Laserfiche WebLink
From:Margaret Martin <br />To:Melanie Curtis <br />Subject:Fwd: Opinion of Professional Geotechnical Engineer <br />Date:Tuesday, February 21, 2023 2:05:16 PM <br />Attachments:image001.png <br />image002.png <br />image003.png <br />image004.png <br />Good afternoon Melanie <br />I own property at 2821 Casco Point road.. my son.. a civil engineer.. geo tech… forwarded below details of his review of the projects two houses <br />from my property. Rather than trying g to summarize at mtg tonight.. forwarding his thoughts… including conclusion..recommendation to table .. <br />as he states for further details <br />PLEASE SHARE WITH ALL CONCERNED <br />Best regards <br />M Martin <br />Sent from my iPhone <br />Begin forwarded message: <br />From: "Peter M. Demshar" <PDemshar@barr.com> <br />Date: February 20, 2023 at 9:17:04 PM CST <br />To: Margaret <marg2821@yahoo.com> <br />Subject: RE: Opinion of Professional Geotechnical Engineer <br /> <br />Talking points: <br />The wall does not appear to be replaced in kind and therefore should fall under the scrutiny of new construction. <br />This wall increases impervious surfaces within the buffer and increases discharge to the lake. It does not appear that anything has been done to <br />naturalize the shoreline. <br />Surface drainage paths have not been identified. <br />Tree removal completed prior to plan approval <br />The damage caused by this disturbance may put neighboring properties at risk in the future. How has this been addressed? <br /> <br /> <br />Wall design questions <br />The typical wall design section does not clearly outlines spacing for the weep holes but fails to describe how this connects to the <br />drainage system behind the wall <br />Drainage weep holes do not appear to be constructed 30’ OC as described. The installed weep holes do not appear to be installed as <br />specified <br />There is no separator fabric specified between the ¾” drainage aggregate and the natural silty clayey materials. <br />There is no documentation that the behind wall drainage system was constructed as planned. <br />Deadman spacing is identified as every 8’ OC and every 3 courses and the plans show deadman on the 3rd course up and photos show 5 <br />rows of timbers with no deadman (page 36 and page 30. <br /> <br />On page 8 of Exibit J the design limitations state that the design software used does not review global stability and that this should be <br />performed by a geotechnical engineer. This documentation has not been included in the application and should be reviewed prior to approving. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />On Page 7 of Exhibit K Criterium requested additional geotechnical information which was not provided. <br /> <br /> <br />Page 2 of Exhibit J states that this is a test of the ordinance however this appears sets a precedence that after the fact variances will be <br />accepted without providing plans to properly restore the site.