HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/29/2019 - Smolak & Vaughan Response to Questions - - SMOLAK & VAUGHAN .!.NIIII John T'. Smolak,Esq.
TI-0,978-327-5215 1 F*-,978-327-5219
A"T T(") 1`1 N �,'- Y 5, A T' L A W JsmoIak@smoIftkvauShan.com
October 29, 201'9
VIA, EMAIL
Monica Gregoire,
Staff Planner
Planning, Department
Town of North Andover
120 Main Street
North Andover, Massachusetts 01 84�5
RE 4#1 1600, Os and Street - Response to estions
Dear Monica::
On behalf of the Applicants, Hillwood Enterprises, LP and 1600 Osgood Street,
1 0
LLC, the following is a response to the list of questions, raised in your Oc,t, ber 11 P 2019
e ft.correspondence to me,,mal
I.. Sewae-e Disposal
a. A copy of the GLSD Agreement has not been submitted yet,
Response
The Applicant has been in communication with the Greater Lawrence Sanitary
District with respect to a sewer use agreement for Hillwood. Such agreement has
been delivered to the GLSD through the GLSD's, Legal Counsel, Thereafter, the
GLSD user agreement will be delivered to, the GLSD's, Board for review and
approval. Note that Hittwood's use of the existing GLSD sewer line is designed as a
secondary backup plan until such time as the sewer line to be installed along
Osgood Street is constructed and operational,
Should the Board vote to,issue a Decision on this Project, we would suggest a
proposed condition be added to the Decision which states the following:
V Prior to the! 'issuance of'a Building Permit for any new work on Lot B (excluding
demolition), the Applicant shall provide evidence to the Department of Public
Works of the approval by the Greater Lawrence Sanitary District,of rights to
connect to the existing, GLSD sewer system located', on the Property,
Monlica Gregoire
Staff Planner
October 29,2019
h. The Plan Door not shoe sewer connections to the street. Should there be
connections at a later date a modification would be required,
Response: Proposed future sewer line connections to Osgood Street from the
Property to serge Lot A and Lot B will he added to the Site Plans as an alternative
sewer route, It does not seem necessary to have the Applicant return to the
Planning Board for approval to switch sower connections from the GLSD to the now
Town sewer system line in Osgood Street, given that the DPW's Water Ft Sewer
Department would simply need to issue a now sewer connection permit for such
connections. When the, new public sewer line is constructed *n Osgood Street
along the Property frontage, and is operational, Lots A and B would tie into that
system.
Should the Board vote to issue a Decision on this Project, we would suggest a
proposed condition be added to the draft condition i n #1(b) above in the Decision
which states the following.
V... Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a public sewer lino is constructed in Osgood
Street such that Lot A and Lot B can connect into the Town of North Andover
Sorer System m via the Property lino on Osgood Street, the Applicant shall apply to
the To rn's Department of Public '"Forks' Water Et Sewer Department for permission
to tie into such sewer system, and thereafter connect to the T"o rn's system in
accordance a with the requirements of the Department of Public Works' Sewer
Di'vis
. What, the purpose of the Water Tower (Fire Prevention says that this was for
a conceptual secondary Pre suppression system 1 o1 o/18,. No formal plans have
been submitted).
Response: The purpose of the water storage tank is to provide for an additional
measure for fire protection as noted in your question. The full design of this
improvement would not necessarily be fully engineered until prior to the
submission of full building plans to the Building Inspector as a part of a Building;
Permit Application.
Should the Board vote to issue a Decision on this Protect, we,would suggest a
proposed condition be added to the Decision which states the following.
"# Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for any new structures to be
constructed on Lot B,, the Applicant shall submit final "'dater Tower design drawings
with the Application for Building Permit;,"
2
SMO,LAK & VAUGHAN LLP
Monica Gregoire
Staff'Planner
Octolber 29,2019
2. Roadwork on Osgood Street
a, Have the Conceptual Off-Site Improvements (roadway ® included in the traffic
report) been submitted to MassDOT?
Response: Discussions concerning traffic and related improvements are ongoing
with the MassDOT's District 4 Office and'the scope ►of improvements along the Property
'been finalized or confirmed 'th MassDOT.
have not yet wl
b. When will we have required roadway improvements for this specific project
(independent of Mas,sWorks application,"?
Res,oonse: Although not yet finalized with the MassDOT, it is anticipated that the
foLlowing,traffic improvements will be implemented along the frontage of the Property
along Osgood Street, 'including the following:
(a) Construction of a single northbound Left-turn lane at the development's
signalized southernmost driveway with 350' of storage and replace signal equipment,
Resitripi'n,g of the southbound right-turn only lane to a shared through/right-turn lane,
shifting the southbound shared loft-turn,/through lane west, and providing a striped
median between to provide adequate room for re-alignment
(b) Updating the, existing signal at,the development's northernmost driveway
from flash mode to a coordinated timing scheme with the devellopment"s southernmost
driveway,. Optimizing the timings for these two coordinated signals at the
devetopmeint's driveways.
(c) Optimization of signal timings at van",olus, 'intersections along the Osgood
Street and Industrial Avenue corridors.
It is anticipated that the final scope of those improvements Wilt not be finalized until,
MassDOT approves the peak,-hour trip generation volumes for the project and
completes a full review of the TIAS. The trip: generation estimates are currently under
review by MassDOT
C, Did MassDOT say that a MEPA was required7 Need Evidence
R "'t relates to the
We continue to work with the MassDOT as i
determination of average daily trips which will have a bearing on whether MEPA
Review is required, but we do not anticipate that MEPA review would be required for
the Project.,
Should the Board vote to issue a Decision on this Project, we wou�ld suggest a proposed
condition be added to the Decision which states the following,,
"#.The Applicant shalt seek a MEPA Office determination as to whether MEPA review
is required,
Construction
a. Demolition Plan? (Licensed, Site Professional required?,)
3
SMOLAK & VAUGHAN LLP
Monica Gregoire
Staff Planner
October 29,2019
Response: See Response below,
b. Construction Entrance/Sequencing Plan for each parcel?
Resoonse: We note that the soil erosion and sediment control plans have been
separated into three phases covering the following activities:
Phase I: Initial construction staging and site dernotitiono
Phase 11: Mass eart,hw,ork, retaining wall construction,, and pad preparation,
Phase III: Utility Installation, buildi ng construction, paving and landscaping.
It is standard practice for the general contractor performing the work to, prepare a
demolition and construction sequencing plan which includes construction: management
requirements, including the requirements,of a NPDES Stornwater Pollution Prevention
Plan as well as a Stormwater Operation 8;Maintenance Plan. The following note on
the first page of each soil erosion and sediment control phase, sheets CEI 01 1 CE2011
and CE301 wi'll be added:
"Final construction sequencing and phasing details and schedule to be determined' by
the general contractor, existing tenant,: proposed tenant, and engineer of record.
Construction sequencing and phasing shall be established in a manner to minimize the
effects on the existing, businesses to the greatest extent, possible through the
demolition and construction of the redevelopment.
Should the, Board vote to issue a Decision on this Project., we would suggest a proposed
condition be added to the Decision which states the following:
Prior to the commencemen�t of construction, a construction schedule shall be
submitted to the Planning Staff for the purpose of tracking the construction and
•informing,the public of anticipated activities on and off the Site, including any work
on Route 125. Construction of the project will require sequencing and will require
erosion and sediment controls inspections by the Planning Department periodically.
Additional and alternative measures may be required depending on actual field
conditions.
4. Airport
a. Has the Massachusetts Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division
a
weighed! in on the building height and solar glare?
'Response: The FAA,Airspace Review Requests had been filed on October 17, 2019
for the proposed' building on Lot B, as well as for the temporary construction
equipment anticipated to be used at the Property. Mas,sDOT Aeronautics Division
Airspace Review Request Forms were also filed in October, 2019 for the proposed
building, on Lot B, the temporary construction equipment anticipated to be used at the
Property, and the solar array relocation. We hope to have responses, on the same
within the next 60 days. As to potential solar glare, and similar to the request arising
with regard to the solar array approved at the Property several years ago, attached is
4
SMOLAK & VAUGHANLLP
Monica Gregoire
Staff Planner
October 29,2019
a copy of an October 15, 2015 letter from HMMH to Osgood Solar stating:that ",,,the
FAA's Interim Policy on the Review of Solar Energy System Projects on Federally-
Obligated Airports was published in the Federal Register in October 2013 to provide
specific guidance to airports on the FAA's jurisdiction and impact standards for
potential glare from solar projects. In the policy, the FAA affirmed that it has
j�ur i'sdictiu n to regulate potential glare impacts as part of its responsibilities under 49
U.S.C. 47107(a)(1 6) and Sponsor Grant Assurance 2:9 Airport Layout Plan for any solar
project proposed on the property of a Fe derail y-obligated airport, which includes most
airports in the U,,S. The FAA also clarified that it does not have Jurisdiction to regulate
potential glare from projects located on non-airport land where its authority is limited
to structure height.
In conclusion, the FAA's Jurisdiction over the proposed Osgood Solar Project is limited
to physical impingement of airspace and does not include glare given its location off
airport property. Because of the low profile of solar projects, I am confident that the
project witt not impinge into airspace. We understand that a format determination
forthcoming from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation Aeronautics
Division will reach the same conclusion. A copy of the HMMH Letter is attached. We
have also communicated with Airport Manager Michael Miller,, who also indicated that
off-airport solar glare is not, regulated.
Should the Board vote to issue a Decision on this Project, we would suggest a proposed
condition be added to the Decision which states the following:
V the Applicant shalt file With the Massachusetts Department of Transportation's
(MassDOT's) Aeronautics Division a Request for Airspace Review, and with the FAA, a
Hazards to Navigation Determination. Copies of the filings and responses shalt be
submitted to the Planning Department.
5, AUL
a. Notice of Activity and Use Limitation(AUL) - Ptian 15939 Will there be
development in this area
9 0,
Re;gonse. We note that all environmental remediation was completed and closure
was achieved several years ago. There is no ongoing environmental remediation.
We note that the AUL i's governed by, and regulated under, State regulations at, 310
Massach�usetts
CMR 40.00010 (the contingency Plan"), A Notice of Activity and Use
Limitation was recorded on a portion of the, Property and will continue to remain in
place as a part of the redevelopment, The Notice of AUL includes specific provisions
including, protective measures to be undertaken under the supervision of an LSP: to
ensure that measures are undertaken to maintain the regulatory determination that
there is no significant risk to human health and the environment. Specifically, work
involved within the AUL Area Will include demolition, and utility installation. Work
proposed within this area of the Property, similar to any brownfields property, will be
subject to strict environmental, health and safety protocols to be em,pLoyed' duri'ng
demolition and construction activities.
5
Monica Gregoire
Staff Planner
October 29,2019
6, IrIalf fic
a. How will trucks be tagged/monitored to ensure that they are using truck
routes? - Board of Health Jurisdiction?
Ls onset Unlike the situation with trash, trucks using the Wheelabrator facility
which enables the regulation of trash and related regulations under Sections 31A and
31 B of MGL c,, I I I, the Board of Health does not have,j urisdiction to monitor or
regulate truck routes for Lot B on State Highways. However, Hill wood has committed
to ensure that trailer trucks Will turn left (north) from:, Lot B to the north toward
Bradford, and similarly, trucks routed to Lot B will be required to enter from the north
of the property from Route 125 (Boston Road in Haverhill to Osgood Street in North
An�doverl, both Route 125) to the Lot B entrances on Osgood Street. Such a routing
requirement can, be communicated by the Lot B facility operator to vendors using
trailer trucks to access of B, We suggest that s,uchl, a condition can be included within
a Decision of the Board. Moreover, in addition to a routing provision within a Board
Decision, the location of the Town's police station literally across the street will also
serve as an additional enforcement and deterrence measure.
Should the Board vote to approve the Project on Lot B, we would propose a
condition such as follows.
V All tractor trailer trucks exiting the facility on Lot B shall turn left (north) from Lot
B onto Osgood Street to the north toward Bradford, and similarly, trailer trucks being
routed to the facility on Lot B shall be required to enter from the north of the
Property from Route 125 (Boston Road in Haverhill to Osgood' Street in North Andover)
to the Lot B entrances on, Osgood Street. Such routing 'requirements shall be
communicated by the Applicant to:vendors using trailer trucks to access, Lot B
b. Annual traffic study year from occupancy?
Response: The MassDOT, through its state permitting process, will dictate whether
a traffic study after full occupancy should be conducted,
c. TEC states that, the Developer should took at the impact on other businesses on
Osgood as the Holt, Rd. approach will experience delays.
Response: The Applicant's Traffic Report did examine the potential traffic impacts
to users at Holt Road. Based on the analysis, the Holt Road approach already operates
at Level-o!f-se rvice (LOS) F in the morning, peak-hour periods for the existing and
projected no-build conditions and wit(continue to do so in the build condition,
Considering the free-flooring, channelized right-turn at this approach and the volume of
vehicles exiting Holt Road during the peak-holur periods, a, traffic signal would not be
warranted at this location. The traffic signal at the 16001 Osgood Street south driveway
should help to provide some gaps in the mainline traffic that wit[ allow left-turning
vehicles to exit from Holt Road. Langan will coordinate With Mass DOT to determine if
any improvements should be considered at this intersection.
6
SMOLAK & VAUGHANLLP
Monica Gregoire,
Staff Plamer
October 29,2019
d, Public transit is not sufficient., The Developer is seeking a, parking
reduction. What discussion has been held with the MVTRA/TMA?
Res ors The parking reduction special permit request is based upon the
Applicant's experience with operations, at other facilities and does not relate to any
potential mass transit or transportation demand management (TDM) measures, The
Applicant's representatives did attend a meeting with representatives of the
Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority (MVIRTA), including Joseplh Constanzo,
Administrator, and Jesus Guillermo, Assistant General Manager. As a part of that,
meeting, the MVRTA indicated it was difficult at this early stage to determine how
many employees wilt take the bus, and whether service,is needed all day or just during
indicated that currentLy,, very few employees at
the shift changes period. The MVRTA ind
1600 Osgood Street take, the bus to site, The MVRTA representatives indicated that
bus routes typically end by 6 pm but that the MVRTA could extend hours to
accommodate, depending upon the demand but,that demand Will not be able to be
gauged until the facility is operating. The MVRTA also indicated that as necessary, bus
routes will be modified based upon ridership projections at the;time of facility
operations on Lot B., We have also reached out to the Merrimack Valley
Transportation Management Association or Merrimack Vattley TMA) on October 251,
2019 to discuss the range of potential transportation demand managl n eme �t measures
for the Property, and the TMA representatives have suggested potential involvement
at, least 6 months prior to the commencement of operations.
Should the Board vote to approve the, Project on Lot B., we would propose a condition
0
such as follows.
"#. Transportation Demand Management: The following measures shalt, be
implemented as part of the Project on Lot B to encourage use of alternative modes,of
transportation,
a) Information regarding public transportation services, maps, schedules
and fare information shalt be posted in a central Location.
b) An informational packet shalt, be provided to employees of'the project,
promoting alternative modes of transportation.,
C) Secure bicycle parking shalt be provided.
d) Car-share spaces shalt be considered on-site."
Please contact me should you have any further questions.
sip le rty,
T
JohMnT', Sill 1, olak
JTS/
Enclosures
cc: Eitan Goldberg, Chair, Planning Board
Hillwolod Enterprises, LPV
1600 Osgood Street, LLC
7
1
0 i
Add a Unp ut)flux�,IoNintl uftne s �����bro � II�' ����'��� �-
hR� ��n • �euti R e Frrar,,, GuMu
HACU4MS50359-19 Op"wn Mae Ulm
CM st'st=
"�,Wz 1n,fYt�M«wr+^.+InAJN1..Il�ewrl"�.raW,w,..M.-r♦Me*a.'�.wr rw�mw*na �*"q�erC'*ar mruun+,�rsr*w+���+emu-�wr .w.
AM
SWUM VArk
pp +� rM•r�rr� .gip,��.y
In Program
l 1 �I�' �
topmo 2(11119-10-21 1,130Apro,.v
Constnidion AltamdenT n stnsdurd summory
ra Twat SuldkV
b �I
T C
a 01120
O -Wo 3 20 u
h M.
ti
1 710 71 6113d i , fit,vdwAwy am �
W
4
FreqLarscy,I
3 ( h
a
ArAUM,Operatinty ffskm(AG!L)t ( )
a mad or CAOSDUOMW equoswwt
" &MM11~0st
too" ON Sbwav,PANOft
lot ft"OM
.x
DOW
No pffiftam
Marut Sum
i
sl I
' TM fth"�ouW40 OdsmoMon ef
camuwl.wn of a d
14'i ,R 13p,8w GoOdIU4 lift
'Mn Oak*submaw b ft,WNW OM"
aka
Ml,,ax
/ M . i a .jap dons In l �
1 W2M1 9 MoUce of Prqxmmd Comtfueft or Aftation ON Abpod
,"so F*bml AV11" g4 DE/Akh
Notice of Pmpotsed Conshwflon or AWwWon-Off Airport
A e ,vo MOVIAla ill-'
Ofr'f K"105d,-Defslk RQfuirot'vces
il a)"41aow r ructo(�Dlff Foliti,lillind turtine it,u WiR, Tamrs(wfth INT Crai'm- RaFararma Y,,,210'11 R,2j
I M�w
stm-mi papi e ct s%unrnv.f'y
ON"nut"
2019-ANE-6075-4M Daft Accol 14M/2019
0440 Dou"k1w:
101mms lik,DO
pumm:Commol now
IQ/"19 21('1111 9"1 0- 2 1 V10 0'.
10MM19 `le.Q 1,191,�1 0.2 2 FG 113 1,
ft*gt Dmmub:
C*oAtnsdkn I At"nithm Inf*mu*tm 6tuftm SummrV
# 11 vw&oft—- swil to W.—
Natim oft CMAUUW" SbWw*TVpw Cma
Dwatiom lkwar" ftuammillamm Crana
If ftnw"fy I man"Id:is 007:a FM NOTAM
Vft*SdHWWO-nwh 06/01IMS W*TAH Flumbon
work Memo-&AA W32mu FCC Mun*m
MW ftawalmly awnex-now the--momma fbsm"Iraquft Sopersft Vol to tw Fm? n1w AMI
ra Awl 64 um On AM&*;;WX"i=mro*arww mme to mouk*4 phow;mmme it mA
J?It&pa oft*P&M Staft dw m"a
Staft Moo Fttd wM Sbu
Sbutum Da"Iff Proposed romenw van&
420 4V 43,66"N Aw in,tm
Longftuft 7Ld 7'4lA4*W Vdwftv OW
Um FAA VM Y"010.
tICAMMW bmatal NAD83 moujay(wayaw
SWS*FmWmiq
oft 47(aammu"PAMIED
Add Sp*dfic Req;mncy
Sbuch"twl"(AL, ISO(Inmm"foot) LOW ft" fth"
tunvnt H4W*(AGO f6bat"t(W)
*"r asum of aftwoff"or Sub"omwilft Me a"Twa x.
A61 hbbft Of M*ON"VbVVCWQ6
t mumm dotaft An t"moo""of oppaw
FuNumm Opwvft Ha%ft C"L)i ISQ(mat"t hot)
Cw vanshudlan equkWowt
MpTad 4bava as the
t vol A*A**MAU
R**mobad KwMnglUgMkW
Curr WA Pramad Sbuchim
other I
]ROU"t OWN
-04 t"ft%"$U0WfY~wkad any mrMod mM,
Dada"a"of prolpa"4 pmjw owdists,of dexvftort of
bWWkV*k*fa&Wra mnd On
I kina amaxv of a dWAxAm vwthwa%All 65 ft tW%mW assodwed ft twWm Is
NM
hU.Pol/omi2a.faa.fjovlceeioe/aamoYeFgrglmUonAcftn.jsp?acUwpstwwLocationFofm&RmUadD=092456&ro*mI 112
...........„germ .............
&AWn&*
For Office Use
Mawachusetts Department of Tranlspodation I -
AERONAUTICS DIVISION AMWA
,row a I,W 09 1 Airspace Review
Ile N FAA Fi (For refetlence only)
No6co is required by 780 CM odc of Manat;huscusl rcgulatkas)11.7.Hazw&to Air Navlgdion.Purstliant to M&ua4huntt;s Gqnval Low(MOL)Chapw
90,Section 35Bthc MaisDOT Aeronautics Division agrees to perform u,AIRSPACE ANALYSIS od render a,Mcfmmiatim for the pmjnt HOW below.
[Ust Nam Suffix First Nam Lan Nam! Suffix. First Name
L uteley Mac Kirschner Nalhan
(company Telephone company Talephow
843-276-6053 203-662-8771
Addrem city State zipcodo Add= city State ZipCodc
1166BawrrwnRoad Isle0flPalms SC 29464 555 Long Wharf Drive North Haven CT 06611
Sulte 200 Langen Englneoring
Email Floor
t y hI d. IEmil
JnW=hnw@1angan.=n
i Jill ii 1ANafton ciahlcle
Ell vation Data-
***Sporl town Is Mount Fleasent SC. Nearest city,statc: Now Andover MA
***Sponsor Representative town Is Now Haven,CT.
This form is In reference to the buildina(we below), Degree Minutes Seconds
Latitude 42 43 61.69
The project conalM of the demol(Wn of*4,400,000 of'of Wang I
buildIngs,aEandated parWng areas and site features.A*1331,3" 0 ww"W"moms 00040"*a&""Al W 000800 labd000
sf building,appmArnately 54 fiaet tal,will remain vdth existing Longitude 71 6 56.77
roof mounted solar modulm.7he construction of a weatern i I
DaWm MI NAD 83 or NAD 27
fadng,&11,297 ft by*720%*02305n of distributim wamhousq,, ...............
*105 ft tell,and associated,site foatures Including a water tarl
She elevation abol M814ft): 47 MSL
inick court retaining wage arid parking area are,proposed.The
ProOd also Inc4uldes the relocation and lnetaWoln of 13,636
ommd mounted solar modules to the norftrn third of'sft.The Maximum height above ground(ft): 105 AOL
a 0 N
Installation of two stan?dard overhead power line poles am W Maims clevation above M814ft): 152 MSL
located at N42*44M.87-"W711*07T5.12" &N42'044V2.92
W71"07TS,110
ExbUnig Building Proposed
Building
Comer I-N42043158-2611 W71JOW53.1811 1
N42"43'67.631"W71'0'P01.7W
Comer 2-N42*4VS.20"W71 W149.940 20
N4204346.13"W11"OW68-018
Co�mer 3-Wr4ZV67.7011 W71 10 W58.35" 3-
N42'14=1510 W711*0711 0.1 V
Comer 4-N4F4V47.060 WTI'006161.28* 4-
N4r43'44.28"w7iooroe.130
Required:Attaeli 81/2*11 1 inch iTmp(cS,USGS Quad Shiect)showlng location of'projoct
6X- i
Nearest Pub se Avlabon Facility: Lmwem*Municipal Akpott.
..........,.......... .........
AIRSPACE ANALYSIS Concludes the following:
Clusest Runway: Distance from R%Vcnd; feet Offset from RW CL:
0 Project violates MOL ch.90.358 by [Runway horizontal pluc-3,000%2 Statute!Milts,l5O'abovc Rw
[�Pmjcct violates MGL ch.90.35B by [Runway Approach Plant 3,00(yx1OW Ca20:1 slope]
[7 Project does not Violate Aeronautics Division Airspac Laws or Rcgs,
DETERMINATION:
Pemtit is rcquirod*punmant to MGL Ch.9035B,for []Runway Hoflw"tal Plano Runway Approach plane
®krinit is not required pursuant to MOL Ch-90.35B [3 No violations of Laws or Regs. ®C.`h.90 vlotationc 3tYagl
Additional coneems.
Q FAA Standards [:3 VFR Routc ®wildlife
[]Tmffic Patterns Noise Other
This dote mination is based on the foreign description of the proposed project including the lomion,hcight and elevation data provided by the Sponsor.Any
changes in the data provided to the Aeronautics Division frein that which is shown herein render will render this dotennination aull and void and will
neccssilatc it new request for review.
MmDOT-Acre: Title: Date:
................................. ... ..................... .... .. ..................................................._. ....... ................................................... ..... ..... . ....................................................
dPll111 %/'50M1G![1UM, , '.msrv�.tll<aR x�wawaawa.�R�w�.Officew�www.rwix.�ww,uvawrruUse�w wwmwwwwvrvwmmamwrmemm�mmwmmrvonwumowow�wammw... .. ,�,Yww�,.�w.,a w..�,,.�.um,r,. �...
MEN
On�
Massachusetts Department cif Transportation ForAERONAUTICS DIVISION ISI+I I`~
iM4*
I
AirspaceiEa
WmWd
MassDOT FNN Mho' _ For Wince orgy)
Nodocis required by 780 CMR(Coft of Massa ausetts acgulatauons)It.7.Hazudaa to Air NavWon.Fu rguaaaaat tag►Massachusetts achu Gencral L.aw(M L.)Caaa port
9 1600io a 3513,the MassDOT Amnnautics Divisi a;gae A]RSPACE ANALYS and render a detmninatlon for tk pmjcct listed below
LutName sluffix lei Name 1AAName suffix First Name
Khchner Nathan
Na
C Telephone COMMTc a ny
20 -
1
l State Z[pCodc Address Chy
166 Bowman Road Isle Of Palms 20464 5N Long Wharf Drive NoM Haven CT 06511
Lwgart Engineering
Email Fkw
mac.u(saMhIllwood.com Email
n lea an n.
Hdghtl1ga Ion PO
Spor
,aunt Pleasant SO. Newcat city : North Andover MA
Representative
—F. - Dogm Minutes Sccwds
Thi's form to In n4arence to the crone(see below).
`iM p l of th ' rim n oaf , j,, o f e ti tit � � � �M
000
buildlhoss associated parking areas and site features.A*133l333
Longitude iuiidin , Pp a 50.7T
��
roof ou d toter dtt� .7h construction of a western
facings11 *720 ft,:0W,W of distribution Datum E
AD 83 or n NAD 27
006 ft truck courts In ll features areaspaMng 1rt water rtl�r� SiteNON .
The elevation above,,MSL(ft): 47 l L
tell, raud ammiated site
re projed
W
also Includes ft relocation and Installation of 13,growxl mounted solar modules to Me,nofthem third of We.The Zlacimuwaau height above u ff)* t o AiL
kistallation,of two stand r linem navcSL :
197 MS
at '02.e a 1 '1 t2.
1 .11"'
EAsting BuildingBuilding
Corner I- 2'0 1 000153.1 ir 1-
0 '5 . 3" 10 1IJ
Carrier 2- 11 '48.2 1"' '4 .' 40 -
4 .1 3 *06W.0011
Oomer 3- " '57.70 1 ' M3 V 3- -
' .750 W`711007110,�1
142*4 ' .2 "W71007 8.130
The raa will be completedusing a an overall
height d1M.
aaal�d�.A i'� �"111ralu ������� � a""�auraaaa i tiara a�gjt
Nearest
Public-Use Aviation Facility: Lawrence Municipal Airport
� � � �.., wa�r� u��u fi..ar��W,��ur¢�a:,uo,.:n,Frm,�rreoi,Hrz+a r�r�w,rrr�a -���r���n���,.��,����,�,�„�M�,a„�,F�,w,��u,.�,.�,,.v�,,ww•w„�,..���,,K��„
***** *DO NOT WRITE EEI.OW THE FORM***
AIRSPACE ANALYSIS Concludes the fallowing:
Closest Runway: Distance from RWend. feet offset from Rw CL:
3
i
❑Prgcct violates MGL ch.90,35B by [Runway Horizontal Planc--3,000'X2 Statute Milcs,I50'above RWJ
❑Project violates MGL ch.90,35B by [Runway Approach Plane-3,00ft&Ow C;20:1 alope]
❑Project does not violatc Aeronautics Division Airspace Laws or Reps.
DETERMINATION:
❑Permit Is required*pursuant to MGL Ch.90,33B.for ❑Runway HQ>•2ontal Plane ❑ Runway Approach PIanc
❑Ponrirt is not requbw pursuant to Mil~.Ch.90.35B No violations of Laws or Rep. ❑Ch.90 violatiorp-- 'agl
Addititmal concerns:
❑ PAA Standards ❑ VFR Route ❑wildlifo
❑Traffic Patterns ❑ Noise [3 DtheT
This determination Is based on the foreign description of the proposed project including the location,hcight and clevatimi data provided by the Sponsor.Any
changes in the data providod to the Aeronautics Division from that which is shown herein tender wilt render this determination null and void and Vila
nocessilato a now request forrevicw
MassDOT-Acro: Titic: Datc;
......... .. .�......._..........__._.. �.........�._........._.... .-....-.._._.-..._-.............__....-..._..-- _.-_.._ ..._..-_..._.,_...........,..._........,.._..._..............................._...._....._..............._-- _.-.. _...._.. _-.._....... _..,...._.... _-.
.....,.
MassachusettsFor Office Use On!
nt of Traneportation
AERONAUTICS DIVISAirspace Review COMM&M
ION
MMSSDO
ROMIA-m- EA&f i F reference only)
Notice Is wired by 780 CMR(Code of Mamebusetts moul'ations)1 t.7,Ham to Air Navigation.Pursuant to MawchuscW Memel C OL Chapter
,S do B.tho M Acrona Di tors a to o AIRSPACEANALYSIS ndeterminationf j listed below.
SuffixLad Nium P�ir't NName, SU� P Name
1
Lfteyo Kirschner "
Company Telephone C Tolophono
843-2704MM 20M62V7
A city state 4pCodu Addras city tutu ZI
1156 Bowman Road fount Pleasant Sc 2 rt Drivel Now Haven CT 06511
roil Floor
mao.utsoyehillwood.com Emil
rddrachmr@Iangan,com___
tin +1 w t nyu
rhIs o I In r n t r a In Nearest sit r, tat:
northern third Alt a
The pmjeKg consists of the demolidon of*4A00j000 of Df existing
minutes o
buildings, rj ated and features, *1133o333
of building, mAm l 54 fe
et 1]' will remain I Latitude 4 4 .
roof mounted solar modules.The construction of a western
1105 ft tell,and associated,aft afte features Including,a water lank,
tnjok court,retelrtlrtg wells and parldnq areas are ptoposed.T ' N D or NAB 27
S ri mounted Includes relocation tion and Installation of 13,� the
solar modules to h northern third site,The Sf a l tlon above MSC . MSS,
LA
I' Ilea r of _°"standard areMaximum height above un ft 10 AOL
localacl at"N 71*0rD6,11"" Maximum oleva lon above MSL(i): 2 L
i nil BulMing Proposed
Building
Corn 1. 1 ,24" 1. " ."I' * �I
I"429'43'5?.63, 181° V1.7 "
Comer 3- 431E7.70,*W7 ° "66.3W 3
Comer 4-N42043'47.96"W7 1'6 I' 128"
x , au' ;Attar ] 11 Inch rya cg.USGS Qtmd Shcct)ahowing 1 t1on orpmjcct
Nearest Publio-Uss Aviation Facility: Lamence Municipal Airport
l / rr l0l/.Drf auwri 9,.rrvur rr ianrii n my v vy /....nrrpa Q urtruma..ir R'e.aturlYd.0 /n rrJtoU„!(l..i,Y/Ulll,lfll{.m,1J✓✓P pl lAmww,t v'rrmmcr.. ,rrv„�r✓ n 6.:a'rz ,r nr..r,.rrm ¢.rv.rrw.x.u;lvv,.
******************DO NOT WRITE 13ELft3W THE PORM**************** *
AIRSPACE ANALYSIS Concludes the following;
Closost Runway; Distance from RWmd. feet Offset from RW CL:
❑Projoct violates MOL oh.90.35B by [Runway Horizontal plaTw-3.0001X2 Statute Miles,ISO'above RVWJ
0 Project violates MGL ch.90,35B by [Runway.Approach Plane-3,QDD'x3.000' 20:I stops)
[�Prgcet does not violate Aeronautics Division Airspace Laws or Regs.
DIr`rERMINA71ON.
®Permit is requimd*pursuant to MGL Ch.90.35B,for ❑Rttttwayr Honzsntal Planc ❑ Runway Approach Plane
❑permit is not required pursuant to MGL Ch.+94,35B ®No violations of Laws or Rep, ❑Ch.90 violation=30'aSl
Additional eoncorns:
❑ FAA Standards [3 VFR Routs ❑Wildlife
C]Tt ffic Patterns ❑ Noisc ❑Other
This dcterniivation is based on the foreign description of the proposed project including the location,hcight and cicvation data provided by the Sponsor.Any
changcs in the data prouidcd to the Aeronautics Division from that which is shown herein render will render this determination null and void and will
ncccssilate a new request for mview.
MassDO7=Acro. Title: Date:
............................
HMMH
77 outhr Bedford Street
781.229.
www.hmmh.com
.com
October 19,2015
Mrs.Orlt Goldstein
Osgood Solar,LLC
26M Osgood Street
North Andover,MA 01845
Subject.- 1600 Osgood Bolen Project
Reference: HMIVI U Project m r Ply- 1 "
Deer Ms.Goldstein:
HMMH prepared the Federal AVIation Adnnini tioWs(FM),solar reference document'Technical Guidance on
SelIected War Technolofes at Airport"(November.201 )also,referred to as the FAXs Bolan Guide. you have
asked us to summarize the FAKs eu o"over the proposed solar project at 1600 Osgood Street.
As to airspace,Federal regulation Title 14 Part 77 establishes standards and notification requirements for
objects affecting navigable airspace. The proponent of any project that will physically Impinge on elrspaee
must notlify the FAA regardless of the project location or land ownership. Airspace Is defined as 200 feet above
&round elevation or higher,,and at lower heights In cloer proximity to alrport . Structures that commonly
trigger a FAA airspace review include buildings,communications towers,electric transmission lines cranes
s
used during consttrucdon,and wind turbines. Given their low proffle,solar panels typically do not require a FAA
airspace reviewer under pert 77. As for the proposed project,the solar canopies are only 15 feet above ground
level at their highest point and the roof-mounted panels are only 16 Inches above the existing roof level,wwhich.
Is lower than the surrounding 30-inch parapet and other rooftop equipment.
The F ''s interim Policy on the Review of Solar Energy System Projects on Federal ly-Obligated Aire was
published In the Federal Register In October 101 to provide specific guidance to airports on the FAA s
jurisdiction and impact standards for potential glare from solar projects. In the policy,the FAA.affirmed that It
has Jurisdiction to regulate potential glare impacts as part of its responsibliitles under 49 U.S.C.47107(a)1 )
and Sponsor Grant Assurance 2 Airport Layout Plan for any solar project proposed on the propel of a
Federal I bligated airport,which Includes most airports In the U.S, The FAA also clarified that It does not have
jurisdiction to regulate potential glare from projects located on n -alrport land where its authority is limited
to structure height.
In conclusion,the FARs jurisdiction r the proposed d Soler Project is Ilm d to physical Impingement
of airspace and does not Include glare given Its location off airport property. Because of the low profile of solar
projects,1 am confident that the project will not Impinge Into airspace. We understand that a formal
determination forthcoming eon the Massadiusetts Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division will
reach the serge conclusion.
Sincerely yours,
Harris MIller Miller&Hanson Inc.{d/b/a/1 II
0
Stephen .Barrett
Director,Climate&Ene
Cc:Dan Leary,PowwerOwners,LL