The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMiscellaneous - 35 BLUE RIDGE ROAD 4/30/2018v, a SERVICES 0 Geotechnical 0 Environmental 0 Construction Monitoring 0 Materials Testing JAWORSKI GEOTECH, INC. March 12, 2004 Mr. D. Robert Nicetta Building Commissioner/Zoning Enforcement Officer Town of North Andover Office of the Building Department 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 Re: r'3 Biue TiieRadT North Andover, Massachusetts Project No. 04135G Dear Mr. Nicetta: Following our meeting in your office on February 24, 2004, we further reviewed the wall constructed at the above -referenced residence. Specifically, this further review included the excavation of test pits on both sides of the wall to measure actual dimensions of the wall and to identify subgrade and backfill soils. Measurements and observations made were used to complete further analysis of the stability of the wall. These measurements are provided on the attached calculation sheets. We also reviewed grading down slope of the wall and evaluated the stability of slope. In summary, we found the grading down slope of the wall to be excessively steep and potentially subject to erosion. Therefore, we have recommended to the developer that this slope be re- graded no steeper than 1.5:1 horizontal to vertical. Where these slopes are steeper than 2:1, we recommend erosion protection with the placement of riprap, as shown on the attached drawing. Flatter slopes may be stabilized with erosion resistant vegetation. Since the western property line will be encroached upon to accommodate the riprap slope, we have recommended to the developer that a 3 -foot -high boulder retaining wall be constructed, as shown on the attached drawing. Alternatively, with the permission of the abutting property owner, the riprap slope could be extended and the boulder wall eliminated. The attached drawing provides a finish grading plan to implement these recommendations. We completed further analysis of the wall and slope assuming that these recommendations were implemented. Our calculations of wall stability are attached. The test pits revealed that the wall was backfilled with granular fill that. did not appear to be compacted in controlled lifts. Accordingly, we assumed a low friction angle of 30 degrees for the strength of the backfill soils. The wall footings are underlain by crushed stone which in turn are underlain by dense glacial till ❑ 77 Sundial Avenue, Suite 401W Manchester. NH 03103 (603) 647-9700 Fax 647-4432 Internet Address: http://www.jgi-geo.com ❑ 114 Woodlawn Road Berlin, CT 06037-1535 (860) 829-1725 Fax 829-1745 Printed on 100% Recycled Paper Mr. D. Robert Nicetta Page. 2 March 12, 2004 parent soils. Our analysis assumed these parent soils had a friction angle of 35 degrees and a bearing capacity of 3,000 pounds per square foot. The friction angle of the riprap was assumed to be 40 degrees. It is our opinion that it is more likely that the backfill, riprap and parent soils have higher friction angles and bearing capacity, making our assumptions conservative. Based on the foregoing, we believe that the wall will be stable with adequate factors of safety, provided our recommendations outlined herein, which are shown on the attached drawing, are implemented. In accordance with your request, we also completed a slope stability analysis assuming that the recommendations outlined herein are implemented. The slope stability analysis was completed using the soil parameters outlined above. Additionally, we assumed that the interlocking between the boulders of the new wall recommended at the toe of the slope would have a friction angle of 45 degrees. Properly chinked boulder walls will have higher friction angles due to interlocking. Based on the foregoing, the results of our analysis indicated the slope was adequately stable. We trust the foregoing satisfies your needs at this time. Should you have questions or would like to meet to discuss our evaluations further, please contact. Very truly yours, Jaworski Geotech, Inc. Peter C. Neumann, PE Project Manager III /cjd cc: Mr. Kenneth Daher, Daher Companies Attachments: Calculations Figure � YX��- 9 3F c?„ k' i E- M N.EUMANN f w,� CIVIL. 3i(.zV� ` Gary W. Jaworski, PhD, PE Senior Consultant SK 70793 FSG 97 Town of North Andover , ,,oRT„ the Zoning Board of Appeals� • � ►� STA . Development and Services Division 27 Charles Street • ? --�.Y '+....•►"fin North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 2002 OCT 22 P 2: 39 D. Robert Nicetta This is to M" that 978) 688-9541 Building Commissioner haus ekpgw from d 9a of d"% ) 688-9542 w1010ut flnllDof an appear. JOM A. t7; Any appeal shall be filed Notice of Decision To" OW .11 within (20) days after the year 2002 C4 date of filing of this notice in the office of the Town Clerk. Property at: for premises at Lot.23B Blue Ridge Road cd"l NAME: Kenneth E. Daher HEARING(S): October 8, 12002 ADDRESS: for premises at Lot 23B Blue Ridge Road PETITION: 2002-444 North Andover, MA 01845 TYPING DATE: 10/15/02 The North Andover Board of Appeals held a public hearingat its regular meeting on Tuesday, October 8, 2002 at 7:30 PM upon the application of Kenneth E. Daher, 235 East Street, Methuen, MAfor premises at Lot 23B Blue Ridge Road, North Andover requesting a Special Permit from Section 9, Paragraphs 9.1 and 9.2 to allow for the construction of a proposed single family dwelling on a pre-existing, non -conforming lot, within the R -i zoning district. The following members were present: Walter F. Soule, John M. Pallone, Scott A. Karpinski, Ellen P. McIntyre, George M. Earley, and Joseph D. LaGrasse. Upon a motion by Joseph D. LaGrasse and 2i4 by John M. Pallone, the Board voted to GRANT the petition for relief from Section 9, Paragraphs 9.1 and 9.2 to construct a one family dwelling on a pre-existing, non- conforming lot as shown on the Plan of Land prepared for Kenneth Daher and Owner: Peter C. Y. Li by George M. Richards R.L.S., #24052, Stowers Associates, Inc., 11 Pine Street, Methuen, Mass., dated September 10, 200 on the conditions that the applicant submit a revised mylar.without "proposed dwelling" and that the owner su mit a stamped plan bya.Registered Civil Engineer with a Geotechnical specialty, showing soil�admg, topography, and drainage, and any necessary retaining system designs to the Building epartment. Voting in favor: 'Walter F. Soule, John M. Faflone, Scott A. Karpinski, Ellen P. MclntyrQ " &2.'21 LaGrasse. The Board finds that the applicant has satisfied the provisions of Section 9, Paragraphs 9.1 & 9.2 of the zoning bylaw and that such change, extension or alteration shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing structure to the neighborhood. Furthermore, if the rights authorized by the Variance are not exercised within one (1) year of the date of the grant, it shall lapse, and may re-established only after notice, and a new hearing. Furthermore, if a Special Permit granted under the provisions contained herein shall be deemed to have lapsed after a two (2) year period from the date on which the Special Permit was granted unless substantial use or construction has commenced, it shall lapse and may be re-established only after notice, and a new hearing. Decision 2002-024. ,.k 1'`I'EST: i 'True Copy Town of North, Andover Board of Appeals, Y Walter F. Soule, Acting Chairman