HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-07-18 Engineer Review Preliminary Subdivision f
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION REVIEW
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER SUBDIVISION RULES ®ULATIONS
Site Plait Title: Preliminary Subdivision Plan VHB No.: 09280.19
Plan Location: Riverview Street Extension
Applicant: Scott R. &Rhonda E. Colletti,73 Riverview Street,North Andover,MA 01845
Applicant's Engineer: Graham Associates, Inc.,Two Central Street,Ipswich, MA 01938
Plan Date: April 6,2006 Review Date: June 19,2006
The plan was reviewed for conformance to the November 2000 Town of North Andover Planning Board
Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land(last amended December 2002)and the Zoning
Bylaw(last amended May 2005). The Applicant has submitted the following information for VHB's
review:
• Preliminary Subdivision documents, including Development Narrative, dated April 26,2006
• Preliminary Subdivision Plan(2 sheets)dated April 6,2006
The following comments note non-conformance with specific sections of the Zoning Bylaw or
questions/conmients on the proposed design and VHB's recoiiuriendations/suggestions.
Torun of North Andover Subdivision Rules and Regulations
I. (4,3.La) The Applicant should provide a legend.
2. (4.3,13) Note 7 on Sheet 2 states the drainage system is to be privately owned. Will it be acceptable
that the drainage system will be located on lots of potentially three different owners without drainage
easements'? VHB recommends the inclusion of drainage easements,especially if the Town agrees to
accept the street as a public way.
3. (6.3.4) It appears stormwater from the street and other lots is being directed to the detention basin on
Lot 1. Based on the Development Narrative,this will only occur during and above flood stages. With
no drainage calculations at this time, it is unclear to VHB the extent of this concentration of
stormwater. Detailed stormwater and drainage calculations should be submitted with the Definitive
plan.
4. (6.7.2) It appears that Riverview Street does not meet current Town minimum design standards. VHB
assumes the Town is not requiring the Applicant to make improvements or make provisions for future
improvements for Riverview Street.
5. (6.8.1) It appears many of the Minimum Design Standards for Local Streets(Table IA) have not been
meet. Has a waiver frorn these requirements been obtained from the Town?
6. (6.8.7) Is curbing proposed? If not,a waiver should be requested.
7. (6.11) No sidewalk is proposed. Has a waiver been obtained for this requirement'?
8. (6.12) Will monuments be proposed during the Definitive Subdivision phase?
1
C:\Documenlsand ;Vtiings\Idalvy\Desktop\09280 t9-Rivervim Subdivision-revlewt,doc
1
Town of North Andover Zoning By-Laws
9. (Table lI) No proposed location is shown for the existing two-fancily dwelling on Lot 1. VHB assumes
the final location will conform to zoning regulations or a special permit will be obtained. Additionally,
VI-113 assumes a special permit for a two-family dwelling is not required for Lot I since this is currently
a two-family dwelling. The Applicant should clarify.
10. (7.1.2) Lot 2 does not meet the minimum lot width requirement of eighty feet between the street
frontage and front building line. Lot 3 does not have eighty feet of continuous lot width. Has the
Applicant received a waiver for this requirement?
General Comments/Standard Engineering Practice
It. Note 5 on Sheet 2 states that the existing septic system is to be abandoned. Will there be any issues
regarding the disturbance of this system during the water service and roadway construction'? It appears
the water service to the subdivision passes through the existing septic tank and leaching bed.
12. It seems the street frontage in the Table of Dimensional Requirements for Lots 2 and 3 have been
reversed. Additionally, it appears Lot 1 only has 150.6 of street frontage,not 188'.
13. VHB recommends labeling all existing contours for clarification purposes.
14. The Applicant should consider including an existing conditions plan with the Definitive plans.
15. VHB recommends soil testing throughout the site to adequately determine seasonal high groundwater
elevation. This information will be needed to verify the drainage design.
16, Details of the field stone or unit block retaining wall are reconunended.
Environmental Comments
17. It is unclear what and where the existing"undisturbed"(previously developed)area is located on the
site. Furthermore,it is unclear where the proposed development is with respect to this disturbed area
(i.e.closer to the river).
18. Has a common driveway been considered to reduce the impervious areas within the Riverfront?
19. VHB recommends that detailed drainage calculations be submitted with the Definitive Plans.
20. Based on the narrative provided,it appears that flood storage is to be provided under the proposed
buildings. VHB recommends additional details in the next plan submission that will clarify.
21. VHB believes an equivalent economic alternatives analysis pursuant to the Riverfront regulations 310
CMR 10.58(4)(c)will be required to justify the use of the site and alterations of the Riverfront Area.
22. The flood plain compensation does not appear to comply with the Wetland Protection Act
requirements. Consider;
a. The underground drainage and/or detention facilities apparently will be serving dual purposes;
facilitating stornrwater and providing flood storage. It is not clear that this is possible; and
b. The 24-inch"equalizer"pipes do not provide an unrestricted connection to the Merrimack
River(310 CMR 10,57(4)(a)1.),
2
C:\Documents anti Seilings\idalcy\Desktop\09280 19-Riverview Subdivision-reviewl.doc
l
l
1
It is recommended that(lie Applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments
contained herein,
Reviewed by: Date:
Jeffrey Nathan
Civil Engineer—Highway and Municipal
Checked by: Date:
Timothy B. McIntosh,P. E.
Project Manager —Highway and Municipal
3
Co\Documents anst Settings\klaloy\Desktop\09280 19-Riverview Subdivision-revlewlAric