08-023 109 laurel park zoninglk
DECISION OF
NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
At a Public Hearing held on October 30, 1991, the Zoning Board
of Appeals of the City of Northampton voted unanimously to GRANT
the request of Nancy Schroeder for a Finding under the Provisions
of Section 9.3(a) of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance, to allow the
Applicant to construct a 10' c 10' screen house adjacent to her
home at 109 Laurel Park. Present and voting were Chairman Robert
C. Buscher, Dr. Peter Laband, and Robert Reckman.
The findings were as follows:
1. §9.3(a) provides that a pre- existing, nonconforming structure
may be changed, extended or altered provided that the Zoning Board
of Appeals finds that such change, extension or alteration will not
be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the
existing nonconforming structure.
2. The Board finds that the proposed seasonal structure is wholly
in keeping with the character of the nieghborhood, is not
substantially more detrimental than the existing structure, and in
fact is not detrimental at all.
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
Dr. Peter Laband
Robert Reckman
scam..-
digata2
Check,_
`wr ..r'
Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
October 30, 1991 Meeting
Page One
The Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals met at 7:15 p. M. on
Wednesday, October 30, 1991 in Council Chambers, Wallace J.
Puchalski Municipal Building, Northampton, to conduct a Public
Hearing on the Application of Nancy Schroeder for a Finding to
allow construction of a 10 10' screen house adjacent to her home
at 109 Laurel Park. Every dwelling in Laurel Park is a pre-
existing nonconforming structure for several reasons. Present and
voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Dr. Peter Laband, and
Robert Reckman.
Ch. Buscher opened the Public Hearing by reading the Legal Notice,
the Application, and a memo from the Northampton Planning Board.
The Applicant explained that the screen house is in place. She had
received permission from the Laurel Park Association, and was told
by the Building Inspector that "the Building Permit is in the
mail." She explained that homeowners in Laurel Park own the land
that is the footprint of their house, and lease the land that is
their yard.
There was no one present to speak in favor or in opposition, so Dr.
Laband moved that the Public Hearing be closed. Mr. Reckman
seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Dr. Laband commented,
"It is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than
what's there. It is not detrimental at all. I move the Finding be
granted." Mr. Reckman added, "I'm in complete agreement with
Peter." He seconded the motion. Ch. Buscher concluded, "I find it
not substantially more detrimental. It is seasonal and has a
minimal effect on the neighbors. This is a Chappaqua -like setting.
I'd be in favor of granting. Dr. Laband's motion to grant the
Finding passed unanimously.
Also present, in addition to those mentioned, was R. J. Pascucci,
Board Secretary.
Robert C. Busbher, Chairman
Scane;�'
dIgItized�_
checked
l,
4-j
%A 0
F-I
\ 7'e-
❑ C,)
BOOK 3634 PAGE 0035
DECISION OF
NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
At a meeting held on September 19, 1990, the Zoning Board
of Appeals of the City of Northampton voted unanimously to
GRANT the request of Richard and Delores Emery for a Finding
under the Provisions of Section 9.3(a) of the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Northampton that the construction of a 5' x 14'
addition to a cottage at 69 Laurel Park will not be
substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the
pre- existing nonconforming cottage that is already there.
Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Dr. Peter
Laband, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr.
The Findings were as follows:
i
'i
' I,I
.
r
1. The existing cottage is pre- existing, nonconforming
because, now that Laurel Park has been condominiumized, it is
one of approximately 100 principal dwellings on one parcel.
2. Section 9.3(a) of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance
provides that "Pre- existing nonconforming structures may be
changed, extended or altered, provided that (there is) a
finding from the Zoning Board of Appeals that such change,
extension or alteration will not be substantially more
detrimental to the neighborhood than the. existing nonconforming
structure."
3. The small addition is on the side of the Applicant's
dwelling that faces a parking area, and is therefore
unobtrusive.
4. The Board finds unanimously that the addition will not
be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the
existing dwelling. The Finding is granted. G=;; 2 ra r2 n M F F
Robert C. Buscher,
M. Sanford Weil, Jr.
� I CERTIFICATE OF CITY CL` R `° OE o'b z _ 18, 1990
I,Christine Skorupski, City Clerk of the Northampton
iereby certify that the above Decision of the,Nprthampton Zoning
13 oard of Appeals was filed in the Office of .the City.'Clerk on
eptember 27, 1990, that twenty y� ave elapse�i`'sirce such
a ppeals have been ��� 1n :tYlisr`
g and that no �
ilin pp e•
stine; oru e _..:�
City Clerk
r , City of Northampton
JJ � � C jggp at_ 'clock ant �' t1E .M., Rec'd ent'd and exam'k
Dr. Peter Laband
i
BOOK 3634 PAGE 0035
DECISION OF
NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
At a meeting held on September 19, 1990, the Zoning Board
of Appeals of the City of Northampton voted unanimously to
GRANT the request of Richard and Delores Emery for a Finding
under the Provisions of Section 9.3(a) of the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Northampton that the construction of a 5' x 14'
addition to a cottage at 69 Laurel Park will not be
substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the
pre- existing nonconforming cottage that is already there.
Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Dr. Peter
Laband, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr.
The Findings were as follows:
i
'i
' I,I
.
r
1. The existing cottage is pre- existing, nonconforming
because, now that Laurel Park has been condominiumized, it is
one of approximately 100 principal dwellings on one parcel.
2. Section 9.3(a) of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance
provides that "Pre- existing nonconforming structures may be
changed, extended or altered, provided that (there is) a
finding from the Zoning Board of Appeals that such change,
extension or alteration will not be substantially more
detrimental to the neighborhood than the. existing nonconforming
structure."
3. The small addition is on the side of the Applicant's
dwelling that faces a parking area, and is therefore
unobtrusive.
4. The Board finds unanimously that the addition will not
be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the
existing dwelling. The Finding is granted. G=;; 2 ra r2 n M F F
Robert C. Buscher,
M. Sanford Weil, Jr.
� I CERTIFICATE OF CITY CL` R `° OE o'b z _ 18, 1990
I,Christine Skorupski, City Clerk of the Northampton
iereby certify that the above Decision of the,Nprthampton Zoning
13 oard of Appeals was filed in the Office of .the City.'Clerk on
eptember 27, 1990, that twenty y� ave elapse�i`'sirce such
a ppeals have been ��� 1n :tYlisr`
g and that no �
ilin pp e•
stine; oru e _..:�
City Clerk
r , City of Northampton
JJ � � C jggp at_ 'clock ant �' t1E .M., Rec'd ent'd and exam'k
Dr. Peter Laband
CITY of NORTHAMPTON OFFICE of PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Northampton Zoning Board of Appeals
FROM: R. J. Pascucci for the Northampton Planning Board
SUBJECT: RICHARD AND DELORES EMERY, REQUEST FOR FINDING
DATE: September 14, 1990
FIL.E:
This Application was reviewed by the Planning Board on
September 13. The Board expressed displeasure that the addition
requested is actually substantially completed, but found it not to
be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the
existing nonconforming dwelling, primarily because it has been
built on the side of the dwelling facing a parking area, and is
nonobtrusive.
Scanned
CheteG =_, _.
M
`..
VW-0
DECISION OF
NORTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
At a meeting held on September 19, 1990, the Zoning Board
of Appeals of the City of Northampton voted unanimously to
GRANT the request of Richard and Delores Emery for a Finding
under the Provisions of Section 9.3(a) of the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Northampton that the construction of a 5' x 14'
addition to a cottage at 69 Laurel Park will not be
substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the
pre- existing nonconforming cottage that is already there.
Present and voting were Chairman Robert C. Buscher, Dr. Peter
Laband, and M. Sanford Weil, Jr.
The Findings were as follows:
1. The existing cottage is pre- existing, nonconforming
because, now that Laurel Park has been condominiumized, it is
one of approximately 100 principal dwellings on one parcel.
2. Section 9.3(a) of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance
provides that "Pre- existing nonconforming structures may be
changed, extended or altered, provided that (there is) a
finding from the Zoning Board of Appeals that such change,
extension or alteration will not be substantially more
detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing nonconforming
structure."
3. The small addition is on the side of the Applicant's
dwelling that faces a parking area, and is therefore
unobtrusive.
4. The Board finds unanimously that the addition will not
be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the
existing dwelling. The Finding is granted.
Robert C. Buscher, Chairman
Dr. Peter Laband
scanned ,
M. Sanford Weil, Jr. d °gib:',
Cheeks �.�
FORK A
HORTRAHMN, MA
11/27/90
Data
APPLICATION FOR ENDORSEMEBT
OF PLAN BELIEVED NOT TO REQU E APPROVAL
File four completed forms with the Planning Board
and one copy with the City Clerk in accordance with
the requirements of Section 3.02.
To the Planning Board:
The undersigned, believing that the accompanying plan of his /bar prop—
erty in the City of Northampton does not constitute division within the
meaning of the Subdivision Control Law, herewith submits said plan for a
determination and endorsement that Planning Board approval under the Sub-
division Control Law is not required.
L. Applicant HOMEOWNERS AT LAUREL PARK CONDOMINIUM TRUST
Print or type name Signature'
LAUREL PARK, NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS c/o 584 - 1282
Address Phone
Z. Owner HOMEOWNERS AT LAUREL PARK CONDOMINI TRUST -
Print or type name Signature
LATTRET. PARK. NORTHAMPTON. MASSACHUSETTS
Address
3. Surveyor LMST' uU� Sa I A sncra S
Print or type name
c/o 584 -1282
..
4. Dead to Property recorded in UtQ"e5olee 1 iZU Registry,
Book c 3 Page o
5. Location and Description of Property:
ukirr D
�• e qOf} "6Ae ST �� ,C AU2E�- >'� •. ` ; .
OAJT 0 � (�9A „ ��Qluc� AI/Eu1)E " 1990
e Planning lioar.
a Submitted for roval -� �l3YC.�En4(u
jDis ion filed " PT
ti
ty Clerk Signature C erk Signa
digitized_ _-..__ ...
checked---
FORM A
NORTHAMPTON, MASS.
January 5, 1990
W;f_ ii4G Date
PA DEii"OPMENT
APPLICATION FOR ENDORSEMENT
OF PLAN BELIEVED 1.OT TO REQUIRE AMROVAL
File one completed form with the Planning Board
and one copy with the City Clerk in accordance with
with requirements of Section 3.02.
T'o the Planning Board:
The undersi -ened, believing that the accompanying plan of
his property in the City of Northampton does not constitute
division within the meaning of the Subdivision Control Law,
herewith submits said plan a determination and endorsement
that Planning Board approval under the Subdivision Control Law
is not required.
1. Applicant Mary Ann Alexander ✓" l�rw�,C
Print or type name Signature
20 Hayward Road. Northampton MA
Address
2. Owner
Print or type name Signature
Andress
3. Surveyor QLMER NURDLEY JR. ( AS5X. W c'-. -
Print or type name Signatui
3 0 Industrial Drive East. IJORTHA�M M A. O10(0O
Address
4. Deed or property recorded in Hampshire Registry,
Book 2703
Page
289
5. Location and Description of Property:
Unit 61A as shown on attached plan
Date of ission
City Cler n � ���
_. Signatu e
�.r
33 scanred
digitized
checked
�.R,c.�► • ae•
M
10.25'
a
` l SN.. 1 W F.
(el
43 S Fit
e
M
Ito. 7'
UIA
249 SQ. FI..t —
16.7'
TNls PL AID[ Is Fo,E CoNDoMiNIUM oWA1&725N1P
pUgp),5E" 5 ONLY AND tiJO LE7EkMINATI OAl
AS TO GoMPC.I ANC WITH ZOAII,UG 02
A{PROVAc. UNbE7e iI�LG.I., Gh 4 SECT. 8tP
1S TO i 5E C AISTieuCD;
Z� I REPORT THAT THIS PLAN FULLY AND ACCURATELY.
SCALE 1lll F DEPICTS THE LAYOUT. LOCATION, PROPERTY LINES,
PAUL
F.
uSaER
Mo. 29848
APPROXIMATE AREA AND MAIN ENTRANCES TO THE
BUILDING AT. 1,/+91A LAUREL PARK, NORTHAMPTON,
MASSACHUSETTS AND THE IMMEDIATE COMMON AREAS
TO WHIC IT HAS ACCESS AS BUILT.
Q � , f,Z 18 89
SIG ;D ATE
IF1
J b ASSOCIATES INC
ALIrIER HUNTLEY R. 0 •
SURVEYORS ENGINEERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
30 INDUSTRIAL DR. E. s NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS
T
10.25'
a
` l SN.. 1 W F.
(el
43 S Fit
e
M
Ito. 7'
UIA
249 SQ. FI..t —
16.7'
TNls PL AID[ Is Fo,E CoNDoMiNIUM oWA1&725N1P
pUgp),5E" 5 ONLY AND tiJO LE7EkMINATI OAl
AS TO GoMPC.I ANC WITH ZOAII,UG 02
A{PROVAc. UNbE7e iI�LG.I., Gh 4 SECT. 8tP
1S TO i 5E C AISTieuCD;
Z� I REPORT THAT THIS PLAN FULLY AND ACCURATELY.
SCALE 1lll F DEPICTS THE LAYOUT. LOCATION, PROPERTY LINES,
PAUL
F.
uSaER
Mo. 29848
APPROXIMATE AREA AND MAIN ENTRANCES TO THE
BUILDING AT. 1,/+91A LAUREL PARK, NORTHAMPTON,
MASSACHUSETTS AND THE IMMEDIATE COMMON AREAS
TO WHIC IT HAS ACCESS AS BUILT.
Q � , f,Z 18 89
SIG ;D ATE
IF1
J b ASSOCIATES INC
ALIrIER HUNTLEY R. 0 •
SURVEYORS ENGINEERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
30 INDUSTRIAL DR. E. s NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS
II ��
� S
3
II
a
{
L 1.7'
Y/t STti. W.F.
®
•
v
802 So. Fr t ti
V
BUM $T.
lD O S
/D ZO
1 REPORT THAT THIS PLAN FULLY AND ACC'URATELK
SCALE Aj
F DEPICTS THE LAYOUT, LOCATION, PROPERTY LINES,
APPROXIMATE AREA AND MAIN ENTRANCES TO THE
BUILDING AT. 46 LAUREL PARK. NORTHAMPTON,
OF
MASSACHUSETTS AND THE IMMEDIATE COMMON AREAS
ALMER fc�
TO WHICH IT HAS ACCESS AS BUILT.
y M.
J HUNTLEY. JR y.
N0. oOGi <
�'oo
M z
SIGUE ATE
ALMER HUNTLEY JR.
ASSOCIATES, INC.�.,
SURVEYORS ENGINEERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS - -•._ ___
123 PLEASANT ST.: NOR THAMPTON.MASSACHUSETTS
vh�Q
On
-4wo"
FORM A
NORTHAMPTON, MASS.
APPLICATION FOR ENDORSEMENT
OF PLAN BELIEVED 140T TO REQUIRE APPRO L JAN 2 w 1987
File one completed form with the Planning WW"I,
and one copy with the City Clerk in accordaW%TA
with requirements of Section 3.02.
To the Planning Board:
The undersigned, believing that the accompanying plan of
his property in the City of Northampton does not constitute
division within the meaning of the Subdivision Control Law,
herewith submits said plan for a determination and endorsement
that Planning Board approval under the Subdivision Control Law
is not required.
1. Applicant C up k >m,v=� m T��s, �f►c5c c7 �'GC.4 -'�� -
Print or type name Signature
ess
2. Owner �1-Pn..
Print or type name
Z4
_T Signature
Aaaress
3. Surveyor Almer Huntley, Jr. & Assoc. Inc.
Print or type name T Signature
125 Pleasant Street, Northampton, MA 01061
Address
4. Deed or property recorded in Hampshire County Registry,
Book o? 7 Page 0289
5. Location and Description of Property:
02 8 � c2c= 5 o �v (,(/,F ST Sil>F mF /vne ry /� / .✓ G S"T_
A �j9 ST SiD� O � �L ES /liJ�j91�JGll 20A�
Date of Submission January 21, 19$7
City Cler
S n ture
33 scanned
digitized
checked
`*001
1400/
FORM A
NORTHAMPTON, MASS.
Date
APPLICATION FOR ENDORSEME14T
OF PLAN BELIEVED NOT TO REQUIRE APPROVAL
File one completed form with the Planning Board
and one copy with the City Clerk in accordance with
with requirements of Section 3.02.
To the Planning Board:
The undersigned, believing that the accompanying plan of
his property in the City of Northampton does not constitute
division within the meaning of the Subdivision Control Law,
herewith submits said plan for a determination and endorsement
that Planning Board approval under the Subdivision Control Law
is not required. 1-16,UE OW 11 =SAT LAUREL PAI?r
1. Applicant COIJD0A(1U10/U TE05T ~':_114
Print or type name Si
ess
2. Owner 9 /qMz
Print or type name Signature
Aaares s
3. Surveyor ALMER HUNTLEY, JR. & ASSOC., INC
rant or type name ig ture
125 PLEASANT STREET, NORTHAMPTON MA 01060
Address
4.
Deed or property recorded in HAMPSHIRE COUNTY
Registry,
Book 7U 3 Page
5. Location and Description of Property:
LAUEEL PACK
EDUTE #S, ,UDE-TNA,UMI J
Date of Submission Mav 12 198
City. Clerk
Signa Aur
Scanned
33 digitized checked
LAUREL PARK
Northampton, Massachusetts
r
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
MASTER PLAN
mom
Presented to
HOMEOWNERS AT LAUREL PARK
' . .00TOBER • 1986
PRELIMINARY
FOR REVIEW ONLY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
1.2 PURPOSE
1.3 SCOPE OF STUDY
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 GENERAL
' 2.2 WASTEWATER DISPOSAL
2.3 WATER SYSTEM
2.4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
2.5 REGULATIONS FOR SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL OF WASTEWATER
2.6 AREAS SUITABLE FOR SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL
3.0 WASTEWATER FLOWS
4.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
4.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 - COMMUNITY SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
4.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 - COMMUNITY SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS & GRAVITY
CONNECTION TO MUNICIPAL SEWER SYSTEM
4.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 - COMMUNAL SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS AND PUMP
STATION /FORCEMAIN CONNECTION TO MUNICIPAL SEWER SYSTEM
4.4 ALTERNATIVE 4 - COLLECTION & PUMPING TO THE MUNICIPAL SEWER SYSTEM
5.0 COST EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS
6.0 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
8.0 IMPLEMENTATION (To be added later)
APPENDIX A - Soil Conditions
APPENDIX B - Figure 1, Existing Site Conditions
Figure 2, Alternative 3
Figure 3, Alternative 4
w
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The homes at Laurel Park were originally constructed and occupied
mostly as summer residences until recent years. Many of the homes
have recently been converted or are being considered for conversion
to year -round occupancy. As a result of these numerous requests
for year -round occupancy the City of Northampton Board of Health
investigated the adequacy of the existing individual subsurface
disposal systems at Laruel Park. The Board of Health found that 90%
of those homes investigated have systems that do not meet the minimum
requirements of Title V the State Environmental Code. In addition,
conditions that may cause contamination of the public water supply
were found.
This sivation resulted in the Northampton Board of Health voting
on February 25, 1986, as indicated in their letter of March 3, 1986,
"To require that the Laurel Park Association develop a master plan
for upgrading the septic systems and water service throughout the
entire park. The plan prepared by a registered professional engineer
should address the following:
1. the long -term sewage disposal needs of the entire park;
2. water service needs of the entire park;
3. consideration of individual septic systems vs. communal
type sewage treatment and disposal vs. connection to the
City's Sanitary Sewer System."
The Homeowners at Laurel Park Condominium Trust, which consists of
all of the Homeowners and hold the property in trust, have contracted
Dufresne - Henry, Inc. consulting engineers to develop a Wastewater
Management Master Plan for Laurel Park.
1.2 PURPOSE
w The purpose of this Wastewater Management Master Plan is:
o Satisfy the requirements of the Board of Health
o Find a suitable and most cost - effective solution for
providing wastewater disposal for the Laurel Park community.
1.3 SCOPE OF STUDY
The following is an outline of the scope of study for the Waste-
water Management Master Plan:
o Review and evaluate all existing information and data as it
pertains to wastewater disposal and water distribution.
Prepase a plan of existing conditions and locations of water
pipes.
M
o Conduct subsurface investigative work and percolation tests
to determine areas suitable for subsurface disposal.
o Develop and provide a preliminary plan and preliminary
project cost estimate for wastewater disposal for all of
Laurel Park.
Investigation of existing individual subsurface disposal systems
was not included in the Scope of Study. The intent of the Scope
of Study was to find a cost - effective solution for the Park
as a whole, and not to address the specific wastewater disposal
needs of each individual home.
u
M
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 GENERAL
Laurel Park encompasses 28 acres in the northern portion of Northampton
Massachusetts. The Park has 121 structures, 115 of which serve as
residences. The typical size of each house is 2 bedrooms. Refer to
Figure 1, Existing Site Conditions, in the Appendix. Most of the homes
are built as summer camps, in dense clusters, with as little as ten
feet between each home.
2.2 WASTEWATER DISPOSAL
No municipal wastewater collection facilities are available within
the Park. The closest municipal sewer is located at Coles Meadow
Road and Marion Street. Each residence has its own subsurface dis-
posal system. Since most of the residences were constructed before
the 1970's many of the subsurface disposal systems do not meet the
minimum requirements of the State Environmental Code. Of those
inspected by the Northampton Board of Health 90% do not meet
minimum requirements.
2.3 WATER SYSTEM
The Park is supplied with water from the City of Northampton. Water
service is provided to the homes through the Park's own distribution
system. Many of the homes are supplied with water through a network
of copper pipes that are above ground or just below the surface
(seasonal water system). Fire protection is provided by 3 hydrants that
are connected to 6 -inch mains in The Circle and Asbury Avenue.
In many locations, the water distribution system is too close to a
subsurface leaching area. In one location, a water line passes
through a septic system. The situation poses a serious threat to
public health.
2.4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Test pit excavations and percolation tests were performed throughout
the Park to determine subsurface conditions and identify areas
suitable for construction of subsurface disposal systems. In addition,
test pits and percolation tests administered by the Board of Health
during 1986 were also evaluated. All the field data is provided
in the Appendix and the location of test pits and percolation tests
are shown on Figure 1, Existing Site Conditions.
The surface grade in Laurel Park slopes from west to east and the
subsurface conditions change considerably with slope. Ledge is
evidenced by numerous rock outcroppings in the western portion of
the Park. Down slope and east of the ledge area, running north and
south through the Park, is area where groundwater is very close to the
surface. A small stream just south of Asbury Avenue drains part
of the Park. Another intermittent stream drains the southwest portion
flowing east of Northampton Street. The northeasternsection of the
Park consists of sand and gravel with greater dep7 :hs to groundwater.
2.5 REGULATIONS FOR SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL OF WASTEWATER
The design and construction of subsurface disposal systems are
regulated by Title V of the State Environmental Code. These
regulations contain requirements for percolation tests, dimensional
requirements for systems, setback distances, details for construction
and required separation from ledge, clay or groundwater. Any new
subsurface disposal system must meet the criteria contained within
these regulations before the system is approved by the local Board of
Health or Building Inspector.
The required leaching area is determined using soil data obtained
during the percolation test and the type and size of building to be
served by the system. An area equal to the size of the required
leaching area must be set aside as a reserve area. No permanent
structures may be constructed upon the reserve area.
Minimum set back distances are required from wells, waterlines,
subsurface drains, leaching catch basins, cellar walls, surface
watercourses, property lines and down hill slopes. The following
table shows the setback requirements for the various units of a
subsurface disposal system.
Septic Tank Leaching Facility
Well
Waterline
Property Line
Cellar Wall
Watercourses
Subsurface Drain
Leaching Catch Basin
Downhill Slope
50'
100'
10'
10'
10'
10'
10'
20'
25'
50'
25'
25'
--
25'
150
times the slope
Assigned reserve areas must also adhere to these setback requirements.
A minimum vertical separation of four (4) feet is required between
groundwater, ledge and impermeable materials such as clay, and the
bottom of a leaching facilitiy. Because groundwater levels vary
season to season and year to year the four foot separation is from
maximum groundwater. The vertical separation added to the depth of
a leaching facility generally requires a minimum six (6) feet of vertical
distance from ground level to high groundwater, ledge or other
impervious material.
2.6 AREAS SUITABLE FOR SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL
Based on our subsurface investigative work, evaluation of existing
subsurface data and the limitations of Title V of the State Environ-
mental Code we have determined that the area suitable for subsurface
disposal of wastewater is restricted to the northeast corner of the
Park. Refer to Figure 1, Existing Site Conditions. The western
portion of the Park is unsuitable because ledge is within six (6) feet
of the surface. The remaining portion of the Park may be suitable
for subsurface disposal providing setback distances and other require-
ments of Title V are met.
3.0 WASTEWATER FLOWS
Water consumption records from the Northampton Department of Public
Works indicate that average water use from May 1 to November 1, 1985
was about 6,300 gallons per day. This flow quantity was not used
for preliminary design purposes because it is considered low. The
character of the community is changing from a seasonal vacation
community to a year -round residential community. This shift in the
composition of the community would typically result in higher flows.
Design wastewater flows for Laurel Park were estimated using two
methods. Project flows for subsurface disposal systems were
determined using the Title V criteria of 110 gallons per day per
bedroom and, assuming each residence has 2 bedrooms, resulting in
a flow of 220 gallons per day per home. Design wastewater flows that
entail collection and transport to a municipal sewer were derived
using the criteria of 75 gallons per day per person. Assuming 2
persons per residence each home in Laurel Park could be expected
to generate an average design wastewater flow of 150 gallons per
day.
4.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Three general categories of alternatives exist for managing the
wastewater problem in Laurel Park.
I. Collection and transport of the wastewater from all homes
in the Park to a large subsurface disposal facility.
2. Collection and transport of the wastewater from some homes
in the Park to communal subsurface disposal facilities and
collection of the wastewater from the remaining homes
with transport to the municipal sewer system by gravity
or by pump station /forcemain facilities.
3. Collection of wastewater from all homes in the Park and
transport to a municipal sewer system by pump station/
forcemain facilities.
This report reviews four alternatives that are derived from these
three basic categories.
4.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 - COMMUNITY SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
A community subsurface disposal system designed to serve all homes
in Laurel Park would have to be sized to receive over 25,000 gallons
of wastewater per day based on the Title V criteria of 220 gallons
per day per home. Massachusetts regulations state that subsurface
disposal systems receiving over 15,000 gallons per day are under
the jurisdiction of the Department of Environmental Quality Engineer-
ing (DEQE). The DEQE is requiring that groundwater not become
degraded by discharge of such large quantities of wastewater. The
non - degradation of groundwater requires treatment of wastewater
before discharge to a leaching facility such that the treated water
is of drinking water quality. Communities proposing subsurface
disposal systems receiving such high flows must also obtain a
groundwater discharge permit from DEQE and conduct extensive hydro -
geological studies to define the geologic, physical and chemical
parameters of the receiving groundwater. Larger buffer zones would
also be required for these subsurface disposal systems. These
stringent requirements would render the large community subsurface
disposal system uneconomical and therefore it is considered an
unacceptable alternative.
4.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 - COMMUNITY SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL SYSTEM AND GRAVITY
CONNECTION TO MUNICIPAL DEWER SYSTEM
A gravity sewer could be constructed from an existing manhole at
Coles Meadow Road and Marion Street down Northampton Street to
Laurel Park. this gravity sewer connection would terminate at a
manhole in front of Residence # 104. The sewer extension would
allow for gravity collection of the residences west of Northampton
Street and south of Springfield Street, a total of 37 buildings.
Another collection system would serve the remaining 78 residences,
transporting the wastewater to a large subsurface disposal system
at the north end of the Park. The flow expected from these residences,
based on Title V criteria is 17,160 gallons per day. Because the
flow is in excess of 15,000 gallons per day the subsurface disposal
system would have to meet the same stringent DEQE requirements of
treating the wastewater to produce drinking water quality effluent
before discharge to a leaching facility. These stringent require-
ments also render this alternative uneconomical and unacceptable.
4.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 - COMMUNAL SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS AND PUMP STATION/
FORCEMAIN CONNECTION TO MUNICIPAL SEWER SYSTEM
This alternative evaluated using upto eight available open areas in
the northeast corner of the Park for the construction of communal
subsurface disposal systems. These leach fields would serve the
northern portion of the Park. The southern portion of the Park
would be served by a small collection system and a pump station/
forcemain facility that would transport the wastewater to the North-
ampton municipal sewer system.
Figure 2, Wastewater Collection and Disposal, Alternative 3 shows
the layout of this alternative.
The subsurface disposal alternative proposed individual septic tanks
at each residence, small collection systems to transport wastewater
to the communal leach fields and six communal leach fields located
throughout the northern section of the Park. Although eight areas
were available only six were used because of the existing togography
and housing locations. Over 60 homes, the Dining Hall and Normal
Hall would tie into subsurface systems.
Homes in the western and southern portions of the Park would be
connected to a collection system which would transport wastewater
to a pump station located near the Park office. From there waste-
water would be pumped through a forcemain that would pass down
Northampton Street to an existing sewer at Coles Meadow Road and
Marion Streets. Fifty -two buildings would connect to this alternative.
A cost analysis of Alternative 3 is presented in Section 5.
4.4 ALTERNATIVE 4 - COLLECTION AND PUMPING TO THE MUNICIPAL SEWER SYSTEM
This alternative evaluated the installation of a collection system
that would collect wastewater from all buildings in the Park and
transport it to a pump station that would be located in the north-
east corner of the Park. The wastewater would be pumped from there
through the Park down Northampton Street to an existing sewer at
Coles Meadow Road and Marion Street.
Alternative 4 requires no treatment facilities within the Park. All
facilities would be for collection and transport of wastewater.
Figure 3 - Wastewater Collection and Disposal, Alternative 4 shows the
layout of this alternative.
A cost analysis for this alternative is presented in Section 5.
m
5.0 COST EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS
Estimated construction costs were derived for each of the feasible
alternatives based on the layouts shown of Figures 2 and 3. The
construction costs are shown on Tables 5 -1 and 5 -2. The unit costs
for pipe installation include pipe, manholes, cleanouts, fittings,
restoration of lawns, restoration of pavement and other work that
would result from the installation of pipe. Costs for ledge
excavation were derived separately because of the large quantities
of ledge expected in the western section of the Park. The quantity
of ledge was determined estimating an average depth of three feet
for a distance of 1,000 linear feet.
Each alternative requires some annual cost for operation and main-
tenance. The Communal Subsurface Disposal System /Municipal Alternative
requires pumpout of septic tanks every two years, sewer use fees
($1.25 per 100 cubic feet) for 2,930,000 gallons per year, part -time
maintenance of sewer lines and pump stations and electrical costs for
the pump station. Yearly cost for connecting the entire Park to the
Northampton Sewer System consists of sewer use fees for 6,300,000
gallons per year, part -time maintenance of pipes and pump station
and electrical costs for pumping.
In order to equitably compare the total costs for the two alternatives
the yearly costs were converted to present worth costs using a
comparison period of ten years and an interest rate of 10 %. (Present
worth is that amount of money that would be required now, invested
at a particular interest rate, in this case 10 %, over a particular
period, in this case 10 years, in order to pay the yearly costs over
that same period.) The present worth of the annual costs was added
to the construction costs to obtain a total project cost for each
alternative.
Tables 5 -1 and 5 -2 show the results of the cost analysis. The total
cost for the Communal Subsurface Disposal /Municipal Connection alternative
is estimated at $588,498. The total cost for the connection of the
entire Laurel Park to the Municipal Sewer System is estimated at
$580,694.
The two costs for Alternatives 3 and 4 are within 2% of each other
and must be considered virtually the same at this stage. Consequently,
they must be viewed as equally cost - effective at this time.
TABLE 5 -1
Communal Leach Fields and Collection System,
Pump Station and Forcemain to Northampton Sewer System
Preliminary Project Cost October 1986
Construction
Communal Leach Fields and related Collection System,
Service Laterals and Septic Tanks
8" Collection System to Pump Station
2328 l.f. at $50.00 per l.f.
4" Service Connections
2080 l.f. at $30.00 per l.f.
Ledge Excavation 600 c.y. at $75.00 per c.y.
3" Forcemain 1400 l.f. at $20.00 per l.f.
Pump Station
Operation & Maintenance
Present Worth of Annual Operation and Maintenance
Costs ($11,305 per year at 10% interest)
Engineering (Design & Services during construction)
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
$242,240
$116,400
$ 62,400
$ 45,000
$ 28,000
$ 25,000
$519,040
$ 69,460
$120,000
$708,500
TABLE 5 -2
Collection System, Pump Station and Forcemain
To Northampton Sewer System
Preliminary Project Cost October 1986
Construction
8" Collection System 3300
6" Collection System 1750
4" Service Connections 461
Ledge Excavation 600 c.y.
3" Forcemain 2300 l.f. at
l.f. at $50.00 per l.f.
l.f. at $45.00 per l.f.
)0 l.f. at $30.00 per l.f.
at $75.00 per c.y.
$20.00 per l.f.
Pump Station
Operation & Maintenance
Present Worth of Annual Operation and Maintenance
Costs($13,500 per year at 10% interest)
Engineering (Design & Services during construction)
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
$165,000
$ 78,750
$138,000
$ 45,000
$ 46,000
$ 25,000
$497,750
$82,950
$120,000
$700,700
M
6.0 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
The existing water distribution system consists of two six -inch
mains with three hydrants connections and a network of copper and
galvanized water services. This service network is divided into
seasonal and year -round water service. The layout of the water
distribution system is shown on the Existing Conditions Plan, Figure 1.
The locations of many of the water services are not well defined.
However, during inspections of septic systems by the Northampton
Board of Health it was discovered that some water services are
very close to leachfields and, in some cases, water services pass
through existing leachfields.
The close proximity of the water services to subsurface disposal
facilities represents a potential health threat particularly to the
seasonal services. Should any of these services near subsurface
disposal systems break the water pipes would become contaminated
with bacteria and organics. The potential for breakage of the
seasonal services is higher because of the tendency for pipes to
move along with the soil as frost develops.
The Park should consider installing new mains and service piping
at the time of the sewer construction. Construction of both systems
at the same time could significantly reduce the cost of the water
system.
At a minimum backflow preventers or check valves should be installed
at the location of each connection to the Northampton Municipal
Water System to prevent any impacts on the city's water quality.
Park residents should also test their water for the presence of
coliform bacteria once a year to check for health hazards.
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The two alternatives evaluated entail nearly identical project
costs and are viewed as equally cost - effective. However, we recommend that the
Homeowners at Laurel Park pursue Alternative 4, Collection and
Transport to the Municipal Sewer as the preferred alternative for
the following reasons:
- Connections to municipal sewer facilities typically have
longer useful lives than subsurface disposal systems. After
years of use the potential is present for leach fields to
fail even with proper maintenance.
- Municipal connections are more flexible in terms of handling
changes in flow. A leach field would not be allowed to
accept wastewater from more than the number of bedrooms
for which it was designed.
- Connection to municipal sewer facilities typically increases
the value of homes.
- A municipal sewer connection would result in reduced environ-
mental impact. The municipal system provides treatment before
discharge to surface waters. Subsurface systems discharge
untreated wastewater to the ground resulting in a degradation
of groundwater quality.
As a long term solution to the potential health threat to the water
distribution system the Park should upgrade all services particu-
larly the seasonal services. In the short term backflow preventers
or check valves should be installed at each of the 6 connections to
the Northampton water system. In addition it is recommended that
residents of the Park test their water for coliform bacteria once a
year.
The Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) has some
funds available to assist in the construction of municipal sewerage
facilities if a clear significant health hazard exists. This program
provides up to 50% reimbursement for eligible projects. Funds are
available to those communities with the worst health hazards. Private
individuals or organizations may not apply for this program, but
any municipal agency is eligible to apply. The Homeowners at Laurel
Park should investigate working with the City to apply for consideration
for funding under this program. Preliminary Project Information Forms
must be submitted by the end of November for consideration for fiscal
1988.
APPENDIX A
Soil Investigations
Dufresne -Henry conducted test pit excavations and percolation tests and
gathered additional soils information from the Northampton Board of
Health for the purpose of determining areas where community subsurface
would be feasible.
Areas of high groundwater, or presence of ledge or impermeable soils
precluded the existence of adequate subsurface disposal systems.
DUFRESNE -HENRY TEST PITS AND PERCOLATION TESTS
TP 1 8/12/86
0 - 6" leaves, roots & organic material
6 " -8'9" uniform medium brown sand
No water or ledge to depth
<2 min /inch perc
TP 2 8/12/86
0 - 3" leaves, organic material
3" -18" fine sand, some silt, occasional
cobble (3 " -6 ")
18 " -56" coarse sand
56 " -9'6" medium uniform sand
No water or ledge to depth
<2 min /inch perc
TP 3 8/12/86
0 - 3" leaves, organic material
3" -25" silty medium sand
25 " -9' silty fine sand
No water or ledge to depth
1.7 min /inch perc
TP 4 8/12/86
0 - 3" leaves, organic materials
3" -18" light brown silty sand
18 " -48" silt w /fine sand
48 " -9' coarse to medium sand
No water or ledge to depth
2 min /inch pert
TP 5 8/12/86
0 - 3" leaves, organic material
3 " -20" silty medium sand, large roots
20 " -40" silty fine sand
40 " -9' uniform medium sand
No water or ledge to depth
2 min /inch perc
TP 6 8/12/86
0 - 3" organic material & leaves
3" -12" silty sand
12 " -48" medium sand
48 " -8'6" gray clayey silt
No water to depth
No ledge to depth
TP 7 8/12/86
0 - 3" loam & organic material
3 -20" silt w /occasional cobbles
20 " -6' red clay w /coarse sand mixed in
No water or ledge to depth
TP 8 8/12/86
0 - 3 grass & loam
3 - 7 " silt
7 " -12" fine sand
12 " -48" medium to coarse sand
48 " -7'6" clay w /sand mixed in
Water at 5'6"
No ledge to depth
TP 9 8/12/86
o - 3" leaves, organic & roots
3" -20" silt w /coarse sand
20 " -50" coarse sand & gravel (2" cobbles)
50 "-72" silty medium sand
No water to depth
Ledge at 6'
SOILS INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM
NORTHAMPTON BOARD OF HEALTH
HO 60 5/23/86
0 - 12" gravel
12 " -8'6" medium sand
No water
<2 min /inch perc
HO 66 5/23/86
0 - 6" topsoil
6" -12" silty subsoil
12 " -3'6" clay & hardpan
Water at 3'6"
HO 17 5/23/86
0 - 4" topsoil
4" -22" silty subsoil
22 " -36" coarse sand
36 " -84" fine sand
Water at 72"
5 min /inch perc
HO 117 5/23/86
0 - 6" topsoil
6" -18" clay
18 " -34" sand
Water at 2'
HO 111 6/27/86
0 -6" topsoil
6 " -6'6" sand & fine gravel
Water at 5'5"
< 2 min /inch perc