HomeMy WebLinkAboutMartin afterFrom:Margaret Martin
To:Melanie Curtis
Subject:Fwd: Opinion of Professional Geotechnical Engineer
Date:Tuesday, February 21, 2023 2:05:16 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
Good afternoon Melanie
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
from my property. Rather than trying g to summarize at mtg tonight.. forwarding his thoughts… including conclusion..recommendation to table ..
as he states for further details
PLEASE SHARE WITH ALL CONCERNED
Best regards
M Martin
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Peter M. Demshar" <PDemshar@barr.com>
Date: February 20, 2023 at 9:17:04 PM CST
To: Margaret <marg2821@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Opinion of Professional Geotechnical Engineer
Talking points:
The wall does not appear to be replaced in kind and therefore should fall under the scrutiny of new construction.
This wall increases impervious surfaces within the buffer and increases discharge to the lake. It does not appear that anything has been done to
naturalize the shoreline.
Surface drainage paths have not been identified.
Tree removal completed prior to plan approval
The damage caused by this disturbance may put neighboring properties at risk in the future. How has this been addressed?
Wall design questions
The typical wall design section does not clearly outlines spacing for the weep holes but fails to describe how this connects to the
drainage system behind the wall
Drainage weep holes do not appear to be constructed 30’ OC as described. The installed weep holes do not appear to be installed as
specified
There is no separator fabric specified between the ¾” drainage aggregate and the natural silty clayey materials.
There is no documentation that the behind wall drainage system was constructed as planned.
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
rows of timbers with no deadman (page 36 and page 30.
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
performed by a geotechnical engineer. This documentation has not been included in the application and should be reviewed prior to approving.
On Page 7 of Exhibit K Criterium requested additional geotechnical information which was not provided.
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
accepted without providing plans to properly restore the site.
I am recommending that this motion to approve the application for a variance is tabled until further information is provided for review and
good faith effort is put forth by the homeowner to address the visual impacts and the water quality impacts.