The URL can be used to link to this page

16 SCOTIA STREET - ZBA D - - -� � � J t (v( Jl C '�� ' � j ' �\ cel t � . i � , .. j -. ,� - ,�p�. R A iS^- -r.. -r�...�...._.._. +_..s+w+ u. _ � r _�. �. .� +re,_.. � ..+rmyrP r�'e �. t�.. ��r a •" .��-r. - n ..; - -e.. y-., .. 82 Washington Street Marblehead,MA 01945 William A.Quigley,Jr. Phone: (781)631-7777 Attorneyat Law Mobile:(781)929-7875 Fax:(781)631-7757 wq uigley@goclega Lcom pogq CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01 970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL lop SEP 30 A 8• D'8 MAYOR FiEr`G CITY CLER ;, : '`.s: . i:a.5`5. September 28,2009 Decision City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of BVS CORPORATION seeking Variances from required lot area, lot width and minimum rear yard depth to allow for the subdivision into four single- family house lots of the property at 16 SCOTIA STREET, Salem,MA, in the Residential One-Family Zoning District(Rl). Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance, 56-4, Table I: Residential Density Regulations (recodified on September 10, 2009 as §4.1.1: Table of Dimensional Requirements). Statements of fact: 1. William A- Quigley,Jr.,Esq. represented the petitioner at the hearing. 2. In a petition dated May 21, 2009,the petitioner requested dimensional Variances to create four(4) buildable,single-family house lots. 3. A Statement of Hardship submitted with the petition explained that the proposed parcels were originallylaid out in 1961,but were not built on; since 1961,the zoning has changed such that the originally proposed house lots no longer conform to current dimensional requirements. 4. The Statement of Hardship also explained that the site had been contaminated with asbestos when purchased,and the petitioner had expended a great deal of time and money cleaning the site and bringing it to its current clean,usable state. In order to recover costs expended during cleanup,the petitioner stated,it was necessary to develop four house lots on the site. 5. A public hearing on the above mentioned Petition was opened on June 17,2009, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, §11. 6. At the meeting on June 17, 2009, numerous residents,including direct abutters, spoke in opposition to the project,citing concerns that the project's density was too great and the proposed house lots were too small for the neighborhood. Other comments included concerns about emergency vehicle access, flooding, lack of parking, snow removal and traffic. Among the residents who stated opposition to the project were Ward 4 Councillor Jerry Ryan, 4 Nichols St.;Ward 3 Councillor 2 Arthur Sargeant, 8 Maple Avenue; and At-Large Councillor Steven Pinto, 55 Columbus Avenue. 7. At the June 17, 2009 meeting,Board members also expressed concern about the density of the project and size of the proposed house lots, and indicated that the Board might view the project more favorably if two or three house lots were proposed rather than four,the Board also suggested that a cul-de-sac or turnaround of some type would improve the project. 8. The hearing was continued to August 19,2009 and September 16, 2009. 9. On September 16, 2009,the petitioner presented revised plans, dated June 24, 2009, showing a reduction in the number of house lots proposed from four(4) to two (2). The new plans also showed a cul-de-sac. Attorney Quigley stated at the meeting that the only relief now needed would be lot area and rear yard depth. 10. At the September 16, 2009 meeting,Ward 4 Councillor Jerry Ryan again spoke about the project, saying he no longer opposed it, since the density had been significantly reduced; however,he still had concerns about flooding onto neighboring properties, and that at meetings with the developer,he had been assured that measures would be taken to alleviate this effect. He also said that trees should be added to act as a buffer between the new houses and abutting properties. 11. Lawrence Olcott, 23 Summit Street,submitted correspondence via Councillor Ryan opposing the project because of the proximity of the proposed houses to his property and because he felt the angle of the proposed houses was out of character with the neighborhood. 12. The pubic hearing was closed on September 16, 2009,with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rick Dionne (chairing the meeting),Beth Debski,Bonnie Belair(alternate), and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). 13. At its meeting on September 16, 2009,the Board of Appeals voted four (4) in favor and none (0) opposed to grant Variances under$64, Table I: Residential Density Regulations (recodified on September 10, 2009 as §4.1.1: Table of Dimensional Requirements). 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: 1. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance, as the petitioner significantly altered the plans to address neighborhood concerns about density and access, and agreed to submit drainage alteration plans in order to prevent flooding onto neighboring properties. 3 3. In permitting such change,the Board of Appeals requires certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to,the Plans,Documents and testimony,the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. To allow for creation of two (2) single-family house lots on the property at 16 Scotia Street,the requested Variances from dimensional requirements for the One-Family Residential Zone are granted, as shown on the revised plans titled `Board of Appeals Plan,Scotia Street,Salem,Mass.," dated June 24,2009, and prepared by Hayes Engineering,Inc. In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted,four(4) in favor(Dionne, Belair,Debski and Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed,to grant petitioner's requests for a Variance subject to the following terms, conditions,and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes,ordinances,codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Corrunissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall obtain street numbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from any City Board or Commission having jurisdiction including, but not limited to,the Planning Board. 8. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structures) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area or more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (500/6) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (50%) of its floor area at the time of destruction,it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. 9. Petitioner is to submit a Street Drainage Alteration Plan to the Building Inspector prior to beginning construction. 4 10. The existing trees on the property are to remain. 11. Petitioner is to submit a landscaping plan to be approved by the City Tree Warden prior to beginning construction. Rica Diol Salem Zoning Board of Appeals 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 of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11,the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. CITY OF SALEMv MASSACHUSETT0 ,, SALLM. MA a i^ 40) BOARD OF APPEAL CLE?K'S OFFICE 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 p �(�. STANLEY J. U90VICZ, JR. TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 _ . 2005 JUL 2$ A 0 22 MAYOR FAX: 978-740-9846 DECISION OF THE PETITION OF AAA MODULAR HOMES LLC REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16 SCOTIA STREET R-1 A hearing of this petition was held on July 20, 2005 with the following Board Members present: Nina Cohen,Chairman, Bonnie Belair, Edward Moriarty, Nicholas Helides and Steven Pinto.Notice of this hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. The petitioner is requesting a Variance from lot size and lot are to subdivide 2 lots into 4 lots for the property located at 16 Scotia Street located in an R-I zone. The Variance which has been requested may be granted upon a finding of the Board that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land, building, or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other lands, buildings or structures in the same district. b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise,to the petitioner. c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the Ordinance. The Board of Appeal,after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1. Petitioner AAA Modular Homes LLC (Daniel Hibbard,officer)of 23 Trifone Road, Revere purchased adjacent residential properties at 14 and 16 Scotia Street in early 2002. Prior to beginning any construction, petitioner discovered hazardous waste materials including asbestos at the property, which was unfortunately partially uncovered and spread over the lot, causing a dangerous environmental condition at the property... 2. In July 2002, the City of Salem Building Inspector and the State Department of Environmental Protection ordered petitioner to cease work at the property and to obtain an environmental regulation regarding material containing asbestos. 3. Petitioner subsequently conveyed the property still subject to the stop work order to the present owners: Petitioner's mother Lillian Hibbard of 3 Belgrade St. in Revere and his uncle Joseph Oreto. 4. In July 2003, Petitioner and then-owner Hibbard sought variances from lot size and lot width to create 4 lots at the property. He was denied zoning relief. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF AAA MODULAR HOMES LLC REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16 SCOTIA STREET R-1 page two 5. In lune 2004 Mrs. Hibbard was ordered by the City of Salem Board of Health to remediate the asbestos contamination of the property within two months. 6. Petitioner did not show the Board an environmental assessment of the property. Petitioner has not completed a cleanup plan,nor has any remediation ever been undertaken at the property, which is still contaminated with hazardous material .more than three years after the discovery of the hazardous condition at the site. During this period of time,petitioner has made no effort to protect the health of the neighbors and abutters. 7. Petitioner through his attorney Lawrence Simeone Esq. now renews his request to subdivide the two properties and create four lots, two of which would be less than 4,875 and two of which would be 5,050sf. All four lots require a variance from lot width requirements. 8. As grounds fro hardship, Petitioner states that the remediation of the asbestos would require an expenditure of greater than$150,000, and that without the possibility of income from the four lots, he is not in a position to undertake the expense of asbestos remediation. 9. Ward 4 City Councillor Leonard O'Leary opposed the granting of the variance, on the grounds that the developers failed to stabilize the site once they knew of the contamination. The work done on the site changed the topography of the land so that future development will require regarding to protect adjacent properties from water and soil runoff. Mr. O'Leary argued that the property is too small for 4 houses and cannot safely accommodate safety vehicles. 10. Also present at the hearing and speaking against the proposal were neighbors Paul Butler, Deborah Pomoroy, Tom Welch and Dorothea Cormier. On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows. 1. Special conditions do not exist which especially affect 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 to the petitioner. 3. The relief requested cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without nullifying and substantially hardship derogating from the intent of the district or purpose of the Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 0 in favor and 5 in opposition to grant the requested variances. Having failed to gamer the four affirmative votes required to pass, the motion is defeated and the petition is denied. DECISION OF THE PETITION OF AAA MODULAR HOMES LLC REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16 SCOTIA STREET R-1 Variance Denied July 20, 2005 � Nina Cohen, Chairmar�s U �� Board of Appeal 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 MGL 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 MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance of Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the Certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have passed 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 of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner Certificate of Title. Board of Appeal Applicant: Asphalt Services, Inc. File #: SAL-0068 ' 800 West Cummings Park Woburn, MA 01801 Mitigative Drainage� g Analysis Stormwater Report i Scotia Street ' Salem, Massachusetts May 8, 2009 1 1 �QJ 603 Salem Street -- ---- Wakefield, MA 01880 Hayes Engineering,Inc. Tel: (781) 246-2800 Nantucket, MA 02554 Fax: (781)246-7596 Tel: (508)228-7909 1 ' MITIGATIVE DRAINAGE ANALYSIS 1SCOTIA STREET LITTLETON, MASSACHUSETTS May 8, 2009 Introduction The purpose of this study is to analyze the potential effects of an appropriate stormwater management system for the proposed single family residential development. The goal of this ' analysis is to investigate the potential mitigative hydrologic impacts by comparing runoff from the subject property under both the existing and proposed conditions. The subject property is located at the end of Scotia Street in Salem, MA, within a residential neighborhood. The subject property lies to the south of Summit Street, to the north of Albion Street, to the west of Butler Street and to the east of South Street. ' This study compares the sufcial stormwater runoff rates and volumes of the existing and proposed land use conditions generated by the pre and post development. The selected edge of comparison is the subject property boundary. The existing features of the site and its tributary watershed consist of a previously disturbed area with essentially little surface features and bare soil as the ground cover type. 1 Proposed land use changes to the property include the construction of four single family homes with their associated driveways, lawn areas and typical appurtenances. Furthermore, the existing end of Scotia Street will be extended to accommodate the proposed development and with associated drainage structures including a perforated pipe conveyance system, sewer u main, water main and various underground utilities. The perforated pipe drainage system is embedded in a crushed stone trench to allow an opportunity for exfiltration into the surrounding ' soil thereby reducing the impact on the existing drainage infrastructure in Scotia Street. Proposed topographic changes are incorporated into the site development design to provide ' appropriate grading and mitigating drainage effects from the fully developed project site. Methodology—General The methodology of runoff analysis contained in this study is to develop watershed parameters 1 and to use those parameters to generate hydrographs throughout the project watershed. Watershed parameters are based on the Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds method, as described in Technical Release No. 55 (TR-55) of the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Hydrograph generation is accomplished using the above-described watershed parameters and a 24-hour rainfall event with a Type III distribution, as specified in Technical Release No. 20 (TR-20) by the Natural Resources Soil Conservation Service (NRCS). The calculations are generated using the HydroCAD Stormwater Modeling System, Version 9.00, by HydroCAD Software Solutions. This program models the hydrology and hydraulics of stormwater runoff based upon the hydrology techniques developed by the Soil Conservation Mitigative Drainage Analysis Scotia Street, Salem, MA May 8, 2009 1 Service, now the NRCS, combined with other hydrology and hydraulic calculations. The HydroCAD program combines and expands on the most used capabilities of TR-55 and TR-20. A 24-hour rainfall event with a Type III distribution, using the procedures specified in Technical Release No. 20 by the NRSC, is utilized in conjunction with the rainfall amounts interpolated from 'Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States for Durations from 30 minutes to 24 Hours and Return Periods from 1 to 100 Years (1961). ' Existing Condition Methodology A mathematical model of the existing condition watershed hydrology, measured at the selected comparison location, was developed using the general methodology discussed above. The comparison location selected is the subject property boundary. The comparative tributary watershed is measured to be approximately 24,375 square feet. A watershed schematic that illustrates the inter-relationship of the various sub-watersheds and their respective locations throughout the project site is included in this study. This schematic identifies the sub-watershed designations. The results of the analysis are presented in the peak flow rate and water volume summary table that follows. An existing condition watershed map and soils map has been prepared and is included in this report. Proposed Condition Methodology A mathematical model of the proposed condition watershed hydrology, measured at the selected comparison location, was developed using the general methodology discussed above. The comparison location selected is the subject property boundary. The comparative tributary watershed is measured to be approximately 24,375 square feet. The proposed condition watershed parameters and analysis are determined based on a proposed site plan of the project that illustrates the above-mentioned site development. A watershed schematic that illustrates the inter-relationship of the various sub-watersheds and ' their respective locations throughout the project site is included in this study. This schematic identifies the sub-watershed designations. A proposed condition watershed map has been prepared and is included in this report. Stormwater is managed according to standards established by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and the work as proposed will not impair groundwater or surface water quality by incorporating erosion and sedimentation controls and other Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to attenuate non-point source pollution. However, the Stormwater Management Standards are not applicable to four or fewer lots and there is no ' protected resource area(s) present on site. The general design approach of the drainage system is to collect runoff in the proposed Adrainage system from portions of the developed site and direct that runoff into the existing 2 ' Mitigative Drainage Analysis Scotia Street, Salem, MA ' May 8, 2009 ' drainage infrastructure in Scotia Street. The goal of the project's stormwater management design was two-fold: 1) mitigation of peak rate of runoff and 2) reduction of stormwater volumes. The mitigation of peak rates of runoff and volumes is achieved through the improvement of 1 ground cover type. The existing ground cover type is bare soil allowing a relatively greater opportunity to generate surficial runoff while similarly limiting the opportunity for infiltration. The proposed ground cover improvement will consist of lawn areas that attenuate the peak flow while improving the opportunity for infiltration and thereby reducing post development runoff volumes. The proposed condition analysis investigates the hydrologic and hydraulic impact of the ' proposed development and its mitigative effects of the resulting peak flow rate three (3) design storms, specifically, the 2, 10 and 100 year storm events. Conclusion ' A summary table is provided in this analysis which summarizes the existing and proposed condition peak rates of runoff and volumes for the net flows to the selected comparison location. ' Due to the differential improvement between the previously disturbed ground cover type and the proposed ground cover type, this effect mitigates the peak stormwater runoff from the project site to existing downstream watersheds, as can be seen by examining the summary tables and associated calculations. The total cumulative volume of flow leaving the analyzed area in the 2, 10 and 100 year storm events, according to the mathematical model, will result in less total volume discharge. 1 ' 3 ' Mitigative Drainage Analysis Scotia Street, Salem, MA ' May 8, 2009 ' HydroCADO ANALYSIS PEAK FLOW RATE & WATER VOLUME SUMMARY TABLE SURFICIAL FLOW LEAVING PROPERTY Qpeak Qpeak Existing Condition Proposed Condition ' Storm Event Q (cfs) (Vol. cu.ft.) (cfs) (Vol. cu.ft.) (Vol.cu.ft.) 2-year/24-hours 3.1 inches 1.32 3,732 1.02 3,537* -195 10-year/24-hours 4.6 inches 2.27 6,507 1.77 6,031' -476 1 100-year/24-hours 6.5 inches 3.49 10,168 2.78 93413* -755 * Reduction in volume due to change in ground cover type. ' 4 i � P1 P2 E1' PROP PROP EXIST 1 � 1L i 1 1 1 Subcat Reach ol1 ��d,�f��k. ;l Drainage Diagram for SCOTIA ` '"""' Prepared by{enter your company name here}, Printed 5/8/2009 HydroCAD®9.00 s/n 03206 ©2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC SCOTIA Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 5/8/2009 HydroCAD®9 00 s/n 03206 ©2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Area Listing (all nodes) Area CN Description (sq-ft) (subcatchment-numbers) 14,215 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C (P1, P2) 24,115 87 Dirt roads, HSG C (E1) 10,420 98 Paved parking, HSG C (E1, P1, P2) I i r SCOTIA Type 111 24-hr 2 Year Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by (enter your company name here) H droCAD®9.00 s/n 03206 ©2009 H droCAD Software Solutions LLC Printed 5/8/2009 Pa e 4 Time span=5.00-30.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 501 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv. Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method SubcatchmentE1: EXIST Runoff Area=24,375 sf 1.07% Impervious Runoff Depth>1.84" Flow Length=200' Tc=1.3 min CN=87/98 Runoff=1.32 cfs 3,732 cf ' SubcatchmentP1: PROP Runoff Area=14,126 sf 66.58% Impervious Runoff Depth>2.20" Flow Length=121' Tc=5.4 min CN=74/98 Runoff=0.76 cfs 2,590 cf SubcatchmentP2: PROP Runoff Area=10,249 sf 7.37% Impervious Runoff Depth>1.11" Flow Length=140' Tc=6.9 min CN=74/98 Runoff=0.27 cfs 947 cf ' Link 1L: Inflow=1.02 cfs 3,537 cf Primary=1.02 cfs 3,537 cf SCOTIA , Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 5/8/2009 HydroCADO 9.00 s/n 03206 @2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Soil Listing (all nodes) Area Soil Subcatchment (sq-ft) Goup Numbers ' 0 HSG A 0 HSG B , 48,750 HSG C E1, P1, P2 0 HSG D 0 Other S ' SCOTIA Page Prepared by{enter your company name here} Type Ill 24-hr 2 Year Rainfall H droCAD®9.00 s/n 03206 ©2009 H droCAD Software Solutions LLC Printed 5/8/2009 P Pa e 5 ' Summary for Subcatchment E1: EXIST Runoff = 1.32 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 3,732 cf, Depth> 1.84" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 5.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 2 Year Rainfall=3.10" Areas CN Description 260 98 Paved parking, HSG C 24115 87 Dirt roads HSG C 24,375 87 Weighted Average 24,115 87 98.93% Pervious Area ' 260 98 1.07% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.6 50 0.0320 1.42 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 0.7 150 0.0440 3.38 Shallow Concentrated Flow, ' Un aved Kv= 16.1 f s 1.3 200 Total ' Subcatchment E1: EXIST Hydrograph 1.82 Cis —Runoff LR 24-hr 2 Year i infall=3.10" a=24,375 Sf ' me=3,732 cf epth>1.84" ' ength=200' Tc=1.3 min rcN=87/98 1 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1215 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Time (hours) SCOTIA Type 111 24-hr 2 Year Rainfall=3.10" , Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 5/8/2009 HydroCAD®9 00 s/n 03206 @2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Summary for Subcatchment P1: PROP , Runoff = 0.76 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 2,590 cf, Depth> 2.20" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 5.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 2 Year Rainfall=3.10" Area (sf) CN Description 9,405 98 Paved parking, HSG C 4,721 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG C , 14,126 90 Weighted Average 4,721 74 33.42% Pervious Area 9,405 98 66.58% Impervious Area ' Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (f/sec) (cfs) 5.0 50 0.0280 0.17 Sheet Flow, M Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.10" 0.4 71 0.0170 2.65 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps , 5.4 121 Total Subcatchment P1: PROP , Hydrograph 0.8 0 76 cfs _ —Runoff 0.75. ... ..... .. 0.71Type III 24-hr 2. Year 0.65 Rainfall=3.10" ' 0.55- Runoff Area=14,126 sf-- - 05 Runoff Volume 2,590 d 0.45 ...... 0.4- .. ... Runoff Depth>2.20 LL U.35 Flow Len E2 ' 0.3 0.25. - _Tc=5.4..min..... 02 CN=74/98 , 0.15- 0.17 .150.1 .. _. . 0.05_ ... ... .. _ . . .. . , 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Time (hours) ' SCOTIA Type 111 24-hr 2 Year Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 9 Hydro CAD®9.00 s/n 03206 @ 2009 H droCAD Software Solutions LLC Printed 5 P Pa e 7 Summary for Subcatchment P2: PROP Runoff = 0.27 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 947 cf, Depth> 1.11" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 5.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 2 Year Rainfall=3.10" iArea (sfl CN Description 755 98 Paved parking, HSG C ' 9 494 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG C 10,249 76 Weighted Average 9,494 74 92.63% Pervious Area ' 755 98 7.37% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (f/sec) (cfs) 1 6.3 50 0.0160 0.13 Sheet—Fl ow— low, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.10" 0.6 90 0.0220 2.39 Shallow Concentrated Flow, ' 6.9 140 Total Un aved Kv= 16.1 fps ' Subcatchment P2: PROP Hydrograph 0.3 0.28- - .. 0.27cts . ... - . . � —Runoff 0.26- 0,24- _._. __.. LR 24-hr 2 Year0.22ainfall=3.10"02ea=10,249 sf0.i8x U.,6lume=947cf 014Depth>1.71"0.12Length=140' 008Tc=6.9 min0.06-0.04CW74/980.02 .. _ ° 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 1,9 22 15 16 18 20 21 23 7'7 5 26 27 28 29 30 Time (hours) SCOTIA Type /// 24-hr 2 Year Rainfall=3.10" , Prepared by(enter your company name here) Printed 5/8/2009 HydroCAD@ 9.00 s/n 03206 @ 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 8 Summary for Link 1 L: , Inflow Area = 24,375 sf, 41.68% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.74" for 2 Year event Inflow = 1.02 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,537 cf Primary = 1.02 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3,537 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 5.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs , Link 1 L: Hydrograph , 1.02 cfs Inflow Primary I 1 Inflow Area=24,375, sf r 0 Li L w � LL . i 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 8 29 30 Time (hours) ' SCOTIA Type 11124-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4.60" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 5/8/2009 HydroCAD@ 9,00 s/n 03206 ©2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9 Time span=5.00-30.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 501 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv. Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method SubcatchmentEl: EXIST Runoff Area=24,375 sf 1.07% Impervious Runoff Depth>3.20" Flow Length=200' Tc=1.3 min CN=87/98 Runoff=2.27 cfs 6,507 cf SubcatchmentP1: PROP Runoff Area=14,126 sf 66.58% Impervious Runoff Depth>3.52" Flow Length=121' Tc=5.4 min CN=74/98 Runoff=1.21 cfs 4,141 cf ' SubcatchmentP2: PROP Runoff Area=10,249 sf 7.37% Impervious Runoff Depth>2.21" Flow Length=140' Tc=6.9 min CN=74/98 Runoff=0.57 cfs 1,889 of Link 1L: Inflow=1.77 cfs 6,031 cf Primary=1.77 cfs 6,031 cf 1 1 SCOTIA Type 11124-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4.60" , Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 5/8/2009 HydroCAD09 00 s/n 03206 @ 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 10 Summary for Subcatchment E1: EXIST , Runoff = 2.27 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 6,507 cf, Depth> 3.20" , Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 5.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4.60" Area (sf) CN Description 260 98 Paved parking, HSG C 24,115 87 Dirt roads HSG C , 24,375 87 Weighted Average 24,115 87 98.93% Pervious Area 260 98 1.07% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (fUsec) (cfs) , 0.6 50 0.0320 1.42 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 0.7 150 0.0440 3.38 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps , 1.3 200 Total Subcatchment E1: EXIST Hydrograph 2.27 cfs I —Runoff , Type III 24-hr 10 Year 2.. . . . ... .- ........ .. .. , ........... Rainfall=4.60 Runoff Area=24,375 sf w Runoff Volume=6,507 d , g Runoff Depth>3.20`' LL Flow Length=200' ' Tc=1 .3 m i n CN=87/9801 jL , 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 7,77 T 14 7 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Time (hours) , ' SCOTIA Type 111 24-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4.60" Prepared by (enter your company name here) Printed 5/8/2009 HydroCAD®9.00 s/n 03206 @ 2009 HVdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 11 ' Summary for Subcatchment P1: PROP Runoff = 1.21 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 4,141 cf, Depth> 3.52" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/]mperv., Time Span= 5.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs ' Type III 24-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4.60" Area (sf) CN Description 9,405 98 Paved parking, HSG C ' 4,.. 21 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG C 14,126 90 Weighted Average 4,721 74 33.42% Pervious Area 9,405 98 66.58% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' min (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 50 0.0280 0.17 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.10" 0.4 71 0.0170 2.65 Shallow Concentrated Flow, 5.4 121 Total Paved Kv= 20.3 f s ' Subcatchment P1: PROP Hydrograph ' 1.21 cfs - —Runoff Type III 24-hr 10 Year ' Rainfall=4.60" Runoff Area=14,126 sf ' Runoff Volume=4,141 cf Runoff Depth>3.52" ' LL Flow Length=121' Tc=5.4 min 1 CN=74/98 L-jj" j'La 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Time (hours) 1 SCOTIA Type 11124-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4.60" , Prepared by{enter your company name here} Printed 5/8/2009 HydroCAD®9 00 s/n 03206 @ 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 12 Summary for Subcatchment P2: PROP , Runoff = 0.57 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 1,889 cf, Depth> 2.21" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 5.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4.60" Area (sfl CN Description 755 98 Paved parking, HSG C 9,494 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C , 10,249 76 Weighted Average 9,494 74 92.63% Pervious Area 755 98 7.37% Impervious Area ' Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) , 6.3 50 0.0160 0.13 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.10" 0.6 90 0.0220 2.39 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 6.9 140 Total Subcatchment P2: PROP , Hydrograph 0.67 - .. , . .. 0.57 cfs 0.55 _ Type III 24-hr 10 Year 0.5 _ Rainfall=4.60" , 0.45 0.4 Runoff Area=10,249 sf 0.35 Runoff Volume=15889 cf 0.3 _ .. _ _ __ Runoff_Depth>2.21-rr .... 0.25 Flow Length=140' , 0.2- Tc=6:9- min.-. 015-. .i5 ...... ;... _ - CN=74/98 0.05- 0 .05 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Time (hours) , SCOTIA Type 111 24-hr 10 Year Rainfall=4.60" Prepared by {enter your company name here} HydroCAD0 9.00 s/n 03206 ©2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Printed 5/8/2009 Page 13 Summary for Link 1L: ' Inflow Area = 24,375 sf, 41.68% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 2.97" for 10 Year event Inflow 1.77 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 6,031 cf Primary = 1.77 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 6,031 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min ' Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 5.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link 1L: Hydrograph 1.77 cis I _inflow - _ Prima Inflow Area=24,375' sf 1 LL 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22''"21`3 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Time (hours) SCOTIA Type /1124-hr 100 Year Rainfall=6.50" , Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 5/8/2009 HydroCAD®9.00 s/n 03206 ©2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 14 Time span=5.00-30.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 501 points , Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv. Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method SubcatchmentEl: EXIST Runoff Area=24,375 sf 1.07% Impervious Runoff Depth>5.01" , Flow Length=200' Tc=1.3 min CN=87/98 Runoff=3.49 cfs 10,168 cf SubcatchmentPl: PROP Runoff Area=14,126 sf 66.58% Impervious Runoff Depth>5.25" , Flow Length=121' Tc=5.4 min CN=74/98 Runoff=1.81 cfs 6,176 cf SubcatchmentP2: PROP Runoff Area=10,249 sf 7.37% Impervious Runoff Depth>3.79" , Flow Length=140' Tc=6.9 min CN=74/98 Runoff=0.99 cfs 3,238 cf Link 1 L: Inflow=2.78 cfs 9,413 cf , Primary=2.78 cfs 9,413 cf SCOTIA Type 111 24-hr 100 Year Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by{enter your company name here} H droCAD®9.00 s/n 03206 ©2009 H droCAD Software Solutions LLC Printed 5/8/2009 Pa a 15 ' Summary for Subcatchment E1: EXIST Runoff = 3.49 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 10,168 cf, Depth> 5.01" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 5.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100 Year Rainfall=6.50" ' Area (sf) CN Description 260 98 Paved parking, HSG C ' 24,115 87 Dirt roads HSG C 24,375 87 Weighted Average 24,115 87 98.93% Pervious Area ' 260 98 1.07% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) ' 0.6 50 0.0320 1.42 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 0.7 150 0.0440 3.38 Shallow Concentrated Flow, ' 1.3 200 Total Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps ' Subcatchment E1: EXIST Hydrograph ' 3.49 cfs 3 Type III 24-hr 100 Year __... .. :.._. ,_ Rainfall=6.50" Runoff Area=24,375 sf ' w Runoff Volume=10,168 cf 2-Runoff Depth>5.01" LL ' Flow Length=200' Tc=1.3 min CN=87/98. I ' 01 jL 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ' Time (hours) SCOTIA Type /// 24-hr 100 Year Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 5/8/2009 , HydroCAD®9 00 s/n 03206 ©2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 16 Summary for Subcatchment P1: PROP , Runoff = 1.81 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 6,176 cf, Depth> 5.25' , Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 5.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100 Year Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description 1 9,405 98 Paved parking, HSG C 4,721 74 >75% Grass cover. Good HSG C , 14,126 90 Weighted Average 4,721 74 33.42% Pervious Area 9,405 98 66.58% Impervious Area , Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (f/ft) (fUsec) (cfs) 5.0 50 0.0280 0.17 Sheet Flow, , Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.10" 0.4 71 0.0170 2.65 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps , 5.4 121 Total Subcatchment P1: PROP , Hydrograph 2_ 1.81 ds —Runoff , Type III 24-hr 100 Year Rainfall=6.50" , Runoff Area=14,126 sf Runoff Volume=6,176 cf ' Runoff Depth>5.25" LL Flow Length=121' , Tc=5.4 min CN=74/98 ' 0 1 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Time (hours) 1 1 1 SCOTIA Type 111 24-hr 100 Year Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by {enter your company name here} H droCAD®9.00 s/n 03206 @ 2009 H droCAD Software Solutions LLC Printed 5/8/2009 Pae 17 1 Summary for Subcatchment P2: PROP Runoff = 0.99 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 3,238 cf, Depth> 3.79" 1 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 5.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100 Year Rainfall=6.50" 1 Area (so CN Description 755 98 Paved parking, HSG C 1 9A94 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG C 10,249 76 Weighted Average 9,494 74 92.63% Pervious Area 1 755 98 7.37% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 1 6.3 50 0.0160 0.13 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.10" 0.6 90 0.0220 2.39 Shallow Concentrated Flow, 1 Un aved Kv= 16.1 f s 6.9 140 Total 1 Subcatchment P2: PROP Hydrograph 1 1 0.99tts —Runoff Type III 24-hr 100 Year 1 Rainfall=6.50" Runoff Area=10,249 sf 1 Runoff Volume=3,238 cf Runoff Depth>3.79" 1 Flow Length=140' Tc=6.9 min 1 CN=74/98 1 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 Time (hours) 1 1 SCOTIA Type 11124-hr 100 Year Rainfall=6.50" , Prepared by{enter your company name here) Printed 5/8/2009 HydroCAD@ 9.00 s/n 03206 @ 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 18 Summary for Link 1 L: , Inflow Area = 24,375 sf, 41.68% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 4.63" for 100 Year event , Inflow = 2.78 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 9,413 cf Primary = 2.78 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 9,413 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 5.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs , Link 1 L: Hydrograph ' 3- 2.78 cfe —InFlow Prima Inflow Area=24,375 sf 2- , 1 —�jLL 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 161 18 19 20 21 22 2(h , 3 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 } ^,� '7`- 1• E . t�, AA., 44 yy�i+ I 14 Wit • - �&~\-.ti/C S CY d JI.. �•F T'..Yt YR < 1, `Q ek -_ N 1 a iK t Jb � *4 9 • 3 LAW a # 4 " Custom Soil Resource Report Table—Hydrologic Soil Group (Scotia Street) Hydrologic Soil Group—Summary by MaMCounty, ,Southern Part Map unit symbol Map unit nameI Percent of AOI 102C Chatfield-Hollis-Rock outcrop complex,3 to 15 percent slopes0'1 0.4% 602 Urban land0.8 2.8% 622C Paxton-Urban land complex, 3.913.1sloping724C Hollis-Urban land-Rock outcrop 4 6 %complex,sloping83.7/ Totals for Area of Interest 29.4 100.0% ' Rating Options—Hydrologic Soil Group (Scotia Street) ' Aggregation Method. Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff. None Specified Tie-break Rule: Lower 20 Custom Soil Resource Report FAor. LEGEND MAP INFORMATION st(AOI) Map Scale: 1:2,870 if printed on A size(8.5'x 11")sheet. rea of Interest(AOI) The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,840. oil Map Units Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map s measurements. /D Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://WebsoilsuNey.nres.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTMZone19NNAD83 D QC This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s)listed below. Q C/o O D Soil Survey Area: Essex County, Massachusetts,Southern Part Survey Area Data: Version 7, May 5,2008 Not rated or not available Political Features Date(s)aerial images were photographed: 7/31/2003 p Cities The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were Water Features compiled and digitized probably differs from the background Oceans imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor shifting Streams and Canals of map unit boundaries may be evident. _. Transportation +++ Rails iV Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads N Local Roads �1 Hayes Engineering, Inc. Memorandum To: Thomas St. Pierre, Building Inspector SAL-0068 City of Salem 120 Washington Street - e Floor Salem, MA 01970 From: Chris Sparages, P.E. Date: November 11, 2009 cs parages @ hayeseng.c Subject: Scotia Street Hydrant Flow Calculations Cc: David Knowlton, City Engineer Zoning Board of Appeals Asphalt Services, Inc. A hydrant flow test was performed on Thursday November 5, 2009 at approximately 10pm. Mr. Jack Murray of the Salem Water Department was present at the time of testing. HEI obtained hydrant flow test information for hydrants located at the intersection of Scotia Street and Butler Street (Hydrant No. 1) and at the intersection of Summit Street and Butler Street (Hydrant No. 2). The static pressure at hydrant no. 1 was 53 pounds per square inch (psi). The elevation at the location of hydrant no. 1 is approximately 87.6 based on the topographic survey by HEI (elevation of pressure gauge, assumed 1.5-feet above ground surface). At the top of Scotia Street the elevation of the proposed cellar floor for Lot No. 2 is approximately elevation 92.0. This represents an approximate 4.4 foot grade change from the hydrant pressure gauge to Lot 2. A change of 4.4 feet of water height is equivalent to a pressure change of approximately 1.9 psi (4.4/ 2.311 psi/ft of water at 68°F. Therefore, for Lot 2 the static water pressure at the proposed house would be approximately 51 psi (53 psi - 1.9 psi). Copies of the hydrant flow test summary sheets are attached to this memorandum. HEI also evaluated the hydrant flow and pressure drop for the proposed hydrant at the end of Scotia Street. The proposal is to extend the water main in Scotia Street (a 6-inch line) using an 8-inch CLDI water main. HEI calculated friction losses in the piping and corresponding pressure drop to the proposed hydrant. The calculations indicate an expect static pressure of 48.5 psi at the proposed hydrant with a residual pressure of 30.7 psi. The calculated maximum flow rate at 20 psi would be 1,118 gpm. Copies of the hydrant flow calculations are attached to this memorandum. 603 Salem Street,Wakefield, MA 01880 TEL(781)246-2800 FAX(781) 246-7596 www.hayeseng.com I o� REFER TO FILE # SAL,-bo(op) HAYES ENGINE . 1 NAME , INC. DATE 603 SALEM STP WAKEFIELD, 1 880 MADE BY QS TEL.:(sB y2 2800 F = : 'J 6-7596 MEMO CALCULATION -- - -- - -- - _. -- - -.. - --- TVAS k1 - ,5 - ?'Do' Q�) Ip"OUPM_ -- - -25) --t tf�;E ------------------------ ------------------------------- ---------- g' --fia 1�D-- b�--- �o _-g1_Q s-5) oJft l _.P4-W2k = dPS\ -- - —(ct� FLDt� _PcT 20 PSA - -- - - - - - - ------ --- - -- - --- - -- ---- �''Z�------------ - - - - -- - -- - --- --- ©� - - 40 - -- - --- ---- -- --- -- �$-- — -- 2rZoo (,rPM ---- 2 o F l-1YDRANT FLOW TEST _bo�g Filc'No. � Bldg. No. Of Ian, show main sizes, hydrants, indicate test hydrants, location of street valves5LYTL 1 F +i•'s, pumps, etc. . V� N�UK� �`� WA'CI� IT1 PfESEe�Tr r ID PM 11151 Zooq Static Resid. Pitot Flow Flow Hydr, or Actual I ..fisE Hydrant Pres. Pres. Pres. Opening GPM Nozzle Flow _ si) ( si) ( si) (in. ) — (C=1-. Oj Coef£. 1 m) r : 32,5 5 9 C) o; - SJtwM 'SZ 0000 - . 90 . . 80 . 70 - HYDRANT COEFFICIENT CHART 2 GPM ' RECORD: Z1000 Static pressureZ_^(A) 10,000 { Residual _ ��l 7,000 w Pressure , >.000 acoo . Subtract , r (B) 5,000 4,000 - .. Pitot Pressure ?y'L,j P _ 3,000 Nn. cif g0Ilon S lIowilig „ ' -(Adll!;;trd IU2` i OCII1C1Cni.,) U (C) 2.900 AN •sco Wo Assumed Residual PressureZ� (D) oco- 50 soo20 �Jsing Chart 2 At Right 700 - too .600 «' On "GPM" ,column .mark entry"C!' soo 5 ;at _ 400 i center column "P" mark entry ''B" 300 k 4�sxrtg -straightedge, connect the two 200 �f �( mets and ektend to'right-h-and column 1' USirig' interception point in right hand 100 90 column as apivot point, rotate straightedge 00 70 until it intersects result of "A" minus "D" co S ,•-;fit - i so An - P column .40 > oint of intersection on "GPM" column is L� 1� «�0 30 taY flow available atassumed pressure (D) GPM r r 20 04 n C��hS�u�`l, hi. how w Cxl'� Let', detcrminc at ]cast two more point., for our graph by method L.t's call the gpm we ubtai 'c tom (b) above To do this, we must imagine two other residual pressures and the drop. in pressure (from static rsi,iu u) c 1c. ,1, .1:.,. .,;; : ,. calculate the amount of water which would flow at them. Now let's `imagine a new residual Pr;ssure p - r_. ; i The umaainary residual pressures should be equidistant from the r psi mentioned earlier. We'll call that drop In preSvLl,n ,f,iu t t .c to actual'residual pressure on either side of that point. If our actual flow test assumed residual) PD.-,. The quantify of water in gpn, is-. ; ra gave us a restdual pressure of 40 psi and we know that static pressure was at the assumed residual p he qua will bc. water N in gp.w.we 6%-c. ;i'. 80 psi, we should calculate what flows might be at 60 psi and 20 psi. It ; also helps to calculate the flow at 0 psi residual pressure. Thenwe will have l Of : Q_ :: PD, : PD.... . . .ot•. . Oh' PD, __ Q_ C [ D, enough data to plot a smooth curve. , Q, 'X RDi To calculate these imaginary test points, we must use a table of values and therefore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . .Q_ -> of drops-in-pressure raised to a fractional power. Such a tabic is shown on PD,', page 12-5'r of the N.F.P.A. Handbook, part of which is reproduced below. Let's work an example: ` For the sake of simplicity we have revised the headings and omitted An actual test showed 500 gpri, flowed when the static presti any reference to complex mathematical powers. Column PD gives the 30 psi dropped to 50 psi.What is the gp ri that would flow if In, .d;.:,:. pressure drop from a static to a residual pressure; column K gives a ratio. pressure dropped to 25 psi? (It does ,tot represent psi or gpm.) We kn s O, is $t'� -:,:'�ltr kri r that ' ;�, is 80 p o. y ;i i or 3r p : s Groff By ,.fere, 3 i._ [:hc : : etc„ge 18.I "Ye , the X r,+ T`cr Tor a 30 psi pressur LVc a, ai<o G rr PD K PD K PD , K 'D K PD IC there ibat the.li numberfar rhe Gi ,<c s t,e oro d, a s ---.._... __ psi 25 ps ) is 8.71 Is f lows . 1 1.(:0 21 5.18 41 7.43 61 9.21 81 10.73 t f l� I .i �•�' Ii i 2 1.45 22 5.31 42 7.53 62 9.29 82 10.80 11 a l' 171l l 3 1.81 23 5.44 43 7.62 63 9.37 83 10.87 , �9 Ig in (,the quantity urlw•ater flowide-at 2.5 i 4 2.11 24 5.56 44 7.72 64 9.45 84 10.94. ! Ci.23" t l 1.;. f 1 5 2.39 25 5.69 45 7.81 65 9.53 85 11.01 t 11 � i lfi' . h ,i ,• 6 2.63 1 26 5.81 46 7.91 66 9.61 86 1".08 We can'makc the same typg of�61.cul a[ion fcirtgthcr assumed residual i7 2.26 27 5.93 47 8.00 67 9.69 87 11.15 pressures.and thus have a lvhole series-of points. When these are plotted 8 3.07I 28 6.05 48 8.09 68 9.76 88 11.2'2 on the graph sheet, they will give us a smooth curve all the way frons the 9 3.28 29 6.16 49 8.18 69 9.84 89 11.29 static pressure at 0 gpm to a zcrc.residual presscrc with the :a.- ^c:- 10 3.47 30 6.28 50 8.27 70 .9.92 90 11.36 11 3.65 , obtainable from that particular wke; main. 31 6.39 51 8.36 71 9.99 91 11.43 1 i 12 3.8E 32 6.50 51 8.44 72 10.07 42 11.49 13 4.00 I 33 6.61 53. 8.53 73 10.14 93 11.56 14 4.16 34 6.71 54 8.64 74 10.22 94 11.63 15 . 4.32 35 6.82 55 8.71 75 10.29 95. 11.69 Y* ' 16 4.48 36 6.93 56 8.79 76 10.37 96 11.76 17 4.62 37 7.03 57' 8.88 77 10.44 97 11.83 18• 4.76 38 7.13 58 8.96 78 10.51 98 11.89 19 - 4.90 39 7.23 59' 9.04 79 10.59 99 11.96 A Sample Flow 7rs (i 20 1, 5.04. 40 7.33 601 9.12 80 10.66 100 12.02 ; ON PAGE 20 we've reproduced a sample flow.test data she5t. Looking at it, we can trace step by step the measures taken by the insu•ranee engincrr Now that we have the table, what are we going to do with it? To use it, we must accept this factual statement: The quantity of water obtainable or fire chief in testing the water..supply.- ) ; at a cerrath drop.in pressure is proportional (in the table's ratios) to theBefore beginning.the test at any location [he DcQ� in charg cfi iiL V qurnniry .,l ,,ater „brained at-some otter drop in pressure. what maps were available and.nfade 'a sketch on ,nc';•iaia shed qi t;:- site, water mains, their slza, and the ;:y6hant,.f,n';lvcu: 9 REFER TO FILE # NAPS Sca T vk S HAYES ENGIl , INC. DATE 60 SALEM SALEM ST, WAKEFLD. lidi 1880 MADE BY C� S TEL.: 7 p2 800 F 6-7596 El MEMO all&LCULATION ' v -> S M Mt REFER TO FILE # �;AL - NAME SOT T HAYES ENGII�E°�-E . t.,G, INC. DATE \\-K)- 603 SALEM ST,[�� c.PS WAKEFIELD,,M�"01880 MADE BY TEL :, r246 2800 F f fi4 '6-7596 MEMO CALCULATION IF�D�P Nd,_1 COCPTkD - AS - f cOT1p�_ + ZUILe(---ST _. 66.1-L � ST - - -- --�• --�`�Q��t _� �-- -�P�o('_as�fl� rYt _ K�� _ o�_.__ScoZ_�a_S-r_-- s-rA-TSL ---�ss�M� 5uC-rthJ�'� tC✓55 ��_ IrJ ��4��,�� '��• �- - S - - �oP- - P . x _( 55\j� °�'-- ofwat - -- - - ---- - -- -- ---- 60 REFER TO FILE # L CDT T. HAYES ENGIN NAME S INC. DATE 11-10 - aQ 603 SALEM STJ3EE I.R WAKEFIEM X01880 MADE BY C P I TEL.:( y2 800 F .2 6-7596 MEMO 131,�CALCULATION ---� )— �21(T fOC,3 � C)SS N P�act�T_ .-i6-- AAJ-D aA�T- 43 -- -- -- -- -- - la5- L�Aik 5S AvtEr�2 _Pav- W -- --- — --- -- -- - 1,b5 4 .67 - -- -- --- - - --ergs--- --- ---------- - --- -- — ----— -- - -------- iS 4 b') — ---- ----- -- -- -- ---- - ------ -- ------ -- - REFER TO FILE # SAL- Q� NAME -'Zb7l 5r HAYES ENGI E t INC. DATE - 7 oA 603 SALEM ST E WAKEFIELD_, 01880 MADE BY C�S TEL.: '2' 800 F 6-7596 MEMO dCALCULATION - --K -\ALOE--'P02 t'?, fsi Delo - , - IbRes In�aL. ��tiSs�� ar-�__►��o2��T �� , 3 -_ -- -.—�� ------ 2( -,v I = �8 5 �s t ,_��►��`�- -- - tvUV 1 v �uuJ 603 Salem Street Nantucket, MA 02554 C01ApgiJlJ f'(D`c 1 + 1�' I r Wakefield. MA 01880 Tel: (508)228.7909 Tel: (781)246-2800 Hayes Engineering, Inc. Fax: (781)246.7596 Refer to File# SAL-0068 November 2, 2009 Thomas St. Pierre, Building Inspector City of Salem 120 Washington Street 4t' Floor Salem, MA 01970 Re: Review of Board of Appeals Plan for Scotia Street Dear Mr. St. Pierre, The purpose of this letter is to respond to comments for the Scotia Street Board of Appeals Plan made by Mr. David Knowlton, City Engineer in a Memorandum addressed to you dated October 16, 2009. We are pleased to present you with the following responses shown below Mr. Knowlton's comments in bold text. 1. Cultec System a. Details are needed,such as: i. Filter fabric placed around system. A detail of the Cultec 330XL Units specifying filter fabric has been added to a detail sheet. ii. Need detailed operation and maintenance plan and commitment from property owners to implement. An operation and maintenance plan is included in the Mitigative Drainage Analysis Stormwater Report dated May 8, 2009 revised to October 6, 2009 by Hayes Engineering, Inc. (HEI). X. Deed detail on access ports, for observation and maintenance? Sized appropriately? A detail of the inspection port has been added to a detail sheet. iv. Need piping detail, detail cut sheet from internet shows inlet piping entering unit from the end. It is true that the Cultec website details show the piping entering from the end; however, the installation instructions recommend the use of a Sawz-all for cutting and trimming the units which are made of plastic. Loading the units from the side in our experience is no different from loading at the end. b. Overall installation per manufacturers recommendation? The detail of the 330XL units specifies referring to Cultec, Inc.'s current recommended installation guidelines. c. Can the system fit, given the refusal at 40-inches in the test pit to the east? While we did encounter ledge at certain locations on site, we did not encounter any ledge in the area where we performed excavated testpits T3 & T4 where we are proposing the roof recharge system. d. Need Bow estimates, test pit/pem test info that demonstrate unit can handle the flows? We have added the soil logs and double-ring Infiltrometer logs to the detail sheet as well as the spreadsheet showing the observed exfiltration rate. e. Is unit to treat the perimeter drain? If so,perimeter drain seems much lower than inlet elevation;if not perimeter drain outlet needs to be detailed. The roof recharge system is for roof runoff only, the perimeter drain shall discharge to daylight via gravity or mechanical means in accordance with the Massachusetts State Building Code. 2. Roof gutter, downspouts, overflows and perimeter drains need to be depicted on the plans, or shown in a typical detail, confirm elevation of 96.5 will work for all eight locations. A typical detail is shown on the detail sheet. Elevation 96.5 will be sufficient for downspout overflows, see proposed grading shown on the Board of Appeals plan. 3. What zoning variances are being requested? What is considered the front yard? Side yard, etc.? See the decision by the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals dated September 28, 2009 enclosed with this response letter. 4. What does t/, gf and cf stand for? TF = Top of Foundation elevation in feet GF = Garage Floor elevation in feet CF = Cellar Floor elevation in feet 5. Overall drainage alteration plan is needed. Need plan showing existing Bow patterns on the properties, and proposed. Need engineer's opinion of no adverse impact on neighboring properties. Existing Condition and Proposed Condition Watershed Maps are included in the Stormwater Report mentioned above. As can be seen on the Peak Flow Rate &Water Volume Summary Table in the Report, because of the roof recharge system and the change in the existing ground cover type to lawn, a reduction in the amount of peak rate and volume of surface runoff is expected and will therefore have no adverse impact on the neighboring properties. L f 6. What is impact of flows from the driveways, cul-de-sac and roadway extension on the stormwater collection system in Scotia Street. The current(2 lot) plan represents a reduction in the total amount of impervious area from the previously submitted (4 lot) plan in the amount of 28%, and specifically, a reduction in the amount of paved surfaces in the amount of 25%. Further, we have added crushed-stone swales to provide further mitigation for the surface runoff from the proposed two driveways. Therefore, with these additional measures in place and for the reasons listed above in item 5, it is our opinion that the impact on the Scotia Street drainage system will be negligible. 7. What is the condition/capacity of the existing utilities in Scotia Street? Need to inspect them to determine condition and capacity is sufficient for additional flows. The existing structures shall be inspected during the time of construction and if cleaning is required it shall be performed by the developer. 8. Confirm existing 6-inch water main in Scotia Street will provide adequate/low and pressure to the proposed 8-inch main and development. A hydrant flow test has been scheduled for Thursday November 5, 2009. We have enclosed three (3) copies of plans entitled "Board of Appeals Plan, Scotia Street, Salem, Mass." dated June 24, 2009 revised through November 2, 2009, 2 sheets, which reflect the responses above for your approval. We trust that you will find these responses and plans satisfactory and will allow the project to move forward. Should you have any further questions or comments about any of the information provided above please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, Peter J. Ogren, P.E., P.L.S. President Cc: Mr. David Knowlton, City Engineer Zoning Board of Appeals Asphalt Services, Inc. FROM :William A. Quigley,Jr. ,Esq. FAX N0. :7816317757 Oct. 19 2009 10:28AM PS CITY OR SALEMo MASSACHUISETTS BOARD OF APPEAL ' . 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.9846 KIMBERLKY DRISCOLL 1(IQq SEP 30 A -3: 08 MAYOR CITY September 28,2009 Cityof Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Petition of BVS CORPORATION seeking Variances from required lot area, lot width and minimum rear yard depth to allow for the subdivision into four single- family house lots of the property at 16 SCOTIA STREET,Salem,MA, in the Residential One-Family Zoning District(RI). , Petitioner seeks Variances pursuant to the Salem Zoning Ordinance,$6.4,'Table I: Residential Density Regulations (recodified on September 10, 2009 as $4.1.1:Table of Dimensional Requirements). Statements of fact: 1. William A. Quigley,Jr.,Esq. represented the petitioner at the hearing. 2. In a petition dated h&y2l, 2009,the petitioner requested dimensional Variances to create four(4) buildable,single-family house lots. 3. A Statement of Hardship submitted with the petition explained that the proposed parcels were originallylaid out in 1961,but were not built on;since 1961, the zoning has changed such that the originally proposed house lots no longer conform to current dimensional requirements. 4. The Statement of hardship also explained that.the site had been contaminated with asbestos when purchased 'and the petitioner had p r d e nded a rear deal of eine and 1?e � g moneycleaning the site and bringing it to its current clean,usable state. In order to recover costs expended during cicanup,the petitioner stated,it was tiecessaty to develop four house lots on the site. 5. A public hearing on the above mentioned Petition was opened on June 17, 2009, pursuant to Mass General Law Ch. 40A, 511. 6. At the meeting on June 17, 2009,numerous residents,including direct abutters, spoke in opposition to the project,citing concerns that the project's density was too great and the proposed house lou were too small for the neighborhood. Other comments included concerns about emergency vehicle access, flooding, lack of parking,snow removal and traffic. Among the residents who stated opposition to the project were Wand 4 Councillor Jerry Ryan,4 Nichols St.; Ward 3 Councillor V FROM :William A. Quigley,Jr.,,Esq. FAX N0. :7816317757 Oct. 19 2009 10:2RAM pF i 2 Arthur Sargeant,8 Maple Avenue; and At-Large Councillor Steven Pinto, 55, Columbus Avenue. 7. At the June 17,2009 meeting,Board members also expressed concern about the density of the project and size of the proposed house lots, and indicated that the Board might view the project more favorably if two or three house lots were proposed rather than four,the Board also suggested that a cul-de-sac or turnaround of some type would improve the project. 8. The hearing was continued to August 19,2009 and September 16,2009. 9. On September 16,2009,the petitioner presented revised plus,dated June 24,2009, showing a reduction in the number of house lots proposed from four(4) to two (2). The newplans also showed a cul-de-sac. AttomeyQuigleystated at the meeting that the only relief now needed would be lot area and tear yard depth 10. At the September 16,2009 meeting,Ward 4 Councillor Jerry Ryan again spoke about the project,saying he no longer opposed it,since the density had been significantly reduced;however,he still had concerns about flooding onto neighboring properties, and that at meetings with the developer,he had been assured that measures would be taken to alleviate this effect. He also said that trees should be added to act as a buffer between the new houses and abutting properties. 11. Lawrence Olcott, 23 Sumnrit Street,submitted correspondence via Councillor Ryan opposing the project because of the proximity of the proposed houses to his properly and because he felt the angle of the proposed houses was out of character with the neighborhood. 12. The pubic hearing was closed on September 16, 2009,with the following Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Rick Dionne (chairing the meeting), Beth Debski,Bonnie Belair(alternate), and Jimmy Tsitsinos (alternate). 13. At its meeting on September 16,2009,the Board of Appeals voted four (4) in favor' and none (0) opposed to grant Variances under 96.4, Table I:Residential Density Regulations (recodified on September 10,2009 as §4.1.1: Table of Dimensional Requirements). 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: 1. Desirable relief may he granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance, as the petitioner signiflcantly altered the plans to address neighborhood concerns about density and access, and agreed to submit drainage alteration plans in order to prevent flooding onto neighboring properties. F'KUM :William A. Quig l ey,Jr. ,Esq. FAX NO. :7816317757 Oct. 19 2009 10:28AM P7 3 3. In pertnitting such change,the Board of Appeals requites certain appropriate conditions and safeguards as noted below. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including,but not limited to,the Plans,Documents and testimony,the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes: 1. To allow for creation of two (2) single-family house lots on the property at 16 Scotia Street,the requested Variances from dimensional requirements for the One-Family Residential Zone are granted,as shown on the revised plans titled "Board of Appeals Plan,Scotia Street,Salem,Mass.," dated June 24,2009,and prepared by Hayes Engineering,Inc. In consideration of the above,the Salem Board of Appeals voted,four(4) in favor(Dionne, Belair,Debski and Tsitsinos) and none (0) opposed,to grant petitioner's requests for a Variance subject to the following terms,conditions,and safeguards: 1. Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes,ordinances,codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions subntitred to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and,fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. Petitioner shall obtain street munbering from the City of Salem Assessor's Office . and shall display said number so as to be visible from the street. 7. P is sio having Petitioner to obtain approval from any Qty Board or Commis n h g jurisdiction incl but not limited to the Planning Board. 1 including, � g 8. Unless this Decision expressly provides otherwise, any zoning relief granted does not empower or authorize the Petitioner to demolish or reconstruct the structure(s) located on the subject property to an extent of more than fiftypercent(50%) of its floor area or more than fifty percent (50916) of its replacement cost at the time of destruction. If the structure is demolished by any means to an extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost or more than fifty percent (500/0) of its floor area at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance. 9. Petitioner is to submit a Street Drainage Alteration Plan to the Building Inspector prior to beguu=g construction. i Danielle McKnight From: jerrylryan@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 7:11 PM To: Danielle McKnight Subject: Fw: Scotia St. Sent from my Verizon Wireless B1ackBerry -----Original Message----- From: 10379@aol.com Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:57: 12 To: <JerryLryan@comcast.net> Subject: Scotia St. ? Jerry, ??? I will be unable to attend the board meeting concerning the Scotia St proposal to build? two houses, as I will be away on business at that time. ??? After reviewing the current plans for those houses I am absolutely against them in there current form for the reasons as follows. # 1 The corner of the house closest to my property would be about 13 ft. from the corner of my lot. # 2 The houses are placed at an angle inconsistent with all off other houses in the neighborhood # 3? There is no indication of what kind of houses are going to be constructed. # 4?? We have getting flooded in heavy rain since living here due to changes made in the land by the previous owner. What is going to be different ? # 5? The proposed houses would placed uphill? from my house and basically siting on top of me allowing me no privacy. ?While I am not opposed to two house being built on that property, the current plan is far from satisfactory. 0 ?? Yours Truly, Larry Olcott ? 978 979 514 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8. 5. 409 / Virus Database: 270. 13.103/2378 - Release Date: 09/17/09 06:18: 00 1 <xW �I w. $I/�.n ]M1 i .r J/ :... �y..Y lila .... L^.f•T' l�kZt-'r7k.*, 13 1 — � ��'a''•` . �: ��. � t •,: '7'HE C177ZENS BANK Bi�[I.DING��'� �'� � � . itk '�•�'•'' fi ° �„r; ,; 385 BROXDWAY,PO.BOX 321 `'- � rM REVERE.MASSACHUSETTS BUNAND J.MAeCAu unt lAwRENCEA SIMEONE,JR. TELF.aHON&0811 2861$60 FAcsIM7iE:(7811 2865532' January 215`, 2003 Thomas St. Pierre Building Inspector 120 Washington Street Town of Salem Salem, MA 01970 Re: Lot#3 #4 #S and#6 Scotia Street Salem MA. Dear Mr. St. Pierre: In accordance with our discussions, M.G.L. 40A section 7, I submit this request for a zoning determination and request for building permits for the construction of four single family homes Lot 43, #4, #5, and#6 Scotia Street, Salem, MA.("the Property") identified above. The most recently recorded plan of the Property dated March 6`h, 1961 and entitled"Land of Albert C. Plante Scotia Street, Salem, Mass"C'the Plan')was endorsed by the Salem Planning Board in accordance with M.G.L. c. 41 section 81P (Approval of Subdivision Control Law not required). The Plan establishes that Lot#3 contains five thousand and thirty (5030) s.f. and has frontage of eighty nine (89.00) feet on the westerly side of the private roadway know as Scotia Street. Lot#4 contains five thousand and thirty (5050) s.f. and has frontage of eighty three and fifty-one hundredths (83.51) feet on the westerly side of the private roadway known as Scotia Street. Lot 45 contains four thousand eight hundred and seventy(4870) s.f. and has frontage of eighty seven and two hundredths(87.02) feet on the easterly side of the private roadway known as Scotia Street. •� �• 4P �. "� Y X14 'Y f f T �' 1� _T w ! A p�,�`"fi•.'e6'g"4^ G• , r yo-�-- t.:: �'i-' �t,>,f '4 •` r r•�9 w ^k - Lof#6 bontains four thousand eight hundred and forty-six(4846) s f, and ltas frontage f flighty four and four hundredths-(84.04)feet on the easterly side private road way kn wn" '*��rw as Scotia Street. (see attached Plan marked Exhibit A) .r In accordance with the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Salem and the Zoning Map of the City of Salem said Property is located in the R-1 district, single family district, m accordance with the Article V"Use Regulations".(see attached Zoning map section ?.: marked Exhibit B and see attached former deed marked Exhibit C The Table I of Density Regulations for Residential Uses establishes that the minimum lot area is fifteen thousand(15,000) square feet and minimum lot width (frontage) is one hundred feet. The Property fails to comply with the current ordinance. Article VIII of the Salem Zoning Ordinances afford protection to lots which are not in conformance with the existing ordinances area and width requirements. Article VIII Section 8-2 states in pertinent part"where a lot or lots exist which could not be built upon for residential purposes under the terms of this ordinance by reason of restrictions on lot area or lot width, such'lot or lots may be used subject to the following provisions : (1) Any increase in area, frontage,width,yard or depth requirements of a zoning ordinance or by-law shall not apply to a lot for single and two-family residential use, which at the time of recording or endorsement, which ever occurs sooner, was not held in common ownership with any adjoining land, conformed to the then existing requirements and had less than the proposed requirement but at least five thousand (5000) square feet of area and fifty (50) feet of frontage. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to prohibit a lot being built upon if, a the time of the building, building upon such lot is not prohibited by the Salem Zoning Ordinance". **the "had less"language if read to mean that the lot had less than the requirement at the time or recording or endorsement would require the lots properly subdivided to be buildable. The last plan of record at the Essex Registry of Deeds was March 6a', 1961, which shows the Property is an approval not required plan endorsed by the Salem Planning Board further supports this conclusion. As a result the vacant lots also qualify non-conforming lots in accordance with M.G.L. c. 40A, Section 6 and therefore are protected single fMily building lots. The M.G.L. 40A Section 6, looks to the date of the recording of the lot(s). Noteworthy is the fact that in several cases the critical issue for the court and as it interpreted both the Section 6 and local zoning law is the date of the recording of the lot and whether at the time of the recording whether said lot met the current lot dimensional requires (i.e., front 2 i Y 'See r a * �' :A}y 1 •" •5., J y�'.. d-,'�4' �t - „ In accordance th above stated f end legal analysis, at is tune, I respectfully, request that a leer of determination be 'ssued ti`_ our de artment that Lot #5 -:a6 and#6 Sco'a a are eg smg a}airily house o m accordance with the Salem Zoning Law z Shouldtherebe a need for further information please feel free to contact this office Your expeditious reply to.this request will be'genuinely appreciated. ` Very truly. La ence . Simeone Jr,Esq. cc: Daniel P. Hibbard, AAA Modular Homes, Inc. 3 6' STOCKADE 6' S E e9.E 90.e - ---- -- --- --- ---91-- -- - _ _ _ ' 90.1 91.3 - _ X X 93.4 \ i i! i�J " 94' X 945.. _- _ X 94.6 z -X 93.2 ! 'fj '� ___ __. -_ __ + 93.7 9i A 92.2 J X 95.3 X 95.3 `� y 93.7 93.1 APPROMM47E La'1SMO HOUSE � L O 93.6 AREA=24,375 ft2 93.5 PRIVATE 1 / �r N ,�ga ` � ' '9t)1.8i r// X 94.2 //r X95.4 X9/ '� I .3 ///ins \\y 193.2 \ IX 93.5 J \ ' -- - - I \ 92.6 X_85.0 94.2 \ 1 87.7 y X &5.7 - DRIVE E �i y87.8 X 86.5 - X 85.3 M. =W 89X=88V==XX 93.7x e4.7 \ - -� - X 95.7 o m m X 95.5 \ EP\ ti \ ,' \ 1 X:93.4 y 1 1 ' I I\ � \ y 9� '/Ci 1 z I ' = -- _ EP--7 xe97 j X 9i.7 / I ✓ O , \ s53 �1 - �E W.l- =� - - --4t 3Y.2- �.h86.� *-86.8- 92.1 j - l Li201 ,� f \ 95.9 94.7 GUY SUP 3204, \ \ x ss.a � X 193's / jc 93.0 1 X 95.1 ;i 96.4 \\ ^ \\ \ X96.1 93.$, X 95.9 t iX93.1 � - ' X'94.7 � X 96.6 J�� g� X 96.5 ` \\\92.4 /f / 1 \ X 96.6 - X 94.61+-92.9 ` X95.0 - - - - - /X94.1 ` - -- -- „75.95.8 X 96.6 xess - - - - - - _ -97_ xaz7 xys.6- - - ' -�- � ' . X96.,5- -. _-- _ - - - - - - 9 ' _ _ -98_ _ , Existing Condition Watershed Map k 97.i 4.off 3 ` � s 6' CLF- - -99- - - - _ _ 99.1 100.0 6' G ' 1'W I STONELL 6' CLF RETAINING WALL 1'W STONE SALEM, �iIASS. Z g�, RETA/N/NG wALL 1.311 ' Hayes Engineering, Inc. Te%phone: 781.246.2800 Civil Engineers & Land Surveyors Facsimile.- 781.246.7596 ' 603 Salem Street www.I;ayesel7g.com Wakefield, MA 01880 Scale: I" = 20' 0' 10' 20' 40' May 8, 2009 6' STOCKADE 69.6 - P2 90.1 _ 91.3 0.9 - - - - _ - _ .._. -- r ;. i X 93.4 \ - -9r 93, -- -- -- - - - --- 2222 - - _ AREA= 10249 ft? 9, - - 2222 - - - � -1_ - -1 9g- - gq ' _z94.� - - - - - y- - _ -� ♦95.31 - _ 22 22 - - - - -; 0 3.7 CN=76 � 9 95.3 \ \ p �C 12.-2 �i X 95.3 I 1 93.7 93.1TC-6 9 min PROP. HOUSE PROP. HOUSE 3.6 PRIVATE / 24x47 �� 24x48 I T24x47 I TF=96.0 5 / /` GF=94.Q/ - GF=95.5 y.8I / CF=88. CF=88.5 LO 0) ' X 94.2 X 94.6 \ �I ]C 93.2 • RD ' D I I \ 1 RD RD X 93.5 f ,�� ♦. - \ ♦ I I I \ 1\ \ _ �- - - 4121- -- 92.8 87.7 \ \ X 85.7 X.85.0 DR/ I OR/vE \ 0 "` A X 94\9 _ - - - _ - ., �� \ V i ` 87.8 \ X 86.5 LippX 85.3 85. 'Aff �1 X 94.7 \ i - I ' X 95.5 /�/��_Q/] 95 EP ------------- ---2222-- ----- ------ ---- � / I G--. _-- t --_Z:�=�---- "2222 --- -�- 22'22 -- --�y �---1�- 2222- m -- -----�---- 2222--'---------� ------`----------'------ X"93.4i� = 4- . �_ \ , , EP -1e 89.7 - -x-i1e:2-`®' `X-WA- �� 95 \ 3 95.9 \ `^ 94.7 \ \ 3 x 95.8 / 0 X 1 \ \ \ X1931543.0 \ / X 6.4 ` 96� RD-i •irt RD // � �� R6, RD x 931 PROP\ HOUSE 1 \ i PROP. HOUSE ( i X 95.9 243 x194,7 ` 0 24x48 4k TF496.0 98.6 ` TF=97.0 GP=94.0 / ` rn x 96'5 GF=96.0 o /�F=88.5 // CF=89.5 x 96.6AJ I _ 95.0 _�X 94.1 -�I-}tt 6 6 / `- ;/9� x 97.7 iy = a --�-_�- _= % - -- -- 95 96. 97 - - - - - k 95.7 - 42H i� `3ri= = "LF - - - - -- Y Proposed Condition l�l�atershed Map 9- - - W STONE as.t 7 100.0 6 Cur 6' C RETAINING WALL 1'w STONE SALEM, �iIA.SS. 2gH RETA/N/NG WALL 7.3H Hoyes Engineering, Inc- Telephone: 781.146.2800 Civil Engineers & Land Surveyors Facsimile.- 781.246.7596 601 Salem Street www.hoyeseng.com Wakefield MA 01880 4Z4, Sco%• 1" = 20' O' 10' 20' 40' May 8, 2009 6' STOCKADE fENCE 89.8 90.8 90.1 . - 91.3 O_9- - - -_- - J " � '_9,3 x 93.4 \ - 94- X 94:5, _ - X 94.6 \ Oi� / X 93.2 4} ___ .__ _._ .- 93.7 // 9�1.0� 92.2 / / �+ X 95.3 _ X 95.3 I \ 93.7 93.1 APPROXGIMA7E EXS77>WhVUSE 93.6 // PRIVATE 93.5 / ' 19 )8 !` X 94.2 % , X 94.6 \\ h 93.2 / X 93.5 X95.4 X95.2 II 94.2 I \ �C 92 67.7 ` X 65.7 X.85.0 _ 940 ` E / X 94,9 A, 1 ' 87.8 X 86.5 _ X 85.3 85. 1.6 I X 93.7 X 94.7 `, X 95.7 X 95.7 A Ix 95.56220 EP I X/93.4 � C I � ` 1 EP, I �C99i 7 \ V = - _ _ *933 - �(-9+2- -�- -_`- -It it.2_ -lE '-f(-88.0_ 92.1 I I 1 .1 \ 1 / \\ �\ \ i� 9('B"- ' •95.9 94.71\ GUY \UP 3204, \ / \ ` \X95.1 X95.8 / X96.4 \ / \ \ X'9315 1aC 93.0 I -96-. I l \ X 98.1 \ 93.4 /IX 93.1 X95.9 I , X,94.7 X 96.6 \ \\92.4 / / 724C X95_0X94.&(-a2.9 - /X 94.1 2C 95:H X 96.6 N C G/ / F YV C D X 97.7 X-tsa - _ _ -97- - ,_ S0i/S Map 4 953 97.1 ¢'o!� 31 " r -99- - - _ _ �_ ' 1 w STONE 991. 100.0 6• CLF 99.6 6' C BETA/N/NO WALL >1Y STONE WALL SAIfM, MASS. 2.8f! � RETA/N/NG' f.3 H ' Hayes Engineering, /nc. Telephone.• 781.246.2800 Civil Engineers & Land Surveyors Facsimile: 781.246.7596 603 Salem Street www.hoyeseng.com ' Wakefie/d, MA 01880 Sca/e: 1" = 20' 0' 10' 20' 40' May 8, 2009 1 AA ON "S�y ° '� .; to YRavM1Ots pF., , # fYr4y�tsl Wal.+On t !i �t IV s . kb yy'I St ct s S¢rupa Rd b $ . 4 4 111 Asn""wc psi,,vax .fl �'3/V �$,,y� �R6 �1irmil 'fT.�'ry"+ '�^N Ober St " 'k'"a�" ; �+ ' 6 aP f rA .s.��"s 7Pi S f T ` pl�VY pa°6�»r,»�41risi`RR -r.-xr t( 3 �.i .SYyr£ REX ^[ h AlbQnS1 OP ¢i T , Il NICh01 SP` I 1��rF rryy`�,+;� �."•�r F�`� �� - ' i � m � a"' �t: Grrne 51 1 r _ f. I��v�"i.t4 � �p .vb _• s. 'E�,r sur✓3 ` ,-m� +� � 1 � �,le'�s -u.� �¢ � -��N,M st hsar' Hanson St 3`rav 1 Tir ROBERT A. CORMIER & LAWRENCE R. OLCOTTxfr �- ' ` 6 �� N � s # es DOROTHEA L. RENNICKS #23 SUMMIT ST. LOCUS MAP #25 SUMMIT ST. SCALE:1"=300'f 6' STOCKAO£ FENCE 6' STOCKA E NCE e9.e 90.1 91.3 sae- _^ S7.11f2'14"W -- - - RICHARD A. COUGHLIN to 173. #29 SUMMIT ST. -- -- -�; - - -- - - -- -- - y /66 x 93.a \ / / X 94:5,- _ _ _ X 94. z PROP. , % / - - - ' - - -- - • -.Ns3 .7o RETWALL 93.2 � X-5._3. 95.3-_ - 3.1� 9�0.0 92.2 93.7 APPROX/MATE £X/STNG HOUSE L4 S70'33v12"W o �1i 62.50 °' W S70'33'12"W // / I NOVSE I L=73.99 �� 93'6 rnM I-FAN KAO & PRIVATE iron rod 135.00 / p I R=30.00 I 00N SUZANNE KAO PUBLIC 93.4 err 1i - 45_98 - - _� / pRO VJ6y2'I A=141'19'04" I\ 4, 93.5 rrt #14 SCOTIA ST. (fnd) Bp.NI // ;X 94.2 // ', x s 6 h y93.2 EXIST. CB#3 I, r X95.4 \�\ \\ T L=8.96 12"RCP INV.= EXIST. DMH#4 X 93.5 I R=10,00 _ 84.49 q0 LOT 1 / \ - -- 94. A=5119'047 I A=51'19'04792'6 N71'17'30"E 97.7 , xes.7 X.85.0co Cn R2""RCP NV.=80.99 CB#3 1 w 11 ( 43 S.F. / \ I OR/ £ 1 88.95 I DR/VE \, N71'17'30"E' 64s iron pipe I ' _I. 94.0 y i 89.93 £ _ 10 CI INV.=81.14 CB 4 89.00 RECORD EP I (fnd) # % 94`19Q EP \ 1 87.8 x 86.s a .i 1' uGCea. as Peae 12"RCP OUT=80.79 OUT �J- '- `� X 65.3 85. 19,.6 I / xi I 1 1 \ Iz,ea.7 x 84.8 x 84.8 KATHLEEN J. LEOSZ I X 93.7 - -_ -104.40 x 94.7 L,w x 95. x 95.7 - C #9 SOUTH ST. I - S71'17''30"W Ic" X 95.s IEP`\ , t ^ o w \ �eM1.7 TO BUTLER .- -9 *ss \\ .z- - -\T - �sr:� -N es:7-1 - -x-ee - - -X-868 ,-,��C-86.0_ ` 8M1 '/X184:5-_ 4: I X/93.4 \ \ 92I, ; �7f7 \ J\ - - - _ = STREET 9E-65�_ � X,I -' , x�s:e- - EP I LOT \2 \ ^ I GUY I Ixl BM1.5 q4{,-----X 84.7 / \ 95.9 94.7 \ I �. 5/DEWi1LK 0,402 \S.F. \\ / \\ \UP ,3204, 8.4. OR/VE 8M1.8 84.8 I I I ;p x95'J 4 \ ` \ �N71'17'30"E SCOTIA STREET RIMSMH#4 v-�I N�3.5 I ?!c s3.o I \ / �y�f � 1 25 v EXIST. SMH 4 �� I I s6~ 5 \ ' # \ Rop. ti - \ L-8.96 S6 OUS // R'=10.00 8"CI INV.=79.97 rrie X 96.1 (Existing Private - 30 feet wide) DANA J. DUHAIME & "s I \\ \ X27 A A=51'19'04" EXIST. CB#4 I 1 \ L=73.99 � ss.s X 93.1 MARIANNE R. DUHAIME x 3B.6B J/_ ) xlsa.7 1 R=30.00 i� 10°CI INV.=81 .49 #11 SOUTH ST. 1- - - - / i I X 96.6 A=141'19'04" a'iq / / I X 96.5 00 JOSE R. ROBLES & X 94.2 / / / 'nom KIMBERLY A. ROBLES X 92.4 #11 SCOTIA ST. APPROX/,1.IAT£ IX/SANG MOUSE X 94.8 92.9 / N.95.0 - __ - - /% 94.1 ! % - X"95:3- - '-- - - '- -"-" -X.95.8 } 96.6 X 97.7 _ ._- _ _ X_95.8� -- -X--9-6-- _ __ -. .- .._. _ .9fi.8i� 9T -� _-' ! ., GLF 95.7 h - 9z1 s6.o' - 6-' CLF- 9: ...- ...N71-36'58"E \99.1 996 6' GCF 1'l, S7OA,E'-� 100.0 6' CLF . RET,1,5'sil'G If>,CL - 1"I i' 570AZ CARIDANIA M. PACHECO JAMES P. RYAN CLIFFORD D. SPEICHER SCOTT BOLDUC #27 ALBION ST. #25 ALBION ST. & MARY L. SPEICHER #23 ALBION ST. #17 ALBION ST. - DENOTES STONE BOUND TO BE SET BY OWNER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. Seal F o�TH F194c . r!O G ysr o. � Ertl �', I' ?• ._. �� ` fps 1 0' 10' 20' 40' ;i 60' ,., 6 Design By: xxx 1 ,"�1� BOARD OF APPEALS PLAN! Drawn By: MEM SCOTIA STREET Checked By: PJO /� L p� A Project File: SAL-0068 SALEM, MASS. Comp. No: SAL49 t Developer Issued For Permit p Engineer ® Issued For Review Asphalt Services, Inc. Hayes Engineering, Inc. 800 West Cummings Park 603 Salem Street ZONE R-1 (RESIDENTIAL ONE FAMILY) ❑Issued For Bid Woburn, MA 01801 Wakefield, Mass. 01880 �_ ❑Issued For Construction www.hayeseng.corn < DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS REQUIRED/ALLOWED ❑Not For Construction MAX. LOT COVERAGE BY BLDGS. 30% Scale: 1"=20' June 24, 2009 tD - - SALEM o MIN. DEPTH FRONT YARD 15 ft ALBION STREET 9 PLANNING BOARD Application Filed: MIN. WIDTH SIDE YARD 10 ft 8 j -T MIN. DEPTH REAR YARD 30 ft -------------------- Plan Approved: --------_.. MIN. HEIGHT BLDGS. 35 ft - PROJECT NOTES: __.6 _ __ _ _ - -------- Plan Signed: ----_-__-- MAX. HEIGHT BLDGS. 2-1/2 stories 4 N PLAN REFERENCES: 1) PLAN NO. 130 OF 1986, PREPARED BY ESSEX SURVEY SERVICE, INC. DATED 12/30/1985. g - -/ --- - - --- < MAX. HEIGHT FENCES 6 ft 2) PLAN BOOK 189 PLAN 35, PREPARED BY ESSEX SURVEY SERVICE, INC. DATED 6/25/1984. -2 -MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN BLDGS. 40 ft - 3) PLAN NO. 136 OF 1961, PREPARED BY EDWIN BRUDZYNSKI, DATED 3/1961 (DEED REFERENCE) t -�' Revision-- Date ------- ---- SHEET 1 OF 1 -- G { V ,. J' fuaY M f'��'. .r jJ$.P O'iv%� }.. 2 �� 4 �� fir C `¢ � .(J bd• `&' 'vg.-%, t 0 3 rs t N..� lv Wildictah Rd P ,�Lq� ryawha05i`� ^°^y' 14 - f r CLERKS CERT/F/CAT/ON ON THE PLAN nI* 3 iaaa 4 mx �:z � i A .r+�.d.v��s tf,1dGPM.rA�k�' '�- ,�.-`, i+ r JtdFstrF�*rttw5; " lav e ' i 17 Beiuib p a x r ;�Wsl Ec1 j � t8s � " --------------------- m „ F ty. DANO Wp-lwl TEi' � ] ¢ i{tgape �YS., a d P ° '�S � o -x ObFC$i t�r rt9 r t xCt 5Y* lxPt CLER/f OF THE C/IY OF SALEAl T pV` NM �` ray` � H4f e� 4 + e � ;-A �. DO HEREBY CERT/FY THAT THE NOT/CE OF APPROVAL OF TH/S PLAN=r' v , �_ ,,ayr tf NrI s ;°Y w i' .' k � 1+ a 8K THE PLANN/NG BOARD HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND RECORDED AT ° A t' - " t '} " � .,,I '46 THIS OFF/CE AND NO APPEAL WAS RECE/VED OUR/NG THE 7lYENTY 0 � DAYS NEXT AFTER SUCH RECF/PT AND RECORD/NG OF SA/D NOTICE. ° 1 r '> �' t r'` ' ' a ky '� , + y y` ' i ' z#y = ^. a(, •tWep e App' i � kB"" '`Yv,e�� `It O� {� �j1M.t' �"Vfi � r �}•( 'Tr .'^ 3..A `''- VY )X61 �G .c-5Y kl w'4 l'' f[ Yy�X ��' �✓�e.�f� a aY+��i 5 ————————————————————————— ii bf{. iRj l4 / CERT/FY THAT / HAI/E CONFORP.9cD CITY CLERK ; zr ttxai w � � yy r� ' r- - �°'rt' �R'K,°)� 6Y/TH THE RULES AND REGULAT/ON.S A pan w� �d � _ OF THE REGISTERS OF' DEEDS /N 'p & " �I�Ir n fir PREPAR/NG THIS PLAN �� i �I'll 1 Q pl� r lf�Msw � � u�. 4�e3' � � dd+ 3' 'L. r`$ ~rwzE,o Y< __—__--__ tt .'� Yre }� HAY ENG/NEEIMG /NC: + b� " �< {� y fix, r L ��a tvf a x� if:."' +. n� Y-� 3 ��q.�1'rry .fi'�1i Ks�y i�•tsy$r�y '�,a m mea ax�, ,i TR 4 .a. f ROBERT A. CORMIER & LAWRENCE R. OLCOTTr ,, + t,`:.n u\ y �i'q.. s., 4 �t' _x.�.s , 1.,bMl!:>'• F3``x �mr nVk.{'i � .�"5� DOROTHEA L. RENNICKS #23 SUMMIT ST. LOCUS MAP #25 SUMMIT ST. SCALE:1"=300't S71'22'114"W S71'22'1 4"W ^' RICHARD A. COUGHLIN W N 86.28 87.38 cn #29 SUMMIT ST. ,lo r �cn N71'17'30"E N 27.92 w 570'33'12"W 0 I LOT 4 N LOT 3 ten' _ 62.50 ° w 570'33'12"W I�, o1 5005± S.F. V,f `tom [—FAN KAO & 50041 S.F. �03 N PRIVATE PUBLIC SUANNEKA iron rood —!� 135.00 a, TURNING/ AKN 0000w a #14ZSCOTIA SOT. 1 C4 (fnd) oo ACCESS q L=12.35 Z ioC; EASEMENT I r5 R=15.00 rn W I A=4T 10'00" ri I CHD BRG=S42'1T30"E t CHD L=12.00 N71'17'30"E S71'17'30"W N71'17'30"E N71'17'30"E 88.95 N71'17'30"E iron d) f�e 30.86 52.70 82.75 (89.00 RECORD) 89.93 n 0 KATHLEEN J. LEOSZ oN#9 SOUTH ST. SCOTIA STREET TO BU �LCf w o _ wW ( Existing PrlvA7E - 30 feet wide) STREET m 33.7 /T 48.67 8330"W84 V) S7 I . S71'17 '30"W 571 t j L=12.35 I R=15.00 12 TURNING/ z A=47'10'00" p� I P a DANA J. DUHAIME & oo ACCESS I � CHD BRG=N04'52'30" E z � MARIANNE R. DUHAIME 4,Cri EASEMENT IIS CHD L=12.00 00 #11 SOUTH ST. r� IoW �N LOT 6 ° io JOSE R. ROBLES & N71'17'30"E 1 *1 LOT 5 No 4689± S.F. "�� KIMBERLY A. ROBLES N-27'03- - 4690± S.F. 2 #11 SCOTIA ST. pI f J J J N iT O (O w 79.69 76.88 rri N71'36'58"E N71'36'58"E CARIDANIA M. PACHECO JAMES P. RYAN CLIFFORD D. SPEICHER SCOTT BOLDUC #27 ALBION ST. #25 ALBION ST. & MARY L. SPEICHER P #23 ALBION ST. #17 ALBION ST. +5- — DENOTES STONE BOUND TO BE SET BY OWNER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. �}+''''�9yyyy „"^"..,,--n•.n��,'ir,,.. Seal 4:7J�eq Pt cp w "Si' C :hd ✓+� #33094 41 - n �.�:.•e-e �m,�wiak�.m-'las-';`term,y z4 - rc �.ait�a-_i3:_, z'iiS -�iaFaUG�Jre A f � 1 r �' 10" i 20' 40' 60' �•" __ .. — PLAN TITLE _ SHEET DESIGNATION DEFINITIVE PLAN DEFINTIVE SHEET 1 OF 1 Design By: xxx. DEFINITIVE PLAN TOPOGRAPHIC PLAN TOPOGRAPHIC SHEET 1 OF 1 Drawn By: MEM DEFINITIVE PLAN & PROFILE PIAN & PROFILE SHEET 1 OF 1 Checked By: PJO SCC7�fl TR "f DETAILS 1� DETAIL SHEET 1 OF 1 Croomep. Nole: SAL49 068 SALEMm� S 4 s i {. � lfamb Developer Issued For PermitEngme a ❑Issued For Review Asphalt Services, Inc. I;oyes Engineering Inc. 800 West Cummings Park 603 Salem Street W R-1 RESIDENTIAL ONE LIST OF WAIVERS: ❑Issued For Bid Woburn, MA 01801 ZONE Wakefield, Mass. 01880 FAMILY) SECTION IV.A.2.A []Issued For Construction www.hayeseng.coru M DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS REQUIRED/ALLOWED WAIVER OF PI WIDTH FROM 24 FEET TO 22 FEET. ❑Not For Construction WAIVER OF VERTICAL/SLOPED GRANITE CURB TO BITUMINOUS CURB. Scale: 1"=20' May 6, 2005) MAX. LOT COVERAGE BY BLDGS. 30% 10 I SALEM ° SECTION V.B ALBION STREET --- MIN. DEPTH FRONT YARD 15 ft WAIVER OF SIDEWALK TO NO SIDEWALK. 9 I PLANNING BOARD Application Filed: —------- MIN. WIDTH SIDE YARD 10 ft . 7 --------------____--_ Plan Approved: MIN. DEPTH REAR YARD 30 ft PROJECT NOTES: s MIN. HEIGHT BLDGS. 35 ft LOTS 5 AND 6 ARE SUBJECT TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACTION. 5 —'— -- Plan Signed: -- -- -- -- — --- MAX. HEIGHT BLOCS. 2-1/2 stories 3 _-- —__— ------------- o _ PLAN REFERENCES: 1) PLAN NO. 130 Or 1986, PREPARED BY ESSEX SURVEY SERVICE, INC. DATED 12/30/1985. — — DEFINITIVE SHEET 1 Of 1 o MAX. HEIGHT FENCES 6 ft 2) PLAN BOOK 189 PLAN 35, PREPARED BY ESSEX SURVEY SERVICE, INC. DATED 6/25/1984. 2 _ --- ------- --- J MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN BLDGS. 10 ft 3) PLAN NO. 136 OF 1961, PREPARED BY EDWIN BRUDZYNSKI, DATED 3/1961 (DEED REFERENCE) 1 SHEET 1 OF < No. Revision i Date CLERKS CERT/F/CAT/ON ON THE PLAN DATE. --------------------- CLERK OF THE C/TY OF SALEM, DO HEREBY CERRFY THAT THE NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF TH/S PLAN BY THE PLANNING BOARD HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND RECORDED AT THIS OFFICE AND NO APPEAL WAS RECEIVED DURING THE TWENTY DAYS NEXT AFTER SUCH RECEIPT AND RECORDING OF S4/0 NOTICE. /N%$ ------------------------- L CERTIFY THAT / HAVE CONFORMED C/TY CLERK WITH THE RULES AND REGULATIONS �0 OF THE REG/STERS OF DEEDS /N PREPARING THIS PLAN. Q� -------------- HAYE-5 ENGINEERING, INC. ROBERT A. CORMIER &t LAWRENCE R. OLCOTT DOROTHEA L. RENNICKS #23 SUMMIT ST. #25 SUMMIT ST. 6' STOCKADE FENCE 6' STOC/G1 £ NC 89.8 90.1 -1 .. 91.3 0.9 _. _- -. . _-.,9 i-- ' __ - RICHARD A. COUGHLIN _ PROP. SILT J I ,, -- -- -y_�- 9 - - -- I-�-- - - -- -- - --I�- - _ _LOT --3-- - - - >f93.4 \ #29 SUMMIT ST. 91 - _. _I <'i _ ,-LgT_. - .-- .-- I° - -- _ --- -- -.. .-Ia- - --- - _ � W FENCE/HAYBALE 1.92-- 93- --_ 9 --X 94.5 `- -- J - - xyart -� PROP. ;:---- 94 '95.3; - - - -10.5 17.4 --_----;93.3Y-->..�.- �;` • RETWALL _ _ "' _ - 1 paR'72 s - A X 95.3 X 95.3 1 \ I 11 97 i 7 sat APPROXIMATE EX/S77NG HOUSE ! //' / PROP. HOUS�I ! + I PROP. HOUSE I o +y 3.6 I-FAN KAO &% + 24x47 24x48 i c� ,. � PRIVATE - ! '� / TF=96.0 .'J �+ +� 1 TF=96.0 I 5 SUZANNE KAO PUBLIC CPO iron rod / I Ik 93.4 ! ,' GF=94.0 GF=95.5 \ � ►� #14 SCOTIA ST. (fnd) o.e ! �/ CF=88.5 I CF=88.5 \ �► EXIST. CB#3 ! -26.8 - x 94.2 10.5 - \ X 94.6 ° , M 93.2 RIM=84.74 1. EXIST. DMH#4 IX 93.5 1 RD RD f� fi=r- 17.4 +- SR�� RDA-_ RD \; I 12"RCP INV.= # RROP. HYDT. /& I _ _ _ ° 1 a - I \ 9zs RIM=84.49 C+ 4r- 87.7 \ x as.7 x.85.0 12"RCP INV.=80.99 CB#3 1 / TEW�IB� ><6" 4} w L=17.15 3 I 1 I, OR/y£ I I OR/!E y 84.9 iron pipe R=100.oD,. o r I' I 'E 1 1 UT=80.79 OUT v / 94.o P \ E I, (fnd) 10"CI INV 81 14 CB#4 O ��",�� ' _-_ , �.. 87.8 X 86.5 1,6'1®c o x sa 9\ ' L=25 i `` \ \ 1 \ \ x 85.3 85. 5.t 1 t b4 bGCea. 4s ea.e 2'RCP 0 KATHLEEN J. LEOSZ ! M�3.7 x ya,7 \ - - R-241 0J. ` \ 1 t ` \ c, _, , x sas x ea.e _ �, #9 SOUTH ST. �� Jai s x 95.5 95 �� EP`, �1 - -`�� -fir, A ------- --------- ----- ----- _ _ .. ____ _ ______ ________ ____________ ___ _ _ -- "� �__ 1_ _ ! x193.a,%�F--�___--�- c�------ -- 3 -- �� --- ===may® -- N' I 1__ � _ _ =EP� -__- -_x=be=a �-� ___ -__;___________ - � . _ ! / 22.0 __ / � i � � - + k -�... �F 1k184.5-_ r I r/rc� \ \ 1 9y _ .��_ ;�,. +. E �. /_ ' -x09,7-, �-x-66.8 + cs ) =11 7.55 .� -ii 4./ _X x84.7 X 1 94.7 \ 985.4 I - SIDEWALK r I X 95.8 L=20.92 ', GUY \UP 3207F, END OF PROPOSED a4. ORiuE 84.8 122.00 x 935 / i k 43.0 I \" t m 13 x 96.aR- \ I \ ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT 84.8 I � I 96 EXIST. SMH 4 RETPROP.WALL �zs'tLs � s,a" , '"L__� of 9s }/7A1 SCOTIA STREET RIM=84.63 � . 9` h RD�95..� RD 620, RD - - RD x 96. V1 \ 8"CI INV.=79.97 DANA J. DUHAIME & :�� r� f 1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXIST. CB 4 \ tt��s� `°t- ' J x 531 PROP HOUSE 1 \ r PROP. HOUSE 1 r X 95.9 # MARIANNE R. DUHAIME t \ r �t<� + / 243c43 1 24x48 i EXISTING 6" WATER. CONNECT RIM=84.50 #11 SOUTH ST. �e s.;, cy\ \f.. TF./96.0 x 9a.7 k 96.6 „ J �1 TF=97.0 1 END OF EXISTING 6 WATER 10 CI INV.=81 .45 _1 \ J X 96.5 1 m JOSE R. ROBLES & " sqz t:<r � G�=94.0 / / + ' GF=96.0 of KIMBERLY A. ROBLES TO NEW 8 CLDI WATER. PROP. GRASS L�t-' 34. i't ` CF=88.5 / CF=89.5 r (LOCATION OF END OF EXIST. F ! 1 D.5 x 96.6 #1 1 SCOTIA ST. PAVERS � o� ` - L•$ 1-� 6" WATER UNKNOWN) x sa. -"3 APPROXIMATE EX/577NC HOUSE A.9516 - Si3'._ X6.6 �9� 97. r� 95 fx.%.-. 965.- -"L� 97 .��.A -�� ----- 7 c�F 95.7 LOT 5 , _ .. - 96 _�3 _ ._LOT 6 I .. "x PROP. SILT 4 Qs- - FENCE/HAYBALE / 95.1 - es.6 100.0 6" CLF J"I` 57Z7r::= 6' CLF R�`7A/1riNG' lii1LL �_ 1'P' STG.M1� 1.3%f CARIDANIA M. PACHECO JAMES P. RYAN CLIFFORD D. SPEICHER #27 ALBION ST. #25 ALBION ST. & MARY L. SPEICHER SCOTT BOLDUC #23 ALBION ST. #17 ALBION ST. Seal DF a4•r PET[n.l,r9Ci\r�• Z O iVIL ii u z � 91lo.2i 271 1a5 0' 10' 20' '` ' 40 60' . I Design By: xxx TOPOGRAPHIC PLAN Drawn By: MEM SCOTIA STREET Checked By: PJO Project File: SAL-0068 SALEM, MASS. Comp. No: SAL49 ®Issued For Permit Developer Engineer ❑Issued For Review Asphalt Services, Inc. Hayes Engineering, Inc. 800 West Cummings Park 603 Salem Street ❑Issued For Bid Woburn, MA 01801 Wakefield, Mass. 01880 u i ❑Issued For Construction www.fioyeseng.com n ❑Not For Construction Scale: 1"=20' May 6, 2009 10 ( SALEM T ALBION STREET _ 9 PLANNING BOARD Application Filed: o' 7 ----------- Plan Approved: ------------- n 6 _-_...._-_ .___..-...__. -.L.-. .._..._____._. 5 ------------ - --- Plan Signed: PROJECT NOTES: 3 TOPOGRAPHIC SHEET 1 OF 1 DATUM IS NGVD OF 1929 --- - _ ----- SHEET 2 OF 4 J 1 _ 3 No. Revision Date i IV Lf_GEN2 OF A8_99M/A77ONS & SYM S9 ROBERT A. CORMIER & LAWRENCE R. OLCOTT DOROTHEA L. RENNICKS #23 SUMMIT ST. LIGHT POLE #25 SUMMIT ST. UTILITY ROLE- HYDRANT OLEHYDRANT WATER GATE .� 0 RICHARD A. COUGHLIN \1� SEWER MANHOLE z% #29 SUMMIT ST. F PROP. 0 SIGN RETWALL APPROX/MATE EX/ST/NC HOUSE '.�0 DRAIN MANHOLE PR024xHOUSE I I PROP. 24x48HOUSE I I-FAN KAO & A - o o T2448 PRIVATE — PUBLIC Saa CATCH 8A SIN TF-96.0 SUZANNE KAO o I EDGE OF PAVEMENT EP GF=94.0 GF=95.5 #14 SCOTIA ST. Q CF=88.5 CF=88.5 EXIST. CB#3 6' CHAIN L/NK FENCE 6' CLF RIM=84.74 — RD RD RD RD RD D �! 12"RCP INV.= EXIST. DMH#4 EX/ST/NG CONTOUR - - - - - -- PROP. HYDT. & I RIM=84.49 I 12"RCP INV.=80.99 CB#3 EX/ST/NG SPOT GRADE y $4 8 6" GATE W/8"x6" I OR/uE ;I DR/VE I iron pipe 1nd) 0"CI INV. CB 4 REDUCER s o —I' EP E (f R_ 12"RCP OUT=80.79 OUT PROPOSED CONTOUR ---- 100 ---- r`®+ o ' ucc PROPOSED SPOT GRADE 102.7 KATHLEEN J. LEOSZ #9 SOUTH ST IEP " �1 _ - ;-- `a PROPOSED SURFACE FLOW 1 11) 0 y __ _ _ �_ ___ _ ^- .. --... -^ ..�_ -'-C*. -•,,- - �__u _ _ .- �-^-'*'--Lim� �.�"1 '-"_^..:>_"�--1T��,y _`=..'-rc _r� .='--�a^'� T=*--^- �Z1^�T'-=�"' ~_O' ._ _ _ .._ __ "_,__. ._Y.fi1 -_�.y. -�_Cx -'I- '^_, ts- -r -+- .: �: w .. .aay�:. nim '! }.0 r. �-r=...r+ r=S_ .�.7 f•- - =� = HIGH-Df NS/TY POLYL7HYLENE- PIPE HDPE- _U POL YVINYL CHLOR/DE PIPE- PVC DRIVE" P/PE INVERT INV cur UP 3204 END OF PROPOSED 3 m ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROP. o EXIST. 84.#3 SO/L TEST LOCATION G ��, > V� ° - RD RD RD RD RD RD SCOTIA STREET RETWALL >�`,�`,�s,:Y ,3��,; 0 8 CI INV.=79.97 STONE WALL - } APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXIST. CB 4 DANA J. DUHAIME & '` PROP. HOUSE PROP. HOUSE WATER L/NE - EXISTING 6 WATER. CONNECT RIM=84.50 MARIANNE R. DUHAIME C� , , 24x43 0 24x48 END OF EXISTING 6" WATER 10"CI INV.=81.45 #11 SOUTH ST. TF=96.0 TF=97.0 JOSE R. ROBLES & PROPOSED WATER SERV/CE 41 GF=94.0 GF=96.0 KIMBERLY A. ROBLES TO NEW 8' CLDI WATER. PROP. GRASS ^, >• CF=88.5 CF=89.5 #11 SCOTIA ST. (LOCATION OF END OF EXIST. PROPOSED SEWER SERVICE S 6 WATER UNKNOWN) PAVERS APPROXIMATE EX/ST/NG HOUSE PROPOSED ROOF DRAIN RD CHAIN-LINK FENCE x ;y WIRE FENCE CARIDANIA M. PACHECO JAMES P. RYAN CLIFFORD D. SPEICHER SCOTT BOLDUC #27 ALBION ST. #25 ALBION ST. & MARY L. SPEICHER #23 ALBION ST. #17 ALBION ST. CLERKS CERT/F/CAT/ON ON THE PLAN 00 DATE. tq N OLO N q0 rcc) CLERK OF THE CITY OF SALEM, DO HEREBY CERT/FY THAT THE NOT/CE OF APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN V)w (n Ujt~n w BY THE PLANNING BOARD HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND RECORDED AT 0 0 5 THIS Of AND NO APPEAL WAS RECELVED DURING THE TWENTY a a d a a a DAYS NEXT AFTER SUCH RECE/PT AND RECORDING OF SAID NOTICE. 1.54% 7 -10.15% 129.825D.82S ------------------------- o F CITY CLERK to ZD O + ± Z 0 0 ? ^ ZZ) U 0) 0) r 0 0 0 rn �a rn r¢- � 00 g g + Z z � = Z °Ul PROPOSED o 11 -ce � �z �N0 CENTERLINE u ZOv � II Vi oo PROJECT NOTES:rn N m j �.,.,-...,.T..,. MANHOLE FRAME & COVER F/N/SH ROAD GRADE WATER (AS SPEC/F/E6" I B OR GROUND SURFACE ACHT FRAME ANO COVER TO BE USED WHEN WATERTIGHT 4" T1-1/CK 1-1-20 STANOARO MANHOLE 2 COURSES OF BRICKS CONSTRUCT/ON /S REOU/REO. 2 COURSES OF BRICKS FRAME AND GRATE FRAME & COVER & MORTAR ARE TO BE �--- & MORTAR ARE TO BE W/BR/CK & MORTAR USED FOR GRADE MORTAR BED USED SORREG ADE' 24 -'6 AS REOU/REO ALUUSTMENTS 4" THICK H-20 REINFORCED CONCRETE D/A. OPEN/NG FR4ME M BE SET /N FRAME TO BE SET /N FRAME AND COVER 8' THICK H-20 FULL BED OF MORTAR. FULL BED OF MORTAR. 24 f 1✓ J W/BRICK & MORTAR fZAT TOP , MALL OF MANHOLE _I AS REOUIRED DIAMETER F/LL MORTAR ✓0/NTS INS/OE BRICK LINED REINFORCED CONCRETE 914. OPEN/NG 4" 1B" TO 24" I - 24" 1 W1771 11YORAUL/C CEMENT PRECAST CONC. 7RANS17701V SHAPED INVERT 8" FLICK 71-20 �4" CONICAL NON-SHRINK/NG MORTAR FLAT TOP B' � ( ) SEC77ONS OR BARREL MORTAR 48" z>" SEC77ONS MgN MORTAR ALL JOINTS SEC77ONS WITH PRECAST ALL DIAMETER 2(V/NJ TOP SLAB DENNNE0 FOR B" 2 JOINTS 5" M/N 0.12 SO. IN. H-20 LOAD/NG (A!/N.) I $ MY 57M PER FLOW 2(M/NJ ° NORMAL VERT/CAL FOOT, NA7FR77GHT BUTYL RUBBER D/AAIETER d V WATER F�yp HEIGHT OF RISER PLACED ACCORD/NG JO/NT SEALANT AT ALL ✓O/NTS LEVEL / SEC77ONS VARY 70 A45H0 OU751DE OF fROM 1' TO 4' DES/GNT/ON M-199 - PIPE' t 2" CATCH BAS/N HOOD SECT/ONSPRECISr RP ITH 817ZIMINA577CRETE CLEARANCE ° 1 P/PE OPEN/NCS / a \ WATERPROOF COAT/NC TO BE PRE-CAST I J ONE,f'3 BAR AROUND SHELF ELEVAAON SAME AS /N RISER SEC77ON �r n OPENINGS FOR --A MORTAR ALL JOINTS MINIMUM 0.12 50. IN. CRO{YN OF HIGHEST P/PE OUTSIDE OF PIPES 1B" MOLT/PEES OF 1;2;3;4;5' 57EEL PER VER77GAL DIAMETER & OVER 8" M/N.(VARIES) OR 6' LENGHTS BR/CK SHELF MIN 0.12 SO. IN. FOOT, PLACED PIPE A 2' / 1" COVER WA7FR77GHT AND _� SLOPE 1%FT PROV/DE 'V STEEL PER ACCORDING M A4SHT0 CLEARANCE FLEXIBLE BOOT OPEN/NGS VERTICAL FOOT, OES/GNT/ON M199 PLACED ACCORDING . f FLOW P�f1N TO A45HO PRECAST CEMENT 30 pIP• DES/GNAT/ON M-199 CONCRETE BASE UNIT P{PE J3 PROVIDE 'V' PRECAST CONC. BASE BR/CK OR CONCRETE FZZ OPENINGS vvvv vvoo vv 7v7vv7vc 8"A!/N..roovoov ovoovvovv ov vo ovv Lo vv000vvoo � vvv000vvo SHALLOW DRAIN MANHOLE SHALLOW CATCH BASIN B"MIN. SCREENED GRAVEL BASE DETA/L DETA/L UND/S>URBEO EDGE' NOT TC SCALE NOT TO SCALE PRECAST CONCRETE OR LEDGE SECT/ON A A DRA/N MANHOLE TYFICA PRECAST SEWER MANHOLE NOT TC SCALE NOT TO SCALE BITUMINOUS GRAVEL NOTE- VALVES AND HY0R4N7S M PAVEMENT BASE OPEN COUN7FR CLOCKWISE -C WA7FR MAIN 7-8 VARIES HYDRANT TO BAREOUIREV, - - + a + + +. ,++++++++..+++ \\ TO GRADE AS <. F/LTER FABR/C I ` = I I L I I +I IU:r + « + + + + + + ♦ROTATE AS NE <CdNCRE7E° 45' HAY BALE = iF' o - ' ` ' '+'+'+'i',`._.IIF- I... I I I I 3 (I --II I__I I — 11-_. A-I _ +`+`, ♦ + + ♦ + + # a + \ SUITARZE f7N/SH GRADE illi III III ��I IIIIIIIi.i=1 a Q -III + a + # # + + ♦ + + a + + /\ BEAR/NG AREA I _ y y y y y + L y y y ♦ , « THOROUG BACKFILL III.-III., Ill III Ili + + AGA/NST " III — Z + + + + + + # + + B/T. CONC. CURB 6" FTN/SH I I ++.+X.++ , + MP CTED UND/STURBED 14' I \ « + « « �� .•� GRADE — - _ —L+ + « # # +. + # + + /\ APPROX. MATER/AL GRADE '+ ♦ + « + #'+'+ ALUOSTABCE — III Ill III=1�1 Ill Ill III I. _ + ♦ + « \/ VALVE BOX } :`. 1'1— Il 111 111,r1i1 11� _II 1(L ,,_ - + . ( —_ - _ III-111. II I(II, p Illll�.I1111111_r—l� I, i.. _ - _ - _ (t _ 11.I I +y♦y. . by♦y+``+... . .y+y yy\\� I __ �- . 1 I I I PROVIDE 4 CUBIC FT. OF SCREENED �o :. _ , CONCR TE I_ I — . .. . . . ° GRAVEL OR GR4VEL BAOrf 7LL TO AT I r i I I I I 1 I I-. 9' i. O I I -I li- _ - . . . . o LEAST 6 /N. ABOVE DRAIN HOLES 1 :III .'. .'.'. ..'_ . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . \\j wEARiwc COURSE 1 — SEYI'ER/WATER MAIN 6" GATE VALVE B/NOER COORS EL EVA TION 3/8 =3/4 =--- STAKED CRUSHED I . . . . . . . . (SIZE VAR/ES) :cRAVEC BASE ' • : WOOD POST HAYBALE ZINE- STONE . . . — . . . . . . . W/ 7WO STAKES I I F/LTER FA 8/ (2 i2 X3f OPE . .III .'. . . . . . . . . : ..'.'. \ \ o0o t =I \ \ \ \ MINIMUM BEAR/NG FACE AREA FOR CONCRETE THRUST BLOCKS PIPE SIZE 90 BEND 45'BEND 22.5 BEND TEES, PLUGS, CAPS O� (IN) (S.F.J (S.F.J (S.F.J & HYDRANTS (S.F.J PPS I—III—III EARTH fEAT STONE OR CONCRETE 5 8 5 3 4 APPROX. GRADE EXCAVAT/ON CONCRETE BACKING AGA/NSTLEDGE TEE CONNECAON UND/STURBEO MAT£RLAL 8 12 11 5 6 EXCAVATION 10 19 CONCRETE 9ACKING ACA/NST 12 26 18 10 13 1J1VO1S7UR8£D AlA7FRUAL F/L TER FABRIC UNDER THRUST BLOCKS TO BE 3000 PSI CONCRETE' PLACED AGA/NST NOTE.' USE RING-777T" PVC GRAY/TY PIPE MANU,'. ' iE0 BY ✓—M PIPE TYPICAL HYDRANT AND VALVE DETA/L UNO/S7URBEO MATERIAL. KEEP CONCRETE CLEAR OF MECHANICAL JOINTS SAPPROX. GRADE OR EOU/VALENT WHICH CONFORMS TO ASTM D-3212. CT/ON NOT TO SCALE THRUST BLOCK DETAIL S/CTAT/ON FENCE & HAYBALE DETA/L SEWERIKA TER TRENCH DETAIL RESM41NEO JOINT HYDRANT TEE NOT TC SCALE NOT TO SCALE 11 1,- NOT TO SCALE BITUMINOUS GRAVEL PAVEMENT BASE CLERKS CERTIFICATION ON THE PLAN 77777777777� 11117,1111z111777777 DATE. --------------------- a+'%+'++4+4' ♦ ♦ 4 + , ♦ 1 ♦ + + + " ++ " ++ '—I \\ /, CLERK OF THE C17Y OF SALEM' ' ' ` ' ' ' DO HEREBY CERTIFY HAT THE NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN Seal r� '� s eo T-7 . + ♦ # i . . ' BY THE PLANNING BOARD HAS BEEN RECEINFO AND RECORDED AT —_ + . + h . + i + + . . ♦ \ SUITASLEBACKF/LL III ' ' ' ' ♦ + + ' * ' ' ' ' ' /\ TI-115 OFF/CE AND NO APPEAL WAS RECE7VfD DUR1U THE TWENTY ocre.rl n THOROUGHL Y G ~�, -_IIII I+♦+'++ +. +..... .+.. , ' '+* ', ♦ DAYS NEXT AfTER SUCH RECEIPT AD RE CORD/NG OF SAID NOT/CE + + °rOFC,ArI s21t11c,5 COUPACTED + + « ♦ + , ♦++ ♦ ♦ + h a a + + +`h + . + , + , + + ♦ , + + ' +'' '1-1/2" TOP COURSE _ ______________ f � 0' 10' nC 20e ' 40' gmv f ; 60 GRASS PLOT ♦ + + + + , CITY CZ CRA'+' GRASS PLOT 2-1/2" BINDER + + 3/8" PER FT. :I ( I \\/ Design By: xxx DETAIL SHEET _ . . . . .. 12" PERFORATED Drawn By: MEM SCOTIA STREET CRUSHED¢' \� DRA/N PIPE Checked By: NO q ^ BITUMINIOUS CURB STONE I / Project File: SAL-0068 SALEM, MASS. Comp. No: SAL49 IIII %/ ® Developer Engineer =12" GRAVEL BASE Issued For Permit \ EI Issued For Review Asphalt Services, Inc. !ia es Engineering, Inc. a800 West Cummings Park 603 Salem Street TYP/CAL CROSS SECT/ON I—I I I— I I EARTH [J Issued For Bid Woburn, MA 01801 Wakefield, Mass. 01880 18" f 1g" EXCAVATION ❑ www.hayeseng.corn Issued For Construction NOT TO SCALE LEDGE EXCAVAT/ON ❑Not For Construction Scale: 1"=20' HOR & 4' VER May 6, 2009 NOTE. USE R/NG-T/TE PVC GRAV/TY PIPE MANUFAC7URED BY ✓-M PIPE AD _ L_ SALEM -- I -- OR EDUIVALENT WHICH CONFORMS TO ASTM 0-3212. B L_ { PLANNING BOARD Application Filed: __—_____—__ _ _ _. _ ----- ------------- Plan Approved: ------------ DRAIN TRENCH DETAIL 6 ------------------ 5 ----- Plan Signed: ------------ r NOT TO SCALE 4 2 �- __.. DETAIL SHEET 1 OF 1 --------------- --- SHEET 4 OF 4 No. Revision j Date n