HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - 498 CHICKERING ROAD 12/7/2012 UNTRESS AssociATES
Lunt1scu pe .Architecture & Lind Planning
Friday,December 07,2012
Judy Tymon
Town Planner
Town of North Andover
Planning Department
1600 Osgood Street
North Andover,MA 01845
Re: Lowell Five—498 Chickering Road
Dear Judy:
I have inspected the installation of the landscape, irrigation and site lighting at the new Lowell Five
located at 498 Chickering Road in North Andover.
The final plans prepared by our office include the following:
1. L-1 Landscape and Planting Plan April 27,2102
2. L-2 Landscape and Lighting Details April 27,2012
3. L-3 Lighting&Photometric Plan April 27,2012
The landscape, irrigation and lighting as installed is in substantial compliance with the approved plans
and meets the intent of the design prepared by our office.
Thank you for your time and consideration, and please don't hesitate to call with any further questions
or concerns.
Sincerely,
Huntress Associates,Inc.
CkAvl�k-
Christian C.Huntress,RLA MA 1178
President
17 Tetivksbnrl,Street-Andover,Ablassachusetls ph. 978.470.8882 fi. 978.470.8890
Egglest®n Environmental
March 26, 2012
North Andover Planning Board
1600 Osgood Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Attn: Judy Tymon, Town Planner
RE: Stormwater Review—498 Chickering Road
Dear Ms. Tymon and Board Members:
Per your request, I have reviewed the February 27, 2012 Special Permit Application for
packet for the above-referenced project. Included in the materials I received and
reviewed were the following:
• Application for Site Approval, Lowell Five, 498 Chickering Road, prepared by
Merrimack Engineering Services, Inc. and dated February 27, 2012.
• Project Drainage Report, Proposed Bank Facility, 498 Chickering Road, prepared
by Merrimack Engineering Services, Inc. and dated February 16, 2012.
• Site Plan (5 Sheets), Proposed Bank Facility, 498 Chickering Road, prepared by
Merrimack Engineering Services, Inc. and dated January 20,2012.
The proposed project is a bank facility to be constructed on the site of a former Mobil gas
station. The project site currently has no drainage infrastructure, and runoff from the site
flows overland to the northeast, toward Franklin Street. As proposed, the project will
result in a net decrease in impervious cover on the site and will include a drainage
collection system with deep sump catchbasins to collect runoff. The closed drainage
system would discharge to a grassed Swale extending into and terminating within the
Franklin Street right-of-way.
My comments on the application are outlined below:
1. In accordance with the Site Plan Review requirements, the proposed plan will not
increase either the rate or volume of runoff from the site. It will concentrate the
discharge at a single point within the Franklin Street ROW;however it appears to
be at a suitable location given that it is immediately adjacent to an existing outlet
from the Town drain in Chickering Road. (I presume, therefore, that that portion
of Franklin Street will remain a paper street.)
2. The addition of deep sump catchbasins and the outlet swale will also provide
some degree of water quality treatment of the flow discharged from the project
site. Provision should be made for periodic maintenance of these facilities on an
ongoing basis.
32 Old Framingham Rd Unit 29 Sudbury MA 01776 tel 508.259.1137 fax 866.820.7840
498 Chickering Road, Technical Review 2
March 26, 2012
3. The project site is subject to a Sensitive Use Restriction on the Deed, presumably
due to subsurface contamination from the former gas station. Among other things,
the restriction calls for engineering controls to prevent the migration of vapors
and/or liquids containing Hazardous Materials into any underground utilities or
stormwater ponds, including vapor installation systems, vapor barriers, sealed
sumps and the like. It also calls for specific measures to be taken in any common
areas, including gardens, yards and open space areas. No such control measures
are identified on the Site Plan for the proposed project, e.g. with respect to the
drainage infrastructure and the proposed landscaping, and there is no reference on
the plan to the Sensitive Use Restriction.
4. Erosion and sediment control measures employed on the site during construction
should also take into account the possible contamination of exposed soils.
5. There are no gutters or roof drains shown on the project plans, therefore it appears
that roof runoff will sheet off the building directly to the ground below. To the
maximum extent possible the roof runoff should be directed toward pervious
ground surfaces where it can infiltrate, rather than running across the parking lot
to the closed drainage system.
6. The proposed project calls for sprinklers and drip irrigation to maintain
landscaped areas of the site. Consideration should be given to using a cistern to
capture roof runoff for reuse on the site.
7. 1 note that the architectural plan calls for copper roof elements on the proposed
building. The Planning Board should be aware that recent studies have shown that
when exposed to acid rain, the runoff from copper roofs can carry levels of ionic
copper that are potentially toxic to aquatic life. Filtration of the runoff through
natural soils or through iron filings will generally convert the ionic copper to a
less toxic form.
I appreciate the opportunity to assist the North Andover Planning Board 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
t
Lisa D. Eggleston,P.E.
o
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 2,2012
TO: Judy Tymon
FROM: Gene Willis
CC: Tim Willett
RE: Lot#498 Checkering Rd. flan of land
am receipt of plans, sheets 1 to 5, by Merrimack Engineering Services
dated Jan 20, 2012for a Proposed Dank Facility at the above address. I offer
the following comments:
1. The existing 3/' water service to be abandoned must be terminated at the
main.
2. All proposed drains should flow to DiMH1
3. ®MH 1 should be a deep sump manhole
4. The proposed FES drainage outlet should be relocated from DMH 2 to
outlet from DMH1 with the swale extended and transverse to the slope.
5. There should be a rip rap berm across the end of the proposed outlet
swale.
6. There should be a flared end w/trash rack at the inlet to the existing catch
basin on the north side of Franklin St.
7. There is no detail showing the proposed work and finished conditions in
the area of rip rap and pipe end tying into the existing catch basin on the
north side of Franklin St.
3. The proposed new 126 contour is not shown.
CHU
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 3,2012 comment#2
TO: Judy Tymon
FROM: Gene Willis
CC: Tim Willett
RE: Lot#498 Chickerin8 Rd. Plan of land
am receipt of plans, sheets 1 to 5, by Merrimack Engineering Services
dated Jan 20, 2012for a Proposed Bank Facility at the above address. I have
the following questions:
1 . What will the velocity of stormwater discharging from the outlet of the
proposed drainage system be during a 100 year event?
2. Will this create scouring in the swale?
3. Will there be a need for energy dissipaters, check dams, etc. in the swale
to prevent scour?
"SACKu
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 2 , 2012 comment #3
T : Judy Tymon
FROM: Gene Willis
CC: Tim Willett
RE: Lot #498 Chickering Rd. Plan of land
am in receipt of revised plans, sheets 1 to 5, by Merrimack Engineering
Services dated April 11, 2012 and the hydraulic model dated April 12, 2012 for a
Proposed Bank Facility at the above address. I offer the following comments:
1. The project design uses land labeled as Franklin Street. The applicant
must demonstrate his legal rights to use the land as proposed. If the
Town owns the fee in the land, I believe an easement granted by the
Board of Selectmen must be obtained.
2. The property owner must enter into an agreement to maintain the
proposed drainage swale in perpetuity.
3. Hydraulic modeling
a. The model has been run using the Storage-Indication plus
translation routing. The Dynamic-Simultaneous Method should be
used.
b. The catch basins and drain manholes have been modeled as
reaches; they should be modeled as ponds with culvert outlets to
account for headwater and inlet restrictions.
c. Grate inlet calculations for CB #1 should be provided to show a
capacity of 1.27 cfs without any bypass onto Chickering Rd.
4. The proposed contour 130 around CB #3 should be shown.
5. Currently the Town plows Franklin St. and leaves the windrow at the end
of the street. Provision for snow storage must be shown. Perhaps by
moving the swale to the east. This may impact the current use of the land
by the abutter to the north on Chickering Road.
6. There should be riprap at the proposed FES outlet equal to at least 10
times the pipe diameter.
7. The proposed grading at the forebay and inlet to the existing catch basin
in Franklin St. must be shown. There is a 4.5'cut from contour 124 to the
proposed FES inv.=118.49
Page 2
04/26/12
8. The proposed trash rack at the inlet to the existing structure on Franklin
St. must be removable. A detail must be provided.
9. The engineer must specify the use of a 100% Kentucky Bluegrass seed
mixture for the proposed drainage swale.
10. There should be clean outs at the end of roof drain lines.
With regards to the requirement for a stormceptor, I agree with Hancock's
comments but feel the deep sump manhole @ DMH 1 will remove additional
sediment. If the property owner enters an agreement to maintain the swale
from the outlet to the inlet in perpetuity, then a stormceptor will not be necessary
in my opinion.
For NPIDES reasons and for the ability to visually monitor the outflow from
the property, I am not in favor of hard piping the proposed drainage into the
existing catch basin. I offer no opinion as to the legal rights to the use of the
land in this area. It is the applicant's responsibility to verify his legal right to
construct the plan as designed.
TOWN OF �JORTJ I ANDOW'P,
FAVISION OF 1-11-J131 A(- WORKS
384 OSGOO 1) SIR 1,111" NORT1 I A N DOVER, MA SSMA 1USETTS 0 1845-2909
I k 42°T m®n, Judy
From: MERRENG @aol.com
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2012 12:04 PM
To: lisa @egglestonenvironmental.com
Cc: Tymon, Judy
Subject: Lowell Five
Attachments: OPERAT-1.DOC
Dear Ms Eggleston
In accordance with the discussion I had with Judy Tymon of the Town of North Andover Planning Board, the following is
our response to comments issued by you in your correspondence to the Board dated March 26, 2012:
1. No Comment required
2.Atty Lavoie is preparing a document that provides for maintenance of the drainage system by the owner of the property.
Also see Operation and Maintenance (O&M) plan we have mailed to you. It is referenced on the plan as well.
3.We have added a reference to the sensitive use restriction and underground structures have been designed to inhibit
vapors from entering them. See O&M plan as well.
4. The owner will have an LSP on site to direct testing and handling of soils during construction (see O&M plan) by the
contractor.
5.Roof drain system and gutters added to the plan.
6.The owner has elected to not use a roof cistern on site for irrigation of the landscaped areas
7.The planning board has evaluated the amount of copper designed on the building and elected to keep the design intact
with the copper.
Please do not hesitate to contact me, should you have questions or comments on the above, or after you receive and
review the revised plans, calculations and O&M plan. I appreciate your consideration on this project
Stephen E. Stapinski
Merrimack Engineering Services
66 Park Street
Andover, MA 01810
(978)475-3555
(978)475-1448 FAX
merrenq@,aol.com
Please note the Massachusetts Secretary of State's office has determined that most emails to and from municipal offices and officials are public records.For more
information please refer to:http://www.sec.state,ma.us/pre/l)reidx.htm.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
1
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 9, 2012 comment #4
TG: Judy Tymon
FROM: Gene Willis
CC: Tim Willett
RE: Lot #498 Chickering Rd. Plan of land
am in receipt of revised plans, sheets 1, 2,3, 4,&5, by Merrimack
Engineering Services dated May 1, 2012 and the hydraulic model revised
calculations dated April 30, 2012 for a Proposed Bank Facility at the above
address. I am also in receipt of an e-mail from Merrimack Engineering dated
5/6/12. Listed below are the engineer's comments in that e-mail. My responses
to them are printed in bold italic font.
1. Atty Lavoie has determined that Franklin Street is Private at this location
and we have revised the plan to reflect same. He is preparing a report that
indicates this (Mobil) property owner has the right to enter into the utilities
including the storm drainage system, at this location and will submit that
to the Board as a separate document.
ok
2. Atty Lavoie will prepare a document that details the property owner
maintaining the proposed drainage swale in perpetuity upon approval of
the plan by the Planning Board.
The O&M plan submitted has the wrong address. It stipulates the tenant
is responsible for long term maintenance of the swale; the property owner
should be responsible. This plan should be recorded in the property deed
at the registry of deeds.
3. We are mailing both of you a copy of the Dynamic-Simultaneous Model
and the analysis has the catchbasins and manholes modeled as ponds.
There is also a calculation indicating the capacity of CB1 Grate.
The hydraulic model has a total runoff area of 1.339 acres pre
development and 0.844 acres post development. These areas should be
Page 2
05/09/12
the same. Catch basin 1 & 2 should be placed in a depression to allow for
at least 0. ' of head.
4. The proposed 130 contour was shown. It is not next to the rim of the
catchbasin but about 25' from it toward the bank. I am sure this was an
oversight in the review.
The proposed rim elevation at catch basin #3 is 29.9 and falls between
proposed contour 130 and 132. Another proposed contour 130 around CB
#3 still needs to be shown.
5. We have revised the plan to relocate the swale further to the east and the
use of the land is not inhibited by the land owner (insurance company)
abutting the swale. There is sufficient room to stockpile the snow at the
end of Franklin Street. We also updated the plans with the conditions
existing 4/30/12 as an inspection of the property yielded the fact that the
Insurance Co did some work early winter and this spring at the site.
The plans revised on May 1, 2012 show the same location of the swale as
was proposed in plans revised April 11, 2012.
6. We have added the rip rap requested to the plan although our calculations
show it is not needed. We added a rip rap swale detail to the plan.
ok
7. We have provided a grading detail at the forebay and catchbasin inlet.
The proposed grading at the inlet to the existing catch basin in Franklin
St. is unsafe and unsustainable. It shows 4.5 foot cut in 12 feet from the
edge of the existing pavement for the driveway on Franklin St. The toe of
the slope ends at the FES and exceeds 3:1. The slope is excessive and
must have a leveling area before the entrance to the flared end. A guard
rail may be required. The design needs to be resubmitted
8. We have added a detail to the trash rack facility making it removable
ok
9. We have specified that the swale be planted with 100% Kentucky
Bluegrass.
ok
DIVISIOJINII Of" 1-11-J1.31-11C, MA"U"N'O
384 6::1 GOOD sS,L`REFIT S011 TH NDO It,R, 1 SSA(,,M.jsF,1„1.' M845 2909
Page 2
05/09/12
10. Per my conversation with Gene the cleanouts at the end of the roof
drain are not necessary as cleaning can take place by accessing the
drains at the downspouts and there is a overflow on each downspout
however we did add 3 line cleanouts to the plan.
ok
Y0 W N 01 1\1()RTI I A N D()V I
11-)[VrISI(I")J\� OF 1-11,JBI-A."', WORKS
38 4 ()SGOOD STREFTNORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSE"T'J'S 01845- 909
yy v Y
t
C1 M N'IONk'
May 11,2012
Re£# 120310
Judith Tymon,Town Planner
Town of North Andover
Planning Department
1600 Osgood St.
North Andover,MA 01845
Re:498 Chickering Road
North Andover,MA
MassDEP RTNs 3-3454,3-26053 and 3-26327
Dear Ms.Tymon:
to
The manager of the Park Street Redevelopment, LLC, Louis P. r., a s a asked noted
prepare a brief overview of the environmental work that is proposed at this
above, this property is a disposal site per MassDEP regulations known as the Massachusetts
Contingency Plan or MCP. These regulations are codified at 310 CMR 40.0000 et seq, and are
intended to provide a roadmap from notification through final closure at locations where releases
of oil and/or hazardous materials have occurred i.e. "disposal sites." This location is classified as
a Tier 11 disposal site, meaning that it is within the lowest category of perceived risk based on
MassDEP numerical ranking within the MCP.
The MCP does not use prescriptive cleanup standards that must be met to achieve final closure.
Instead, it uses risk as the determinative factor for deciding question of "how clean is clean
enough" at a disposal site. In fact,the MCP allows three separate ways to measure and quantify
risk. The selection as to which method is used is a matter of professional judgment for the
Licensed Site Professional (LSP) of record for the disposal site and his/her client. Some of the
factors involved in that decision-making process include the affected media, exposure routes,
receptors and the complexity of the disposal site.
The three methods provided by the MCP to characterize risk include the following: Method 1,
which is a comparison to published concentrations by MassDEP that by definition meet the
criteria for no significant risk in both soil and groundwater; Method 2, which allows
modification of Method 1 standards based upon leaching characteristics of the soil and
contaminant(s) at a particular disposal site; and Method 3, which is a quantitative derivation of
two'indices i.e.the General Hazard Index(HI)for non-carcinogenic contaminants and the Excess
Lifetime Cancer.Risk((ELCR)for human receptors exposed to contaminants that are considered
carcinogens based upon available literature. Method 3 is by far the most complex of the three
approaches, but it allows the greatest flexibility to incorporate site-specific information such as
routes of exposure, exposure point concentrations, and expected receptors. A condition of no
_vR_ ........_.
213 Elm Street
Salisbury,hIA.01952
978-963-6669—Pas:978-463.6679
infaCstnnnons2l e.com
SIMMONS
tnm•:r:.r.lvnn..1:.
significant risk is demonstrated when the cumulative Hazard Index is less than 1 and the ELCR
is less than 10E-5 (1 out of 100,000).
Releases at 498 Chickering Rd. involved both oil (gasoline) and certain heavy metals including
arsenic that was found in soil near a former underground waste oil tank. The LSP of record at
that time, Steven Charron, used a Method 3 to characterize risk to human health, public safety,
public welfare, and environmental receptors at this disposal site. With regard to gasoline
releases,he concluded that several historical releases of gasoline had occurred from the prior use
of underground storage tanks (USTs) and/or dispensing equipment between 1932 and 2004. Soil
and groundwater showed residual petroleum related contaminants extending fiom the former
USTs onto Route 125. Additionally, no attempt was made to lower the reported arsenic
concentrations in the area of the former waste oil UST by additional soil removal
The LSP chose to limit any potential future exposure by using an Activity and Use Limitation or
AUL. An AUL is a voluntary restriction of certain property uses to prevent future exposure to
particular receptors.In this instance,the AUL requires that the building footprint and/or a barrier
of asphalt remain in place to prevent dermal contact with soil contaminants. Residual
contaminants in groundwater did not require further response actions since there were no current
or foreseeable exposure pathways to that media. Future uses that are inconsistent with the AUL
included residential use,use a school,agricultural activities,and any activity that would be likely
to result in exposure to soil via dermal.contact,ingestion and/or inhalation.
AULs generally provide that future activities that will involve disturbance of soil beneath a
protective barrier must be done under an LSP's supervision. These provisions call for work to be
done in accordance with a Site Specific Health and Safety Plan and a Soils Management Plan.
These provisions are intended to ensure that: 1) workers are apprised of the risks and proper
procedures to be followed when working with contaminated soils at a waste disposal site and;2)
remedial wastes generated from these activities are properly managed. With these oversight
provisions in place, redevelopment of disposal sites with AUL's occurs routinely throughout the
Commonwealth.
With regard to the subject property,my firm has been retained to provide LSP oversight services
to NES, the site contractor. The scope of this work includes: 1)preparation of a post Response
Action Outcome (RAO) Release Abatement Measure Plan; 2) preparation of a Site Specific Site
Health and Safety Plan; 3) development of a Soils Management Plan and 4) on-site supervision
during excavation activities. All soil removed from this disposal site will be managed under an
LSP Bill of Lading that will be submitted to MassDEP at the conclusion of the work
In summary, the subject property is a low risk disposal site where permanent closure has been
reached. The property is proposed to be redeveloped as a bank. The scope of work will involve
disturbance of contaminated soil below the existing building footprint and asphalt pavement
during construction. This work will be done under an LSP's supervision in accordance with the
Obligation and Conditions as provided within the original AUL as recorded in Book 11260,Page
.r..._�.��_.-.�.._.._.._._---.._M.__�.....�,.......,_.�.�....._..,.�._.-...._... 2r3 Elm Street ,....w.....,_.,�..,.....�_�.................._._..�,...z-._
Salisbury,r1A 01952
978.463-6669—fax:978.463.6679
1nfous1mmons21e.com
S NINIC)iti'S
fir.u,..1i..rar,xn,r•o-.
298 of the Northern Essex Registry of Deeds. The AUL will remain in place at the conclusion of
the construction activities.
I trust that the above provides a brief overview of the MCP process, particularly as this affects
disposal sites where an AUL has been used as a risk management tool. Please feel free to contact
me should you have any questions about Simmons Environmental,Services,Inc.'s involvement in
this project or the MCP process in general.
Very truly yours,
William A. Simmons,LSP JD
n 213 Elm Street.,,,.Y_.._....__..,._...,...vr_..,.-..n.„.�_,.,.....r.�_...._._.._{.,_...�..._-_........e
Salisbury,NIA 01952
978-463-6669--fix:978-463-6679
info @simmons2re.wm
OORT14
44ya
��ACblU
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 21, 2012 comment #5
TO: Judy Tymon
FROM: Gene Willis
CC: Tim Willett
RE: Lot #498 Chickering Rd. Plan of land
I received a package from Merrimack Engineering on 5/17/12. Items still
outstanding from my review#4 are printed below. My comments on the
engineer's response are printed in bold italic font.
3. The hydraulic model has a total runoff area of 1.339 acres pre development
and 0.844 acres post development. These areas should be the same.
There was no revised pre and post development areas plan accompanying
the supplemental calculations dated May 15, 2012. The post development
area has been reduced to 0,.844 acres from the originally calculated 1.339
acres. The design engineer should contact me to explain this reduction.
7. The proposed grading at the inlet to the existing catch basin in Franklin St. is
unsafe and unsustainable. It shows 4.5 foot cut in 12 feet from the edge of the
existing pavement for the driveway on Franklin St. The toe of the slope ends at
the FES and exceeds 3:1. The slope is excessive and must have a leveling
area before the entrance to the flared end. A guard rail may be required. The
design needs to be resubmitted.
The revision does not adequately address the issues raised above. There
is no level area provided before the proposed inlet FES. This will cause
the FES to clog over time. The proposed side slope is still at 3:1 and there
is a 3.7' cut proposed from the edge of the existing paved driveway to the
inlet FES. Public safety has not been addressed.
Eckert Seamans Cherin&Mellott,LLC TEL 617 342 6800
Two International Place FAX 617 342 6899
lEkWNS I Floor www.eckertseamans.com
Boston,MA 02110
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Robert W.Levy
617.342.6832
rlevy @eckertseamans.com
May 21,2012
Louis P.Minicucci,Jr.
Park Street Redevelopment,LLC
231 Sutton Street, Suite 1B
North Andover,MA 021845
Re: 498 Chickering Road,North Andover,MA
Dear Lou:
You have requested that I review the legal rights you have in and to Franklin Street
adjacent to your property located at 498 Chickering Road,North Andover,MA. Based upon
your investigation, you have confirmed that the North Andover's Town Clerk's Office has
verified that Franklin Street is a private way and has not been accepted by the Town of North
Andover. I am further informed that a portion of Franklin Street is unimproved and as such is a
paper street.
Pursuant to Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 183, Section 58—the so-called
"Derelict Fee Statute"—as a general proposition,the owner of property abutting a private way
also owns to the center of the way. Furthermore,pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws,
Chapter 187, Section 5,the owners of real estate abutting a private way who have by deed
existing rights of ingress and egress upon such way, shall have the right by implication,to place,
install or construct in, on,along,under and upon said private way,pipes,conduits,manholes and
other appurtenances necessary for utilities, subject to limitations provided for in the statute.
I hope this explanation is helpful in connection with your use of the property.
If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Robert W.Levy
RWLIvar
(K0471956.1)
URBELIS&FIELDSTEEL,LLP
155 FEDERAL STREET
BOSTON,MASSACHUSETTS 02110-1727
Telephone 978-475-4552
THOMAS J.URBELIS Telephone 617-338-2200
e-mail tju a uf-law.com May 29, 2012 ��qq Telecopier 617-338-0122
Ip
Judy Tymon, Town-Planner
Town of North Andover
1600 Osgood Street ` ^
North Andover, MA 01845
NORTH ANDOVER
Re: 498 Chickering Road L PLANMNG DEPARTMENT
Dear Judy:
You informed us that the Planning Board has an application for a Site Plan Review
Special Permit. The applicant is proposing to use an abutting paper street (Franklin Street) for
stormwater structures—grass swale, catch basin, forebay—to fulfill the requirements within Site
Plan Review Zoning for mitigating stormwater. The applicant's attorney wrote the attached
letter stating that he is informed that a portion of Franklin Street is unimproved and as such is a
paper street and that as an abutter, the applicant has certain legal rights with regard to the street.
The Board would like our opinion on this matter.
A. Derelict Fee Statute
The letter referenced G.L. ch. 183, §58 which states:
"§58. Real estate abutting a way,watercourse, wall, fence, or other
monument
Every instrument passing title to real estate abutting a way, whether public or
private, watercourse, wall, fence or other similar linear monument, shall be
construed to include any fee interest of the grantor in such way, watercourse or
monument, unless (a) the grantor retains other real estate abutting such way,
watercourse or monument, in which case, (i) if the retained real estate is on the
same side, the division line between the land granted and the land retained shall
be continued into such way, watercourse or monument as far as the grantor owns,
or (ii) if the retained real estate is on the other side of such way, watercourse or
monument between the division lines extended, the title conveyed shall be to the
center line of such way, watercourse or monument as far as the grantor owns, or
w.\wp5l\work\n-mtdove\corresp\tymonJtr-chickering rd.docz
URBELIS&FIELDSTEEL, LLP
May 29, 2012
Page 2
(b) the instrument evidences a different intent by an express exception or
reservation and not alone by bounding by a side line."
I agree that as a general proposition, the owner of property abutting a private way also
owns to the center of the way, but as you can see, the statute provides limitations and conditions
on that proposition. I am not aware at this time of any condition which contradicts the
applicant's claim to owning to the center of the private way.
B. General Laws Chapter 187, Section 5
The letter referenced G. L. ch. 187, §5 which states:
"5. Installation of public utility services for abutting owners on private ways
authorized
The owner or owners of real estate abutting on a private way who have by deed
existing rights of ingress and egress upon such way or other private ways shall
have the right by implication to place, install or construct in, on, along, under and
upon said private way or other private ways pipes, conduits, manholes and other
appurtenances necessary for the transmission of gas electricity, telephone, water
and sewer service, provided such facilities do not unreasonably obstruct said
private way or other private ways, and provided that such use of the private way
or other private ways does not interfere with or be inconsistent with the existing
use by others of such way or other private ways; and, provided further, that such
placement, installation, or construction is done in accordance with regulations,
plans and practices of the utility company which is to provide the gas, electricity,
or telephone service, and the appropriate cities, towns, districts, or water
companies which provide the water service. Said agencies, which provide such
service, shall comply with the rules and regulations of the division of water
supply and the department of public utilities or the department of
telecommunications and cable. Any such owner or owners may grant permission
to a public utility company or water company to enter upon said way or other
private ways to place, install, repair, or relocate pipes, conduits, manholes, and
other necessary appurtenances for the transmission of gas, electricity, telephone or
water service in accordance with such company or companies regulations,
practices and tariffs filed with the department of public utilities or the department
of telecommunications and cable or the division of water supply; provided,
however, that no charge or added assessment shall be levied by such public utility
company or companies against any such owner or owners not connected to such
service or services. Neither the person installing or repairing public utility
facilities,`nor such facilities, nor the gas, electricity, telephone or water service
URBELIS &FIELDSTEEL,LLP
May 29, 2012
Page 3
transmitted shall be deemed to constitute a trespass upon said way or ways."
(emphasis supplied)
1. As you can see, the statute provides for rights "necessary for the transmission of
gas, electricity, telephone, water and sewer service." The title of this statute references "public
utility services." Attorney Levy's letter states that the statute provides rights "necessary for
utilities." However, there is no mention in the letter of any authority under the statute for
drainage mitigation or stormwater structures such as a grass swale, catch basin and forebay.
The legislative history of the statute would suggest that stormwater mitigation structures
are not within its scope. As noted by the Appeals Court in Robinson v. Board of Health of
Chatham, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 394, 398, n. 9 (2003):
"The original legislation (St. 1973, c. 918) created an implied easement in the private
way only for gas lines. It was amended two years later to add electrical and telephone
service (St. 1975, c. 610), in 1980 to add water service (St. 1980, c. 251), and in 1988 to
add sewer service (St. 1988, c. 334). The legislation created an implied easement in the
abutting owner for such purposes because at common law the grant of a right of way
without more created only a right of ingress and egress and did not include the right to
lay pipes or erect structures in, upon or under the way. See Nantucket Conservation
Found Inc. v. Russell Mgmt. Inc., 380 Mass. 212, 216 (1980).
While the letter mentions certain rights under the statute, it is significant that the letter
does not opine that the grass swale, catch basin and forebay as proposed are allowed under the
statute. No caselaw was cited in the letter for the proposition that such structures for stormwater
mitigation fall within the category of"utilities" such as gas, electricity, telephone, water and
sewer service which are the specific subject matters of the statute. In the absence of such
caselaw or other authority, in my opinion, the Board may rely upon the specific words in the
statute, the statute's legislative history, the Board's expertise, and common sense if the Board
URBELIS &FIELDSTEEL, LLP
May 29, 2012
Page 4
were to consider such structures beyond the scope of the "utilities" as described in, and
authorized by, the statute.
2. The letter also generically references "limitations provided for in the statute."
Two limitations are:
"provided such facilities do not unreasonably obstruct said private way or other
private ways, and provided that such use of the private way or other private ways
does not interfere with or be inconsistent with the existing use by others of such
way or other private ways" (emphasis supplied)
Again, the letter does not say that the proposed structures would not violate those
limitations. Other abutters would also have rights in the private way in question, and you may
want to hear from them regarding these structures. Abutters would have rights along the entire
length of the private way. Casella v. Sneierson, 325 Mass. 85, 89 (1949). The holders of such a
right are entitled to enjoy that right"unimpaired and undiminished by any wrongful acts of
another." Frawley v. Forrest, 310 Mass. 446, 451 (1941).
As the Land Court stated in Post v. McHugh, 16 LCR 208, 217 (2008):
" `The right of anyone entitled to use a private way to make reasonable repairs
and improvements is well established in cases where the way is already in use.'
Guillet v. Livernois, 297 Mass. 337, 340 (1937). The right to make reasonable
repairs and improvements to a private way `exists even more clearly where
without improvement the way is impassable and useless.' Id. `The owner of a
right of way has the right to enter upon the servient estate on which no actual way
has been prepared and constructed and to make such changes therein as will
reasonably adapt it to the purposes of a way, having due regard to the rights of
others who may have an interest in the way.' Walker v. E. William and Merrill C
Nutting, Inc., 302 Mass. 535, 543 (1939). `Clearing limbs from a roadway,
smoothing the surface of a way, placing gravel on a road, or even paving a road
have been condoned as reasonable repairs if necessary to enjoyment of the
easement.' Glenn v. Poole, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 292, 296 (1981)."
You have;also informed us that the Town plows the snow on a certain part of Franklin
Street. The work proposed here is for stormwater mitigation and not for the purpose to make
URBELIS &FIELDSTEEL,LLP
May 29, 2012
Page 5
Franklin Street passable. In my opinion, it would be up to the Board to consider all the evidence
and testimony to determine whether the structures as proposed would violate (1) the foregoing
limitations in the statute and/or (2) the rights of other abutters to Franklin Street.
As always, please call if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Thomas J. rbelis
TJU:kmp
cc: Board of Selectmen
Planning Board
Andrew Maylor
Bruce Thibodeau
Eckert Seamans Cherin&Mellott,LLC TFL 617 342 6800
Two International Place FAX 617 342 6899
16`'Floor www.eckertseamans.com
FS,F,, R��L 12N Boston,MA 02110
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Robert W.Levy
617.342.6832
rlevy@eckertseamans.com
May 21, 2012
Louis P. Minicucci, Jr.
Park Street Redevelopment, LLC
231 Sutton Street, Suite 113
North Andover, MA 021845
Re: 498 Chickering Road,North Andover,MA
Dear Lou:
You have requested that I review the legal rights you have in and to Franklin Street
adjacent to your property located at 498 Chickering Road,North Andover, MA. Based upon
your investigation, you have confirmed that the North Andover's Town Clerk's Office has
verified that Franklin Street is a private way and has not been accepted by the Town of North
Andover. I am further informed that a portion of Franklin Street is unimproved and as such is a
paper street.
Pursuant to Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 183, Section 58—the so-called
"Derelict Fee Statute"—as a general proposition, the owner of property abutting a private way
also owns to the center of the way. Furthermore,pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws,
Chapter 187, Section 5,the owners of real estate abutting a private way who have by deed
existing rights of ingress and egress upon such way, shall have the right by implication,to place,
install or construct in, on, along, under and upon said private way,pipes, conduits,manholes and
other appurtenances necessary for utilities, subject to limitations provided for in the statute.
I hope this explanation is helpful in connection with your use of the property.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Robert W. Levy
R IlL/var
(K0471956.1)
URBELIS&FIELDSTEEL,LLP
155 FEDERAL STREET
BOSTON,MASSACHUSETTS 02110-1727
Telephone 978-475-4552
THOMAS J.URBELIS Telephone 617-338-2200
e-mail tju @uf-law.com Telecopier 617-338-0122
March 29, 2012
Judy Tymon, Town Planner
Town of North Andover
1600 Osgood Street
North Andover,MA 01845
Re: JEFFCO Site Plan
Review Special Permit
Dear Judy:
You have informed me that the Planning Board requests advice regarding the following
three issues:
1. Section 7.2 Street Frontage
This section states that"In no case shall actual street frontage at the street line be less
than seventy-five (75) feet; except as allowed by Section 7.2.2." This section,Frontage
Exception, requires that exception for meeting frontage requirements be granted upon approval
of a Special Permit issued by the Planning Board.
Q. Given that the ZBA granted a variance for all of the required frontage(150
ft.) does this requirement for a Special Permit still apply?
RESPONSE:
In my opinion, no. The ZBA's variance stated:
"Upon a motion by Joseph D. LaGrasse and 2nd by Richard M. Vaillancourt,the
Board voted to GRANT a dimensional Variance from Section 7, Paragraph 7.2
and Table 2 of the Zoning Bylaw for relief of 150' from the requirements for
Street Frontage."
w:\wp5l\work\n-andove\corresp\tymon.Itr-jeffco.docx
URBELIS&FIELDSTEEL,LLP
March 29, 2012
Page 2
The ZBA's foregoing broad grant of a variance from Paragraph 7.2 (titled"Street
Frontage") which specifically deals with street frontage would, in my opinion, include the grant
of variance from 7.2.2 as it relates to a special permit under that specific section.
2. Section 7.2.1 Access across street frontage.
This section states that"Access across street frontage, except for corner lots, must be
provided across street frontage." It also states that"A street frontage access Special Permit may
be granted for a lot in a residential district." The SPGA is the Planning Board.
Q. Does the Planning Board have the authority to request a Special Permit
application from the applicant under this section?
RESPONSE:
In my opinion, no. For the same reason as stated in response to the prior question,in my
opinion, the broad variance grant from Paragraph 7.2 includes variance from 7.2.1 as it relates to
a special permit under that specific section.
3. Access to residential lots through commercially developed lots:
The applicant is proposing to build a residential structure and is providing access to the
lot through two commercial lots.
Q. Does the NAZB require that access to residential lots shall not be granted
across the frontage of a commercially developed lot?
RESPONSE:
Under the circumstances of this particular application, in my opinion,the answer is no.
This application is under Section 18 of the Zoning Bylaw, the Downtown Overlay District. The
bylaw states the following as its purpose:
URBELIS&FIELDSTEEL,LLP
March 29, 2012
Page 3
"18.0 Purpose.
Downtown zoning is the creation of a specific zoning overlay district for the
unique needs of small mixed use commercial areas: to provide goods, services
and housing in a more compact environment; to encourage redevelopment; and,to
create a vibrant, walkable, pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly environment. The
Downtown Overlay District seeks to preserve and enhance the existing mixed
uses of downtown North Andover.
It is hereby declared to be the intent of the Downtown Overlay District to
establish reasonable standards that permit and control mixed residential,
commercial, governmental, institutional, and office uses in the Town of North
Andover. Furthermore, it is the intent of this district to:
1. Encourage a diverse mix of residential,business, commercial, office,
governmental, institutional and entertainment uses for workers,
visitors, and residents.
2. Encourage mixed uses within the same structure.
3. Encourage first floor retail space.
4. Encourage a pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment so that
commercial enterprises and consumer services do not rely on
automobile traffic to bring consumers into the area.
5. Permit uses that promote conversion of existing buildings in a manner
that maintains and enhances the visual character and architectural scale
of existing development within the district.
6. Minimize visual and functional conflicts between residential and
nonresidential uses within and abutting the district.
7. Allow for more compact development than may be permitted in other
zoning districts to reduce the impacts of sprawl.
8. Encourage consolidation of curb cuts for vehicular access and promote
more efficient and economical parking facilities.
9. Encourage uses that minimize noise and congestion.
10. Allow for an appropriate density of land uses and people to support a
vibrant downtown.
This bylaw is intended to be used in conjunction with the existing zoning and
other regulations as adopted by the town, including historic district regulations,
design guidelines, and other local bylaws designed to encourage appropriate and
consistent patterns of village development."
With the bylaw's overlap of commercial and residential uses,there does not appear to be
anything in that bylaw which, on its face, requires that access to residential lots shall not be
URBELIS&FIELDSTEEL,LLP
March 29, 2012
Page 4
across the frontage of a commercially developed lot.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
In our discussions you also asked about the criteria which the Board should use in
evaluating this special permit application.
The special permit application states that it is pursuant to Site Plan Review(Section 8.3)
and Section 18 of the Bylaw, both of which should be considered by the Board because the
applicant has stated so in the application for the special permit. Furthermore,the grant of
variances stated as a condition, in part:
"1. Variance 2008-014 shall be contingent on a Planning Board Site Plan
Review Special Permit with the accompanying signed Site Plan."
Thus,the applicant was required, by the variance, to obtain a Planning Board Site Plan
Review Special Permit.
A. Section 8.3—Site Plan Review:
Subsections 6 and 7 (in part) state:
446. Review Criteria/Design Guidelines
a) The following criteria and design guidelines shall be used by the
Planning Board in evaluating the site plan review and all information
submitted as part of the application.
i) General
a) Conformance with all appropriate provisions of the Zoning
Bylaw.
b) Protection of abutting,properties from detrimental site
characteristics.
ii) Environmental
a) Protection of unique or important natural, historic or scenic
features.
b) Adequacy of proposed methods of refuse disposal.
c) Ability of proposed sewage disposal and water supply systems
within and adjacent to the site to serve the proposed use.
d) Adequacy of the proposed drainage system within and adjacent
to the site to handle the increased runoff resulting from the
URBELIS&FIELDSTEEL,LLP
March 29, 2012
Page 5
development.
e) Provision of adequate landscaping, including the screening of
adjacent residential uses, provision of street trees, landscape
islands in the parking lot and a landscape buffer along the
street frontage.
f) Adequacy of the soil erosion plan and any plan for protection
of steep slopes, both during and after construction.
g) Protection of adjacent properties by minimizing the intrusion of
lighting, Including parking lot and building exterior lighting.
h) The proposed development must not present a demonstrable
adverse impact on the surrounding area resulting from
excessive noise, dust, smoke, or vibration which are higher
than levels now experienced from uses permitted in the
surrounding area.
iii) Design
a) Buildings shall be located with respect to setbacks placement
of parking landscaping and entrances and exits with
surrounding buildings and development.
b) The buildings shall relate harmoniously to each other in
architectural style,the location and building exits and
entrances.
c) Screening shall be provided for storage areas, loading docks,
dumpsters,rooftop equipment, utility buildings and similar
features.
d) Electric, telephone, cable t.v., and other such lines and
equipment must be placed underground.
e) Demonstrate that the scale, massing and detailing of buildings
are compatible with those prevalent in the surrounding area.
iv) Traffic/Parking
a) The location and number of curb cuts shall be minimized to
reduce turning movements, and hazardous exits and entrances.
b) Provision for access to adjoining properties shall be provided
as appropriate.
c) Driveways shall be located opposite each other wherever
possible.
d) Joint access driveways between adjoining properties shall be
encouraged.
e) Internal circulation and egress shall provide for traffic safety,
and access to and from minor streets servicing one family
dwellings shall be minimized.
7. Findings of the Planning Board
a) With the concurring vote of four members, of the Planning Board shall
either A) approve, B) approve with conditions, or C) deny a site plan
submitted for review.
URBELIS&FIELDSTEEL,LLP
Niarch 29, 2012
Page 6
i) The Planning Board shall approve a site plan with the following
conditions are met:
A. The site plan complies with all current Bylaw requirements of
the Town, and;
B. The site plan has been submitted in accordance with the
regulations and procedures as outlined in this section and
Section 10.31 (Conditions for Approval of Special Permit.)
ii) The Planning Board shall conditionally approve a site plan when
the following conditions are met:
a) The application needs to go to any Town Board/Department or
Commission for approvals, or requires approvals by any state,
and/or federal agency and;
b) The site plan generally complies with Town Bylaw
requirements, but requires minor changes in order to be
completely in compliance with the Town Bylaw regulations.
iii) The Planning Board may deny approval of a site plan for the
following reasons:
a) The plan does not include all the materials or information
required in this section, or has failed to adhere to the
procedures for Site Plan Review as outlined in this section, and
Section 10.3 (Special Permits), or;
b) The plan as presented is not in compliance with Town Bylaws,
or;
c) The plan has been drawn incorrectly or in such form that the
Planning Board is unable to determine what information is
being presented for review, or;
d) The applicants have failed to incorporate and adhere to any
condition(s) for approval granted by any Town Board,
Department or Commission, or requirements called for by any
state or federal agency, which has proper authority upon which
to place conditions on a matter before the Planning, Board.
B. Section 18 Criteria:
"18.6 Special Permit Standards and Criteria
In addition to the specific criteria regarding the grant of a special permit contained in
Section 10.31 of this bylaw, the Planning Board shall issue a special permit only after
consideration of the following:
a. Impact on the neighborhood visual character, including architectural design,
views and vistas; and
b. Degree to which the proposed use will share an access driveway and/or parking
with an adjacent use and avoids new curb cuts."
URBELIS&FIELDSTEEL,LLP
March 29, 2012
Page 7
C. Section 10.31:
All special permits (and Section 8 and Section 18 specifically reference Section 10.31)
are subject to the following:
"10.31 Conditions for Approval of Special Permit
1. The Special Permit Granting Authority shall not approve any such
application for a Special permit unless it finds that in its judgment
all the following conditions are met:
a. The specific site is an appropriate location for such a use, structure
or condition;
b. The use as developed will not adversely affect the neighborhood;
c. There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or
pedestrians;
d. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper
operation of the proposed use;
e. The Special Permit Granting Authority shall not grant any Special
Permit unless they make a specific finding that the use is in
harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Bylaw.
2. In approving a Special Permit,the Special Permit Granting Authority
may attach such conditions and safeguards as are deemed necessary
to protect the neighborhood such as, but not limited to, the following:
a. Requirements of front, side, or rear yards greater than the
minimum required by this Bylaw.
b. Requirements of screening parking areas or other parts of the
premises from adjoining premises or from the street, by walls,
fences,planting, or other devices as specified by the Special Permit
Granting Authority.
c. Modification of the exterior features or appearances of the
structure:
d. Limitation of size, number of occupants, method or time of
operation, or extent of facilities;
e. Regulation of number, design and location of access drives or
other traffic features."
D. Supplementary Regulations
A regulation which the Board may want to consider is the following Section 8.1.5.c:
"c) Entrance and Exit Driveway.
i) Single-family dwellings shall have a minimum driveway entrance of
URBELIS&FIELDSTEEL,LLP
March 29, 2012
Page 8
twelve (12) feet.
ii) For facilities containing fewer than five stalls, the minimum width of
entrance and exit drives shall be twelve (12) feet for one-way use and
eighteen(18) feet for two-way use, and the maximum width twenty (20)
feet.
iii) For facilities containing five (5) or more stalls, such drives shall be a
minimum of twelve (12) feet wide for one-way use and twenty (20) feet
wide for two-way use. The minimum curb radius shall be fifteen (15)feet.
The maximum width of such driveways at the street line shall be twenty-
five(25)feet in all districts.
iv) The Planning Board may modify such width and radius limitations when a
greater width would facilitate traffic flow and safety. All such driveways
shall be located and designed so as to minimize conflict with traffic on
public streets and provide good visibility and sight
distances for the clear observation of approaching pedestrian and vehicular
traffic."
Please call if you have any questions or there is anything else that you need.
Very truly yours,
Thomas J. rbelis
TJU:kmp
cc: Andrew Maylor
Curt Bellavance
I S;
LANNERS E
ENGINEERING E
-. lND SURVEYORS
pROFEMONAL ENGNEERS A
o,c�rn
PM •ANDOVER,Mpa}81Q o(076)476.3M,
bb P 373-6721-'FA�(�78)47&1dd8•�-�A� m®rrlmack
May 30,2012
Mr Eugine Willis,PE
Town of North Andover DPW
Osgood Street
Into Andover,Ma
RE: swell Five Site Plan
498 Chickering Road
No Andover,Ma
Dear Mr-Willis:
594 squareleet impervious
Regarding the storm drainage runoff,the existing site lies 24,' t will have 22,8b5
area (roof and pavement)on it and the proposed site developnt eix
square feet impervious area on it(roof and pave ervious a va. ' lie reductionin square
feet of impervious area is a 1%
reduction in>rnp arod to the
impervious area will reduce the runoff from will ieplaced with landscaping,
predeVelopment condition as that impervouu
which has a lower curve number than the impervious.area..
In addition the average slope of the site in the pre development.conditlonlss 4%=bin e
post development condition 3,3%,and thand dale 'ng the runoff thus slightly _
time of concentration(making it longer)
reducing the peak runoff rate at the design.Point-
Franklin
For this project
each basin on Chickening Road Ot endeA at that the
we evaluated the c
ultimate design point as in the predevelopinent condition,-all runoff end p
location.The system, at that point,will then have a redublion Of runoff rnto it.
Plea
se do not hesitate to contact me should you have further questions or cornments,
Very . lY
Gr EKING SPIRVICES
M1
Step
Pr r .,
k
t40RTJ1
0
dS
HU
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 31, 2012 comment #7
TO: Judy Tymon
FROM: Gene Willis
CC: Tim Willett
RE: Lot #498 Chickering Rd. Plan of land
Revised Drawings and a letter dated 5/30/12 was received from
Merrimack Engineering. This submission addresses the balance of my issues
with the above referenced project.
Under existing conditions, the town experiences puddles and freezing at
the end of pavement on Franklin St. Construction of the project as designed
should alleviate this situation.
George H. Schruender
73 CHICKE RING ROAD
NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845
978 685 5000
May 31,2012
Park Street Redevelopment LLC
231 Sutton St.
North Andover,Ma 01845
North Andover Planning Board
This is to inform you that I review the plan for the drain on Franklin Street and it okay
with me to do the work as shown on the plan. I also support the project.
If you have any questions,please feel free to call me at 978 685 5000 during the
day.
Sincerely yours,
J de—" ,q
George H. Schruender
4�+
a!�'
(��,�,.
h�4�✓,
��
/- r:
/%i, mO d
{ �
6 � ^ J // � "�� �
�a �, ���� �y�
� y� � `�g aid r&,� % �� �r f /fl � f.A'm
� U�
� i �,r � / / '� i� �a< � pp� wm. �� � // l/ t p��"
'` �� � 7( P � '� ��� �' Ul
��� � � ����� � I
,�; ��.,�,U �!, �,
e �� l��i� �1�� �
ri�,9 ,. /`"� p�U. o� k
� � l ,a ^ i
��f
kl f� if
' �' iii"'ip ' � �1 9" /� �b��, i, �,.
a
� � r
�a�� � �
,, d-,
/�1� ,
4- y, r�
0
�' � i .r.�!� .�
� r
��� �� G Y
��
�,
�" ��, �si �a �
�' f
°,
��'�
h . ��� ',i
°+
r
�' a
.I
r
„� -, � <
,, m
'/ ,
�� I
i�� �, �'� � �� �
'�y I
�' Dr�,
'P�" � r m r�„,n P�
` �r� "� ,
�^ �
w
"�
a +'
„�° �"�`�
>" t'� "'�' f `�,d � � ,
1 �'
�� it i � a u r✓v'a % �°��,
r
�kkr^ak�eK„1
y
r .
1
i
ry u i
i
l i r i
+C
* 1
r
rr
r�
j
a� e
y
;i
l;
r
PARK STREET REDEVELOPMENT, LLC
231 SUTTON STREET, SUITE 1E
NORTH ANDOVER, MA 01845
978-687-6200 office 978-682-6473 fax
May 31, 2012
John Simons, Chairman
North Andover Planning Board
1600 Osgood Street
North Andover,MA 01845
Re: Franklin Street
Dear Mr. Simons and Planning Board Members:
As the Managing Member of Park Street Redevelopment,LLC,I would like to provide you with
background information related to 498 Chickering Road, formerly the Mobil Station,which is
proposed to be redeveloped as a branch bank by the Lowell Five Savings Bank. I have managed
this parcel for about six years and during this time, I have been approached by many potential
users to either reuse the existing building or to redevelop the site. In all of these cases,I was not
comfortable with the compatibility of the use for either the site or the neighborhood.
For example,I was approached by an independent donut shop that wanted to reuse the existing
building; a national fast food chain which wanted to construct a new building according to the
national model; and three pizza businesses. In all cases,the deals would have been financially
beneficial,but I did not believe that any of these uses were the highest and best use nor in the
best interest of the Town. Consequently, I incurred additional expenses in order to attract what I
believe to be a business that is compatible with the neighborhood and one that would be
supportive of our community. The Lowell Five Savings Bank is the fourth strongest community
based bank in the Commonwealth and is an active participant in the communities in which they
are found. In fact, at all of the meetings or hearings for this project by the Planning Board,the
President of the bank,David Wallace,was in attendance. With many of the local banking
institutions of the past, such as the Andover Bank, Lawrence Savings Bank,First Essex Bank,
Arlington Trust Company having sold to the larger national banks,I believe that it is beneficial
for small local businesses to have access to a locally based bank.
I would also like to provide you with site specific information relative to this project:
1. Prior to our acquisition of the site from ExxonMobil, it was represented to me that
ExxonMobil expended approximately$325,000 removing underground storage tanks,gas
pumps and doing remediation of the site. All of the engineering and test results were done
in full compliance with Mass. DEP regulations and the information is on file at DEP. The
cleanup meets all of the Massachusetts standards and the file has been closed in
accordance with DEP regulations. As an abundance of caution,ExxonMobil tends to
view the sale of their property conservatively and puts many deed restrictions, such as the
North Andover Planning Board
May 31,2012
Page 2
one that exists on this property, so as to mitigate their legal exposure. However,the
Planning Board can be assured that the development of this site would be in full
conformance with all state regulations.
2. This site had previously been approved for an approximately 5,300 sq.ft. strip center with
a drive-up window to be occupied by Starbucks. When the economy turned, Starbucks
withdrew from the market place and cancelled the development of over 600 stores,
including the one planned for this site.The new site plan provides for an approximately
3,000 sq.ft. building on a larger site(we purchased the abutting site at 26 Allen St. and
expanded the size of the lot for 498 Chickering Road). We retain ownership of 26 Allen
Street.
3. My family and/or I have ownership interest in eight of the surrounding properties and are
in frill support of this project. These properties are:
26 Allen Street
483 Chickering Road
535 Chickering Road
565 Chickering Road
221 Pleasant Street
508 Main Street
522 Main Street
530 Main Street
I thought this background information would be helpful for the Planning Board members. I
would appreciate your favorable consideration of this application for a Site Plan Review
Special Permit.
Thank you for your ongoing efforts regarding this developman.—_;
ncerely, \
Park Street R velopment, LLC'
IZ
Louis P. Minicucci, Jr. X"',
Manager
LPM/kp
CAMinco Files\Ipmfiles\498 Chickering 2d.,N Andover\plg bd ltr.doc
"ho
z VAN Mm
lots" QN2 j pn
V� , I A Sons-
.oA �,E� �5� own
OWN 6.34 to
; ME 1 0 a At
1201 son My Iny it Q qQh V
a-- Aff so 8
011 of It 02 9H,
My M. ON vs, 80 OWN 02 '. Is 92 Ce 20 WW Qi xi 0 Q 'WEI A QQ 1%
z2 N 8 is" M I-
o'. ,""t
NY 6 9 3 0 5 28 R"M I" Mo
WAS .10
P NOW 10 of N7 2
1 q DOM 2MYRI Q11 a I 1" 1,a Q,12 1"y I f WR air I
JAM 'Owl 1 8,
N HOW low 10 10,
Q.0 Ify "AM ME 61 MM to
0 ce
tout;
T
I b.
C)
N, NOR lot
4 owns'
8 @1
PER I suit"
H. I no lap I MIN
SH
O
pq tail I a I
In 05, 0 4W 4 i To
to 4:i
to
ri, t
Q
to
la
O V °
21
Ile
?
"El l at Z A
P
PAS
"00 ;
WT
All
E5,;
=E---------
E _-
_ F �
N o a z ape"
z OpS�m
x z%U2
z
w
� w
o "
I
u fm �o
1
5 JNE I m
.g-P
A l �p�`- __a�'E' 4 5 ��g• ' a nm �q\ I \ .s II_ N
Orc R °
3
\ \ la A I
} `;L_
r
i
83;0
WWI ^vJa2 o 1 M3E65\r.Yf\6E35\S:eu�,lh��i
p l
ip ul
FR
5 RE
ov
so
D3 w El
oa
O�EMJM
R z-
6q RE
96
g 6 a N.
1 18.
W aka
PP
LLJ
LL-U
Fv I e
'OK
z z
nixes
_ •\ x� �v P9 id � jr E+ p a�.2
NO Z>
Ow S
OW MIN
Viso
Darmm
S'
Lb
S ^ \ _
€ ri 59"1
1 Ir q
;ill 11 Pi �i3sr .3
any
a t2
NO
It
// dry-il snn eN 3313
N Ep IA
Ogg
Tymon, Judy
From: Lou K8i icuco [I @Vni n]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05. 20125:53PIVI
To: Tymon, Judy
Subject; 4Q8Chickering Rd. - Franklin St.
�
I met with John Chapman, one of the Franklin St. abutters. I showed him the plan and the location of the bank and the
drainage outlet. He was supportive of the project and was glad to hear that it is a bank and not e fast food restaurant or
bar. Also he was supportive of the fact that the bank would not use Franklin S[. as dcc8SS and that Franklin St. vVnu|d not
be opened up to Rte 125. He mentioned he has a 9 year old son who plays on Franklin St. because there is no traffic and
hoped that it would continue to stay that way. He was complimentary of the plan and in support.
Louis P. Minicucc|, ]r.
MincoCorponation
Z]1 Sutton St., Suite 1B
�
North Andover, MA 01845
978-687-62OOx21Ophone
978-687-3212 fax
978-361-6127 cell
Please note the Massachusetts Secretary of State's office has determined that most emails to and from municipal offices and officials are public records.For more |
information please refer to: . /
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
�
�
�
�
re
MERRIMACK ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC;
' PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS PLANNERS
66 PARK STREET• ANDOVER,MA 01 810 0 (978)475-3555,373-5721 . FAX(978)475-1448 > E-MAIL lnfo @merrimackengineering.com
June 19, 2012
Mr Michael Formichella
Permit Engineer
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
District Four
519 Appleton Street
Arlington,Ma 02476
Re:North Andover
498 Chickering Road
Curb Cut Access Permit
Dear Mr Formichella
Please find enclosed herewith revised plans reflecting comments made by the Department
on June 12, 2012. The revisions and responses to the comments are as follows:
Traffic Section
Stop Lines have been revised and shown to be continuous across the northerly driveway.
exit lane and entire southerly driveway
Construction Note#11 has been added to Sheet 1 o the plan set requiring the
Contractor to utilize Standard MDOT Traffic Management Plans (TMPs) for work in the
MDOT Rte 125 (Chickering Road) Layout.
Two R5-1 (Do Not Enter) signs have been added to the back of the stop signs at the
Southerly Driveway facing Chickering.Road
There-are two No Left Turn(R3-2) signs facing the northbound traffic on Chickening
Road on the East side and West side of the roadway, on the North side of Park Street, at
its intersection with Chickering Rd, already existing. There is no need to add additional
signs of this type as the site southerly driveway is only 40' north of these sign locations.
Those two signs are now shown on the existing conditions plan of the site.
We have revised the existing curb alignment where it was to remain) as well as the
proposed curb alignment to reflect the Department Standard of a 30' radius. This
requires additional work to the sidewalks and reconstruction of handicap ramps (see
Projects Section Comments).
We have added to the existing conditions plan the existing highway signage opposite
the site
Planning Coordinator
See the attached certification indicating the development does not meet or exceed any
of the thresholds for the filing of an ENF under MEPA.
Projects Section
There is currently an existing direct tie/connection into the State Highway Drainage
system from the site at station 84+50, which under this development plan, is proposed to
be disconnected and abandoned. No new Dircet Connection is Proposed. An indirect
connection to the State System via a connection to the Town system in Franklin Street is
proposed.
The indirect drainage connection to the State System via the Town Drainage on
Franklin Street will cause a reduction in flow to the State Drainage System. That fact is
bourne our by the reduction in impervious area proposed on the site (from what currently
exists) and the increase in landscape area, which in fact causes a reduction in runoff from
the site (see sheet one of the plan set for detailed values). There are BMPs proposed for
the site, including the use of a grass swale which will allow for some infiltration of
stormwater before it enters the Town and then State System, and the provision of a
stormwater forebay on Franklin Street which will also retain some water within the
Franklin Street right of way. The forebay along with the grass swale will also improve
the water quality entering the Town/State system as currently existing,there is no
treatment of the stormwater discharged directly to the State system. In addition to the
above mentioned BMPs catchbasins with deep sumps and gas/oil traps on the outlets are
being added to the site . These BMPs will add to improved the water quality of the
stormwater being discharged from the site (those items do not exist on site currently).
This site is a Brownfields site with a DEP AUL located on it. Given the AUL,and the
fact that MaDEP does not permit infiltration of roof or site stormwater on Brownfield
sites, no additional BMPs can be provided. Reduction in stormwater quantity has been
achieved through a change in Curve Number(CN) or runoff coefficient, with the addition
of increased landscaping-and a reduction in impervious area on-the site. Improvements-in
water quality have been made to the maximum extent allowed by MaDEP, in fact the
catchbasins and manholes are enclosed or wrapped below grade in Hypalon impervious
liners, in addition to being waterproofed, to allow maintenance of those structures
without HazMat outfits required to be used by the maintainers. Further restricting the use
of infiltrators on this site, there is a Sensitive Use Restriction that limits the work that
can be accomplished below grade on the site. Items such as buildings with basements
and other underground structures are not permitted. This was put onto the site by Mobil
when the property was sold to the current owner. A copy of that document is enclosed.
MERRIMACK ENGINEERING SERVICES,INC.
The above documents and the drainage system design and calculations were reviewed
by Lisa Eggleston,PE and separately by Hancock Associates both as independent peer
reviewers for the Town of North Andover Planning Board (who has issued site approval
for this project). The documents were also reviewed by the Town Engineer, Eugene
Willis,PE who recommended to the Board Approval of the plan set. They also reviewed
the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) n site owneretodrainage
mai Hain the which we
oreba y
for the site. The O&M plan requires the
and other drainage on behalf of the Town of No Andover, in Franklin Street
Given the above, we believe the design complies with the MDOT SOP for connection
or discharge to State Higway Drainage systems
We have shown on the revised plans that the sidewalks at the four driveway/sidewalk
intersections be constructed with cement concrete handicap ramps (not just at Sta 83+75
Lt) with detectable warning panel.
Given all of the above and the enclosures,please do not hesitate to contact me should you
have further questions or comments. I appreciate your consideration on this project.
Very truly yours,
MERRIMACK ENGINEERING SERVICES,INC
Stephen E Stapinski
Project Coordinator
enc
MERRIMACK ENGINEERING SERVICES,INC.
_...,,..r.-- nr.innvGn KAA1,SACHl1SF1TS01810
MERRIMACK ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS PLANNERS
66 PARK STREET• ANDOVER,MA 01810• (978)475-3555,373-5721 • FAX(978)475-1448 • E-MAIL info @merrimackenglneering.com
I have reviewed the MEPA requirements and I hereby certify that the proposed Lowell
Five development at 498 Chickering Road,No. Andover Ma., does not meet or exceed
any of the thresholds for the filing o lan Environmental Notification Form (ENF) under
the Massachusetts Eviro en al P .hcy Act(MEPA).
I
r
Stephen E StapiT ' S Date
Project Coordinator
498 Chickering Road,North Andover,Massachusetts t
4
Vj �o
y (D ...� p.N• a'..'. m C .n•' O N 9 �• C��D � �'+ �° �l p t�D � 0 0 3'c'0 0
�. � ey �S
N �-�. ~ �. •"S.'y O .-r rt p .s OQ v0i Q. `C A� R i Y cpr.
1131 m�+ � 0 Co b coo G 04 P CD °ti R .o p o a.
cCo Uq ,sr'' ... w .... .}-i.; c� o � �'a. �' 7 E;o m
'(Ip (C rt�t'd Cp W fs i W �+ m t3' I 0 1 0
O O N t!: •.-. p ti ��''
moo ° 'o ° � � °ao
CD
CD -tP31
o e b' do �� dop
o O
0 (D cL09t°I�ycua�
P R. aq C;�% P rn 'd m' c"a R 'r"0
C°, ® � a �, o a moo p o ° kb b
(�yo
o , `C, .w. 1°b CO
?: ' p <° CD-z o R a1 0
tj
o a C � rn � o tii� �•Fn
i 0 y p Q o
N rtr (p� t3'�� G O "Gr�n p c�cn O N G R H cy�.y Ch O Q n
t0"x(71
W UPq� f°t v0 t7 p�C e"i p't p'N� O m w j�m� W
r pC� �-e i �'.. aG all
10 13 m
co
�' y9 N UQ Fs' ri rn O �-y i o w X
CD
I .
1
I .
p•��, �w'd�,•h�i• '7 o�° �R o' `RNC m�u�.*` �.d�C'"'oo�C co
—
o N °. 0 8
° '+a RIO b
!D H N K
11 spa p o p.{g " % 9 a' o oaa o o ° p o .0 ?� tai � o �
p F]. N O M n
f N � _
0 Co
�- w R• tD R..�,•• rD p. .. �. Cc',--. �,, ., .� m .-« o < `a�u
CD co
o pq
apt N �, R. � cr o o � � o o H H
cD p o
W� �- 0 4WpD nit p4�� w pHw� w � _ co CD o m a Erb p
-• o N P � P+ H P rt O O �' P P O N O rymp hi
(D .-r H '+ O O rt (D H H qOO �"b i••� O O y C%a FN{ CCD
Q cD A �+ p `O M cD G P° N ° W p. n +�in O Q rn. .
go
`C co�w►�o«,'' e+ o ccc�m w D o row o a' a�taD• d p..�o G1,'.;?.D+'.; p°cP❑o• ° �' a HCrCD `g�aC. LtPj-oFo cr�v q
- t:3 mom ro� CL CD
10 B
. w
y
c Ft p
r„m °rt t co o cD o°o. ° < q '.1 'd mo C O CS,p D +o o
N ro
a<o N
� % ohm •�p* .�cpDrt
Cm CD O rt C N m QC H�H 'R. .Fny' H p�j H (� O O �* •� P
.,q- < 'p •t rq trpc u• ° " d G a i, o (�� ((CQQ n `� �.
H r0 O P QQ
-b b moo o acv*—C,+ poi✓' - � � p wG ��p'•F
M.P. <b < re � 'cJ � h � ro 'C3 �i n � � � � �� F+♦
'� °p o N'a � N
•' a cn'' p o;" w H d '00 co '-. A. R. ' o o 0
v p � �. �{ co �q Qa�a a * '` mom '° � c�
Co
CL 0°o w yy o Fn' n C `^• f�` p
D' baN o
CD
�
CD .`CoD "� Npp�� � p°co .Ay pN o M o as
7 o �E '`C� by d o' er P '}by "' 0`pD�+"�w.ti• a�p'MO m
D
° A'arno a p�
b, O P. rp 0 R CD CO
Q
O N CD O O ,�..,,tt 'd .O-+ .+. �•f �-f e'", CS y m' c� �n "�"'' wn �.
a G ° CD CD CD G a.�.�pS py �. Ci' .,• CD `C O O O D
V '•* CD CD CD �'�.. •+.O H A w' w b' v�' O '.�"cAO ' w 'C'CI N hq Uq O `J n d�Q
'd p. o �' v' .�. a
' .
c.aa aoa ° � < a oroH � oo o o paw
O G►+ O Pi p CD ppr rt m (D R LY r`n O w O w �p M '1 C01 Q
PC, O C:t. F� G° ip-ry (D O w �. �-. R.
91 h� G] C p o �
Ch
co
°6 c W
� o
co to m o w pw? . ro o ° ro a' �p ° a �°+ m �'r q R o o w Z � p
rC O A b � P. O pq �p N �•C O R. 'phi' O O wR. O •e�•� .-. {pTt '(C�t C2; �p �Rp•' lh
A ° Gam' ���33i y H �y R �nn� O _:} O R° P m
o O CY CD w O' w CO3. Fn C�D P O R N N p p• G �' O O '.0/ R.O
°e cn bo�yy (ro9 sr� tr w 'a. � g e"eo�'0 .A� ro 0 cc,
p N d w. t3 Fn CD A rn 8 El CO
N m 1C•D� ;(Gi �Ap
in M O• A N (q W OC C6 O w O ° F. r•-c.'m"W P,dq• O O C3.
m r,o � c m coo �o'm a i°co
<� Z+; o
.
co � A S co co � w 5' w , i3 Aim r1 y. ° rn
or G] cr S° ., .. cy .F rn `C ' w C tad o' t m y `� OR w
N G '-t C ►� N �y '. O' N R+ O O y a. GS �1 O'O, CS. A
".1 O a4 R. O CG C ''� ^' O O O 13'
&' ce g n 0 co �
a rn rn rt'cs am p `�
C�w+' y C ro& r 4. ' �N p Xo S- a & p$ b n� R par s= ate 0 s 00
CD N UO CD R' 0 O X11
O C CC A ]. � 87 00 O
8.` m 0" o vi p `WA o ° r �
q � o cn Po o
O A
ce
y
O `P C:• ,O �A , n O k3 R(n..O'' y .ppG-��e. �"'m Y p p O"� Nrn C, n`*. �pw'.��c�"�w"•",v-7•, wr'0 7,-+. vo•,.�..m°� Ov°°. b P 5 r vC'A m K p {v �•❑ n
~' 9 - O
A ~
m R a
w
ac a Ft •< o o r� }�+ a'a.5' $ '°� ° w
`� � w"GtrCDO o.� aq . y °y. • yao � d W.
R. .�'ro
rOD co 0.
`' $' crn � � i °vi � v�- ° C, 0c C
RIP
�• �.N �.
0 0
N • o a0 o d E. 0 o 7y �
p 10
° "tp.1•�. � �QtOp O
o
W R ~
y � . 0 q� ow '' o' o �
O N o 00 (D � ® O H W
i PcoCzj
op-
ff
C �
rn vim, p- �. � cc-
CD
x O Q
.5 p ;;
tj
to
m ro ° � 00 �v�g3 � w � p' � � _ _�� a GA•
o � L3 CD �q• V� p
rh
ro n �° O, w
No
kn
min CDO
� oRp
r o rp
rn rn _
n p b'
Pe-rr9 t1gr- ys t-t-a.
MA 01845
P
J. Darryl Perry
dam 4i.'perrD'ins.com
To Whom it may concern.
This letter is confirm that we have reviewed the plan for Lowell Five and are supportive of it.
Sincerely,
r` r
i
J. Darryl Perry ..