I still have not had a response to this. This construction should have already begun and we have a contractor who is waiting for the go ahead. It has been more than two months since we met and we are no closer to resolving this matter. I would appreciate an informative reply.

 

 

 

Gerry – As mentioned earlier over the phone, please see below the e-mail from Nancy Malool – BA for Long Hill Township, asking what type of permit would the Township need to do the paving on Oaks Road. Oaks Road has a section that is gravel. And under proposed conditions, this road will be curbed and paved, and storm water will be discharging from two proposed headwalls that will ultimately drain into our existing culvert under the Gladstone Line track at MP 30.19.

The Township sent us a drainage report that we have requested. This report is still under review. Meanwhile please answer Nancy’s question listed below about the type of permit needed.  

 

Thanks,

Moussa

 

 

Is this really necessary? Based on Paul’s email below, we would be looking at spending a substantial amount of money and I don’t even know if we will get the permit in the end. In fact, we still don’t know what type of permit we are being required to get.

 

 

I will have to get authorization for this work.  I am anticipating in excess of $15,000.  Adding numbers to the contour lines is simple and is just a matter of freeing up the labels from the public domain data.  Revising the plan sheets as requested will result in a series of maps that all need to be knitted together since it is not possible to show the area from the road to the railroad at the same scale as the road.  Alternatively, the map will be at a scale similar to the drainage area maps.  Adding all the existing pipes and catch basins is a couple of weeks for a survey crew at $1000+ a day.  Then it all needs to be drafted up.

 

 

 

 

Paul,

 

This is a request for more documentation. The main reason for the comment is that NJ TRANSIT would like to see how the storm water will be traveling, in other words the path of travel, on Sheet 14 from both proposed flared end sections, all the way down to our existing culvert. To do that, the match line will have to be on a separate added sheet in order to free up some space to be used for the requested contours information. Both Sheets 14 and added Sheet 15 should also show the railroad track and our existing culvert.  We believe 5 foot contour interval will be sufficient. Also the contours should be numbered. The contours on the drainage area maps in the report, both pre and post developed, were not numbered.

 

Also, as mentioned below, please show on Sheet 1 of 1 Pre-Development Drainage Area: All existing pipes, existing catch basins, and existing headwalls/FES.

And on Sheet 1 of 1 Post-Development Drainage Area: All proposed pipes, proposed catch basins, and proposed headwalls/FES.

 

Please note that we are in the process in reviewing the drainage report that you have sent over.  

 

Thanks,

Moussa  

 

 

 

Jauhara, et. al.

 

I have some questions on the email below.

 

First, has it yet been determined what permit is required for the project and what forms need to be submitted?  We were expecting that as a follow up to our meeting.

 

Second, I need more guidance on the requests below.   The original documents were sent overnight from my office on 2/6.  On 2/21 we received the comments below.  I can’t tell if the comments relate to the inability to read the drawings (match line comment) or simply a request for more documentation.  Perhaps if I knew the question to be answered, I could better answer it.  The comment on revising the match line will necessitate redoing the drawings.  All the information is already there.  I am reluctant to redo the drawings because then we will have one set of drawings for construction (the contractor bid on these and will work from them) and another set of plans for Transit review.  I can, of course, do that.  It is likely to be a couple of days’ worth of work or $1200-$2500 cost.  The additional survey information is far more difficult.  The drainage area is 38 acres.  All the topography is shown on that map with a 5 foot contour interval.  If you require 2 foot contours and location of the drainage systems as implied below, it could be $20,000+ worth of survey work.

 

Please let me know what the object here is.

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

Paul,

 

I have looped in our engineering team for comment.

 

Jauhara

 

 

I am not sure I can be very responsive to this request. It will require survey and mapping of the entire drainage area, revision of all the construction drawings, etc. I will have come up with a cost and see if the township will authorize the work. 

Paul,

 

Below are the comments for the calculations you submitted. Should you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me.

 

Sheet 14 of 14: Starting from the proposed flared end section at Oaks Road, Station 3+33: The existing grades and contours lines (existing topo) should be shown on this entire sheet from Oaks Road all the way down to the existing culvert inlet. Also, it will make it easier to read this drawing, if the match line is on another and separate sheet say Sheet 15.

Sheet 14 of 14: Starting from the propsed headwall where Oaks Road meets Semerad Road, the existing grades and contours lines (existing topo) should be shown on this entire sheet from this headwall all the way down to the existing culvert inlet. As mentioned above, it will make it easier to read this drawing, if the match line is on another sheet say Sheet 15.

Sheet 1 of 1 Pre-Development Drainage Area: All existing pipes, existing catch basins, and existing headwalls/FES should be shown on this sheet.

Sheet 1 of 1 Post-Development Drainage Area: All proposed pipes, proposed catch basings, and proposed headwalls/FES should be shown on this sheet. 

 

 

Jauhara Pressey

Regional Manager

Office of Government & Community Relations

[email address]

(p) 973-491-8927

(c) 973-468-5036

(f) 973-609-1710

NJ TRANSIT

One Penn Plaza East, 9th Floor

Newark, NJ 07105

<ATT42953 1.jpg>