HomeMy WebLinkAboutWD-95-861�
J/ , 6 d)
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE �7`
REPORT File #
Res. #
By -Law #
THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 17, 1986.
FILE #:
UNAUTHORIZED ALTERING OF THE ROAD ALLOWANCE
BETWEEN LOTS 32 & 33, CONCESSION 5,
FORMER DARLINGTON TOWNSHIP (LANGMAID ROAD)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended:
1. That Report WD -95 -86 be received; and,
2. That Report WD -78 -86 be lifted from the table and dealt with.
....2
Page 2
Report No. WD -95 -86
On October 6, 1986, Report WD -78 -86 was brought to the General Purpose &
Administration Committee for consideration. Report WD -78 -86 is attached.
After some discussions, the report was tabled until the question of
liability was explored and until a design could be formulated relating to
what exactly could be and what should be done along with the associated
costs for same. Attached is a copy of a report submitted by the Town's
consultant addressing the engineering aspects of what alternatives are
available. The associated costs also proposed by the Town's consultants are
presented as an addendum to their report.
The cheapest acceptable alternative in both areas of discussion is that of
removing the existing pipe and reinstating the roadside ditches.
On Page 3, three alternatives and the relative merits of each are outlined
for the northern (Geissberger) installation. The cost of the preferred
alternative is $9,500.00 including $500.00 for erosion protection and does
not include the cost of constructing gravel shoulders.
On Page 4, two alternatives and 'the relative merits of each are outlined for
the southern (Reid) installation. The lowest cost is attached to
alternative 2 and is estimated at $20,000.00 including $8,000.00 for erosion
protection and does not include the cost of gravel shoulders.
If cost sharing were to be considered, it is suggested that the cost of the
granular shoulders and the actual erosion control (rip rap) for the ditches
might be considered appropriate for the Town to assume.
...3
Page 3
Report No. WD -95 -86
A concern for consideration associated with the aspect of cost sharing is
that of setting a precedent which causes the Municipality to expend funds in
areas that are perhaps not identified as having as high a priority as
others. The cost of installing a piped storm sewer system in a rural
environment may not be deemed appropriate by the Municipality when there is
such a need to pipe the drainage systems within various urban areas within
the Town of Newcastle.
The Town's insurance agent was contacted with respect to the Committee's
concern regarding liability associated with having private home owners
construct on Town property. The following is a summary of the agent's
comments:
If the construction activity should cause an accident due to the
constructor's negligence, the liability is theoretically his, however, the
municipality would likely be named and may be dragged into the situation.
If the unauthorized construction which took place is such that it would not
have been acceptable to the Town, had the necessary approvals been sought,
and if said construction is alleged to have contributed to a situation which
resulted in an action against the Municipality, and if theTown was not
actively pursuing the correction of the situation, it may be argued that the
Municipality was negligent in its responsibility.
GJO:jco
November 12, 1986.
Respectfully submitted,
Gordon J. gh, P. Eng.,
Director of Public Works.
ri
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
REPORT
hEETING: THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1986.
REPORT #: WD -78 -86 FILE #:
SLRECT:
UNAUTHORIZED ALTER OF A ROAD ALLOWANCE
BETWEEN LOTS 32 & 33, CONCESSION 5, DARLINGTON (LANGMAID ROAD)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended:
File It
Res. #
By -Law #
1. That Report WD -78 -86 be received; and,
2. That the affected residents of Langmaid Road be directed to arrange for
the removal of the pipe and any related structures from the municipal
ditch and the restoration of the ditch to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works by May 1, 1987; and,
3. That the affected residents on Langmaid Road be informed that if the
pipe removal and ditch restoration is not completed by May 1, 1987,
that the Town will affect the removal and restoration at their expense.
....2
t
Page 2
Report No. WD -78 -86
Two property owners on Langmaid Road, north of Taunton Road and south of
Concession Road 6, have installed concrete pipe in the roadside ditch and
filled the ditch without the permission or prior knowledge of the Public
Works Department. A third resident just south of the first two installed
concrete pipe in the roadside ditch without permission or prior knowledge of
the Public Works Department and is now awaiting direction with regard to the
filling in of the ditch to cover the pipe. A fourth resident has expressed
a desire to install pipe and fill in the ditch similar to what his
neighbours have done and is awaiting a decision on the fate of the pipe work
already in place. See attached map for general locations.
In the case of the most northerly two properties, the lay of the land is
such that water drains off their property and onto the road where it used to
drain into the roadside ditch. The water then travels down the hill on ;the
road causing erosion of gravel along the edge of the road and will continue
to contribute to dangerous ice conditions. The lack of a proper roadside
ditch also prevents the..road base from draining properly and this is often
the cause of premature deterioration of the road surface.
There has been no design of the pipe sizes to ensure their adequate capacity
and the installation procedures are not acceptable. The pipe that is still
exposed was not laid to a constant grade which will cause the joints to be
partially open, was installed much too high (in one area it appears that
earth will have to be bermed up over the pipe just to cover it; there will
be no frost protection), was installed with no bedding material and the
quality of the pipe is questionable (they appear to be seconds with cracks,
etc.).
....3
Page 3
Report No. WD -78 -86
The property owners are commended for wishing to spend their own money to do
work on municipal property for what they considered were improvements. Had
they contacted the Public Works Department prior to installation, it is
presumed that some improvements could have been carried out which would have
satisfied some or all of their concerns as well as the Town's.
It is staff's position that to allow the pipe and grading to remain would be
accepting the liability of maintaining a poorly designed and installed storm
sewer which will require some alteration and possibly removal within the
next few years.
If the property owners involved wished to retain the services of a
consulting engineer to properly design the storm water management system,
submit the plans to the Public Works Department for approval, and to supply
letters of credit, etc., with respect to the proper installation and
guarantee of said system, they could propose to enter into an agreement with
the Town for this work.
Since fall weather is unpredictable and time is running out on the
construction season, and because men and equipment are not very available
due to the push to prepare for winter, it is recommended that a deadline be
set as late as May 1, 1987, for the removal of the pipe and restoration of
the municipal ditch.
Respectfully submitted,
Gordon J. Ough, P. Eng.,
Director of Public Works.
GJO:jco
September 29, 1986.
�f
� �J
0
4
A
CONSULTANTS
totters sires hubicki associates
Mr. G.J. Ough, P.Eng.,
Director,
Public Works Department,
Corporation of the Town of Newcastle,
Municipal Office,
HAMPTON, Ontario.
LOB 1JO
November 11, 1986
Dear Sir:
JG
EN Sc . P Eng
B Sc P Eng
B.A Sc . P Eng
O ER M Sc , P Eng
L E B A Sc P Eng
KS U S HUBICKI ASSOCIATES 11981) LIMITED
REET EAST P.O. BOX 398, COBOURG
K9A 4L1 1416) 372 -2121
Re: Langmaid Road, Piping of Road Drainage Ditches, Lots 32/33, Concession 5,
Darlington, Corporation of the Town of Newcastle.
As per your request, we have prepared cost estimates for the various alternatives
indicated in our report on the above matter dated October 29, 1986. As per the
notation of the report, the following estimates apply:
Geissberger Installation
Alternative l: $ 9,500.00
Alternative 2: 42,000.00
Alternative 3: 4,200.00
Reid Installation
Alternative 1: $42,000.00
Alternative 2: 20,000.00
The above costs assume the work will be undertaken by contract and are estimated
at anticipated 1987 construction costs. The separate estimates do not include
for granular shoulder construction as we suggest this is a road maintenance matter
which would be paid for by the Town and would be constructed for the full length
of the affected properties and those in between on both sides of the road. We
estimate approximately 800 metres of shoulder construction at a cost of $16,000.00.
An allowance for design and supervision of approximately 10% has been included in
the separate estimates. If the alternatives involving ditch restoration are pro-
ceeded with, design and supervision costs would be minimal.
cont`d ..... 2
Mr. G.J. Ough, P.Eng.
...2
November 11, 1986
We trust these estimates are sufficient for your purposes at this time.
Yours truly,
D.R. Bourne,
Projects Manager.
`;., r RAK/ l b
U
X
CONSULTANTS
•' M
Mr. G.J. Ough, P.Eng.,
Director,
Public Works Department,
Corporation of the Town of Newcastle,
Municipal Office,
HAMPTON, Ontario.
LOB 1JO
October 29, 1986
Dear Sir:
�Y �, (P)
G.L. TOTTEN B.Sc., P.Eng.
R.E. SIMS B.A.Sc., P.Eng.
J.M. HUBICKI B.A.Sc., OAA, P.Eng,
R.L. WINDOVER M.Sc., P.Eng.
P.C. EBERLEE B.A.Sc., P.Eng.
TOTTEN SIMS HUBICKI ASSOCIATES (1981) LIMITED
to KING STREET EAST P.O. BOX 398, COBOURG
ONTARIO CANADA K9A 4L1 (416) 372.2121
Re: Langmaid Road, Piping of Road Drainage Ditches, Lots 32/33, Concession 5,
Darlington, Corporation of the Town of Newcastle.
We have undertaken a review of the existing storm drainage system particularly
the east ditch, at the subject location. Certain property owners abutting the
road have placed pipe in the roadside ditch contrary to Town policy and with-
out the prior approval of Municipal staff. We have been requested to report
on problems that could result from the installation and to provide solutions
that could be considered reasonable and acceptable to all parties.
Our report is submitted herewith. Reference should be made to the attached
sketch during your review of this report. Site photographs are also enclosed
for information. Refer to the back of the print for location of view.
Existing Condition -
Concrete pipe has been installed at two locations. To the north, some 172
metres of piping has been installed from the Lloyd property to the Geissberger
property. Some open ditch still fronts the Lloyd and Geissberger homes. We
understand this pipe was installed a number of years ago. The pipe is 375 mm
diameter concrete pipe has been laid at shallow depth (300 - 450 mm cover),
presumably to the original ditch invert. The pipe has not been backfilled in
front of the Lloyd property. Pipe class and condition are unknown. It is not
known if entrance culverts were removed when concrete pipe was installed. No
alternative arrangement to control runoff from the road surface or the land to
the east has been provided with the removal of the ditch. There are no ob-
vious signs of any serious erosion problems. Longitudinal cracking of the
existing prime surface is visible at several locations. A hole has been bro-
ken through the top of the pipe in at least two locations to provide inlets
for surface water.
cont'd ..... 2
v�- 6 C�)
Mr. G.J. Ough, P.Eng.
...2
October 29, 1986
Further south a 375 mm diameter concrete pipe has been recently placed in the
ditch fronting the Reid property and ending just short of the entrance to the
Murkle property. The pipe has not been backfilled and no signs of bedding
material are visible. Approximately 110 metres of pipe have been laid with a
1.2 m dia. precast concrete manhole structure located about 60 metres from the
north end of the pipe. Beyond the road ditch (on Reid property) the ground is
depressed to the east. No runoff from the Reid property reaches the road
ditch. The area immediately east of the pipe installation is heavily over-
grown with tall weeds in marked contrast to the adjacent lawn.
The entrance culvert at the Murkle property to the south is a 600 mm CSP.
Signs of erosion are visible and are ongoing particularly at the road cross -
culvert (0.55 x 0.90 C.S.P.A.) south of the Murkle entrance. Visible damage
to the road surface has occurred at the exit end of the culvert and in the
outlet ditch beyond.
The road shoulder is gravel and raised above the level of the road throughout
the length of the subject area. This condition prevents road surface water
from draining to the adjacent ditch. It is assumed the road was constructed
with earth shoulders from the level of the road subgrade thus preventing
drainage of the subsurface level of the road to the roadside ditch. This
criteria is no longer in effect in current construction practices.
Improperly placed pipes of substantial length and within frost levels cause
perpetual summer and winter maintenance problems.
Discussion -
For the purpose of simplicity our review will separately cover the two instal-
lations and for reference purposes these shall be referred to as the Geiss-
berger and Reid installations utilizing the names of the property owners which
the works front.
1. Geissberger Installation
Piping of the open ditch in this area has not created any major problems in
regards to damage to the existing road. There are no signs of any significant
erosion and the longitudinal cracking of the road surface mentioned earlier
cannot be attributed solely to the piping of the ditch. This same cracking
also occurs in areas where ditching still exists and is more likely caused by
poor road base conditions and lack of drainage by the earth shoulders, matters
which are better reviewed through a soils investigation.
cont'd ..... 3
Mr. G.J. Ough, P.Eng.
...3
October 29, 1986
In addition, it was noted that even in areas where ditches have not been
piped, a grass 'berm' of sorts exists along the edge of pavement effectively
barring road surface runoff from reaching the ditch except under heavy rain-
fall conditions. This will retain water on the road surface and will undoubt-
edly aggravate icing problems but should not be of major concern at other
times of the year. In our opinion, no detriment to the existing road has been
occasioned by the piping of the ditch other than control of surface runoff.
We propose the following alternate solutions in order of preference. Cost has
not been considered.
1. Remove existing pipe and reinstate road ditches and entrance culverts with
construction of a proper granular shoulder one metre wide. Ditch to be
sodded and other erosion protection placed as required.
2. Remove existing pipe and install a new pipe to design depth and grade with
proper frost cover. This in essence would be similar to a standard storm
sewers. Construct a granular shoulder with a swale on the line of the new
pipe and with sufficient ditch inlets to control runoff. Remove existing
uncovered pipe fronting Lloyd's property and commence installation at this
entrance.
3. Leave resent i e in
p p p position and install ditch inlets and a granular
shoulder with a shallow swale over the pipe. Remove uncovered pipe at
Lloyd's property.
Analysis of Solution 1
This is not the cheapest of the three solutions but it is the most effective
from a drainage viewpoint. The main disadvantage is the reinstatement of a
ditch which adjacent homeowners by their actions apparently want removed.
Analysis of Solution 2
Most expensive solution but will provide an answer to the Town's concerns on
control of surface runoff and road stability while providing the property
owners with their aim of removing the ditch.
Analysis of Solution 3
Appears to be the cheapest of the solutions with main disadvantages being the
lack of frost cover and the unknown quality of the existing installation vis-
a-vis pipe strength, proper bedding and potential for damage by road traffic.
Ongoing maintenance will be required.
cont'd ..... 4
c l 6W)
Mr. G.J. Ough, P.Eng.
...4
October 29, 1986
Reid Installation
Being at the south limits of the drainage area, the ditch fronting the Reid
property carries considerable flow at higher velocities. Erosion damage is
evident in the ditch. In addition, the depth of the ditch at the south limits
of the Reid property precludes easy maintenance by way of grass cutting with
the result that the area beyond the road ditch has unsightly growth.
South of the Murkle entrance the existing outlet ditch is eroded as is an area
at the road cross culvert outlet. The road shoulder has collapsed at the
cross culvert and damage to road asphalt has occurred. No other evidence of
road distress is apparent. Note that preliminary calculations indicated that
the 375 mm diameter pipe at existing road grade will handle a five year design
storm for the total area draining to the road ditch.
We propose the following alternate solutions in order of preference:
Analysis of Solution 1
Most expensive of two solutions proposed. Will provide best protection
against future erosion, will enable area to be graded to handle road runoff
and provide for some form of landscaping to improve appearance and access for
maintenance beyond the present ditch line.
Analysis of Solution 2
Main disadvantage is from the property owner's viewpoint in that the ditch
will remain. The ditch presents difficulties to maintenance operations (i.e.
grass cutting). Erosion protection should ensure ditch stability and remove
unstability of road embankment at road cross culvert south of Murkle entrance.
cont'd ..... 5
1. In an effort to eliminate the present erosion problems, improve the
appearance of the area and to provide for control of runoff, it is
suggested the existing pipe be removed and the required class of pipe
placed with proper bedding and frost cover in accordance with good storm
sewer design. Construct swale on line of pipe, construct 1 metre wide
granular shoulder and install ditch inlets at four locations. Continue
pipe beyond Murkle entrance. Extend road cross culvert, reconstruct
shoulder and provide riprap protection in the outfall ditch and as
required in the constructed swale fronting Reid's property.
2. Remove pipes and reinstate road ditch with sod and riprap protection as
required. Extend road culvert south of Murkle entrance, reinstate shoul-
der and provide riprap protection at Murkle entrance culvert and outfall
ditch. Construct granular shoulder.
Analysis of Solution 1
Most expensive of two solutions proposed. Will provide best protection
against future erosion, will enable area to be graded to handle road runoff
and provide for some form of landscaping to improve appearance and access for
maintenance beyond the present ditch line.
Analysis of Solution 2
Main disadvantage is from the property owner's viewpoint in that the ditch
will remain. The ditch presents difficulties to maintenance operations (i.e.
grass cutting). Erosion protection should ensure ditch stability and remove
unstability of road embankment at road cross culvert south of Murkle entrance.
cont'd ..... 5
Mr. G.J. Ough, P.Eng.
October 29, 1986
...5
At this time, we do not feel our comments should detail matters of pipe bed-
ding material, pipe class and granular shoulder construction details. When a
decision is taken on the preferred solution, details will then be resolved.
We trust you find our review of assistance in this matter.
Yours truly,
D.R. Bourne,
Projects Manager.
RAK /lb
Em
I
0
r-
0
IN
GO p-
A tj
�h z
�n
L
Z
b
d rn
n
-i
0
9
i�
0
0
c
r
G
I�
0
T
I�
!9
�P
�X
!9
�x
iC
0
z
D
A p
p
5
Im �N 'S
c����. 10 p�
g r c
p Ip P S ¢ R
U1
nR
G
GO p-
A tj
�h z
�n
L
Z
b
d rn
n
-i
0
9
i�
0
0
c
r
G
I�
0
T
I�
!9
�P
�X
!9
�x
iC
0
z
D
A p
p
5
Im �N 'S
c����. 10 p�
g r c
p Ip P S ¢ R
U1
nR
G
n
-i
0
9
i�
0
0
c
r
G
I�
0
T
I�
!9
�P
�X
!9
�x
iC
0
z
D
A p
p
5
Im �N 'S
c����. 10 p�
g r c
p Ip P S ¢ R
U1
nR
G
g r c
p Ip P S ¢ R
U1
nR
G