HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/05/2024 - Letter to Amy Maxner (Conservation Department) - - i
CIVIL ENGINEERS,SURVEYORS&LAND PLANNERS
80 Montvale Ave.,Suite 201
Stoneham,NIA 02180
ASSOCIATES, Ihic 781-279-0180 www.rjoconnell.com w.rj oconnell.com
February 5,2024
s. Amy Maxner
Town of North Andover
c/o Conservation Commission
120 Main Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Regarding: Construction Project Review Comments of January 2,2024
North Andover Mall Redevelopment
North Andover, MA
17070.00
Dear Ms. Maxner:
l .J O'Connell & Associates (RJOC)has summarized below your comments raised in your email
correspondence of January 2"d and January 51h as it pertains to your review of the Notice of Intent
documents associated with the redevelopment of North Andover Mall and a site walk performed
on January 5 th with Mr. Thomas Liddy of Lucas Environrn.ental.
Outlined below is a summary of your comments followed by a response-
Comments from Email correspondence of January 2,2024
Comment 1: Can you confirm that the properties across Rt. 114 in Lawrence are on the abutters
list?I cannot tell from the Lawrence list who awns what and they generated the list from their
Map 3Lot 1, which I have no idea where that is.
Response: The City of Lawrence used the property identified on their Assessor's Map 3, Lot 1
to prepare an abutter's list which identifies properties located within 300 ft of the property
located on Map 3, Lot 1. The properties located within 300 ft of said lot include the following:
Map 18, Parcel 1
Map 18., Parcel 2
Map 18, Parcel 3
Map 18, Parcel 4
Map 19, Parcel 5
These property owners were provided written notice of the Conservation Commission meeting
scheduled for January 10, 2024.
a a a (a w .:b 1 &a Y Y ' 11 .diV o :"h gyp" e,�.F.e r w 4 :"u
02-1(Joc
Comment 2:Erosion control is noted to be straw wattle. The Commission requires staked 12
bark mulchfilled sock backed by staked entrenched silt fence.
Response: The wattle detail as shown on Dwg. C-5,titled Miscellaneous Details I has been
revised to be 12" diameter in size and filled with biodegradable compost material backed by a
staked entrenched silt fence.
Comment 3: The plan set should have an x-section for the erosion control described above.
Response: Cross section details for the compost wattle with and without siltation fencing have
been added to Dwg. C-5 titled Miscellaneous Details I.
Comment 4: IVWs need to be 1,000 sf or greater to be jurisdictional under the Bylaw. Is the
IVWF-series big enough, seems like it's too small.
Response: You are correct in your assessment. The wetland flag series "F" is less than 1,000 sf
in area and as such Dwg. C-2 titled"Grading and Drainage Plan"has been revised to add a note
that this wetland series is non-jurisdictional. In addition, the 25' No Disturb, 50' No Build and
100' wetland buffer zones were revised within the vicinity of wetland flag Nos. A-78 & A-79.
Comment 5: 1 know that your plan notation states that the contractor shall manage stockpile
areas, but the Commission ask that the plan show potential stockpile areas and detail for their
protection.
Response: RJOC. has revised Dwg. C-I titled"Demolition and Erosion Control Plan"to include
approximate locations of soil stockpile areas, with a wattle barrier installed around the perimeter
for the purpose of minimizing the migration of soils into wetland sensitive areas.
Comment 6: Not sure if dewatering will be required, but probably at some point? The
Commission will require a dewatering spec on the detail sheet and areas on the plan where
dewatering will be performed
Response: RJOC does not anticipate the contractor will need to perform dewatering activities as
the project will not require deep excavations to be performed for foundation and/or utility
installation. In the event dewatering activities are required to be performed, RJOC has identified
on Dwg. C-1, Demolition and Erosion Control Plan the approximate locations of temporary
dewatering basins. A detail of the temporary dewatering basin is provided on Dwg. C-8 titled,
"Miscellaneous Details IV".
Comment 7.- The Riverftont alternative analysis and associated calculations need to distinguish
between previously developed and previously degraded riverfront area. The DEEP has been very
clear that there is a distinction and has ruled that lawn, grassy areas or any areas that support
vegetation are not degraded So, if areas are not degraded, 310 CMR 10.55(4) applies.
Response: RJOC's wetland consultant, Lucas Environmental has indicated that updates to the
riverfront alternative analysis is not being requested at this time.
Comments from January 5,2024 email correspondence:
Comment 1: Eliminate A-51 and connect A-52 to A-50.
Response: RJOC has revised Dwg. C-2 titled 'Grading and Drainage Plan"to eliminate wetland
flag No. A-51 and connect wetland flag No. A-52 to No. A-50.
Comment 2: Wetland E connects to Wetland A making it B VW. I've marked up how to show it on
the plan.
Response: RJOC has revised Dwg. C-2 titled"Grading and Drainage Plan"to incorporate the
wetland notes for the "A" & "E" series as shown on a wetland sketch plan received on January 5,
2 024.
Comment 3: We hung a new C-12 and swung tied the location. It is 16 6 ft from C-I I and 35.0 ft
from C-13.
Response: RJOC has revised the location of wetland flag C-12 based on the swing tie
dimensions provided.
I trust the responses provided to your comments will meet with your approval such that you can
recommend to the Conservation Commission that antrder of Conditions be issued for said
project. Upon your review of the responses provided herein, should you have any questions
and/or comments, please do not hesitate to give me a call to discuss.
Sincerely,
RJ O'CONNEI TES
t
Brian P. Dundon, PE
Vice President
cc: Normand Martin
Jim Lamp
Tom Liddy
Jean Enright