HomeMy WebLinkAboutConsultant Review - 660 GREAT POND ROAD 9/7/2007 Ippolito, Mary
From: Daley, Lincoln
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 12:53 PM
To: 'dan@dkengineering.net';Willis, Gene
Cc: Ippolito, Mary
Subject: RE: Emailing: 40705 Rolling Ridge Rev 09-07-07.pdf
Dan:
Thank you for submitting the revised plans to Gene for review and comment. I will not
place you on next week' s agenda until I have written confirmation from Gene stating that
he is satisfied with the plans. The drop dead date is tomorrow as I will require a day to
review the plans for compliance with the Watershed Special Permit Regulations. On a
related note, did you speak with the Conservation Department to correctly
identify/delineate the relevant wetland resource areas for the revised plan set?
Again thanks.
Lincoln
-----original Message-----
From: Dan Koravos [mailto:dan@dkengineering.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 12:33 PM
To: Willis, Gene
Cc: Daley, Lincoln
Subject: Emailing: 40705 Rolling Ridge Rev 09-07-07.pdf
Gene,
The attached plans address your comments as we discussed today. The
following is an explanation of how your comments were addressed:
1. please bring north prop 96 contour in driveway south approx 351 to
bring high point closer to Great Pond Rd.
The northerly proposed 96 contour was moved 35 feet to the south which moved
the high closer to Great Pond Road.
2. move prop 93 contour approx. 301 east and shorten drain pipe at
outlet to keep away from property line
The grading at the end of the proposed drainage pipe was reconfigured.
3. design a rip rap level spreader/energy dissipater at outlet
A rip-rap swale and level spreader is proposed at the drainage pipe outlet.
4. move catch basin to down gradient side of driveway entrance
The catch basin remains at the uphill side of the new driveway to collect
the runoff from Great Pond Road and eliminate flow across the intersection.
5. provide for a negative slope off Great Pond Road @ driveway apron
A negative slope is being created along the uphill curb return to the
proposed catch basin to direct runoff from Great Pond Road.
If you have any further comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you for your assistance.
Pagel of 3
Ippolito, Mary _ _.. ... _ . ._.__..._..__._._ _m_._mm_ _._.. _.........
From: . Daley, LincolnITw-m...
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 1:51 PM . °'
To: John Simonst
Cc: Ippolito, Mary
Subject: RE: [BULK] Final PB Prep
r
I
John:
Good comments and input. Please see my responses below (in red).
1. Final Agenda- can you e-mail me and the Board the final version. I could not find it in the package.
See attached agenda.
2. Ercolini Project - I think we are almost there. The engineer's letter is pretty good and detailed There
are a few additional things I would like to see:
. #1 - Engineer's Letter.
. I would like the engineer to make a stronger statement that the post-development impact is less
than the pre-development for all of the reasons noted in the letter. I will forward your comments to
the engineer and have them revise their letter.
In the second paragraph at the end there is a note regarding the use of fertilizers during
construction. I thought the restriction extended to the post-construction period. It should and I
will modify to condition to include the post-construction period restriction.
e There is no mention in the letter that the proposed operation and maintenance plan (which is very
thorough)is a best practice that will mitigate adverse impacts during construction. I will forward.
your comments to the engineer and have them revise their letter.
. #2 -VHB Letter
. I don't think it is nearly strong enough. I want them to say that the applicant used all pertinent
best practices and that the post-development impact is less than pre-development. I don't mind
them phrasing it that the "applicant's engineer has demonstrated that the post-development impact
is less than pre-development" or something similar. I will forward your comments to VHB and
have them revise their letter.
. #3 - Conditions
. I would like to tighten up the Findings of Fact to refer to the above and that the engineers have
demonstrated that the post-development impact is less than the pre and that the applicant is
utilizing all pertinent best practices. Good recommendation. I will modify the Findings of Fact.
o The monitoring conditions should be fairly tight here and we may want to bond this at a slightly
higher level than the typical watershed SP. I will re-examine the proposed monitoring and
maintenance plan and incorporate similar requirements/number of inspections in said section. The
bond amount for a, single-family home ranges from $2,000 - $3,000. Given its location and
potential impact: on the Lake, I have no problem increasing the amount to $10,000 or more.
3. Zoning Stuff- 114 Project
Do we have an updated covenant based on the last meeting? Yes, it is currently being drafted and
will be presented this evening for discussion. Essentially.. the additional restriction would prohibit
drive-through facilities for restaurants larger than 1,500 s.f gross floor area. The typical size of a
fast food restaurant ranges between 2,000 and 3,000 s.f. This would allow for smaller businesses
5/7/2008
Page 2 of 3
(Starbucks) who may require a drive-through,but effectively prevent a Wendy's from going in.
4. Other Zoning - any major issues that are still open?
Agenda Item#3 -RCG,21 Main Street project—We received the final review letter from VHB and
revised plans today. I am currently going through the plans to see if all comments have been incorporated
and writing a final review. I have a few comments that will need to be discussed this evening. My
comments primarily involve adding more details to the plans and clarifying the information presented.
The applicant is looking to close the public hearing this evening a asking the Board to render a decision. I
will recommend closing the public hearing and have the Planning Board direct staff to draft a decision for
the May 20th meeting.
Agenda Item#9—T-Mobile Wireless application has been continued to the May 20th meeting.
From: John Simons [mailto:johnlsimons @gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 11:59 AM
To: Daley, Lincoln; Ippolito, Mary
Subject: [BULK] Final PB Prep
Importance: Low
Lincoln and Mary,
A few last minute bits of meddling on my part re tonight's meeting;
1. Final Agenda - can you e-mail me and the Board the final version. I could not find it in the package.
2. Ercolini Project- I think we are almost there. The engineer's letter is pretty good and detailed There
are a few additional things I would like to see:
. #1 - Engineer's Letter
. I would like the engineer to make a stronger statement that the post-development impact is less
than the pre-development for all of the reasons noted in the letter.
. In the second paragraph at the end there is a note regarding the use of fertilizers during
construction. I thought the restriction extended to the post-construction period.
There is no mention in the letter that the proposed operation and maintenance plan (which is very
thorough)is a best practice that will mitigate adverse impacts during construcution.
. #2 - VHB Letter
. 1 don't think it is nearly strong enough. I want them to say that the applicant used all pertinent
best practices and that the post-development impact is less than pre-development. I don't mind
them phrasing it that the "applicant's engineer has demonstrated that the post-development impact
is less than pre-development" or something similar.
• #3 - Conditions
. I would like to tighten up the Findings of Fact to refer to the above and that the engineers have
demonstrated that the post-development impact is less than the pre and that the applicant is
utilizing all pertinent best practices.
. The monitoring conditions should be fairly tight here and we may want to bond this at a slightly
higher level than the typical watershed SP.
3. Zoning Stuff- 114 Project
e Do we have an updated cvenant based on the last meeting?
4. Other Zoning - any major issues that are still open?
John Simons
Cell: (978) 857-9740
5/7/2008