HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-04-18 Civil Review DEF SUB r
CIVIL. ENGINEERS * SURVEYORS
i � f
R
6 January 1997
NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
Town Hall Annex
146 Main St.
No. Andover, MA 01845
RE: Definitive Plan Review
One Center Lane
No. Andover, MA
Dear Members of The Board:
On behalf of my clients, Mr. & Mrs. Peter Rodriques, and per the instructions
from your Board, I am writing this report.
Robert M. Gill & Associates, Inc. , has reviewed the definitive plans submitted
by John Burke and Ben Osgood, Jr. , entitled, ,One Center Lane.
As a design engineer with over 30 years of subdivision design, I have several
serious concerns regarding said definitive submission. They are as follows:
The slope of the street is 6%, which conforms to your regulations,
but does not allow for a level area at the bottom of the cul-de-sac.
In fact, for vehicle maneuverability across the cul-de-sac alone,
is a drop of over six feet. The existing grades of the land are
not conducive to construction or installation of a road. At some
locations, there is an existing six foot differential in grade
from one side of the street to the other. The existing grade at the
southwest corner of the proposed road is 284 feet. The existing
grade at the northeast corner of said road is 254 feet. This is a
difference of 30 feet, in a length of only 265 feet.
The proposed design calls for 16 feet of fill in the cul-de-sac area
alone, and an average fill over most of the roadway between 10 and
12 feet. This is incredible. The side sloping shoulders is a two
to one slope. This is within your regulations, however, the intention
for said slopes are normally for a cut or fill of two to four feet,
not 12 to 16 feet. The slope of respose of soils with this height
should be a minimum of three to one, or retaining walls should be
constructed.
O
418 bRidgF 5T.9 IOwell, MA 01850 9 (508) 452-6510
' } j
6 January 1997
NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
Page 2
RE: Definitive Plan Review
One Center Lane
'No. Andover, MA
There are also serious design flaws, with .regard to the detention
pond. There is a 22 foot drop from the finish cul-de-sac to the
bottom of the proposed pond, only 50 feet away. There are no
guard rails, which is a serious safety hazard. The drainage culvert
outlet which outflows into the detention pond is 10.2 feet above
the bottom of said pond, and .only ,20 'feet away. .This is an impossible
situation for physical flow during a peak storm.
The current runoff from the proposed subdivision is a sheet flow
directly on to my client's property. This will change drastically
upon construction of a road and detention pond. There will be
negative or vastly decreased flow on the Rodriques upper land, and
a tremendous point discharge increase on the lower end. We have
concerns with erosion and soil disruption.
in addition to these concerns, the construction of said detention
pond will, within a short time period, create a wetland where no
wetland exists today. This will place a hardship on my Clients,
and if they attempt to develop their back land, restrictions will
be placed on the land that do not currently exist.
After reviewing the above mentioned concerns, please contact me with your
comments at the telephone number or address shown on our letterhead.
Very truly yours,
ROBERT M. GILL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Robert M. Gill, P.E. , R.L.S.
RMG/jag
cc: Mr. & Mrs. Peter Rodriques
Attorney Philip Nyman
CIVIL ENGINEERS * SURVEYORS
18 March 1997
NORTH ANDOV'ER PLANNING BOARD
Town Hall Annex
146 Main St.
No. Andover, MA 01845
RE: Revised Definitive Plan Review
One Center Lane
No. Andover, MA
Dear Members of The Board:
On behalf of my Clients, Mr. & Mrs. Peter Rodriques, I have reviewed the
revised submission of One Center Lane, No. Andover, MA, Subdivision Plan.
It appears that there is no revision to the record layout plan at all.
It seems to me that all revisions shown on said plan cut cost and eliminate
problems for the developer. They are requesting a waiver of street con-
struction, and a waiver from maximum slope, which cuts the cost of fill.
Also shown is about 90% of the detention area to be constructed within the
right of way of the cul-de-sac. How can this be allowed? This is a sub-
division, and the right of way is reserved for the town, so that if necessary
In the years to come, a street could be constructed.
The main concern I have with regrad to my clients rights, is the layout of
the right of way creating a reserve strip between the Rodriques property and
the proposed street. Your rules and regulations specifically call for NO
reserve strips. The petitioner proposed a street almost adjacent to said
clients property, with all the negative affects, but with no rights to said
new street. I do not believe that this is good planning.
Please review my comments and forward my concerns to your consultant.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the aforementioned, do not
hesitate to contact me.
Verytruly yours,
Robert M. Gill, P.E, R.L.S.
RMG/j t
O
RobERT M. q ES ,
418 bRidCiE ST. 0 [OWER, MASS. 01850 • (508) 452-6510
i
CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS
s -U6
18 March 1997
114 hti� S la 4j ,
to
NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
Town Hall Annex
146 Main St.
0
No. Andover, MA 01845 U
RE; Revised Definitive Plan Review
One Centex Lane
No. Andover, MA
Dear Members of The Board:
On behalf of my Clients, Mr. & Mrs. Peter Rodriques, I have reviewed trek-
revised submission of One Center Lane, No. Andover, MA, Subdivision Plan.
It appears that there is no revision to the record layout plan at all.
It seems to me that all revisions shown on said plan cut cost and eliminate
problems for the developer. They are requesting a waiver of street con—
struction, and a waiver from maximum slope, which cuts the cost of fill.
Also shown is about 90% of the detention area to be constructed within the
right of way of the cul—de—sac. How can this be allowed? This is a sub—
division, and the right of way is reserved for the town, so that if necessary
in the years to come, a street could be constructed.
The main concern I have with regrad to my clients rights, is the layout of
the right of way creating a reserve strip between the Rodriques property and
the proposed street. Your rules and regulations specifically call for NO
reserve strips. The petitioner proposed a street almost adjacent to said
clients property, with all the negative affects, but with no rights to said
new street. I do not believe that this is good planning.
Please review my comments and forward my concerns to your consultant.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the aforementioned, do not
hesitate to contact me.
Ver truly yours,
Robert M. Gill, P.E, R.L.S.
RMG/j t
O
= RObERT M. GILL & ASSOCIATES INC.
418 bRidCiE ST. • LOWELL, MASS. 01850 • (508) 452-6510
A-) 1
TO: No. Andover Planning Board
RE: Definitive Plan Review
One Center Lane
No. Andvoer, MA
Dear Members of The Board:
On behalf of my clients, Mr. & Xrs. Peter Rodriques, and per the instructions
from your Board, I am writing thi:, report .
Robert M. Gill & Associates, Tnc . , has revibwed the definitive plans submitted
by .John Burke and Ben Osgood, Jr. , entitled One Center lane.
As a design engineer with over W years of subdivision design, I have several
serious concerns regarding said :ie.tinitive submission. They are as follows:
The slope of the street is 6%, which conforms to your regulations, but does not
allow for a level area at the bottom of the cul-de-sac for vehicle .
maneuverability. In fact , acrusi the cul-de-sac alone, is a drop of over stx feet . Th
existing grades of the land are not conducive to construction or installation of
a road. At some locations, thery is an existing six foot differential in grade
from one side of the street to Lhe other, The existing grade at the southwest
corner of the proposed road is :13i feet. The existing grade at the northeast
corner of said road is 254 feet , This is a difference of 30 feet , in_a len
of only 265 feet.
--------------
The proposed design calls for 1b teet of fill in the cul-de-sac area alone,
and an average fill over most of the roadway between 10 and 12 feet . This
is incredible. The side sloping; .,boulder is a two to one slope. This is
within your regulations, however, the intention for said slopes are normally
for a cut or fill of two to four feet , not 12 to 16 feet . The slope of repose
of soils with this height should be a minimum of three to one, or retaining
walls should be constructed.
There are also serious design flaws, with regard to the detention pond.
There is a 22 foot drop from the finish cul--de-sac rade to the bottom of the
propose ond, only 50 eet away. ere are no guard ra s, which is a serious
safety hazard. The drainage culver outlet which outflows into the detention pond
is 10. 2 feet above the bottom of said pond, and only, 20 feet away. This is
an impossible situation for physical flow during a peak storm.
The current runoff from the proposed subdivision is a sheet flow directly on
to my client's property. This will change drastically upon construction of
a road and detention pond. 'There will be a negative or vastly decCe,Ased flow
on the Rodriques upper land, and a tremendous point discharge increase on the
lower end. We have concerns with erosion and soil disruption,
In addition to these concerns, the construction of said detention pond will,
within a short time eriod, create a wetland whew no wetlan� disr,s today.
This will place a hardship on my Client, and if they attempt to develop their
back land, restrictions will be placed on the land that do not currently exist.
ROBERT M. GILL & ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB
418 Bridge Street SHEET NO. of --
LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS 01850
(fill} 452^s�J�O C
ALCULATED 8Y DATE
�M a$64 CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
1 N IS, roe c s S -r 6.' a.. t 5 te. T-*a&L0. ..
�'� ��'' t ,9 �� �+�+a N4 G3 .� p m'F `�'�► a? QoAA4
_Awr .emu +ca F. ti a►ro mV- -r" Q ,..
7 �7,3 w�-(`...�`!"o.� m 1
`1 r) r 1 0.1 tQ..
''t ACLO � n
G u? �C �5 � C; AC2., �' +Z""�' � u "�"" . t r.� L G C.O.r.9 C�t Z"E.+C�►,! S L,
Vo 0 p Q
'•"' �O tom. 1� 10'+►-� �tJ , t.7 S O� . t•• t l..t.- ..
.......
Enright, Jean
From: Peter Rodriques [peterodriques@hotmail.comj
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 9:14 AM
To: Tymon, Judy
Cc: Enright, Jean
Subject: Olde Center Lane detention pond drainage
Hi Judy,
Well, I made the trek down to my back lot yesterday and to my surprise I can see dear as day the straight pipe from the
detention pond which is draining water on o the reserve strip and then on to my lot. There are a number of water pools
that have melted the snow which allow you to see the stream outline which originates form the D-pond on Olde Center
Lane, through the reserve strip and on to our property.
Not sure what your schedule looks like today however if you would like to swing by for a visual, feel free to call my wife
Martha at 978-621-0943 in that she will be there all day. I took a few videos yesterday however could not send them to
you in that the files were too large. IT take a few more and bring them by on a thumb drive so you can load directly on
your PC.
Thanks again for all your assistance. We want to address this as soon as possible and as it makes sense.
Best Regards,
Peter Rodriques
128 Johnson Street
North Andover, MA 01845
978-771-2903
Please not � tt Secretaryrof States office has determined that most entails to and from munici pal offices and officials are public r� nor
Iola the Massachusetts I� p records.for mare
information please refer to: http:llwww.sec.state.ma.usIpref.teidx,htm,
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
9
1