The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutConsultant Review - 386 GREAT POND ROAD 6/23/1997 06%23/97 15:50 N0.775 902 COLER COLAN NI0 U Z eNUIN- HS ANI"i 01 NTIRT-,c June 23, 1997 Planning Board c/o Mr. William Scott 120 Main Street North Andover,MA 0 45 RE: Engineering Re ew 386 Great Pond oad Special Permit Dear Mr. Scott: At your request, Coler Colantonio,Inc. has reviewed the plan for the above referenced project. It is our unders ding that we are to review the plans for compliance with the Zoning By-Laws requir .eats for projects in the Watershed Protection District. This lot was created prior to Oc ber 24, 1994 and therefore is subject to Table 2 of the requirements. The i.'oll ing documents were reviewed: s A plan entitl "Topographic Plan of Land in North Andover, Mass. Drawn for Douglas ly and Judith Zazula7 386 Great Pond Road prepared by Merrimack gineering Services dated April 24, 1997. ® A,cover left and support information,prepared by Wetlands Preservation Inc., Apri11 1997. We offer the following mments: I. The parcel is loca n Great Pond Road. No locus map was provided to assist in identifying the site I ation. The site is within the 250' Non-disturbance Zone as outlined in the regul ions for lots created prior to October 24, 1994. It is proposed to remove the existing pdc system,install a sewer pump system and sewer force main, enclose tun existing -port,modify the driveway pavement area, install a gas service, and conmruct a new ck and building addition, 2. The plans do not cle ly identify the size of the new addition or size of the new deck. The construction of y accessory structure or expansion of any existing structure in 101 Accord Park Drive 617-982-5400 Norwell,MA 02061-1685 Fax:617-982-5490 06/23/9"t 15:50 N0.775 903 the district shall no xceed 25%of the gross floor area of the existing structure. The information provid does not demonstrate compliance with this condition. It is unclear if the closu of the existing car port should be included in the building addition area and considered in the 25%requirement. 3. According to the c er letter, soil sampling has taken place but has not been forwarded to this o ce for review, Soil evaluations and soil permeability tests should be conducte for the roof leaching pit. The leaching pits should be detailed and the means of c veying the roof runoff to the leaching pit should be provided. 4. The proposed site a anges will improve the Town's desire to protect the purity of the groundwater wi e Watershed Protection District. We recommend installing the proposed sewer pu station on the east side of the house. This will provide better access for mainten ce. The pump station should be equipped with an alarm system to warn the home o er of any problems and the chamber should have adequate reserve storage to p vent overflows. The proposed sewer line appears to conflict with the existing d k. It is unclear if this deck will be rebuilt. 5. Erosion/siltation co of measures should be detailed and limits of protection should be shown on the pl . The locations of proposed stockpile areas should be shown on the plans. 6. The spot grades are ifflcult to read. It is unclear where runoff from the driveway is directed. We appreciate the opp pity to assist the Planning Board on this project and hope that this information is su ient for your needs. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, COLER&COLANTO IO,INC. John C. Chessia,P.E. xc Merrimack Eng erring Services NORSE NVIR NM NTAL .SERVICES, INC. 5, 3 Pondview Place Tyngsboro, Mass. O1879 TEL. 649-9932 FAX 849-7582 L NNIN BO �!'.. . March 13, 1998 Susan Ford North Andover Board of Health Town Offices North Andover, Mass. Re: 386 Great Pond Road Ms. Ford; Attached are copies of the soil evaluation for the above property as required by the Special Permit issued by the town for the construction on this lot. As you are aware, the percolation rate was determined at less than two minutes per inch at a depth of sixty inches. These results clearly indicate the soil is suitable for infiltration of runoff, either from the driveway area or roof area. An infiltrator concave plastic unit would likely be suitable for either use, or alternatively, a simple stone filled trench would be sufficient for the driveway runoff. Though the site conditions are favorable for the intended runoff recharge, I can't resist again noting that I believe that the infiltration of rainfall with nitrogen levels recorded at around .20 mg/I is of no benefit to the environment. Given the soils, proximity of the site to the reservoir, and topography, groundwater recharge is of no significant value on this site and is probably detrimental to environmental protection. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, i Steven Eriks 3��N of r s o EFi�KSE cC ``O' p REGISTE� SANITPP�� Douglas Ealy 1.� No....-_-_................ __ zOI'T10(1Wea(th - aDatp <•f1 of Massachusel_ N 14natd ver , (Massachusetts Soil Suitability �9-ssessment for On-site Sewage D-jSposaZ pe:~omnedBy: .......... `_'.r`z .__ ?�v '�o�,rt)Fre es Sar.Vices WImess,: B;r L-11—A -::\ r o 1e YT 6rekt /y)c� New G:)nsz-uction ❑ R°Pair Office Regis\^f Publis;ned Sol( Survey Available: No Q Yes ` Year Published ._. 5. Fublica;ier, Scaie �.:.. 5--0 • - .... ..... Sail tilap Unix .....1.'..`.'....... Drainace Class �...�... Seil Limm,a,iens ...__...._._........._.......:............... ................. Surficial Geolccic Repart Available: No Yes ❑ Year Published ........:......... Publicaticn Scale ......._....... Geclacic Material (NIap Unit) .......... ................_.............................................. . L_ndrarm ................................................................_ Flaad Insurance Rave Map: Above 500 year Ilcod boundary No ❑ Yes F W zPlin 500 ye_=� flcad boundary N a 77N Yes ❑ Wi:hin 100 year llcad boundary No Yes ❑ W� =ne 33 Na;iGnai Invent ary Nla (ii\ap unit) - bVatiands CcnserJancy Prcc;a,; itiiap (r ap u;,i,) . Curren: 141f=: FORM 11 - SOIL EVALUATOR FORM Page 2 On-site Review Dee Hole Number .......... Date:........... ..22 Time:.....-/.`..... Deep ........ ��•J � . ' Weather ..��.�.ny......... Location (identify on site plan) .........:................. ..... .. [. ........................ .. . . . ..................................... ........................................................ Land Use ................Q..../._..e:.�.............. Slope (%) .............'.. Surface Stones ..........................�N.4�................................... Vegetation ................... ...........c eIrK....................... Landform ..................6�-'-5. ..................................... ................ .................................................. . ............................................................................... Position on landscape (sketch on the back) �� dr Z J............................. ....... . .......... ............................. Distances from: _ Open Water Body ..�...�_ ..® feet Drainage way...!,..... .. feet Possible Wet Area >...L.GO feet Property Line Drinking Water Well .>J-.00 feet Other . DEEP OBSERVATION HOLIE LOG Depth from Surface Soil Horizon Soil Texture Soil Color Soil Mottling Other (Inches) (USDA) (Munsell) (Structure, Stones, Boulders, Consistency. °ro Gravel) lo 5 V-z A-), ,�olrles 1'5-c e0%'kelp/tl 16 pFLIA 5 yo �L6 YY�a�f�S I Parent Material (geologic) ........................w�u/9,S`1............................................ Depth to Bedrock: Deoth to Groundwater: Standing Waver in the Hole: ..�............ Weeping from Pit Face: ............ Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: ................... s'VJ.- rf A.-L -° IJ'.JI, LYt6."4Jt111.911 rQr"V1 Page 3 ' Determination for Seasonal High Water Table j Method Used: `I ❑ Depth observed standing in observation hole.._--_ inches ❑ Depth weeping from side of observation hole..___._ inches ❑ Depth to soil mottles .............._ inches ❑ Ground water adjustment .................. feet Index Well Number ................... Reading Date ......._...._._ Index well level ...__._...- Adjustment factor .................. Adjusted ground water level ..........................._........................... Death of Naturally Occurring Pervious Material Does at least four feet of naturally occurring pervious material exist in all areas observed throughout the area proposed for the soil absorption system? t If not, what is the depth of naturally occurring pervious material? Certification I certify that on �� 97� (date) I have passed the examination approved by the Department of Environmental Protection and that the above analysis was performed by me consistent with the required traini expertise and experience described in 310 CM 15.017. Sicnature D ate 07/15!97 14:48 NO.920 ®02 1 U 1 ? �N(jli'JWS ANCJ SCIENTISTS July 15, 1997 Planning Board c/o Mr. William Scott Town Hall Annex 30 School Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: Supplemental Engineering Review 386 Great Pond Road Special Permit Dear Mr. Scott: At your request, Coler&Colantonio,Inc.has reviewed the revised plan and supplemental information for the above referenced project. This correspondence follows the numbering format of our precious letter. The following documents were reviewed: e A plan entitled "Topographic Plan of Land in North Andover, Mass. Drawn for Douglas Ely and Judith Zazula" 386 Great Pond Road prepared by Merrimack Engineering Services last revised July 3, 1997: e A partial plan of the proposed addition. We offer the following continents: 1. No further comment. 2. The size of the addition has been clarified. A variance for an expansion of over 25% has been requested. 3. We would not recommend approving leaching pit design without soil testing. We agree that if the Board is not in favor of the project that testing is unnecessary. The size and location of the leaching area is up to the designer. We comment on the � design based on material provided, at this time our comments are as discussed in our previous correspondence. 101 Accord Park Drive 617-982-5400 Norwell,MA 02061-1685 Fax: 617.982.5490 07/15:97 14:48 NO.920 D 03 5 According to the cover letter, soil sampling has taken place but has not been forwarded to this office for review. Soil evaluations and sail permeability tests should be conducted for the roof leaching pit. The leaching pits should be detailed and the means of conveying the roof runoff to the Ieaching pit should be provided. 4. The proposed site changes will improve the t'own's desire to protect the purity of the groundwater within the Watershed Protection District. Reportedly the sewage pumping station can not be relocated. The pump station should be equipped with an alarm system to ward the home owner of any problems and the chamber should have adequate reserve storage to prevent overflows. We understand the NADPW will a review the design. The proposed sewer line appears to conflict with the existing deck. It is unclear if this deck will be rebuilt. 5, Erosion/siltation control measures have been added to the plan. The locations of proposed stockpile areas should be shown on the plans. j 6. The spot grades are difficult to read. It is unclear where runoff from the driveway is directed. This issue has not be addressed. We appreciate the opportunity to assist the Planning Board on this project and hope that this information is sufficient for your needs. If you have any questions please do not J hesitate to contact us. t Very truly yours, COLER&COLANTONIO,INC, S ohn C. Chessia, P.E. a xc Merrimack Engineering Services y r6 1f