PEABODY — Despite confusion among members, the Planning Board unanimously approved a modified grading and drainage plan of the property at 151 Andover St.
The plan, submitted by Griffin Engineering, would replace a previous grading-and-drainage plan created by BL companies, which was deemed not safe for this property.
“The owner has asked us to review the drainage and grading system,” said Jesse Blanchette, an engineer at Griffin. “In our review, we noticed several safety concerns, constructability concerns and potential concerns for stormwater entering the building.”
Blanchette told the board he submitted a revised plan to the city engineer. This revised plan would prevent leaks, add more basins to catch water and revise the upstream drainage system.
“We had to revise the upstream drainage system so the water can flow properly,” said Blanchette. “The slope of the pavement along the rear of the building was rather flat. We have regraded the back parking area to prevent the risk of slip-and-fall accidents.”
The modifications would replace two pages of the original site plan drafted by BL Companies. While some board members had no qualms with Griffin Engineering replacing the two pages, others were concerned about two companies affecting the same site plan.
Dr. Judith Otto asked Blanchette if Griffin was working alongside or under BL. Blanchette said that he and Griffin were contracted by the building owner.
“I am concerned about a set of drawings that does not have one overall engineering company responsible for it,” said Otto. “The usual way is to subcontract out from the main engineer. If other companies have a smaller piece in the project the main engineer is still responsible.”
Blanchette explained that BL Companies was no longer part of the job and a new architect had been assigned to the project.
Planning Board member Matthew Genzale said this was another concern and now there have to be replacements of even more site plan pages than just the aforementioned drainage and grading segments.
“They have been completely replaced and now we are replacing only two pieces of their work with two pieces of your work?” questioned Genzale.
Blanchette pushed back on this questioning, saying if the board went back to BL’s original designs, it would not be helpful.
“We can go back to the BL company drawings and it’s not constructible and it’s not safe,” said Blanchette. “So what are we supposed to do at that point?”
There was continued discussion among members about what should be done when Peter Arvanites spoke up and said that the best thing to do is to just approve the two pages that were changed. Avarnites, along with others, said the changes of the architect or engineer are not one for the board but rather the Building Department.
“I would suggest that the board approve the language of pages C1 and C2 in the site plan,” said Arvanites.
The board voted in favor of the two pages moments later.
