Current Documents

This is intended as a resource for Yestermorrow students and instructors using the Yestermorrow campus as a site for design projects. It includes links to current site plans, maps, and supplemental material relevant to the development of the campus and will be continually updated as new versions become available.

Plans currently approved by the Waitsfield Development Review Board:
Master Plan Executive Summary (06.29.13)
Master Plan Site Plan 50' scale (06.29.13)
Master Plan Site Plan 100' scale (06.29.13)
Master Plan Site Plan 100' scale open space (06.29.13)

Main Building: *note= not totally accurate as-builts
Ground Floor Plan
First Floor Plan
Building Section

Site Information:
Campus Map with Building Descriptions (not to scale) (2014)
Campus Base Map 80' scale (2008)
Campus Base Map 40' scale (2008)
Orthophoto

Base Maps for Area:
Mad River Topo (North)
Mad River Topo (South)
Waitsfield Natural Resources
Waitsfield Prime Ag Soils
Waitsfield Fluvial Erosion Zones
Waitsfield Zoning
Area Topo

Supplemental Reports:
Forest Management Plan (2013)
Stormwater Feasibility Study (2012)
Stormwater Concept Design (2012)
Watershed Analysis (2012)
Wastewater Basis of Design (2013)
Regenesis Grounding and Process Report (2011)
Regenesis Story of Place Presentation (2011)
Yestermorrow Environmental Assessment (2011)

Stormwater/Wastewater Coordination

Hi folks,

Just a few updates from my meeting today with Peter Lazorchak and Andres Torizzo to talk about the coordination of stormwater and wastewater design and permitting…

We reviewed general timeline of working on these designs and permitting between now and September, then moving into Act 250 permitting over the winter, with the goal being that by May 2015 we have all necessary permits to start moving dirt and doing infrastructure work.

Notes:

Stormwater permits- will need to be renewed annually (approx. $55) until project is fully complete- usually permit is good 10 years and can be extended

Wastewater permits- don’t need annual renewal

We agreed we should revisit our notes about the prime ag soils and remind ourselves how that was finally resolved (or if it was) with Act 250 folks to ensure that doesn’t trip us up down the road.

We wondered about the phasing of the Act 250 permit- are we submitting the full build out master plan, but how does that work over time with permit fees etc?

Wastewater questions for CORE team:

-          What standard do we want to design to for BOD/TSS? The initial proposal from BioHabitats is designed to treat to 10/10 mg/liter. The standard for advanced pretreatment is usually 30/30 mg/liter. The difference would likely mean whether or not we add the polishing sand filter- clearly an extra design step and added cost in construction.  

-          Nitrogen component- this is typically not regulated at the state level for a site like ours, but do we want to be treating nitrogen to a certain level? Peter’s opinion is that given the advanced pre-treatment plus excellent soils in the field that we do not need to take any extra steps for this, since a lot of what the plants in the constructed wetland are doing is treating nitrogen.

-          Test pits- Peter will coordinate the digging of test pits soon in collaboration with folks from the state. He will contact Kingsbury Construction to schedule that. Any reasons to not use Kingsbury vs. Andy DiMario? Kate will check with Dave Warren to see if we have any other excavation needs that might be done at the same time while the machine is here.

Water supply questions:

-          Does our current well have enough capacity for the full build out? Would we need to tap into the upper well? Has any pump testing been done previously on either well to determine their full capacity- this might have been done pre-YM as part of the proposed expansion. If not we need to consult a hydrogeologist and have that testing done.

Stormwater questions:

-          Can we have a swale between the existing main building and pond/wetland given the location of the existing septic storage tanks? (Peter to check with Pete Munoz about re-using existing tanks vs. replacement)

Next steps:

Peter:

• Map out location of disposal field given various setbacks from building envelopes on site plan
• 2)      Talk to state about overall process for permitting constructed wetlands

Andres:

• Create scope of work document for Core Team to review; include overall site grading plan in scope (include any grading necessary for wastewater systems)
• Talk to Tony Stout re: phasing of Act 250 permitting and make recommendations

Kate:

• Send DWG and PDF files of the site plans approved by Waitsfield DRB (Dated Jun 28, 2013) to Peter and Andres
• Look back at correspondence about prime ag soils in upper meadow (Kinny, do you remember how this resolved?)
• Check with Dave Warren re: excavation of test pits
• Look up details on wells and see if we can find any old permits relating to water supply
• Schedule next CORE team meeting/call to discuss questions above regarding wastewater treatment standards

Questions?

Kate

Core Team Notes 9-23-13

In attendance: Kate , John C., Kinny & Bill Reed(phone)

Monday, September 23, 2013

10:13 AM

John summarized a phone conversation he had with BR about the way the planning solution has wondered from the original principles. 

·         We discovered that the original building had to be preserved (75%)

·         We re-directed our efforts to solve for this new constraint and for the DRB approval

·         We maybe weren't as vigilant as we might have been on keeping to our principles.

Kinny sees the building configuration as an improvement with less impervious surface, damming and slowing water flows, protecting the wetlands. John asked Bill if he would enumerate the areas where he sees the most discussion potential vis a vis the new and the old plans.

Discussion of  Daylighting the stream followed.  David Warren, who is most "intimately involved" is the primary (only?) opponent.  Kate wonders about the additional consequences.  Beyond the immediate setback requirements aside, the additional impact on the natural wastewater treatment, the drainage swales, and the general pedestrian experience of the campus.

Kate suggested that we get Peter L and Joel back into to actually locate the engineered wetlands, the drip irrigation, the storm water strategy, etc.  Right now we only have conceptual bubble diagrams.

Kinny brought up Ben Falk's rice paddy strategy for slowing down stormwater.

John suggested the next steps might be:

1.       Bill to review DRB plan and general concepts

2.       Invite the experts to a meeting (maybe mid October)

a.       Peter L (civil engineer)

b.      Joel (ecology & stormwater)

c.       Andres Torizzo (stormwater)

3.       Goal is to work toward a buildable, well defined solution that reflects the storm water, waste water and programmatic needs of the site.

Kate brought up the possibility of bringing the Semester Program on campus next semester, but without housing.  It's important to keep the discussion of when the actual lodging might be built.  Kincaid quickly calculated that the school will need about $2M to accomplish this and we already have 1/4 of that.

Kate will speak with Peter to see how much of Andres work he metabolized.  She will determine if he needs to be brought up to speed before getting together with Andres, Joel, Bill, and us.

Next meeting planned for  Oct 27th - Oct28th.

Wastewater Basis of Design Document

Summary report on proposed natural wastewater
management system design for the Yestermorrow campus

This summary report was prepared by the YM 2013 Constructed Wetland class, instructed by Barton Kirk PE, Pete Munoz PE, and Harold Leverenz PE.  The student design team was Sean Powers, James Kinnie, Brittany Schroeder, and Alexander Van Steen.  Kate Stephenson provided guiding principles for the wastewater design to the team in order of priority:

1. Plan for evolution, versatility and resilience
2. The nature of the land, its healthy functioning, its living systems, and physics inform the structuring of human habitat
3. Scaled modules of design to allow a kit-of-parts approach for ease of phasing, budgeting, flexibility, diversity, reuse at a residential scale
4. Design to limit operational expenses
5. Campus systems should be accessible and visible for educational demonstration purposes

Additional objectives for the design developed by the class are as follows:

• Provide an opportunity for education
• Minimize impacts on groundwater
• Minimize electro-mechanical systems, e.g., gravity operation and passive design as much as possible
• Low operation and maintenance requirements
• Mechanical systems and other systems that require vehicle access for maintenance to be located in a centralized area

A number of assumptions were necessary for the design process.  The assumptions are generally related to the maximum number of people that would be present on campus during regular operations.  The water usage and constituent loading used in the design is based on textbook and other reference data sources.  One assumption is that portable toilets or other facilities will be made available during events that would result in a higher population on campus that the design values.  The May 2013 YM master plan was used as the primary reference for population and flow estimates.  A summary of the population and flow data is presented in Table 1.  Because of the relatively small change in flowrate between planning Phases 1 and 2 / 3, the design presented in this report is expected to accommodate the flows for all phases of the campus expansion.  Therefore, the proposed system would be constructed during the Phase 1 expansion and new buildings constructed at later construction phases would be connected to the system without substantial expansion.  The proposed system was selected from four general design scenarios considered for the campus.  A summary of alternative scenarios is listed in Appendix B.

Download the full report here.

Core Team Notes 8/26/13

Agenda:

-Check-in

-Waitsfield zoning permit update

- Wastewater team report & next steps

-Studio renovation plan 2014

-Getting Bill up to speed on core team decisions

-Membership of Core Team

Notes:

• Kate checked with Susan Senning and expects to receive the final DRB decision this week. Next steps for permitting include wastewater, stormwater, then Act 250.
• Wastewater team was here in July teaching and worked on a “basis of design” report with loads and recommendations. Next step is for Peter Lazorchak to review for permitting constraints, and simultaneously to overlay the constructed wetland sizing with stormwater design on the site plan to make sure it will all fit and work harmoniously.
• Studio renovation is planned to go forward in 2014 using existing master planning funds. Maclay Architects has been hired to coordinate the design and engineering. This will include removing the posts, installing flooring, some electrical, A/V and other “finishing” of the space (baseboard etc). The staff is still trying to figure out when to best fit this project into the schedule of classes, as it will prevent classes in the studio for at least a month.
• Bill had questions from the June board meeting mainly regarding how the core team had made decisions on changing some of the Regenesis plan features, including steep slopes, parking lot, driveway location, and keeping the Alpen Inn building. John C. will schedule a time to sit down with Bill and review the plans, or possibly Bill can come to VT for our next meeting.
• We talked about how we tell our story in the larger community, and to potential donors. Introduce Bill and John to a few potential major donors. How much can we raise and how fast? At what point do we engage a design team and engineering? What do we need to be able to present to funders? This is the good time to start telling our story- we’re not asking for money yet but want to get folks interested and involved in the development process.
• General timelines: 1 year to finish land permits, then another year to design the first building(s) and raise funds. Potential to start construction Fall 2016 if all goes well.

·         Next steps:

o   Kate to schedule informational meeting with District 5 Act 250 rep

o   Work with Peter L. to review wastewater plan and integrate with site plan.

o   Next meeting: Friday September 20^th 1pm

Agenda: design guidelines, core membership