HomeMy WebLinkAboutConsultant Review - 1915 GREAT POND ROAD 2/28/2006 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF WATERSHED SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAW
Site Plan Title: Lot iGreat Pond Road VHB No.: 09280.14
Site Plan Location: Lot 1 Great Pond Road,North Andover,MA
Applicant: Great Pond Reality Trust,40 Lowell St.,Peabody,MA
Applicant's Engineer: New England Engineering Services,Inc.,60 Beechwood Dr,North Andover,MA
Plan Date: December 22, 2005 Review Date: 02-28-06
The plan was reviewed for conformance to the 1972 Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw(last amended
May 2004), The Applicant has submitted the following information for VHB's review:
• Application for Watershed Special Permit with Statement of Water Quality Impact from the
Engineer dated December 22,2005.
• Drainage Report dated December 22, 2005.
• Site Plan(3 sheets)dated December 22, 2005.
• Notice of Intent dated December 22,2005.
The following comments note non-conformance with speck sections of the Zoning Bylaw or
questions/comments on the proposed design and VHB's recommendations/suggestions.
Town of North Andover Zoning Bvlaw
1. (4.136.3.c.ii.1) Change in grade is proposed and is allowed by special permit. (no action required)
2. (4.136.3.c.ii.2) Vegetation removal is proposed and is allowed by special permit. (no action
required)
3. (4.136.3.c.ii.3) A new permanent structure is proposed and is allowed by special permit if a variance
has been granted by the Board. The Applicant states that a variance has been requested for the
construction of a new structure within the non-disturbance zone. Has the variance been granted by
the Zoning Board of Appeals?
4. (4.136.3.c.ii.5) Surface and sub-surface discharge is proposed and is allowed by special permit. (no
action required)
5. (4.136.3.c.iii.4, 5) Condition#77 of the Order of Conditions issued by the North Andover
Conservation Commission specifies the use of slow release low-nitrogen lawn care products and
prohibits the use of pesticides and herbicides within 100' of the Bordering Vegetated Wetland. (no
action required)
Post-its Fax Note 7671 Date #of
To pages®
-�, From
Co./Dept. Co.
Phone# Phone
Fax#
\C:\DOCUME^1\mippolit\LOCALS-1\Temp\0928014GreatPondRoad-Lotl.doc `�
General Comments/Standard Engineering Practice
6. VEB has noted inconsistencies in the plans including the following. The Applicant should review
and revise as necessary.
• The outlet structure detail includes a 15-inch PVC pipe. This pipe is listed as RCP in the
Drainage Report.
• The overflow pipe for the infiltrator system has a length of 35-feet on the detail and 40-feet
in the Drainage Report. The outlet elevations for the pipe are also inconsistent.
• The dimensions on the Storm Tech SC-310 detail do not match the dimensions shown on the
Drainage Plan or in the infiltrator calculations in the drainage report.
Drainage Comments
7. The Applicant should identify the limits of the drainage areas on the Post Development Drainage
Plan,
8. It appears that the flow path for area A-1 is large. Using the Post Drainage Development Plan,VHB
estimates the length of the flow path to be closer to 280 ft. The Applicant should review and revise as
necessary.
9. It appears that the surface area used for the cumulative storage volume calculation shown in the
drainage report for the Pond P1 infiltrator system is large.Using the dimensions shown in the Storm
Tech SC-310 detail,VHB calculates the surface area to be closer to 810 SF. This would indicate that
the storage volume of the infiltrator system calculated is smaller than shown in the report. The
Applicant should review and revise as necessary.
10. Based on the post development contour lines,it appears that the Swale starting in the northeast corner
of area A-1 and ending at the detention pond at the south east corner of the site is not routed
correctly. It appears that the water in this Swale will flow down through area A-4 and off of the
eastern side of the site. The Applicant has it routed through the detention pond P-2 for drainage
calculation. If this runoff flows offsite without passing through the detention pond, it would change
other quantities including the post development drainage flow rate. The Applicant should review and
revise as necessary.
It is recommended that the Applicant provide WRITTEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments
contained herein.
Reviewed by: Date:
Courtney Sulerud
Civil Engineer—Highway and Municipal
Checked by: Date:
Timothy B.McIntosh,P.E.
Project Manager—Highway and Municipal
2
\C:\DOCUME-1\mippoht\LOCALS-1\Temp\0928014GreatPondRoad-Lotl.doc
r
IOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD
ENGINEERING REVIEW OF WATERSHED SPECIAL PERMII
FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE
IOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAW
Site Plan Title: Lot 1Great Pond Road VHB No.: 09280 14
Site Plan Location: Lot I Great Pond Road,North Andover,MA
Applicant: Great Pond Reality Trust,40 Lowell St.,Peabody,MA
Applicant's Engineer-: New England Engineering Services,Inc.,60 Beechwood Dr,North Andover,MA
Plan Date: March 8,2006 Review Date: 03-21-06
The Applicant has adequately addressed VHB's comments and no further engineering review is
required at this time. Please refer to the final report below for additional detail.
The plan was reviewed fbr conformance to the 1972 Iown of North Andover Zoning Bylaw(last amended
May 2004). The Applicant has submitted the following information for VHB's review:
• Letter to Town of North Andover dated March 9,2006 responding to VHB comments
• Drainage Report dated December 22,2005 with revision date of 3-7-06.
• Site Plan(3 sheets)dated December 22,2005 with revision date of.3-8-06.
The following comments note non-conformance with specific sections of the Zoning Bylaw or
questions/comments on the proposed design and VHB's recommendations/suggestions
Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw
1.. (4.1363.c u.1) Change in grade is proposed and is allowed by special permit (no action required)
Addressed
2. (4 I36.3 c.ii 2) Vegetation removal is proposed and is allowed by special permit. (no action required)
Addressed
3 (4.136:3..c ii_3) A new permanent structure is proposed and is allowed by special permit if a variance has
been granted by the Board The Applicant states that a variance has been requested for the construction
of a new structure within the non-disturbance zone Has the variance been granted by the Zoning Board
of'Appeals? The Applicant has not specifically answered this question. However,the Town of
North Andover informs VHB that a variance has been granted,. As such,the comment is
addressed..
4.. (4 136.3.c ii 5) Surface and sub-surface discharge is proposed and is allowed by special permit. (no
action required) Addressed
5 (4 136.3 c.iii 4,5) Condition#77 of the Order of Conditions issued by the North Andover Conservation
Commission specifies the use of'slow release low-nitrogen lawn care products and prohibits the use of
pesticides and herbicides within 100'of the Bordering Vegetated Wetland. (no action required)
Addressed
I
\'Mwvatr\W,02 8014\dots\memos\0929014 Gr L11ondRoad.WlLfollowupl.dot
General Comments/Standard Enjgineerin2 Practice
6. VHB has noted inconsistencies in the plans including the following I}re Applicant should review and
revise as necessary.
• f he outlet structure detail includes a 15-inch PVC pipe. This pipe is listed as RCP in the
Drainage Report. Addressed
• The overflow pipe for the infiltrator system has a length of 35-feet on the detail and 40-feet in
the Drainage Report Ilie outlet elevations for the pipe are also inconsistent Addressed
• The dimensions on the Storm Tech SC-310 detail do not match the dimensions shown on the
Drainage Plan or in the infiltrator calculations in the drainage report. Addressed
Drainage Comments
7 The Applicant should identify the limits of the drainage areas on the Post Development Drainage Plan
Addressed
8. It appears that the flow path for area A-I is large Using the Post Drainage Development Plan,VHB
estimates the length of the flow path to be closer to 280 ft The Applicant should review and revise as
necessary.. Addressed
9 It appears that the surface area used for the cumulative storage volume calculation shown in the drainage
report for the Pond P1 infiltrator system is large. Using the dimensions shown in the Storm Iech SC-310
detail,VHB calculates the surface area to be closer to 810 SF Ihis would indicate that the storage
volume of the infiltrator system calculated is smaller than shown in the report The Applicant should
review and revise as necessary. Addressed
10 Based on the post development contour lines,it appears that the swale starting in the northeast corner of
area A-1 and ending at the detention pond at the south east corner of the site is not routed correctly.. It
appears that the water in this swale will flow down through area A-4 and off of the easteur side of the
site. The Applicant has it routed through the detention pond P-2 for drainage calculation. If this runoff
flows offsite without passing through the detention pond,it would change other quantities including the
post development drainage flow rate f he Applicant should review and revise as necessary. Addressed
Reviewed by: Date:
Courtney Sulerud
Civil Engineer-Highway and Municipal
Checked by: _ bate: _
Tiruothy B NOntosh,P E.
Project Manager—Highway and Municipal
2
\\N1—atNe\09280.N\d(xs\mem)s\092SOI4-GreatPondRuxd-lotl-fullowupl doc
NEW ENGLAND G SERVICES
March 9,2005
Lincoln Daley
North Andover Planning Board
400 Osgood Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Re: Lot 1 Great Pond Road,North Andover
Watershed Special Permit.
Dear Lincoln:
Enclosed are revised plans and drainage reports for the above referenced property. The
changes made to the plan address the issues in the memo from VHB dated February 28,
2006. The issues have been addressed as follows:
1. The drainage report has been revised to reflect a 15"PVC outlet pipe from the
outlet structure.
2. The length of the infiltrator overflow pipe has been revised from 40 feet to 35 feet
in the drainage report.
3. The dimensions of the storm tech chambers have been revised on the plans and in
the drainage report.
4. The drainage areas have been delineated on the pre and post development
drainage plans.
5. The flow path for area A-1 has been revised. The flow path previously included
the distance within the detention pond which has been removed. This flow path
was chosen because it is the longest flow path within area A-1.
6. The surface area of the infiltrator system has been revised and is in fact closer to
800 square feet than what was previously depicted in the report.
7. If the swale is not constructed properly then water could flow over drainage area
A-4 and not pass through the pond. One of the requests by the conservation
commission was to add a stone wall on the east side of the swale. This wall will
help keep water from flowing out of area A-1. To insure that the swale works
properly construction supervision will be required as well as an as built plan and
certification by the design engineer that the swale is constructed properly and the
water is flowing as designed.
60 BEEC HWOOD DRIVE-NORTH ANDOVER, MA 01845-(978)686-1768-(888)359-7645- FAX(978)685-1099
The above revisions to the drainage report did not affect the outcome of the report. The
pre and post development flows do not change.
If you need further information or clarification,please don't hesitate to contact this
office. I will be at your March 21,2006 meeting to discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
( C cf: `
Benjamin C., Osgood, PE.
President
�
Town of North Andover
Office of the Conservation Department 0 to �
Community Development and Services Division
�
�
400 Osgood Street
North/\ndover ��aaamc6onet�UI845 �
/\|iuon�� &{u]Iay ' Telephone(97O)688-953O �
Fax (978)688-9542
Cnoservadon/\Jzub�shntor . .
�
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 31, 20U6
TO: Yv?ornTnnnlitn, Planning Assistant
CC: Lincoln Daley, Town Planner
FROM: /\\isaxl McKay, Conservation Administratooki?__,
SUBJECT: Applications For Planning Board Meeting of February 72006
Per your request dated January 23,2006, the Conservation denartmeuofferethe following comments
on the projects no referenced below:
1060 Osgood Street-Drive-Up Window to Existing Pizza Parlor
The Conservation Department offers no comments since the proposed work bo not jurisdictional
pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act or the North Andover Wetlands Protection Bylaw.1-7 Ellis Court- Raze &In-Kind Redevelopment of a 7-unit residential building
The Conservation Department offers no comments since the proposed work is not jurisdictional
pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act or the North Andover Wetlands Protection Bylaw.
Lot 1 Great Pond Road
On December 28,2O05, the ApplicantGreutPond Realty Trust,filed a Notice o{Intent application
and site plan entitled "Site Plan-Lot 1 Great Pond Road", dated December 22, 2005 with the
Conservation Department for the construction of a single-family dwelling, driveway, pool,patio,
atormwahcr devices, and stonewall with associated grading and appurtenances within the buffer
zone toa Bordering Vegetated wetland /D\/YV\. The wetland resource areas are also within 40O' of
[akeCocbic6ei*ick.
The Conservation Coznudmoioo held its first public hearing ou the project ouToou/azyI1, 20Uh.
Following that hearing, a request for a continuance was subn-dtted by the applicants engineer to the
public meeting date of February 8,2O06. The proposed project iudzere6oxootiOoodcrxevicw'bythe
ConaervodooCoznznimeion.
�
This lot has had some previous history vvidbdheCnnoexvabooCoznunioabon. Ibis history and current �
comments and review recommendations are provided below:
BOARD or APPEALS^xx'm*| amLo|wo688'9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 nuxc711688'9540 PLANNING 688-9535
�
|
• The Commission issued an Order of Resource Area Delineation (ORAD) for the wetland resource
area on the adjacent lot (known as lot 2) on September 10, 2003. The Order is valid for a period of
3 years and may be extended (2X) for a period of one year each. Therefore, the ORAD issued for
the wetland boundary shown is still valid.
• Prior to the issuance of the ORAD, the site was reviewed under a former filing (242-626) in which
work had never commenced; the delineation was significantly different at that time than what
was approved under the ORAD.
• Because of this, the approved ORAD was a result of extensive field/wetland review by Epsilon
Associates and Pat Seekamp of Seekamp Environmental.
• Both Pat Seekamp and Epsilon submitted review letters in support of the current delineation.
• However,the ORAD noted that additional off-site wetlands were identified,but not confirmed.
• The former Administrator also stated in an attached letter to the ORAD that the 100-foot buffer
zone from the identified (but not confirmed) resource area may extend onto the subject property
and that during the site development permitting process, the off-site wetland and applicable
buffer zones should be required to be depicted on the plan.
• Upon recent field review by myself, an additional off-property resource area was identified
upgradient of the lot (to the north on the Angus Realty Trust property) as previously noted. The
submitted plan does not depict this resource area or its associated buffer zones,which would fall
onto the property. Plans are currently being revised by the Engineer to show this wetland
resource area.
• After an extensive review of the in-house files and after a conversation with Pat Seekamp, I am
comfortable with the general wetland boundary locations as approved in the ORAD. However, a
flag by flag wetland review could not be conducted properly since many flags where either
missing in the field or not numbered.
• The site is extremely disturbed with a stripped topsoil layer. Pockets of surface water were
evident and prominent throughout the site, which would be indicative of an extremely high
groundwater table.
• All conservation setbacks are being met as proposed.
• Proposed drainage structures/features include swales, a roof drain infiltration system, deep
sump catch basins,sediment forebays and a wet detention pond.
• The existing drainage flows in a northwest to southeast direction towards the wetland on the
adjacent property as shown on the drainage plan(sheet 3)
• Drainage calculations were provided for pre and post run-off conditions for the 1, 2, 10, and 100-
year storms.
Questions/Concerns/Recommendations:
• drainage swale capabilities (specifically, are they designed to capture and direct the flows to the
intended retention/detention systems in accordance with the drainage flow patterns);
• is a 2' separation from groundwater evident in the stormwater units for adequate infiltration;
• Dewatering-will be necessary and extensive during construction if approved;
• No buffer zones are depicted on plan from lake/associated BVW(if any), should be shown;
• EC's should be shown along Great Pond Road to further protect the lake;
• Concerned about on site infiltration since groundwater table is high;
• Although 1 house lot and stormwater management policy is not required to be met under the
regulations, I recommend escrow to be set up for a drainage review (separate from the Planning
Board /VHB review).
• I also recommend that the overflow pipe from the infiltration system (which breaks out at the toe
of the slope) have a small rip-rap apron for dissipation;
• Previous meeting recommendations for the ANRAD filing recommended that all old wetland
flags be torn down and removed during the NOI phase for house development. I agree with this
recommendation, since old flags not relevant to the approved delineation are still prominent to
the site and add some confusion;
® Further, the ANRAD filing recommendations state that the flow on the lots gentle slope is in a
somewhat defined area and should also be addressed during the development phase by depicting
the flow pattern on the plan. The Engineer has included this information on the drainage plan;
• I recommended that the wetland line be refreshed and renumbered where needed and suggested
a quick re-review of the boundary once the old flags were taken down and the new flags are
refreshed. The engineer
• I also recommended that a stone wall, fencing, or other means of protection along the 25' no-
disturbance zone upgradient to wetland flag EA26-EA28.
At this public meeting for the proposed project, the Commission voted unanimously to have the
applicant set up escrow in the amount of $500 for an outside drainage review. Since that time, the
department has received drainage review comments from Lisa Eggleston (attached hereto for your
information and convenience). To date the engineer has not submitted revised plans to address the
additional off-site wetland resource areas, other administrative/Commission comments and the
comments relative to the drainage review. However, it is expected that these plans will be received
by the end of business Wednesday February 1,2006 for the meeting of February 8,2006.
Please let me know if you need further information in this regard.
24 OG 12: 57p Eggleston Environmental 5784439262 P. 1
EGGLEsToNENYiRONMENTAL
January 24, 2006
North Andover Conservation Commission
400 Osgood Street 0Z
North Andover,MA 01845
Attn: Alison McKay 31AN21. 2006
RE: Stormwater Management Review NOIRTH iaNDOVER
Lot I Great Pond Road 1'pNSFRVATION CO3MMJ,9SJ0t,!
Dear Alison and Commission Members:
Per your request, I have conducted a brief technical review of the proposed development
of Lot I on Great Pond Road in North Andover with respect to stormwater management.
The materials I have received and reviewed to date include the folio-wing:
Drainage Report, Lot I Great Pond Road, North Andover MA, prepared for Great
Pond Realty Trust by New England Engineering Services Inc. and revised through
December 22, 2005.
Site Plans, Lot I Great Pond Road,North Andover MA, 3 Sheets, prepared for Great
Pond Realty Trust by New England Engineering Services-Inc. and revised through
December 22,2005.
It is my understanding that, due to its size, this project is not subject to the requirements
of the stormwater management and flood storage standards (Section IV) of the North
Andover Wetlands Bylaw or the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and Stormwater
Management Policy. The project is, however, within the Lake Cochichewick watershed
-area. I have therefore focused my comments on the overall stormwater management
concept for the site, and its potential hydrologic and water quality impacts to wetland
resources. My comments are outlined below:
I- In general, the project as designed largely maintains existing drainage patterns
and provides for drainage across the site from upgradient properties. It also
provides for attenuation of peak runoff flows to pre-development rates.
2. While detailed infiltration/impervious area calculations were not provided, the
plan appears to maximize onsite recharge through the Stormtech infiltration
chamber system to which roof drainage will be directed. Infiltration could be
fn-then enhanced by the removing the proposed bituminous berm along the
western edge of the driveway and grading the pavement to allow overland sheet
flow toward the vegetated swale. This would also eliminate the need for the deep
sump catchbasin at the base of the berm.
3. "Nater quality treatment of site rwioff (primarily solids -removal) 1vould 'be
provided through the vegetated swales, sediment forebays, and detention pond
proposed. Givem the project's proximity to Lake Cochichewick, I suggest that the
55 OLD Caici-iRaw SuDBui?YAV 0.1776 rju/rAv978,443.9262
n 24 GG 11 : 35a Egg l estt on Environmental 3784439262 p, 2
ct 1 r-at t'otxi toad. "fochnical i;o iew
i,�urtt"Y
24, 2006
use of road salt, fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides on the site should also be
limited.
4. tangoing maintenance of the proposed drainage structures, including mowing of
the vegetated swales and periodic inspection and cleaning of the sediment
forebays, detention pond and infiltrator units should be addressed.
5. Provision should be trade, through drainage easements or otherwise, for
preserving the drainage ways through the property over the long-term.
I appreciate the opportunity to assist the North Andover Conservation Commission with
the review of this project, and hope that this information is suitable for your needs.please
feel free to contact me if you or the applicants have any questions regarding the issues
addressed herein.
Sincerely,
EGGLESTON ENVIRONMENTAL
Lisa D. Eggleston,P.E.
C: Ben Osgood,New England Engineering