Loading...
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