Items Researched Floodplain 416.5’ BFE vs 418.3’ Structure Bob Brecknock Sprinkler Eric D / Mike Franklin Septic Kevin Leonard Market Value Doug Martin Stormwater Roger Dignard Fire Inspection Eric Dubowik Safety Committee Support the Upgrades Drains/runoff Nothing to Report
Resources Used • Bob Todd Bob Todd Land Use Consultants Floodplain Surveyor • Bob Brecknock SWC Engineering PA Inc. Structural Engineer • Kevin Leonard NorthPoint Engineering LLC Principal Engineer, Civil Eng., NB Engineer • Doug Martin Collier International Inc. Vice President, Commercial Real Estate • Jennifer Gilbert Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Representative for New Boston • Roger Dignard Dignard Architectural Services Architect • Matt Beaulieu Milestone Engineering and Construction Superintendent, Project Manager • Mike Franklin John L. Carter Sprinkler Company Inc. Service Manager • Fred Hayes NB CIP Committee, NBCS School Board • Eric Dubowik NB Fire Inspector, Safety Committee Member
From: Gilbert, Jennifer [mailto:Jennifer.Gilbert@nh.gov] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 2:40 PM To: 'Roger Dignard'; Wayne Blassberg Subject: RE: New Boston Fire Station Roger, The lowest floor elevation of the fire station should reference NAVD 88 since the BFE on the map is referenced to NAVD 88. In your email below, you note the floor elevation as 418.29 ft . If this elevation is referenced to NAVD 88 then that is the number to use. By adding the conversion factor of 0.68 ft to the NAVD 88 elevation you are converting the elevation to NGVD 29. Again, all elevations need to reference the same vertical datum as the BFE. Since the fire station is located very near cross section O, I looked at the Hillsborough County Flood Insurance Study (Vol 1) and used the floodway data table to determine the BFE at cross section O is 416.4 ft NAVD 88. Therefore, if you were to round the floor elevation and the BFE to a whole number, the lowest floor is located 2 ft above the BFE. FYI - The town’s floodplain ordinance states that all new construction or substantial improvements of non - residential structures must either have the structure’s lowest floor elevated at or above BFE or the structure’s lowest floor can be below BFE but must be dry flood-proofed up to the BFE. However, the state building code (IBC 2009, which references ASCE-24-05 – Flood Resistant Design and Construction) requires new or substantially improved fire stations (and like facilities in Structure Category IV) to either have the structure’s lowest floor elevated 2 feet above BFE or the structure’s lowest floor can be below BFE but the structure must be dry flood-proofed 2 feet above BFE. Jennifer
Floodplain of Rte 13 site (+10’)
Mr. Roger Dignard, RA, NCARB Dignard Architectural Services 124 Bedford Center Road, Unit E Bedford, New Hampshire 03110 Re: New Boston Firehouse Preliminary Inspection In response to your request SW&C performed a preliminary partial inspection of existing framing at the referenced facility on Friday, 3 June 2016. Results of this effort are summarized below. 1) Existing roof truss diagonals at two locations in every truss require lateral bracing. 2) Hurricane ties at the end of every roof truss are required. 3) Truss steel connection plates appear to be smaller than in current roof truss designs and should be analyzed to determine if reinforcement is required. 4) New steel portal frames are required in the front wall to resist wind/seismic lateral loads. 5) All exterior studs supporting roof trusses need to be reinforced. 6) Reinforcement of top plates under roof trusses is required if the plates are double ply. 7) Roof truss member sizes are otherwise adequate. 8) Reinforcement of the triple 2x12 beam in the interior section of the building is required. 9) The 2x10 floor joists and columns in the interior section of the building are okay. It is SW&C’s opinion that an in -depth analysis of the complete building, including seismic and wind loading, will likely result in multiple additional requirements for reinforcement. Please call if you have questions or need additional information.
Response to a question I asked to ensure he included hanging weight. From: Robert Brecknock [mailto:swcengineering@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 1:02 PM To: Wayne Blassberg Subject: ...Response to query... Currently required snow loads, roof and ceiling dead loads and a 5 psf collateral load (for overhead doors, piping, heating units, the future exhaust system and other miscellaneous items) over the entire ceiling area were used in the analysis.
Sprinkler Concerns Fire Inspector Dubowik, I looked at what remains of our original paperwork related to the Transfer Station, Fire Station, and Town Hall sprinkler systems. What I have found is that when we were asked to quote the installations for these buildings the town specified use of non-listed and undersized water supplies for the sprinkler systems. Presumably because installing code compliant water supplies was too costly. The town specified what size pumps to use. The specified pumps are not listed fire pumps and do not have the capacity to supply the sprinkler system to NFPA 13 standards – so these systems have never been NFPA 13 compliant systems. The piping was installed to NFPA 13 pipe schedule standards. The Transfer Station Piping was designed for Ordinary Hazard Group 2, pipe schedule, the pump installed was rated at 80 GPM @ 69PSI. The Fire Station Piping was designed for Light and Ordinary Hazard Group 2, pipe schedule, the pump installed was rated at 80 GPM @ 69PSI. The Town Hall Piping was designed for as a light hazard pipe schedule system and the pump installed was rated at 100 GPM @ 70PSI. We do not have any information on the library as we were not the installing contractor. The town may have this information filed somewhere I think it was built around 2010. Mike Franklin Service Manager John L. Carter Cell 603-520-1068 Phone: 603-224-5438 Fax: 603-224-6481
Fire Inspection / Safety Committee Findings 1. Emergency light above the side exit door is open and does not work. NFPA 101 2. Sprinkler system an approved NFPA 13 system with proper design for buildings classification? Need proof that its adequate. NFPA 13 3. Water tank level gauge for the sprinkler system needs to be repaired to show it is full. NFPA 13 4. Lockout devices are needed for breakers # 31 and # 1 in the fire alarm panel room. NFPA 72 5. Electrical panel needs to be fully labeled. NFPA 70 6. 1 hour fire rating is required for the apparatus bay in the addition below the place of assembly NFPA 101:6.1.14.4.1 7. All flammable liquids need to be stored in approved containers and in cabinets. 8. Both exit paths need to be access directly outside and meet a 1 hour rating. Both exits currently go through hazardous areas as well. Front exit goes through a vehicle bay, 2nd exit goes through an electrical service area. NFPA 101:7.1.3.2.1 Note: Per Eric, the Safety Committee supports our moving forward with mitigating our safety concerns noted here as well as our air quality concerns and hazardous conditions.
Septic Findings Floodplain 1. As the topography suggests and your photos document in recent history the village is subject to flooding including the property behind the existing Fire Station. Obviously if you were to build in this area you would want to be sure to construct the building above the floodplain. However even with a building built at the same elevation as the existing station the facility is subject to being flooded around. This is not a great characteristic in siting a emergency services facility. What happens in a larger storm event? I would think the threat of flooding would be a factor used to evaluate sites. I am sure this has been discussed by the committee. 2. Related to the above, in order to build on the property behind the station you will need to fill in the existing depression to raise the elevation of the pad site. By doing this you are filling flood storage and should really be considering compensatory storage in the vicinity. This may not be easy to achieve given the scarcity of land in the area. Septic (Placement, Sizing, Etc.) 3. Location of existing wells in all directions will be desired to plan an expansion at this site. Being a historical village area there are a lot of non-conforming pre-existing conditions, which the state will take into consideration. I looked up the church and it is NHDES Public Water Supply, which the state monitors. I would expect they would be encouraged if a new system was installed. 4. Ideally the system for a facility like this would be above the floodplain so it functioned in flood conditions. Some towns would require this, but I am unaware of any local septic requirements in New Boston.
Recommend
More recommend
