Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1995-08-15 Correspondence - Christiansen & Sergi
r 1 P130FESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS 1.60 SUMMER STREET HAVEfd l[t_L, MASSAC9IUSETTS ,01.830 (508):373-0310 FAX: (508)372 33£0 February 16, 1995 [ Ms. Kathleen Colwell Town Planner 40 120 Main Street No. Andover, MA 01845 AA ®�A ® RE : Evergreen Estates Deaf Ms . Colwell: Pursuant to recent correspondence from Donald and Bernadette DeAdder, the passage easement on the above referenced project will be removed. The revision will be made prior to final approval in order to save reprinting costs at this time. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call at any time. Very truly yours, �1 Michael. J. Sergi., .L.S. MJS•,lc CC: R. Messina Donald & Bernadette DeAdder r ; Donald & Bernadette DeAdder 1557 Salem Street North Andover, MA 01845 February 14, 1995 Kathleen Colwell , ESQ. North Andover Town planner 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE ; Evergreen Estates Subdivision Plan erroneously showing easement of passage from lot 17 to Salem Street Dear Atty . Colwell ; By notice dated 2/1/95 we were informed of a proposed subdivision of which lot 17 borders our property at 1557 Salem Street , which is known as lot B . We were also invited to inspect documents at the Planning Board Office related to this proposal . Inspecting the subdivision plan known as Evergreen Estates , we found it showing a 50 ft . easement for passage over our adjacent lot 7, now owned by Michael and Deborah Fried . This easement is shown running along the northern border of our property, lot 8 , within and alongside the southerly side of Frieda ' lot 7 . It connects the proposed lot 17 with Salem Street , and the reference for this easement is Plan 5610 , dated 1/10/67. As a matter of fact , when we bought lot 8 from George Farr -- who owned lot 7 - Mr . Farr, as a condition of purchase, agreed to remove his proposed easement from the southerly side of lot 7. This was the the easement shown on Plan 5610, and the fact that Mr . Farr did remove it is shown on Plan No . 6062, which was filed along with the recording of our deed to lot 8 on 7/29/69 . 2 . Our wish is that the subdivision plan of Evergreen Estates be corrected to remove this easement . The present owners of lot 7, the Frieda , know of no easement over lot 7, and endorse our writing to you because of our knowledge of Plan No. 5610 having been changed by Plan No . 6062 with regard to the removal of the proposed easement . In support of our request we enclose a copy of Plan No . 6062 on file in the Essex N. Dist . Reg . of Deeds , Rec ' d & entered on 7/29/69 . Thank you for your assistance in this matter . Please contact us if you need any further information . Sincerely , on A. DeAdder iY Bernadette M. DeAdder Copies To ; Messina Development Corp . , 805 Winter St . , N. Andover, MA Christiansen & Sergi Inc . , 160 Summer St . , Haverhill , MA George & Wander Farr, 216 Raleigh Tavern Rd . , N. Andover, MA Michael & Deborah Fried, 1535 Salem St . , N. Andover, MA I 1 T° INC. PROFESSIONAL. ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS 160 SUMMER STREET (508)373-M30 FAX (508) 372-3960 March 8, 1995 North Andover Planning Board Town Hall Annex 146 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: Evergreen Estates Soils Suitability OAK) - Dear Dear Board Members: One of the outstanding issues for the above subdivision is that of soil suitability and the ability to build septic systems on each lot. Based upon the deep test pit results, percolation tests, site visits and the "Soil Survey of Essex County, MA" it is my opinion that the soils on the Evergreen Subdivision are suitable for septic systems and the final subdivision should contain no less than 21 buildable lots. The on site soils as defined by the Soil. Survey of Essex County MA are shown on Figure 3 "Soil Map of Evergreen Estates" contained in the "SuVplement to the Definitive Subdivision Plan" . The soil is defined as a Charlton (CrC) . The information about this soil is gained from a review of the table in that report, a portion of which are attached. The soil offers only "moderate" limitation to absorption fields development. The USDA textured class is shown in Table 14 as a gravelly sandy loam. The permeability shown on Table 15 for the parent soil is . 6 -- 6 . 0 in/hr, a moderate to moderately rapid permeability. The seasonal water table is shown at greater than 6 feet in Table 16 . The on site soils testing confirms the Soil Survey report. The dozens of percolation tests on site confirm the rapid permeability of the soil and the test pits confirm the water table and soil conditions mentioned in Tables 14, 15 and 16 . The following lots have sufficient test data to allow for septic system designs: Lots 1 , 2, 3, 4 , 8, 10, 14 , 16, 19 and 20; a total of 10 A review of the plan will show that tests in the roadway area in front of lots 17 , 18 and 21 are sufficient for septic system designs. In my professional judgment, this data along with test pats in surrounding lots is sufficient to assure Lots 17, 18 and 21 will have adequate areas for septic systems. t r+ The abundance of test data on Lots 16, 14 and 20 represent the soils of lots 13, 14 , 15, 16 and 20. I fully expect that soils on Lots 13 and 15 will be similar to soils on Lots 14 , 16 and 20 and have no doubt that these lots will prove suitable for septic systems. Lots 5 , 6 and 9 lie between lots 4 , 8 and 10 which each have adequate tests. It is reasonable to assume lots 5, 6 and 9 will have similar soils. The remaining Tots 7 , 11 , 12 , 22 and 23 do not lie between other tests and therefore the suitability of soils on these lots cannot be extrapolated from the on site soils data. In summary, I believe that 18 of the 23 lots shown are clearly buildable based uvon the information available. The suitability of the remaining 5 lots cannot be assumed based solely upon the test data. however, the soils data, coupled with the Soil Conservation Service Soils designation leads me to believe that at least 21 of the 23 lots shown are suitable for septic system. As a result, I believe that the approval process should not be delayed because of the lack of soils data. Ve FVtru ; ; offs X/Y . ..... , p l p G. Christiansen PGC•, lc enc. ,a P SOIL SURVEY f. E' 19fl ;" TABLE 16.-^SOIL AND WATER FEATURES 'he definitions of "flooding" and "water table" in the Glossary explain terms such as "rare," "brief," "apparent," and: "perched." The symbol C means less than; > means more than. Absence of an entry indicates that the feature is not a concern] ?� I Floo ing gh wa er to e _ s , ask o corrosion =`3 HWE 3 F _.._.._�..-----,—•�— '�,Potential l I Soil name and !Hydro^! ' F is HS ma symbol ! logic, Frequency ; Duration (Months I Depth ! Kind ;Months ! frost Unooated Concrete' p Y 1 I ; I action 1 steel ; Wi !group ! I , 1 !j IWI *--- !Low------!Low------'High.>6.0 1 --- B None---^----1AgC-gA, AgB, I g , , A awam I i 1i1.0-2.5!Apparent',Dec-AprIModer•ate !Moderate ;Moderate, We mA, AmB------^---i C €None- ----_i LeA Amostown ' I ' , � , I '''i Le i F rO IIeaches Li 11 .5-3.5!Apparent!Nov^AprlHigh-----IModerate IModerate, ,eA, BeB, BeC-----! B !None-------_� Belgrade ' 3 ' igh-----(High- 0-1.0;Apparent!Oct-JullHigh-----1H [None--------� ..j Ma- r-^-_-___ ------ Ma Birdsall I I 11.0-3.01perched !Nov-May1High-----iHigh�-�----IModerate, MLA 3uA, BuB, BUC-----I C !None-------- --_ + ^ , i I I Me I , i Buxton 1 1 , I ' �?1 MMe6 , 1,4-3OiPerched ;Nov-MayiHigh-- (High--^--IModerate. eM3xB", BxC . Buxton------ C None--^----^ mA Mm Rock outcrop. i ! ` ' ' ; 1 ! ' 1 I ! ; 1 1 , I CaA, CaB, CaC, CaD C6B+ + CbC MOD CbD, COB, COG, I ! --- ' _^- i I !Low------(Low------(High p Ms ------' B None-------'1 , >6 0 1 CCD--- ! Mx Canton 1 'I €I +I!High CDE 0 Y-11 d nPA -'-_- (None-^-- -- >6 Canton---- Ni!High.I , ,Low----'-,Low------ >6.0 i Charlton---------+ B !None--------, aE ---!Low------IHigt." b (None- _ ^— >6.0 ! ;Low^-- CeA CeB---------- A Carver P 1 I I i 1 I CmB, CmC, CmD, B ;None I --- ! ^ ! >6.0 ! -- ! --- ;Low------!Low-----^High.; Pe- Pi COG, COD----, _- ^ ' __ ___, ! ! ' 1 „ Pi Charlton CrB*, CCC*, CrD*: , I --- !Low High. >6.0 1 PPi Charlton--^------' B None aux Rock outcrop. I _ >6.0 ! -- I --- ;Moderate !Low-----^IHigh. y Ou Hollis--- ----11 C/D (None--^-----I -- i - i + ; ' " Ra- Hi h I I1.0-3.0,Apparent!Dec-AprlModerate (Low---^-'I g Ra , B ,None-------- --------------- De 1 1 I 1 I - Deerfield I ; ! ; ! ! , RdA Du*. • RlA Dumps ! ; '1.0-3'01Perched !Nov^MayIHigh-----!Moderate {Madera el Ri ElA€ E1B----------3 C !None---^---^, I I 1 1 Elmwood ' ' ' ' w ' I I , - Moderate! Le ! �+ arentlNov-May,High ---ILo Ha -' B (Occasional !Brief-----,Oct-Apr,3.0^b,01Rpp Hadley I - ' I I ' I HfA, Hf6, HfC, , ! , ! !Low------1( Low-'-- ------ --------------, A None-------- .Hfn I Hi g h• �i I Hinckley I I I I 1 See footnote at end of table. :' rl} i;k r i j SOIL SURVEY. 186 TABLE 15.--PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPCRTIES OF SOILS--Continued 1 , Erosian ; F I Soil name and 'I Depth ! Permeability ! Available ;:Soil reaction Shrink-swell i factors i map symbol ! ; , water capacity + ; potential 1 , K ! T n a n hr n jn p_ Cr8* ' ' 1 -_--' ' ''. CrC* Cr0*: F , 0.08-0.23 ! 4.5-6.o !Low-------- I 0.17 3 Charlton--------I o-4 1 0.6-6.0 ! 4-28 ! 0.6-6.o ! 0.05-0.20 ; 4.5-6.0 ;Low------------1 0.43 1 1 , ;Low------------1 0.43 !4.5-6.0 28-64 ; 0.6-6.0 ; 0.05-0.16 , 1 I 1 I I I I t I I I l Rock outcrop, I ' ! F I I Hollis----------! 0-5 ! 0.6-6.0 1 0.10-0.21 ! 4.5-6.0 !Low------------i 0.20 2 ! 5-16 I 0.6-6.0 ; 0.06-0. 18 ! 4.5-6.o ;Low------------! O�43 ! ! -__ ,--------- -----E 16 1 -_ 0-9 ! 6.0-20 i 0.07-0.13 i 4.5-6.5 !Low------------i 0.17 1 5 De---field------�-F 1 0.01-0.13 ; 4.5-6.5 !Low-------------1 0. 15 1 Deerfield 9-60 1 6.>204 0.01-0.08 ! 4.5-6.5 !Low------------; 0.15 1 , Dumps I E F EB---__ -__+I 0_1 ; I 5.1-6.5 !Low------------ 32 3 EIA, 102o Elmwood 1-35 1 2.0-6.0 0.13-0.22 5.1-6.5 !Low------- _- 032 I 1 35-60 ; <0.2 ; 0, 12--0.18 1, 6. 1--7.3 iHigh-----------, 0.49 1 0.49 1 3 0-9 i 0.6-2.D ! 0. 15-0.25 i 5. 1-7.3 !L.Ow----_------ 0.49 ; Ha-___- -----i 9-56 ; 0.6-6.0 I 0.13-0.20 1 5.1-7.3 Mow------------ 1! 56-64 ; 0.6-6.0 ! 0. 10-0.20 ! 5.6-7.8 !Low------------ 0.49 i 1 1 ; HfA, HfB, HfC, I I 6.4-20 `I 0.03-0.23 ! 3.6-6.0 !Low------------ 0.17 ! 3 HfD-------------1 0-7 ! 6.0-20 ; 0.01-0. 11 ! 3.6-6.0 ;Low--_ __---__ ; 0.17 ! Hinckley ! 7-19 1 6-6.0 lLow----�----�----I 0.15 ! 1 19-60 1 >20 ! 0.01-4.06 3• , I , , E ' 1 I 1 ' HWE ' 1 0.t7 ! 3 + 1 6�6.0 1Low------------! Hinckley -1 0-3 ! 6.0-20 ; 0.03-0.23 ! 3. y---- _ 1 3-15 1 6.0•-20 I 0.01-0.11 i 3.6-6.0 ILow----_-------I 0.17 I 1 15-60 1 >20 ! 0.01-0.06 1 3.6-6.0 !Low------------� 0.15 I 1 1 Windso ---------! 0-3 i 6.0->20 ; 0.08-0.12 ; 4.5-5.5 !Low-------�-----! 0. 17 ! 5 r 1 3-17 I 6.0->20 ! 0.02-0.12 I 4.5-5.5 !Low---------�---! 0.17 ! 1 17-60 ; 6.0->20 ! 0.01-0.08 : 4.5-5.5 iLow------------ 0. 1T i I + IW*: 1 0-18 i 0.6-20 ! 0.18-0.35 ! 5.1-7.3 !Low------------i18-42 --J- --_ Ipswich--------- 1 0.6-20 0. 18-0.35 ! 5.1-7.3 !Low---- , ; 42-62 1 0.6-20 1 0.18-0.35 1 5.1-7.3 !Low------------! I ! 4.5-7.3 - Westbrook--__---! 0-45 . ! 4.6-20 ! 0.18-0.35 t ,Low----_____-_-; , ' 45-60 ! o.6-2.0 ! 0. 16-0,26 1 5.6-7.3 !Low------------1 0.64 1 1 I 1 1 , LeA, LeB----__---1 0-5 I 2.0-6.0 ; 0.06-0.24 ! 4.5-5.5 !Low------------I 00.0.43 3 Leicester 1 5-28 ! 0.6--6.0 ! 0.05-0.20 ! 4.5-5.5 ;Low------_--_-_, ! 28-60 1 0.6-6.0 ; 0.04-0. 16 ! 4.5-6.o !Low------------ 0,43' 1 I 1 ! Lr*: i i ' 0.20 ! 3 Limerick---------; 0-13 ! 0.6-2.0 ! 0.18-0.25 ! 5.1-7.3 1Low------------I 1 13-25 1 0.6-2.0 ! 0.18-0.25 ! 5.6-7.3 !Low------------! 0.20 I 25-60 1 o.6-2.0 0.18-0.25 I 5.6-7.3 Mow------------; 0,20 ! ! Romney----- - 0-5 1 2.0-6.0 1 0,11�-0.20 i 4.5-6.5 ILow-------------� _--- 1 5-29 ! 2.0-6.0 ; 0. 11-0. 19 i 4.5-6.5 Mow------------ 1 -- ; 1 29-60 1 >6.0 1 0.01-0.13 I 4.5-6.5 ILow------------ 0-7 ! 0.2-0.6 ! 0.12-0.30 ! 5.1•-6.o Mow--------- -1 ---- -_- Ma---------------{ 0.09-0. 17 ; 5.6-7.3 IModerate-------! -- F Maybid 1 19-60 ! <0.2 ; 0.09-0,18 ! 6.1-7.3 jModerate--- -t ---' I � I MC*, MD*. 1 Medisaprists See footnote at end of table. > j s: 176 SOIL SURVEY TABLE 14.--ENGINEERING PROPERTIES AND CLASSIFICATIONS--Continued Classification 1Frag- 1 Percentage passing #. ' Soil name and !Depth! USDA texture 1 -r 'ments 1 sieve number-- !Liquid € Plas- <. I� map symbol € ! € Unified € AASHTO 1 > 3 1 : , 1 limit 1 tieity € ' € € inches€ 4 € 10 € 40 1 200 1 € index Pot I. � CmB CmC CmD------€ 0-4 !Fine sandy loam ISM, ML IA-2, A-41 5-10 €75--95 170-90 160-85 130-70 1 --- I NP-5 Charlton 14•-28€Fine sandy loam, !SM. ML €A-2, A-4I 5-15 €65-90 €60-90 l50-80 '20-65 € --- € NP-3 1 gravelly fine 1 € € ! € € 1 1 € { LS :I 1 , I sandy loam, 1f"1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 3 [ gravelly loam. 128-60€Gravelly sandy ISM !A-2, A-4€ 5-15 160-90 160-85 I50-70 120-45 1 --- € NP 1 loam, gravelly € fine sandy I 1 1 1 I € 1 loam, loam, , } j 3{f E I 1 I ! 1 1 1 I I — 1 CoB, CoC, CoD-----•-, 0-4 ,Very stony fine !SM, ML 1A-2, A-4 :t0-30 175-45 ,70-90 16fl-85 130-70 , 1 NP-5 1 Charlton , , sandy loam, [ I € + [ 1 1 + 1 }y1' 1 I [ I I I 1 1 1 1 "-- ' , 4-281Fine sandy loam„SM, ML ,A-2, A-4 , 5-15 165-9fl ,60-90 ,50-80 ,20-65 1 , Np_3 1 gravelly fine 1 sandy loam, ! € I € € ! ! € I 1 1 , gravelly loam. 128-60€Loam, gravelly ISM 'A-2, A-41 5-15 160-90 160-85 150-70 120-45 1 - 1 NP ' 1 fine sandy loam) € € ! I € ! I 1 , 1 1 t , , gravelly sandy , f [ , loam. CrB*, CrCM, CrWt: K, Charlton----------1 0-4 !Very stony fine :SM, ML 'A-2, A-4110-30 175-95 €70-90 I60-85 130-70 1 --- € NP-5 sandy loam. I ! I € 1 € € ! € 1 4-28€Fine sandy loam,€SM, ML !A-2, A-41 5-15 165-90 160-90 150-80 120-65 € -- I NP-3 gravelly fine sandy loam, € € € € ! € € ! € 1, 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 € gravelly loam. , 1 [ 1 1 1 1 4 128-601Loam, gravelly ISM !A-2, A-41 5-15 160-90 I60-85 I50-70 120-45 € --- € NP 1, !fine Sandy loam € € € € ! € € 1 i I gravelly sandy € € € € 1 € ! € I 1 1 loam. € ! 1 ! 1 € ! € € N Rock outcrop. Hollis------------€ 0-5 'Fine sandy loam ISM, ML €A-2, A-41 0-15 175-100165-95 140-85 125-70 1 <20 I NP-�: 1 5-161Fine sandy loam, !SM, ML €A-2, A-41 0-15 175-95 €65-95 140-80 120-65 1 -- I NP ;u ( 1 , i [ I I I 1 1 € sandy loam, 1 I , I , 1 I 1 € € gravelly loam, 16 !Unweathered - I 1 bedrock. -' I I I 1 E € I I I F 1 De------------------I 0-9 'Loamy fine sand ISP-SM, St4IA-1 , 1 0 195-100180-100140-75 1 5-30 € sy Deerfield € ' € I A-2, € € 1 € € ! I 1 I 1 1 A-3 I 1 I I I 1 j NP € 9-251Loamy sand, ISM, SP-SMIA-1, I 0 €95-100€80-100140-75 € 5-30 € I 1 sand, coarse 1 1 A-2, € sand. € ! A-3 125-60ISand, fine sand,ISP, SM, !A-1 , I 0 195-100165-100130-75 1 3-30 ( ' € coarse sand, I SP-SH I A-2, 1 I 1 1 A-3 1 1 € ' € € € 1 1 I 1 1 Du*. ! 1 1 € 1 € I I € € Dumps �P ElA, E18-----------1 0-1 !Fine sandy loam ISM, ML IA-2, A-4€ 0 1 100 €95-100155-85 l30-55 1 <33 R Elmwood € 1-35€Sandy loam, fineISM, ML !A-2, A-41 0 1 100 195-100155-95 130-75 1 35-45 € Sandy loam, I 1 Silt loam. i I 1 € ' € 1 1 '35-60ISilty clay loam, 1CL, CH !A-7, A-61 0 1 100 € 100 190-100€70-95 € 35-64 ; S5" 5 1 1 ' € clay loam, € ' '. ` clay. 1 I E 1 7 See footnote at end of table. nnl r. .�l N. ry 4 z ' i{{ 14 o I i S©iL SURVEY 140 TABLE 9.--SAIIITARY FACILITIES--Continued ' I I Area ', Daily cover I Soil name `and ! Septic tank i Sewage lagoon i sa �ry sanitary I for landfill map symbol ! absorption areas fields landfill landfill ; - _ _ I + I + I CrB*: Charlton-----------;Moderate: ]Severe: ;Severe:, ]Severe: �Flar a stones. 1 ; large stones. ! seepage. seepage. ; seepage. + g I I I I Rock outcrop. ; Hollis-------------!Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: !Poor thin layer ! depth to rock. I depth to rock, I depth to rock, 1 seepage. 1 area reclaim. i ! seepage. 1 seepage, i I CrC*: Charlton------ ----]Moderate: IS !Severe: ]Severe: ;Fair: slope, ; seepage, I seepage. ! seepage. ! slope, ! ; large stones, ! large stones. ; slope. ! ! Rock outcrop. ! 1 i Hollis-------------!Severe, ;Severs : !Severe:to reek, lSevepage. lPthin layer depth to rock. slope, ; area reclaim. ! ; depth to rock, 1 seepage. i F ' + ; seepage. ! , , 1 CrD*: ! ! ` Severe: !Severe: !Poor: Charlton---_______!Severe: ;Severe: see age ! seepage, ; slope. slope. seepage, p slope. ! I ! slope. 1 I f I ! ! Rock outcrop. Hollis--------- ---!Severe: ;Severe: !Severe: !Severe: (Poor: ! slope, ; slope, i depth to rock, ; slope, 1 slope, a e. i thin layer, ` ! depth to rock. ; depth to rock, ! seepage. 1 see p g area reclaim. seepage. I` ---- ]Severe: ;Severe: !Severe: !Severe: Iptor:sand i De--------- , ! seepage, i seepage, ! Y, Deerfield , wetness. ; seepage, wetness. i area reclaim. ! wetness. ; wetness, too sandy. ! Du*. Dumps EIA--_--__ _ ]Severe: ;Slight-----�------!Severe: !Severe: !Fair: Elmwood -T --- wetness. I thin layer. ! pares slowly, ! wetness, ! ! wetness. ; s too clayey. i 1 61S-- ----- ---- --iISevere: !Moderate: !Severe: ',Severe: !Fair: Elmwood Peres slowly, ; slope. ; wetness, i wetness. ' thin layer. ; too clayey. wetness. Ha- _-____ ;Severe: !Severe: !Severe: ',Sfloods, !Good. �__ , Hadley ; floods. ! floods, ' 1 seepage. 1 ; seepage. seepage. F I ! !Severe: !Severe: ;Poor: HfA, HfB------------,Slight-----------!Severe: ' seepage. i too sandy. seepage. 1 seepage. A , Hinckley i ! HfG-----------------!!Moderate: !Severe: ;Sevepage. lSseepage. 1, too sandy. slope. ! slope, 1 Hinckley ; seepage, !Severe: !Severe: ]Severe: !Poor: HfD--------- --!Severe: 1 ; slope, Hinckley I slope. ; slope, seepage. seepage. ! too sandy. ! ; seepage. 1 ' , . See footnote at end of table. ! i i I i e, i 4. 0 ISTIANSEN & SERGI, INC. PRO1 E:SSIONAL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS 160 SUMMER STREET $AVf RI�II.I.., 1 iAS5�iC4{C1,iE i TS U].E330 f�. 13 3. �0<3)372.-396] April 17, 1995 f. , Ms. Sandy Starr . North Andover Board of Health 120 Main Street 1 North Andover, MA 01845 ' Re: Evergreen Estates Definitive Subdivision Plan Dear Ms. Starr: In response to your concerns regarding the buildable status of the lots in the proposed Evergreen Estates Subdivision, we submit to you the following additional information: A plan of the overall site with the locations of the testing that has been perfomed to date. t/"2) A summary of the test results for each of the 23 lots, which includes all of the tests that were perfomed in the areas where the proposed subsurface disposal systems are to be constructed. 3) The results of the testing that was performed by Scott Giles on the site during the spring and summer of 1994. A review of the test soil testing summaries indicates that all of the lots, with the exception of lots 9 and 23, have two suitable test pits in the proposed leaching facility locations. (A lot line modification between lots 15 and 16 will result in the appropriate test locations on lot 15.) In addition, eight of the proposed lots (lots 1, 2, 4, 14, 15, 16, 19, and 20) already have the required two passing pert tests in or near the proposed leaching facility locations. The test pit results on the remaining lots, along with the results of the 42 passing perc tests that have already been recorded on the site, indicate that passing perc tests should be attainable on the remaining lots. It is our intention to perform these perc tests as soon as your schedule permits. I trust that this information will allow you to make a favorable recommendation to the Planning Board as to the suitability of the site for the use of subsurface sewage disposal systems. e nAg%.aAAq Please contact me if you have arw'-c � �s arding this information. PHILIP Ve rul Y c11niVIANSEN No.28895 ISTV Pli' p . C ristiansen ,/ c.c. Kathleen Colwell, North Andover Planning Board Y I l EVERLiHEEN ESTATES: SUMMARY OF SOIL TEb I'ING ° LOT 1 TEST PIlLl A DATE:6122/94 0 - 18" TOPSOIL AND SUBSOIL 18" - 108" FINE SANDY SILT E.S.H.W.T. @ 66": HEAVY MOTTLING SEEPAGE @ 96" TEST PIT 1 B DATE:6122/94 0 - 18" TOPSOIL AND SUBSOIL 18" - 54" FINE SANDY SILT 54" - 108" MOTTLED SILT CLAY LOAM E.S.H.W.T. @ 66": MOTTLING NO SEEPAGE PERC TEST 1 A DATE:8/23/94 PERC RATE = 23 MINIIN DEPTH OF TEST = 44" PERC: TEST I DATE:8/23/94 PERC RATE = 18 MINIIN DEPTH OF TEST = 42" LOT 2 TEST PIT 3 DATE:5/12/94 0 - 24" TOPSOIL AND SUBSOIL 24" - 72" FINE SILTY SAND, MOTTLED OLIVE BROWN, WITH COBBLES AND ROCKS TO 15" GROUNDWATER @ 30" TEST PIT ,4 DATE:5/12/94 0 - 30" TOPSOIL AND SUBSOIL 30" - 60" FINE SILTY SAND, LIGHT OLIVE BROWN, GROUNDWATER @ 36" TEST PIT 2-1 DATE:414/95 0 - 5" A 6" - 32" BW: 10YR518 FINE SANDY LOAM 32" - 84" Cl: 2.5Y5/3 GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM MASSIVE FIRM E.S.H.W.T. @ 36": MOTTLING PERC TEST 3 DATE.8/26/94 PERC RATE = 17 MINIIN DEPTH OF TEST = 48" PERC TEST 4 DATE:6/26/94 PERC RATE = 13 MINIIN DEPTH OF TEST = 48" r EVER6HEEN ESTATES: SUMMARY OF SOIL TE51 ING 4 LOT 3 TEST PIT_Z DATE:414/95 0 - 5" A 5" - 32" BW: 10YR518 FINE SANDY LOAM 32" - 102" C: 2.5Y5/4 GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM MASSIVE FIRM E.S.H.W.T. @ 60": MOTTLING SEEPAGE @ 60" JEST PIT 3-2 DATE:4/4/95 0 - 5" A 5" - 30" BW: 10YR518 FINE SANDY LOAM 30" - 80" C: 2.5Y5/4 GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM MASSIVE FIRM E,S,H.W.T, @ 36": MOTTLING REFUSAL @ 80" PER(; TESTS' NOT YEI PERFORMED LOT 4 TEST PIT_4-1 DATE:4/6/95 0 - 5" A 5" - 30" BW: 10YR516 FINE SANDY LOAM 30" - 86" C: 2.5Y516 VERY BOULDERY SANDY LOAM MASSIVE FRIABLE - MASSIVE FIRM NO GROUNDWATER REFUSAL @ 86" TEST PIT 4-2 DATE:416/95 0 - 5" A 5" - 32" BW: 10YR5/6 FINE SANDY LOAM 32" - 84" C: 2.5Y5/2 GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM WITH FINE SANDY LOAM POCKETS MASSIVE FRIABLE - MASSIVE FIRM NO GROUNDWATER REFUSAL @ 84" TEST PIT DATE:5/13/94 0 - 36" TOPSOIL AND SUBSOIL 36" - 96" LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SANDY LOAM WITH BOULDERS TO 4' (50%+ ROCK) NO GROUNDWATER REFUSAL. @ 96" TEST PIT 8 DATE.5/13/94 0 - 24" TOPSOIL AND SUBSOIL 24" - 108" LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SANDY LOAM WITH BOULDERS TO 4' (50%+ ROCK) NO GROUNDWATER REFUSAL @ 96" PERC TEST 1 A DATE:8/26/94 PERC RATE _ <2 MIN/IN DEPTH OF TEST = 48" PERC TEST LB DATE:8/26194 PERC RATE = <2 MINIIN DEPTH OF TEST = 48" i EVEku TEEN ESTATES: SUMMARY OF SOIL T1E5 FING LOT 5 TEST PIT 5-1 DATE:4/6195 0 - 5" A 5" - 36" BW: 10YR5/6 FINE SANDY LOAM 36" - 84" C: 2.5Y5/2 BOULDERY COARSE SANDY LOAM MASSIVE FRIABLE - MASSIVE FIRM NO GROUNDWATER REFUSAL @ 84" ROOTS TO 84" TEST PIT 5-2 DATE:4/6/95 0 - 6" A: FINE SANDY LOAM 6" - 30" BW: 10YR516 FINE SANDY LOAM 30" - 84" C: 2.5Y5/2 VERY BOULDERY COARSE SANDY LOAM MASSIVE FRIABLE NO GROUNDWATER REFUSAL @ 84" ROOTS TO 84" PERC TESTS: NOT YET PERFORMED LOT 6 TEST PIT 6-1 DATE:4/6/95 0 - 5" A: FINE SANDY LOAM 5" - 36" BW: 7.5YR5/6 FINE SANDY LOAM 36" - 68" BC: 2.5Y5/6 SANDY LOAM, MASSIVE FRIABLE 68" - 111" C: 2.5Y514 GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM MASSIVE FRIABLE E.S.H.W.T. @ 60": MOTTLING SEEPAGE @ 104" TEST PIT 6-2 DATE:4/6/95 0 - 5" A: FINE SANDY LOAM 5" - 40" BW: 7.5YR5/6 FINE SANDY LOAM 40" - 100" C. 2,5Y5/3 GRAVELLY COARSE SANDY LOAM WITH POCKET OF 2.5Y512 FINE SAND MASSIVE - FRIABLE NO GROUNDWATER ROOTS TO 100" PERC TESTS: NOT YET PERFORMED h I EVER6riEEN ESTATES: SUMMARY OF SOIL TEb HNG TEST PIT 7-1 DATE:4/6/95 0 - 6" A: FINE SANDY LOAM 6" - 36" BW: FINE SANDY LOAM WITH LARGE ANGULAR FRAGMENTS 36" - 90" C: 2.5Y4/4 GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM WITH LARGE ANGULAR FRAGMENTS NO GROUNDWATER REFUSAL @ 90" TEST PIT 7-2 DATE:4/6195 0 , 511 A: FINE SANDY LOAM 5" - 30" BW: FINE SANDY LOAM 30" - 84" C: 2.5Y5/3 GRAVELLY COARSE SANDY LOAM MASSIVE FRIABLE - MASSIVE FIRM E,S.H.W.T. @ 60": SEEPAGE PERC TESTS: NOT YET PERFORMED_ LOT a TEST PIT_$1 DATE:4/6/95 0 - 6" A: FINE SANDY LOAM 6" - 32" BW: FINE SANDY LOAM 32" - 90" C: 2.5Y5/3 COARSE SANDY LOAM MASSIVE FRIABLE E.S,H.W.T. @ 32": MOTTLING SEEPAGE @ 88" TEST PIT 8-2 DATE:4/6/95 0 - 6" A: FINE SANDY LOAM 6" - 36" BW: 2.5Y5/4 FINE SANDY LOAM 36" - 104" C. 2.5Y5/4 GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM MASSIVE FRIABLE - MASSIVE FIRM E.S.H.W.T. @ 32": MOTTLING PROMINENT MANGANESE STAINS @84" SEEPAGE @ 96" TEST PIT 10A DATE:5/13/94 0 - 30" TOPSOIL AND SUBSOIL 30" - 84" OLIVE BROWN SILTY SANDY LOAM WITH BOULDERS TO 3' (55% ROCK) GROUNDWATER @84" TEST PIT 9-1 DATE:4/6/95 0 - 6" A: FINE SANDY LOAM 6" . 36" BW: FINE SANDY LOAM 36" - 96" C: 2.5Y5/4 GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM MASSIVE FRIABLE - MASSIVE FIRM E.S.H.W.T. @ 54": MOTTLING TEST PIT 9-2 DATE;4/6/95 0 - 6" A: FINE SANDY LOAM 6" - 30" BW: FINE SANDY LOAM 30" - 104" C: 2.5Y4/3 GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM MASSIVE FRIABLE - MASSIVE FIRM E,S.H.W.T. @ 60": MOTTLING i EVERGh6EN ESTATES: SUMMARY OF SOIL TES i ING LOT 9 NO SUITABLE TEST PITS HAVE BEEN RECORDED FOR THIS LOT. (TEST PITS 9-1 AND 9-2 ON LOT 8 WERE INTENDED TO BE DUG ON LOT 9.) PERC TESTS: NOT YET PERFORMED LOC10 TEST PIT 11-1 DATE:4/6/95 0 - 16" A; FINE SANDY LOAM 16" - 26" BW: 2.5Y5/3 FINE SANDY LOAM 26" - 84" C: SANDY LOAM MASSIVE FRIABLE E.S.H.W.T. @ 26": MOTTLING SEEPAGE @ 48" TEST PIT 1 1-2 DATE:4I6/95 0 - 16" A: FINE SANDY LOAM 6" - 36" BW: 2,5Y5/3 FINE SANDY LOAM 36" - 102" C: 2.5Y4/3 GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM MASSIVE FRIABLE E.S.H.W.T. @ 30": MOTTLING ROOTS, SEEPAGE @ 42" PFRC'. TESTS: NO YET PERFORMED i f EVERGht:EN ESTATES: SUMMARY OF SOIL TES ING LOT 11 TEST PIT 1 1-3 DATE:4/6/95 0 - 12" A: FINE SANDY LOAM 12" - 32" BW: FINE SANDY LOAM 32" - 80" C. 2.5Y4/3 FINE SANDY LOAM MASSIVE FRIABLE E.S.H.W.T. @ 36". MOTTLING TEST P11 1.1-4 DATE:4/7/95 0 - 5" A 5" - 18" BW: SANDY LOAM 1 B" - 76" C: 2.5Y5/3 GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM WITH ANGULAR COBBLE MASSIVE FRIABLE E.S.H.W.T. @ 27": MOTTLING SEEPAGE @ 52" TEST PIT 11-5 DATE:4/7/95 0 - 5" A 5" - 27" BW: SANDY LOAM 27" - 38" BC: SANDY LOAM 38" - 82" C: 2.5Y5/3 SANDY LOAM VERY FIRM - CEMENTED E.S.H.W.T. @ 18": MOTTLING SEEPAGE @ 70" PERC TESTS: NOT YET PERFORMED LOT 12 TEST PIT 12-1 DATE:4/7/95 0 - 5" A 5" - 24" BW 24" - 32" BC: 10YR5/4 LOAM 32" - 48" Cl: 2.5Y5/2 LOAMY SAND 48" - 94" C2: 2.5Y5/2 COBBLY LOAMY SAND E.S.H.W.T. @ 38": MOTTLING SEEPAGE @ 72" TEST PIT 12-2 DATE:4/7/95 0 - 16" A & B 16" - 34" Cl : FINE LOAMY SAND 34" - 56" C2: 5Y612 FINE LOAMY SAND 56" - 74" Cl 5Y6/2 FINE LOAMY SAND E.S.H.W.T. @ 38": MOTTLING SEEPAGE @ 69" PERC TESTS: NOT YET PERFORMED_ 1' I EVERVtiEEN ESTATES: SUMMARY OF SOIL TESTING LOT_1 TEST PIT 13-1 DATE:4/4/95 0 - 5" A: 10YR3/3 FINE SANDY LOAM 5" -36" BW: 7.5YR4/6 FINE SANDY LOAM 36" - 84" C: 2.5Y5/3 STONY SANDY LOAM MASSIVE FRIABLE - MASSIVE FIRM E.S.H.W.T. @ 36": MOTTLING SEEPAGE @ 50" TEST PIT 13-2 DATE:4/4/95 0 - 5" A: 10YR3/3 FINE SANDY LOAM 5" - 36" BW: 10YR5/8 FINE SANDY LOAM 36" - 84" C: 2.5Y5/3 STONY SANDY LOAM MASSIVE FRIABLE - MASSIVE FIRM E.S.H.W.T. @ 48": MOTTLING SEEPAGE @ 72" EERC TESTS: NOT YET PERFORMED LOT 14 JEST PIT 46 DATE: TEST PLI 42 DATE:6/6/94 0 - 30" TOPSOIL AND SUBSOIL 30" - 90" SILTY SANDY LOAM, VERY BONEY WITH BOULDERS TO 5' NO GROUNDWATER PERC TEST 46 DATE:8/25/94 PERC RATE = 2 MIN/IN DEPTH OF TEST = 48" PERC IE T-47 DATE:8/25/94 PERC RATE = 10 MIN/IN DEPTH OF TEST = 48" 1 EVER6KEEN ESTATES: SUMMARY OF SOIL TESTING j LOT 15 TEST PIT 42 DATE:6/6/94 0 - 36" TOPSOIL. AND SUBSOIL 36" - 90" SILTY SANDY LOAM, VERY BONEY WITH BOULDERS TO 4' E.S.H.W.T, @ 42": WET LINE SEEPAGE @ 80" TEST PIT 43 DATE:616194 0 - 36" TOPSOIL AND SUBSOIL 36" - 96" FINE SILTY SANDY LOAM, VERY BONEY WITH BOULDERS TO 4' E.S,H.W.T, @ 60": WATER LINE PERC TEST 42 DATE:8/25/94 PERC RATE = 10 MIN/IN DEPTH OF TEST = 48" PERC TEST 43 DATE.8/25/94 PERC RATE = 19 MIN/IN DEPTH OF TEST = 48" NOTE: A LOT LINE CHANGE WILL HAVE TO BE MADE SO THAT ALL OF THE ABOVE TESTS ARE LOCATED ON LOT 15, LOT 16 TEST PIT 40 DATE:6/6/94 0 - 36" TOPSOIL AND SUBSOIL 36" - 114" SILTY SANDY LOAM, VERY BONEY WITH BOULDERS TO 3' NO GROUNDWATER VEST PIT 41 DATE:616/94 0 - 36" TOPSOIL AND SUBSOIL 36" - 114" SILTY SANDY LOAM, VERY BONEY WITH BOULDERS TO 4' AND SMALL FRACTURED ROCKS NO GROUNDWATER SST 40 DATE:8/25/94 PERC RATE = 7 MIN/IN DEPTH OF TEST = 42" PERC TEST 41 DATE:8/25/94 PERC RATE = 8 MIN/IN DEPTH OF TEST = 42" ' E i I EVERGREEN ESTATES: SUMMARY OF SOIL TESTING LOT 17 TEST PIT 17-1 DATE:4/4/95 0 - 5" A 5" - 24" BW: 2.5Y4/6 SANDY LOAM 24" - 72" Cl : 2.5Y4/4 COARSE SANDY LOAM (ANGULAR) MASSIVE FRIABLE - MASSIVE FIRM 72" - 118" C2: MANY ANGULAR FRAGMENTS E.S.H.W.T. @ 64": MOTTLING NO GROUNDWATER REFUSAL @ 118" TEST PIT 17-2 DATE:4/4/95 0 . 511 A: FINE SANDY LOAM 5" - 28" BW: 2.5Y5/6 SANDY LOAM 28" - 112" C: 2.5Y4/4 COARSE SANDY LOAM (ANGULAR) MASSIVE FRIABLE - MASSIVE FIRM E.S.H.W.T. @ 84": MOTTLING NO GROUNDWATER REFUSAL @ 112" PERC TESTS!..NQT YET PERFORMED LOT 18 TFST PIT 18-1 DATE:4/4/95 0 - 5" A 5" - 32" BW1 & BW2: 2.5Y5/6 SANDY LOAM 32" - 108" C: 2.5Y5/4 GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM MASSIVE FRIABLE - MASSIVE FIRM NO GROUNDWATER REFUSAL @ 108" TEST PIT 1$-2 DATE:4/4/95 0 - 5" A: FINE SANDY LOAM 5" - 36" BW: 2.5Y5/6 BOULDERY SANDY LOAM 36" - 84" C: GRAVELLY, STONY, BOULDERY SANDY LOAM NO GROUNDWATER REFUSAL @ 72" ON NORTH SIDE, 84" ON SOUTH SIDE ROOTS TO 60" PERC TESTS: NOT YET PERFORMED 1 EVERGREEN ESTATES: SUMMARY OF SOIL TESTING LOT 19 TEST PIT 19-1 DATE:4/4/95 0 - 5" A: 10YR3/3 FINE SANDY LOAM 5" - 32" BW: 10YR5/8 FINE SANDY LOAM 32" - 54" Cl: 5Y5/5 GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM (VARIES, LESS ON SOUTH j 54" - 108" C2: 2.5Y5/3 GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM j MASSIVE FRIABLE - MASSIVE FIRM, SOME WEAK PLATY E.S.H,W.T. @ 80": MOTTLING SEEPAGE @ 96" ROOTS TO 80" REFUSAL @ 108" TEST PIT 31 DATE:6/6/94 0 - 24" TOPSOIL AND SUBSOIL 24" - 96" SILTY SANDY LOAM, BONEY GROUNDWATER @ 80" TEST PIT 32 DATE:6/6/94 0 - 28" TOPSOIL AND SUBSOIL 28" - 80" LIGHT OLIVE BROWN SILTY SANDY LOAM VERY BONEY (BOULDERS TO 30") GROUNDWATER @ 66" PERC TEST 31 DATE.8/24/94 PERC RATE = 2 MIN/IN DEPTH OF TEST = 48" PERC TEST 32 DATE:8/24/94 PERC RATE = 2 MIN/IN DEPTH OF TEST = 48" LOT 20 TEST PIT 29 DATE:6/6/94 0 - 24" TOPSOIL AND SUBSOIL 24" - 72" SILTY SANDY LOAM, VERY BONEY (BOULDERS TO 4') NO GROUNDWATER TEST PIT 30 DATE:6/6/94 0 - 30" TOPSOIL AND SUBSOIL 30" - 104" SILTY SANDY LOAM, VERY BONEY (BOULDERS TO 3') NO GROUNDWATER PEBQ TEST 29 DATE:8/24/94 PERC RATE = 3 MIN/IN DEPTH OF TEST = 52" PERC TEST 30 DATE:8/24/94 PERC RATE = 4 MIN/IN DEPTH OF TEST = 52" EVERGKEEN ESTATES: SUMMARY OF SOIL TESTING L0T_21 TEST PIT„?9-1 DATE:4/7/95 0 - 5" A 5" - 16" BW: FINE SANDY LOAM ''.. 16" - 24" BC: FINE SANDY LOAM 24" - 36" Cl: FINE LOAMY SAND 36" - 89" C2: GRAVELLY, COBBLY LOAMY SAND, FIRM, CEMENTED E.S.H.W.T. @ 36": MOTTLING SEEPAGE @ 83" TEST PIT 21-2 DATE:4/7/95 0 - 5" A 5" - 24" B: FINE SANDY LOAM 24" - 75" C: GRAVELLY LOAMY SAND, FIRM, CEMENTED E.S.H.W,T. @ 44": MOTTLING PERC TESTS: NOT YET PERFORMED_ I.OT 22 TEST.P,I,T,.2,2-1 DATE;4/4/95 0 - 5'" A 5" - 36" BW: 7.5YR4/6 FINE SANDY LOAM 36" - 102" C: 2,5Y5/4 SANDY LOAM MASSIVE FRIABLE - MASSIVE FIRM E.S.H,W.T. @ 58": MOTTLING SEEPAGE @84" TEST PIT 22-2 DATE:4/4/95 0 - 9" A 9" - 24" BW: 10YR5/4 FINE SANDY LOAM 24" - 40" BC: 5Y5/4 FINE SANDY LOAM 40" - 84" C: 2.5Y5/4 GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM E.S.H.W.T. @ 40": MOTTLING SEEPAGE @84" PERC TESTS: NOT YET PERFORMED I OT 23 NO SUITABLE TEST PITS HAVE BEEN RECORDED FOR THIS LOT. ��V• ram,l�� �1 �-e Town of North Andover t µa��M OFFICE O 3=OeSiEo e*6�OL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES ° * p 146 Main Street 14 4o44TFp"^.P"�y KENNETH R.MAHONY North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 9SSAciAUSk� Director (508) 688-9533 Memorandum To: Michael Howard, Natural Resource/Land Use Planner From: Kathleen Bradley Colwell, Town Planner }{ Date: May 8 , 1995 Re: Evergreen Estates/Meadowood III - wetland crossing The Planning Board has agreed to the following waivers from the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land, North Andover, Massachusetts, Revised February, 1989, for the wetland crossings at Evergreen Estates and Meadowood III. The Planning Board agrees to these waivers to the extent necessary to limit the wetland filling to 5, 000 square feet. Section 7 Subdivision Design Standards H( ) streets and Roadways: The entire area within the exterior lines of all streets' in the subdivision (fifty feet) are required to be cleared of all stumps, brush, roots, boulders, like material , and all trees not intended for preservation. The Planning Board agrees to waive the area of clearing to the smallest section necessary for the crossing. B 4 Pavement Sections for Residential Zones: Twenty-six (26) feet of pavement is required. The Planning Board agrees to waive the pavement width to twenty (20) feet for Meadowood III . The Evergreen Estates roadway crossing- is less than five thousand square feet with twenty six feet of pavement therefore no waiver is necessary. C(1) Shoulders_: Eight (8) foot shoulders are required. The Planning Board agrees to waive this requirement to the minimum needed for a guardrail, curbing, and a sidewalk. The Planning Board will waive the sidewalk requirement for the Meadowood III crossing. C(4) Shoulders/Side Slopes: 2 : 1 side slopes are required. The Planning Board agrees to waive side slopes to a maximum of 1: 1 rip rap slopes for both subdivisions. D Sidewalks: five (5) foot sidewalks are required. The Planning Board agrees to waive sidewalks at the crossing for Meadowood III. The Evergreen Estates crossing is less than five thousand square feet with a five foot sidewalk therefore no waiver is necessary. BOARD Or APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 Julie Parrino D.Robert Niceua Michael Howard Sandra Shur Kathleen Bradley Colwell NORTN 01 BOARD OF HEALTH A A � x • °i 120 MAIN STREET TEL. 682.6483 C,,,,SE�`y NORTH ANDOVER, MASS. 01845 Ext23 M E M O R A N D U M To: Planning Board From: Sandra Starr, Health Administx brl Re: Evergreen Estates - Soil suitability Date: June 2 , 1995 This memo is a response to Mr. Phil Christiansen' s letter to you dated March 8 , 1995 and is also a status report on the soils testing carried out thus far on Evergreen Estates off Salem Street. As Mr. Christiansen states, the soil on this site is classified as CrC. This is a Charlton-Rock outcrop-Hollis complex with slopes of 8 to 15 percent. This soil classification unit is a mixture of different types of soils which "are so intermingled that it was not practical to map them separately" . According to the soil survey of Essex County, the soils range from well-drained to somewhat excessively drained. This indicates that perc tests would, for the most part, be moderate to somewhat rapid and that most would pass Massachusetts Title V Regulations. There is a concern, however, that soils which perc too rapidly (say, 2 min./inch or faster) do not provide treatment to septic effluent and can contribute to ground water pollution. in addition, the Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey goes on to say on page 25 that "the exposed bedrock, stones, slope and shallow depth to bedrock, as well as the moderate or moderately rapid permeability, also limit use of the soils for residential development and as a site for waste disposal facilities. " A number of the lots already tested are, in my opinion, very questionable because of the large number of rock fragments. Also at this point, because of the additional soils testing in new areas on many lots, there are actually fewer lots now than previously which have all soils tests complete. Perc tests are needed for lots 3 , 5, 61 71 81 10, 11, 12 , 13 , 17, 18 , 21, and 22 . f , I Evergreen Estates June 2 , 1995 Page 2 i Lot #14 is missing soil log information for one deep hole and there is a question about the percentage of rock fragments on this lot and on lots 7, 15, 16, 17 , 18 , 19 , and 20. In answer to Mr. Christiansen' s stated belief that approvals for this subdivision should not be delayed because of soils data or lack thereof, I am afraid that Z must disagree, partially because we are dealing with this class of soils which is much less consistent than some others but also because of the extremely large amount of rock on the site. Volume and/or percentage of rock in proposed leach areas is a strong consideration on whether the site is appropriate for individual subsurface disposal of septic effluent. SS/cj p jo ct� TO' HOP �1 V_R CHRISTIANSEN & SERGI, INC. 1%1 PRVESSIONAL ENGMEPS AW LAND SURWYORS 160 SUMMER STREET HAVERHILL, MASSACHUSETTS 01810 (508)373.0310 FAX; (508) 372-3960 ,Tune 6 , 1995 North Andover Planning Board JUN 6 1995 L 'Pawn Hall Annex 146 Main street LE.LANN-ING BOAR-) I North AndOVArt KA Dear Board MemberA : client, Messina DOVOIOPment COrPf tha rant On behalf of my day exte-ftblon to the Board for their review on g a 45 vergreen states Definitive Subdivision 1� E Very 1ph, G PGC Ic- CHRISTIANSEN & SERGI, INC. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS I 160 SUMMER STREET HAVERHILL, MASSACHUSETTS 01830 (508)373.0310 FAX: (508)372-3960 July 17 , 1995 1 a Mr. John Chessia Coler and Colantonio, Inc. 101 Accord Pond Drive Suite One Norwell, MA 02061 RE: Engineering Review Evergreen Estates Residential. Development Dear John: 1 received your June 23, 1995 letter on July 13, 1995. T seems we are in agreement that items 1-9 have been resolved. Attached herewith is Information sufficient to resolve the remaining issues. 10 . The rip rap was sized by the attached chart from US DOT Hydraulic Design Series No. 4. We believe an 8 foot - length is adequate. However, whatever the North Andover DPW wants, we will install. Contractors have to follow the detail, not the site plan view. The site plan shows intent. Note that the basins are 4 x 4 on the plan, not 2 x 2 as they really are. The manhole shows as 5 ' diameter, when a top is only 2 ' diameter. 11'. The catchments are attached. The time of concentration was calculated using the nomograph provided on page 18-- 01, Figure H of Design by Edwin Seeley. if North. Andover DPW find the velocity from DMH2 and DMH4 unacceptable, we will correct it prior to endorsement. 12 . The notes to be added will appear on the plan and profile and will read: "lf the North Andover DPW requests, subdrains will be installed along the roadway edge and tied into the drainage system. " if subdrains are installed, they should be tied to CB#13 rather than CB#12 or directly into the pipe that discharges from CB #13• if during construction it is found subdrains are needed, the flow in the subdrain will be calculated and the drainage pipe sizes adjusted if necessary. Chessia, 7/17/95 Page 2 13 . The peak flows to the detention ponds for the 100 year storm are as follows: Pond 1 12 cfs 2 9. 12 cfs 4 9.85 cfs 5 7 .23 cfs using Bazins Formula for weirs, neglecting the velocity of approach, we calculate that the maximum flow over the weir for a 1 foot depth of flow is 13.56 cfs. The :spillway is adequate. Please 14 . The detention pond designs are proper as drawn. Ple as look at the areas. On Lot 1, the basin is a hole. on Lot 21, the basin is primarily an excavation with a minor fill of 1 foot in depth. On Lot 7 , the basin needs to be excavated with a minimum of 1 foot in the outlet end. You will also see that the basin on Lots 9 and 10 is primarily an excavation with a maximum of a 1 foot fill. I don't think we should be required to change the detail. 15 . Access is provided to the top of the basin on Lot 7 : The turn around for the D-pond on Lot 21 is at el 108, which allows access to the top of the D-pond. The turn around on Lot 10 is at -el. 128 which allows access to the top of the D-pond. The access to the D-pond on Lot 1 allows access to the entire side of the D-pond by using in part the existing woods road. 16 . Additional calculations are attached addressing back water from the culvert installation. The -result shows the culvert will not cause a backwater condition. The flood storage f volumes are attached and have been submitted to the Town. 17 . Two deep test and two percolation tests have been completed on 17 lots. Two lots have 2 deep tests and one percolation test. Two lots have only 2 deep tests and 1 lot has not been tested. 18. As you know we have sent you additional data regarding the model we developed. 19 . It appears we agree the assumptions will not effect the results. 0 n Chessia, 7/17/95 Page 3 20 . okay. 21 . Attached is an updated Figure I. T am appreciative that you accept our methodology. 22 . The information needed for the flood volumes in isolated areas is easily available in the drainage sheets for each area contained in our report. It is simply the runoff multiplied by the area. We will not provide flood elevations because it is not required by the North Andover Planning Board Regulations and has no relevance to the plan review. 23 . D--ponds have been added to Figure 2. The change in sub area B is a minor error and does not effect the analysis. 24 . We shouldn't quibble over minor points . While you have found some inconsistencies, you must be aware those inconsistencies will not effect the overall results. 25 . Okay. 26. Providing' easement on these depressions goes beyond anything required by the Zoning Act Subdivision Control Law or the Wetlands Protection Act. Until laws are passed to require such things or local bylaws are passed, it cannot be considered. a valid requirement. 27 .E Okay. - 28. Okay. 29.' T am not sure what your question is regarding routing calculations. 30 . You are correct about the contours shown on the plan Sheet 6 of 13. However, please see attached Figure 3 from the Conservation filing. The difference in the plans is due to the difference between the aerial topography used for the site plans and the actual field survey used for the wetlands replacement area work. The proper contours close on the actual field survey. 31. We do not intent to change Lot 10 on Figure 2 . 32 . okay. ` f" 1 i Chessia, 7/17/95 Page 4 our last Planning Board meeting is Tuesday, July f8, 1995 and our Last Conservation Commission meeting is July 19, 1995. T want all of these issues to be resolved for these meetings. minor changes in the plans can be accommodated after the close of the public hearings and prior to endorsement. Very t 1 yo rs, -h- ip �. Christiansen PGC•,lc CC : K Colwell M. Howard t i TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF PUBLIC WORKS 384 OSGOOD STREET, 01845 GEORGE PERNA Telephone(508)685-0960 DIRECTOR Fax(608)686-9673 August 14 , 1995 SA "US Mr. Joseph Mahoney, chairperson Planning Board 120 Main Street North Andover MA 01845 Re; Evergreen Estates Dear Mr. Mahoney: ' The Division of Public Works has reviewed the revised Definitive Subdivision plan of Evergreen Estates prepared by Christiensen & Sergi Inc. for Messina Development Corp and revised to June 1, 1995 . We have the following comments. 1 . The detention basin dikes should conform to ASCE standards as recommended by Coler & Colantonio Inc . in their review of the subdivision. 2 . The subdivision regulations require that the sidewalk be adjacent to or 5 feet away from the roadway edge of pavement. The plans and the typical cross section detail should be revised to show a 5 foot grass strip in the area beyond the special wetland crossing detail . 3 . The two proposed access easements between each cul-de-sac and the adjacent property should be identified as access and utility easements. 4 . The proposed hydrant at Lot #10 should be installed at approximate station 10+40 opposite the driveway to Lot 5. The proposed hydrant, at Lot #8 should be installed at station 14+25. 5 . The spacing between the top of the vertical curve and CB #12 and CB #13 is acceptable. 6 . The precast concrete arch bridge and related walls should be designed and stamped by a structural engineer. Shop drawing of the bridge and headwalls in the proper configuration must be submitted to the DPW for review and approval prior to manufacture. I } Page 2 . 7 . Permits for utility and roadway extensions will not be granted until a set of approved plans, and copies of the decisions of both the Planning Board and Conservation Commissioner on file at the Division of Public Works Very truly yours, 1 J. William Hmurciak, P.E. Assistant Director JWH: jm cc: Christiansen & Sergi Inc. 160 Summer Street Haverhill MA 01830 f 1 BORDERING LAND SUBJECT TO FLOODING REVISED: MAY 18, 1995 1. FLOOI] STORAGE VOLUME LOST A. FLOOD STORAGE VOLUME LOST DUE TO FILLING ON THE WEST SIDE OF BOSTON BROOK ELEVATION FL D STORAGEAVERAGE DEPTH BETWEEN FLOODS RAGE (FT.) AREA LOST (S.F.) AREA (S.F.) CONTOURS (FT.) VOLUME LOST (C.F.) 97 0 a 1.a 98 0 25 1.0 26 99 50 330 1.0 330 100 61 775 1.0 775 101 940 11055 1.5 11055 102 1,170 B. FLOOD STORAGE VOLUME LOST DUE TO FILLING ON THE EAST SIDE OF BOSTON BROOK ELEVATION FLOOD STORAGE 1 AVERAGE DEPTH BETWEEN FLOOD STORAGE (FT.) AREA LOST (S.F.) AREA (S.F.) CONTOURS (FT.) VOLUME LOST (C.F.) 97 d 1 220 1.0 1,220 98 21440 3 540 1. 3,540 gg 4,640 5,560 1.0 5,560 '100 6,480 7,575 1.0 7,575 101 8,67 ,615 110 91615 . 102 16,560 = C. TOTAL FLOOD STORAGE VOLUME LOST NTOUR STORAGE INTERVAL VOLUME (FT.) LOST (C.F.) 97 - 98 1,2 9 - 99 3,566 99 - 100 58 10 - 101 8,350 101 - 1 2 10,6 1JS14-�b P`� f'c,v o!) 5�brt.w-�� �v��,cuc.�tTiuvS ii „ I BORDERING LAND SUBJECT TO FLOODING i REVISED: MAY 18, 1995 A. FLOOD STORAGE VOLUME CREATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PHEASANT BROOK ROAD ELEVATION FLOOD STORAGE AVERAGE DEPTH BETWEEN FLOOD STORAGE (FT.) AREA CREATED (S,F.) AREA (S.F,) CONTOURS (FT.) VOLUME CREATED (C.F.) 97.5 0 5 5 0.5 2,613 98 10,050 99 12,7 0 11,390 1.0 11,390 13,416 1.0 13,416 100 14,100 14,250 1.0 14,250 101 14,400 1 1 360 1.0 1 11,360 102 8,320 'B. TOTAL COMPENSATORY FLOOD STORAGE VOLUME CREATED CONTOUR STORAGE INTERVAL VOLUME (FT.) CREATED (C,F.) 97 - 98 2,51 98 - 99 11,390 99 - 100 13,415 100 - 1 1 14,250 101 - 10 11,3 C. NET INCREASE IN AVAILABLE FLOOD STORAGE VOLUME CONTOUR ADDITIONAL STORAGE INTERVAL VOLUME (FT.) CREATED tC.F.) 97 - 98 1,29 98 - 99 7,825 99 - 100 7,525 100 - 101 5,900 101 - 102 690 CHRISTIANSENSERGI, INC. JUL 27. 1995 Eing j@qr$ ancr Liwo swvp4.'S TREE{. _HAvCRHI,.L. i'ASACHU5E115 bA30 PLANNt G BOARD y:f � k1A I;p W r d.- co car_ A z) �5.. _ lusLo ... 1 j IT 5083723010 Pi�2 CHRIS►TIAN N & SERGI, INC.. fr p;'?us%NAL FN(,INLER$ AND LAND ,.,UKVEtUK-i Mr $TREES HA'iERHI C M.�S�At:ht l�C Y15 e Mr . Joh" chesnia Color and colantoaio, Inc . lot Acgurd pond Drive Suite (one Norwell, MA 02061 RV : tagineerlaq Review BVIrgr0en Estates Re3ider'itial Uev Sc, sn�Y,t Dear John : c:or Meats regarding the Evergreen In response to your � offer the fol lawinq a Subdivis.iop, North ARdover, MA , 1-Y No further .cti on required by L:hrintiansen l Sergi Of Cola aad Col.ant;onio. ed detail to be 10 , The rip rap length will b� d Uy the worst case flaw of 17 feet which war$ cralcula by e from a detention pond, All 5 . 39 cfs from a 12" �e i�+aired to Provide 17 feet of ri.p outlet r ndG will be q rap. en 11 . It 000ma Coley Cc� .100X to the Dh fard andsDPW&for Sergi t�r'u in agreement and we direction. l should add that to our iucuss"S'wyou indicated Wat from a praot ical viewp nothing wrong w1& vel.oc i t a.es over 1(} f.ps ether than the foot that the regulations call for 10 fgsu �q 12 , Rsor� d � M is ��ef�ded 4 it DPW vi 4.id4 lr. 14 . don, t, thQk the ASGS d�t�il i t, it will. be P"t On � regaydinq the g at3ing IYO yourt c�tt►xt►er�t 0M ppW regar.dl.ng design c:ritez:i_a. want a re�,laoB f � before t make changes . 1 � 1'w and c�oci.��.nr�s A Reso l ut.i" jep6nd� ,�E:ac�n n 15 , comment 14 , 16 . I agree Lhat it. woulct be dysi.l�aLl i s. ur�m�ent�"al e u streaas► of the cros�sinc�s. �s�x: orlginal- f flood storage .-0 gtoraae upstream. However, the 21 5083723900 Chessi,a, 1 /27195 Page 2 Conservation Commission made urn move the roadway elimiust:inch that atorage . it should he noted that we are providing not only compensatory storage but an excess storage volume Over what is being tilled of Et , 900 cu, M . it may be passible to provide additional atorm water storage on Lots 21 and 22 where the 100 ft contour meets with the wetland line. if the Planning board wishes, we ��,4IN cqu�.d make such a change prior to andorsement. it would _,/ 'C" provide lead afcrage on Ly between the 100 f t andb U° f oot contouru . However, that may be of beaef t t to the abutter. directly next to the roadway. 11 '7 . The Board of Health has notified the Planning Beard concerning suitability of the lots and tho Pla,nta],og Board ie satisfied with the iayout presented. 18 . Tt appears any issues are resolved. 1.9 . The issue appears to be reaol.ved. 20. Resolved , 2t . This matter is resalved. 22 . We have not provided the Hood elevation in minor depressions because it is not required by the Pla:a"Inq Board or Conoervation Commission regul.at.iono . To require submittal of ouch information goes beyond Lbe requi.remenu of the tales . 23 , Resolved ; 24 • Mnly & 25 . Resolved 26 . The plan approval should not he deiayed for a requirement that is not z., 0luded iP the Hoard' n rules or regulations . Town Counsel should not be .involved bpr_ause it will only add unnecessary delays. Areas such as those of c:once to you exist in ai,i subdivisions and throughout the Town, To make e sperc:i�2 case of it on this property is unfair. 7 32 . Resolved. 1 1 0 a I Chessia, 71 �:7195 Page 3 j review Yjas been thorough and adds to the �►�a1 it y rah' Your rev r,g c31 � � ernnt arm c�x�' ► the PrO je':-t + �WG7 our areas 9 i detention ponda. around the � . Berm designi plat kn9 easement" over OM8+ i [$a�i ass�"�d�• ,Ag stated l� c r T would iul low the DPW �d0oi,e�Qn' s � ' sion regarding the DecntB ter�tit�nQnds .perhaps, additional deck � P F for the depressions are unnegesbary. £1oc�d ut orage suggested in item 16 would be a colnpromise to k.he easement issues over non-jur.isdiotional areas. Very 1Y ' Ours? Pbi PGC. i t moo : iioha 'l Howard } , INC. PROFESSIONAL ENGINFEM AND LAND SURVEYORS 160 SUMMER STREET HAVERHILL„ MASSAGHJSL_l IS 03.830 (508)3/3-0 310 FAk (508) 372-3960 August 22, 1995 Ms. Kathleen Colwell Planning and Development AUG 2 3 North Andover Town Hall Annex 146 Main St. North Andover, MA 01845 PLANNING OAl _ ) RE: Evergreen Estates Definitive Subdivision Planning Board Approval Dear Kathleen: item 19 of the above approval refers to a "Special Permit" granted in accordance with Section 4 . 125, 10 .3 and 10 . 31 of the North Andover Zoning Bylaw" . I assume the reference is an error. Please let me know how this can be corrected. Very, ly your . hill p G. Christiansen PGC; lc fi HRI TIANSEN &"SERGI, INC. PROFEMSONAL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS j 160 SUMMER STREET HAVERHILL, MASSACHUSETTS 01830 (508)373 0310 FAX; (80$) 372 3960 JDF,FflqYrM SUBDIVISION PLAN EVERGREEN E'STAM i i PLAN MG FLAN FOR l TLA1 S REPLICATION AWA Ai STORNWATER TREATMENT ARE-A Selea~ted small saplings, shrubs, and grasses frorn the wetland area to be flied are to be pImArd in the replication area, Since the replication area is approximately twice as large as the area to be filled suppletrtmW plantings wiU be required, An additional twenty 18 to 24' Red Maples are to be planted throughout the replication area at ten foot intervals between trees. To supplement the sluub layer, twenty Highbush Blueberry and twenty Sweet Pepperbush shrubs will be plantod, These shrubs should be clustered in the lower .-i .,P of the replica6onr area. A 50/5O mixture of topsoil and peat should be used to suppi,-,glom the organic soil horizon in supporting wetland growth and hydrology. The organic horizon should be seeded with a Cowrvation mixture of grasm and mulched to Detain moisture, 2- TU Five Kghbush Blueberry and five Sweet Pepperbush shrubs will be planted in clusters along the bottom-of the treatment area_ A 50/50 mxture of topsai.l and peat should be used to supplement the organic soil horizon in supporting wetland growth and hydrolqy. The organic horizon should be seeded with a Conservation mixture of grasses and Mulched to retain moi5turo, 4 l s HRISTIANSEN & SEM I, INC. PROFESSIONAL MINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS 373-0310 FAX;(SW 372-3960 1E0 SUMMER STREET HAVERHILL, MASSACHUSETTTS 01830 lip$} DEFINITIVE #UDDIV'IB"N PIS WMIfW"9 cONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE WEEK ACTIVITY 0-2 Cut trees in roadway right of way, wetlanwetlands +gas®meat, repl.ivation area detention porzdt flood storage areas. 1.-2 Install siltation control 2-3 Grub wetlands replaceMent area and flood storage area adjacent to Salem Street Grub roadway from Salem Street to straaM. -- Qrub roadway from stream to station 5+00 3-5 - Removes and stockpile loam from landareplicattmet�t tion area and flood storage &re& axiw at area. Excavate to subgrade. -- Replace 10am. - Begin plantings . »�� -� Strip loam from roadway from Salem Street to otream. Remove unsuitable material. - Provide roadway fill. - Excavate and pour footings for bridge- 5- 6 - Stria loam from stxeamltoStation 5+0� - Excavate and pour f gs for 6-g ,- Install bridge, complete xoadwsiy subgrade and stale slopes from station 0+00 to 5+00 . 8-1 0 drub remainder toc subgracle roadway. e Gut an - 10,stall. subdraius as required, - 5uild detention area. 10-14 install ut'l.ities and gravdl rcadwa:y 14-16 pave roadway to binder. 09/14/95 09: 44 6179443989 DOMENICK ZANNI SONS rr�`aG You } a Dorneaicl{Game, Sons, Im Ewrg efm Estates RM construction Sequ s a Evergroon twta,tos, No, Andover, MA � P4 X. Ingall Erosion c omtrol i 2. Clear and Gmb site 3. S* and SWA T&Loam 4, Cut and Fill Detention and Roadway Areas, Loam Doteation Axeas 3. Install Bridge Section in Conjunatiort with Its,#4 6, Irnst<A Dminago Piping 7. Install Water Mairg arid.Smn"AM S. Install,Electric CotIdUit 9. Install Gas MAins 10, Instal Road Gravcl ! l.l, ]mall Road AsplWt Binder 12. butail Sidewalk Qtavel 13. Install Sidewalks � i 14, Ioam DrsturNd Areas 15, his aft finish Aspbalt ,i it � 4;I II 7 '.t f f j) F ' I Town of North Andover Q, TL7C l•�'Y Om.< CH OF �? b•' °o� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES ° 30 School Street * 1 North Andover,Massachusetts 0 WILLIAM J. SCOTT f ' Director DEC1997 December 16, 1997 Christiansen& Sergi IV � w. 160 Summer Street Haverhill,MA 01830 Dear Phil: On November 14, 1997, a limited permit for the excavation of the bed bottom on Lot 13 Evergreen Estates was issued to George Henderson, This permit was not exercised. On November 18's, based on the approved plans and the fact that the time for work on septic systems was nearing its close, the North Andover Board of Health granted an extension so that the bed bottoms of Lot 11 and Lot 13 Evergreen Estates could be excavated and inspected for bedrock outcrops. The purpose of these inspections was to determine whether the lots were appropriate for the installation of septic systems at the approved locations. On December 10, 1997 another limited permit was issued to George Henderson for the excavation of the Lot 13 Evergreen Estates leach area. This permit was again not exercised because, according to Mr. Henderson, you told him to stop work on the lot. On December 16, 1997 a limited permit was issued to George Henderson for the excavation of the Lot 1 EEvergreen Estates leach area. An appointment was scheduled for that morning. A call came into the office stating that this lot was not being excavated, again because you told Mr.Henderson to discontinue work on the lot. This department has made every effort to facilitate the excavation and assessment of these two lots on Evergreen Estates within the extension period granted by the Board. At this point I would appreciate a written update and status report from you on these two lots that I can present to the Board. If you wish to attempt bed bottom excavations on these two lots before the normal installation season in the spring'of 1998 I must hear from you before December 19'h, Please fax a reply to 978-688-9542. Sincerely, Sandra Starr,RS. Health Administrator Cc: Al Couillard Wm. Scott,Dir. CD&S M. Howard, CC Adm. i -K, Colwell,Town Planner BOH File CONSERVATION-(978)688 9530 HEALTH-(978)688-9540 • PLANNING-(978)688-9535 *BUILDING OFFICE-(978)688-9545 • *ZONING HOARD OF APPEALS-(978)688-9541 • *146 MAIN STREET V 5083723980 APG POI CHRISTIANSEN & SERGI, INC. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS 160 SUMMER STREET HAVERHILL,MASSACHUS1,I IS OiK$0-0318 (508)373-0310 FAX: f5 December 19, 1997 Kathleen Colwell North Andover Planning 30 S01001 Strect North Andover, MA 1845 Dear Kathleen: As you requested I have enclosed information regarding the"Orandfathering" of applicable zoning regulations concerning lots 20, 21, 22, and 23 Beaver Brook Road. The pertinent statute follows: Mass. Gen. L. ch. 40A. -vev.6. par.5 slates: If a definitive.plon, or a preliminary plan followed within seven Months by a definitive plan, is submilled to a planning weal for approval tinder the stip(livi.5jon enntrol law, mul written notice of tench submission has beery given 10 the city or kwit clerk before the effective date of ordinanive or by-law, the land shown on such plairshall he governed by the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance or by-law, ifviv, in effect at the time of the first swch mlhmivsion... and, if such definitive plan or an amen&netif(hereof is finally approved,for eight years,from the daie of endorsement of such approval. Where applicable, Mass. Gen. L. ch. 40A, sec.6,par.5 protects "the land shown on such [definitive) plan — for eight years from the date of endorsement of such approval" by freezing "the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance or by-law, if any,in effect at the time of the first such submission." The freeze for de.finilive plans is the broadest of all yeated-rights provisions. The protection of the freeze has been asserted in many decisions. It is important to note that the freeze runs with "the land shown" and is not vested in the individual lots, 'This is important relative to your concern with lot 23 being an additional lot, tl _e secA i M _i- Lc) k- �a n o_ge_ cha-\ e- 1 V 5083723960 AVG P02 Furthermore, even it'wc disregard the above, lot 23 meets all current zoning requirements. Jots 20-22 clearly have vested rights under the atatutc. Therefore S believe the plan should be endorsed under M.G.L. chapt. 40 sec 81P. if,you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to call at anytime. Sincerely, Michael Sergi MAN s '<rf Past-It`"brand fax transmittal memo 7671 F of pegs �� t Co. Co. Dept. Phone if Fax# Fax iY An Information series from National Concrete Masonry Association CONCRETE GRID PAVEMENTS TEK 91A Introduction Types of Concrete Grid Pavements Concrete grid pavements emerged from Europe in There are several configurations of concrete grids,all of which can be classified in two categories; lattice and the 1960s as a method of providing a grass surface capable castellated (Figure 2). Lattice pavers have a flat grid-like of surviving vehicular traffic. The surface was developed as appearance where the concrete forms a continuous pattern an alternative to runoff and heat-producing parking surfaces of asphalt and poured concrete(Figure I). Grid pavements when instilled. Castellated grid pavers are distinguished by concrete knobs that protrude slightly through the grass were further developed in the United States and Europe to surface, Z reduce erosion along lakes, drainage ditches, streams and Length and width dimensions vary between one foot ' rivers. (300 mm) to two feet(600 mm). Thicknesses range from a O minimum of 2 3/8" (60 mm) to 4 1/2" (115 mm), Weights 0 range from 45 lbs.(20 kg) to 90 lbs. (40 kg). n o -_� +• �T ,�.. J � Lattice Lattice `C Q O �4,�f 7ci,?�- ' cr/✓.f.''`;' n. L, �Ji Lattice 0 Figure 1. Concrete Grid pavement With Grass Uses Primary and overflow parking areas 1 V Lattice Multi-use open areas Castellated C7 C Driveways Z Airfield runway and taxiway shoulders Figure 2, Types of Grid Pavement Units m � Highway shoulders Medians and median cross overs Pavement Design and Installation Guidelines Trailer,parks 5. Z Boat launching ramps A typical grid pavement installation consists of a soil Emergency access roads, fire lanes adjacent to buildings subgrade, a gravel base, a layer of bedding sand and the Ditch liners grids, Topsoil and grass,or gravel is placed in the openings. @ Stream bank and lakeside erosion protection The intensity of use by vehicles over the life of the m pavement must be carefully assessed when selecting grass or =. 'ri;K 91A Q 1977 National Concrete Masonry Association(Rov.I989) gravel. Grass must have at least five hours of light on it each 1 1" to 1 t I2. 35mm) sand i (2S m 1 Gross Top$otl 1/2Of(g5d , every day for teci soi4 bocklitl be"O' toQ e. Car parked On die beneath the cats. ,,,PTor edge restraint Concrete grid s kill the grass a p: Gay if it is to surviv will be used to e periods of dme then gravel should beuscd extoodis continu°us, ss. Gravel should d ss is natanaci- If parking of topsoil an l clog s instead malntenanCe of the 0 silt wd opening d exoding if xegu�Watering an grass will die an ds, Gravel should acted' otherwise�e g ss in adjacent gd arked cars is p 1 kill the gra continuously p lots,over- / and eventual Y 1 9 from ittently used / also be used if ail dr'pp For interm mended. \/�// acted grove4 to be excessive- S is recom rode, The soil CO base eXpected ox fire lanes,grass tiro sail gub$ 95 %U °f it5 and bos 300m1m) E.xlsting cornPoated ROW lots v and comp acted to the Bond ,so soil Bub�9rade do s old be uniformly c0 the gavel, Sand and s- to tie beyond Qer4meter Filter o iron°t) c4oth ( Q sub9ade should rior to placing optimum density p • Gravel used for acted Gravel""se ravelbase fines Sand on Comp grids• d compact the use with grids.be°muted if Grids and roper eleva- place an c�ptable forlgure�• scree to p bases is a sieve) can omitted, sand should be not saturated} road aller than die ° 50 rie�� d gravel moisture Content(,lot not be (aggregate sink erineabilit`I is desired. not be used• eniform ed sand waterp uiredbetwee d and have a ids. The scxeed additional ill be sell base. The campac� lions lacing the gr `l11e grids then filler cloth w to the e of the g ova prior top ig 5} Sand' i anon of Sand m and the edg e bed ( uro, rids on the bed prigiot sp of at least to pTeventvel e Auld extend ib ,fie thickness°of the Soil distur Place the wig the minimum j may ah p and sp minimum of 5"where p loaos'ds and.the strono _ drained soil,the should be placed ids touch, d1eY if the U se a h fre- ends On the, uatelY on the sand 1�16" (Z mm}' hig base dep Uses and the egr'ids placed as fire etitave loading sand• litude plate Paz residential e loads such upon rep the grids into the low amp subbase, can be omit vehicular " of vibrate Iles per second), e vibrator to glavelbase For heavy inimum of g 3500-5000 C) attached co th Plywood layer (Figure 3} from cars a 'n t ure4)• quency ( mbbermatShouldbe d chipping, aced loads be used(F g cracking ' for protecu°n tf a wicks, or rope base gravel should vibratos. p' ids from be used grids d road protect the an the grids can e end of each day the Compaq 13rnn') be4ow laced soPsou '!2 ( sheets p variable. pandshouldnotb s saga end toP °4 grid xubbeT mat is not a vibrated PI should aft be gall settle th sand when vibrated• into it. RaresSinginto writ►plastic to oil bocktit4 grids vibrated ids fromp e covered ComPfos edge restraint brass rid reveotS the gr it should b Concrete 9 Again. 4 t Q..p. p is left exposed, sand and VI 3 ° = om rain tiro grids a sail or protect it fr soil into with the top s i a , p read top be mixed onto Wing /\/\ \� Sp fertilizer can d swop the the \ \ /�. Grass seed and a surface an after the voids \ d on th ao broadcastdnec Y bevibratehou l�n(13 mn► The grids should soil shouldbe and Saint the final level of the wp ace. This will lend sow m� to i t J to full-3/ (20 mm)be-101 from des s it haws acted 1 t0 �xtst5nSolt subgrade _ 35rnm) sand to the glass(z5 protection d on Compacted Soil Snbgrade g I� d San se with low CBR 3. Grids an Figure for u 4 mended and silt contents, : Filter cosh is roc°with high clay ling areas l than those or soils in low y vex the �_ + soils( le laced less ��s' cloth is p ° �'- h water table The r be,fine enough Soils o hig dooding filte should oven ect w Tile filter cloth 4 subj b ode. to the gravel base.w�n the •, , 7. compacted su gr on of soil in materials woven , to prevent migrate over eoe sand layer in installations referred fabrics aze p uecilY and Placed d Grading re- f F — cloth is p bedding sand.Srrm C 33 for Sand Subject tp traffic. the b �,� . the�edding Spread and screed pigure 51 Seveeding d should conform e should be be- for the son s of the sand y sand should quiremen Sand TfilckneS illick•Masonry concrete tween l and l 112„ (25-40 mm) the soil in each opening, Edge Restraints Snow can be plowed from the grids if the plow blade is set slightly above the surface of the grids. Rotary brushes 1 Edge restraints are necessary for most grid pavement for snow removal are not recommended, De-icing salts applications. For many installations that only receive occa- should never be used if there is grass on the surface,as salt sional traffic,the topsoil needs only to be compacted against will kill the grass. the perimeter of the units, 6" - 12" from the edge. Steel, t aluminum, plastic, or wood edge restraints are used in situations where automobile tires could loosen the edge units and damage the continuity of the pavement. NCMA-TEK Note 162 provides further guidance on edge restraints, .v concrete grids allow water into the gravel base, , Since6 h base can wea ken it an d _ r in the excess amounts of Ovate subject it to the degradation of freeze-thaw cycles. Removal of excess water from bases over poorly drained soils should be provided by the use of drain pipe. Water can be drained to a storm sewer or stream. If drainage from soils of low permeability is impractical, gravel bases subject to regular ` vehicular traffic can be stabilized with 4 - 6 percent (by weight) of cement to provide strength while the water is z � draining slowly. Grass Selection rtgure 6. Solid Pavers Used for Pedestrian Walks and Parking Spaces The durability of turf grass depends on a variety of Design for On-Site Stormwater Management factors including the species, proper installation of the t; topsoil,sod or seed,the frequency of traffic,and the climate. Many municipalities have ordinances that regulate Research of grass on grid pavements has shown that Merion the quantity and rate of stormwater draining into sewers and Kentucky bluegrass,Kentucky 31 tall fescue,and Manhattan streams. Concrete grid pavements are one of several tech- perennial ryegrass have a high tolerance to wear, a high ni ues for reducing rate and volume of drainage from a site. potential for recuperation from damage,and a low tendency Concrete grids can reduce or eliminate storm sewers and toward thatch ss special drainage appurtenences such as inlets, curbs, grates, etc., Turfgrass specialists should be consulted far further recommendations. Application rates for grass seed should thereby saving their expense. For drainage calculations be reduced to take into consideration the presence of the using the Rational Method,an average runoff coefficient of concrete surface. Sod plugs can be used as an alternative to 0.3 Can be used for grids with established grass? This i5 for conventional seed. Sediment from adjacent areas should be prevented substantially lower than the 0.9 to 1.IX} from washing into the voids during and after establishment asphalt and concrete pavements. No. 57 gravel is recom- of the grass. The sediment will Clog the topsoil and prevent mended for the base construction for swrmwater infiltration and storage. the grass from growing. Grid pavements detain stormwater and allow for Straw can be applied to protect the grass while it is growing. The grass should not be subjected to vehicular partial treatment of pollutants in the water. Because of this, grids can improve water quality by reducing sediment and traffic until it is well established. This time should be pollutants that enter lakes and streams.'�'� provided in the contract and construction schedule. Besides abating runoff,concrete grids generate lower Integration With Solid Pavers temperatures than asphalt. Asphalt and other man-made surfaces hold heat in the summer and aggravate heat and air Spaces in parking lots can be marked with solid pollution in cities. Research has shown that grid pavements concrete pavers. Pedestrian paths across a proposed parking have 2 to 4 degrees F (1 to 2 degrees C) lower local air area should be studied and solid pavers placed in these temperatures than asphalt and 4 to 6 degrees F(2 to 4 degrees C)lower radiometric than asphalt? Lower temperatures can patterns to make walking more comfortable, especially for, mean more comfortable micro-climates for pedestrians in those wearing high-heeled shoes. Figure 6 shows solid urban surroundings. pavers to mark spaces and for walking. Design Guidelines for Erosion Control Maintenance The grass should be cut, watered and fertilized as any Embankments. Concrete Grids have been succesfuily used other area of grass. It is difficult to re-establish grass in to control the erosion of embankments. Grid pavements compacted or polluted soil without removing and replacing provide immediate stabilization until grass or other vegeta- tion is established. The recommended maximum angle for the order of 0.024-026. The streambank should be graded embankment stabilization is 70 degrees. Grids can be placed and compacted prior to placing the grids. Gravel is often directly on graded and compacted soil, working from the placed on streambanks subject to water in order to prevent bottom to the top of the embankment. For slopes over 45 erosion. This should be at least4 in.(100 mm)thick. A layer degrees,the grids should be staked every third row to secure of filter fabric should be placed prior to installing the grids. them while vegetation is becoming established. Stakes can The filter fabric should be,anchored with large gravel at the be wood or steel(Figure 7). toe."(bottom) and sides of the installation (Figure 8). Gravel should be placed in the voids of the grids if the stream is continually flowing. Topsoil and grass can be used vegetation in installations or areas not subject to frequent inundation, such as drainage ditches. The upstream, starting edge of the Concrete grids grids should be protected with gravel so that stream debris Max. sibpe — 3:t does not break or lift the leading grids. Concrete grids make excellent boat ramps in parks and recreation facilities. They can be installed without partitioning the area and removing the water prior to con- struction, The design guidelines above for streambanks and Stake every third lakesides should be followed. Eight to ten inches of gravel row of grids should be placed beneath the grids and separated by filter cloth (Figure 9). Cornpocted embankment soil Gravel/concrete foundation Figure 7. Grid Installation on an Embankment Concrete grids with gravel ,fox. s€ape = 127 Streambanks and Lakesides: Research by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers has demonstrated the efficacy of grids Filter cloth for streambank stabilization,$ Grids were a cost-effective Compacted subgr:,de alternative to 17 in. (425 mm) stone rip-rap. Grids with compacted gravel a•• gravel in the openings reduced shear stress against the finer soil,as well as acting to hold it in place, Grids can also ac- commodate riparian plants that further stablilze the soil. Rip—rap or concrete toe & sides Concrete grids are recommended for stream veloci- ties of no greater than 11 feet per second (3.3 in per Figure 9. Typical Cross-section for Boat Ramp second). The maximum bank slope for grids should be 45 degrees. Mannings "n", or roughness coefficient has been estimated by the U, S. Army Corps of Engintwrs5 to be on References; 1. Sherman,R. C.,Kinbacher,E.J.and Riordan,'r.P. 'Turfgrass-Paver Complex for Intensely Trafficked Areas", Gross/vn,ietation Agronomy Journal, Vol.72, March-April 1980, pp. 372-374 2. Smith,D.R., "Evaluations of Concrete Pavements in the United Concrete grids Max. slope = is ` States",in Proceedings of the Second international Conference on Concrete Block Paving,University of Delft,the Netherlands,April Gravel ease 1994, pp.330-336 3. Day,G.R.,Smith,D.R.,and Bowers J., Runoff and Pollutiitri High water level Abatement Characteristics of Concrete Grid Pavements, Bulletin 135, Virginia Water Resources Research Center, Virginia Poly- tectuuc Institute and State University,Blacksburg,Virginia,Octo- hfeon xofer level ber 1981, Gravel inside grids Filter cloth 4. Goforth, G.F.,Diniz,B.V., and Rauhut,J. B., Stormwater Lorge rip--rap Hydrological Characteristics of Porous and Conventional Pavin S s ems Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Compacted soil sub rode Agency, Cinctnnatt, Ohio, 19,0 P g S. Parsons, D. E., Apmann, R. P., "Cellular Concrete Block Pavement",in the Journal of the Waterways and Harbors Divisio Figure 8. Typical Cross-section for Streambank or Lakeside Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, May Stabilization 1965,pp. 27-37 Specification At present, there is no ASTM standard specification a a governing ro etties of concrete d pavement units. g g P p � pPend- ing development of such a standard,NCMA has published an = '" industry standard designated: A-15-82, Specification for Grid Pavers.This standard,included in the following section, sets forth recommended minimum requirements covering �_-- iZ Qij _ materials, strength, absorption, durability, dimensions, all- `r r=r r a -"`--^`_- s Q1 Ef 'g9 E A r fi r t s� pearance and testing, ._ a NCMA DESIGNATION: A-I5-82 SPECIFICATION FOR GRID PAVERS 1. Scope 2.1.3 Pozzolans—Specification C 618,for Ply Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolans for use in Portland Cement 1.1 This specification covers concrete grid pavers for emer- Concrete. gency trafficways for vehicles,for parking areas,and for soil 2.2 Aggregates shall conform to the following ASTM speei- stabilization. fications,except thatgrading requirements shall not necessar- Note 1—Concrete units covered by this specification are ily apply: made from lightweight or normal weight aggregates,or both. 2.2,1 Normal Weight—Specification C 33, for Concrete Note 2—When particular features are desired,such as weight Aggregates. classification, higher compressive strength, surfar r!. texture, 2,2,2 Lightweight---Specification C 331, for lightweight finish,color,or other special features,such properties should Aggregates for Concrete Masonry Units. be specified separately by the purchaser, However, local 2.3 Other Constituents—Air-entraining agents, coloring sellers should be consulted as to the availability of the units pigments,integral water repellents,finely ground silica etc., having the desired features, shall be previously established as suitable for use in concrete, Note 3—The values stated in U.S.customary units are to be and either shall conform to ASTM standards where appli- regarded as the standard, cable, or shall be shown by test or experience not to be detrimental to the durability of the concrete. 2. Materials 2.1 Cementitious Materials—Materials shall conform to the 3. Physical Requirements following applicable ASTM specifications: 11 At the time of delivery to the work site, the units shall 2.1.1 Portland Cements—Specification C 150,for Portland conform to the physical requirements prescribed in Table 1 Cement. below. 2.1.2 Blended Cements—Specification C 595, for Blended 3.2 Durability--Tliemanufacturer shall satisfy the purchaser Hydraulic Cements. either by proven field performance or laboratory freeze-thaw TABLE 1. PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS Compressive Strength Water Absorption Net Area Max„ %by Net Area Web Thickness Min.psi(MPa) Dry Weight Min.,% Inches(mm) Avg, of Individual Avg.of Individual 3 units Unit 3 units Unit Min. Avg.b 5,000(35) 4,500(31) 7 10 50 1.00(25) 1.25 (32) "Measured at the thinnest point bAverage of measurements along the height of the web test that the grid paver units have adequate durability if they strength or permanence of the construction, Minor cracks are to be subjected to a freeze-thaw environment. incidental to the usual methods of manufacture, or minor 3.2.1 Proven Field Performancee—Satisfactory field perform- chipping resulting from customary methods of handling in ante is indicated when units similar in composition and made shipment and delivery, shall not be deemed grounds for with the same manufacturing process as those to be supplied rejection. to the purchaser, do not exhibit objectionable deterioration after at least 3 years. The units used as the basis for proven field performance shall have been exposed to the same general 6. Sampling and Testing type of environment,temperature range and traffic volume as 6.1 The purchaser or his authorized representative shall be is contemplated for the units supplied to the purchaser, accordedproper facilities to inspect and sample the units at the 3.2.2 Freeze-Thaw Test—When tested in accordance with place of manufacture from lots ready for delivery. Section 8 of ASTM C 67-78, Specimens shall have no 6.2 Sample and test units in accordance with ASTM Methods -breakage and not greater than 1.0 percent loss in dry weight of C 140,Sampling and Testing Concrete Masonry Units. any individual unit when subjected to 50 cycles of freezing and thawing. This test shall be conducted not more than 12 months prior to delivery of units. 7. Rejection 7.1 In case the shipment fails to conform to the specified 4. Permissible Variations in Dimensions requirements, the manufacturer may sort it, and new speci- mens shall be selected by the purchaser from the retained lot 4.1 Length or width of units shall not differ by more than and tested at the expense of the manufacturer. In case the 1/16"(2mm)from approved samples, Heights of units shall second set of specimens fail to conform to the test require- not differ by more than 1/8" (3mm) from the specified ments,the entire lot shall be rejected, standard dimensions. 8. Expense of Tests 5, Visual Inspection Except as specified in Section 7,and unless otherwise agreed, 5.1 All units shall be sound and free of defects that would the expense of inspection and testing shall be borne by the interfere with the proper placing of the unit or impair the purchaser. t C 0 L U61 ► ----�s 5 = o.a aoSS F1- Gi a, 6003 ' VELoc.►,-Y �or Water Profile 7/17/95 The proposed road is at the location of Partridge Lane. The water elevation during the 100 year storm is controlled by the Salem Street culvert (see OP6) , the gravel road (see OP6) and the Footbridge (See OP7 ) . The foot bridge is in reality a 5 ' diameter culvert and a filled road. The flood elevation at the site is 101 . 8 caused by the backwater from the "footbridge" . The 101. 8 flood elevation will exist with or without the proposed project. If we assume the elevation at the proposed culvert outlet as 101. 8, the slope of the water surface through the culvert can be calculated as follows: S = Q2 n2 / ( 1 .49 A R 2/3) 2 S = (388) 2 ( .0207 ) 2/ ( 1 .49 ( 159) (2 . 7 ) 2/3) 2 S = . 0003 ft/ft at 44 feet wide, the elevation change through the culvert would be .0132 ft. The change in velocity from the stream through the culvert is V22 V12 (2 .48) 2 - ( 1. 6) 2 _ _ -- . 055ft 2g 2g 64 .4 The attached sketch is a graphical representation of the above number. Assuming an elevation of 101.8 feet at the downstream end of the culvert, adding to it the slop increase through the culvert of .0132 ft and the decrease in velocity head of . 055 feet shown in the velocity transition section, we reach the slope and elevation shown on Figure 07P for the stream upstream of section H. This coupled with the previous information provided shows that the proposed culvert will not cause flooding of the upstream land owners. Compensatory storm water storage calculations are attached for your review for Wetlands related issues. I DRAINAGE - RUNOFF - 1 i rT 4t, ~ " X'8 L� N ti ti MAO { IZ� FIG, A.-ONE-HOUR RAINFALL,IN INCHES, FIG. B. - ONE-HOUR RAINFALL,IN INCHES, FIG. C.^ ONE-HOUR RAINFALL,IN INCHES, TO 8E EXPECTED ONCE IN 2 YEARS. TO 8E EXPECTED ONCE IN 10 YEARS. TO 8'E EXPECTED ONCE IN 50 YEARS. 11 1 � FIG. D.-ONE-HOUR RAINFALL,IN SNGHES, FI4 E.^ONE^HOUR RAINFALL,IN INCHES, F1O. F. - ONE-HOUR RAINFALL,IN INCHES, TO BE EXPECTED ONCE IN 5 YEARS. TO. BE EXPECTED ONCE IN 25 YEARS, TO.,BE EXPECTED ONCE IN 100,YEARS. COMPUTATION OF G IN RATIONAL FORMULA. EXAMPLE•:Assume expecA7nc'y period =S years, ..see fig. D, assu.ne loca/ify, find I hour in/ensil+y�1.7 ',n2 pe-/7 1/ FIG:GINTENSITY EXPECTATION FOR ONE- HOUR . RAINFAL LO. 000 900 35 800 rra `�.••�. �y- 500 .0 j Roved O ti � D/TCHfLOW a �-aoa Q 25 15a 7^u T3� X 10 a O ltI ::) tj GXA_, A�/d PEE:Giyer�'rlreo-IS acres,orelWiff g/rras W ` Bare d z 20 2 O 5vlfoce,/onyesf cmrlond fbiv =200A of 4%gade 00 Ditch flow -150f 7f004 fm* LL+ soil -I 9 IL u W W To fiisd c FborG%u a Fir Overload f/oW, Sec f/G.H of le Ft =15 Agin. surface 1 O 0. P a 7 .,arr Di/ch flon:o5sume 11-121/Q.3a4A,cn&r Ll ? 0.5 O W ehar�4�5.OS,find difch=D 1,V�17ffperre Y-I00• ver.C3ral Q 1.0 � 15 O u s .Ditch Mne y = 1.5 sp° .Surface 2.0 f✓ AG�y Q r Concentrofic,7 fime 16.5A11h. D ense 7A t P160 0( 5 �g W 7'A, Enfcr 1.75 Curve from Fra.O O 60 Gross S° u above, find i-3.8. 10 UA 5a �xh�P� 20 u w 4a 40 a Z 3 3 l0 4 Z 30 9ILLJ Q l.o z 20 cY p0 10 24 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 !00 110 I 7 lFSMIn. DUAA71ON 1N MINUTE5 Cancen/rcaPfan Ffine in Exarnpla. Io FIG. H- OVERLAND F1G. J- VALUES OF L FLOW TIME. RAINFALL INTENSITY-DURATION •Re,orosuced from Misce//anecaus Pub/%cof%on NO.20.f, U.S. Dept:-of Ag/%cullurej fad David (' YaiY7e//. Adopted fi am engineering Mc7nuoi 0,14' the !WdZo' CJe�s or}meat; Parf .� C'hCO./, LJec. 45. mr1 vvo w&,y USgo 7b C44"L'i-JE T c. - —. vr, -,,"J I4JA9' [JeiC CHRISTIANSEN & SERG1, INC. Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors 160 SUMMER STREET HAVERHILL, MASSACHUSETTS 01830 (508) 373.0310 FROM FAX 508-372-3960 PLEASC DELI VCR THE FOLL0WING PAGE (S) TO : FIRM: C&L),V FAx NUMBER : FROM: 12, TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES : 4? (including cover page) DATE SENT: % _ TIME SENT: �a� - CLIENT: MESSAGE: C IF THERE IS A14Y PR08LEM RECEIVING THIS TRANSMISSION CALL 508-373-0310 AND ASS; FOR: /`i i STONE WEIGHT, IN POUNDS 20 60 600 1000 1500 '3000 5000 26 1 5101 401 100 200 400 1 8001 12000 1 40001 12:1 or bottom 24 4:1 3:1 22 2:I 20 z O U to 16 Dr W CL h- 14 /0 /.001 W w z E2 L 10. O FOR STONE WEIGHING - 165 LBS. PER CU. FT. w > 8 6 ADAPTED FROM REPORT OF' SUBCOMMITTE ON SLOPE 4 PROTECTION, AM. SOC. CIVIL ENGINEERS PROC. JUNE 1948 2 0 0 0.�t 1 2 3 4 EQUIVALENT SPHERICAL DIAMETER OF STONE, IN FEET Figure .ZI.—Size of atone that will resist displacement for nariorta velocities and aide a C.KNIZT USE�il f`vI`Z SIZ��G- 32 Oar i21C''K.(�W TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER BOARD OF HEALTH 27 CHARLES STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 Ira..• A[1iU� SANDRA STARR,RS., C.H.O. Telepboue(978)688-9540 Health Director FAX(978)688-9542 October 27, 2000 Christiansen& Sergi 160 Summer Street Haverhill,MA 01830 Re: Lot 11 Pheasant Brook Dear Mr. Christiansen: On October 26, 2000 plans for a proposed septic system for a new dwelling at Lot 11 Pheasant Brook were submitted to this office. The design is for a two-bedroom house, and the single trench is sited directly over TP 4-00, an area of buried stumps and fractured rock. Because of the previous reports from North Andover's engineering consultant and because of the Soil Suitability Assessment for On-site Sewage Disposal done on May 17, 2000 by staff of your office, the entire package, including check is being returned to your client. Included with the submittal package are the following: 1. Site Evaluation forms stating that four feet of naturally occurring pervious material does not exist in all areas proposed for the soil absorption system. 2. Copies of previous reports on this lot submitted by the Town's engineering consultant. 3. A copy of section 15.240(1) of 310 CMR 15.000 Title 5 that mandates at least a four foot depth of naturally occurring soil below the absorption area. 4. A copy of section 15.415(1) of 310 CMR 15.000 Title 5 that prohibits a variance from the requirement of four feet ofnaturally occurring pervious material for new construction. 5. A copy of section 9.01(2) of the Town of North Andover Minimum Requirements for the Subsurface Disposal of Sanitary Sewage stating that there must be a minimum of two trenches for new construction. 6. A copy of section 9.01(4) of the Town of North Andover Minimum Requirements for the Subsurface Disposal of Sanitary Sewage stating that the minimum capacity for a septic system must be able to accommodate an average daily flow of 440 gallons. These reports and cited regulations,plus the limited distance to wetlands, in this case, a vernal pool, indicate that Lot 11 Pheasant Brook, a.k.a. as Evergreen Estates, is not a suitable site for the location of an individual septic system. If you have any concerns, please call this office at 978-688-9540. Sincerely, Sandra Starr, R.S., G.H.O. Health Director Cc: DRC.M. Essex, Inc. BOH DEP—D. Ferris, W. Scott H. Griffin B. LeGrasse File Town of North Andover of tto n=N , ®.Mice of the Health Department Community Development and Services Division William J.Scott,Division Director 27 Charles Street sspcwuye� North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 Sandra Starr Telephone(978)688-9540 Health Director Fax(978)688-9542 January 2, 2001 Christiansen& Sergi . "� '.PNE D 160 Summer Street Haverhill, MA 01830 JAN 0 3 2001 NOR11 �n�l�rs�n-c PLANNING Dear Mr. Christiansen: Your submittal of December 11, 2000 of a proposed septic plan for Lot 11 Pheasant Brook Road was discussed at the December 14, 2000 meeting of the Board of Health. The Board reviewed the history of the lot and all the documentation. It was determined that a meeting with you would serve no good purpose since the Boards consulting engineer has stated in effect that the lot does not conform to Title 5 standards for new construction and is not a suitable site for the location of an individual septic system. The Board has no choice but to act on the consultant's report. If you have any questions please feel free to contact the department at 978-688-9540. Sincerely, Sandra Starr, R.S., C.H.O. Health Director Enc: plans, letter & check Cc: DECM Essex, Inc. DEP—D. Ferris W. Scott H. Griffin B. Lagrasse File BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSER'VAI'ION 688-9530 NURSE 688-9543 PLANNING 688-9535