HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication - 14 LORRAINE AVENUE 11/4/2011 The
-Morin
Neve
Group, Inc.
November 4, 2011 C,° '`" tJ 7
N011,11 I AW)OVFH
CONS F'IVA rio[N(,OMMISSION w
Conservation Commission
1600 Osgood Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Re: DEP File No. 242-1480
14 Lorraine Avenue
Dear Commission Members:
As you may recall our office submitted a Notice of Intent application for the construction of a
new single family dwelling for the above-referenced property. The project site contains two
upland areas that are separated by a bordering vegetated wetland. The smaller upland area is
located on the westerly side of the lot adjacent to Lorraine Avenue. An existing dwelling and
detached garage exist on this upland area. A larger upland area exists on the easterly side of the
lot, however, the only means of access to this upland area is across the wetland. The original
proposed project involved the construction of a single family dwelling on the upland on the
easterly side of the wetland, the two existing structures would be removed. A driveway was
proposed through the wetlands with three 12 inch diameter culverts proposed to allow the
original drainage patterns to be maintained. The proposed wetland alteration was 3,015sf. Our
client has approached property owners on. Hewitt Avenue to discuss the potential of obtaining an
access easement through their property to gain access to this large upland area, but they were not
interested. We have prepared four design options that we will present to the Commission, which
we will further discuss below. Before we elaborate on the design options we will address the
comments raised'by the DEP on the original proposed project.
The DEP has requested additional information to demonstrate that the applicant has avoided,
minimized and mitigated for wetland impacts. The DFP has suggested accessing the large
upland area from Lorraine Avenue along our clients southerly boundary. Lorraine Avenue stoles
at our clients southerly boundary and does not continue to Hewitt Avenue. The constructed
portion of Lorraine Avenue comes off of Andover Street and stops before it reaches the
wetlands. Therefore, access from Lorraine Avenue along the southerly boundary of our client's
property is not feasible since the travelled way does not extend to that point. As previously
pointed out, our client has attempted to obtain an access easement from the property owners on
ENGINEERS o SURVEYORS e ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS o LAND USE PLANNERS
447 Old Boston Road (U.S. Route 1), Topsfield, MA 01983 978-887-8586 FAX 978-887-3480
Providing Professional Services Since 1978
www.nevemorin.com
Conservation Commission Page 2
November 4, 2011
Hewitt Avenue, and no one was interested. In order to minimize impacts at the wetland
crossings shown in Options A & D we have incorporated the construction of a retaining wall. In
the case of Option A it has reduced the proposed wetland filling from 3,015sf to 1,880sf. We
have performed preliminary drainage calculations which show that the three proposed 12 inch
diameter culverts provide sufficient hydrologic capacity as not to impede the flow of runoff. The
culverts are set at varying invert heights in order to closely represent existing conditions. These
calculations, along with additional drainage calculations for the proposed lot development, will
be provided if Option A or D is selected. The DEP stated that if the applicant was proposing to
subdivide the lot then a 401 WQC would be required. Our client is not proposing to subdivide
the lot, therefore, a 401 WQC is not required.
The following discusses the several design options that have been evaluated for this property:
OPTION A
Design Option A proposes the house and driveway in the same location as the original proposed
plan. The proposed wetland alteration has been reduced from 3,015sf to 1,880sf by
incorporating a retaining wall as part of the wetland crossing. The wetland replication areas have
been modified from the original plan. We are now proposing two separate wetland replication
areas which result in a 2:1 total wetland replication ratio. The relocation of the wetland
replication area frees up upland area that can be used for drainage systems that will be designed
to mitigate for the proposed lot development to ensure that there is no increase in the rate of
runoff leaving the site after the lot is developed. The existing structures on the property are
proposed to be razed under this option.
OPTION B
Design Option B involves the reconstruction of the existing dwelling, the removal of the existing
detached garage and the construction of an attached garage onto the existing dwelling the same
size as the existing detached garage. The project also involves the reconfiguration of the existing
driveway. A permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals will be required for the reconstruction of
the existing dwelling and proposed garage since the structures do not comply with the required
front setback. We would proposed to alter wetlands to provide the required 50 foot setback from
the structures to the wetland edge. This would result in a proposed wetland alteration of 4,850sf
with two proposed wetland replication areas totaling 9,720sf(2:1 replication ratio).
OPTION Q
Design Option C is the same proposal as design Option B with the exception that there is no
proposed wetland alteration. The dwelling would remain 18 feet from the edge of the wetland,
but the garage would be further from the wetlands than the current garage.
Conservation Commission Page 3
November 4, 201'1
OPTION D
Design Option D would involve placing the proposed dwelling on the large upland portion of the
land located on the easterly side of the wetland as proposed in Option A. The change is that the
proposed drive would access this upland by traveling through 15 Lorraine Avenue and then
crossing the wetlands in the vicinity of flags WF 78-WF 83 (see sketch attached). The driveway
would continue to the proposed dwelling site approximately 25 feet from the wetlands.
There is a small piece of property owned by the Town of North Andover that we would need to
access across to maintain the 25 foot no disturb zone. The access across this parcel will either
require an easement from the Town or our client would need to buy the parcel. This design
option will require a permit from the Planning Board and/or Zoning Board of Appeals since we
are proposing to access the lot not from our legal frontage. This option, which also includes
retaining walls at the wetland crossing, results in the proposed alteration of 1,715sf of wetlands.
It also involves the construction of approximately 350 linear feet more of driveway than design
Option A.
In evaluating the design options we believe design Option A complies with the Wetlands
Protection Act and your local Wetlands Protection Bylaw and provides for the best use of the
property. By developing the larger upland portion of the site we are moving the usable yard area
further from the'edge of the wetlands than Options B or C. Design Option B results in the
creation of a 50 foot no build zone by filling wetlands. In order to create a lot development that
complies with your local Bylaw we are proposing to fill 4,850sf of wetlands, 2970sf more than
Option A, and we are creating a very limited yard area. Design Option C leaves the house where
it currently is which is only 18 feet from the wetlands with the yard up to the edge of the
wetlands. This option does involve the relocation of the garage further from the wetland than
what currently exists. Design Option C does not involve the filling of any wetlands, but it does
not comply to your current bylaw. Based on the close proximity of the house and yard to the
wetland this design option could result in the "creep" of the yard, in the future, into the wetland.
This design option does not have the room to provide a buffer between the developed portion of
the lot and the wetlands. Design Option D results in less wetland filling than Option A, but it also
requires the construction of approximately 350 linear feet more of driveway just upslope of the
25 foot no disturb zone. Even though Option A fills 165sf more of wetlands than Option B we
will be replicating the wetland at a 2:1 ratio so this area will be replicated. The additional 350
linear feet of driveway under Option Drs a permanent fixture. It is our opinion that the
additional alteration of 165sf under Option A with 2:1 restoration is more favorable than the
addition of 350 linear feet more of permanent driveway within 25 to 30 feet upslope of a
wetland.
Conservation Commission Page 4
November 4, 2011
We look forward to meeting with the Commission at your next regularly scheduled meeting to
discuss this project. If you have any questions prior to the meeting please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
THE NEVE-MORIN GROUP, INC.
r
Jolm M. Morin, PE
President, CEO
JMM/kmm
Attachment
cc: Breenmore Realty Trust
Jill Proveheal, MassDEP NERO
BKATHYM\Breen 1552\14 Lorraine Ave NOI\NACC Ltr Nov 201 Ldoc
Existing
— Building
To Be Razed
2n.8
Existing Shed \
To Be Razed ore �� \
Existing a ti CP \ i
Lawn C
Existing Area 2. �o �' B
Outdoor
234.4 Fireplace ��� �r? C B \
Prop. Rip A
i' Rap Outfall '
OOld Well C \B B W
C \\ i�)
B� oo \ A
A\
/ Proposed Boulder Shed C 1 B B '0 g
234.7 (See Detail) i g \ A i
+ iA i A C
' A WF90
/ A `
�WF90F
i
234.7 - - B B � •
+ S__............ FSCI\/ B C A
WF85A ca
Proposed I �o
Retaining Proposed / ¢,
Walls / Filtrexx
/ Filter Sock
1\ WF84A
WF82 WF83 Y WF85
- e- WF84
Tr.
a
Proposed Buffer Zone
Restoration Area �,i ►�
WF81i o (See Note)
M
Wetlands Altered
1,715 S.F. +/— I o (15 Lorraine Avenue)
o -A
Q — \ api
o
D
d �•. I 7� i
23� i
/_ a
Option D , , � �
ma
Scale: 1 " = 20'
vI� - T" ;.,
�° �opie •��J Ti 'e I �"y
1
Hew
ii,l ; WF78 --; �,T7
vIC
Ida