HomeMy WebLinkAboutConsultant Review - 1849 GREAT POND ROAD 7/21/2013 Egglestori Environmeiital
July 22, 2013
North Andover Planning Board
1600 Osgood Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Attn: Judy Tymon, Town Planner
RE: Stormwater Review
Great Pond Rd, Map 35, Lot 4 (Dehullu)
Dear Ms. Tymon and Board Members:
Per your request, I have conducted a technical review of the May, 2013 Watershed
Special Permit Application packet submitted by Dehullu Homes for the above-referenced
project. Included in the materials I received and reviewed were the following:
■ Watershed Special Permit Application, Map 35, Lot 4, Stephen Dehullu,
Petitioner.
■ Variance and Watershed Special Permit Site Plan (I sheet), Assessor's Map 35,
Parcel 4, prepared for Applicant Steve Dehullu by William G. Holt, PLS, RS, SE
and dated August 12, 2012.
My primary focus in this technical review is on the overall stormwater management
approach and design concepts used in the project, as well as its compliance with the
Town of North Andover's zoning requirements for Watershed Protection Districts, the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Storinwater Management
Standards and Regulations, and the North Andover Wetlands Bylaw. It is my
understanding that a Notice of Intent (NOI) application for the project has been or will be
filed concurrently with the Conservation Commission, and that an application for a
variance has been filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals. My review is aimed at
assisting all three town boards in their respective reviews of the project.
The proposed project entails the construction of a single family home on an undeveloped
lot on the north side of Great Pond Road, portions of which are in the Watershed
Protection District as well as within the buffer zone of Lake Cochichewick and a locally
jurisdictional wetland. The project is entirely within the Zone A for the Lake
Cochichewick public water supply, defined by the Massachusetts Drinking Water
Regulations (310 CMR 22.02) as including the land area within a 400 foot lateral
distance from the tipper boundary of the bank of a Class A surface water source. The lot
is presently wooded and undeveloped. Drainage from the property is in a southwesterly
direction,toward the isolated vegetated wetland and Lake Cochichewick.
32 01.d Frarnii-q#iam Rd Wit 2 9 SLidbut-y MA 01776 tel 508.259.1137 fax 866.820.7840
De1w11_U., Nvlap 35 1-ot 4,, Storniwater Rcvicvv
July 22.. 2013
The proposed project entails construction of a single family home with an attached
garage and deck, driveway, utilities and lawn, all of which is shown on the plan as being
within the Non-Disturbance Zone of the Watershed Protection District. A portion of the
lawn and driveway are also shown on the plan as being within the 100-ft Conservation
Zone.
My comments on the proposed plan are outlined below:
1. According to the plan, the subject property was created prior to October 24, 1994,
therefore the provisions in the Zoning Bylaw related to the Conservation Zone do
not apply.
2. The boundary of the Non-Disturbance Zone should include the 100-ft setback
from the locally jurisdictional wetland.
3. The project calls for construction of a new permanent structure within the Non-
Disturbance Zone which, according to Section 4.136(4)(C) of the Zoning Bylaw,
is an allowable use only by Special Permit and only after a variance has been
granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. In an apparent incongruity, Section
4.136(4)(f) of the Bylaw calls for any special permit for a new permanent
stricture to require that such a structure be constructed outside the Non-
Disturbance Buffer Zone.
4. The project also entails a change in topography or grade and vegetation removal
within the Non-Disturbance Zone; both of these activities are allowable only by
Special Permit.
5. Per the Special Permit Requirements of the Watershed Protection District, a
written certification by a Professional Engineer or qualified hydrologist or
hydrogeologist is needed, stating that there will not be any significant degradation of
the quality or quantity of water in or entering Lake Cochichewick.
6. The application also requires proof that there is no reasonable alternative outside of
the Non-Disturbance Zone for the proposed activities, this was not included in the
application materials I received.
7. The project proposes to use infiltration to manage stormwater runoff from the project,
however it is not clear whether the soils on site are suitable for infiltration as no soils
data was included with the application.
8. Design details are needed for the proposed stormwater management structures and
erosion controls. The plan refers to a detail on Sheet 3 but only Sheet 1 of 1 was filed.
9. It is not clear from the proposed grading that the driveway will drain to the infiltraton
trench.
Delmllu, leap 35 [,ot 4, Storiiiwater 12evievv 3
July 22, 2013
10. The proposed utility lines should be run under the driveway to the maximum extent
possible in order to minimize the area of vegetation clearing, particularly in the area
closest to the lake.
11. The plan calls for the use of native vegetation where possible. As with other
projects in the Watershed Protection District the Planning Board may want to
request a Landscape Plan.
12. Both the limits of approved clearing and the restriction on lawn care products
should be permanently recorded on the deed to the property.The total impervious
area allowed within the Non-Disturbance Zone should also be permanently
restricted.
13. Architectural plans for the proposed house were not included in the application
packet. It should be noted that runoff from metal roofs (or roofing elements)
cannot be infiltrated in a Zone A.
14. Ongoing maintenance of the proposed stormwater management strictures should
be addressed.
15. A Construction Sequence aimed at minimizing the total area and duration of soil
disturbance should be provided.
I appreciate the opportunity to assist the North Andover Planning Board, Conservation
Commission, and Zoning Board of Appeals 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
r
4 � --
Lisa D. Eggleston, P.E.
C: Jennifer Hughes, Conservation Coordinator
�
�
Egg�estor"i E nv ~ron vn e r'ita I
-.5 1
September �
11, 2013
�
North Andover Board
l6OOOsgood Street
North Andover,MA U|045 �
Attn: Judy Tymon, Town Planner �
RE: StoonwaterQovion
Great Pond Rd, Map 35` Lot 40
/
Dear Ms. 7vnxon and Board Members:
In follow up to my Jnk/ 22, 2013 comments on the above-referenced project l have
received and reviewed the August 29, 2013 response letter, revised plan, and additional
dncuoonuiuiioo provided by William G. l{o1L The revised submittal uudiaIaotozi|»
uJdo:moem most of my previous cocozocuto. I will reiterate, however, that the proposed
\oudxuopo area within the vvaLcrmbcd district should be minimized, and that in order to
minimize the need for watering and chemical application, all plantings should be species
native to ]Baacx County. I'm not sure that the plantings nuUod for on the loodmoopc plan
(e.g. forsythia) meet this criterion. The nnU should also bcwell aerated and uonininu/oz of
6-inches of topsoil should bcprovided. l also recommend that the O&M rngxizsozcnto
shown nnthe detail plan be included in some touo in the documentation passed nn future
boruoop/necu, as the design plans typically are not.
(J000 again, I appreciate the opportunity to unoio1 the North Andover 9|auoinQ Board,
Conservation Commission, and Zoning Board of Appeals with the review of this project
and hope that this iulhzmutinu is suitable for your needs. 91uaao {be} free to contact me if
you oz the applicants have any questions regarding the issues addressed herein.
Sincerely,
EGG[ESTON ENvUl0NMENTAL
Lisa D. Eggleston,P.E.
C: Jennifer Hughes, Conservation Coordinator
/
�
320dFremingKamRdUniL29 Sudbury MA 01776 tei5OB.I59.1137 fax 866.820,7840
Item 6—We have prepared an alternative analysis plan which was presented to the ZBA as well as a
descriptive narrative supporting our request for a variance, and they have been submitted to the ZBA as
well as the Planning Board.
Item 7—We were granted permission to perform the soil testing in the location closest to the street.
On August 16 we logged the soils at that location, it is depicted on the design plans. Our results were
consistent with the neighboring lots results. No changes in our design were required. The soil report
has been submitted to the Panning Board and ZBA.
Item— 8 Design construction details have been provided.
Item—_9 We revised the proposed grading to and added notation to the drive to indicate that the drive is
to slope toward the infiltration trench.
Item— 10 We moved the utilities approx 10' towards the right and shifted the erosion control (limit of
work and disturbance) as well.
Item— 11 We have prepared a Landscape Plan which specifies native species. A list of allowable
planting for the annuals and garden and water feature have been provided to allow some latitude for the
planting areas to be tailored to the buyers desires.
Item 12 The applicant is agreeable to the suggested conditions and deed restrictions.
Item 13 Architectural plan had been submitted as part of the ZBA application, copies have been
provided to the Planning Board.
Item 14 Maintenance of the infiltration trench and roof runoff infiltration chambers is included on the
Construction detail plan.
Item 15 A construction sequence was included as part of the NOI filing with the Conservation
Commission. Copies of the NOI have been provided to the Planning Board and ZBA.
We trust that this information will adequately address the comments raised in the review letter,
however, should you have any comments, concerns or questions,please contact us.
Respectfully;
William G. Holt, PLS,RS, SE
Land Surveying and Design
CONTACT: Tele: 978-257-4576 email: bill gholtgaol.com