HomeMy WebLinkAbout03958cp
1 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT
jrJ 109 8th Street Suite 303
�t/�/1(\'/t7"61I
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
�/ ��i /u/ Phone (303) 945-8212
Lo
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT
PROPERTY ,,�1
-ccg Log " rya -yowl yip£ A
Owner's Name /-tO'Wa 1114- * Present Address X t J �!Qu--.*.1/47 CbB hone ?de) 22�
System Location _2 d7 to-er4� �i?, 24S1 ..) CALMS, �-7�
f)-1 (/l..l - -25 oZ -(/� "1 v�7
Permit N2 3 9 5 8
Assessor's Parcel No.
This does not constitute
a building or use permit.
Legal Description of Assessor's Parcel No
SYSTEM DESIGN
/25-O Septic Tank Capacity (gallon) Other
25
Percolation Rate (minutes/inch) Number of Bedrooms (or other) ` FE gal . QA: (-C .
Required Absorption Area - See Attached
Special Setback Requirements:
Date Inspector
FINAL SYSTEM INSPECTION AND APPROVAL (as installed)
Call for Inspection (24 hours notice) Before Covering Installation
System Installer (/�
Septic Tank Capacity )250 — \ e?Eli8-sa_p
Sr -r, Et/Logi-IA) Pry )
/71- 11.2003
Septic Tank Manufacturer or Trade Name
Septic Tank Access within 8" of surface
Absorption Area
Absorption Area Type and/or Manufacturer or Trade Name
Adequate compliance with County and State regulations/requirements
Other
Marl"
zCO3
Date 1r I� 1 1 l Inspector 444_,r rr-G,
(L ?E
RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS AT CONSTRUCTION SITE
*CONDITIONS:
1. All installation must comply with all requirements of the Colorado State Board of Health Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Chapter
25, Article 10 C.R.S. 1973, Revised 1984.
2. This permit is valid only for connection to structures which have fully complied with County zoning and building requirements. Con-
nection to or use with any dwelling or structures not approved by the Building and Zoning office shall automatically be a violation or a
requirement of the permit and cause for both legal action and revocation of the permit.
3. Any person who constructs,alters, or installs an individual sewage disposal system in a manner which involves a knowing and material
variation from the terms or specifications contained in the application of permit commits a Class I, Petty Offense ($500.00 fine— 6
months in jail or both).
White - APPLICANT Yellow - DEPARTMENT
OWNER
ADDRESS
CONTRACTOR
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE QISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION
Robert N. Mayo
2095 County Road 245
Ncw Caotic, co, 81647
ADDRESS
PHONE 984 — 2737
PHONE
PERMIT REQUEST FOR (1) NEW INSTALLATION ( ) ALTERATION ( ) REPAIR
Attach separate sheets or report showing entire area with respect to surrounding areas, topography of area, habitable
building, location of potable water wells, soil percolation
LOCATION OF PROPOSED FACILITY:
Near what City of Town New Castle
Legal Description or Address 2095 Cty Rd 245 ,
( ) DWELLING
( ) COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL
WASTES TYPE:
test holes, soil profiles in test holes (See page 4).
Size of Lot 66 acres
N.C.
Colo.
( X ) TRANSIENT USE
( ) NON-DOMESTIC WASTES
(X) OTHER -DESCRIBE Cleaning and Steralization of tools,
copplying with OSHA and CWA rules.
BUILDING OR SERVICE TYPE:
Number of Bedrooms None Number of Persons
( ) Garbage Grinder
( ) Automatic Washer ( ) Dishwasher
various
SOURCE AND TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: (X) WELL ( ) SPRING ( ) STREAM OR CREEK
If supplied by Community Water, give name of supplier:
DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM: 2 mile s
Was an effort made to connect to the Community System? Not at this time .
A site plan is required to be sub'mjtted that indicates the following MINIMUM distances:
Leach Field to Well: %i✓te, 100 feet
Septic Tank to Well: 50 feet �C�
Leach Field to Irrigation Ditches, Stream or Water Course:/ ,5 50 feet C eroza
Septic System (septic tank & disposal field) to Property Lines: 10 feet
YOUR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSUED WITHOUT
A SITE PLAN.
GROUND CONDITIONS:
Depth to first Ground Water Table 20 feet est.
Percent Ground Slope less than 1%
TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROPOSED:
2
(g) SEPTIC TANK
( 3 "VAULT PRIVY
( ) PIT ' VY
(
FINAL DIS
8 +:4119
( ) UNDERGROUN 1 DISP : ' AL
Ire .# 1 FILTER
e
VE GRO I ' w fir.
WASTEWATER POND
( ) 0 RIBE�
( ) AERATION PLANT
( ) VAULT
( ) COMPOSTING TOILET RECYCLING, POTABLE USE
( ) INCINERATION TOILET ( ) RECYCLING, OTHER USE
TOILET( ) OTHER -DESCRIBE
TION
WILL EFFLUENT
STATE?
BE DISCHARGE
DIRE
ER
Registered P ofes tonal
Min
Minutes (
OF
L ION Kr ALT : (To completed by
�lation Test)
•
Our Pere Test in ( )
er inch in hole NO. 3
er inch in hole NO.
address
in hole No. 1
r inch in hole No. 2
Minutes
elephone of who made soil absorption tests: RnhP
M-'Yn 9F'i 2737
ame, address and telephone of4Wsponsible for design of the system: Robert N. Mayo 984 2737
Applicant acknowledges that the completeness of the application is conditional upon such further mandatory and
additional tests and reports as may be required by the local health department to be made and furnished by the applicant
or by the local health department for purposed of the evaluation of the application; and the issuance of the permit is
subject to such terms and conditions as deemed necessary to insure compliance with rules and regulations made,
information and reports submitted herewith and required to be submitted by the applicant are or will be represented to
be true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and are designed to be relied on by the local department of
health in evaluati - ame for purposes of issuing the permit applied for herein. I further understand that any
falsificati I ' • r misrep - result in the denial of the application or revocation of any permit granted based
upon .. d appf A ti • . d _ ' on for perjury as provided by law.
Aga/ '
ivaiadO
Signed
PLEASE DRAW AN ACCURATE MAP TO YOUR PROPERTY!!
3
March 28, 2004
Mary L. Meisner, Garco PHN
902 Taughenbaugh, Suite 104
Rifle, Co., 81650
Dear Mrs Meisner:
In reply to your Letters of February 20 and March 19, we respect-
fully submit the following;
1. Your letter of February 20 didnot indicate anti suspense
dates, or indicate any sense of urgency. We consulted outside advise,
and concluded that your intension was to allow us to proceed with the
nonuse statis untill such time as we determined the course of action
we had outlined in our testimony at your hearing.
2. As you will note, a completed application and the rules for
submission, and execution are included in this letter, and we ask you
to note that the County will not accept applications that are not in
conjunction with a building permit. As we have tried to explain to
you this fact on several occasions and you have choose to ignore, we
do not have a clue on who will be responsible for issuing the permit.
The permit fee is also included, so that you will be able to see we
are serious about this matter.
3. In the rules there is sufficient data so that even an un-
educated person like myself, could properly install and operate a
I.S.D.S. with out assistance. It further -supports our contention
that your engineer had no intension of inspection or approval of our
system and lied in his testamony at your hearing. We can only surmise
that it was your intention to recognize the inconsistences and try
to arrive at an equitable solution, which could allow both parties
to accept.
4. We assume that you have sufficient expertise to make an
inspection, and accept our assurances that the system will not be
used in any way, until such time as you are fully satisfied that
we have in no way endangered the public which is the whole purpose
of these rules and regulations. We would also like to note that
your office is not listed as an authority in the rules, and we wonder
about this. It makes these rules ambiguous, vague and uninforcable,
according to law, (our legal counsel), and his advice was to appeal,
but we felt it was counter to the best interests of the citizens.
5. We feel we cannot accept Mr. Schwaller as either an expect,
or unbised observer, as he has already testified in court that this
entire action by the County Building Department is about power and
money, and nothing has changed since that time.
6. We are considering recording all calls and conversations,
to preclude the recurrence of facts being altered and forceing us
into defensesive positions we donot desire.
7. We are still collecting data and facts to support court
proceedings which may or - inc ••e -t s matter. Our legal
advice was not to warn b i wiS e1,KFe must be honest and forth
right and do so. c.
Robert N. Mayo, 2495 Cty Rd 245, NC, 81647
e. Garfield County
BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mr. Robert N. Mayo
2095 County Road 245
New Castle, CO. 81647
November 9, 2004
Re: Septic Permit
Dear Mr. Mayo:
Enclosed is a copy of the permit # 3958 for a septic system located on your property. I
believe we mailed the receipt and bottom tag for permit # 3958 to you last May. The
bottom tag is the actual permit allowing work to be done at a construction site. The upper
portion of the permit shows both the system design and final system inspection and
approval. With an engineered system, you probably have the system design by Cronk
Construction Incorporated in your file. If this is not the case please contact this office
and a copy of the engineered report can be provided to you. Thank you for your
compliance to the sewage disposal requirements. Please call if you have any questions.
Yours truly,
Andrew Schwaller
Building Official
cc F"bo* ,„i CH.s,r
108 8th Street, Suite 201, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(970) 945-8212 (970) 285-7972 Fax: (970) 384-3470
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
R NK
CONSTRUCTION
INCORPORATED
1129 -24 Road
• Grand Junction, CO 81505
970.245-0577,970.257-7453 (fax)
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM DESIGN
Date: May 11, 2003
Prepared by: Thomas A. Cronk, P.E.
Cronk Construction Inc.
1129 -24- Road
Grand Junction, CO 81505
245-0577
Type of Design: agricultural structure
Owner:
Robert N. Mayo
2095 County Road 245
New Castle, CO 81647
970-984-2737
Property address: 2095 County Road 245, New Castle, CO 81647
Tax schedule No.:
Legal Descript:
Page 1 of 6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.0 Site 'History
An individual sewage disposal system was installed at 2095 County Road, 245, New Castle, CO 81647.
As based on material invoices, the ISDS was installed during the Spring, of 2002. The ISDS serves an
agricultural building and was installed without an ISDS pennit as issued from Garfield County.
At the request of Garfield County officials, the owner (Mr. Robert N. Mayo) has retained the services of
Mr. Thomas A. Crank, Colorado registered professional engineer (R.P.E.), to inspect the existing ISDS.
The inspection is meant to determine if the existing ISDS affords compliance with Garfield County
regulations and requirements.
The site consists of approximately 3.61 acres of cultivated native soil. Drainage is approximately 3% to
the east. A site visit was conducted by Mr. Thomas A. Cronk (R.P.E.) on 05/05/04. At the request of
Mr. Cronk and previous to the 05/05/04 site visit, Mr. Mayo had exposed the septic tank and ends of the
absorption field of the existing ISDS as well as prepared perc test/soils evaluation excavations. During
the site visit the existing ISDS was inspected with physical characteristics documented through creation
of an as -built drawing. A perc test/soils evaluation was conducted to evaluate subsoil conditions and
determine the treatment/disposal capacity of the existing ISDS. The locations of the soils observation
excavation and the perc test pits are shown on the attached plot plan. Results of the 05/05/04 site
inspection and a discussion of the effective capacity of the existing ISDS follow. The 05/05/04 perc
results are attached for reference as Appendix A.
2.0 Development of Design Parameters
A soils observation excavation trench was extended to a depth of 96" below ground surface (BGS).
There was no evidence of ground water or high seasonal water table in the open excavation to a depth of
96" BGS. The soils evaluation indicates two distinct soil horizons underlie the site. A lithological
description follows:
depth (in.) description
0" - 36" silty clay, gray; hard and blocky
36" - 96" gravel to cobbles to boulders in gray to brown silty clay matrix
As based on the 05/05/04 perc tests (Appendix A), a design perc rate of 25 min/in. is deemed appropriate
for evaluation of the capacity of the existing ISDS.
Page 2 of 6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3.0 Evaluation of Svstem Design
A INFILTRATOR absorption field has been constructed at the site. The absorption field consists of two
rows of INFILTRATORS installed in a trench configuration of six (6) INFILTRATORS each. The
absorption field was installed level from end-to-end with depth of cover over the infiltrators ranging from
20" to 26" as dictated by existing site topography. Site topography and final landscape grading will
afford adequate drainage away from the absorption area. The absorption field as observed was
constructed in accordance with INFILTRATOR guidelines and manufacturer's recommendations.
Additionally, the absorption field as constructed appears to afford compliance with Garfield County and
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) regulations and requirements.
Thomas A. Cronk (R.P.E.) observed the installed INFILTRATOR absorption field and documented
physical characteristics of the absorption field through creation of an as -built drawing during the
05/05/04 site visit.
As documented by construction receipts furnished by Mr. Mayo, the septic tank installed for the project
is a 1,250 gallon one piece concrete tank obtained from Copeland Concrete Inc. The tank as constructed
is consistent with two compartment CDPHE septic tank requirements. Construction receipts indicate
effluent piping is four (4) inch SDR35 (ASTM 3034). Septic tank construction and effluent piping was
observed by Thomas A. Cronk, R.P.E., during the 05/05/04 site visit. Installation appeared to be
consistent with Garfield County and CDPHE regulations and requirements. The septic tank appeared
Level and stable. Effluent lines appeared to maintain a minimum of 2% (1/4" in 12") of fall from the
structure to the tank and hence to the absorption field.
As shown on the attached plot plan and as -built drawing, the ISDS as installed does not infringe on any
setback requirements as set forth in Garfield County or CDPHE regulations. Domestic water is supplied
to the structure from an on-site well located approximately 1000' south of the ISDS. The domestic water
line is in excess of 25' from the absorption area and in excess of 10' from the septic tank/effluent sewer
line. East Elk Creek lies approximately 140' east of the ISDS. Setbacks from the structure of 5'
minimum to the septic tank and 20' minimum to the absorption field are maintained. Finally, irrigation of
adjacent farm land has been controlled to maintain a minimum setback of 10' from intermittent irrigation
laterals to the absorption area.
As discussed above, INFILTRATOR absorption trenches have been installed to discharge septic effluent
to the underlying sub -soils. The absorption trenches consist of two (2) trenches 3' wide x 32" min. deep
x 37.5' long with six (6) standard INFILTRATOR units each for a total of twelve (12) INFILTRATORS.
The absorption field encompasses a gross area of 225 square feet with an effective area (31 sq. ft.
allowed area/INFILTRATOR) of 372 sq. ft. Under a designperc rate of 25 min/in., the existing
absorption field is capable of effectively treating and disposing of a peak sewage flow of 372 gallons per
day (average daily sewage flow of 248 gallons/day).
Calculations and design parameters used to size the absorption field follow.
Page 3 of 6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
BACK CALCULATION OF CAPACITY OF EXISTING ABSORPTION FIELD
ACTUAL INFILTRATION AREA OF 12 STANDARD INFILTRATORS @ 15.5 SQ. FT. EACH
ACTUAL INFILTRATION AREA = (12)(15.5) = 186 SQ. FT.
EFFECTIVE INFILTRATION AREA CALCULATED AS:
TRENCH INFILTRATOR ADJUSTMENT FACTOR OF 2.0 x ACTUAL INFILTRATION AREA
EFFECTIVE INFILTRATION AREA = (2.0)(186) = 372 SQ. FT.
CALCULATION OF PEAK SEWAGE FLOW AS:
Q - 5 ), WHERE,
Q = PEAK FLOW
A = EFFECTIVE INFILTRATION AREA
t = PERC TIME/INCH = 25.0 MIN.IINCH
Q = (5)(372) - 372 GALLONS PER DAY
25.0
AVERAGE FLOW CALCULATED AS:
AVERAGE FLOW - PEAK FLOW
1.5
AVERAGE FLOW = 372 - 248 GALLONS PER DAY
1.5
Page 4 of 6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
As stated'above, under a design pert rate of 25 min/in., the existing ISDS as installed is capable of
treating and disposing of 248 gallons per day of sewage waste (average daily flow). As stated by Mr.
Mayo, the proposed use of the agricultural building includes'/ bath services for the owner (Mr. Mayo)
and one part time employee. Additionally, a two compartment wash sink will be used to wash tools and
equipment used in the agricultural operations. Calculations of sewage loadings for these uses follows:
source
loading factor average daily sewage flow (gal/dav)
2 agricultural employees
(8hr. shift w/o shower) 20 gal/8-hr shift 40 gal/day
two compartment wash sink 10 gal/wash @ 2 washes/day 20 gal/day
Total Average Daily Flow 60 gal/day
The calculated daily average flow loading of 60 gal/day is well below the calculated disposal capacity of
the absorption area of 248 gal/day (average flow). Additionally, the 1,250 gallon septic tank is capable
of providing the required 30 hour retention time for a peak design sewage flow of 1,000 gal/day peak or
667 gal/day average flow. Again the septic tank volume is well in excess of the septic tank capacity
required for the calculated average flow loading of 60 gal/day.
In conclusion, the ISDS as installed and documented by the attached as -built drawing is adequate to treat
and dispose of a maximum average daily sewage loading of 248 gal/day. As based on the above
calculated sewage loadings for the proposed use of the agricultural building (i.e., 60 gal/day average
flow), the existing ISDS is more than adequate to serve the building and afford compliance with Garfield
County and CDPHE ISDS regulations and requirements.
4.0 Suggested Maintenance and Inspections Protocol for Operation of ISDS
It is suggested the owner consider and comply with the following operation, maintenance, and inspection
criteria to assure maximum life time and efficiency of the ISDS.
• The owner shall take precautions to prevent vehicular traffic, excessive surface watering,
accidental flooding, or other activities from compacting, saturating, or otherwise altering
the subsurface soil parameters used in designing the septic system.
• The owner will plant and maintain grass or other shallow rooted cover crop to prevent
erosion and promote evapotranspiration over the absorption field.
• The owner will inspect and maintain the required mounding and drainage away from the
absorption field to prevent saturation from precipitation and surface flows.
• The owner will inspect and prevent intrusion of burrowing animals and deep rooted
plants into the absorption field.
• The owner will conduct periodic maintenance of the septic system by removing
accumulated sludge from the septic tank every 3-4 years to prevent clogging of the
absorption field.
Page 5 of 6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5.0 Limitations
This report is a site specific evaluation and documentation an individual sewage disposal system and is
applicable only for the client for whom our work was performed. Use of this report under other
circumstances is not an appropriate application of this document. This report is a product of Cronk
Construction Incorporated and is to be taken in its entirety. Excerpts from this report may be taken out of
context and may not convey the true intent of the report. It is the owner's and owner's agents
responsibility to read this report and become familiar with the recommendations and conclusions
contained herein.
The recommendations and conclusions outlined in this report are based on: 1) the existing site
development and plot plan as furnished to Cronk Construction Incorporated by the client, and 2) the site
conditions disclosed at the specific time of the site investigation of reference. Cronk Construction
Incorporated assumes no liability for the accuracy or completeness of information furnished by the client.
Site conditions are subject to external environmental effects and may change over time. Use of this
document under different site conditions is inappropriate. If it becomes apparent that current site
conditions vary from those disclosed at the time of the site investigation, the author should be contacted
to develop any required revisions to this report. Cronk Construction Incorporated is not responsible and
accepts no liability for any variation in assumed design parameters.
Cronk Construction Incorporated represents this report has been prepared within the limits prescribed by
the owner and in accordance with the current accepted practice of the civil engineering profession in the
area. No warranty or representation either expressed or implied is included or intended in this report or
in any of our contracts.
Thomas A. Cronk, P.E.
c
Date /3 2
NOTE: This document is meant to include the following two pages of graphics including: 1) plot
plan, and 2) as -built drawing. The plan is not to be implemented in the absence of these related
graphics. In addition, results from the percolation test and soils evaluation are included for
reference as Appendix A.
Page 6 of 6
APPENDIX A
SOILS AND PERCOLATION REPORT
CRONK CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
RONK
CONSTRUCTION •
INCORPORATED
1129 -24- Road
Grand Junction, CO 81505
970.245.0577, 970.257.7453 (fax)
SOILS AND PERCOLATION REPORT
Date: May 5, 2004
Prepared by:
Client:
Thomas A. Cronlc, P.E.
1129 -24- Road
Grand Junction, CO 81505
245-0577
Robert Mayo
2095 County Road 245
New Castle, CO 81647
Property address: 2095 County Road 245, New Castle, CO 81647
Tax schedule No.:
Legal Descript.:
1.0 Soils Evaluation
The site consists of approximately 3.61 acres of cultivated native soil. Drainage is approximately 3% to the
east. A percolation test/soils evaluation was conducted on the property of reference on 05/05/04 by Tom A.
Cronk, registered professional engineer (R.P.E.). The locations of the soils observation excavation and the
pert test pits are shown on the attached plot plan.
A soils observation excavation trench was extended to a depth of 96" below ground surface (BGS). There
was no evidence of ground water or high seasonal water table in the open excavation to a depth of 96" BGS.
The soils evaluation indicates two distinct soil horizons underlie the site. A lithological description follows:
depth (in.) description
0" - 36" silty clay, gray; hard and blocky
36" - 96" gravel to cobbles to boulders in gray to brown silty clay matrix
Pere holes were constructed in test pits #1, #2 and #3 at a depth of 36" BGS. The holes appeared to be well
saturated at the time of the test. Results of the percolation test are shown in Table 1.
Page A-1 of A-2
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 1
Percolation Test Results
2095 CR 245, New Castle
Depth
Time on 05/05/04
Time
Drop
Perc
Rate
min/in
14:00
14:30
14:50
15:00
#1 36" - 48"
6 25
10.0
14.5
dry
50/8 25
6
#2 36' - 48"
3.75
5.50
6.75
60/3.0
20
#3 36" - 48"
8.25
9.5
10.75
60/2.5
24
2.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
' Soils at the site appear acceptable for implementation of an individual sewage disposal system (ISDS). The
following site-specific considerations should be observed during implementation of the ISDS:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
• The bottom of the ISDS absorption field should be located no deeper than 48" BGS to
maintain 4' of usable infiltration soil above the extent of the soils observation excavation
located at 96" BGS. A design perc rate of 25 min/in. is recommended for overall system
sizing.
• Care should be taken during construction to avoid compaction and smearing of the exposed
infiltrative surfaces and preserve the natural permeability of the native soils.
3.0 Limitations
This report provides a professional assessment of the feasibility of implementing an individual sewage
disposal system on the property of reference. The design parameters developed in this document are
representative of the site conditions disclosed at the specific time of the site investigation. Site conditions
are subject to change from external events both manmade (irrigation or pond construction) and naturally
occurring (flooding or excessive precipitation). Cronk Construction Incorporated is not responsible and
accepts no liability for any variation in assumed design parameters caused by external events.
Cronk Construction Incorporated represents this report has been prepared within the limits prescribed by the
owner and in accordance with the current accepted practice of the civil engineering profession in the area.
No warranty or representation either expressed or implied is included or intended in this report or in any of
our contracts. 1 //
SEAL
Thomas A. Cronk, P.E.
Pitt" Z' 4.
Date
Page A-2 of A-2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
COUNTY ROAD 245
7
Soils observation
excavation
N89'34'49'E 340.22'
existing
building
(40'x60')
0
pmt M3
589'34'49'W 22867'
pit kl
slope 3%
°pit #2
3.61 acres
MAYO PROJECT
2095 CR 245, NEW CASTLE
PLOT PLAN
MAY 7. 2004
SCALE 1'=60'
NORTH
/
1
1
1
1
1
t drive
1
1
1
' 5045 observation
excavation
1
1
1 '
1
1
1
1 If
1
1
1
1
1
40
existing
budding
(40'x60')
5
k-115
n
— 1250 potion
septic tank
pit 41
pit 113
pit 112
MAYO PROJECT
2095 CR 245, NEW CASTLE
ASBUILT DRAWING
MAY 7, 2004
SCALE I'=20'
0
N0RTH
2 rows of 6 standard
Infiltrators For n total
of 12 units