HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - 66 CEDAR LANE 1/7/2009 elleChiaie, Pamela
From: Isaac Rowe [irowe @millriverconsulting.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 9:08 AM
To: 'Daniel Ottenheimer'; Grant, Michele; irowe @millriverconsulting.com; 'Marianne Peters';
DelleChiaie, Pamela; 'Randy Burley'; Sawyer, Susan
Subject: 66 Cedar Lane- Plan review
Attachments: 66 Cedar Lane Disapproval Letter 1-7-09.doc
Susan,
Please find attached a disapproval plan review letter for the above referenced property.
You may want to show the Conservation Agent the notation on the plan regarding the wetlands, " Approx. edge of
wetlands from field measurement". I am guess she will require the wetlands to be flagged and that may change the 100'
buffer zone shown on the plan and the required Conservation filing.
Again the SAS is proposed outside any test pits and this was NOT discussed on site during the soil testing. Bill mentioned
the option of using only 1 test pit for the design (T-1).
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Isaac
Isaac M. Rowe, R.S.
Project Manager
Y iii iver Consulting
2 Blackburn Oenter
1
jhot "
Health Department
January 17, 2009
Vladimir Nemchenok
Merrimack Engineering Services
66 Park Street
Andover, MA 01810
Re: Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Plan for 66 Cedar Lane, Man 106A,Lot 143
Dear Mr.Nemchenok:
The proposed wastewater system design plan for the above site dated August 14, 2008 and
received on December 30, 2008, has been reviewed. Unfortunately,the plan cannot be approved
until the following items are corrected. The specific section in Title 5: 310 CMR 15,000, or
North Andover regulation that is not met by this design follows each item.
1. There are no test pits in the proposed soil absorption system area. A Local Upgrade
Approval for only having one test pit in the soil absorption system area cannot be
requested. A variance from Title 5, 310 CMR 15.102 must be requested.
2. Please provide a scaled profile of the system (NA 8.02 c).
3. Please specify all system components shall be marked with magnetic marking tape
including the septic tank(3 10 CMR 15.221(12)).
,4: Please note the outlet tee in the septic tank should extend 14" into the liquid and not 16"
(3 10 CMR 15.227(6)).
...." „ S. If the design plan indicates the use of an effluent filter inside the septic tank. Also note
the required annual maintenance necessary (3 10 CMR 15.227(7)).
6. Please provide soil evaluation forms 11 and 12 in accordance with 310 CMR 1 5.018(2),
7. Please provide a cleanout at all changes in direction of the building sewer (3 10 CMR
15.222(8)) or indicate the building sewer must be laid in a straight line.Note: N. Andover
prefers the tank be located such that there are no bends in the building sewer
8. Please provide a riser to within 6" of finish grade for the d-box if greater than 9" of cover
material is proposed(3 10 CMR 15.232(2)(f)).
1600 Osgood Street HEALTH DEPARTMENT Page 1 of I
Building 20;Suite 2-36 E-Mail: healthdept@towriofilorthandover.com
North Andover,MA 01845 Phone: 978.688.9540 Fax:978.688.8476
Please feel free to contact the office with any questions you may have. We look forward to
working with you to obtain a wastewater treatment and dispersal system which will be in
compliance with all regulations and assure protection of public health and the environment of
Forth Andover.
Sincerely,
S san Y. Sawyer, REHS/ S
Public Health Director
cc: Thomas & Kathleen Hardwick
File
DelleChiaie, Pamela
From: Sawyer, Susan
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 9:33 AM
To: DelleChiaie, Pamela; brdufresne @comcast.net
Subject: 66 Cedar Lane
Attachments: SKMBT_60009012610160.pdf
Bill,
Please find the attached review of 66 Cedar Lane. Note that the request for no test pits within the system is not
approvable in this case without a local and a state variance. Last year we did approve one site submitted by you in this
manner,so I understand that you may think this acceptable, but then there were extenuating circumstances. I am not
comfortable with continuing that practice, nor do I feel it is best for the homeowners. If you redesign such that a single
test pit can be used in a design you may request a local upgrade. I conferred with Mill River, regarding this site and with
Claire Golden regarding the code and its intention in this issue.
We had Jennifer Hughes,from Conservation,go to the site to investigate the wetland line you noted.She did not
confirm the line other than it appeared that the system was Greater than 100 feet away. If you move the system, I will
again get her opinion on this.
The choice is yours at this point, let us know which way you would like to go with this and we'll do what we can to move
it along.
Susan
1
MERRIMA K ENGINEERING ERIN ERVI E , INC,
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS - LAND SURVEYORS - PLANNERS
bb PARK STREET d ANDOVER, MA 01810 m (978)475-3555,379-5721 FAX(978)475-1448 g E-MAIL Info @merrimackengineering,com
February 1.8, 2008
Susan Sawyer
Public Health Director
1600 Osgood Street
Building 20, Suite 2-36 MAR 2 5 2L109
North Andover,MA 01845
T'oWN OF NOFOli ANU:arVR
H Aaw RTw�u:��N
.1116EPAT
RE: 66 Cedar Lane m .. . . ... µ. .
Dear Ms. Sawyer:
We have received your review letter dated 1-17-09 and your e-mail dated 1-26-09 for the
above referenced site.
We have revised the plan in response to items 2,4,5 & 8 of your letter.
With regard to item#1 of your letter and your e-mail,it is sometimes not possible to
perform a test pit in the exact location of the proposed s.a.s. for many different reasons.
Every upgrade design is unique and very site specific. We do not make a regular practice
of performing test pits outside the s.a.s. location. In this instance, the existing s.a.s.,tank,
underground utilities, mature trees (which are not shown) and a playground interfered
with our ability to conduct soil testing exactly where we would have liked to. Secondly,
the exact size & location of the proposed s.a.s. is not even known when soil testing is
being conducted,we generally do the best we can with regard to locating them. In this
instance, your inspector and I had discussions specific to this issue and he was aware that
the test pits may vary from the location of the s.a.s.,but being in the field together,we
both understood the obstacles before us. It is unfortunate that the sentiments expressed in
the field are not conveyed when it comes time to review the plan. How is soil testing even
possible if an upgrade design is being performed in the same location as the existing
system? Obviously one cannot perform soil testing through the existing s.a.s., tank or
underground utilities. Does that mean every time a system is replaced in the same
location,which is often, that it requires a State variance? I don't think that is the intent of
Title 5. The soil testing is intended to demonstrate soil suitability and based on the
evaluators & Inspectors knowledge of the site, geology, existing records and the testing
performed, some reasonableness is used in determining if the testing performed on site, is
representative of the soil conditions beneath the proposed s.a.s. That is what is acceptable
in most every other community in Massachusetts where we complete designs, in fact,
many towns routinely only require 1 test pit for upgrades with the understanding that the
less soil disturbed and the less disruption to the property, the better. You may ask, why
not move the s.a.s. over the test pits? We don't believe that is the intent of Title 5 either,
to choose the location of the s.a.s, based on the ease of performing test pits, but rather to
choose the location based on what is most compliant with the regulations and what is
most environmentally beneficial. In this case, given the location of the wetlands and the
existing wells, replacement in the same general location is the best solution and testing
simply couldn't be performed there.
With regard to item#3,pursuant to 15.221(1.2), cast iron tank covers are specified and are
not only a comparable, but a better means of magnetic location than tape.
With regard to item #6, the soil forms submitted have always been acceptable to you in
the past and are allowed by DEP, are they no longer acceptable?
Lastly,with regard to item#7,the change in alignment is immediately outside the
foundation wall. A cleanout is provided just inside the foundation wall and accessible
from the basement. An additional outside cleanout would not provide any useful function.
Submitted herewith are 3 copies of the revised plan.
We respectfully request that the revised plans be approved with the condition that a
confirmatory test pit be performed by a Mass.certified soil evaluator at the time of
excavation inspection and prior to system installation.
Very truly yours,
m
William Dufresne
Merrimack Engineering Services
MERRIMACK ENGINEERING SERVICES,INC.
66 PARK STREET^ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETTS 01810
Saw san
From: Sawyer, Susan
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 9:27 AM
To: 'dano@millriverconsulting.com'; 'Isaac Rowe'
Subject: 66 Cedar Lane
Attachments: SKMBT_60009033009140.pdf
Hi Cyan and Isaac,
I have attached a disapproval letter and Bill Dufresne's response for the property above. In an email I sent to Bill, I hoped
I was clear about my expectations, but he is still asking for approval of a system without any test pits in the active area.
Can one or both of you check out his response and let me know what you think?
Thank you
Susan
From: noreply @yourcopier.com [mailto:noreply @yourcopier.com]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 10:14 AM
To: Sawyer, Susan
Subject: Message from KMBT_600
t
Dwyer, usan
From: Sawyer, Susan
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 9:37 AM
To: 'Golden, Claire (DEP)'
Subject: question
Attachments: SKMBT_60009033009140.pdf
Hi Claire,
I am sending you a couple of things to read and a question. I spoke to you in January about the Merrimack Eng.'s
concept on having 0 test pits in the primary area.
If you could look at my disapproval letter, item #1 and Bill Dufresne's response on item#1 from his letter I would
appreciate it.
He of course says it is common place that this takes place in repairs.
Can you give any guidance? Would you think this an acceptable response to my request. I thought my position was clear,
but he disagrees.
Thx
Susan
i
e NOIPTI{�
O trio t. aO
VA
�sSAGNUs
Health Department
Sent via electronic mail and regular mail: brdufresne@comeast.net
April 1, 2009
William Dufresne
Merrimack Engineering Services
66 Park Street
Andover, MA 01810
Re: Subsurface Sewaae Disposal System Plan for 66 Cedar Lane,Man 106A.Lot 143
Dear Mr. Dufresne:
The proposed revised wastewater system design plan for the above site dated February 17,2009
and received on March 27,2009,has been reviewed. Unfortunately,the plan cannot be
approved. From the previous disapproval letter it is noted that items 2,4, 5 &8 have been
corrected.The explanation for 3 is accepted as the cast iron could be construed as"comparable
means"to marking tape as found in the code. For item 6 please note North Andover is asking
that forms 11 and 12 be used in the future to standardize all plan submissions.
In regard to item(s) still in question please see comments below:
1. There are no test pits in the proposed soil absorption system area. A Local Upgrade
Approval for only having one test pit in the soil absorption system area cannot be
requested. A variance from Title 5, 310 CMR 15.102 must be requested.
I have reviewed your list regarding the playground obstructions and underground utilities,as well
as the issue of proper conveyance of discussions which take place at a particular site during
inspections with septic consultants. I have also discussed your concerns with the Town's
consultant who was on site at the time of the soil testing and I have asked opinion of Claire
Golden at the DER
The conclusion is,although it has been common practice to allow the second needed test pit to be
done during construction, it is not acceptable to have zero test pits. The test pits in your case are
over 5-10 feet from the system. There are ample ways to conduct them even with the
1600 Osgood Street HEALTH DEPARTMENT Page 1 of 1
Building 20;Suite 2-36 E-Mail:heaithdept @townofnorthandover.com
North Andover,MA 01846 Phone:978.688.9540 Fax:978.688.8476
obstructions: i.e.,properly mark the estimated underground utilities, and/or move the play
structure.
There may also be a better alternative to using the old leaching area location for the new system.
Subsurface disposal systems must be in parent soil,therefore best practice should be to not place
the system back over the original area, but rather to take less problematic variances that could
place it more appropriately. Your initial choice for test locations indicates this may have been
your thought as well. In this case there seems to be no compelling reason to change the previous
decision,therefore the decision stands as written. If the leach area is to remain in this location
there must be two test pits located within the system area,or one pit and a request for a local
upgrade must be submitted or a state variance is needed.
7. Please provide a cleanout at all changes indirection of the building sewer(310 CMR
1 5.222(8))or indicate the building sewer must be laid in a straight line.Note:North
Andover prefers the tank be located such that there are no bends in the building sewer.
Title V requires a cleanout at each bend in the building sewer. To make the plan compliant to the
state code please:
• place the tank in a location that allows for a straight line and add a note, or,
• add the clean-out to the plan.
We look forward to working with you to obtain a wastewater treatment and dispersal system
which will be in compliance with all regulations and assure protection of public health and the
environment of North Andover. Please note that additional plan revisions require an
additional fee of$75 payable to the Town of North Andover.
Also,please note as a side issue, that the Board of Health hearing will be held on April 16th at the
North Andover High School to discuss proposed revisions to the current local subsurface
disposal regulations. This is an open meeting and all comments are welcomed either in person or
in writing to the Board. The draft is at the link provided,
http://www.townofnorthandover.com/Pages/NAndoverMA Health/index
Sincerel
eus�anY. Sawyer,REHS/RS
Public Health Director
cc:
➢ Homeowners- Thomas&Kathleen Hardwick
➢ Engineer - Vladimir Nemchenol; P.E., MerrimackEng.
➢ Septic Consultant-Mill River Consultants
➢ File
t10RT11
o �,k.a D ,
a46�6L
co,
coc.ir�wiwrcw 1
sgc
PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Community Development Division
May 14,2009
Thomas and Kathleen Hardwick
66 Cedar Lane
North Andover, MA 01845
RE: Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Plan for 66 Cedar Lane,Map 106A Lot 143
North Andover, Massachusetts
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hardwick,
The North Andover Board of Health has completed the review of the septic system design plans,
for the above referenced property. These plans dated December 16, 2008, final revision date of
May 6, 2009, have been approved for a four(4)bedroom,maximum nine-room home. Approvals
for two local upgrades to the design have been allowed and as follows:
1. To reduce the distance from the SAS to foundation from 20 feet to 14 feet
2. To allow a one deep hole rather than 2 within the area of the subsurface disposal system.
a. With this approval a second deep hole will not be required by the Health Dept.
upon excavation of the bottom of bed as noted on the plan.
In accordance with local subsurface disposal regulations "Acceptable plans and any variances
shall expire two years from the date approved unless construction on the lot has begun". During
this time a licensed septic system installer must obtain a permit and complete this work, and a
Certificate of Compliance must be endorsed by the installer, designer and the Town of North
Andover.
This approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. If site conditions are found in the field to be different from those indicated on the
design plan and/or soil evaluation,the originally issued Disposal System Construction
Permit is void, installation shall stop, and the applicant shall reapply for a new
Disposal Systems Construction Permit(3 10 CMR 15.020(1)).
2. It is the responsibility of the applicant and/or the applicant's septic system designer,
septic system installer or other representative to ensure that all other state and
municipal requirements are met. These may include review by the Conservation
Commission, Zoning Board, Planning Board, Building Inspector,Plumbing Inspector
1600 Osgood Street,North Andover,Massachusetts 01845
Phone 978.688.9540 Fax 978.688.8476 Web www.townofnorthandover.com
and/or Electrical Inspector. The issuance of a Disposal System Construction Permit
shall not construe and/or imply compliance with any of the aforementioned
requirements.
Your effort to provide a properly functioning septic system for your dwelling is greatly
appreciated. The Health Department may be reached at 978-688-9540 with any questions you
might have.
Sincerely,
S an Sawyer,REHS/RS
Public Health Director
Cc: Merrimack Engineering Services—Attn: Bill Dufresne
1600 Osgood Street,North Andover,Massachusetts 01845
Phone 978.688.9540 Fax 978.688.8476 Web www.townofnorthandover.com