90 LAFAYETTE STREET - ZBA (2) CID Z9
1
I
l
aLegal Notice
CITY OF SALEM
BOARD OF APPEAL }
745.9595 Ext 381
Will hold a public hearing for all per-
sons interested in the petition submit-
ted by RCG 90 LAFAYETTE, LLC
j requesting a Variance from Article VI, 4
Table III as well as a Variance from
parking, dimensional variances t
i requested are side yard setback, floor I
area ratio, and maximum lot coverage, f
+ parking relief is for 1 space per unit and
parking stall depth of 18'for the proper-
ty located at 90 LAFAYETTE STREET
B-5.Said hearing to be held MARCH
lr 15,2006 at 6:30 P.M. 120 Washington
Street 3rd Floor. {
Nina Cohen,Chairman
SN-3/2,3/9/06
Y
4 � �
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
�� � � �= SALci�l, hiA
BOARD OF APPEAL CL;:rit('S OFF;I,CE
120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR
SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970
TELEPHONE:FAX: 78740-9e4saa5 1UOb_MA-Y_,4 q ,ro;,,Ob .
REVISED
Petition of RCG LLC requesting variances from Lot Coverage, Floor Area
Ratio, Side Yard Setback and Parking Requirements
for property located at 90 Lafayette Street, B-5 District
A public hearing on the above petition was opened on March 15, 2006 pursuant to Mass
General Law Ch. 40A, Sec. 11, and continued to march 29, 2006 with the following
Zoning Board members present: Nina Cohen, Edward Moriarty, Richard Dionne, Robin
Stein and Nick Helides.
The participation of Ms. Cohen in the hearing on this petition is pursuant to a finding by
the Mayor of Salem that the proximity of her place of employment to the subject property
is unlikely to improperly influence her or cause undue bias in the performance of her
official duties.
The developer RCG LLC is seeking variances pursuant to section 9-5 to allow the
construction of a six-story residential condominium on to site of an existing structure
located at 90 Lafayette Street, Salem, in the central business (B-5) zoning district.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public
hearing, and after thorough review of the plans and petition submitted, makes the
following findings of fact:
1) According to a JLA Land Survey plot plan submitted with the petition and
dated June 20, 2004, the subject property at 90 Lafayette Street (the
"Property")consists of a 12,033 sf lot containing a two-story brick building
and separate one-story garage with 7 parking bays.
2) On the north side, the Property abuts a building owned by Deschamps
Printing, and these two structures share a common wall.
3) On the south side, there is an 8 ft right-of-way between the Property and an
adjacent, three-story brick building housing Strega restaurant.
4) Access to the Property is from Lafayette Street using the narrow right-of-way,
and from Dodge Street, where a rear lot can accommodate an additional 10
parking spaces as well as an access lane to a rear entry.
5) The Property has not been actively used since the closing of a tourist-oriented
business that operated on the site several years ago.
6) Petitioner RCG LLC ("RCG") proposes to demolish the primary structure, but
not the garages, to construct a new six-story residential building on the site.
Both the height and the use are allowed within the B-5 District.
7) At issue are five variance requests. These are proposed lot coverage, which
would be at 68.4% where the district permits 50% coverage, side setback of 0
where a 5' setback is allowed, floor area ratio, which is proposed to be 3.49: 1
J
2
where the allowed ratio is 3:1, off-street parking of one space per dwelling
unit where the requirement is 1.5 per unit, and the dimensions of the proposed
parking garage, which are at variance with the dimensions of the ordinance.
8) The proposed structure duplicates the footprint of the existing building. The
first floor would consist of a parking garage accommodating 21 cars and a
retail space of approximately 885 sf. The second through sixth floors would
house 30 one and two-bedroom residential condominium apartments. RCG
submitted proposed floor plans for each floor level drawn by Winter Street
Architects Inc. and dated March 20, 2005.
9) The first floor would offer a small retail space, a lobby and access to an
elevator. All other floors would be residential areas.
10) Parking for the development would be split. Thirty spaces for residents would
be available on site between the first floor and the rear lot. An additional 15
spaces would be provided off site by RCG, which owns other properties in
Salem that are within 600' of the present development through affiliated
corporate entities. These parking places would vary in location, as RCG's
properties begin to undergo construction.
11) RCG declined to specify the location of the additional 15 spaces, other than to
say that these spaces would be provided elsewhere on properties owned by
affiliated RCG subsidiaries, in accordance with contracts provided to unit
owners in the condominium.
12) As grounds for the variance Scott Grover,Esq, acting as attorney for RCG,
stated that the existing building was structurally unsound and could not be the
basis for a building of greater height. He referred to a Foundation
Engineering Report dated 9/6/05 prepared by McPhail Associates, Inc,
Geotechnical Engineers. However as the Board was not provided with this
report, we find we are unable to rely on it in support of the hardship
application.
13) RCG also asserts that the width of the lot, which is 58.57', could not
accommodate a two-way interior ramp to support parking on upper floors. If
true, this appeared to offer support for the assertion that the site is not suitable
for use as a parking garage.
14) In support of the design of the first-floor parking lot, which does not meet
requirements of the ordinance because of stall depth and width of travel aisles,
Mark Meche of Winter Street Architects stated that he had designed many
parking garages and his design was consistent with updated standards in
design relative to parking garages.
15) Public discussion of this proposal lasted four hours over the course of two
public meetings held on March 15 and 29, 2006. Many neighbors appeared
and voiced opinions on both sides, and the Board was also informed by the
appearance of several City councilors, including Lucy Corchado, Ward 1 City
Councilor and Jean Pelletier, Ward 3 City Councilor and President of the City
Council.
16) Speaking in support of the proposed development were the owners of two
downtown restaurants, George Carey of Finz and Linda Capucchio of Strega,
and Patrick DeIulis, a developer whose recent renovation of the New England
3
1
Telephone building on Federal St. in the B-5 district has won praise for
excellence in design. These business owners all stated that the proposed
development would enhance the vitality of the downtown business district.
17) Lynn Duncan, City Planner for the City of Salem, spoke in support of the
redevelopment of blighted sites in the downtown, of which this is an example.
Ms. Duncan also spoke of the difficulty of attracting developers to sites such
as this one, which by virtue of its small size may not offer a very attractive
financial incentive to development, and mentioned that the variances
requested represented trade-offs, in return for which Salem would benefit
from redevelopment of this property within the B-5 area.
18) Also speaking in support of the proposal, William Howard, President of
Beverly Cooperative Bank, stated that the developer's recent redevelopment of
the Derby Lofts block into condominiums had added greatly to the renewal of
the Derby Street area of the downtown.
19) Also speaking in support of the proposed development was Jean Pelletier, City
Council President and Councillor for Ward 3, which is adjacent to the B-5
downtown district.
20) John Mroz and Dannis Deschamps, co-owners of the abutting Deschamps
Printing Co. building stated that they had been approached by RCG with
regard to a possible option to purchase their property, but that no further talks
had taken place. They further stated their concern with the proposed
development, in that the proposed building, absent any side setback, would
interfere with the development rights arising of their property. In response,
RCG stated that if the Deschamps building were extended vertically, they
would brick over the windows of the condo apartments on that side of their
proposed building to enable the Deschamps building to be built up to 6 stories.
21) Ward 1 City Councilor Lucy Corchado opposed the proposed development on
the grounds that the proposed building was out of character in height, design
and density with the buildings surrounding it. She stated that dense
development in the downtown must reflect sensitivity to community needs,
not only the economic incentive to bring to market high-end one- and two-
bedroom condominiums. Community needs include housing for families of
different sizes and at different income levels.
22) City Councilor Mike Sosnowski opposed the parking variance on the grounds
that all new development in the downtown and other areas should provide
sufficient off-street parking to accommodate the needs of new residents. Mr.
Sosnowski also echoed Ms. Corchado's concerns about the overall density of
this proposed development.
23) Numerous neighbors also spoke in opposition to the development. Among the
grounds for opposition were the proposal's failure to answer the need to
provide housing for Salem's current residents in addition to new residents, the
proposal's failure to plan to accommodate families needing larger apartments,
and the need to enforce the provisions of the ordinance to secure uniformity in
the development of downtown.
'J
4
24) Will Wrightson of the Mayor's Financial Task Force, speaking in opposition,
commented that while the proposed development would add to the City's tax
base, a thorough analysis would reveal that additional costs arise from
overcrowding in incremental ways, and that short-term solutions to long-term
problems are not the way to fiscal health.
25) Darrow Lebovici of Federal Street,referring to RCG's statement that their
original plan for the property called for the construction of a parking garage,
argued that the City ordinance should not be altered because a developer took
id not
a risk that d pan out.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and on the evidence presented at the hearing the
Board of Appeals concludes as follows:
1. Special conditions do not exist which especially effect the subject property
and not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not
result in unnecessary hardship on the petitioner.
3. The relief requested cannot be granted which substantially detriment from
the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted 3 in favor and 2 in opposition to grant the
requested variances. Having failed to grant the four affirmative votes required to pass the
matter is defected and the petition is denied. /f/
variance Denied Nina Cohen, Chairman(
April 16, 2006 Board of Appeals
d �
r
N cr
O r_'
Tom;
0
cr
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING
BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the
date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to
Massachusetts General laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit
granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision beating the
Certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed,
or that, if such appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded
in the South Essex Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner of
record or is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
Board of Appeal
r;
Tn
O D
6
DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INTEREST BY MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEEAND
DETERMINATION BYAPPOINTING AUTHORITY
AS REQUIRED BY G. L.C.268A§19
DISCLOSURE
To obtain an exemption pursuant to G.L. c. 268A, §19, municipal employees must submit a disclosure to their
aDpointinq official of the nature and circumstances of the particul2r matter and the financial interest.
Name: Nina Cohen
Tide or Position: Chi of Appeals Board
Agency/Department: Appeals Board
Municipality: Salem
Office Phone: 978-745-9595
Particular See letter from Nina Cohen dated March 8,2006 attached hereto.
Matter
Involved
(Attach additional
pages if necessary):
Financial See letter from Nina Cohen dated March 8,2006 attached hereto.
Interest
Involved
(Attach additional
pages if necessary):
Employee
Signature:
Date: 3/24/06
DETERMINATION
As appointing official, as required by G.L. c. 268A,§19(b)(1), I have reviewed the matter and the financial interest
described above and have determined that the interest is not so substantial as to be deemed likely to affect the
intecirity of the services which the muncipality may expect from the employee.
- Name and Tide of Kimerbley Driscoll,Mayor
Appointing Authority:
Signature of /
Appointing Authority: a
Date. 3/27/06
Comments A determination has been made that Ms.Cohen's financial interest in the Lafayette St.project is not
(Attach additional so substantial as to be deemed likely to affect the services she provides to the City.
pages if necessary):
Attach additional pages If necessary.
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF APPEAL
TO THE BOARD OF APPEAL:
The Undersigned represent that he is the owner of a certain parcel of land located at:
90 Lafayette Street; Zoning District B-5 and said parcel is affected by Section(s) N/A_of the
Massachusetts State Building Code.
Plans describing the work proposed have been submitted to the Inspector of Buildings in accordance with
Section IX A-1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Application for Permit was denied by the Inspector of Buildings for the following reason(s):
Failure to meet the following requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance: (1)the minimum 5' side
setback; (2)the floor area ratio of 3:l; (3)the maximum lot coverage of 50%,all of which are set forth in
Article VI, Table 111,Density Regulation; as well as(4)the requirement that the parking requirements for
new construction be accommodated by on-site parking as set forth in section 7-3(h)(2c); and(5)the
minimum parking stall depth of 19 feet in section 7-3(e)(2b).
Specifically,the petitioner is seeking: (1) a side setback of 0'; (2)a floor area ratio of 3.49:1; (3)a
maximum lot coverage of 68.4%; (4)off-street parking of one (1)space per dwelling unit to be provided
on-site, and one-half(1/2) space to be provided at the Municipal Garage;and(5)a minimum parking stall
depth of 18 feet.
The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeal to vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance
and/or the BuihlingC-ede and order the Inspector of Buildings to approve the application for permit to
build as filed , as the enforcement of said Zoning By-Laws and--B*44i»g-Eede-would involve practical
difficulty or unnecessary hardship to the Undersigned and relief may be granted without substantially
derogating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and-13eilding-Soda for the following
reasons:
See Attached Statement
Owner: RCG 90 Lafayette,LLC Petitioner: RCG 90 Lafayette,LLC
Address: C/o RCG LLC Address : C/o RCG LLC
17 Ivaloo Street, Somerville,MA 17 Ivaloo Street, Somerville, MA
Tel.No.: 617 625-8315 Tel.No. : 617 625-83�5 __ )
By: ,
Aix Steinbergh,Mana er h
Date: February 10, 2006
This original application must be filed with the City Clerk. A certified copy of this petition will be
returned to the petitioner at the time of filing with the City Clerk,to then be filed with the Secretary of the
Board of Appeal. four weeks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeal, along with a check for
advertising in the amount of$ made payable to the "Salem Evening News".
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST
City Clerk
., Dear Salem Zoning Board of Appeals,
ti
+ ' r My name is Altagracia Gomez, and I am the President of the Point Neighborhood Association. I
," ;;;. am writing to express my deepest concerns about the proposed development at 90 Lafayette St.
y : As you may know, Lafayette St. is the entranceway to the Point Neighborhood, and several of our
.v members reside at 100 Lafayette St. two buildings away from the proposed development. It is
�{ the concerns of those members that live closest to the development along with those of the entire
`` 3 f community that compel me to express myself in this public forum.
On Tuesday March 29'" I attended a meeting hosted by RCG and its partners during which the
proposed plans for the 90 Lafayette St. parcel were discussed. As I understand it, the plans call
for four stories to be built on top of the existing 2 story building;making way for,31 residential
units. I also understand that the current specifications for the development do not include the
necessary parking units required under current zoning specifications for the district. I was also
informed that the current retail space that exists on Lafayette St. would be reduced to a 900 sq.ft.
lot. Once a building that has been used primarily for commercial purposes gets converted to a
condominium, it is almost impossible to recoup that building as a viable commercial space. All of
' these issues are troubling to me, as the area is becoming dense with high rise condominiums that
do not do anything to alleviate the already stressful parking situation that exists in downtown
Salem, and hinders future commercial development that may occur in the coming years.
My most significant concern however is that of how the development addresses affordable
housing, or better stated, disregards it completely. As President of the neighborhood association,
I have already seen the effects that these proposed developments along with the recent condo
conversions are having on housing prices within my community. As prices steadily increase more
and more residents are being forced out of our community to make way for more profitable condo
s r conversions. While it is every owner's right to make a profit on his investment, it is also
incumbent upon us as a city to make sure these developments are done responsibly. RCG has
already developed a condominium complex in Salem, namely Derby Loft's. In that development
'A they failed to provide adequate parking, as well as not a single affordable unit. The city allowed
that development to proceed. And here we are again with another development by the same
developer encroaching on the Point Neighborhood, and again we are told that they cannot do
anything to address the affordable housing issue.
;i
' If the most that can be expected of a developer is a measly$1,000 per unit in a luxury
condominium development, then Salem will never be able to properly address the concerns of
".< { people who grew up in Salem, work in Salem, and want to own a home in Salem. Many of the
t.. . people who live within the Point Neighborhood can only dream of owning a home in Salem, in fact
only a small number of people can afford what is deemed to be affordable according to the
I Department of Housing and Community Development. But I wonder how many people in Salem
can truly afford the housing that is being created with these new developments, and when will we
begin to ask the developers to address the concerns of people who live within the city, who would
like to have a permanent dwelling within Salem they can call home.
F
c: As I understand it, in order to get zoning relief within the city, a developer must demonstrate to
• the board and to the public, that their development presents a significant benefit to the city. As
Point Neighborhood Association President, I have yet to see that benefit, and am vehemently
opposed to the development of 90 Lafayette St under its current specifications.
Sincerely,
u
to raci Gomez
Point Neighborhood Association President
• EXISTING CONTOURS o
EXISTING EDGE OF ROA WA LINE YY,cI� SALEM
/ COMMON
D nI
cave.PAD DODCE a ° �
STREET COURT EXISTINGSIDEWAL
12 'a APPR X. 777 / APPROX.5'WIDE
22' WIDE /
PAR It ( I N/F `
2,9 ' ft. I�
0.0 s LAFAYETTE REALTY TRUST � �gppROX. RO RTV LINE
(o oI I #7 SOUTH RIVER
S SALEM HARBOR
w OUThR/SFR
v v W o
_ EXISTING PROPERTY LINES
BD LAFAYETTE STREET � C , o
N/F N
DESCHAMPS PRINTING
PARCEL A y LQ k D o
O
%r 12.033 sq.ft. #3 0 � ❑
N � 0.28 acres
oCAPPUCCto
Q , ' — — — —T EXISTING PROPERTY LINES r -600 -300 0 300 boo 1200
4— Or I I /` // / 90 LAFAYETTE STREET
z CL NIF
PROJECT SCALE(1-=6W)
#90 DPC TRUST
a ; I LOCATION
{ #92—#9s
a w � ,� i;
f I A #86 1 EXISTING SIDEWALK
APPROX.6'WIDE
aaLnFArene sm�r EXISTING BUILDING
EXISTING CONTOURS
GENERAL NOTES:
1)THE EXISTENCE,LOCATION,AND ORIENTATION OF ALL STRUCTURES AND UTILITIES IS APPROXIMATE
B tl e' BASED ON REVIEW OF READILY AVAILABLE UTILITY DRAWINGS AND PAINT MARKS(DIGSAFE#2005602615),
CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY DIGSAFE,CITY OF SALEM,AND ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING EXCAVATION.
EXISTING SIDEWALK 2)CONTRACTOR SHALL RELY ON FIELD MARKOUTS BY DIGSAFE AND UTILITIES AND VERIFY UTILITY LOCATIONS
LAFAYETTE STREET \\_ \ \ WITH HAND EXCAVATION PRIOR TO USING MACHINES IN ALL AREAS WHERE UTILITIES WILL BE ENCOUNTERED.
EXISTING TREES \ \ APPROX.12'WIDE 3)CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH CITY OF SALEM AND NOTIFY AFFECTED PROPERTIES 3 DAYS PRIOR
EXISTINTERRUPTING EDGE OF INTERRUPTING PUBLIC UTILITIES OR CLOSING ROADWAYS
APPROX. 5D' WIDE `EXISTING STREET LIGHT ROADWAY LINE 4)CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFORM TO CITY OF SALEM REGULATIONS FOR FLUSHING AND DISINFECTION PRIOR
TO ACTIVATING MAIN AND SERVICES AFTER CONSTRUCTION
-40 -20 0 20 40 e0 5)CONTRACTOR SHALL USE PIPES,VALVES,AND APPURTENANCES THAT CONFORM TO CITY OF SALEM SPECIFICATIONS
Ile 6)CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFORM TO CITY OF SALEM REGULATIONS FOR EXCAVATION,BACKFILL,AND PAVING
7)ALL INVERT DEPTHS ARE APPROXIMATE AND RELATIVE TO RIM ELEVATION.
8)ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS AND CONTOURS BASED ON TEMPORARY BENCH MARK
SET BY JLA
SCALE(1"=4(y) �tN OF MqS A ON JUNE 20,2004
9)ALL PROPERTYNLINES AND BUILDIINGSURVEY,BOLTON,/LNES ARE APPROXIMATE AND BASED ON SURVEY BY JLA LAND SURVEY(052W04)
Client Scale VARIES �, Sheet
RCG, LLC Date D,AT2006 w NEW ENGLAND CIVIL
prgeot Job No. 2005,0113
L y
90 LAFAYETTE STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTSDeagneaby vrnR L y ENGINEERING CORP. SHEET , Drs
D.n by JMH 1 SPBC..enta Ot/i77/06
PROJECT LOCUS AND EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN Checketl by WMR No. Des q tion ll 06 RE ISTER�\��`� �. 60 Wes"on Weet Stite 304
PROPERTY LINES, STREET LINES, BUILDINGS,ABUTTERS, CONTOURS AWrovetlby WMR REVISIONS SSIONALE� a BALM MASSACHUSETTS 0970
SED 0.
• INST O%TION CT10.ONTBASSOONIRF1D Ip1E5{pOM
INSTpLUTION CONTMCTOR,vKVEIMT Cg$ERrEp)
6.0WA ER EXISTING UTILITIES —
i
6'S?CICPA<YT DODGE STREET COURT
/
2.WATER 6'SEWER 6'M1,WFTERWATER, SEWER, DRAIN
�y !•� 6'S(PIC IN SMti,6'VCP IN TRENCH) 8"SEiN£R
I ELECTRIC !
w ' EXISTING 6" D.I. FIRE SERVICE THROUGH FLOOR
- EXISTING EXTERIOR FIRE SERVICE
# � HOOKUP THROUGH WALL ABOVE GRADE
l
_ ABANDONED 4" D.I. WATER, CUT INSIDE BUILDING
t I — EXITS BUILDING APPROX 1' BELOW OUTSIDE GRADE
UU
r/ EXISTING 4" Cl SEWER WYE ENTERS FLOOR FROM
r w TWO FIRST FLOOR TOILETS, APPROX 3' BELOW
j o OUTSIDE GRADE, DISCHARGES TO LAFAYETTE ST.
1 o
a / o
EXISTING 4" PVC ROOF DRAIN ENTERS FLOOR AND
r — JOINS WITH 1-z" PVC SUMP PUMP AND 5" Cl SEWER
DISCHARGES TO LAFAYETTE ST. 6' BELOW SLAB
V EXISTING 1" CU WATER SERVICE ENTERS FLOOR
CONNECTS TO LAFAYETTE ST. ( 5'-6" BELOW GRADE)
I i (ALSO - 2" C.I. GAS TO LAFAYETTE ST.)
EXISTING BURIE ELECTRIC ,
�.
EXISTING 2" GAS$ERVICE
yEf{ESTREET p / -10 -20 O 20 40 SO
EXISTING BURIED ELCOM
r
SCALE 1"=40'
e
�r _7, m GRAPHIC
GENERAL NOTES:
+r pRnm 1)THE EXISTENCE,LOCATION,AND ORIENTATION OF ALL STRUCTURES AND UTILITIES IS APPROXIMATE
BASED ON REVIEW OF READILY AVAILABLE UTILITY DRAWINGS AND PAINT MARKS(DIGSAFE 2005d60261S),
�lln ' fy CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY DIGSAFE,CITY OF SALEM,AND ALL UrILrrIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING EXCAVATION.
---- 2)CONTRACTOR SHALL RELY ON FIELD MARKOUTS BY DIGSAFE AND UTILITIES AND VERIFY UTILITY LOCATIONS
i • WITH HAND EXCAVATION PRIOR TO USING MACHINES IN ALL AREAS WHERE UTILITIES WALL BE ENCOUNTERED.
TE STREET OPgIN 3)CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH CITY OF SALEM AND NOTIFY AFFECTED PROPERTIES 3 DAYS PRIOR
pp WFTER uaN TO INTERRUPTING PUBLIC UTILITIES OR CLOSING ROADWAYS
4)CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFORM TO CITY OF SALEM REGULATIONS FOR FLUSHING AND DISINFECTION PRIOR
' TO ACTIVATING MAIN AND SERVICES AFTER CONSTRUCTION
oan;N \ 5)CONTRACTOR SHALL USE PIPES,VALVES,AND APPURTENANCES THAT CONFORM TO CITY OF SALEM SPECIFICATIONS
_ 6)CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFORM TO CITY OF SALEM REGULATIONS FOR EXCAVATION,BACKFILL.AND PAVING
7)ALL INVERT DEPTHS ARE APPROXIMATE AND RELATIVE TO RIM ELEVATION.
8)LOCATIONS OF WATER,STORM,AND SEWER PIPES ARE INACCURATE,CONTRACTOR TO CONFIRM LOCATIONS IN FIELD
Cram RCC, LLC S.I. SCALE:I"=401 OP�j Sbeel
°We 105 �� 9 NEW ENGLAND CIVIL
Project PROPOSED UTILITY CONNECTION PLAN Job No. 2005,0199 � I I u' ENGINEERING CORP.
90 LAFAYETTE STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DBsymaby WMR ti y SHEET 2 of 6
Drawn by JMH 1 SPB Commems 01117 ca
EXISTING UTILITIES: WATER, SEWER, DRAIN Che ked by WMR No. oB6uproN Dae RF ..•e I > 60 Nple�sfltgton street 3Wte 304
Approves by WMR REVISIONS d,`p G`�ie" G\i�� SALEK MAMA=]0
' \ CUT& CAP EXISTING ELECTRIC SERVICE
� INSTALL NEW ELECTRIC SERVICE
(BY OTHERS)
CUT&CAP EXISTING 2"GAS AT MAIN
/CC
I INSTALL NEW GAS SERVICE (ASSUME 4")
(BY OTHERS)
73A371N3W3SVV9 F\
CUT& CAP EXISTING 1"WATER SERVICE
AT MAIN, INSTALL 20x4 TAPPING SLEEVE
IF AND 4"VALVE, TAP 20" MAIN, INSTALL NEW
4" D.I. RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
ticoREMOVE EXISTING 5"C.I. SEWER SERVICE TO
LAFAYETTE INTERCEPTOR SEWER, REPLACE
WITH NEW 6"SCH. 40 PVC SEWER SERVICE TO
lq , EXISTING SEWER, INSTALL SERVICE CHIMNEY
(SEE DETAILS)
INSTALL NEW 8" .40 PVC DRAIN SERVICE
\ \"\7 \ TO EXISTING 12" LAFAYETTE DRAIN
� ` �� — v`' A „, CONNECT ROOF DRAINS, BASEMENT SUMP
rELc , ELCOM PUMP, AND PARKING FLOOR DRAIN(S), INSTALL OIL-
_ Z > w saa WATER SEPARATOR ON FLOOR DRAIN OUTLET AND
_
w - '�° p FLOW CONTROL THROTTLES ON ROOF DRAIN OUTLET
(SEE DETAILS)
LU
, eE'✓:
�\ Intl yy
-zo -10 015 zo w e CUT&CAP EXISTNG TELCOM
INSTALL NEW TELCOM & CAN
PLAN SCALE: 1"=2Y (BY OTHERS)
m
g I
10
m:T oEav WEST SIpEWNX I I I I I LKRT[iIE STREET I I p '� EAST&WWKK I 'o
� — —I-- -- - - -- - - -- - - -- — Yi --- -
�5
� I I I I I
x,r4 IGENERAL NOTES:
{. m d I PRC SEOf"q� L�Ld
w ...".. .%» I I I 1)THE ELOCATION,AND ORIENTATION OF ALL STRUCTURES AND UTILITIES IS APPROXIMATE
— ++_..vJ.�_ —' •s _— _— _ BASEDD ON ON NEVI REVIEW OF READILY AVAILABLE UTILITY DRAWINGS AND PAINT MARKS(DIGSAFE#20055301338),
80�
VNOPoSEO(6EWEP(SNONN qL 4qE-p� CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY DIGSAFE,CRY OF SALEM,AND ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING EXCAVATION.
v0.0VO6FO fCMW I 2)CONTRACTOR SHALL RELY ON FIELD MARKOl/T5 BY DIGSAFE AND UTILITIES AND VERIFY UTILITY LOCATIONS
e
WITH HAND EXCAVATION PRIOR TO USING MACHINES IN ALL AREAS WHERE UTILITIES WILL BE ENCOUNTERED.
3)CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE NATO CITY OF SALEM AND NOTIFY AFFECTED PROPERTIES 3 DAYS PRIOR
'w 5 INTERRUPTING PUBLIC UTILITIES OR CLOSING ROADWAYS
V J I I 4)CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFORM TO CITY OF SALEM TO ACTIVATING MAIN AND SERVICES AFTER CONSTRUCTION
TIONS FOR FLUSHING AND DISINFECTION PRIOR
490 LAFAYETTE I WEST SIDEWALK I LAFAYETTE STREET `I I EAST SIDEWALK I 5)CONTRACTOR SHALL USE PIPES,VALVES,AND APPURTENANCES THAT CONFORM TO CITY OF SALEM SPECIFICATIONS
6)CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFORM TO CITY OF SALEM REGULATIONS FOR EXCAVATION,BACKFILL,AND PAVING
7)ALL INVERT DEPTHS ARE APPROXIMATE AND RELATIVE TO RIM ELEVATION.
-10 -5 0 5 10 20 we, _ 8)ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS AND CONTOURS BASED ON TEMPORARY BENCH MARK SET BY JLA LAND SURVEY(JUNE 20.2004)
�, �:-^ 9)ALL PROPERTY LINES AND BUILDING LINES ARE APPROXIMATE AND BASED ON JUNE 20,2004 SURVEY BY JLA LAND SURVEY.
r)�=>;!,IA�}C ` a:f 10)ALL UTILITIES DISTURBED By CONSTRUCTION TO BE SUPPORTED AND/OR ENCASED PER DETAILS AND CITY DIRECTION.
PROFILE SCALE: 1"=10'(HOR.&VERT.)
Client Scale VARIES - Sheet
RCG, LLC Date 01/17M 1W Ll
NEW ENGLAND CIVIL
Plojeq .Jab No2005,0199
PROPOSED UTILITY CONNECTION PLAN pENGINEERING CORP. SHEET 3 of 6
90 LAFAYETTE STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS Designed by z SSBComments 01/17M6Z\
Drawn by JMH JMH 1 Add DgSafe Madcouls 01/04/W 0Gr
Checked by WMR No. Desaiplion Date ��{,..,,,L Stre
60 WflBlrlj>rt011�u wy"o W4
PROPOSED UTILITIES, LAFAYETTE STREET Approved by WMR REVISIONS csS�ONALENG BALER MASSAC B
EXISTING 6" FIRE SERVICE CONNECTION TO
PROPOSED CON OUR , (RUN ALONG % DODGE STREET BE MAINTAINED AT PROPERTY LINE
6 6'NCP�LU' C
(BASE OF RETAI ING ALL) < VWA1 R 6, 6e D.I. WATER REPAIR OR REPLACE EXISTING RETAINING
PROPOSED CO TOU 6'S PVC, S B'S;WCiNSMH,6'VGPMTRE G4) WALL ALONG PROPERTY (R.O.W.) LINE
TO MATCH EXIS ING ONTOURS 12' -0-MY
3'-tt'IhN 6'GAS,3'fi'
LE5CMC.TWM,TT0T0P PROPOSED DRAINAGE PATTERNS
(MAINTAIN DRAINAGE TO DODGE STREET
COURT, REDUCE SLOPE BETWEEN
RETAINING WALLS)
INSTALL NEW RE AINING ALLALONGf I w I
PROPERTY (R.O. .) LINEf",1HIGH < � ''
{ � � ; ' EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERNS
(DRAINS TO DODGE STREET COURT)
PROPOSED CONTOURS OF MRKING LOT
SLOPE TO DODGE: STREET OURT / I ��';) EXISTING CONTOURS OF PARKING AREA
TOP OF WALL 10- IT, BOTT I I 1 Id g
OF WALL APPROX. 10'
fi 1 f 12' 10' _ •
/
II �
12'
, r
/
14'
/ k
3 •�
/ f
/
90 LAFAYETTE STREET
/ I t
GENERAL NOTES:
1)THE EXISTENCE,LOCATION,AND ORIENTATION OF ALL STRUCTURES AND UTILITIES IS APPROXIMATE
BASED ON REVIEW OF READILY AVAILABLE UTILITY DRAWINGS,PAINT MARKS,AND FIELD SKETCHES PROVIDED BY RCG),
-20 -5 a 5 20 40 CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY DIGSAFE,CITY OF SALEM,AND ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING EXCAVATION.
2)CONTRACTOR SHALL RELY ON FIELD MARKOUTS BY DIGSAFE AND UTILITIES AND VERIFY UTILITY LOCATIONS
WITH HAND EXCAVATION PRIOR TO USING MACHINES IN ALL AREAS WHERE UTILITIES WILL BE ENCOUNTERED.
3)CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH CITY OF SALEM AND NOTIFY AFFECTED PROPERTIES 3 DAYS PRIOR
SCALE:1"=20 INTERRUPTING PUBLIC UTILITIES OR CLOSING ROADWAYS
GRAPHIC 4)CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFORM TO CITY OF SALEM REGULATIONS FOR FLUSHING AND DISINFECTION PRIOR
TO ACTIVATING MAIN AND SERVICES AFTER CONSTRUCTION
5)CONTRACTOR SHALL USE PIPES,VALVES,AND APPURTENANCES THAT CONFORM TO CITY OF SALEM SPECIFICATIONS
6)CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFORM TO CITY OF SALEM REGULATIONS FOR EXCAVATION,BACKFILL,AND PAVING
PROPOSED PARKING LOT GRADING FACING DODGE STREET COURT T)ALL SPOT
INVERT TIONSHS AND
PROXIMATE ANDASEDON RELATIVE TO RIM ELEVATION.
e)ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS AND CONTOURS ARE BASED ON TEMP.BENCH MARK SET BY JLA LAND SURVEY 620/09
9)ALL PROPERTY LINES AND BUILDING LINES ARE APPROXIMATE AND BASED ON JUNE 20,2004 SURVEY BY JLA LAND SURVEY.
10)ALL UTILITIES DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION TO BE SUPPORTED AND/OR ENCASED PER DETAILS AND CITY DIRECTION.
G'I"" RCG, LLC Soak SCALE 1-=20 ` NEW ENGLAND CIVIL
Sheet
Date lvzoros
Proieq A m
PROPOSED UTILITY CONNECTION PLAN Job N. 2005,0199
dby WMR S ENGINEERING CORP. SHEET 4 of 6
90 LAFAYETTE STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS Drawn by MH SPBCommens 1117/05 p Q °' '�I,I,,,,,��,� ``
Checka"by WMR No. Desuiption Date x BQ W �IfOQy S1�0 304
PROPOSED GRADING PLAN, PROPERTY ABUTTING DODGE ST. COURT
Approved by WMR REVISIONS 0,�. �' �� d, SALEM, MASSACHLISEM