V3 RESUBMISSION Response to Township Engineers Review 1 Dated November 3 2022

8 PETRY RESPONSE: The plans have been revised to correct the invert information. The 8” pipe invert is correct, while the 6” pipe will be revised to enter the manhole at an invert of 408.23 (See Sheets SP-6 & SP-14). 32. The callout for the pipe length from San. MH #2-3 to MH #2-2 is illegible. In addition, it points to San. MH #2-3 instead of to the pipe run. PETRY RESPONSE: The callout has been revised. It reads “59’ of 8” PVC @ 0.050 FT/FT”. 33. The pipe slopes shown on Sheet SP-6 do not agree with the slopes shown on sheet SP-14 for the following pipe runs: e. San. MH #2-7 to San. MH #2-6. f. San. MH #2-6 to San. MH #2-5. g. San. MH #2-5 to San. MH #2-4. h. San. MH #2-4 to San. MH #2-3. PETRY RESPONSE: The pipe slopes on Sheet SP-14 are correct. The pipe slopes on Sheet SP-6 have been revised to match. 34. The Basin #2 Profile and the Basin #3 Profile on sheet SP-12 must be revised to specify the material to be installed on the basin bottom. PETRY RESPONSE: The profiles have been revised to indicate that the basin bottom will be 4” of topsoil over native soil. Please note these are both detention basins, not infiltration basins. The soils in these portions of the site do not have adequate permeability. 35. Sheet SP-19 includes a Typical Hi-Visibility Crosswalk Pavement Markings detail. Therefore, the plans must be revised to show the locations where crosswalk pavement markings are proposed. PETRY RESPONSE: The plans have been revised to show the location of the crosswalks (See Sheet SP-3).