HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous - Rosemont Dr.-Toll Bross Lot 33GEOTECHNICAL / SOIL BORINGS / ENVIRONMENTAL / CONCRETE / STEEL / ROOFING / ASPHALT INSPECTION
Mail all correspondence to:
100 SHEFFIELD ROAD • P.O. BOX 4776 • MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03108 a TELEPHONE (603) 668-6016 • FAX (603) 668-8641
November 21, 1994
Mr. Robert Nicetto
Building Inspector
Town of North Andover, MA
120 Main Street
North Andover, MA 01845
RE: North Andover Estates, Lot 33
North Andover, MA
Dear Mr. Nicetto:
As requested by Mr. James Bagley
conducted a structural review of
of North Andover Estates.
X4-038
Project No. 40076.01
of Toll Brothers Inc., the writer
the wood -framed house on Lot 33
This review was conducted on August 8, 1994, and a letter dated
August 10, 1994 was sent to you detailing my findings. I visited
the site again cn November 14, 1994, at which time I reviewed the
corrections made on the five (5) items in my August letter. All
of the items have now been corrected. It is the writer's under-
standing that someone from your office has also reviewed the
structure and requested some additional blocking between the floor
joists at two locations. This blocking had been installed at the
time of my last site visit.
Should you have any questions concerning this report, please
contact us.
IT truly yours,
MILLER ENGINEERING, INC.
James A. Murphy, P.E.
Staff Engineer
JAM:jm
Frank K. Miller, P.E.
Vice President _fie,
cc: James Bagley, Toll Brothers Inc.
OF
FRANK K. �• :,
o MILLER
CIVIL
No. 36606 '
.off 9: /STEF��
ti
I
CORPORATE OFFICE. 100 SHEFFIELD ROAD • P.O. BOX 4776 • MANCHESTER, NH 03108 • TEL (603) 668-6016 • FAX (603) 666-8641
130 EAST MAIN ST. • P.O. BOX 11 • NORTHBOROUGH, MASSACHUSETTS 01532 • TEL. (508) 393-2607 • FAX (508) 393-8490
21 MARKARLYN STREET • P.O. BOX 1087 • AUBURN, MAINE 04210 • TEL. (207) 786-4249 • FAX (207) 777-1822
C
`T®11 Trothers, 'Inc.
Quality Homes By Design®
August 24, 1994
Mr. Robert Nicetta
Building Inspector
Town North Andover
120 Main Street
North Andover, MA 01845
RE: North Andover Estates - Lot 33
Dear Mr. Nicetta:
This letter is to confirm that Miller Engineering, Inc. will
oversee any and all repair work which takes place on Lot 33 in
North Andover Estates. At the time that all of the repairs have
been completed, Miller Engineering will furnish the Town of North
Andover, specifically you, a letter confirming all of the repairs
and that they were completed per state of Massachusetts building
code.
If I can be of any further assistance, please contact me at (508)
682-2999.
Sincerely,
Paul Webber
Project Manager
North Andover Estates
PW: dr
AUG ' 0
t �
�J
New England Division
1800 West Park Drive • Westborough, MA 01581 a (508) 366-9901 • FAX(508)898-3797
Corporate Office: 3103 Philmont Ave., Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
11
MILLER ENGINEERING, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL / SOIL BORINGS / ENVIRONMENTAL / CONCRETE / STEEL / ROOFING / ASPHALT INSPECTION
Mail all correspondence to:
100 SHEFFIELD ROAD • P.O. BOX 4776 • MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03108 • TELEPHONE (603) 668-6016 • FAX (603) 668-8641
August 10, 1994
AUG 1224
Mr. Robert Nicetta
Building Inspector
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER, MA
120 Main Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Re: North Andover Estates Lot 33
North Andover, MA Project No. 40076.01
Dear Mr. Nicetta:
As requested by Mr. James Bagley of Toll Brothers, the writer
conducted a structural review of the wood framed house on Lot 33
of North Andover Estates. This review was conducted on August 8,
1994 during a "walkover" with the framing plans. The following
items should be corrected prior to remediation of the foundation
as outlined in our letter of July 15, 1994:
First Floor Framing
1. Install blocking under four point load locations. These
point loads are located in the wall which supports the center
beam of the second floor. The plans provided to us by Toll
Brothers indicate that triple 2 x 10's are to be installed
under each of the point loads. These 2 x 10's are to be
placed between the floor joists.
2. Install joist hangers on the ends of the cantilever joist in
the foyer. Also, install joist hangers as needed elsewhere
within the structure.
3. To the rear of the stairs, the first joist which is perpen-
dicular to the front of the house is cracked. A new joist
should be''sistered to this joist.
4. In the sun room, there are two cracked floor joists which
need to be repaired. This repair should consist of sintering
another joist to the broken joists. The broken joists must
also be raised up to remove a bow in the floor prior to
repair.
5. The floor joist in the sun room, family room and the room
over the garage have all been notched to set on the wall.
These joists need to be properly supported at their full
depth. Therefore, a 4 x 4 x 1/4 inch angle should be secured
CORPORATE OFFICE: 100 SHEFFIELD ROAD • P.O. BOX 4776 • MANCHESTER, NH 03108 • TEL. (603) 668-6016 • FAX (603) 668-6641
130 EAST MAIN ST. • P.O. BOX 11 • NORTHBOROUGH, MASSACHUSETTS 01532 • TEL (508) 393-2607 • FAX (508) 393-8490
21 MARKARLYN STREET • P.O. BOX 1087 • AUBURN, MAINE 04210 • TEL. (2071786-4249 • FAX (207) 777-1822
to the concrete wall under the joist to provide proper
support. This angle should be secured to the concrete wall
with a 1/2 -inch bolt every 4 feet. The contractor will
submit a cut sheet on the bolt for the engineer's approval
prior to installation.
The second floor framing appears to be in good condition with no
defects noted. There was, however, one roof truss directly above
the stair landing which has a broken king post. This should be
repaired per the truss manufacturer's recommendations. The only
other item which should be completed prior to the foundation
remediation is the installation of wind bracing.
An engineer will conduct site visits to observe the progress of
the structure remediation as well as the foundation remediation.
The contractor will notify the engineer of the progress of the
work so that these site visits can be scheduled.
Should you have any questions concerning this report, please
contact us.
Very truly yours,
MILLER ENGINEERING, INC.
James A. Murphy, P.E.
Staff Engineer
JAM:paz
CC: Toll Brothers
Frank K. Miller, P.E.
Vice President
�.
MILLER ENGINEERING, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL / SOIL BORINGS / ENVIRONMENTAL / CONCRETE / STEEL / ROOFING / ASPHALT INSPECTION
Mail all correspondence to:
100 SHEFFIELD ROAD • P.O. BOX 4776 • MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03108 • TELEPHONE (603) 668-6016 • FAX (603) 668-8641
July 15, 1994
Mr. Robert Nicetta,
Building Inspector
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER, MA
120 Main Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Re: North Andover tstates_Lot 33
`North Andover,'MA Project No. 40076.01
Dear Mr. Webber:
As requested, the writer revisited the above referenced site on
June 21, 1994 at which time the soil conditions were further
explored. Since the last visit in April 1994, the basement slab
has been removed. This allowed probes to be advanced along the
inside perimeter of the foundation to assess the penetration
resistance offered by the soils beneath the footing level.
Five shovel -dug test pits were excavated through the crushed
stone. Excavation below the stone layer was not accomplished
because there was water present. Materials below the footing were
probed using a 62 -inch long, 1/2 -inch diameter rod. The results
of this probing yielded results similar to those obtained in
April; please refer to the table in Figure 1.
Based on the information that we have to date, it is our
professional opinion that sections of the foundation require
underpinning. As we recommended in Paragraph 4B of our April
report, helical piers will provide a suitable underpinning for the
existing foundation.
These piers would be located 6.0 to 7.0 feet apart along the
existing foundation wall in areas requiring underpinning (approx-
imately 88 linear feet). The piers would be advanced from inside
CORPORATE OFFICE: 100 SHEFFIELD ROAD • P.O. BOX 4776 • MANCHESTER, NH 03108 • TEL (603) 668-6016 • FAX (6031668-8641
130 EAST MAIN ST. • P.O. BOX 11 • NORTHBOROUGH, MASSACHUSETTS 01532 • TEL. (508)393-2607 • FAX (5081393-8490
21 MARKARLYN STREET • P.O. BOX 1087 • AUBURN, MAINE 04210 • TEL. (207) 786-4249 • FAX 12071777-1822
the foundation, where possible, to a firm bearing stratum. Piers
would also be required at several of the interior column loca-
tions. Thus, removal of the existing footings will be required to
facilitate the installation of the pier. In removing the existing
footings, temporary shoring of the center beams would be required.
The piers along the building perimeter could be secured to the
wall with brackets and the foundation could be jacked up, if
required. We recommend that an qualified engineer be on-site
during the underpinning operation to observe the installation
procedure and the extent to which supports are required.
In preparation for this work, we further recommend that the
remaining framing be completed in order• to stiffen the structure.
We also recommend that the extent of any settlement be determined
by surveying the elevation of the top of the foundation wall.
Please note, for work to proceed on this structure will require
the building inspector remove the cease and desist order.
Once the house has been appropriately underpinned, installation of
dry wall and a new basement slab may be accomplished. As was
recommended in the April report, provisions should be made for
proper perimeter and under slab drainage and the cracks in the
foundation should be repaired.
Miller Engineering, Inc. would be pleased to assist you with
review of the underpinning submittal and monitoring during instal-
lation. We thank you for this opportunity to be of service to
you. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please
contact us.
Very truly yours,
MI LER ENGI ERING, INC.
James A. Murphy, P.E.
Staff Engineer
JAM:paz
Enc.
1 V6618 1
13 9 ` I
m
r
m
v
2
0
Z 0
m D O
.-. Z
o==
wmm
n
0
i
rnm�
OI
A
co 20 o
�
m
0
O D
0
00
cW
ym
' D
rn zo
L
I
Z
m -U
m m
m
X�0
til
Z
�. m 0
C7
M
o x
m
www
0-4
a
Z
0coo
CD M
r
>
C)
m
I_
Z
p
rn
0
Z
0
0
•
❑Z
� �
n
0
i
A
OI
A
O
z
m
0
0
00
cW
ym
' D
L
L
o
m
m m
m
W
til
0
C7
I
a
I
I
r
>
Z
a
Z
p
A
0
>
0
❑Z
z
c
n
Z
=
mo
I
m
m
m
I
-u>
=
Z
v
�
v
,
�
I
"
U)
a)I
r—
Z
Z
C
E❑>�
o
I
V
Io
o
0
I
C-, I
0
0
'I
"
A
(�amm
1C7
o
o- I
m
u
�
1
0
1" '
o
a
cn
v
I
I
v o
rn
❑
v Icn
I D I
m
>M
>
cn
N
ID-uo
I
r
m
0
I cn m
I>
W
w
� �
n
0
i
A
OI
>
O
z
0
0
r--- ------
rn
I I
I O I
0
r �m i
> I
x I I
I I
I � I
I a3o)
—� m ----------
I �A 0 X I
to co COO
o I
I m rn
I m W I
I N I
Mm
0
i
A
OI
>
O
z
mr"
�
o=
00
cW
ym
' D
0°
o
M
m m
W
W
til
I
a
I
I
r
>
I
I
a
R1
p
A
07
>
❑Z
z
c
n
I
mo
I
m
m
m
I
-u>
I
m
v
,
.0000
I
"
U)
a)I
OD
_
Z
5=
O
E❑>�
o
I
V
Io
I
C-, I
0
0
'I
"
A
1C7
o
o- I
m
u
1
0
1" '
o
cn
v
I
I
v o
rn
❑
v Icn
I D I
m
Mm
0
i
A
OI
>
O
z
mr"
�
o=
00
cW
ym
' D
Mm
Ln
N m^
r "
m
0 v o
\ m
00 Z o
X z
u C) I
J O N
m a
M
N M
frn O D
0 o n
z
o\oZ�
_ <n
n C
CA
W O
m
M
Pu
�ID
I
0°
til
I
a
I
I
r
>
I
I
a
N
❑Z
c
n
I
I
m
m
m
I
-u>
I
m
v
,
.0000
I
"
U)
a)I
OD
_
Z
i
E❑>�
o
I
II
_
Io
I
C-, I
0
0
1C7
o
o- I
m
u
1
0
1" '
o
cn
v
I
I
v o
rn
❑
v Icn
I D I
m
>
ID-uo
I
m
I cn m
I>
m
I
o
0
-- ---
---------
---j
I
I
o j 1
1 1
o
I
Fo i
----�----
m
I
WPI
o 1
0
0
>
l
I
m
o I I
x
0 1 1
0
M f
I
1 1
X
o
I
o I io W
o
00 1 1
co
c
I
I m
cr I I
cn
o f
II
----------�
—
— — — — — — — —
— — — —I-
1 --I
A
D
n
O
n
D
X
Ln
N m^
r "
m
0 v o
\ m
00 Z o
X z
u C) I
J O N
m a
M
N M
frn O D
0 o n
z
o\oZ�
_ <n
n C
CA
W O
m
M
Pu
�ID
AA1 MILLER ENGINEERING, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL / SOIL BORINGS / ENVIRONMENTAL / CONCRETE / STEEL / ROOFING / ASPHALT INSPECTION
Mail all correspondence to:
100 SHEFFIELD ROAD • P.O. BOX 4776 • MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03108 • TELEPHONE (603) 668-6016 • FAX (603) 668-8641
July 1, 1994
5 1994 1!
Mr. Paul Webber
TOLL BROTHERS, INC.
54 Rosemont Drive
North Andover, MA 01845
Re: North Andover Estates Lot 33
North Andover, MA
Dear Mr. Webber:
Project No. 40076.01
As requested, the writer revisited the above referenced site on
June 21, 1994 at which time the soil conditions were further
explored. Since the last visit in April 1994, the basement slab
has been removed. This allowed probes to be advanced along the
inside perimeter of the foundation to assess the penetration
resistance offered by the soils beneath the footing level.
Five shovel -dug test pits were excavated through the crushed
stone. Excavation below the stone layer was not accomplished
because there was water present. Materials below the footing were
probed using a 62 -inch long, 1/2 -inch diameter rod. The results
of this probing yielded results similar to those obtained in
April; please refer to the table in Figure 1.
Based on the information that we have to date, it is our
professional opinion that sections of the foundation require
underpinning. As we recommended in Paragraph 4B of our April
report, helical piers will provide a suitable underpinning for the
existing foundation.
These piers would be located 6.0 to 7.0 feet apart along the
existing foundation wall in areas requiring underpinning (approxi-
mately 88 linear feet). The piers would be advanced from inside
CORPORATE OFFICE: 100 SHEFFIELD ROAD • P.O. BOX 4776 • MANCHESTER, NH 03108 • TEL (6031668-6016 • FAX (603) 668-8641
130 EAST MAIN ST. • P.O. BOX 11 • NORTHBOROUGH, MASSACHUSETTS 01532 • TEL. (508) 393-2607 • FAX (508) 393-8490
21 MARKARLYN STREET • P.O. BOX 1087 • AUBURN, MAINE 04210 • TEL (207) 786-4249 • FAX (207) 777-1822
the foundation, where possible, to a firm bearing stratum. Piers
would also be required at several of the interior column loca-
tions. Thus, removal of the existing footings will be required to
facilitate the installation of the pier. In removing the existing
footings, temporary shoring of the center beams would be required.
The piers along the building perimeter could be secured to the
wall with brackets and the foundation could be jacked up, if
required. We recommend that an qualified engineer be on-site
during the underpinning operation to observe the installation
procedure and the extent to which supports are required.
In preparation for this work, we further recommend that the
remaining framing be completed in order to stiffen the structure.
We also recommend that the extent of any settlement be determined
by surveying the elevation of the top of the foundation wall.
Please note, for work to proceed on this structure will require
the building inspector remove the cease and desist order.
Once the house has been appropriately underpinned, installation of
dry wall and a new basement slab may be accomplished. As was
recommended in the April report, provisions should be made for
proper perimeter and under slab drainage and the cracks in the
foundation should be repaired.
Miller Engineering, Inc. would be pleased to assist you with
review of the underpinning submittal and monitoring during instal-
lation. We thank you for this opportunity to be of service to
you. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please
contact us.
Very truly yours,
MILLER ENGINEERING, INC.
James A. Murphy, P.E.
Staff Engineer
JAM:paz
Enc.
E 5�
TABLE 1
6/21/94 DATA
LOCATION
DEPTH PROBED
BELOW T.O.F.
TP -1
3.67 FEET
TP -2
2.33 FEET
TP -3
3.25 FEET
TP -4
1.17 FEET
TP -5
3.58 FEET
PROBE A
4.25 FEET
PROBE B
2.42 FEET
PROBE C
1.08 FEET
PROBE D
1.00 FEET
PROBE E
1.00 FEET
I
C f rl _j.. it e
i.1 t7 � � L
F
i 5
TABLE
4/04/94
LOCATION DEP
BEI
CORE A t
CORE B
CORE C
CORE A >
I TP_4 A
I �
VEP.TICAL CRACK
CRACK
I
(
DEPTH OF PROBE -J
SECTION A—A
SCALE 1/8" = 14
CRACK
FOOTING STEPS ?
ti DEPTH OF PROBE
SECTION B --B
SCALE 1/8" = 1 -
CRACK
FL. FOOTING STEPS ?
�J DEPTH OF PROBE
SECTION C—C
SCALE 1/8" = 1 -
MILLER ENGINEERf
OCATION
100 SHEFFIELD ROAD - PO BOX 4
MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE 0" FCTIONS
,TELEPHONE (603) 668-6016 // FAX (603.
FIGURE No.
O� ,10RTN ,0 0
OFFICES OF. 3, . ,"° '.�•.OP Town of
BUILDING
CONSERVATION NORTH ANDOVER
DIVISION OF
HEALTH aSA�NUSf
PLANNING
PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
KAREN H.P. NELSON, DIRECTOR
At�
&Ilf I-- -"�
-t� I (� — y— / ep,
I JUN 9 M4
120 Main Street
North Andover,
Massachusetts 01845
(508) 682-6483
Z�jte'c- ���
MAY -23-1994 08: : 39 FFa 1, j%- LER Eh lG I NEER I NG . MHCSTP TO f� 1506682233.3 P. 01
MILLER ENGINEERING, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL / SOIL 80RING5 / ENVIRONMENTAL / CONCRETE / STEEL / ROOFING / ASPHALT INSPECTION
Mail all cormpondenm M,
100 SHEFFIELD ROAD • P.O. BOX 4776 • MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03108 • TELEPHONE (603) 668.6016 • FAX (603) 868-8641
May 23, 1994
Mr. Paul Webber
TOLL BROTHERS, INC.
54 Rosemont Drive
North Andover, MA 01845
Re: North Andover Estates Lot 33
North Andover, MA
Dear Mr. Webber:
FAXM- t
1b:biL C 38
Fax # 1� _0didA.
snip"
From 0 (w3) 668-601s
Pax # (603) 6W -8U41
Project No. 40076.01
Pursuant to our recent conversation regarding the partially -built
structure on Lot 33 at North Andover Estates, it is our under-
standing that you wish to proceed with remedial foundation
measures as discussed in our Foundation Investigation Report,
dated -r11 81 1994. In order to formulate remedial designs,
sub rface conditions beneath interior and exterior portions of
thfoundation must be determined. Test pits excavated on the
ex erior using a backhoe and shovel pits on the interior should
expose the suitable bearing layer for support of underpinning.
To proceed with the required exploration of subsurface conditions,
it will be necessary to remove the existing basement floor slab.
This will allow us to access to the interior and exterior Footings
to expose the underlying soil. Appropriate remedial foundation
and slab -on -grade design recommendations can then be made.
Once the slab is removed, we will be prepared to accomplish the
required exploration. Should you have any questions prior to that
time, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
MILLER ENGINEERING, INC.
Frank K. Miller, P.E.
Vice President
FKM:paz
OCQ
5 1
2&?'7I
I�,11 rIn.,r, i);- 'ik,4l(F- IT
CORPORATE-- CFF/BE 100 SHEFFIELD ROAD • P.O. BOX 4776 - MANCHESTER, NH 03108 - TEL (603) M-6016 - FAX (6031668.8641
130 EAST MAIN ST. • P.O. BOX 11 • NORTHBDROUGH, MASSACHUSETTS 01532 • TEL (508) 393-2607 - FAX (508) 393-6490
21 MARKARLYN STREET • P.O. BOY. 1007 - AUBURN. MA(NF (14?10 -TEL, tP17717RR-Aa4q -PLY f?n7t 777.'1 P,"
KAREN H.P. NELSON Town of 120 Main Street, 01845
Director (508) 682-6483
b._
NORTH ANDOVER
BUILDING
CONSERVATION DIVISION OF
PLANNING PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: James P. Gordon, Town Manager
FROM: Walter Cahill, Ass't Building Inspector
DATE: May 6, 1994
RE: North Andover Estates/Inspection of Lot 33
A complaint was received; I viewed the site and talked with the
supervisor who stated that Tom Frangos was rushing that house. I
told Scott McInnis that we had received a complaint and would
have to service same. I saw the cracks in the foundation. I
called the woman and told her I had, in fact, seen the cracks.
She asked about the framing and I said all they had was a
foundation permit so far. She said she would send me a report by
a structural engineer on the frame and the foundation. When the
report was received, a Stop Work Order was placed on the house
construction. The Order will remain in effect until structural
plans are submitted and permits issued.
WC:gb
c/K. Nelson, Dir. PCD
D. Robt. Nicetta, Bldg. Insp.
El
C
El
C
1
C
G
1
I
C
N
n
n
LJ
r-1
L
U
n
r,
r,
L
Foundation Investigation
LOT 33 NORTH ANDOVER ESTATES
North Andover, MA
April 8, 1994
PREPARED FOR:
Toll Brothers, Inc.
54 Rosemont Drive
North Andover, MA 01845
Project No. 40076.01
PREPARED BY:
Miller Engineering, Inc.
100 Sheffield Road
Manchester, NH 03103
MILLER ENGINEERING, INC.
n
u
GEOTECHNICAL / SOIL BORINGS / ENVIRONMENTAL / CONCRETE / STEEL / ROOFING / ASPHALT INSPECTION
Mail all correspondence to:
u 100 SHEFFIELD ROAD e P.O. BOX 4776 a MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03108 a TELEPHONE (603) 668-6016 a FAX (603) 668-8641
F1 April 8, 1994
u
Mr. Paul Webber
rl TOLL BROTHERS, INC.
54 Rosemont Drive
North Andover, MA 01845
The foundation was placed in December 1993, just prior to the
rl
onset of the severe cold. Because of over -excavation in some
u areas, the footings were lowered approximately 2 feet. Please
refer to the attached Figure 1 for these approximate footing
elevations. After framing the house had commenced, backfilling of
L�
the foundation began. During this operation the site contractor
-► hit one of the foundation walls and caused it to collapse. This
wall was replaced but not founded at the same level as the origi-
rl nal wall. The new footing and wall were supposed to be founded on
Li 2 feet of crushed stone. Scott indicated that the plan northeast
n
corner of the foundation had also been hit by the excavator. The
L,
exterior foundation drains had not been connected to the catch
basins and there is an interior drain under the slab which drains
r�
into a sump pump inside the foundation.
n The following observations were made at the time of the writer's
U site visit. All directions provided below are based on the
r1 assumed north arrow shown on the attached figure.
CORPORATE OFFICE: 100 SHEFFIELD ROAD a P.O. BOX 4776 e MANCHESTEL, NH 03108 e TEL (603) 668-6016 a FAX (603) 668-8641
r 130 EAST MAIN ST. a P.O. BOX 11 a NORTHBOROUGH, MASSACHUSETTS 01532 e TEL. (508) 393-2607 a FAX (508) 393-8490
u 21 MARKARLYN STREET a P.O. BOX 1087 a AUBURN, MAINE 04210 e TEL. (207) 786-4249 e FAX (207) 777-1822
RE: Lot 33, North Andover Estates
Project
No. 40076.01
`J
North Andover, MA
n
Dear Mr. Webber:
As you are aware, a visit was made by
the writer to
the above
n
i
referenced site on April 4, 1994 to perform
a visual
inspection of
L_'
the concrete foundation constructed on
lot 33. The
site repre-
r
sentative, Scott (with Toll Brothers),
provided the
following
L_'
information regarding construction of
the foundation:
The foundation was placed in December 1993, just prior to the
rl
onset of the severe cold. Because of over -excavation in some
u areas, the footings were lowered approximately 2 feet. Please
refer to the attached Figure 1 for these approximate footing
elevations. After framing the house had commenced, backfilling of
L�
the foundation began. During this operation the site contractor
-► hit one of the foundation walls and caused it to collapse. This
wall was replaced but not founded at the same level as the origi-
rl nal wall. The new footing and wall were supposed to be founded on
Li 2 feet of crushed stone. Scott indicated that the plan northeast
n
corner of the foundation had also been hit by the excavator. The
L,
exterior foundation drains had not been connected to the catch
basins and there is an interior drain under the slab which drains
r�
into a sump pump inside the foundation.
n The following observations were made at the time of the writer's
U site visit. All directions provided below are based on the
r1 assumed north arrow shown on the attached figure.
CORPORATE OFFICE: 100 SHEFFIELD ROAD a P.O. BOX 4776 e MANCHESTEL, NH 03108 e TEL (603) 668-6016 a FAX (603) 668-8641
r 130 EAST MAIN ST. a P.O. BOX 11 a NORTHBOROUGH, MASSACHUSETTS 01532 e TEL. (508) 393-2607 a FAX (508) 393-8490
u 21 MARKARLYN STREET a P.O. BOX 1087 a AUBURN, MAINE 04210 e TEL. (207) 786-4249 e FAX (207) 777-1822
n
Li
F,
L; The basement of the house was entered through the garage where a 6
n to 8 inch thick ice layer was observed on top of the crushed
stone. The basement floor slab appeared to be in fair condition
with several transverse cracks apparent. The floor slab also
r)
appeared to have some undulation in it which roughly corresponded
with the cracks.
n
The foundation wall, south of the location of core A, had two (2)
c� 45 degree cracks which ran from the top left to the lower right
corner. Both cracks appeared to be slightly wider at the top of
r� the wall. The easternmost crack was approximately 0.05 inches
wide at the top of the wall and the other crack was approximately
M 0.16 inches wide at the top of the wall. Reference can be made to
the attached plan for locations of the cracks. These cracks are
u
also shown in photos 1 and 2. At core location A there was
�I approximately 3 inches of concrete underlain by approximately 12
`J inches of crushed stone. A 62 inch long 1/2 inch diameter steel
n rode was used to probe into the soils below the stone layer to
Li made some assessment of the soil density. The probe was pushed 7
n inches into the soil at this location; however, it is possible
u that the soil was frozen or that a rock was encountered.
At core location
B there was a crack in the north foundation wall
which started at
the corner of a window and extended down to the
floor slab. This
crack extends from east to west and had a width
of approximately
0.25 inches near the window. It appeared to be
M
slightly wider at
the top than at the bottom. Photo 3 shows the
crack at core location
B. Approximately 3-1/2 inches of concrete
n
and approximately
12 inches of crushed stone was found at this
location. The steel
rod was easily pushed into the soil 38 inches
at this location.
Please refer to photo 4.
n
L,
The crack at core
location C was in the south wall and extended
from the top west
to the slab on the east. This crack is at about
`J
40 degrees and extends
through a sleeve for the sewer line.
M
Reference can be made to Section C -C on Figure 1 and photos 5, 6
2
n
n 0 r1
E
A crack was observed at the
and 7. Photo 6
shows
core C in which there
was approximately
pp Y
n
4-1/2 inches of
concrete
underlain by approximately
12 inches of
L,
crushed stone.
Photo
7 shows the steel
probe which easily pushed
approximately 37
inches
into the soil.
The probe was also used at
Scott had indicated that
this crack was caused by the
excavator
the doorway into
the
garage to probe to
approximately 36 inches
U
below the slab.
This
probing was done
on the garage side of the
wall between the
wall
and frozen stone.
It is assumed that the
top of the footing
is
at this depth.
n
U The next area observed was the wall which had been replaced on the
east side of the family room. This wall can be seen in photo 8
;_, where it is also apparent that the new footing is not at the same
n
elevation as the old footing.
u
An inspection was made of the foundation exterior starting from
the garage and proceeding counter clockwise around the building.
The first item noted was a near vertical crack in the fireplace
n bump -out. This crack can be seen in photo 9 and extended from the
i" top of the wall to the ground surface approximately 7 feet. There
F) was no corresponding crack observed on the inside of the founda-
L tion and the crack appeared to be approximately the same width
r.
from top to bottom.
L, hitting the wall.
r�
The west wall of the family room, which reportedly had been re-
placed, can be seen in photo 11. The joint between the new and
�1 old foundation appeared to be in good condition with no evidence
`J of movement. However, when the steel rod was used to probe below
M the footing it was pushed relatively easily to a depth of 30
u
3
r
A crack was observed at the
northeast corner of the foundation.
M
This crack started at the
top of the wall on the east
side and
U
continued around onto the
north wall, approximately 6
feet down
n
from the top of the wall.
This crack can be seen in
photo 10.
The crack appeared to be
consistent in width over its
length and
Scott had indicated that
this crack was caused by the
excavator
L, hitting the wall.
r�
The west wall of the family room, which reportedly had been re-
placed, can be seen in photo 11. The joint between the new and
�1 old foundation appeared to be in good condition with no evidence
`J of movement. However, when the steel rod was used to probe below
M the footing it was pushed relatively easily to a depth of 30
u
3
r
Fi
L' inches. The resistance expected from crushed stone was not en -
F) countered during this probing; therefore, the footing may not be
v founded on stone. The joint between the new wall and the old wall
on the north side of the basement showed no visible signs of dif-
ferential movement.
n A hairline crack was also observed at the lower corner of the
window on the north wall. This crack roughly corresponds to the
crack on the inside of the foundation at core location B.
u
71 A crack was observed at the front, south side of the foundation.
,-, This crack was vertical and was located at the southwest corner of
n the foundation. This crack is in the area of core A but did not
Ucorrespond to the cracks observed on the inside of the foundation.
Please refer to photo 12.
The supports for the front steps were observed to have separated
from the foundation. Please refer to photo 13. At this location
u it appears that the supports have settled as the cracks are
n considerably larger at the top than at the bottom.
The final crack observed was in the south wall at the corner of
i
the garage and basement. Please refer to photo 14. This crack
u
does not correspond to the crack observed on the interior at core
n location C. The crack was fairly vertical and consistent in
width.
n
v Engineering Assessment
�, Based on these observations and the information gathered from
others, we conclude
that the concrete
floor slab and foundation
n
have been
damaged by
frost heaving and
settlement. The soils
observed
on the site
are very silty and
there is obviously an
abundance
of water.
These two (2) factors
together with sub-
ub-
freezing
freezing
air temperatures
are the key
ingredients to produce frost
n
heaving.
It is also
apparent that the
soils beneath the north
4
r�
basement wall are loose and saturated to a depth of at least 33
inches below the footing grade. A similiar condition exists at
the front of the foundation at core location A where the footing
may be founded on as much as 25 inches of loose, saturated soil.
It is unlikely that adequate support of the foundation will be
provided by the soils directly beneath the northern and western
walls. Therefore, remedial measures are recommended to provide
adequate long-term performance of the foundation.
In consideration of the foundation conditions found at the site,
the following recommendations are made:
1. The foundation drains must be connected to drain the
water which has accumulated within the crushed stone
layer beneath the foundation.
2. Sump areas should be constructed in each of the enclosed
foundation areas and the sumps should be pumped to remove
water trapped inside the foundation.
3. After the stone layer has been dewatered, test pits
should be excavated on the exterior of the foundation
near the core locations to determine the extent that
underpinning of the foundation will be required.
4. Underpinning of the foundation could be accomplished by
the following methods:
A. Excavate soils from under the footing to a firm
bearing strata and place concrete under the footing
to provide support. In doing this, no more than 6
feet of the footing should be underpinned at one
time. Non -shrink grout would be "dry packed" between
the concrete underpin and bottom of footing.
5
L
LJ B. Utilize helical foundation supports to transfer loads
to firm bearing strata.
Li
Please note that any excavation on the north side of the
LJ
house must be conducted with safety as a paramount
concern. The slope on this side of the property could
become unstable and slide if the excavation is non -prop-
erly conducted. All state, local and federal guidelines
M must be followed during this excavation.
LJ
F1 5. The concrete floor slab should be removed and the bearing
�, capacity of the soils supporting the interior footings
n
assessed. Assuming the bearing capacity is adequate, the
crushed stone layer should then be replaced and
compacted. A filter fabric separator should be used
nbetween the silty soil and stone layer. This will
inhibit the migration of fine soil particles.
L' 6. All of the cracks observed in the foundation after under-
pinning should be sealed by epoxy injection. Please note
;J that concrete continues to cure for up to 1-1/2 years
F1 after placement, therefore, it is possible that cracks
LI
will reappear in the walls as a result of shrinkage for
several years.
7. Based on the extent of underpinning required, it may be
�? more cost effective to simply remove the existing founda-
tion and construct a new foundation. This foundation
could be founded on compacted fill or on suitable undis-
turbed strata.
All of the above conclusions and recommendations are based on
information in part provided to us. Conditions encountered during
r' construction may vary from those observed. This report has been
prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering
r -I practice, no warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
6
n � r .`
u
�J
Fl.
iI
n
M
u
F-1
n
n
n
n
r-�
n
n
n
n
r7
n
Miller Engineering, Inc. would be please to assist you with any
further investigation, analysis or design which you may require on
this or any other project. We thank you for this opportunity to be
of service to you and should you have any questions regarding this
report, please contact us.
Very truly yours,
MILLER ENGINEERING, INC.
James A. Murphy, P.E. rank K. Miller, P.E.
Staff Engineer Vice President
JAM/FKM:ec
cc: Land Planning Engineering & Survey
7
L U L r U rI LI L-1 L A
m
r
m
o
m D O
Z
0 = N
J �
� I
wmm
�1 1
rnmm
1
O
coou
O
M
L
rn
�Mo
;u
cDn
0
0
Xao
z
m o
m
aj C) x
wW�
Z
m
;u
�
z
cng100
cn
c�
m
I
rn
2
z
=
a
J �
� I
�1 1
III
1
O
V J
O
M
L
L
I
cDn
0
0
O
Z
Z
O
p
D
m
I
m
z
=
0
,
D
I
a
>v
2
Z
v
M
r-
Zo
0
I
I
I
I
I
i
;d
cc
o
0
cop<m
rn
v'
I_J
I
i
CA
I
t
a
i
I
I
�
l
I
I
a
m
C/)
C/)
cn
r
0
oI
co
I
W
L4
a
J �
� I
�1 1
III
a
J �
1—i
�1 1
�M
V J
L J
a
J �
1—i
�1 1
�M
L J
0
a
cn M
m r �
O o 0
0 Z o oc>
= Z
II o
/� v m
J O N
CD N
M
a
N
C',
m
ce
II
v
m
I
I
cDn
O
D
m
I
m
0
,
D
I
v
0
I
I
I
I
I
i
f
I
I
I
I -----------I
I_J
I
i
D
I
t
i
I
I
�
l
I
I
oI
co
I
a
I
I
I
I
>
CA n
O
I
Z
(
m
t
I
m
000
cDn
>
C:
a3l
C2
o
I
m
I
0
I
u
z
I
o
o
t
00
0
�
I�
0 I
m
I
m �
z
-mv
N
I
I
-+
1
>
m
m
X
I
o
I
M
I
m
I
q
r
O
c�
—
m
L'
I
o ,
o
I
j ----
�---
--
a I I
co
I
m�
I
a I
n
o,
o
of
o I
I I
v
C)
m
I j
l l
o
x I I
o
'<
o f
x
o
I I
rn
I
PO
I
Ln I I
Ln
o f
I----------�
-------------I
t_---�
r---�
n
D
n
n
D
n
R
cn M
m r �
O o 0
0 Z o oc>
= Z
II o
/� v m
J O N
CD N
M
a
N
C',
m
ce
II
v
m
F)
u
n
n
M
u
F-1
Li
ri
r�
r,
v
r;
n
c
u
r
M
r
r-i
r -1
F)
T-1
�l
Photo 1: Interior of basement, core location A,
south wall. Note two (2) cracks from uppper left
to slab lower right.
Photo 2: Close-up of second crack in Photo 1.
Again crack runs from upper left to the corner
right.
M
u
u
n
Li
n
Li
r�
n
u
M
La
n
n
s
n
U
n
n
u
n
Li
n
V
La
r�
IU
i
71
U
Photo 3: Interior of
basement, core location B,
north wall. Note crack
from corner of window to
slab. Also note core hole
and steel probe rod
length.
Photo 4: Core B. Note
crack where it meets the
floor slab. Note steel
probe penetrated 38 inches
into soil with moderate
pressure.
n
Lj
n
F,
Li
n
n
Lj
n
u
n
Li
u
Photo 5: Interior of basement south wall, core
location C. Note crack from top right to left.
Photo 6: Same crack as in Photo 5. Note crack
goes over sewer sleeve. Also location of Core C.
n
n
u
C C)
rn Photo 7: Core C. Note steel probe penetrated 28
L, inches into soil.
n
.r
u
r�
n
r^
r
ri Photo 8: Replaced wall under family room. Note
Lj footing at surface on replaced wall.
n
n
n
i
u
n
u
U
n
Li
r�
LJ
n
ri
U
n
u
n
u
n
r�
ri
n
M
ri
Lj
n
n
Photo 9: Exterior of
foundation fireplace bump -
out. Note vertical crack.
Photo 10: Exterior north-
east corner of foundation.
Note crack which extends
from east side of wall
around to north side.
n
n
Li
n
Li
F)
u
r
LJ
r�
v
n Photo 11: East wall of family room, new wall.
Note probe rod pushed to 30 inches below bottom
of footing.
r�
r7
Ir-)
LI
n
r,
Photo 12: Southwest corner of foundation, front
�' wall. Note vertical crack.
rM
u
n
Li
n
u
M
u
n
u
r)
L-,
C
CJ
r1
Photo 13: Front step supports. Note crack where
-� supports pulled away from foundation.
n
Lj
n
�u
n
Lj
r�
Photo 14: Front
wall at corner with
garage. Note crack
from right to left
near corner.
�. :\, `ia :�7 �•�: a�`.. `: �'•�_� ;1..Y � ,ii. `� ":!� ?:v 4j R.• ��., ti: i�11�'\ • ; ..'f.'�'"; iv :i *'i';�. '�Y'� �°:
`. _
ll`Niii 1 ���• t: i• :�:, 1 a` '�A i`u t.i t\� Ti:.iu.y:\1J'".14. sib. ]. rr„�1r..,...
. `�.' ` It Fr_)lt
,Ut,' `'.'
-
• i..f \.rt .t.u.�.1 h.'1•� •. .1, .��;��4�.. r. 1.i. .?..._ A. ...... •...�{1:,. /f ti...'Snv\].. i•Y.�3.1Y:.1
�'. 1.��' w Y.. .w.J•.L:aJ
wlr, \r _\tf.......:A. -
MGGRATH SIAL-PAK NEW ENG.
P•02
•
'a
03-23-1994 05 : 14PM FROM RENE MUGN I ER ASSOC
INC.
TO iCO2C� .01' ..
BENEM N
SIG IER ASSOC4 TES, INC,
it � �
4t � i
fn
.�
STR=tMAL ENGINEERS
, �
r%m . nPPARTNAI N'f
66.70 Union Square Suite 204
i
March 23, 1994
MA 02143.3032
Ms. Kathy McGrath & 4 a ` 4419
203 Brookside Drive
Andover, MA 01810
RE: 133 Rosemont Drive, North Andover
&rth ver Estates. Lot 33
Dear Kathy:
This letter confirms our conversation during our visit on 3118/94 to the referenced hi ruse. The
purpose of this visit was to observe the, apparent structural condition of the building. 'r"his report
Is based on our observations and qualifications as well as information provided to us luring this
visit.
This U a wood fmnme house resting on concrete construction. We began our observaa ion in the
garage where we noticed that an interior column had not yet been erected. We also noted in several
instances that the joists did not have joist hangers at flush framed connections, and we suggest that
they be introduced at all flush frame connections. (At the date of our inspection, no censer column
bad yet been introduced).
As we procceded to the basement we noted severe cracking in the exterior wails. Several of those
cracks were at 45 -degree slants which indicate settlement (Photo 5). Cracks this si0fia int in size
are quite concerning for a recently built house. We noticed cracking at the support of me of the
girders at the front of the building (Photo 6). This type of cracking occurs in several supports.
Again, we noted that most of the flush frame connections did not have any joist or bean i hangers,
and In several areas the joists did not have bridging. We also noted a crack under the tease of the
chimney which is almost vertical, There is a very substantial crack, approximately 1/& taiek at the
back right corner of the building. (Photo 7).
At the other corner of the extension we noted again a dramatic crack which tends to' separate the
back wall of the extension from the left wall (as one looks at the building from the street). (Photo
8). At the time of our visit there was a substantial,amount of snow on the perimeter of tl � building
which made it difficult to evaluate the exterior base of the house,
�r-GRATH VAL—PAK NEW ENG.
03-23-1994 05-.15PM FROM RENS MUGNIER ASSOC INC.
(� P. 03
ibJ 15086 s �.
We were very much concerned by the fact that the beams are not rittal. ThiS tClay a of the
the result• of either very poor erection or of settlementf the oundat
foundations may very well be the case if one gives proper importance to the settlement cri.,eks which
we noted in the foundation walls- ,
We also question why some of the columns have base plates and others do not.
There was also severe cracking on the slab on grade (Photo 11).
The corner at the intermediate stair landing is improperly supported (]Photo 12) at there ii no proper
support under the first floor to address this load, (in the baSment there is no col='.). At the
present time4 which do not appear to have footings un
&M, there are a couple of 2 x dezzu.
.atlt. This
again is of concern as the cracldnD in the slab indicates that slab. is most likely improperly supported
and certainly not able to take the reaction of the column without a footing.
one must also note that the bearing partition (to the left of the stair upon entering the h Dust) does
not fall on the girder below but on the end of the joist cantilever. The plate above it is also
improperly shimmed. (Photo 13), Also, the connection of the joist to the beam is iot always
properly cut .(phbto 14). In some instances there are severe gaps between the t.nd of the
cantilevered joist$ and the first joist perpendicular to it in the vicinity of the offset beariq,; partition.
(Photo 15 shows joists without ark bridging). Some of the lumber was also of poor quE:lity (Photo
16). .
We would also like to direct the attention of the designer to the beam which supports the bearing
partition in the back of the stairs, as the members underneath are built of 2-2 x 10, ons of which
has it very bad notch. Those 2-2 x 10 are supported on another 2-2 x N
)ne of the
supports are on bangers, and this Is cause for concern. (Photo
17). must also w t that the
bearing partition which runs parallel to the front of the building is not supported on, d ie carrying
beam. This is particularly critical in the area where there is a beam on the second floor supported
on two supports as those supports are not on the beam which brings very subs :antial and
concentrated load on a single 2 x 10.
it is also our professional opinion that the beam located under the partition perpendic alar to the
street and between the second and the third window (beg=ung from the right) apj ears -to be
improperly sized for the load that it supports. ,Again, there is a beam on the left of the s airs on the
second floor which brings a concentrated load on the post adjacent to the fifth step goln i up. This
post is .falling onto the end of the cantilevered joist. This needs to be analyzed as it ma; r very well
exceed the shear capacity of the joist, let alone the fact that the plate underneath is [mproperly
supported. Please note also in this detail the Crack in the stair stringer under the third ;tep (Photo
19).
We also noted that some of the exterior walls are very much underframed to support v •ind load.
II. RECOMMENDATIONS
Although the carpenter who was present informed us that his Work had been comaleted, our
professional opinion is that additional work is necessary to resolve the problems noted a Bove. One
0)
r�GRATH VAL-PAK NEW EMG. P.04
03-23-1554 05:15PM FROM RENE MUGNIER ASSOC-INC. TO 150BEO2 "P:03
N�03�
example is that the missing column in the garage obviously needs to be introduced. NCost of the
Problems have to do with the wood structures of the house which could be easily resolYlad.
On the other hand, we are much mm concerned with the cracks in the foundation walla aei this may
represent much larger problem. If indeed those cracks were caused by settlement, repairing them
even by pressure injected epoxy would not stop the settI trent and will lead to further MICIdng in
the future. We found these cracks to be extremely important and very unusual for a alWly built
house.
We strongly recommend that you obtain a stamped letter from the Structural Engineer c f Record
who could insure you that all problems have been resolved and that the house is stxuctura ly sound,
and that you are not going to be subjected to more important cracks, as you suspecte11 that the
technical supervision of the work was improper, as witnessed by the many problems *aleh were
evident during this visit.
In light of the above observations, It is our professional recommendation that a full structural
investigation be conducted to reinforce and repair the structures of this building. We suggest that
structural glans be drawn which would indicate the structures as they exist at the tine of the
investigation as well as all new reinforcements necessary to bring the existing structures up to Code.
This report and analysis is based upon observations of the visible and apparent clondicon of the
building and Its major components on the date of this inspection. Although can has been taken in
the performance of the inspection, we make no representation regarding latent or conceal- :d defects
which may exist and no warranty dr guarantee is expressed or implied with any strucUw:,,,. We do
not take responsibility in the capacity of the stairs, banisters, handrails, etc. The report is trade
only in the best exercise of our ability and judgment. Conclusions in this report are, based on
normal working life of various structural items. Predictions of life expectancy and the i valance of
useful life are necessarily based on industry and/or statistical comparisons. Its is es3ential to
understand that actual conditions can alter the useful life of any item. The previous us. -/misuse,
irregularity of servicing, faulty manufacturing, unfavorable conditions, acts of God and uaforeseen
Wcumstances make it impossible to state precisely when each item would require replacer gent. The
client herein should be aware that certain components within the above referenced property may
function consistent with their purpose at the time of the inspectton, but due to their rature are
subject. to deterioration without notice.
.All repairs recommended herein require design input from a Structural Engineer. Should you have
any questions, or require our services for an investigation and the preparation of structu -al plans,
please feel free to contact me.
Very tr4ly'you`xS;:�,
� r
Rene"zitztcipal
RENE MUG19 ;PtSSOCIATES, 1ily6.
RNI/psf
pd.
KAREN H.P. NELSON
Director
BUILDING
CONSERVATION
HEALTH
PLANNING
Town of
a
NORTH ANDOVER
,BsACHUSE{ DIVISION OF
PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
N O T I C E
TO: TOLL BROS., INC.
ROSEMONT DR. (Const. Trailer)
120 Main Street, 01845
(508) 682-6483
FROM: WALTER CAHILL, ASST BUILDING INSPECTOR `. <•
DATE: MARCH 30, 1994
RE: 133 ROSEMONT DRIVE, NO. ANDOVER/LOT #33
In accordance with Art. 1, Sec. 113.0 "Application for Permit"
and Art. 1, Sec. 118.0 "Fees" of the Mass. State Building Code,
you are hereby ordered to STOP WORK until the proper permits are
obtained for above-named project.
/gb
c: R. Nicetta, Bldg. Insp.
K. Nelson, Dir. PCD
A -L
Received by: -, >
Date: 3
THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE BUILDING CODE
SECTION 116.0 DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES
116.1 Service connections: Before a building or structure can be demolished or
removed, the owner or agent shall notify all utilities having service connections
within the building or structure, such as; water, electric, gas, sewer and other
connections. A permit to demolish or remove a building or structure shall not be
issued until a release is obtained from the utilities, stating that their respective
service connections and appurtenant equipment, such as; meters and regulators have
been removed or sealed and plugged in a safe manner.
116.2 Lot regulation: When a building or structure has been demolished or
removed and a building operation has not been projected or approved, the vacant
lot shall be filled with nonorganic fill, graded and maintained in conformity with
adjacent grades. The lot shall be maintained free from the accumulation of rubbish
and all other unsafe or hazardous conditions which endanger the health of the
public; provisions shall be made to prevent the accumulation of water or damage to
any foundations on the premises or the adjoining property; and the necessary
retaining walls and fences shall be erected in accordance with the provisions of
Article 30.
SECTION 117.0 MOVED STRUCTURES
117.1 General: Buildings and structures moved into or within the jurisdiction shall
comply with the provisions of this code.
SECTION 118.0 FEES
118.1 General: A permit shall not be issued to begin work for new construction,
alteration, removal, demolition or other building operation until the fees prescribed
by municipal ordinance or bylaw shall have been paid to the city or town collector
or other municipal agency authorized to collect such fees.
118.2 Other fees: The payment of the fee for the construction, alteration,removal
or demolition and for all work done in connection with or concurrently with the
work contemplated by a building permit shall not relieve the applicant or holder of
the permit from the payment of other fees that may be prescribed by law or
ordinance for water taps, sewer connections, electrical and plumbing permits.
erection of signs and display structures, marquees or other appurtenant structures,
or fees for inspections, certificates of use and occupancy or other privileges or
requirements, both within and without the jurisdiction of the building department.
1-20 780 CMR - Fifth Edition
THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE BUILDING CODE
SECTION 112.0 RIGHT OF ENTRY
112.1 General: In the discharge of his duties, the building official shall have the
authority to enter at any reasonable hour any building, structure or premises in the
municipality to enforce the provisions of this code.
If any owner, occupant, or other person refuses, impedes, inhibits, interferes
with, restricts, or obstructs entry and free access to every part of the structure,
operation or premises where inspection authorized by this code is sought, the
building official, or state inspector may:
1. seek in a court of competent jurisdiction a search warrant so as to apprise
the owner, occupant or other person concerning the nature of the inspection
and justification for it and may seek the assistance of police authorities in
presenting said warrant; and/or
2. revoke or suspend any permit, license, certificate or other permission
regulated under this code where inspection of the structures, operation or
premises is sought to determine compliance with this code.
112.2 Office badge: The BBRS may adopt a badge of office for building officials ,
which shall be displayed for the purpose of identification.
112.3 Jurisdictional cooperation: The assistance and cooperation of police, fire.
and health departments and all other officials shall be available to the building
official as required in the performance of his duties.
SECTION 113.0 APPLICATION FOR PERMIT
113.1 When permit Is required: It shall be unlawful to construct, reconstruct.
alter, repair, remove or demolish a structure; or to change the use or occupancy of
a building or structure; or to install or alter any equipment for which provision is
made or the installation of which is regulated by this code without first filing a
written application with the building official and obtaining the required permit
therefor.
Exception: I. Ordinary repairs as defined in Section 201.0.
2. Greenhouses covered exclusively with plastic film (in
accordance with Chapter 671 of the Acts of 1982
113.2 Form of application: The application for a permit shall be submitted in
such form as the building official may prescribe and shall be accompanied by the
required fee as prescribed in Section 118.0.
1-14 780 CMR - Fifth Edition 6.5N2 (Effective 6/19,92)
f1
D
ti
0
m
=
m
3
m
m
a
•
m
H
a 3
3
� a
a—
-
»
°
m
o
° m
o'
_
"�
o
dl p
2 m
N
q
C.°3.
a m
m
•Ow
7
0�
all
m ..
CL
m
0
Dee
mmm
Fr
m
» a
°
m
m O
iL
O
N N
O
M 3
m
0►
�
m
m
O
ri
s
'=
c
m •
'
?\ mm
2
me_
2
c
m
_m
a p
—
a
»
»
O a
s
,:
13
002
:::
•
g
a
O
Qa
a
F
m
m
o
o
1
a
0
c
c.
»
2
v
po
•
bi
O
rm
m
a
n
m
2pQ�(�71 rr RATH VAL-PAK NEW ENG. 1 P.02
03-23-1994 05 14pM FROM RENS MUGNIER ASSOC y I NC. ':: + TO
120322 01
RENS MUGN[a ASSOCIA TEs, rNC,
STRUCTURAL• BNGiP4EERS
66.70 Unftln Square Suite 204 Some/+eOe MA o2X43.3o32 Phone (617) 666.5566 Fax (1`47 ffS
+0
March 23, 1994
�1•POA
Ms. Kathy McGrath & 7;L - 4>61s,
243 Brookside Drive f
Andover, MA 01810
RE; 133 Rosemont Drive, North Andover
&i rth_A,xtdover Estates.3
Dear Kathy:
This letter confirms our conversation during our visit on 3118194 to the referenced hmise. The
purpose of this visit was to observe the apparent structural condition of the building, ',phis report
Is based on our observations and qualifications as_well as information provided to us +luring this
visit. I -
This •is 'a wood frame house resting on concrete constriction. We began our observation in the
garage where we noticed that an interior column had not yet been erected. We also noted in several
instances that the joists did. not have joist hangers at flush framed connections, and we si,,iggest that
they be introduced at all flush frame connections. (At the date of our inspection, no cev er column
had yet been introduced).
As we procceded to the basement we noted severe cracking in the exterior wails. Sever tl of those
cracks were at 45 -degree slants which indicate settlement (Photo 5). Cracks this significant in size
are quite concerning for a recently built house. We noticed cracking at the support of i°)ne of the
girders at the front of the building (Photo 6). This type of cracking occurs in several supports.
Again, we noted that most of the flush frame connections did not have any joist or bean I hangers,
and In several areas the joists did not have bridging. We also noted a crack under the t.ase of the
chimney which is almost vertical, There is a very substantial crack, approximately 1/8;" t tick at the
back right corner of the building. (Photo 7).
At the other corner of the extension we noted again a dramatic Crack which tends to se.oarate the
back wall of the extension from the left wall (as one looks at the building from the street). (Photo
8). At the time of our visit there was a substantial,amount of snow on the perimeter of til � building
which made It difficult to evaluate the exterior, base of the house,
. ,_. ... _ .. .. .. 1., .. ._. ..._.... .``. ...__.. .. i.. ._.._.,.....>_�1:.+:.t.act,::i.)ti::__..._i�.>.....;.t; V?�d:!:..L:.:>c1.•. a:.�>auu�a.us n. ,. s. ....�,..e.,,.:.v.,.._..... .
' IN '
McGRATH VAL-PAK NEW ENG.P.03
;.. ;
03-23-1994 05:15FM FROM RENE MUGNIER ASSOC INC. TO
We were very much concerned by the fact that the beams are not horizontal. This may have been
the result. of either very poor erection or of settlement of the foundations. Settlem�snt of the
foundations may 'very well, be the case if one gives proper importance to the settlement cri°rYs which
we noted in the foundation walls. .
We also question why some of the columns have base plates and. others do not.
There was also severe cracking on the slab on grade (Photo 11).
The.coraer at the intermediate stair landing is improperly supported (Photo 12) at there is no proper
support under the first floor to address this load, (in the baseament there is no 001unu1). At the
present time, there are a couple of 2 x 4 which do not appear to have footings undern .ath. This
again is of concern as the cracMna in the slab indicates that slab, is most likely improperly supported
and certainly not able to take the reaction of the column without a footing.
Ote must also note that the bearing partition (to the left of the stair upon entering the b:Duse) does
not fail on the girder below but on the end of the joist cantilever. The plate abovt!: it is also
improperly shimmed. (Photo 13). Also, the connection of the joist to the beam is :lot always
properly out .(Photo 14). In some instances there are severe gaps between the 1,nd of the
cantilevered joist$ and the first joist perpendicular to it in the vicinity of the offset beariu;l partition.
(Photo 15 shows joists without any bridging). Some of the lumber was also of poor qui lity (Photo
We would also like to direct the attention of the designer to the beam which supports the bearing
partition in the back of the stairs, as the Members underneath are built of 2-2 x 10, O11 . -V of which
has a very had notch. 'Those 2.2 x 10 are supported on another 2-2 x 10 joist. None of the
supports are on hangers, and this is cause for concern. (Photo 17). One must also nc►te that the
bearing partition which nuts parallel to the front of the building is not supported on tl',te carrying
beam. This is particularly critical in the area where there is a beam on the second floor supported
on two supports as those supports are not on the beam which brings very subs, antial and
concentrated load on a single 2 x 10.
It is also our professional opinion that the beam located under the partition perpendicular to the
street and between the second and the third window (be g=Ung from the aright) apE,ears -to be
improperly sized for the toad that it supports. ,Again, there is a beam on the left of the s air3 on the
second floor which brings a concentrated load on the post adjacent to the fifth step goin:Y up. This
post is .falling onto the end of the cantilevered joist. This needs to be analyzed as it ma;,.f very well
exceed the shear capacity of the joist, let alone the fact that the plate underneath is Lmproperly
supported. Please note also in this detail the crack in the stair stringer under the third . .tep (Photo
19) ,
We also noted that some of the exterior walls are very much underframed to support v -ind load.
II. RECOMMENDATIONS
Although the carpenter who was present informed us that his work had been completed, our
professional opinion is that additional work is necessary to resolve the prpblems noted above. One
<._-GRATH VAL-PAK NEW ENG. P.04
03-23-1554 03:15PM FROM RENE MUGN I ER ASSOC ANC. To 15086 203 .0
example is that the missing column in the garage obviously needs to be introduced. Nbst of the
problems have to do with the wood structures of the house which could be easily MOW, td.
On the other hand, we are much M=' concerned with the cracks in the foundation walla apt this may
represent much larger problem, If indeed those cracks were caused by settlement, repairing them
even by pressure injected epoxy would not stop the setattbtnent and will lead to further c racbag in
the future. We found these cracks to be extremely important and very unusual for a n :wly built
blouse.
We strongly recommend that you obtain a stamped letter from the Structural Engineer of Record
who crnild insure you that all problems have been resolved and that the house is stxuctura :iy sound,
and that you are not going to be subjected to more Important cracks, as you suspecte 1 tbat the
technical supervision of the work was improper, as witnessed by the many problems w!*h were
evident during this visit.
In Eight of the above observations, It is our professional recommendation that a full structural
investigation be conducted to reinforce and repair the structures of this building. We suggest that
structural plans be drawn which would indicate the structures as they exist at the •th!lie of the
investigation as well as all now reinforcements necessary to bring the existing structures ul.) to Code.
This report and analysis is based upon observations of the visible and apparent clondivon of the
building and its major components on the date of this inspection. Although care has bee i taken in
the performance of the inspection, we make no representation regarding latent or conceal:d defects
which may exist and no warranty or guarantee is expressed or implied with any structw % We do
not take responsibility in the capacity of the stairs, banisters, handrails, etc. 11w repos t is unade
only in the best exercise of our ability and judgment. Conclusions in this report are based on
normal working life of various structural items: Predictions of life expectancy and the t Falance of
useful life are necessarily • based on industry and/or statistical comparisons, Its is essential to
understand that actual conditions can alter the useful life of any item. The previous us -/misuse,
irregularity of servicing, faulty manufacturing, unfavorable conditions, acts of God and aaforeseen
cUeumstances make it impossible to state precisely when each item, would require replacement. The
client herein should be aware that certain components within the above referenced proyerty may
function consistent with their purpose at the time of the inspection, but due to their nature are
subject to deterioration without notice.
All repairs recommended herein require design input from a Structural Engineer. Should you have
any questions, or require our services for an investigation and the preparation of structu -a1 plans,
please feel free to contact me. .
Very =. Iy
Rene 1V er,
RENE I ;,a.SSOCIA'TES, I]--.`
RM/psf
pd.
Y � %� Z �.. 'a' l ' V�:... ^ `�';�.. X4.1 .. _ + .
� .. • •:' ^ �� 'e�2,�.�.s;� ^. �;.'.;.���.• �? ...,.�...+. ``�•y;;"�'"�.�.ti'� aa'31�?.�•.,1.1��3''�4..:....,..t.,,.t,�.....lr,��:,ati��,..ta:�,,�,su1.;5!?`i��;:
McGRATH VAL-PAK NEW ENG. P•02
03-23-1994 05:14FM FROM BENE MUGNIER ASWC INC.
RENS' MUGNIER ASSOCATES, INC
S7R UC7UML ENGINEERS
66.70 Union Square Suite 204 Some►+etflle MA 02143~3032
March 23, 1994
Ms. Kathy McGrath & 4 a - 0615'
203 Brookside Dive
Andover, MA 01810
RE: 133 Rosemont Drive, North Andover
rth ver tes. Lot 3
Dear Kathy:
29
�f
I R1
Phone (60)1a
�(SaCosa- A I/
This letter coniums our conversation during our visit on 3/18/94 to the referenced hi ruse. The
purpose of this visit was to observe the apparent structural condition of the building. "his report
Is based on our observations and qualifications as well as information provided to us , luring this
visit.
This is 'a wood frame house resting on concrete construction. We began our observai ion in the
garage where we noticed that an interior column had not yet been erected. We also noted in several
instances that the joists did not have joist hangers at flush framed connections, and we si iggest that
they be introduced at all flush frame connections. (At the date of our inspection, no center column
had yet been introduced).
As we proceeded to the basement we noted severe cracking in the exterior walls. Sever, it of those
cracks were at 45 -decree slants which indicate settlement (Photo 5). Cracks this signific int in size
are quite concernjnug for a recently built house, We noticed cracking at the support of )ne of the
girders at the front of the building (Photo 6). This type of cracking occurs in several supports.
Again, we noted that most of the flush frame connections did not have any joist or bean i hangers,
and in several areas the joists did not have bridging, We also noted a crack lander the t ase of the
ch#=ey which is almost vertical, There is a very substantial crack, approximately If&," t -lick at the
back right corner of the building. (Photo 7).
At the other corner of the extension we noted again a dramatic crack which tends to separate the
back wall of the extension from the left wail (as one looks at the building from the street). (Photo
8). At the time of our visit there was a substantial,amount of snow on the perimeter of th : building
which made it difficult to evaluate the exterior, base of the mouse,
03-23-1994 05:15PM
r"CGRATH VAL-PAK NEW ENG.
FROM BENE MJGNIER ASSOC INC.
\ P.03
TG
We were very much concerned by the fact that the beams are not horizontal. TiS tmay have
o the
the result of either very poor erection or of settlement of the
foundations may very well be the case if one gives proper importance to the settlement crt rim which
we noted in the foundation walls. ,
We also question why some of the columns have base plates and others do not.
There was also severe cracking on the slab on grade (Photo 11).
The corner at the intermediate stair landing is improperly supported (photo 12) at there i` no proper
support under the first floor to address this load, (inn the basement there is no colunu ). At the
piresent time, there are a couple of 2 x 4 which do not appear to have footings undtM .ath. This
again is of concern as the cracking in the slab indicates that slab. is most likely improperly supported
and certainty not able to take the reaction of the column without a footing.
One must also note that the bearing partition (to the left of the stair upon entering the b cuse) does
not fait on the girder below but on the end of the joist cantilever. The plate about it is also
improperly shimmed. (Photo 13). Also, the connection of the joist to the beam is lot always
properly cut .(Phbto 14). In some instances there are severe gaps between the i nd of the
candlevered,joist$ and the first joist perpendicular to it in the vicinity of the offset beariql partition.
(Photo 15 shows joists without any bridging). Some of the lumber was also of poor quE lity (Photo
J
We would also like to direct the attention of the designer to the beam which supports i he bearing
partition in the back of the stairs, as the members underneath are built of 2-2 x 10, oil s of which
has a very bad notch. Those 2.2 x 10 are supported on another 2-2 x 10 joist. N )ae of the
supports are on hangers, and this is cause for concern. (Photo 17). One must also n+ ite that the
bearing partition which runs parallel to the front of the building is not supported on die carrying
beam. This is particularly critical in the area where there is a beam on the second floor supported
on two supports as those supports are not on . the beam which brings very subs :antial and
concentrated load on a single 2 x 10.
It is also our professional opinion that the beam located under the partition perpenc c alar to the
street and between the second and the third window (begmmng from the ,right) apE ears to be
improperly sized for the load that it supports. Again, there is a beam on the left of the s airs on the
second floor which brings a concentrated load on the post adjacent to the fifth step g0in up. Tl1is
post is falling onto the end of the cantilevered joist. This needs to be analyzed as it ms; r very well
exceed the shear capacity of the joist, let alone the fact that the plate underneath is ltxtproperly
supported. Please note also in this detail the crack in the stair stringer under the third ;tep (Photo
19),
We also noted that some of the exterior walls are very much underframed to support wind load.
11. RECOMMENDATIONS
Although the carpenter who was present informed us that his Work had been com 3letcd, our
professional opinion is that additional work is necessary to resolve the problems noted a bove. One
-NGRATH VAL-PAK NEW ENG. r� P.04
W-23-1594 05:15PM FROM RENE MUGNIER ASSOC'INC. TU 15086920322 P:03"
example is that the missing column in the garage obviously needs to be intxoduced. Most of the
problems have to do with the wood structures of the house which could be easily resoly ,d.
On the other hand, we are much more concerned with the cracks in the foundation walls all this m$y
represent touch larger problem. If indeed those cracks were caused by settlement, repairing them
even by pressure injected epoxy would not stop the settlhment and will lead to further clacking in
the future. We found these cracks to be extremely importan:t and very unusual for a m,,wly built
house.
We strongly recommend that you obtain a stamped letter from the Structural Engineer c f Record
who could insure you that all problems have been resolved and that the house is structura.1y sound,
and that you are not going to be subjected to more important cracks, as you suspects 3 Haat the
technical supervision of the work was improper, as witnessed by the many problems w *h were
evident during this visit.
In light of the above observations, it is our professional recommendation that a full structural
investigation be conducted to reinforce and repair the structures of this building, We su ggest that
structural plans be drawn which would indicate the structures as they exist at the tip fie of the
investigation as well as all new reinforcements necessary to bring the existing suuctvres ul ► to Code.
This report and analysis is based upon observations of the visible and apparent condit.on of the
building and its major components on the date of this inspection. Although care has bee,i taken in
the performance of the inspection, we make no representation regarding latent or conceal,.:d defects
which may exist and no warranty of guarantee is expressed or implied with any structw% We do
not take responsibility in the capacity of the stairs, banisters, handrails, etc. The repos t is made
only in the best exercise of our ability and judgment. Conclusions in this report are based on
normal working life of various structural items. Predictions of life expectancy and the l valance of
useful life are necessarily based on industry and/or statistical comparisom. Its is essential to
understand that actual conditions can alter the useful life of any item. The previous us. -/misuse,
irregularity of servicing, faulty manufacturing, unfavorable conditions, acts -of God and unforeseen
circumstances make it impossible to state precisely when each item would require replacer Lent. The
client herein should be aware that certain components within the above referenced prof erty may
function consistent with their purpose at the time of the inspection, but due to their r,.ature are
subject to deterioration without notice.
All repairs recommended herein require design input from a Structural Engineer. Should you have
any questions, .or require our services for an investigation and the preparation of structu -a1 plans,
please feel free to contact me.
Very u-41y'yovxS;.:,....
..
Rene 1V er, ?,2";1 zit'ricipal
RENE N1UGN ;PcSSOCIATE5, IIy '
RM/psf
pd.