Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-04 Civi Review MAR.30.2000 4:46PM VHB N0.397 P.2 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD ENGINEERING REVIEW OF SITE PLAN FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER ZONING BYLAW Site Plan Tidet Brooks School—Relocation of Feabody.House VHB No.: 066716.09 Location: Great Pond Road Owner: Brooks School, 1160 Great Pond Road,N.Andover,MA 01845 Applicant. Brooks School, 1160 Great Pond Road,N.Andover,MA 01845 Applicant's Engineer: Rist-Frost Shumvay Engineering,P.C.,71 Water Street,Laconia,NH 03246 Plan Date: 03-03-00 Review Date: 03.30.00 Rist-Frost Shumway submitted plans and documents to VHB for review on March 7,2000. The site plan submission was reviewed for conformance to the appropriate sections of rho 1972 Town of North Andover Zoning Bylaw reprinted in 1998. Tho following comments note non-conformance with specific sections and questions/comments on the proposed design. 1) Section 4,1219b: A Special Permit appears to be required for the proposed alteration of the Peabody House according to this section. Has the Applicant discussed this with the Planning Board? A Special Permit application was not submitted with the application. 2) Section 4.136: The plans indicate that the proposed location for the Peabody House will fall within the Watershed Protection District. a) 211 As the plans do not show any wetland resource areas,VHB assumes that the proposed site falls within the General Zone of the Watershed Protection District. b) 4.: As,mentioned above,a Special Pemut seems to be,required. The Applicant's engineer should submit.a Special Permit application according to the requirements of this section of the zoning Bylaw or should request a waiver from this requirement. 3) Section 8.1: The site plan shows four(4)off street parking spaces. The Peabody House is described as a faculty residence and student dormitory. According to this section,the number of parldng spaces required should equal the number of sleeping rooms provided for faculty. VHB assumes that four(4) faculty residences are proposed given that four(4)parking spaces havo been provided. The Applicant should confirm the proposed number of faculty residences. Also,VHB assumes that students do not require parking spaces. 4) The following information is required by Section 8.3.5 and VHR offers the following comments: 0 8.3.5.a: A Special Permit application form does not appear to have been submitted. • SURVEY OF LOT/PARCEL. A waiver has been requested from preparing a boundary survey. As the development appears to be within the property limits of the Brooks School,VHl3 seas no reason why this waiver should not be granted. 1 \CC\North Andoverlslwrevtew.broaks.i.doc MAR.30.2000 4:46PM VHB NO.387 P.3 • EASEMENTS/LEGAL CONDITIONS: The Applicant should verify that there are no easements or lagal encumbrances on the property that may prevent or place conditions on the proposed development. • STORMWATER DRAINAGE:See comments below in 5)Drainage Review. • LOCATION OF WETLANDS: A plan,entitled Exhibit 1,was included in the application package and shows the existing Lake Cochichewick,an existing pond and two existing wetland areas. None of these existing areas appear to be located near the proposed location of the Peabody House. VHB assumes(and the Applicant should verify)that there are no other wetland areas in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site or existing site. • REFUSE AREAS: Are there any refuse areas proposed for this site? If so,these areas should be shown on the plans, • DRAINAGE BASIN STUDY: See comments below in 5)Drainage Review. • TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: The Applicant has requested a waiver from this requirement. Whale'VHB agrees that a Tlraffic Impact Study may not be necessary for individual stages like the relocation of the Peabody House,VHE suggests that the Planning Board consider looking at the entire project,including all stages. The Planning Board may wish to consider requesting a Traffic Impact Study for the entire Brooks School Capital Building project. As an alternative,the Planning Board may wish to consider giving the Applicant the opportunity to address this issue prior to rendering a decision. 5) DRAINAGE REVIEW: VHB has received drainage calculations and design. The proposed drainage design is a closed drainage system that includes a catch basin,drain manhole,Downstream Defender storm-water treatment structure,and concrete and PVC drainage pipe. We offer the following comments regarding the proposed drainage design; • The drainage calculations provided do not include pipe sizing calculations. These calculations are necessary to detertnine whether the size of proposed pipe has enough capacity to handle to volume of stormwater. The AppIicant's engineer should submit pipe sizing calculations for the drainage system,including the proposed roof drain, • VHB recommends that a reinforced flared end section be provided at the proposed rip-rap apron. • The site plan and construction sequence notes(#5)seem to indicate that a drainage swale is proposed from the proposed rip-rap apron in a southwesterly direction to the limit of erosion control protection. The Applicant's engineer should provide proposed contours for the drainage swale and identify the material proposed. The Applicant's engineer should also show the size of the swale and verify that it has adequate capacity. • The Applicant's engineer should confirnn the elevation of the existing groundwater. It is recommended that the applicant provide WRn TEN RESPONSES to the issues and comments contained herein, Reviewed by: �t Dater Timothy B.McIntosh,P.E. Daniel Ho-Yin Wong,E.I.T, Senior Project Engineer Highway Engineer Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. z \CANefth AzklDvcx\s,te teview•braeka-Y.dot Transportation Land Development Environmental Services (V imagination 111110vatron energy c:reating,results for our ch nts and benefits for our communities April 11, 1999 Ref: 06716.09 Ms.Heidi A.Griffin Town Planner Community Development&Services Town of North Andover 27 Charles Street North An:?o:,er,MA A n1S45 Re: Brooks School—Relocation of Peabody House Site Plan Review North Andover,MA Dear Heidi, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. (VHB)has received Rist-Frost Shumway's written response letter(dated 4-4-00)to our Engineering Review for the above referenced project. It appears that all of VHB's comments have been adequately addressed and VHB's concerns in this matter have been satisfied. No further engineering review is required at this time. If you have any questions or concerns,please call me at your convienence. Very truly yours, VAIgA,SSE HANGEN�BRUSTLIN,INC. Timothy B. ✓Iclntosh,P.E. Senior Project Engineer—Highway&Municipal Engineering cc: John L. Scott-Rist-Frost Shumway Engineering,P.C. Rick Carey-VHB 101 Walnut Street Post Office Box 9151 Watertown, Massachusetts 02471-9151 7:\0671606\does\setters\Brooke-apprav-asr000.doc 61Z924.1770 n FAX 617.924.2286 email: nfo@vhb.eorn wwwMib.corn A�W'a- sIC n sawkits BROOKS SCHOOL,NORTH AN©OVER,MASSACHUSETTS 01845-1298 TELEPHONE:(978)686-6101 April 4, 2000 Ms. Heidi Griffin Town Planner 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 Dear Ms. Griffin: We have reviewed the memo from your consultants VHB Inc., dated 3-31-00. In reference to item 44, please be aware that there are no easements or encumbrances on the Brooks School Campus property which would prevent or place conditions on this proposed project. Our consultant, Rist-Frost-Shumway, will address all the other comments. Thank ou for your cooperation and assistance. Sine ly, Bruc Wallin Business Manager Cc: Mike Farnola/Design Technique John Scott/Rist-Frost-Sliumway J , RFS RIST-FROST-SHUMWAY ENGINEERING, P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS RECEIVED APR 6 2000 NORTH r A" PP bd TMRNT April 4, 2000 RFS 00-4231 Ms. Heidi A. Griffin North Andover Community Development & Services 27 Charles Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: Response to Consultant Review Comments Relocation of Peabody House Brooks School Dear Ms. Griffin: We have reviewed the memo from your consultants, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., of March 31, 2000 on our application for Site Plan Review. Below we individually list their comments in italics, with our response following: 1) Section 4.121 9b: A Special Permit appears to be required for the proposed alteration of the Peabody House according to this section. Has the applicant discussed this with the Planning Board? A Special Permit application was not submitted with the application. The school has not been required to file a Special Permit application under this section of the zoning bylaws for any of the previous capital building projects, and we have gone through our technical review session without mention of a separate Special Permit. 2) Section 4.136: The plans indicate that the proposed location for the Peabody House will fall within the Watershed Protection District. a) 2.b.i:As the plans do not show any wetland resource areas, VHB assumes that the proposed site falls within the General Zone of the Watershed protection District. b) 4.: As mentioned above, a Special Permit seems to be required. The Applicant's engineer should submit a Special Permit application according to the requirements of this section of the Zoning Bylaw or should request a waiver from this requirement. 71 WATER STREET • LACONIA,NH•03246 6 TELEPHONE 603.524.4647 • FAX 603.528-7653 • rfs@rfsengineering.com RFS _ AY Ms. Heidi A. Griffin April 4, 2000 North Andover Community Development & Services RFS 00-4231 RE: Response to Consultant Review Comments Page 2 Relocation of Peabody House Brooks School a. The site is approximately 550 ft from the shore of Lake Cochichewick, and is entirely within the General zone of the Watershed Protection District (WPD). b. Again, no mention has been made of the need to file a Special Permit application under the WPD regulations either. As the project is substantially benign in regards to the purposes of the WPD regulations, we request a waiver from this requirement. 3) Section 8.9: The site plan shows four (4) off street parking spaces. The Peabody House is described as a faculty residence and dormitory. According to this section, the number of parking spaces required should equal the number of sleeping rooms provided for faculty. VHS assumes that four (4) faculty residences are proposed given that four(4)parking spaces have been provided. The Applicant should confirm the proposed number of faculty residences. Also, VHB assumes that students do not require parking spaces. There will be two faculty residences. As a further response to the parking issue, in 1999 RFS prepared a campus-wide parking study covering the entire capital building program including the Peabody House relocation. The plan was well received by Town officials. If requested, we would be pleased to send a copy to VHB. 4) The following information is required by Section 8.3.5 and VHB offers the following comments: • 8.3.5.a: A Special Permit application form does not appear to have been submitted. • SURVEY OF LOT/PARCEL:A waiverhas been requested from preparing a boundary survey. As the development appears to be within the property limits of the Brooks School, VHB sees no reason why this waivershould not be granted. • EASEMENTS/LEGAL CONDITIONS:The Applicant shouldverifythatthere are no easements orlegal encumbrances on the property that may prevent or place conditions on the proposed development. • S TORMWA TER DRAINA GE:See comments below in 5)Drainage Review. 4 _ RFS AY Ms. Heidi A. Griffin April 4, 2000 North Andover Community Development & Services RFS 00-4231 RE: Response to Consultant Review Comments Page 3 Relocation of Peabody House Brooks School • LOCATION OF WETLANDS:A plan, entitled Exhibit 9, was included in the application package andshows the existing Lake Cochichewick,an existing pond and two existing wetland areas. None of these existing areas appear to be located near the proposed location of the Peabody House, VHB assumes (and the Applicant should verify) that there are no other wetland areas in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site or existing site. • REFUSE AREAS:Are there any refuse areas proposed for this site? Ifso, these areas should be shown on the plans. • DRAINAGE BASIN STUDY.• See comments below in 5)Drainage Review. • TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: The Applicant has requested a waiver from this requirement. While VHB agrees that a Traffic Impact Study may not be necessary for individual stages like the relocation of the Peabody House, VHB suggests that the Planning Board consider looking at the entire project, including all stages. The Planning Board may wish to consider requesting a Traffic Impact Study for the entire Brooks School Capital Building project. As an alternative, the Planning Board may wish to consider giving the Applicant the opportunity to address this issue prior to rendering a decision. • See above responses regarding Special Permits. • No further comment regarding boundary survey. • Brooks School will respond directly regarding absence of easements. • See below on drainage issues. • There are no wetlands within 500 feet of the site. • Refuse is collected inside the building. • See below on drainage issues. • The traffic issue was addressed in a previous application under the capital building program. RFS �`A U_ M W_A' Y'' Ms. Heidi A. Griffin April 4, 2000 North Andover Community Development & Services RFS 00-4231 RE: Response to Consultant Review Comments Page 4 Relocation of Peabody House Brooks School 5) DRAINAGE REVIEW. VHB has received drainage calculations and design. The proposed drainage design is a closed drainage system that includes a catch basin, drain manhole, Downstream Defender storm-water treatment structure, and concrete and PVC drainage pipe. We offer the following comments regarding the proposed drainage design: • The drainage calculations provided do not include pipe sizing calculations. These calculations are necessary to determine whether the size of proposed pipe has enough capacity to handle to volume of stormwater. The Applicant's engineer should submit pipe sizing calculations for the drainage system, including the proposed roof drain. • VHB recommends that a reinforced flared end section be provided at the proposed rip-rap apron. • The site plan and construction sequence notes (#5) seem to indicate that a drainage swale is proposed form the proposed rip-rap apron in a southwesterly direction to the limit of erosion control protection. The Applicant's engineer should provide proposed contours for the drainage swale and identify the material proposed. The Applicant's engineer should also show the size of the Swale and verify that if has adequate capacity. • The Applicant's engineer should confirm the elevation of the existing groundwater. • North Andover DPW requires drain pipes sized for the 25-year storm. Attached are copies of pages from our HydroCAD output which are marked up to indicate adequacy of each pipe segment. As an aside, the pipes are capable of passing the 100-year storm as well. • The recommendation is well taken; we have added a flared end section. See revised drawing C2. • Attached is a table showing normal flow depth in the pipe discharging to the swale, which is marked up to show the adequacy of the swale. The original drawing C2 showed 2' proposed contours. We have revised C2 to show 1' contours, the Swale material, and slope with spot grade at the downstream end. • See attached copy of Map 23 of Essex County soil survey showing the soil at our site (Sutton) and copy of Table 16 showing moderate water table depth. V I 'RFS -S' H�'- U"-cM-WAY Ms. Heidi A. Griffin April 4, 2000 North Andover Community Development & Services RFS 00-4231 RE: Response to Consultant Review Comments Page 5 Relocation of Peabody House Brooks School We trust these responses are acceptable to your consultant and the Board. Sincerely, RIST-FROST-SHUMWAY ENGINEERING, P.C. r John L. Scott, P.E. $enj r Civil Engineer JLS:jdl JLS14231V4AG1ifrin.92199.1.WPd Enclosures cc: T. McIntosh and D. Wong, VHB M. Farnola, DTI/Brooks Data for PEABODY HOUSE RELOCATION Page 6 TYPE III 24•-HOUR RAINFALL C-93 IN Prepared by RIST-FROST--SHUMWAY ENGfG, P.C. 2 Mar 00 H droCAD 5. 11 001034 e 1986--1999 Applied Microcomputer S stems x• `, � n POND 1 / Hooded Catch Basin Qin = 1.65 CFS @ 12.01 HRS, VOLUME= .12 AF Qout= 1. 61 CFS @ 12.01 HRS, VOLUME= .i2 AF, ATTEN= 2%, LAG= .3 MIN ELEVATION AREA INC.STOR CUM.STOR STOR-IND METHOD FT) {SF) (CF) (CF_) PEAK STORAGE = 66 Cr °EE` 187.8 13 0 0 PEAK ELEVATION= 93.0 FT f 193.5 13 72 72 FLOOD ELEVATION= 195.5 FT . 195.5 3 16 87 START ELEVATION= 187.8 FT 195.8 1750 263 350 SPAN= 1-24 HRS, dt=.1 HRS Tdet= 9.4 MIN ( .12 AF) # ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES 1 P 191.8' 8" CULVERT � Ke=. 5 Cc=.9 Cd=.6 TW=191.3' , POND 1 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= 1.61 CFS @ 12.01 HOURS HOUR 0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 .01 .02 .o2 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 9.00 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .04 .04 .o4 .o4 10.00 .05 .05 .05 .06 .o6 .06 .07 .07 .08 .08 11.00 .09 .10 .11 .13 . 14 . 17 .27 .41 .56 .85 12.00 1.60 1. 16 .67 .61 . 36 .30 . 17 .23 . 14 . 19 13.00 .12 . 16 . 11 .14 .11 . 13 .10 . 12 .10 . 11 14.00 .09 .10 .09 .09 .08 .09 .08 .08 .08 .08 15.00 .07 .07 .07 .07 .o6 .06 .06 .06 .06 .05 16.00 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .04 .04 .04 17.00 .04 .04 .04 .o4 .04 .04 .04 .03 .03 .03 18.00 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 19.00 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 20.00 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 21.00 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 22.00 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 23.00 .02 .02 .02 .o2 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 24.00 .01 Ai 2 j kl- . � ` G 1 00-\ 1 Data for PEABODY HOUSE RELOCATION Page 5 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 5.30 IN Prepared by RIST-FROST-SHUMWAY ENGINEERING, P.C. 2 Mar 00 H droCAD 5.11�J/} 001039 c) 1986-17999 Applied Milcrocom cater 5 stems �.., "i ec'- REACH 2 DOWNSTREAM DEFENDER OUTLET PIPE Qin = 1.58 CFS @ 12.02 HRS, VOLUME= . 12 AF Qout= 1.54 CFS @ 12.02 HRS, VOLUME= . 12 AF, ATTEN= 2%, LAG= .3 MIN DEPTH END AREA DISCH -- (FT) (S _-FT? (CFS) 12" PIPE STOR-IND+TRANS METHOD 0.00 0.00 0.00 PEAK DEPTH= .2� 7_ FT .� .10 .04 .19 n= .01 PEAK VELOCITY= 8.8 FPS .20 .11 .81 LENGTH= 95 FT TRAVEL TIME _ .2 MIN .30 .20 1.81 SLOPE= .04 FT/FT SPAN= 1-24 HRS, dt=.1 HRS .70 .59 7.76 .80 .67 9.05 .90 .74 9.87 .94 .77 9.96 .97 .78 9.87 - 1.00 .79 9.26 REACH 2 OUTFLOW PEAK= 1.54 CFS @ 12.02 HOURS HOUR 0.00 . 10 .20 .30 .40 .50 . 60 .70 .80 .90 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 .01 .02 .01 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 9.00 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .04 .04 .04 .04 10.00 .05 .05 .05 .06 .06 .06 .07 .07 .08 .08 11.00 .09 . 10 . 11 . 12 . 14 .17 .26 .40 .55 .82 12.00 1.52 1.26 .68 .64 .38 .31 .19 .21 .17 .16 13.00 . 15 . 13 . 14 .12 .13 . 11 . 12 . 10 .11 . 10 14.00 .10 .09 .09 .09 .09 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 15.00 .07 .07 .07 .07 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .05 16.00 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .04 .04 17.00 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 .03 .03 18.00 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 19.00 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 20.00 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 21.00 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 22.00 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 23.00 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 24.00 .01 Data for PEABODY HOUSE RELOCATION Page 7 TYPE III 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 5.30 IN Prepared by RIST-FROST--SHUMWAX ENGINEERING, P.C. 2 Mar 00 H droCAD 5.11 001039 c 1986-1999 Applied Microcomputer S stems �VJC�fw A^.1 1 1...a.✓ �t`G�iNA5` Ylt7\ � S POND 2 Velocity Reducing Drain Manhole Qin = 1.54 CFS @ 12.02 HRS, VOLUME= .12 AF (2out= 1.53 CFS @ 12.03 HRS, VOLUME= .12 AF, ATTEN= 1%, LAG= . 1 MIN ELEVATION AREA INC.STOR CUM.STOR STOR-IND METHOD lFT) (SF) (CF) C( F) PEAK STORAGE = 10 CF 186. 1 13 0 0 PEAK ELEVATION= 186.9 FT 188.5 13 30 30 FLOOD ELEVATION= 190.5 FT 190.5 3 16 46 START ELEVATION= 186.1 FT SPAN= 1-24 HRS, dt=.l HRS Tdet= .3 MIN ( .12 AF) t: ROUTE INVERT OUTLET DEVICES r 1 P 186.1' 12" CULVERT n=.013 L=20' S=.004' / Ke=.5 Cc=.9 Cd=.6 POND 2 TOTAL OUTFLOW PEAK= 1.53 CFS @ 12.03 HOURS HOUR 0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 .01 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 9.00 .02 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .04 .04 .04 .04 10.00 .05 .05 .05 .06 .06 .06 .07 .07 .08 .08 11.00 .09 .10 . 11 .12 .14 . 16 .25 .40 .54 .81 12.00 1.50 1.28 .68 .64 .39 .31 .20 .20 .18 . 15 13.00 .16 . 12 .14 . 12 . 13 .11 . 12 .10 .11 .10 14.00 .10 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .08 .08 .08 .08 15.00 .07 .07 .07 .07 .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 .05 16.00 .05 .05 . .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .04 .04 .04 17.00 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 .03 .03 .03 18.00 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 19.00 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 20.00 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 21.00 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 22.00 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 23.00 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 24.00 .01 rt,�s 16P dace �p�v1S tV� tO -1 5wa�er� II I Manning's n 0.013 Slope, decimal 0.004 Diameter, ft 1 Internal Wetted Hydr Depth Depth Angle, Area Radius, Flow, Vel, Increment d, ft rad a, ft ft arA213 cfs fps 0.1 0.100 1.287 0.041 0.064 0.007 0.047 1.154 0.2 0.200 1.855 0.112 0.121 0.027 0.198 1.769 0.3 0.300 2.319 0.198 0.171 0.061 0.442 2.233 0.4 0.400 2.739 0.293 0.214 0.105 0.761 2.595 0.5 0.500 3.142 0.393 0.250 0.156 1.130 _2.877 0.6 0.600 3.544 0.492 0.278 0.209 1.518 --- 3.085 0.7 C0.700 . 3.965 0.587 0.296 0.261 1.892 3.221 0.8 0.800 4.429 0.674 0.304 0.305 0.9 0.900 4.996 0.745 0.298 0.332 2.408 3.234 1.0 1.000 ' 6.283 0.785 0.250 0.312 2.259 2.877 1 'A t � I Z�-7- C,G .. i CL 1 ` rji Z :tx',rin 2 .�1 i, l r 1 "P�l�C'+'�.� ei C` �t J 1 492 SOIL SURVEY TABLE 16.--SOIL AND WATER FEATURES--Continued _ Flooding High water table 1 Risk of corrosion Soil name and ;Hydro-; I - I - -:Potential;- map symbol : logic; Frequency ; Duration :Months 1 Depth ; Kind ;Months ; frost ;Uncoated ;Concrete group ; ; ; ; ; ; action 1 steelFt ; -- - --- I I 1 I 1 I I I I I RnC*, RnD*: Rock outcrop. 1 Buxton-----------1 C ;None--------', --- : --- 11.0-3,OPerched :Nov-May;High-----Nigh-----;Poderate, ! 1 ! RoC*, RoD*: Rock outcrop. F I I I I I 1 I I I Charlton---- - -1 B ;None--------; --- ; --- i >6.0 1 --- ; --- !Low------:Low------!High. 1 ! ! I 1 I ! I Hollis-----------1 C/D :None--------: --- : --- ; >6,0 1 --- : --- ;Moderate :Low------:High. I ! 1 I 1 1 Rx*: Rock Outcrop. I I S i I I i i 3 I Hollis-----------: C/D !None-------- --- : --- : >6.0 ; ---- ; --- :Moderate 1Low------:High. 5a---------------- : C :Frequent----;Brief-----;Nov-t•1ay: 0-1.0:Apparent:?lov-.Iun:High-----:High-----:Moderate. Saco Variant ScA, ScB----------1 C ;None--------: --- : --- : 0-1.0:perched ;Oct-Jun:High-----:High-----:Moderate. Scantic 1 Se----------------: D :Rare-------- --- ; _-- : 0-1.0;Apparent:Jan-Dec:Bigh-----:Moderate :High. Scarboro 1 V I ! ! ! ! SgB, SgC, ShB, ShC--------------: C None--------1 --- 1 --- : 1.0-3.0;Perched :Dec-Apr;High-----;%loderate ;High, Scituate Sr A, SrB----------: B ;Non e--------1 --- : --- ; 1.0-3.0!Apparent!Dec-Apr:Moderate !Low------;High. Sudbury SsB, SsC----------; C illone--------1 --- : __- : >6.0 : --- : --- :High-----:Moderate :Moderate. Suffield I I I 1 IV 1 I 1 1 1 StA, StB Stc, SUB, uC---------: B ;None--------: -- : : 1 ,5-3.5, ?parent:Nov-Apr:Moderate :Low ------:High. Sutton I SwA, SwB----------1 B/D :None--------; - : --- 0-•1.5;Apparent:tfov-flay;High-----;High-----:Moderate. Swanton 1 I F I I I I 1 1 SAC*. Udipsamments UDK• { Udorthents UnA, UnB, UnC-----1 B ;None to rare! --- ; --- ; >6.0 ; --- : --- ;Moderate :Low------:Moder ate. Unadilla Ur*. Urban land WaA, WaB----------1 C :None--------; --- --- : 0-1.0;Apparent;?fov-Apr :High-----;Low------;High. Walpole Wb---•-------------; C :lion e--------'1 _-- ; --- : 0-1.0:Apparent:Nov-Jun:High-•--- Walpole Variant WeA, WeB----------; C ;None--------1 --- : --- : 0-1 .5 :Apparent:Sep-Jun 1%ioderate Itioderate ;sigh. Wareham Wf----------------: C :?lone--------; --- ; --- : 0-1.O:Apparent;lfov-Jun:Nigh-----:High-----:Moderate. Whately Variant See footnote at end of table,