ELEVATION: The submission did not include an illustration of the exterior
of the buildings,as viewed from the front(street view). VHB recommends that the
illustration be submitted to the Planning Board.
f) NOTICE OF INTENT: VHB understands that a Notice of Intent has been filed with the
North Andover Conservation Commission.VHB recommends that the findings of the
Conservation Commission be forwarded to us for review.
g) LOCATION OF SIGNS: The plans do not indicate the location of any proposed signs.
The Applicant should add this information to the plans.
h) LIGHTING FACILITIES: While the landscape plan shows a light layout of the site, no
direction and degree of illumination has been provided. Also,the type of lighting fixture
has not been provided. The Applicant should provide this information.
i) TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: See comments below under the item 3)Traffic Impact
Study Review.
j) COMMONWEALTH REVIEW: VHB understands that this plan will be submitted to
the Massachusetts Highway department for application for appropriate permits. Osgood
Street(Route 125) is defined as State Highway, therefore a state highway access permit
and traffic signal permit will be required from Massachusetts Highway Department
(MHD). VHB recommends that the MHD permit requirements be forwarded to us for
review.
k) FISCAL IMPACT: A fiscal impact report has not been submitted. The Applicant
should submit this for review.
1) COMMUNITY IMPACT: No community impact report has been submitted.The
Applicant should submit the community impact report for review.
3) TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY REVIEW:
The traffic study,prepared by Vanasse and Associates Inc., dated September 11, 2000, in
general follows the standard engineering procedure for assessing the traffic impacts of the
proposed development. VHB offers the following comments regarding the traffic study:
a) Existing Conditions Evaluation
The existing condition information and data gathering methodologies generally conform
with standard engineering practices. The Applicant's engineer should provide
clarification on the dates of the accident data gathered for the study. The report lists the
latest three-year period available as January 1, 1996 to January 1, 1998. This range of
dates only covers a 2-year period.
r
2
\\MA WATR\te\p671622\flocs\reports\671622revlew•FINAL.doc
s
E
b) Future Conditions Evaluation
i
The future condition information and methodologies generally conform with standard
engineering practice for the preparation of a traffic impact assessment, The following
sections were reviewed for general and technical conformance with engineering
guidelines.
1. Background Traffic Growth: The Applicant's engineer has found that there are no
specific developments planned or under construction in the vicinity of the proposed
site that may affect traffic volumes along area roadways. Based on a review of the
highway traffic volume data provided by MassHighway and through discussions
with the planning department, a 2.0 percent growth rate was selected to project
future traffic volumes onto the area roadways. Furthermore, there are no roadway
improvements near the project either planned or currently underway that would
change traffic volumes in the area.
2. Traffic Generation: The Applicant's engineer has used standard Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE)data to project traffic volumes associated with the
proposed development, The data presented in the report is consistent with ITE data
and methodologies. The 25 percent pass-by rate is also consistent with
MassHighway policy. However,it has been our experience that the traffic data
presented by the ITE for pharmacies with drive thru windows is significantly lower
than actual"real-world"results. In certain cases, actual traffic generation can be 3
times higher than the data presented in ITE's Trip Generation. For this reason,it
may be worthwhile for the Applicant's engineer to provide justification of the use of
the ITE data or provide existing traffic generation data from a similar pharmacy with
a drive-thru window in the area.
3. Trip Distribution: The trip distribution and assignment for the development was
broken into three separate components(retail, office, and hotel). The methodologies
used to arrive at each components assignment appear to be sound; however no
technical justification is provided to support these findings. A review of the trip
assignment appears to coincide with the existing traffic volumes on area roadways.
The Applicant's engineer should provide some technical justification for the traffic
distributions arrived at in the study.
c) Traffic Operations Analysis
The traffic operations analysis methodologies generally conform to standard engineering
practice for the preparation of a traffic impact assessment. It should be noted that the
operational analysis is based on the latest version of the Highway Capacity Software that
reports information slightly different from previous analysis packages. The following
sections were reviewed for general and technical conformance with engineering
guidelines.
1. Analysis Results: The study area signalized intersections currently operate at
acceptable levels of service(LOS)that generally correspond to the actual observed
a
r
3
\\MA WATR\te\0671622\dots\reports\671622review-IUNAL.doe
9
E
operations of the signals. The unsignalized analysis indicate that vehicles exiting the
side streets do so with some difficulty based on the current traffic volumes along
Osgood Street. This is also consistent with brief observations in the field.
2. A review of the analysis indicates that all area intersections under review will
operate at acceptable levels (LOS D or better)under the 2005 Build Condition. The
lone exception to this is the unsignalized intersection of Holt Road and Osgood
Street, which will operate at LOS F under future conditions with or without the
project in place.
3. Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis: The Applicant's engineer prepared a traffic signal 1
warrant analysis at several of the study area unsignalized intersections. The results
of this analysis indicate that the intersection of Holt Road and Osgood Street does
not meet the warrants for installation of a traffic signal. A traffic signal warrants
analysis was also performed at the intersection of Barker Street,the proposed site
driveway, and Osgood Street. The results indicate that a traffic signal is not
currently warranted, but could meet the warrants when the project is in place and
occupied. The traffic signal is warranted based on Warrant#11 (Peak Hour Volume)
which states that a traffic signal is needed when"traffic conditions are such that for
one hour of the day minor street traffic suffers undue traffic delay in entering or
crossing a niajor street". Based on the traffic volume forecasts, the primary reason
for the signal being justified is to accommodate the traffic exiting the site driveway.
The traffic volume solely along Barker Street would not require the installation of a
traffic signal at this location.
d) Conclusions and Recommendations
The project proponent has developed a series of mitigation actions to accommodate the
traffic generated as part of the proposed project. They are summarized below.
1. Site Access: The proponent proposes to provide two driveways accessing the site via
Osgood Street; one right in/right out driveway and one signalized driveway opposite
Barker Street.
a) The right-in/right-out driveway would provide a right-turn deceleration lane into
the site. This right-turn deceleration lane could have an impact to the driveway
leading to#1284 Osgood Street. The right-turn lane would make it more
difficult for traffic exiting this driveway to enter the Osgood Street mainline
traffic flow. We recommend that the project proponent and owner of this
property discuss the impacts to this driveway. If necessary,consideration should
be given to extending the right-turn deceleration lane and/or relocating the
driveway location.
b) The signalized driveway along Osgood Street would provide full access to and
from the site as well as Barker Street. Before getting into specific comments,we
concur with the statement in the report that identifies the need to prepare"a more
detailed traffic signal warrants analysis ... in conjunction with the preparation of
4
\\MAW A'E A\te\D671622\dots\reports\671622review-rINAL,doe
i
the Functional Design Report(FDR) to be submitted to MassHighway". Copies
of this report should also be sent to the Town for review as well. The findings of
this more detailed traffic signal warrant should be sufficient to justify the
installation of a signal at this location.
2. Traffic Signal Design: In general, we feel that the traffic signal is justified based on the
traffic volume projections presented in the report. However,based on the analysis
presented in the report and Figure 18(the Conceptual Improvement Plan), we
recommend that the proponent consider the following issues/comments related to the
operational issues of the signal design:
a) Provide queue analysis for all 2005 Build conditions. There is the potential for
traffic queues at this intersection to interfere with driveways and roadways adjacent
to the proposed signals. Without queue information, the actual impacts are not easily
identified. There are a number of unsignalized driveways that are in the immediate
vicinity of the intersection that may have left-turn access affected by the proposed
signal.
b) Consider restriping the site driveway to provide a shared through/left-turn lane and
an exclusive right-turn lane. This redesign could permit right-turn traffic to exit the
site during off-peak hours as right-turn-on-red operation and would permit an overlap
phase with the left-turn phase from Osgood Street. This could provide additional
green-time to the mainline corridor.
c) Provide analysis of the interaction between the proposed signal and the nearby
intersection of Old Farin RoadlBarker Street. Traffic data was not presented in the
traffic study for the intersection of Old Farm Road and Barker Street. While we
recognize that the proposed signal may have some operational benefits to the Barker
Street corridor(by permitting vehicles to enter Osgood Street in a controlled
manner), our concern is related to traffic queues and sight distance provided at Old
Farm Road.
d) Address the potential need for signal coordination between the proposed signal and
the existing signal at the intersection of Osgood Street and Great Pond Road. The
proximity of these signals to each other(approximately 1000-feet)and the high
volume of northbound/southbound through traffic at each location may lend itself to
providing progression through this corridor. This could result in less air quality
impacts to the region.
e) Address the need for bicycle accommodations at the intersection. The proposed plan
does not appear to provide adequate bicycle accommodations at the intersection
(although it does provide provisions along the remainder of the Osgood Street
corridor). MassHighway design standards will require the provision of bicycle
accommodations at the intersection unless a waiver is granted.
+a
5
\\MAWATR\to\0671622\d m\reports\671622revl ew-FINAL.doe
e) Off-Site Improvements
1. Osgood Street and Great Pond Road. It is not clear if the proponent proposes to
retime and phase the signal to provide better operations at this intersection as part of
the project or merely suggest signal tinning adjustments to MassHighway and the
Town. The proponent should clarify this issue. Regardless, the signal timing
improvements proposed appear to improve overall signal operations at this
intersection, Consideration should be given to signal coordination with the proposed
signal at Osgood Street and Barker Street(as noted in comment 5 above).
2. Osgood Street and Holt Road. The unsignalized intersection will continue to operate
at or over capacity in the future as traffic volumes increase along Osgood Street.
The proponent proposes to conduct a thorough traffic signal warrants analysis at this
location. It is likely that a traffic signal at this location will not be warranted unless
additional development occurs along Holt Road in the future. Furthermore, there
does not appear to be a safety concern at the intersection based on the crash statistics
presented for the past three years.
3. Transportation Demand Management Strategies:The proponent proposes to
implement a TDM program at the site to encourage alternative modes of
transportation and reduction in single occupant vehicles (SOVs) to and from the site.
While some phases of TDM programs are limited with respect to retail-based trips,
the office component could provide some beneficial impacts to the local roadway
system. The proponent should consider joining the local transportation management
association (TMA),if one exists. In the absence of an existing TMA,the proponent
could assist the Town in developing a regional TMA for the North Andover area,
4) DRAINAGE REVIEW: The proposed drainage design is a closed drainage system that
includes catch basin, drain manholes, stormceptors and a detention basin. A detailed drainage
review will be provided by the Conservation Commissions engineering consultant. VHB
offers the following general comments regarding standard engineering practices and
constructability of the proposed drainage design.
a) The 15-inch roof drain pipe located on the west side of the proposed retail building
appears to conflict with 12-inch lateral storm drain pipe. The Applicant should verify
that the clearance for each utility crossing is adequate and resolves the conflict as
necessary.
b) The rim elevation of SMH#7 appears to be missing from the plan. Please revise.
c) VHB recommends that a detail for proposed stormceptor(series 4800)be added to the
details plan.
d) The proposed outlet control structure details indicates that the width of the headwall is
30 inches. This width of the headwall is inadequate for the proposed 30-inch diameter
pipe.The Applicant should revise the width to accommodate a 30-inch cored opening.
e) VHB recommends that the emergency outflow channel be identified in the detention
basin.
(a
6
\\MA WATR\te\0671622\dots\reports\671622revtew-FINAI..doc
i
1
f) The"Typical Section Outlet Structure"detail refers to the Town of Westborough. This
is obviously a drafting error. VHB recommends that frames and grates installed in this j
development should conform to the Town of North Andover standards. The Applicant
should revise this detail on sheet E-6.
g) If there will be standing water in the proposed detention basin for an extended period of
time,VHB recommends that chain link fence be provided around the perimeter of the
detention basin with an access gate for maintenance.
h) Larger diameter drain manholes may be required when more than four drain pipes
enter/exit a manhole. The plans should include provisions for larger diameter manholes.
5) STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE: VHB has reviewed the site plans for
conformance to standard engineering practices, The purpose is to document the engineering
issues and potential construction issues associated with the project.VHB offers the
following comments related to vehicular safety,pedestrian safety and potential construction
issues;
a) VHB recommends that wheelchair ramps be provided at all handicap parking areas
unless the sidewalk in these areas is flush with the parking lot pavement.
b) The site plans indicate a proposed driveway under the building overhang between the
proposed retail/office building and the proposed office building.VHB recommends that
the Applicant coordinate with the fire department in regard to this overhang. Also, the
Applicant should verify the clearance and the sight distance for vehicle exiting this
overhang.
c) VHB recommends that pavement markings and warning and regulation signage(e.g. stop
signs,no parking signs, speed limit signs,etc.) be provided on the site plans. The
Applicant should clearly indicate the direction of traffic flow in parking areas.
d) Several areas have proposed retaining walls next to the site driveway or parking lot.
Given the differences in elevation and for safety reasons,VHB recommends that
guardrail be provided at these locations.
i
e) Given the differences in elevation and for safety reasons , the Applicant should also
consider fencing at the retaining walls that are close to the driveways and in areas that
any pedestrians may have access to.
f) The Applicant should identify what types of retaining walls are being proposed. Also,
the Applicant should provide a detail that illustrates how the guardrail is attached or
located on or near the retaining wall.
g) It appears that additional proposed hydrants are required to provide adequate fire
protection. VHB recommends that the number of proposed hydrants be reviewed and
additional hydrants added(near proposed office building) to ensure that adequate fire
protection is being provided.
f) The proposed building all show a fire protection water service and a domestic water
service, VHB recommends that the Applicant consider relocating the fire protection
service shut off valve before the "T" fitting and domestic water shut off valve.
m
7
\\MA W ATR\t e\0671622\dots\r epo r is\67162 2 rev l ew•PI NAL.doc
i
i
i
g) Given the scope of this development, VHB recommends that the water main be looped
around the site and reconnected to the existing water main on Osgood Street.
i
h) VHB recommends that the Applicant should consider an irrigation system for the site.
i) VHB recommends that a detail or section showing the stormwater recharge system and
the proposed retaining wall located behind the hotel be prepared, The detail should
include top of wall elevations,bottom of wall elevations,parking lot elevations,ground
water elevations and drywell elevations. The detail should also address how the
emergency overflow pipe will be constructed through the retaining wall.
6) SEWER EXTENSION REVIEW: VHB has reviewed the proposed sewer extension plan,
prepared by Marchionda and Associates Inc.dated August 31, 2000 for conformance to
standard engineering practices. VHB offers the following comments regarding the sewer
extension design:
a) No vertical scale has been shown for the profiles.
b) The construction of the proposed sewer force main requires 6 to 10 feet deep excavation.
VHB recommends that braced excavation measures be provided to minimize the impacts
to existing features in the vicinity. Also, the Applicant should provide traffic
management plan showing how the traffic is maintained during the construction.
c) VHB recommends that a sewer force main trench detail be provided.The detail should
include dimensions of the trench,backfill materials and pavement detail where the trench
is in existing roadway.
d) VHB recommends that erosion control measures like hay bale and silt fence be provided
on the plans
e) The proposed sewer extension is within the 25-foot No Disturbance Zone of the flagged
wetland.A Notice of Intent is required by the North Andover Conservation Commission
(NACC),
It is recommended that the applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and
comments contained herein.
Reviewed by; Date: &ej-
Timothy B.McIntosh,P.E.
Senior Project Engineer—Highway and Municipal Engineering
Danny Ho-Yin Wong,E.I.T.
Civil Engineer-Highway and Munici a g neer
Robert L Nagi,P.E.
Project Manager--Transportation System
8
\\hIAWATR\le\o671622\dots\reports\671622revlew•FF NAL.doc
Transportation
Land Development
Environmental '
Services
imagination mnovatton energy Creating results for our clients and benefits for mir communities
November 8,2000 Vanasce Nrange_n -rustiin, Inc.
Ref; 06716.22
Ms.Heidi A.Griffin -Town Planner
Community Development&Services
Town of North Andover
27 Charles Street
North Andover,MA 01845
Re: Edicott Plaza
North Andover,MA
Dear Heidi,
The Applicant resubmitted plans and documents to VHB for a second review on November 7,2000. This plan
submission was reviewed to determine if VHB's original comments had been addressed. The following
comments note comments that were not adequately addressed,non-conformance with specific sections and
questions/comments on the proposed design.
Drainage comments shall be reviewed by the North Andover Conservation Commission's engineering
consultant.
1) SITE PLAN REVIEW:
The following information is required by Section 8.3.5 and VHB offers the following comments:
a) LOCATION OF SIGNS; The plans have been revised to show the location of warning and regulatory
signs within the site. The plans prepared by Design Partnership Architects,Inc. include a sign
elevation detail with a legend of"Edicott Plaza Office Park". The proposed location of this sign is not
clear. The Applicant should indicate the proposed location of this large sign and the location of any
other retail signs proposed.
b) LIGHTING FACILITIES:The Applicant's Engineer states that lighting fixture type was submitted in
the original submission. VHB has no record of this. The Applicant's Engineer stated that an
illumination plan showing foot-candel levels would be provided. VHB has not received this plan.
2) TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY REVIEW:
a) The Applicant's Engineer stated in his response that the site driveway would be restriped to provide a
shared through left-turn lane and an exclusive right-turn lane. The plans do not indicate any striping
changes.
b) As stated in our original comments,VHB's experience with pharmacies with drive-up windows is that
traffic generation can be 3 times higher than the standard ITE data presented in the report. Tile
Applicant's Engineer references past studies(completed by VAI)which indicate trip rates are based on
a number of factors including traffic volume on adjacent streets,competition in the area,and the
retailer itself. Furthermore, the rates for these types of pharmacies fall both above and below those
rates documented byIITE. The Applicant's Engineer justifies the use of the standard ITR trip rates
101 Walnut Street
Post Office Box 9151 . .
Watertown, Massachusetts 02471-9151
T,\0671622\does\reports\responseletter.doc 61Z924.1770 a FAX 617.924.2286
email: info@vhb.com
www.vhb.com
I
f
i
i
f1�
I
11
Heidi Griffin
Project No,: 06716.24
November 8, 2000
Page 2
0
based on these studies. VHB recommends that a summary of these past studies completed by VAI be
submitted for review.
VHB's main concern is not specifically with the actual traffic generation rate itself,but whether
internal traffic circulation may be adversely affected by the potential vehicle queue that may develop at
the drive-up pharmacy window. The plans currently show storage for approximately 2-3 cars before
internal site circulation becomes affected. VHB recommends that the Applicant's Engineer address
these internal traffic concerns,
3) STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE;
VHB has reviewed the site plans for conformance to standard engineering practices.VHB offers the
following comments related to vehicular safety,pedestrian safety and potential construction issues:
a) It is not clear whether the fire department has approved of or has issues with the proposed driveway
under the building overhang between the proposed retail/office building and the proposed office
building.
b) It appears that the proposed retaining walls will be modular type(e.g.Versa-Lok).The design of these
walls must account for surcharge resulting from vehicle impact to the proposed guardrail. The design
is typically completed during construction,
4) SEWER EXTENSION REVIEW:
VHB offers the following comments regarding the sewer extension design:
a) The Applicant has provides traffic management details showing how the traffic is maintained during
the construction. Temporary road closures should be discussed with the Department of Public Works
(DPW). The DPW should determine whether a road closure(temporary or not)is appropriate for this
roadway given the traffic volumes.
It is recommended that the applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments contained
herein.
If you have any questions or concerns,please call me at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
VANASSE HANGEN BRUSTLIN,INC.
Timothy B.McIntosh,P.E.
Senior Project Engineer—Highway&Municipal Engineering
cc: Rob Nagi,P.E. - VHB
Chris Huntress-Huntress Associates,Inc.
a�
\06524\does\lettersresponse letter
!D:31VM VHS H0.542 P. 1
1
Transportation
Land Development
Environmental
101 Walnut Street
T1rrnac ncen R , Inn, PostOflieeBox9151
Watertown
Matsaehusetts 02471
617 9241770
FAX 617 924 M6
FAX
Transmittal Deliver To; Heidi G:rif£in pow: Timothy B.McIntosh,P.E.
Town Planner
Company, Town of North Andover VHB 1hojimt No,: 06716.22
Telephone No,: FAX No.: 978-688-9542
Original of Telecopy: Will be sent on 09-29-00 Date and Time: September 28,2000
Total Number of Pages(Including Transmittal Form)! 9
rkt: Endicott Plaza—North Andover,MA
Hi Heidi,
Enclosed please find VHB's review report for Endicott Plaza Site Plant.
I will be sending the original to you tomorrow. Please call me if you have any questions
Tim
cc:Mike Howard—Epsilon Associates,Inc.
\\MAWATR\to\06716\d oc5\TnwzO tt a t s\fax-Azi f fi A-092900.d po
uaicuiZUUU 10:z1 FAX 741U82 5480 COLER&COLANTONIO
both sides to avoid Erosion and siltation, Spillway width and riprap sizes should
be specified based on calculated flow velocities.
9. The design of the detention basin includes a sump of unspecified depth (less than
two feet)_ Given the soils reported in this area it is likely that this will hold water
most of the time. We recommend the basin be designed with a gentle slope
between the inlet and outlet pipes pitch to drain dry between storm events.
10. The Existing Conditions plaza sheet El was not included in the submittal.package.
It. plow and velocity of the culvert on the south of the site, which discharges runoff
from Osgood Street has not included. It is imclm if the proposed roadway
improvements waatld result in an increase in flow to this culvert.
13, There are two drains without any flow or invert data, which could be potential
sources of erosion. One is identified as an overflow to the recharge system, the
other is labeled F.D.
13. No calculations for the storm sewer system were provided. The calculations
should include both pipe and inlet capacity,together with appropriate support data
and area plans, This data should be provided to demonstrate that the storm sewer
and roof drain systems could collect and convey the flow to the stormwater
management structures without bypass. Of particular concern is by-pass of the
roof drainage system during the 100-yr stonn.
14. We note that minimal separation is provided between drains and sewers in several
locations.
15. It is not recommended that drain lines be constructed beneath the building for
maintenance and accessibility reasons-
Vile appreciate the opportunity to assist the Planning Board on this project and hope that
this information is sufficient for your needs. We would be pleased to meet with the
Board or the design engineer to discuss this project at your convenience. If you have any
questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
COLER&COLANTONIO,INC.
i
John C. Chessia,P.E.
jasfJCC