HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-02-05 MA Highway & EOEA Correspondence I
MASS
ylG��`�Y Mift Romney Kerry Hcafey Daniel A. Grabauskas John Coglianr
!
Governor Lt, Governor secretary Commissioner
July 10 2003 �
� t
Ellen Roy Herzfelder, Secretary
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
251 Causeway Street, 9'"Floor
Boston,MA 02114
RE: North Andover-Eaglewood Shops Retail Development-ENF
(EOEA#13041) if ,
ATTN: MEPA Unit �[� �
Deirdre Buckley
f�LANNIN�DN ARTf Er r
Dear Secretary Roy Herzfelder:
This is an addendum to the Massachusetts Highway Department(MassHighway)previous comment
letter on the Expanded Environmental Notification Form(ENF) for the Eaglewood Shops Retail Development
project in North Andover. The project entails the development of 79,925 square feet of retail space with 440
parking spaces, and is located on the southern side of Route 114, on a 13.3-acre site, across from the Eagle
Tribune site. The project requires a MassHighway access permit, and is categorically included for the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report(EM).
The proponent has proposed in the traffic study a site access plan that maintains the Northmark Bank
site drives onto Route 114, and provides an internal site connection between the bank property and the project
site. According to th study, the internal connection will provide additional access to the bank and improve
overall traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site. The connection will require approval, and most likely the
granting of an easement from the owner of the Northmark Bank property.
Representatives from the bank have recently contacted MassHighway and indicated that they will
not support the proposed internal connection, or the granting of an easement. Therefore,the proposed access
scheme in the vicinity of the site will change, and impact the operation of the traffic signal at the Route
114/site drive intersection MassHighway wants to reiterate the need for a resolution of the above issues prior
to the submission of the SEIR for this project. We strongly encourage the proponent of the project to meet
jointly with MassHighway and representatives of the Northmark Bank to develop an access scheme that will
be satisfactory to all parties.
If you have any questions regarding these comments,please contact me at(617) 973-7341.
VSincerelyen,P.
Manager, Public/Private Development Unit
Bureau of Transportation
Planning and Development
Massachusetts Highway Department• Ten Park Plaza, Boston, MA 02116-3973•(617) 973-7800
�a
ti
r
Secretary Roy Herzfelder 2 7/10/03
cc: Astrid Glynn, Deputy Secretary
Luisa Paiewonsky, Deputy Commissioner
Thomas Broderick, P.E., Chief Engineer
Kenneth S. Miller,P.E.,Director,Bureau of Transportation Planning and Development
Charles Sterling,P. E., State Traffic Engineer
Stephen O'Donnell, District 4 Director
PPDU files
MPO Activities files
Planning Board,Town of North Andover
Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
r
I+
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
RWED
a OFFICE OF J'
TOWN MANAGER 2Q�3
120 MAIN STREET NORTH ANI7ovr:n
NORTH ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETTS 01845 I"LANNINO Dl-tPAR7MENT
f ttORTF{q
Mark H.Rees �? b4{�yeO °+4ry00� Telephone(97$)688-9510
Towif Maltager M R FAX(978) 688-9556
V
��sSRCHU`'���g
June 16,2003
Ms,Ellen Roy Herzfelder, Secretary
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
251 Causeway Street, 91h Floor
Boston MA 02114-2150
ATTN. Ms. Deirdre Buckley
MEPA Office
Re: EOEA#13041
Dear Secretary Herzfelder,
Please accept these comments in favor of the Eaglewood development proposed for
North Andover as you conduct your MEPA review of the project. Developer Ross Hamlin, and all the
professionals associated with Eaglewood,have worked closely with North Andover officials, and left the
strong impression that theirs is a quality proposal, one in keeping with the high standards set by our
regulatory boards and other town departments.
I would particularly like to draw attention to the important parallels between the detailed
proposal for the Eaglewood shops, and the stated objectives for the Route.114 corridor in the Town of
North Andover Master Plan, We, as a community,have worked hard to maintain our local character by
approaching development in a forward-thinking manner,with the Master Plan as a principal guide, The
Eaglewood development would help to achieve our Master Plan goals in three important ways:
• It will provide needed economic development in an area suitable for it. Our Master Plan projects this
corridor of Route 114 as appropriate for development. The attractive plans for Eaglewood would be
consistent with historic town architectural styles, and would provide 250-300 new full and part-time
jobs, as well as retail shops not presently available locally.
• It will provide needed new tax revenues. As proposed,Eaglewood will generate an estimated
$398,000 in new property taxes,added to our commercial tax base. This is a key to our community's
desire to maintain a high-level of municipal services, and is especially important in these difficult
economic times.
i I
t l
Ms. Ellen Roy Herzfelder
Page 2.
June 16, 2003
• It will provide needed traffic relief. The developers,through their traffic engineers Vanasse Hanglin
Brustlin, have proposed significant improvements for the Route 114 intersections adjacent to the
proposed shops. They will construct$750,000 worth of signalization and turn lanes, coordinated
with the existing signals, which will greatly improve the existing traffic flow.
The Eaglewood developers have done a very good job of working with the town and not against
it. This has been evident in their willingness to adapt the proposal to input from various regulatory
boards and local officials. It has also been endorsed with a solid vote of approval on two related zoning
changes at the Annual Town Meeting on May 12, On the basis of all these factors,I ask that you
consider North Andover's best interests and issue a favorable review as soon as possible.
Thank you for considering my thoughts in this matter,
Sine el ,
Ma k H. Rees
Town Manager
Cc: Board of Selectmen
Planning Board
Heidi Griffin,Director, CD&S
i
1 VIAL
Mitt Romney Kerry Healey Daniel A. Grabauskas John Cogliano
Governor Lt. Governor Secretary Commissioner
4,
Tune 24, 2003
Ellen Roy Herzfelder, Secretary a
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
251 Causeway Street, 0 Floor JUN 2 6 2003
Boston, Ma 02114
ANDOVER
P AN,varvt'4 DEPARTMENT
RE: North Andover- Eaglcwood Shops Retail Development- ENF
(EOEA#13041)
ATTN: MEPA Unit
Deirdre Buckley
Dear Secretary Roy Herzfelder:
The Massachusetts Highway Department (MassHighway) has reviewed Expanded
Environmental Notification Form (ENF) for Eaglewood Shops Retail Development project in North
Andover. The project entails the development of 79,925 square feet of retail space with 440 spaces,
located on a 13.3-acre site on Route 114, across from the Eagle Tribune. The retail development
will consist of the construction of a 20,400 square foot freestanding retail building on the westerly
portion of the site, and 59,525 square feet of retail building space on the easterly end of the site.
Based on ITE Land Use Code 820 (Shopping Center), the project is expected to approximately 5,900
new vehicle trips on an average weekday and 7,950 vehicle trips on an average Saturday. A
MassHighway permit is required for access to Route 114. The project is categorically included for
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
The proponent has requested a Single EIR for the project. The Expanded ENF included a
traffic study performed in accordance with EOEA/EOTC guidelines for traffic assessments. We
believe that this request has merit, and we do not object to the preparation of a Single EIR, which
should address the following comments.
The proponent has proposed to locate the project's site drive opposite the Eagle Tribune
property driveway to create a new four-way signalized intersection, and made a commitment to
interconnect and coordinate the proposed signal with the intersections of Route 114 with
Waverly Road/Cotuit Street, Peters Street, and Andover Street. The proponent must also commit
to upgrading the signal equipment as required and directed by MassHighway, as well as
installing emergency vehicle-pre-emption equipment (Opticom) at all signals within the
proposed interconnection system. Additionally, the proponent will be responsible for utility
expenses and the operation and maintenance of the proposed site drive signal.
The proponent has proposed geometric improvements at the Route 114/Eagle Tribune/Main
Site Driveway intersection to accommodate the additional traffic demands. The proponent should
Massachusetts Highway Department-Ten Park Plaza, Boston, MA 02 1 1 6-3973• (617) 973-7800
�a
Secretary Roy Herzfelder 2 6/24/03
provide in the SEIR mitigation plans that show existing as well as proposed conditions. The
proponent should consider widening on the westerly side of Route 114 to avoid adverse impacts to
residential properties on the easterly side. The geometric improvements should include sidewalks
and bicycle accommodations and we encourage the proponent to consider eliminating the exclusive
left-turn lane on Route 114 to provide these accommodations.
The existing driveways to the Northmark Bank property have substandard radii and poor
sight distance due to existing stonewalls. Additionally, MassHighway believes that left-turns to and
from the bank would be safer if made at the proposed signal. The proponent has indicated in the
traffic study that the Northmark Bank site will be maintained and incorporated in the site with the
proponent providing internal site access. We encourage the proponent to meet jointly with the owner
of the bank and MassHighway to develop an access scheme for the area that addresses safety
concerns while maintaining appropriate access to individual properties.
The proponent has committed to a TDM program that includes pedestrian and bicycle site
access, carpooling and local taxi services. The proponent should also contact the Merrimack Valley
Transit Authority to provide transit service at the site.
The SEIR should include a revised letter of commitment once the above issues are
adequately addressed. The letter should commit to implement the required mitigation measures, and
describe the timing and cost of their implementation based on the phases of the project, if any. The
SEIR should provide an update of the local permitting processes for the proposed project,
particularly with respect to any state highway issues being discussed. We strongly encourage the
proponent to consult with MassHighway before state highway issues are discussed in local meetings
or hearings.
If you have any questions regarding these comments,please contact me at (617) 973-7341.
vionel
cien, P.E. A
Manager, Public/Private Development Unit
Bureau of Transportation
Planning and Development
Secretary Roy Herzfelder 3 6/24/03
cc: Astrid Glynn, Deputy Secretary
Luisa Paiewonsky, Deputy Commissioner
Thomas Broderick, P.E., Chief Engineer
Kenneth S. Miller, P.E., Director,Bureau of Transportation Planning and Development
Charles Sterling,P. E., State Traffic Engineer
Stephen O'Donnell, District 4 Director
PPDU files
MPO Activities files
Planning Board, Town of North Andover
Merrimac Valley Planning Commission
Woods, J. Justin
Full Name: Karl R. Dubay, P.E.
Last Name: Karl R. Dubay
First Name: P.
Job Title: Senior Project Manager
Company: (VMHF Design Consultants, Inc.
Business Address: MHF Design Consultants, Inc.
103 Stiles Road
Salem, NH 03079
Business: (603) 893-0720 x16
Home: (603) 421-9002
Mobile: (603) 475-7571
Business Fax: (603) 893-.0733
E-mail: krd@mhfdesign.com
Karl K.Dukaq, F.E., MNr Design Consultants, Inc.
f
........... .. _- _..._. ...._..._ .ry.,..�.,•..........•x_..•..._..:i,..........•......,.....u....,...+ xll<'c1• tu.;'.;Lei,_u.•v..:t.\Uai.1:•U\liihl.:tlt:.l:.!I+t'a.11\I J':c1+5'.'1 ! ,1.: 1 tik 1 u'� +�i `'S:yi1:.i, .\�i.?
1 '•U•..5•1i,3..1`.i iS'it�t.'.'ii',1+.%` a_\,n.5':Lhi�`$,J`•, tiv:R.`.1li:i i1+S�•:1Ci\G + ;, I
C6� �Eyr
lW:e iF�
25-J re
I
421,14-2779
MiTf ROMNEY
GOVERNOR ` Tel. (617) 626-1000
KERRY HLAI FY bell' Fax (617) 626-1181
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR �_ J�,t� l . http://www.mass.gov/envir
ELLEN ROY HERZFELDER
SECAETARY
July 17, 2003 0
Ccjn l kw:;li
CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
ON THE
EXPANDED ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM
PROJECT NAME : Eaglewood Shops Retail Development
PROJECT MUNICIPALITY : North Andover
PROJECT WATERSHED : Shawsheen
EOEA NUMBER : 13041
PROJECT PROPONENT : Eaglewood Properties, Inc.
DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR : May 24, 2003
Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (G.
L . c. 30, ss . 61-62H) and Section 11 . 03 of the MEPA regulations
(301 CMR 11 . 00) ; I hereby determine that this project requires
the preparation of a Single Environmental Impact Report (EIR) .
Project Description
As described in the Expanded Environmental Notification
Form (ENF) , this project consists of construction of an
approximately 80, 000 square foot retail center in North Andover.
The 13 . 3 acre site is located adjacent to Route 114 (Salem
Turnpike) opposite the Eagle Tribune facility. The project
includes a freestanding 20, 400 square foot (sf) retail building
at the northern end of the site and 60, 000 sf of additional
retail on the easterly end of the site, including 5, 000 to 7, 000
square feet of restaurant space . The project includes
construction of access drives and associated infrastructure such
as a stormwater drainage system. Access to the site will be
0 Pdnled on Recyded Stock 20%Post Consumer Waste
EOEA# 13041 Expanded ENF Certificate 07/17/03
provided via three intersections on Route 114 (including one
fully signalized intersection) . The project is consistent with
the North Andover Master Plan that directs development to the
Route 114 corridor. Zoning changes necessary to convert the
parcel use from residential to retail have been supported by the
Town.
Project impacts include creation of 6. 2 acres of impervious
surfaces, work within approximately one acre of buffer zone to
Bordering Vegetated Wetlands (BVW) , generation of 5, 900 vehicle
trips per day, and creation of 440 new parking spaces .
Approximately 3 . 3 acres of woodlands will be left undisturbed
and approximately 3 . 6 acres of the site will be landscaped.
Project Segmentation
The MEPA regulations include anti-segmentation provisions
to ensure that projects, including any future expansion, are
reviewed in their entirety. Proponents cannot evade, defer or
curtail MEPA review by segmenting one project into smaller ones
that, individually, do not meet or exceed MEPA thresholds . In
determining whether work or activities constitute one project,
the Secretary must consider whether the work or activities
comprise. a common plan or independent undertakings, regardless
of whether them is more than one proponent, the timing of work
and activities, and whether the environmental impacts caused by
the work or activities are separable or cumulative.
Becaus.e .the Eagle Tribune is the owner...or former - owner of
several parcels of land abutting or in close proximity to this
site that have been developed (80, 000 sf expansion to the Eagle
Tribune facility on Route 114) , are being developed (8 . 5 acre
Coachman' s Ridge condominium development on Haverhill Street and
13, 000 sf CVS adjacent to the Eagle Tribune) , or have the
potential to be developed (7 acre parcel on the corner of High
and Haverhill Streets) , I have reviewed whether these projects
should be considered a common plan and the cumulative impacts be
reviewed. Based on this review, I do not believe that these
projects represent a single project that has segmented to evade,
curtail or deter MEPA review and I am not requiring that this
proponent present a full analysis of all potential cumulative
.impacts; however, given the concerns expressed, particularly in
regards to traffic and air quality impacts, it .is important that
the Single EIR include a full and accurate review of this
project' s traffic and air quality impacts within the context of
other development in the area . In addition, I am asking the
2
EOEA# 13041 Expanded ENF Certificate 07/17/03
proponent to provide some information on the adjacent parcels
including proposed or actual land uses, wetland resources, and
detailed information on traffic impacts (including ,maximum
buildout for the High Street/Haverhill Street parcel) within the
updated traffic analysis .
Jurisdiction
The project is subject to review and mandatory preparation
of an EIR pursuant to Section 11 . 03 (6) (a) ( 6) of the MEPA
regulations because it requires a state permit and will generate
3, 000 or more new average daily trips (adt) providing access to
a single location and it will create 5 or more acres of
impervious surfaces . The project requires an Order of
Conditions from the North Andover Conservation Commission (and a
Superseding Order of Conditions from the Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) if the local order is appealed)
and it may require an Order of Conditions from the Andover
Conservation Commission, an Access Permit from the Massachusetts
Highway Department (MHD) and a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit from the
Environmental. Protection Agency (EPA) .
Because the proponent is not seeking financial assistance
from the Commonwealth for the project, MEPA jurisdiction extends
to those aspects of the project that may cause significant
Damage to the Environment and that are within the subject matter
of required -or potentially required state permits . These
include traffic, : air quality, wetlands, and drainage.
In accordance with Section 11 . 05 (7) of the MEPA
regulations, the proponent has submitted an Expanded ENF with a
request that I allow the proponent to fulfill its EIR
obligations under MEPA with a Single EIR, rather than the usual
process of a Draft and Final EIR. The Expanded ENF received an
extended comment period pursuant to Section 11 . 06 (8) of the
MEPA regulations and the proponent voluntarily extended the
comment period an additional two weeks . Based on a review of
the Expanded ENF and related comments submitted, I hereby find
that the Expanded ENF meets the regulatory requirements and I am
permitting the proponent to file a Single EIR in fulfillment of
Section 11 . 03 of the MEPA regulations . The following Scope is
intended to identify additional analysis and information
necessary to complete MEPA review and ensure that impacts and
issues are fully analyzed.
3
EOEA# 13041 Expanded ENF Certificate 07/17/03
SCOPE
Project Description and Permitting
This section should provide updates to the project
description, such as a change in the balance of retail and
restaurant use and discuss project phasing, if appropriate . The
Single EIR should include a detailed description of the
construction methods . The EIR should also provide updates on
the status of each state permit or agency action required, or
potentially required, for the project, and the project' s ability
to meet applicable performance standards.
Alternatives Analysis
The proponent should carry forward its Preferred
Alternative into the Single EIR. Additional project
alternatives are not required; however, the proponent should
update and provide a discussion on alternative access plans
based on consultation. with MHD and the Northmark Bank as
described in the Traffic section below.
Traffic
The transportation analysis generally conforms to the
Guidelines for EIR/EIS Traffic Impact Assessment as required.
The analysis indicates that the proposed project will increase
vehicle trims por day (tpd) by 5, 900 and will create 4.40 parking
spaces . The project is located on Route 114, which is an
undivided, 4 lane highway. The Merrimack Valley Planning
Commission (MVPC) has indicated that Route 114 is severely
congested during the weekday evening peak period. Primary
access to the site is proposed at the existing Eagle Tribune
intersection and the proponent has proposed to incorporate
access to the existing Northmark Bank from the primary site
drive.
The transportation analysis included in the Expanded ENF
demonstrates that the traffic increase will degrade the Level of
Service (LOS) of several intersections in the study area and has
proposed mitigation to address these impacts . Mitigation for
these impacts includes construction of a 4--way fully signalized
intersection at the Eagle Tribune/Eaglewood Shops intersection
and a commitment to interconnect and coordinate the proposed
signal with the intersections of Route 114 with Waverly
4
EOEA# 13041 Expanded ENF Certificate 07/17/03
Road/Cotuit Street, Peters Street, and Andover Street/Route 125 .
None of these signals are currently coordinated. In addition,
the proponent has proposed a number of transportation demand
measures to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips including
provision of an on-site transportation coordinator, a guaranteed
ride home program for carpool participants, and bicycle racks .
Northmark Bank has raised significant concerns with the
proposed primary access plan and the location of the signalized
intersection. The proposed intersection is 150 feet south of
the Bank' s entrance drive and 15 feet south of the Bank' s exit
drive . The proponent' s proposed access will impact access to
the Bank because of queues that will develop at the Eagle
Tribune/Englewood Shops intersection during peak hours . Also,
Northmark Bank has indicated that the project, as proposed,
includes work on the- Bank' s property and requires an easement
which the Bank is not willing to grant . Without the Bank' s
cooperation, the site driveway cannot be constructed as
proposed. MHD has highlighted the need for resolution of the
access issue before the Single EIR is filed and I agree that
this is important. The proponent should coordinate with MHD and
Northmark Bank to develop an acceptable access plan that
minimizes traffic impacts and minimizes impacts to the Bank' s
access while ensuring public safety. The traffic analysis
should be revised to reflect any changes or alternative
locations for the access plan, clearly demonstrate impacts to
Northmark Bank access, and incorporate the Northmark Bank
driveways into the LOS analysis . Also, existing and proposed
conditions site plans should be provided for the proposed access
and geode tr is irtprovertients .
The proponent shall carefully review comments submitted on
the traffic analysis and update the traffic analysis where
appropriate . In particular, the proponent should provide
documentation to support the 1% historical traffic growth rate
used for the No Build scenario or provide a revised rate with
appropriate documentation. The Planned/Approved Developments
section of the traffic analysis should include more detailed
information and documentation on the traffic generated by the
projects listed (particularly the CVS and Coachman' s Ridge
projects) and should add traffic generation from a maximum build
scenario for the undeveloped parcel on the corner of High and
Haverhill Street . This information is important to ensure that
background and future no--build conditions are accurate and well
understood and can also address issues raised about the
cumulative traffic impacts of development of adjacent parcels .
5
EOEA# 13041 Expanded ENF Certificate 07/17/03
Parking
The Expanded ENF proposes to provide 440 surface parking
spaces in accordance with local zoning requirements; however, it
also indicates that 40 of these spaces will be banked and left
as undeveloped open space (subject to approval by the Town) that
will only be built if required by demand. Implementation of
transportation demand measures (discussed above) and provision
of good bicycle and pedestrian access (discussed below) can help
reduce the amount of parking needed. The Single EIR should
evaluate a smaller parking supply to reduce the amount of
impervious surfaces on the site and demonstrate that the parking
supply is the minimum necessary to accommodate project demand
without encouraging additional single occupant vehicle trips .
Pedestrian/Bicycle/Transit
As noted above, incorporation of good transportation access
can eliminate the number of new vehicle trips generated and
minimize parking needs . The Single EIR should provide an
updated site circulation plan that clearly demonstrates how
cars, trucks, bicycles, and pedestrians circulation will be
facilitated. The existing proposal lacks crosswalks at
important locations (such as the primary access drive and across
entrances) and does not appear to maximize opportunities for
pedestrian and bicycle connections between the proposed
development and existing or planned developments . - The Single
EIR should propose measures to encourage pedestrian and bicycle
access between the proposed project and the Eagle Tribune
facilities, the Coachman' s Ridge condominium development, and
the shopping center located south of the Route 114/Peters Street
intersection. MHD has indicated that the signal should include
pedestrian phasing and that geometric improvements should
include bicycle and pedestrian accommodations, including
sidewalks, and suggested that the exclusive left turn lane on
Route 114 could be eliminated to support this access. The
proponent should coordinate with the MVPC Bicycle Control
Committee to evaluate opportunities to improve bicycle access to
and within the site through design changes or other measures .
Finally, as noted in the Expanded ENF, the Merrimack Valley
Regional Transit Authority (MVRTA) does provide transit service
in close proximity to the site . The proponent should consult
with MVRTA to discuss facilitating transit access to the site
and potentially locating a bus stop at the .Route 114/Peters
6
EOEA# 13041 Expanded ENF Certificate 07/17/03
Street intersection. The proponent should provide a report on
these efforts in the Single EIR.
Air Quality
Eastern Massachusetts remains in serious non--attainment for
ozone, whose precursors are nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) . Ozone pollution causes a variety of
health problems including aggravated asthma, reduced lung
capacity and increased susceptibility to respiratory illnesses
line pneumonia and bronchitis . To evaluate the regional air
quality impacts from major projects, the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) for ozone attainment, requires that proponents
conduct an indirect source review analysis for non-residential
project generating 6, 000 or more new tpd. The Expanded ENF
estimates this project will generate 5, 900 new trips per day
(tpd) ; however, the updated traffic analysis, in addition to
consideration of traffic impacts from adjacent parcels, may
increase trip generation and exceed this threshold. Therefore,
I am requiring that the proponent develop a mesoscale air
quality analysis . This analysis should be conducted in
accordance with DEP Guidelines for Performing Mesoscale Analysis
of Indirect Sources . The proponent should consult with DEP for
guidance and for confirmation of the appropriate study areas .
If hydrocarbon emissions are greater than the No Build scenario,
the Single EIR should include appropriate mitigation.
Wetlands/Drainage
The project, as currently designed, will create over 6
acres of new impervious surface area and includes almost an acre
of work within the buffer zone of BVW consisting of excavation,
filling and grading related to construction of a stormwater
detention basin and sediment forebay. The proponent has
indicated that it will install erosion control barriers using a
staked silt fence and hay bales at the limit of work and will
employ other measures such as erosion control matting to control
runoff, protect slopes from eroding and prevent siltation.
Areas of temporary disturbance will be planted with loam and
seed.
As noted previously, concerns were raised about the
cumulative impacts of development of adjacent parcels . The
wetland area on site appears to be common to the Eaglewood Shops
site, the Coachman' s Ridge condominium development and the
7
i' 1 :L l . ..\ •.v1•Ll.t.t..i• ! •'1 .�.1!•.mot.u. .s....t._.>.i.
:�i'.`y`.e.y„s �-1''�lSi.>v 1l .,1;� ••....v u.:`.l ,:2_.L1ti.v 1 .,.,.i...t .s.1 til..11,t,-. ,.....'_{,,!_.s4t..,t...it.•.1'v.`���t' .is..t,;tll'1�..,.!`�lilit6l'!' t 4it:4!u.t l:`u:'1Tn1:1 _L ....t,t e, .1:,.,u. t.....s,
EOEA# 13041 Expanded ENF Certificate 07/17/03
parcel on the corner of High and Haverhill Streets . The Single
EIR should also describe existing and potential cumulative
impacts to the wetlands area and associated mitigation.
The proponent has indicated that the project will be
developed consistent with DEP Stormwater Management guidelines
and that stormwater discharge will not be increased as a result
of the project. The Expanded ENF includes a drainage plan, a
discussion. of its consistency with the stormwater guidelines,
and an operations and maintenance program for the drainage
system to ensure its effectiveness . The stormwater management
system includes the use of DEP deep sump hooded catch basins,
regular lot sweeping, and construction of an extended detention
basin with a sediment forebay. The Single EIR should provide a
final stormwater management design plan and grading plan at a
reasonable scale.
DEP has provided detailed comments on stormwater, requested
that the proponent continue to consider ways to minimize paved
areas and restore undeveloped infiltration conditions, and
requested supplemental information be included in the Single
EIR, including discussion of the system' s consistency with the
North Andover Phase II Storm Water General.. Permit. The
proponent should carefully consider and respond to DEPs comments
and provide the requested supplemental information. In
particular, the proponent should consider DEP' s recommendations
regarding low impact design improvements such as pervious
pavement materials and lower vegetated traffic islands to
capture runoff. Because the project is still in the early
design stages, ample opportunities exist to incorporate these
recommendations . Northmark Bank also raised issues relative to
stormwater impacts on its site resulting from proposed grading.
The Single EIR should address these comments .
Water and Wastewater
The project will require 10, 120 gpd of water (an increase
of 9, 400 over existing) and will generate 8, 540 gpd of
wastewater (an increase of 8, 540 gpd over existing) . Both water
and wastewater needs will be met through the existing municipal
systems, administered by the North Andover Department of Public
Works Water and Sewer Department, and the Expanded ENF indicates
that capacity is available to serve the project .
8
EOEA# 13041 Expanded ENF Certificate 07/17/03
Mitigation
The Single EIR should include a separate chapter on
mitigation measures . This chapter should include a Draft
Section 61 Finding (in the form of an updated letter of
commitment for the MHD access permit) for all state permits that
includes a clear commitment to mitigation, an estimate of the
individual costs of the proposed mitigation, and the
identification of the parties responsible for implementing the
mitigation. A schedule for the implementation of mitigation,
based on the construction phases of the project, should also be
included.
Comments
The Single EIR should respond to the comments received to
the extent that the comments are within the subject matter of
this scope. Each comment letter should be reprinted in the
Single EIR. I defer to the proponent as it develops the format
for this section, but the Response to Comments section should
provide clear answers to questions raised.
Circulation
The Single EIR should be circulated in compliance with
Section 11 . 16 of the MEPA regulations and copies should also be
sent to the list of "comments received" below, to any state
agcncies from which the proponent will be seeking state permits
and approvals, and to North Andover officials . A copy of the EIR
should be made available for public review at the North Andover
Public Library.
Based on the review of the Expanded ENF and the comments
received, I am satisfied that the Expanded ENF meets the
standard for adequacy contained in Section 11 . 06 of the MEPA
regulations .
July 17 , 2003
Date Ellen Roy erzf der
9
EOEA# 13041 Expanded ENF Certificate 07/17/03
Comments received:
06/23/03 Department of Environmental- Protection NERO
06/24/03 Massachusetts Highway Department
07/10/03 Massachusetts Highway Department (second letter)
06/16/03 Mark H . Rees, North Andover Town Manager
06/17/03 Rosemary Smedile, Chairman, North Andover Board of
Selectmen
06/17/03 Jack Watkins, Watkins Financial
07/10/03 Katherine Bachmann, Hale & Dorr, for Northmark Bank
06/17/03 Tricia Melvin
06/18/03 Diane Schuster (sp?)
ERH/CDB/cdb
10
-\ COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS �
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
METROPOLITAN BOSTON— NORTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE
MITT ROMNEY � {� � � � Y HERZFELDER
Governor Lei Secretary
KERRY HEALEY � 2�gROB GOLLEDGE,Jr.
Lieutenant Governor �� Commissioner
� {� R11t AND4��NAC�R
. Octo er 22,
Ellen Roy Herzfelder, Secretary
Executive Office of RE: orth Andover
Environmental Affairs Eaglewood Shops
251 Causeway Street, Suite 900 EOEA# 13041
Boston MA, 02114
Attn: MEPA Unit
Dear Secretary Herzfelder:
The Department of Environmental Protection Northeast Regional Office offers the
following comments on the Single Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) submitted by the
Eaglewood Properties, LLC for 77,700 square feet of retail space in North Andover (EOEA
#13041)1
The Department appreciates the proponent's efforts to reduce imperviousness on the project
site. The development plan Ieaves an area unpaved for future parking, uses pervious pavers in a low
use parking area to decrease the imperviousness by 0.1 acres, and redirects some parking lot runoff
toward depressions in landscaped islands. The proponent also will consider using pervious pavers in
other low volume.parking areas.
Unfortunately, these low impact designs do not significantly offset the need for structural
stormwater controls, and the SEIR explains that there are engineering challenges in designing
stormwater controls for the project, due to the extreme grade changes on site. As a result, the
stormwater system includes one very large extended detention basin, with some steep basin
sidewalls, which are 20 to 39 feet from the bottom of the basin. The height of these walls could
create safety and maintenance issues. Can a smaller basin or a shallower design be developed for
compliance with the Stoimwater Management Policy?Would it be possible to reduce the size of the
basin by redirecting rooftop runoff to a separate infiltration system or to design the basin for less
than the 100-year storm?
It does not appear that the sediment forebay captures all runoff from the internal paved
roads. The Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan shows runoff being piped to a direct
This information is available in alternate format by calling our ADA Coordinator at(617)574.6872.
One Winter Street,Boston,MA 02108•Phone(617)654.6500•Fax(617)556.1049•T D D#(800)298-2207
DEP on the World Wide Web; http://www.slate.ma,us/dep
Q0 Printed on Recycled Paper
discharge into the detention basin from two catch basins (A8 and A11), which are located in an area
of the internal road behind retail building three.
Lastly, the Department encourages the proponent to consult the North Andover Department
of Public Works to consider ways to support implementation of the best management practices
(BMPs)'identified in the'NPDES Stormwater General Permit. For example, the public accessibility
to the},retail"development offers an opportunity to support the town's public education plans in the
permit.'
The DEP Northeast Regional Office appreciates the opportunity to comment on this
pro osed project: If, you,..have any general questions regarding these comments, please contact
NariaY—BAer,'MEPA Review Coordinator at(617)-654-6524.
S'ncerel
John Felix,
Deputy Regional Director
cc: Mark Rees,Town of North Andover
Eric Worrall, DEP-Boston
Brona Simon, Massachusetts Historical Commission
Jack Zajac,DEP-NERD
Transportation
Nand Development
Environmental '
•
Services
•
imagination knnovatton energy Creating results for our clients and benefits for our communities
October 22, 20032�Gi�se�1ang .,l' l�ct_lin, Trtr
Ref: 08354.00
Mr. Lionel Lucien, P,E,
Manager, Public/Private Development Unit,
Massachusetts Highway Department
10 Park Plaza, Room 4150
Boston, MA 02116
Re: Updated Tlafflc rnitlgat€on commitment
Proposed Eaglewood Shops—Route 114
North Andover, Massachusetts
EOEA 13041
Dear Mr. Lucien:
Based on.recent discussions with MassHighway,we are providing this updated commitment letter on
behalf of Eaglewood Propertles, LLC (the"Proponent"). This letter is intended to clarify the mitigation
commitments outlined in our letter of Septerhber 15, 2003, which was Included in the Single
Environmental Impact Report for the above-mentioned project. This information is being provided for
your review and consideration, and to hopefully be Incorporated Into the Section 61 Finding for this
project.
The proposed Eaglewood Shops building program presented in the SEIR has remained unchanged,
outside of minor design details being evaluated as part of the local approval process. The traffic
impacts and site access plan associated with the project have been presented In Chapter 2 of the
SEIR. The suggested mitigation commitments were developed based on the analysis presented in
the study, and extensive ongoing consultation with Masses€ghway and interested abutters. These
mitigation commitments have been further clarified per your request.
The Proponent will construct the following traffic mitigation measures as follows:
➢ Widen Route 114 (Turnpike Street) within the existing state highway layout by five-feet or less to
provide an exclusive left-turn lane into the proposed Eaglewood Shops site;
➢ Widen Route 114(Turnpike Street) along the project site frontage between the proposed
Eaglewood Shops driveway and the Eagle Tribune driveway to provide an exclusive right-turn
lane into the proposed Eaglewood Shops site. The proponent will provide the required land to
MassHlghway through a no-harm land taking agreement;
➢ Install a fully-actuated traffic signal at the intersection of Route 114 and the Eaglewood Shops,
which is proposed to be located at least 250 feet from the nearest driveway to the adjacent
Northtnark Bank property;
➢ Provide Opticom emergency-vehicle pre-emption equipment whore required within the proposed
four-signal system along Route 114;
101 Walnut Street
Post Office Box 9151 i
Watertown, Massachusetts 07471-9151
617.924.1170 . FAX 617.924.2286
\\NtaSvaidlld\063541docs\reports\SEllt\h2ltlgat3onCommitrev.doc email: infoOvhb.com
wvvw,vhb.com
I
Mr.J. Lionel Lucien, P.E.
Project No.: 08354.00
October 22, 2003
Page 2
➢ Provide an exclusive pedestrian phase within the proposed Route 114/Eaglewood Shops signal
operation;
➢ If warranted and approved and as directed by Masses€ghway, the Proponent will install the
necessary equipment needed to update or operate certain traffic signals In the vicinity of the
project as a"closed loop" interconnection/coordination system prior to the site opening. This
traffic signal system will be implemented in accordance with conceptual and 100 percent plans,
specifications and estimates to be submitted to and approved by MassHighway. The traffic
signals to be operated in this system include the following intersections on Route 114:
• Waverly Road/Cotu€t Street;
• Eaglewood Shops/Eagle Tribune
• Peters Street; and
• Andover Street(Route 125).
The final intersection and traffic signal design will be subject to approval of the MassHighway for
conformance with State design standards. A Traffic Signal Permit will be prepared for
MassHighway by the Proponent as required.
We believe the above mitigation commitments are consistent with the areas identified as
needing improvement In the Traffic Impact and Access Study. With the relocation of the
proposed main site driveway from the plan initially presented in the Expanded ENF, the
Eagle Tribune will no longer be included in the signal operation. However,the Proponent is
willing to coordinate with that site's ownership regarding any potential direct connection to
the signal in the future. Accordingly, we respectfully request that a Section 61 Finding be
Issued indicating the proposed mitigation and phasing as listed above. If you have any
questions, please contact me at(617) 924-1770,
Very truly yours,
VANASSE HANGEN BRUSTLIN, INC.
Patrick Dunford, P.E.,
Project Manager
CC: MEPA
Ross Hamlin, Eaglewood Properties, LLC
Constance Raphael, MassHighway District 4
Heidi Griffin—Town of North Andover
David Greenberg, VHB
Wayne Amico, VHB
\\IvIaivdld\Id\083"rk\dot's\reportslSEIR\�/iitigation Cunvnit rev.doc
E�
1
�i
MEMORANDUM
To: Heidi Griffin Date: 12 December 2003
From: Karl Dubay Re: Eaglewood Shops
Per your office request today to submit to you our updated review comments prior to Noon,we offer the
following final review comments pertaining to the revised plans we received yesterday from VHB dated
December 91h:
Substantially all of our remaining review comments have been addressed on the revised plans received
yesterday,and we also have received the same report verbally from VAI—subject to the following
remaining items:
I. As a Planning Tool for the Town's use,please provide a suggested summary memorandum and
supporting figure relative to corridor traffic master planning. This is of great concern to VAI and
they have been directly discussing it with VHB for some time. The scope of this effort can be
very simple and could probably be provided at next week's hearing. An example is perhaps a
suggested corridor ROW width to accommodate a future improvements policy to obtain future
widening easements. Of course,this would only be a suggested Tool for implementation via the
Town and others,although it can give the Town valuable guidance,as it is apparent that the
corridor in places would be operating at poor LOS in the near future with or without this project.
2. The Town needs to be aware that the applicant is still working on the 25%design plans and permit
application which need to be submitted to MHD, and that the project is subject to MHD permit
approval. Please be aware that the Town may not have the benefit of reviewing the 25%plans
prior to a conditional approval that may be granted, Therefore,we strongly recommend that any
Town approval should be strictly conditioned to the Applicant's acquisition of all needed permits,
and if any site design changes are necessary due to permit review by others,that these would need
to be reviewed and approved by the Town to maintain the Site Plan approval. Perhaps the Town
and the Applicant can work together to agree on the appropriate text of this condition.
3. Please slightly adjust the detention system grading out of the edge of the no-disturb zone in one
area,and correct the new tree lines shown(these are minor and will not affect the design).
4. DMH B21 and DMH B4 will either need a special detail for increased diameter,or be slightly
revised to accommodate the piping configuration. FES Al may need to be lifted and/or the
grading around it be revised—again,these are minor comments.
We just received the plans yesterday and are still verifying final comments—we plan to confirm any
remaining items prior to Tuesday's Hearing with you. We do suggest that the several site and architectural
plans received be compiled into one bound plan set, for the record
Please call me any time if you have any questions. I will plan on attending next week's bearing, if you
desire,to wrap up any remaining items and/or answer any questions.
.. _ .t�
�• � �f1"
`i � � �,
..'j� _ ..
- .-,.�