Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Miscellaneous - 101 CRICKET LANE 4/30/2018 (2)
�` �` ��1R \ � f ��� � � l�,z_o �_ Town 4 r Torth Andover Health Departme t Date: Location: (Indicate Address, if Residential, or Name of Business) Check #: f©C�� / X-5-11 White -Applicant Yellow -Health Pink - Treasurer Type of Permit or License: (Circle) ➢ Animal $ ➢ Dumpster $ F: ➢ Food Service - Type: $ ➢ Funeral Directors `: ➢ Massage Establishment $ ➢ Massage Practice $ ➢ Offal (Septic) Hauler ➢ Recreational Camp $ SEPTIC PERMITS: ❑ Septic - Soil Testing $ - ❑ Septic - Design Approval $ ❑ Septic Disposal Works Construction (DWC) $ =< ❑ Septic Disposal Works Installers (DWI) $ ➢ Sun tanning $ _;.. ➢ Swimming Pool $ Tobacco $ ➢ Trash/Solid Waste Hauler $ .:➢ Well Construction $ OTHER: . (Indicate) "456 Health Agent Initials White -Applicant Yellow -Health Pink - Treasurer Town of North Andover 400 Osgood Street North Andover, MA 01845 978.688.9540 - Phone Web Site - www.townofnorthandover.com E -Mail - healthdeot0townofnortha ndover.com 978.688.8476 - Fax Due capon receipt Invoice No. 12/9/2005 Bill To Albert P. Manzi, III Address Attorney At Law 24 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 Phone 978-681-6618 Fax 978-681-6628 E -Mail AttvManzinu.Manzilaw.net Deposit Received $0.00 Invoice Subtotal $51.00 Tax Rate Totall Invoice Total $51.00 Total Amount Due $51.00 Amount Paid .�9 E -C E ' .__ .. __ Tax_ -(—$0.00 --MAR--1 3-2- 6 - Totall ._ .. ... _ $51.00 ----- --- ._. -------- 'Received by --- --T-0X1_LN_0E_N_0_R_TH ANDO�IEP _— HEALTH DEPARTMENT^ (Signature: jT rint Name: { — Note: 3rd Notice- March 6,-2006_ - i _ i ._Subtotal I t _ $51.00 .__ .. __ Tax_ -(—$0.00 Totall ._ .. ... _ $51.00 Thanks for letting us serve you! l yNORTq , � 9 • Town of North Andover '�•-.,,,,o;. HEALTH DEPARTMENT �sS�cMustt CHECK #: &Y7 I LOCATION: Ate% H/O NAME: CONTRACT R NAME: Type of Permit or License: (Check box) ❑ Animal $ ❑ Body Art Establishment $ ❑ Body Art Practitioner $ ❑ Dumpster $ ❑ Food Service - Type: $ ❑ Funeral Directors $ ❑ Massage Establishment $ ❑ Massage Practice $ ❑ Offal (Septic) Hauler $ ❑ Recreational Camp $ ❑ Sun tanning $ ❑ Swimming Pool $ ❑ Tobacco $ ❑ Trash/Solid Waste Hauler $ ❑ Well Construction $ SEPTICS s� tems: ❑ Septic - Soil Testing $ ❑ Septic - Design Approval $ ❑ Septic Disposal Works Construction (DWC) $ ❑ Septic Disposal Works Installers (DWI) $ ❑ Title 5 Inspector $ ❑ Title 5 Report $ Other. (Indicate) 1789 Health Agent Initials White - Applicant Yellow - Health Pink - Treasurer Town of North Andover 1600 Osgood Street Building 20; Suite 2-36 North Andover, MA 01845 978.688.9540 - Phone Web Site - www.townofnortha ndover.com E -Mail - healthdeat(cDtownofnorthandover. com 978.688.8476 - Fax Due upon receipt Invoice No. 9/5/2006 Bill To Lynch, Brewer, Hoffman & Fink Address Attn: Rebecca Ellis 101 Federal Street, 22nd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Phone 617.951.0800 Fax E -Mail Deposit Received $0.00 Invoice Subtotal $51.00 Tax Rate le Copy of 101 Cricket Lane lComplete File Invoice Total $51.00 Total Amount Due $51.00 Amount Paid Date Description A#110ini: 9/5/2006 - - le Copy of 101 Cricket Lane lComplete File - — a $51. 9 Received by_'.__. Print Name: I r —�- Subtotal $51.00 Taxi _ - $0.00 4 Total $51.00, Thanks for letting us serve you! Page 1 of 2 DelleChiaie, Pamela From: Sawyer, Susan Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 11:41 AM To: DelleChiaie, Pamela Subject: FW: Walnut Ridge subdivision fyi -----Original Message ----- From: Sawyer, Susan Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 8:32 AM To: Curran, Bernadette Subject: RE: Walnut Ridge subdivision B, I suggest before you do anything with this, that you forward it to Ray. He was designated the point person for all communications regarding 101 Cricket Lane. Susan -----Original Message ----- From: Curran, Bernadette Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:52 PM To: Sawyer, Susan Subject: Walnut Ridge subdivision Importance: Low Hi Susan; Yes, Rubina is back...... If you get a moment, could you look over the below e-mail and let me know the best answer I could provide to her. All the happenings at this address happened long before I came into the picture at ComDev. Not sure if the best advise I can give her is for her to come in and view the files herself, or if perhaps I should not encourage her to come anywhere near the office??? not sure.... Please advise... Thanks.. Bernadette -----Original Message ----- From: Rubina Hendley [mailto:rubinahendley@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 12:40 PM To: Curran, Bernadette Subject: [SPAM] Walnut Ridge subdivision Importance: Low Dear Mr Curran: I am the co-owner of 101 Cricket Lane in the above subdivision. I would appreciate receiving the following information described below with respect to the above subdivision, which I requested on numerous occasions, both in person and in writing, to your predecessor, who declined for reasons never explained to 5/11/2007 Page 2 of 2 provide to me. Please note, there are deeded septic grading easements for nine of the ten new - construction properties, appurtenant to each and located on the adjacent property, Plan #13636, recorded on Dec 16, 1999. I also have a copy of the subdivision's Definitive Plan #13447, recorded on April 18, 1999, and this plan does not reference any of the septic easements presumably because, according to the date mentioned above, said easements had not been devised, or disclosed. I double-checked at the Lawrence registry of deeds for an update to the Definitive plan that depicts these easements, but had no luck finding one. I assume a Definitive plan exists depicting these easements, and I would appreciate any relevant information so that I can get a copy from the registry. I would also like to be directed to which public files for the subdivision (planning, board of health, building, etc) have the information regarding the submission and approval processes for these easements. Thank you for your help in this matter. Sincerely, Rubina Hendley Ahhh ... imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. 5/11/2007 Page 1 of 2 DelleChiaie, Pamela From: Sawyer, Susan Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 11:41 AM To: DelleChiaie, Pamela Subject: FW: Walnut Ridge subdivision fyi -----Original Message ----- From: Sawyer, Susan Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 8:32 AM To: Curran, Bernadette Subject: RE: Walnut Ridge subdivision B, I suggest before you do anything with this, that you forward it to Ray. He was designated the point person for all communications regarding 101 Cricket Lane. Susan -----Original Message ----- From: Curran, Bernadette Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:52 PM To: Sawyer, Susan Subject: Walnut Ridge subdivision Importance: Low Hi Susan; Yes, Rubina is back...... If you get a moment, could you look over the below -e-mail and let me know the best -answer I could provide to her. All the happenings at this address happened long before I came into the picture at ComDev. Not sure if the best advise I can give her is for her to come in and view the files herself, or if perhaps I should not encourage her to come anywhere near the office??? not sure.... Please advise... Thanks.. Bernadette -----Original Message ----- From: Rubina Hendley [mailto:rubinahendley@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 12:40 PM To: Curran, Bernadette Subject: [SPAM] Walnut Ridge subdivision Importance: Low Dear Mr Curran: I am the co-owner of 101 Cricket Lane in the above subdivision. 4/24/2008 F TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TIME 08/31/2006 14:34 NAME HEALTH FAX 9786888476 TEL 9786888476 SER.# 000B4J120960 DATE DIME 08/31 14:34 FAX N0./NAME 816179510811 DURATION 00:00:33 PAGE{S} 03 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM North Andover Health Department 1600 Osgood Street Building 20, Suite 2.36 North Andover, MA 01845 978.688.9540 - Phone 978.688.8476 — Fax healthdept@tawno#narlhanda_v0 CAM - E-mail www.tawno#northcn,dove&&M - Website Letter of Transmittal Page ..._/ aft j V tMo � /Q� 46R �- •a �d� tot W-0 TO: 2! & e4 DATE Q� COMPANY: FROM: Pamela DelleChiaie, Health Department Assistant Phalle: �rJ/ • moi) F0-?//nx: �/ , moi. 0�/ We ore soodino you: O Cavy of Leger O Plans L7 Other (fill & below) These are transmitted as checked'below: > L74Pan dasl l A laf COPY TO: > Dfff,d ➢ OFioer&"bwwMwM# ➢ Orffyfix1* > QJiim►,r,►'i aiairehr qpvw A ©emit w*fa -& t e TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TIME 08/31/2006 14:07 NAME HEALTH FAX 9786888476 TEL 9786888476 SER.# 000B4J120960 DATEJIME 08/31 14:07 FAX N0./NAME 816179510811 DURATION 00:00:00 PAGE(S) 00 RESULT BUSY MODE STANDARD BUSY: BUSY/NO RESPONSE North _Andove r_ Health_ Deportment 1600 Osgood Street Building 20, Suite 2-36 North Andover, MA 01845 978.688.9540 - Phone 978.688.8476 -- Fox h.eolthdaM(cbtownofnorthandover.com - E-mail w..Ww.townofnorthand v� er.com - Website Letter of Transmittal Page f 0f �---- To: GG% IP COMPANY: FROM. Pamela DelleChiaie, Health Department Assistant tat .0 To: GG% DATE: rA � , COMPANY: FROM. Pamela DelleChiaie, Health Department Assistant Phone. RE: Fax: We are sending you: O Copy of Letter O Plans C7 Other (fill In below] These are transmitted as checked below: ➢ L74Wv x+dff~ ➢ mgt A L7Atawcoad > O%rrawav 0 R > 179" asifffaroft u North Andover Health Department 1600 Osgood Street Building 20, Suite 2-36 North Andover, MA 01845 978.688.9540 - Phone 978.688.8476 — Fax healthdeptt(cD-townofnorthandover.com - E-mail www.townofnorthandover.com - Website Letter of Transmittal Page /r of �.s_ NORTH T0: Ila DATE: 1��K COMPANY: FROM: Pamela DelleeCC�hiaie, Health Department Assistant Phone: COPY TO: Fax: h �/ , ��. ©O c We are sending you: O Copy of Letter O Plans O Other (fill in below) These are transmitted as checked below: ➢ L74pvwdasNWd /J" g 0AvRegird ➢ Orw&%*w& dmmmwi 11 ➢ Oav" mtaiwfbr y vmi 0i7b7s/wf1r&f REMARKS: COPY TO: COPY TO: SIGNED: COPY TO: Town of North Andover b Office of the ]health Department Community Development and Services )Division 400 OSGOOD STREET North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Susan Y. Sawyer, REHS/RS Public Health Director 978.688.9540 - Phone 978.688.8476 - Fax A6J�I�7CA2lE OF' C09b1�'.GIA`NCE As of: May 1, 2006 This is to cert that the individual su6surface disposal system was Turfy Repaired 6y Joseph R. (Buddy) Watson At: 101 Cricket .Gane North Andover, WA 01845 Ylas been installed in accordance with the provisions of Title v of the State Sanitary Code and with the North AndoverBoardofYlealth regulations. The Issuance of this certi/icate shall not be construed as a guarantee that the system will function satisfactorily. Curt Bellavance Community Development Director BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 • Town of North Andover Office of the Conservation Department Community Development and Services Division Health Department 27 Charles Street North Andover, Massachusetts 0"1845 Sandra Starr Health Director MEMORANDUM TO: Mike McGuire, Building Inspector FROM: Brian J. LaGrasse, Health Inspector RE: 101 Cricket Lane DATE: August 8, 2002 Telephone (978) 688-9540 Fax(978)688-9542 I am sending you this memo in regards to the septic system located at the aforementioned address. The septic system does not have a Certificate of Compliance and the property should not be given an occupancy permit at this time. Feel free to contact me at anytime if you have any questions or would like additional information. Since 1 an . LaGrasse Health Inspector cc: Sandra Starr, Health Director Board of Health File BOARD OF APPrALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 CERTIFICATE OF USE & OCCUPANCY TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER Building Permit Number 112 (3/24/2000) Date: March 27, 2007 THIS CERTIFIES THAT THE BUILDING LOCATED ON 101 Cricket Line MAY BE OCCUPIED AS Sing—le Family Dwelling IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE BUILDING CODE AND SUCH OTHER REGULATIONS AS MAY APPLY. Certificate Issued to: Aillis & Rubiuna, Hendley 101 Cricket Lane. North Andover MA 01845 Buildini Inspector Town of North Andover Office of the Health Department o •' ''' °°� Community Development and Services Division + 400 OSGOOD STREET 's North Andover, Massachusetts 01845CH � s�cNus t Susan Y. Sawyer, REHS/ RS 978.688.9540 - Phone Public Health Director 978.688.8476 - Fax C���rGA2� of Coa�[�LrAarCE As of: May 1, 2006 This is to cert that the indi'vidualsu6surface disposa[system was Fully Repaired J . Yoseph Re (-ucfdy) Batson At: 101 Cricket .bane NorthAndover, AKA 01845 Ifas 6een instal%d in accordance with the provisions of Ttle V of the State Sanitary Code ant u4th the North Andover Board of 9fealth regulations. The Issuance of this certificate shalt not 6e construed as a guarantee that the system u41 function satisfactorily. Curt Bellavance Community Development Director BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 CL J5. m I T- Town of North Andover Office of the Conservation Department Community Development and Services Division Health Department 27 Charles Street Sandra Starr North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Health Director MEMORANDUM TO: Mike McGuire, Building Inspector FROM: Brian J. LaGrasse, Health Inspector RE: 101 Cricket Lane DATE- August 8, 2002 Telephone (978) 688-9540 Fax(978)688-9542 I am sending you this memo in regards to the septic system located at the aforementioned address. The septic system does not have a Certificate of Compliance and the property should not be given an occupancy permit at this time. Feel free to contact me at anytime if you have any questions or would like additional information. Since 1 i Adan I LaGrasse Health Inspector cc: Sandra Starr, Health Director Board of Health File BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 r PETER M. NIIRANDI, M.P.H. Registered Sanitarian -- Certified Health Officer 30 Washington Street, Danvers, MA 01923 978-774-3001; PMMirandi0comcast.net Memorandum To: Curt Bellavance, Director of Community Development Department From: Peter M. Mirandi, R.S. Copy: Susan Sawyer, Public Health Officer Date: April 13, 2006 r,� Re: 101 Cricket Lane, North Andover The purpose of this correspondence is to document the results of my work for the Town of North Andover in consideration of the above referenced property. Scoge of Work The scope of work as determined during our telephone conference on April 5, 2006 was to. 1. Review the revised As -Built Plan submitted and stamped by Douglas E. Lees, PE of Land Engineering & Environmental Services, LLC, dated February 17, 2006 for the purpose of determining completeness in accordance with Title 5. 2. Contact the engineer of record for clarification, if necessary. 3. Provide a written opinion on any noted deficiencies to the As -Built Plan that would preclude the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance in accordance with Title 5 or the Town of North Andover Board of Health Regulations. Results, All previously noted deficiencies to the requirements of Title 5 [specifically 310 CMR 15.021 (3)] have been adequately addressed. North Andover Board of Health Regulations [specifically section 8.051 requires that before final approval, an As -Built plan showing, as a minimum, items 8.05 (a) through 8.05 (i). Attached Checlist B describes all requirements and deficiencies. A minor deficiency remains. (See Conclusions.) r HP Fax K1220xi Last Transaction Date Time May 27 1:59pm Type Identification Fax Sent 89786889556 Log for NORTH ANDOVER 9786889542 May 27 2003 1:59pm Duration Pages Result 0:40 3 OK Ms Rosemary Smedile Chairman, Board of Selectmen Town of North Andover 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 Willis & Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844-2669 Monday Decmber 5, 2005 RECEIVED DEC 6 2005 Sent via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested BUILDING DEPT. RE: 101 Cricket Lane, Walnut Ridge Subdivision Defamatory email communications concerning Rubina Hendley in Planning Dept file for the Walnut Ridge Subdivision Dear Ms Smedile, We have specifically addressed this communication to you, despite the stance you took the last time we met you personally in December 2002, when you stated to us: "I have no jurisdiction" after we disclosed to you what a personal and financial toll had been exerted on us by the behavior of certain officials connected with the building process in our attempts to occupy our Cricket Lane property. We continue to hold the view that your position, as an elected official and Chairman of the Board of Selectmen, as well as your informing us at that meeting that you work as a real estate broker/agent, mandates an alternative attitude to members of the public who had serious concerns and disclosures to bring to your attention in a new -construction subdivision in your Town. We discovered the attached email communications in January 2005, and there is every reason to believe that they were `purposely placed' in the Planning Department's file for this subdivision soon after the November 2001 dates on them. They go a long way to supporting what we have stated time and time again as being our, and particularly Rubina's, discriminatory experience within North Andover. Willis even stated to you at that December meeting: "Our reputation in the neighborhood is mud", as a result of the extent of supposed `wrongdoing' that we/Rubina have been accused of by Conservation, DPW, Planning, and Health. As members of the public, we have an entitlement to privacy, and to its protection from invasion, as well as to having our names and reputations protected. We consider the contents of these emails to be offensive, inflammatory, humiliating, unfair, unethical, unprofessional, and inaccurate. There are no other communications of this nature in this file, nor in any other for the subdivision, about any other member of the public. The damage has already occurred, but we regard the continued presence of these emails in this file to be insult added to injury. However, presumably, North Andover considers these emails provide a valuable public service. To that end: • we require the Town to inform us in writing within 10 (ten) business days of receipt of this letter for how and why it considers that the public is both served and protected by the information contained in these emails, citing proof for the validity of all the assertions and claims made about Rubina in these emails and the reason she alone was singled out; OR, Memorandum To: Lincoln Daley, Town Planner / Michael McGuire, Building Insp. Alison McKay, Conservation Administrator Bill Hmurciak, DPW Director Tim Willett, Director of Sewer and Water CC: Curt Bellavance, CD&S Director Ray Santilli, Asst. Town Manager Human Resources Director From: Susan Sawyer, Health Director Date: 10/5/05 Re: `101 Cricket Lane To all Department Heads listed above, The Health Department is in the process of assisting Mr. and Mrs. Willis Hendley, the owner's of the property listed above, complete corrections to their septic system. The intention of the owners is to occupy this property in the near future. The septic system approval letter sent from the Health Office on December 16, 2003 states that. "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 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." The owners have stated that "It is our intent that all applicable state and municipal requirements are met. However, we are not aware of any additionall or unusual requirements that fall into this category and request that the Town ofNorth Andover notify us if it is aware of any that fit this description. ". The Health Office is not aware of any conditions that may affect the corrections needed on the septic system, however in an effort to assist in bringing this project to completion it was prudent to let each department know that these owners have intention to complete this site. Beyond the septic issues there may be other areas that need to be addressed by the owners regarding your respective departments. This letter serves as a request for each department to check your files and determie whether or not there remain any outstanding issues that may need attention/ or correction prior to the Willis & Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844-2669 Monday October 27, 2003 Raymond Santini Delivered by Hand Assistant Town Manager Town of North Andover 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 Re: 101 (Lot 2) Cricket Lane, Walnut Ridge Subdivision: Our Proposal to Address the Removal and Replacement of the Septic System at our above -referenced New -Construction Property and the Encroachment of our Deeded Septic Grading Easement Dear Mr Santini, Further to our letter dated September 17, 2003, we wish to inform you of a solution devised by us to remedy the following serious issues that have been left unaddressed and unresolved to date, namely: 1. the encroachment of a large section of the septic grading easement deeded for our use on the adjacent property, as well as a minor encroachment of a portion of the adjacent property's driveway across our property line; 2. the adverse impact to the adjacent property in the event we exercise our right to use our deeded septic easement for the purposes it is designated; 3. the removal and replacement of a significant portion of the existing septic installation at our property as outlined in our September 17 letter to you as a result of existing conditions at our property that preclude these components from complying with Title 5 setback requirements for new -construction; 4. the need for a poured -concrete septic wall in the vicinity of the property line (upon replacement of the existing system) that had never formed part of the original approved septic design at our property nor the subsequent septic installation based on it. Our solution addresses the above issues, as well as the inequitable situation in which the owners of the property adjacent to ours have full use and enjoyment of their property as well as that gained by encroachment of our easement, with the consequent negative impact on the use and enjoyment of ours. Some weeks ago, we presented this solution in the form of a proposal to the owners of the property at 115 (Lot 3) on which our easement is located and our attorney has confirmed their acceptance of the following- removal ollowing removal of our entire existing deeded septic grading easement (approx . 1600sf from Ms Simon's property and addition of a new small area at the street right-of-way line deeded for septic access and grading for ouR I"CD OCT 2 7 2003 BUILDING DEPT. Willis & Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844-2669 Monday October 27, 2003 Raymond Santdh Delivered by Hand Assistant Town Manager Town of North Andover 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 Re: 101 (Lot 2) Cricket Lane, Walnut Ridge Subdivision: Our Proposal to Address the Removal and Replacement of the Septic System at our above -referenced New -Construction Property and the Encroachment of our Deeded Septic Grading Easement Dear Mr Santdh, Further to our letter dated September 17, 2003, we wish to inform you of a solution devised by us to remedy the following serious issues that have been left unaddressed and unresolved to date, namely: 1. the encroachment of a large section of the septic grading easement deeded for our use on the adjacent property, as well as a minor encroachment of a portion of the adjacent property's driveway across our property line; 2. the adverse impact to the adjacent property in the event we exercise our right to use our deeded septic easement for the purposes it is designated; 3. the removal and replacement of a significant portion of the existing septic installation at our property as outlined in our September 17 letter to you as a result of existing conditions at our property that preclude these components from complying with Title 5 setback requirements for new -construction; 4. the need for a poured -concrete septic wall in the vicinity of the property line (upon replacement of the existing system) that had never formed part of the original approved septic design at our property nor the subsequent septic installation based on it. Our solution addresses the above issues, as well as the inequitable situation in which the owners of the property adjacent to ours have frill use and enjoyment of their property as well as that gained by encroachment of our easement, with the consequent negative impact on the use and enjoyment of ours. Some weeks ago, we presented this solution in the form of a proposal to the owners of the property at 115 (Lot 3) on which our easement is located and our attorney has confirmed their acceptance of the following: removal of our entire existing deeded septic grading easement (approx 1600sf) from Ms Simon's property and addition of a new small area at the street right-of-way line deeded for septic access and grading for our property; TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES 27 Charles Street NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 Robert Nicetta, Telephone (978) 688-954 Building c2' °� FAX (978) 688-9542 Commissioner Memorandum To:. Raymond Santilli, Assistant Town Manager From: Jeannine McEvoy, Building Department Re: Henley copies Date: October 15, 2003 Please be advised that I am sending copies requested by Rubina Henley. In the past we have charged her for the copies she has requested at .20 per page which would be $5.40. If you have any questions please call me. BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDINGS 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 6 jAjL_b)N(, F)Lr Fa,Q 10) C2,CKr BOAR -1) & HEALTH SEP 18 2003 Mr Raymond Santilli Assistant Town Man Town of North And, 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01840 Willis & Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844-2669 Wednesday September 17, 2003 Delivered by Hand Re: 101 (Lot 2) Cricket Lane, Walnut Ridge Subdivision: Notification of Invalidity of Septic Design Plan [Oct 15, 2002 revision and NABOH approval Nov 4, 20021 for above -referenced New -Construction property Dear Mr Santilli, On August 21, we determined that the above -referenced septic design plan, depicting construction of a 75 feet long septic wall, 4 feet above grade at its highest point, to bring the existing septic installation at our new -construction property into compliance with minimum setbacks, appeared to be invalid. We believed that the deeded septic easement appurtenant to our property precluded use for construction, since this easement was described solely for the purposes of access and addition and/or movement of soil or earth material. Therefore, it appeared to us that the section of the septic wall construction that had been depicted within this easement would not be legally permissible. By September 5, we had received independent confirmation of our doubts from our septic designer and real estate attorney. We are legally -obligated to disclose this information despite the approval received from your Health Director Ms Sandra Starr ten months ago for implementation of the above -referenced plan. We also discovered other deficiencies per regulations in both the preparation and subsequent approval of the plan, such as: • failure to provide written proof of a septic easement, per NABOH 9.02; • failure to provide evidence (book and page number) of the registry -recorded septic easement, per NABOH 9.02; • failure to depict names of abutters, per NABOH 8.021; • failure to list variance from NABOH 9.02 "Retaining walls used to make breakout according to 310 CMR 15.255(2) shall be reinforced poured concrete" in proposing the "Versa -Lok retaining wall"; • failure to depict water lines and other subsurface utilities, per 310 CMR 15.220(m) and NABOH 8.02u; • failure to state disclaimer "No wetland or watercourse exists within 100 feet from the leaching facility or reserve area", per NABOH 8.02s. TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER 120 MAIN STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 Raymond T Santilli Assistant Town Manager & Human Resources Director June 13, 2003 Attorney Thomas MacMillan MacMillan Law Offices 145 South Main Street, P.O. Box 5279 Bradford, MA 01835-0279 Re: Willis & Rubina Hendley of 101 Cricket Lane, North Andover Dear Mr. MacMillan: TEL (978) 688-9516 FAX (978) 688-9556 As we discussed on the telephone, this letter is intended to notify the property owners and you of all outstanding items necessary for the final sign -off and issuance of an occupancy permit for the above referenced property. Building Department All approvals and sign -offs have been received from the Plumbing and Gas Inspector as well as the Electrical Inspector. Subsequent to all of the other required signoffs (as noted below), the Building Inspector will perform a final inspection of the premises. After a final inspection, a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. Fire Department For the interior sprinkler system, although the fire inspector has not received a set of prints and. calculations for the sprinkler system, Lieutenant Melnikas is willing to conduct a "walk-through" in order to visually examine the sprinkler system. He will also conduct a flow test on the system. If all appears proper to the satisfaction of the Fire Department, Lieutenant Melnikas will provide the final sign -off on the interior sprinkler system. Conservation Department No outstanding issues. Health Department The Health Department is awaiting the application of a Town of North Andover licensed septic installer to repair and complete the septic system. An approved septic installer's list was forwarded to the homeowners on April 11th of this year. A modified design was developed by Steve Erickson of Norse Environmental, submitted and approved by the Health Department. The outstanding work that remains is for a licensed installer to: • Obtain a permit from the Health Department; • Construct a retaining wall according to the modified design; • Replace the broken pipe; • Have the repair and wall inspected; • Cover the system; and • Have the Health Department perform a final grade inspection Public Works (From previous correspondence dated May 29, 2002) The stone walls, tree plantings, curbing, paved driveway, and sprinkler system being constructed on the drainage easement must be addressed. The relocation of these items, as discussed at the site on May 29`h is an acceptable compromise. The stone wall will be relocated to about 28' to 30' maximum off the garage doors to allow the homeowner access to the garage. Although this will put a portion of the wall and paved driveway within the easement area, it is an acceptable solution. The DPW will require a minimum of 1 S' width in the easement to allow access for maintenance and construction vehicles. Tom Sawyer of ARCO will layout this for the homeowner's revisions. The trees must be removed from the easement or replanted in a location that the trees will not interfere with access and where the roots will not pose a maintenance problem for the drainage structures or piping. The sprinkler system piping and heads must be removed from the easement. The driveway pavement can be placed on the easement. To supplement the above referenced items, Public Works requires the following additional conditions: • The sprinkler system piping and heads can remain in the easement area with the understanding that the homeowner is responsible for any repair or maintenance to the system. Specifically, the Town of North Andover will not be responsible for any damage to the sprinkler system in the event that the Town needs to access or excavate the easement area. If the homeowner feels this is. unacceptable, then the sprinkler piping and heads must be removed from the easement area. r The drainage structure located in the driveway must be accessible to DPW personnel. The finished pavement grade shall match the finished rim elevation of the drainage structures. I/ TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER Office of the Building Department Community Development and Services 27 Charles Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01844 D. Robert Nicetta, Building Commissioner May 27, 2003 Thomas K. MacMillan MacMillan Law Offices Bradford Place 145 So. Main Street P.O. Box 5279 Bradford, MA 01835-0279 RE: 101 Cricket Lane North Andover, MA Dear Mr. MacMillan: Telephone (978) 688-9545 FAX (978) 6880542 Please be advised that this office has received your request for a listing of the required items necessary for the occupancy permit. Please be advised that the building permit card must be signed off in all of the boxes i.e. Board of Health, Plumbing and Gas, Electrical and Fire Departments. The Building Inspector is the last to sign off and for that to happen the dwelling must be ready to be occupied. The exterior grading must also be complete. Should you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 978-688-9545 between the hours of 8:30 — 10:00 AM and 1:00 — 2:00 PM. Respectfully, Michael McGuire Local Building Inspector ��� 'Vt, MacMILLAN LAW OFFICES BRADFORD PLACE 145 SO. MAIN STREET • P.O. BOX 5279 BRADFORD, MASSACHUSETTS 01835-0279 THOMAS KIRWAN MacMILLAN OF COUNSEL DOUGLAS A. MacMILLAN LISA M. MULLEN TIMOTHY C. DAY May 22, 2003 D. Roberts Nicetta, Building Inspector TOWN OF NO. ANDOVER Municipal Building 120 Main Street No. Andover, MA 01845 Re: 101 Cricket Lane No. Andover, MA Dear Mr. Nicetta: TELEPHONE (978) 521-5272 FACSIMILE (978) 372-0688 Please be advised that this office represents Willis & Rubina Hendley, owners of the above - captioned property. As you are aware, the Hendley's are attempting to make all the necessary completions to the property so that they may acquire the requisite occupancy permit. Given the amount of turmoil and confusion that has occurred in the past, I would respectfully request that your office produce within the next ten (10) days, in writing, a punch list of all items which you maintain are necessary for the final sign -off and issuance of an occupancy permit. Needless to say, my clients are anxious to complete this project in an expeditious manner so that they may move into their new home. Your efforts in this regard would be greatly appreciated. Please feel free to contact my office should you so require. Thanking you for your attention, and awaiting your response, I am, V , trul y r uu� Thomas K. MacMillan TKM.jpm cc: Willis & Rubena Hendley Mark H. Rees, Town Manager RECEIVED MAY 2 7 2003 BUILDING DEPT 5/2--71o3— 41 ✓e'� 'hv ""<- Q,ccQ� NkM#a,,Stobert iSubject: FW: 101 Crickett Lane tz 6 VJ as, Lt Andrew lectrical Inspectors have already signed off on the building ifth and Fire Departments. Upon notification that these sign mmediately perform the final inspection of the premises. be issued. RECEIVED MAY 19 2003 BUILDING DEPT. Willis & Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844-2669 Monday May 19, 2003 Delivered by hand TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER OPEN LETTER TO THE TOWN MANAGER AND SELECTPERSONS Re: Our Seeking Occupancy for 101 Cricket Lane, Walnut Ridge Subdivision Our Open Letter supplements the first formal protest we made in writing to your Town Manager, in a communication dated Friday November 22, 2002, of how your officials connected with the building process engaged in maneuvers to make our ability to obtain final sign -offs for our Occupancy Permit for our above home -to -be as miserable as possible, so that, presumably, we are encouraged to give up trying to ever become residents of North Andover and/or that these deliberate delays lead us into financial constraints to make us foreclose on our property. In our acco what occurred to us regarding the final sign -offs from your I tors, we condensed the run-around we received from them. �� ?Lceful and lengthy subjugation of us to meeting supposed c, hanged ad infinitum so that a final -sign -off process tha IDENTICAL circumstances at other properties ie into weeks and months in our case. The intent of th, with any semblance of performing their duties in a professiona_ _________ _ ._ . �_ s_.... -ause us maximum aggravation. Rubina's vilification in the public record (and our staunch belief that these officials would have thought twice about doing this to a white person) by your Conservation Administrator Ms Julie Parrino and Director of Public Works Mr Robert Beshara is an outrage perpetrated by these officials of a magnitude that is egregious and reckless in the extreme. We are both the legal owners of this property, Ms Parrino and Mr Beshara had met both of us prior to sending out their recriminatory letters, yet it was Rubina who was singled out by them despite these alleged misdeeds being of a general nature allegedly affecting our property as a whole. These letters would have been despicable enough addressed to us both, but specifically targeting Rubina speaks volumes for the mindset of their senders. In these, Rubina was blamed for a series of alleged wrong -doings (including a DEP citation for criminal activity by Ms Parrino). Further, the supposed infractions within these letters were stated as fact with neither support nor substantiation at the time these officials made their written determinations, other than what appears to be remarkable psychic abilities on their part. With this ability, Mr Beshara also deemed that elements on our property be demolished or made threats of demolition against them with no basis whatsoever for his orders of destruction, not even providing an as -built plan. [Mr Beshara's threat to demolish a beautiful stone -wall directly adjacent to our property was particularly spiteful in its intent, since the Page 1 of 18 `story' behind its construction is common knowledge in the subdivision.] Mr Beshara also conveniently omitted referring in his letter to the one-hour he spent haranguing Rubina at what he describes only as "his site visit" on May 23, and preferred instead to refer to what sounded like a jaunty tete-a-tete "with the homeowner and landscape contractor" on May 24, when in fact that day both of us, not just Rubina, were harassed by him. Both these reports in the public record also contain other outright falsehoods. In the case of Mr Beshara's letter, the net result was to let the developer, our former builder and Mr Beshara himself off the hook for the real reason the town easement on our property was compromised by having the convenience of "Mrs Rubina Hendley" (already notorious as the subdivision villain courtesy of Ms Parrino) as the scapegoat. Then a few days after receipt of Mr Beshara's letter, the developer's daughter, Ms Gerry -Lynn Darcy, also sends Rubina a letter expressing righteous indignation at all the awful horrors Rubina has committed, as catalogued for her by Mr Beshara, and goes on to threaten legal action against Rubina for these (these, too, determined by Ms Darcy with what appear to be the same remarkable psychic abilities as Mr Beshara's and Ms Parrino's). Both Mr Beshara and Ms Darcy must think we were born yesterday to not realize how obviously orchestrated this was. No doubt this game so wantonly played by them both with defiling someone else's reputation also led to bond money being released by your town. Because these letters take the form of `official' pronouncements in the written public record, they will be taken seriously and assumed by many (as has already been the case within this subdivision) to be true without any question of their veracity or validity. Such libelous and defamatory statements soon became talking points in the subdivision, we learnt, and repeated with glee by the likes of your Health Administrator Mr Brian La Grasse in conversations with us. We have suffered enough from Mr LaGrasse's rudeness and sarcasm - we are not alone in remarking on this official's atrocious behavior - without his adding this slanderous fuel to his repertoire. [For instance, Willis asked a perfectly abstract question in an August 2002 phone conversation with Mr LaGrasse for advice on what we were supposed to do and was met with the answer: "Mr Sawyer is reputable. The reason you are in so much trouble is that you don't know what you're doing." By inference, we presume we are not "reputable".] These letters have understandably caused considerable distress to Rubina, that she feels to this day, as well as to Willis and our entire immediate family. Thus, there is an entire subdivision in your town with multiple examples of violations (some serious) committed by the developer and various contractors that can all be corroborated with hard facts, not mere suppositions, but which have remained virtually unreported, un -addressed and uncorrected by your officials, and yet the only damning record of malfeasance within it by any individual is that against brown -skinned "Mrs Rubina Hendley" on a foundation that is non-existent. Meanwhile, you, as a town, have not even bothered to even ask the most fundamental question of your officials involved in sending out these letters, even after we alerted you, namely, what specifically is the support for the criminal citation, demolition orders and reports of wrong -doing being stated as fact? We reached a point last November, not just of extreme mental and physical exhaustion, but also of realizing that the civility and composure we had maintained up to that point in our Page 2 of 18 interaction with your officials - despite encountering all manner of unrelenting humiliations, degradations and other ignominies at their hands - was an absolute waste of our time. It is an effort for us to do so in this letter, since our only impression of the environment in your town is one in which this kind of misconduct is all in a day's work — tolerated and allowed to flourish. Our rights have not just been trampled over, but removed entirely and we find ourselves at the mercy of a town and its officials who are exercising not jurisdiction but abuse of power. Overall, the administration of this subdivision by your town has been an utter shambles and there are homeowners with properties with significant violations of local and state regulations through no fault of their own -just as in our case. These are not due to isolated examples of an honest mistake or two by your officials, but wholesale abrogation of their responsibilities. [An attorney for one of the other homeowners reported ofhis own volition to Rubina that he was not just angry with the builder/developer for the violations his clients' house was left with, but with your town for having "allowed" them.] But the main difference is that they are living in their homes, whilst we are not and, only in the case of Willis and Rubina Hendley, does the town of North Andover get on its high horse and lectures and blames us for these violations occurring, when they were committed by the developer, our former builder and other contractors under the full oversight of your respective officials. It is noteworthy, that we were the ones to bring many to your attention in the first place! Thus, it has been the case that, when these violations committed by others and left uncorrected by them causes us difficulties, we could be assured that your town would suddenly become conscious of every t and every i needing to be punctuated by Willis and Rubina Hendley and, for good measure, throw in a list of regulations at us that exist only in thin air. Indeed, as we have learnt to our cost, impartiality has been virtually an unknown entity in your town in many of its dealings with us. Our interactions with public officials have revealed widespread steadfast support of, and an obsequious manner of regarding the developer and contractors in this subdivision — a concern echoed to us by other residents in North Andover. Even more troubling, since your town has a habit of dismissing anything we say or report, is the fact that the public record supports instances of your town allowing the developer and other contractors to circumvent regulations. We believe one of the reasons for the antagonism towards us is that we have disrupted and exposed this status quo in North Andover and we have even been foolhardy to think it reasonable to ask your town for accountability, let alone principled conduct as the norm. Of the numerous serious abuses of the public trust by your town, we consider the situation within the Board of Health under your Health Director, Ms Sandra Starr, to be so unpalatable for the public welfare that we had no hesitation in filing a complaint with DEP. We do not consider there is anything remotely reasonable about having to deal with an official, who has concealed deception by the septic installer responsible for the septic installation at our property (see part two of our DEP complaint), has the most rude and dismissive mannerisms we have ever experienced with any public official and whose oversight of the septic installations at our property and at others within this subdivision is replete with dereliction of duty and demonstrable lack of competence. Together with the hateful and harmful way both Ms Starr and Mr LaGrasse have treated us, we will never be Page 3of18 assured of any fair treatment from either of these officials. At a minimum, we believed strongly that Ms Starr's serious professional misconduct needed to be reported at state level whether or not any censure or other action occurs. It goes without saying that in light of our experiences with your town it would have been an exercise in futility for us to expect any move by your town to address Ms Starr's conduct and administrative neglect, especially since we have been made aware of numerous complaints about Ms Starr that you as a town appear not to have adequately addressed, with very real grievances and difficulties being experienced by homeowners and contractors alike, aside from the ones who happen to be in her favor. We have, thus, been prevented from occupying our home -to -be, not because we have done anything wrong, but as a result of a series of what can only be described as the most vindictive, often retaliatory, acts and decisions hurled at us and time and time again by certain of these officials. This is the form they have taken - "tailored" specifically for us — and a blatant assault on our liberty to be able to live in and enjoy our home free of unnecessary constraints and restrictions: • utterly bogus conditions for us to comply with (always conveniently verbal); • other conditions that are both vague and contradictory (also conveniently verbal); • decisions due to malicious interpretation of regulations (also conveniently verbal); • decisions that have impeded our ability to seek competitive bids free of restrictive trade practices; • decisions based on incorrect or lack of understanding of regulations. In a personal meeting we had with Ms Rosemary Smedilie on November 22, 2002, we informed her of the stress we had needlessly been placed under and our deteriorating mental and physical well-being and we were led to believe that the Town Manager would call us. We were so looking forward to finally having an end to the surreal nightmare created for us. Instead of the direct personal contact with us we were expecting and an offer to the effect of `let's get you into the house for you to enjoy Christmas', we received a letter from his office dated January 8, 2003, that is quite frankly an insult to anyone's intelligence, in that it consists of obfuscations, sidestepping, lame excuses and absurd and far-fetched reasoning in an attempt to justify blatant misconduct and outright negligence; essentially condoning it. It also displays an inappropriately woeful ignorance of even your own town's regulations, let alone state and federal regulations, rights and protections. Neither are we amused by its tone of condescension in the `solutions' proposed and the implication that we do not follow regulations. We have had enough aspersions cast on our good name without this further denigration of our character. Additionally, since the public record for this subdivision supports the fact that you, as a town, are in the proverbial glass house, it is more than disingenuous for your town to attempt to adopt such a sanctimonious stance. This sort of response has not only exposed your town's callous indifference to our situation, but could hardly, to put it mildly, be considered salutary - it has helped us understand how the officials concerned are able to hold themselves above the law and behave with impunity whenever and in whatever manner they choose to with us. The actions of your officials, sanctioned at Town Manager level, have led to months of unjustifiable delay and expense to us. The mental anguish and suffering we have been caused has had deleterious effects on our health, with both of us dealing with acute depression and countless sleepless nights in addition to total upheaval in our personal, family, financial and working lives. Our son and Page 4 of 18 respective parents (Willis' mother died after a period of illness during the merry-go-round we were put on by your Fire Inspector) have not been spared distress either. Tried as we did, to shield our beloved ones from any knowledge of the ill -will we were being subjected to, it was impossible. It is painful for us to see how our own families are so badly affected by the harm and hurt your officials have and are causing us. These officials would never have contemplated, let alone dared, to engage in the antics they have so freely and maliciously done with us on any one of you. Below in numbered form is a continuation of our account, summarizing what were actually much more tortured and convoluted happenings, of how we have been treated: 1. Fire Inspector: In the Town Manager's January 8 letter to us: "You state that you have been trying to receive a final sign -off on the interior sprinkler system from the fire inspector since mid-August. Per regulations, the fire inspector is waiting for a set of prints and calculations for the sprinkler system before granting final approval. Approximately a year ago, he conducted a flow test on the system but still required the appropriate paperwork before final approval. The burden to produce the required paperwork is on the installer through the property owners. In order to assist in expediting this issue, Lieutenant Melnikas, in lieu of the required paperwork is willing to conduct a "walk-through" in order to visually examine the sprinkler system. If all appears proper to the satisfaction of the Fire Department, Lieutenant Melnikas will provide the final sign -off on the interior sprinkler system. Please contact his office at 978-688-9530 to schedule a mutually convenient time." So, your Fire Inspector has finally agreed to perform a visual walk-through inspection at our property, a decision he was able to make INSTANTANEOUSLY at the seven other properties in this subdivision that were rn the SAME circumstances as ours, but one that took him FIVE MONTHS to make in the case ofourpropertyand that, too, only after we complained. You see, in our November 22 letter we suspended describing our ordeal at the hands of your Fire Inspector with the statement: "....we suggested to your fire inspector to use the blueprints for Lot 7 (#132) because this property has an almost identical interior layout to ours." We will tell you why your Fire Inspector could not do this, since he appears to have neglected to mention it himself. In Rubina's October 23, 2002 phone call to your Fire Inspector, she asked for a copy of the blueprints for Lot 7 and was informed by him that he had "only received the sprinkler plans for Lots 6 and 8". More correctly, would have been to state that he did not bother ensuring the others were submitted. Your Town Manager's explanation "per regulations, the fire inspector is waiting for a set of prints and calculations before granting final approval" is a weak attempt to validate your Fire Inspector's failings in the following regards: Page 5of18 1. Your Fire Inspector did not bother to get the sprinkler plans and calculations for a total of 8 out of the 10 new -construction properties in this subdivison and then to check BEFORE work on installation even commenced if the coverage depicted in these plans was adequate, as was his required duty for safety reasons per your regulations, 2. Despite the requirement, per your regulations, that plans and calculations be submitted BEFORE the granting of a Building Permit, every one of the 8 out of 10 properties without plans had the Building Permits issued anyway; 3. Then, the entire sprinkler installation was allowed to proceed to completion at all 8 properties without any plans and calculations and at this point, in our case only, it suddenly became important to have a these on file after all the work was completed - a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, if ever there was one. For the record, your Fire Inspector actually came to our property on August 9, 2002, when Rubina was present, for the purpose of our receiving our final sign -off from him for the sprinklers and smoke detectors. He left without giving us any sign -off and, as he was leaving, Rubina asked why. Your Fire Inspector informed Rubina that the plumber needed to do a flow test first and when Rubina informed him that this had already been done the previous year, your Fire Inspector then said he would need to first check at his office to see what Rubina stated was true. He informed Rubina that he needed a couple of days to double-check and if the flow test had indeed been performed, then Rubina could bring our Building Permit to his office and he would sign it. Rubina spoke to him a couple of days later and, from that point on for a period of three weeks, not only did your Fire Inspector refuse to issue the sign -off he had promised, but also went back and forth with her for what he wanted from us for this final sign -off. After this dilly-dallying, the `version' your Fire Inspector eventually settled on for what he was expecting us to comply with was this: that our plumber re -do a flow test for him because it had been done "all that time ago" and for us to provide sprinkler blueprints for the installation. Yet, despite the fact that it was a total impossibility for us to provide these plans and that your Fire Inspector was fully aware of this (and our November 22 letter explains we could not comply with your Fire Inspector's demand because we informed him that we had been informed that the company issuing these had since gone out of business), your Fire Inspector remained fixated on us providing these plans and never once suggested, even though Willis suggested it on two occasions in phone calls to your Fire Inspector, that he do a walk-through with a visual inspection — which is what he could and should have done the time ofhis originalAugust 9 walk-through at ourproperty. Instead, for a total of over three months, Rubina ended up speaking regularly with your Fire Inspector regarding finalizing our sign -off. Each time Rubina mentioned how unhappy our plumber was at re -doing the test now that carpets had been installed, the fact he had already satisfactorily performed this test before and also the impossibility of obtaining blueprints for the sprinklers. Each time your Fire Inspector remained intransigent. In the last two conversations Rubina had with him, she pleaded "please, Lieutenant Melnikas, let us have a sign -off; it has been over three months", he responded each time with "you know what you have to do, get your plumber to make an appointment with me to do that flow test again" followed by the same "then we'll see", said in a flippant and almost mocking tone. Page 6 of 18 Rubina refused to have any more contact with your Fire Inspector afte our dumber personally stopped by (first on a Monday, when he learnt the Inspecto doe, not work, and then again the next day) to talk to your Fire Inspector about his unha ine with doing yet another flow test with the nice carpets we had had installed. Our pl er en reported back to us that your Fire Inspector had told him that there was no rea or a flow test after all, stating "I didn't realize you were the same plumber", but that we the homeowners still needed to provide plans. Clearly, your Fire Inspector's "then we'll see" to Rubina actually translated as `then we'll see you get the run-around for longer'. Thus, for months your Fire Inspector had repeatedly stressed to Rubina that our plumber needed to perform the flow test again because it had been done by our plumber "all that time ago", now changes his story to not needing one after all because our plumber is the "same" person, but remains steadfast in our need to provide him with blueprints, all the while Lots 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 do not and yet the homeowners of these properties have occupancy. 2. Gas Inspector: The explanation offered in your Town Manager's letter for the run-around we suffered at your Gas Inspector's hands can be similarly dissected by us, as with the above scenario, and shows, once again, how supposed rules and regulations were applied only to us and were also distorted in their application. Yet again, the response from the Town Manager fails to directly address or explain the actual issues we raised in our November 22 letter. 3. Electrical Inspector. Moments after Willis picked up a Permit in his name to complete the finish electrical work at our property, Rubina received a phone from our former builder's electrician. This contractor proceeded, in vehement fashion, to berate (a stupified) Rubina for what he stated were our criticisms of him and his work at our property. Rubina was totally shaken by his claims. It transpires that your Electrical Inspector had made a phone call to this contractor soon after Willis had obtained our permit and (most unprofessionally) felt it appropriate to indulge in `gossip' about our decision for completing the finish electrical work ourselves at our property - our complete right to do so under the regulations. 4. Ms Julie Parrino, Conservation Administrator: For reasons we could not fathom during Spring 2002 (but which explained themselves in due course), our landscape contractor and we were being subject to constant meddling and unpleasant needling by the developer's site contractor/septic installer Mr William Sawyer during a landscaping project at our property that had started on April 5. [This was actually a continuation of the same pattern of behavior that had begun a few weeks before we became legal owners in May 2001.] Suffice to say, we were not impressed with the way this contractor could run to your officials with all kinds of tales about us and rely on their full cooperation in joining in with, not just the harassing of us, but also with hurling at us all kinds of other accusations at us that emanated from him as fact. In frustration at the daily nonsense our landscaper and we were being subjected to by your officials, on both our behalves, Rubina paid a visit to Mr Tim Willet and Conservation. Regarding the visit to the Page 7of18 latter department, Rubina spoke to both Ms Parrino and her assistant Alison about our landscaping project, mentioning we were perplexed about Mr Sawyer's reason for complaining to the town about us. Ms Parrino told Rubina she would be on our property the following day, to which demand Rubina said "you will give me the courtesy of doing so when I am there" and asked Ms Parrino for an appointment time. However, Ms Parrino would not give one and told Rubina to speak with Mary, the Conservation secretary, for the actual time of her proposed visit. Mary, in tum, told Rubina that she could not set up an appointment without speaking to Ms Parrino (!). So, Rubina left and phoned Mary again several times that day to find out the time Ms Parrino had arranged or alternatively to speak to Ms Parrino directly. Each time Mary informed Rubina that Ms Parrino was too busy to talk to her, that Ms Parrino knew about letting Rubina know and that Ms Parrino wished to have Rubina's cell phone number. The next morning Rubina went to our property just before 8am and once again phoned Mary several times for the time of Ms Parrino's arrival, since Rubina could not spend all day outside wondering and waiting. Each time Mary assured Rubina that Ms Parrino knew she needed to give Rubina an appointment time and that Ms Parrino would be contacting her. After over fours hours of waiting, Rubina phoned Mary to tell her that Ms Parrino still had not been in touch, that Rubina was thirsty and hungry from waiting in the heat and would return within 20 minutes after picking up refreshments just down the road. In the short time while Rubina was away, Ms Parrino arrived, having never contacted Rubina and proceeded to wander round our property with Mr Sawyer and to impose a stop order to our landscaping work in part of our detention basin. The subsequent leveling of Ms Parrino's DEP criminal citation against Rubina was made just hours after Rubina had a lengthy cell phone conversation with Ms Parrino soon after Ms Pan ino's intrusion onto our property, in which Rubina informed Ms Parrino that she "expected more professionalism" from her. Rubina informed Ms Parrino that she did not "think it was right to ignore me every time I tried to make an appointment". Ms Parrino then told (an incredulous) Rubina that "you have altered grades within the detention basin" and that she wanted us to "have a survey done", further claiming that our detention basin had already been surveyed as part of the overall certification procedures the developer needed to comply with (when in fact this was a false statement - see our DEP complaint). Rubina then asked Ms Parrino to explain specifically what she meant by "we had altered grades", to which Ms Parrino only reiterated her demand that she wanted us to do a survey. Getting nowhere with Ms Parrino's stubborn refusal to consider our side of the story, Rubina then said "since you have helped yourself onto our property, did you see any grades being altered in the detention basin ?" To this, Ms Parrino admitted she had not. Rubina then informed Ms Parrino that if she wished to listen to "gossip and insinuations about us from Mr Sawyer", that Ms Parrino was "free to do so on the street" and "not while roaming around our property, without our permission, in our absence, in the company of this site contractor who had no authorization to be there either". During this conversation, Ms Parrino - obviously unmoved by Rubina's consternation at having trespassed on our property and slandered our good name by hurling spurious accusations at us as fact - demanded again that we arrange for a survey to ostensibly disprove (or presumably prove) the allegation made by the site contractor that grades within our detention basin had been altered. When Rubina protested this requirement, Ms Parrino continued in the same specious vein and informed Rubina that, because Rubina was "not an engineer", Ms Parrinio did not consider her qualified. Rubina pointed out that neither Ms Parrino nor Mr Sawyer Page 8 of 18 were surveyors and yet she was not asking Mr Sawyer to prove his allegation to be true. Ms Parrino again demanded we conduct a survey of the detention basin to prove to her that grades had not been altered and stated if we did not do this we would notget a final sign-off&om her. Ms Parrino also went on to verbally impose a series of conditions on the use of the rear of our property within the 100' wetland buffer zone (one of only two in this entire subdivision that are well outside this zone, including the majority of the detention basin), that were so ludicrous and restrictive that we practically were expected to ask her permission before even touching a blade of grass. Our follow-up letter to DEP includes some other details, the not insignificant ones being that Ms Parrino had a lengthy, discussion with both of us prior to mailing out her criminal citation of Rubina alone, "and of your own Conservation Commission's wanton disregard for its responsibilities in ensuring the developer complied with DEP-mandated requirements. The expense and delay we were thus subjected to by Ms Parrino's demands before she would give us a sign -off were a complete violation, from beginning to end, of all the rights and protections we are afforded under the law. Little did we know at that time that Ms Parrino was just a warm-up for even uglier travails in your officials' hands. 5. Building Inspector: In July 2002, your Building Inspector, Mr Michael McGuire, informed Rubina that he would not be prepared to conduct the final walk-through inspection leading to an occupancy permit for our above home -to -be. Mr McGuire indicated that he was offended by a complaint Rubin, made against him regarding the manner in which he dealt with concerns we had about building code violations by our former builder that were not being addressed while the latter was the legal owner of this property. Since Mr McGuire gave no other option to Rubina after having made this statement, Rubina naturally asked him what we were supposed to do. At this point, Mr McGuire informed Rubina that she could ask the Electrical Inspector to perform this, stating that he also had building inspection experience, or to ask the Building Commissioner, Mr Robert Nicetta. In a subsequent conversation with the secretary for the Building Department, Jeanine, for help with how we were to set up these appointments, Rubina learnt that Mr Nicetta was rarely available and the Electrical Inspector only worked part-time. When Rubina pointed out that this was somewhat of an inconvenience, Jeanine also made the comment that it was not a "particularly nice thing to do to complain about Mike" and that in light of this he would not be coming to our property. 6. Ms Heidi Griffin, Community Development & Services Director: In August 2002, in a face-to-face meeting, Rubina informed your Director of Community Services Ms Heidi Griffin that Willis had taken a total of six mornings off work to attempt to speak to either Mr LaGrasse or Ms Starr during the public counter hours of 9am to 10am Page 9 of 18 and, on each occasion, neither of these officials were available. On each of those days, Rubina explained that Willis had arrived a few minutes after nine and waited until a few minutes before ten without ever being able to speak to either of them because they had either not arrived or, on two occasions, were too busy to talk with him. Rubina then pointed out that when Willis eventually made phone contact with Ms Starr, he was forced by Ms Starr to make an appointment to see her during counter hours when the appointment system was clearly intended for outside counter hours. After Rubina finished describing Willis's experience, Ms Griffin said that both Ms Starr and Mr LaGrasse were required to attend to counter hours and asked if Rubina was certain of this. Rubina assured her that Willis had lost six mornings off work by no-one from Board of Health being present during counter hours. Rubina also mentioned the times she too had been affected by the absences at counter hours at your BOH. A few days later, when Rubina asked to speak to Mr LaGrasse, Ms Griffin was on hand and, to Rubina's complete surprise, admonished her by stating that "you spent an hour with him yesterday". When Rubina attempted to explain her side of the story (too tedious, North Andover, to go into the details here), Ms Griffin retorted with "it's true, I saw it", which made Rubina decide she was not going to bother with trying to overcome such an argumentative stance. Ms Griffin's attitude stunned Rubina so much that she did not mention an unpleasant experience she had recently had with Ms Starr at the counter when Rubina asked to speak to her, at which time Ms Starr remained totally mute, refused to say anything, instead untaped a piece of paper from the counter, walked away with it, brought back what appeared to be a photocopy of this paper, pointed rudely to the statement on it that said "other times by appointment only", threw the photocopy at Rubina, turned her back and walked away. In late November 2002, Willis had a phone conversation with Ms Griffin who brought up the topic of a letter (dated November 12, 2002) she had received from Rubina on our behalf, in which Rubina also asked for a response from Ms Griffin to various concerns we raised - needless to say, we never received any reply. In this letter, Rubina had pointed out various problems we had encountered during our attempts to put our failed septic installation into compliance, including those as a result of a deeded septic grading easement for our use being permanently compromised. Rubina had sent the letter to Ms Griffin (who has a background in Town Planning) as a result of complete frustration at how many errors and problems we had discovered and were suffering the adverse effects of in our attempts to rectify the septic non-compliance issues at our property. Ms Griffin stated to Willis that Rubina's letter was "confusing" and that she did not "know why she sent this to my department". Willis made no comment to Ms Griffin's assessment of Rubina, but here is our a -b -c explanation for Ms Griffin having failed to notice the obvious: • Your officials should not have allowed the violations to occur in the first place; • having occurred, it is your officials' job, not ours', to detect them, but that is what we ended up doing; • having detected them, we were then left to sort out the problems as a result and your officials failed to notify the parties responsible or to offer compassionate help to us. 7. Mr Robert Beshara, Director of Public Works: On May 23, 2002, the site contractor/septic installer Mr Sawyer accosted both Rubina and our landscaper about the supposed condition of the granite curbing in the street alongside Page 10 of 18 our property and accused our landscaper of removing some sort of material from behind the curbing, an accusation hotly denied by our landscaper. At some stage, Rubina also received a visit from Ms Darcy and her father and subdivision developer Mr Thomas Laudani. It is pertinent to point out that at the time we were unaware that your town had given a blanket issuance of a Certificate of Compliance to the developer without checking whether any of the conditions for the correct installation of the roadway had been met by the contractors working for the developer. Within a couple of hours of this - yet another of Mr Sawyer's accusatory bouts - Rubina returned to our property after a break and noticed someone in a pick-up had parked alongside our property and was staring at it. A few minutes later, this person got out of the vehicle and stood on the street, still staring towards our property. Since this was more than disconcerting, Rubina asked who he was, stating that she was one of the homeowners (Rubina has got used to doing this as she has been mistaken for being a laborer or cleaning person before). He introduced himself as "Bob Beshara from DPW" and immediately said to Rubina "your driveway opening is in the wrong place". Rubin said "what do you mean it's in the wrong place". Mr Beshara pointed to a drain in the street and told Rubina that was where it needed to be instead of where it actually was. He then walked to his vehicle, brought back a piece of paper — an 8"x11" printout of a portion of the approved subdivision plan detailing our lot — pointed to a drain location depicted on it and then to the drain on the street and said "that's where your opening should start". Rubina asked him how he knew that the drain in the street was put in the location per the approved plan. Mr Beshara said "I measured it". He repeated again that our driveway opening was in the wrong location and pointed to where he claimed it should be. Rubina then informed him "if we put it there, we will hit the side of the house", assuming this was evident to Mr Beshara for vehicle entry into what is a side -entrance garage. Rubina than pointed to the house across the road and said "see how that driveway is offset from the side of the house, just like the way ours is". Rubina pointed to the plan showing the same relationship of our driveway to the house and told Mr Beshara that if he was claiming that the driveway opening needed to start at this street drain then "it's obvious that our house was put in the wrong location". Mr Beshara ignored Rubina's observation and said again that our driveway opening was in the wrong place and that we could not have it where it was. Rubina pointed out that it had been there ever since we took over the house from our builder and asked "shouldn't you be talking to the developer? - tell him to sort it out since it's at street level and nothing to do with us". [You see, Rubina had some idea about the regulation that states "It shall be the developer's responsibility to assure the proper placement of the driveways regardless of whether individual lots are sold"] At this point Mr Beshara revealed the real reason for his sudden `interest' in the location of our driveway opening — by the way, that no-one in your town was interested in all the time our former builder was the owner - because he retorted with "well, Mr Sawyer said you told him to put it there". Rubin, taken aback at Mr Sawyer's appearance in the conversation, replied "if you must know I did nothing of the sort. This was something we got together with our builder about and this is the location we all decided on because it is the only place for it. Perhaps my builder told Mr Sawyer". To this Mr Beshara retorted with a very curt "I can't get into he -said she -said". So, your official Mr Beshara can report Mr Sawyer's Page 11 of 18 statement as being fact and if Rubina attempted to give our side of the story, it turns into "can't get into he -said she -said". Mr Beshara continued in this vein about our driveway opening being "in the wrong place" and also added that the driveway asphalt could not impinge on the town easement at street level either. Rubina pointed to the plan that showed otherwise, but Mr Beshara insisted no part of the easement could have asphalt on it. Rubina then pointed out that our driveway at street level would then be a very narrow strip barely one car wide and that, together with its peculiarly -shaped and very acutely -angled approach, would not be safe to use. She asked if Mr Beshara felt it reasonable that our house would then have the only driveway in the street looking "both silly and practically unusable". Mr Beshara stayed adamant, constantly reformatting his angle of attack each time Rubina came up with an intelligent and commonsense response. Mr Beshara finally browbeat Rubina into believing we could not leave our driveway entrance in the location where it was. Mr Beshara told her we would have to apply to Planning for permission to have the driveway opening and location where it currently was, but unless Planning approved the existing location, we would have to move it to where he said. When Rubina asked him how this approval process was done, he explained that we would have to place our application on the agenda for the next meeting and present our case and went on to make a big production of a chance it might be denied. Then the topic switched and Mr Beshara told Rubina that she needed to remove a boulder wall, a couple of trees and our sprinkler system from what he described as the town access easement. Having barraged Rubina for over half -an -hour about the driveway opening, he then proceeded to barrage her for another half -an -hour about these alleged impediments, also bringing up the claim that our landscaper had "badly damaged the street curbing". Regarding the latter, apart from some minor popping -out of cement filler between the curbing sections, neither of us could ever detect anything out of the ordinary in the condition of the curbing outside our property compared to the rest of the street. Of course, any attempt on Rubina's part to point this obvious -to -the -eye fact out to Mr Beshara was met with resistance on Mr Beshara's part, because his agenda for pestering Rubina was clearly pre -conceived. The entire experience with Mr Beshara left Rubina drained and shaken because so much of Mr Beshara's way of speaking was with thinly -veiled threats - this was the main reason Willis took a day off work the next day to be at our property just in case Mr Sawyer or Mr Beshara hounded her again. Lo and behold, Mr Beshara turned up again the next day and fortunately for Rubina, relatively soon after he had begun where he had left off the previous day, Willis showed up, which resulted in Mr Beshara's switch to a more modulated approach with Willis present — all white and 6'3" of him — but essentially got us feeling as if we were some sort of common criminals with having a driveway opening and trees and sprinkler systems all allegedly "in the wrong place". After spending over forty minutes with us on his mission for the good of the subdivision, Mr Beshara felt it appropriate to send a letter to Rubina ALONE, in which Rubina is referred to in the third person terms that are unequivocally harassing and humiliating towards her in their implications. Mr Beshara's letter purports to show how dutiful he is to send this horrific `discovery' of all these problems Rubina had caused to the town easement to the `unsuspecting' daughter of the developer. The letter also helpfully contained numerous additional `discoveries' Mr Beshara had never mentioned to us and that were as Page 12 of 18 unsubstantiated as his other claims, such as that there was "construction of a driveway" occurring at our property that he claimed was compromising "the Town's ability to provide maintenance and repairs to the drainage system". For the record, it was clearly evident to him that there was no work occurring on construction of a driveway at our property then (or to date) — but no doubt this `observation' helped the developer to receive his bond money back. Presumably desperate to pull as much out of his conjuring hat (he forgot the rabbit) as possible to ensure that only Rubina got blamed for the easement being compromised, Mr Beshara also made sure everyone knew about "curbing" that the irresponsible "Mrs Rubina Hendley" allegedly placed in the town access easement. This "curbing", that is such an alleged impediment to vehicles, consist of 12" long by 5" high blocks of the type available in Home Depot and used for edging flower beds in millions of homes throughout the country. North Andover, is there no limit to the degradations your town officials feel they can put us through? There are so many twisted, exaggerated and sordid claims in Mr Beshara's communication that are based wholly on unsubstantiated claims and outright lies that we are left at a loss for words for the brazen manner in which he can get away with writing these things. The statement in the letter "the driveway opening was adjusted to suit the homeowner" implies that the driveway opening location that was in place was due to unreasonable or flamboyant excesses by us. Not only was this not the case, but it was clearly obvious in any site visit that it was also the only REASONABLE place for it and we had no other option since our builder had constructed our house in the wronglocation (confirmed by the as - built on file at the time) and also at the wrong elevation. Exactly the same type of deviation in location and elevation that occurs at other houses in this subdivision — for example, the property adjacent to ours has a driveway in a significantly different location and elevation to the approved plans so as to permanently compromise our deeded septic grading easement and also cut across our lot line — but of course this is no concern to either your town or Mr Beshara. It is noteworthy that in his letter, Mr Beshara refers to a "15' width in the easement to allow access to maintenance and construction vehicles". The original width of this part of the easement per the approved plans was 20' total and the SOLE reason Mr Beshara has reduced it to 15' total (10' instead of the approved 15' on our side of the property line and 5' on the adjacent homeowners side of the property line) is because he was fully aware that our builder had positioned our house much closer into the easement side of our property than the approved plans depicted and that he actually knew this was reason for the easement being compromised. Another degradation in this letter was the reference to a May 29 meeting at our property between the developer's daughter Ms Darcy, Mr Beshara and Mr Sawyer for which we were not present nor we knew nothing about and this letter exposes how these individuals thought they had a right to impose conditions on how we could use our property. Worst still, Mr Beshara wrote: "Requiring the driveway to be built according to plan would require the homeowner to remove a substantial wall and stairway which would serve no purpose". Page 13 of 18 This statement is an example of PURE UNADULTERATED HARASSMENT that was MALICIOUSLY MADE. Mr Beshara has a PE qualification — he knew exactly what the effect of that horrific, unsubstantiated, threat to destroy our property was all about. A few days after receiving this communication, Rubina phoned Mr Beshara and informed him that since he was "so concerned" about sprinkler systems impinging on town easements, did he realize there was a sprinkler system and heads within the town easement at the property next door. Mr Beshara replied, "Is there? Is there? I'll go and knock on their door and tell them to remove it." Rubina asked when he would do this and Mr Beshara replied "this afternoon". A few days later, Rubina phoned again to enquire about Mr Beshara's visit and this is what he came out with "on second thoughts, you can leave your sprinkler system in place". There are also recently -planted trees on the adjacent property that also appear to impinge on the access easement — but your town is not going to be interested in those because they do not form part of the need to use "Mrs Rubina Hendley" to deflect attention away from violations committed by others. 8. Ms Sandra Starr and Mr Brian La Grasse, Board of Health: The entire circumstances behind the septic installation failure at ourproperty that occurred under the full oversight of your Health Director Ms Sandra Start reveal administrative failings on a scale that is staggering and incidents ofsedous professional misconduct by both contractors and officials alike On Thursday November 21, 2002, Mr LaGrasse, delivered a verbal cease and desist order at our property to stop work being continued by our contractors who were in the process of preparing to build a wall alongside an existing septic installation that had been originally installed to completion in November 2000, under the aegis ofMs Starr, but which, in fact, signifcandy failed to meet the minimum requirements of Title 5 of the state environmental code with regard to downhill slope setback requirements for the soil absorption system because of significant deviations in elevations and locations of permanent structures at the adjacent occupied property compared to the approved plan. (Deviations from approved plans at the adjacent property and their subsequent adverse effect on ours is relevant to consider since the public record clearly shows this entire subdivision as being an engineered site with complex interaction of the location and elevation of structures and other elements within and between each lot. Even though Ms Starr had information from the public record to support the fact that site conditions deviated significantly from those in the approved septic design plan MONTHS before Mr Sawyer started work - thereby making this original plan for our property invalid for use by our former builder and Mr Sawyer and that any septic installation using this plan should never be allowed to proceed - nevertheless, full installation was allowed using this same plan, with permit issued to Mr Sawyer and periodic inspections performed by Ms Starr.] IT IS AN IDISPUTABLE FACT THAT TITLE 5 HAS IN-BUILT ADMINISTRATIVE SAFEGUARDS TO HAVE PREVENTED THE WRONG DESIGN FROM EVER HAVE BEEN USED FOR A SEPTIC INSTALLATION. Page 14 of 18 Through our own investigation and efforts, we made the painful discovery of significant Title 5 failure of the septic installation at our property, which also included identrfying significant administrative errors throughout this subdivision made by your various officials and numerous examples ofslgnifcant violations ofstate and local regulations that had been allowed by them for one reason or another (refer to our complaint lodged with DEP for examples of these). The wall construction work that was required around the existing septic installation at our property was not part of the original design and its purpose was to act as mitigation of sewage breakout and meeting downhill slope setback requirements for Title 5 minimum requirements. Compounding the headaches we have incurred as a result of mistakes made by your officials concerned, the wall was necessary because we were prevented from using a deeded septic grading easement for our property on the adjacent property because your officials also wrongly allowed a structure (a driveway) to be placed on it at the wrong elevation whose location could not be changed either. Thus, instead of being able to add soil to solve the Title 5 failures at our property, we had the considerable extra expense of needing a wall built. The cease-and-desist order was one of the most vindictive decisions in a whole slew to which we have been subjected by your officials connected with the building process all the while we have tried to seek occupancy for a home we have labored hard for. It TOTALLY UNNECESSARILY prevented our being able to move into our home for the 2002 holidays, particularly as we had suffered enormously* as a result of the serious administrative mistakes at the hands of Ms Starr and had also ended up personally identifying and sorting out these in order to submit a revision to the original approved septic design plan used for the installation at our property. [* We went thorough weeks' long mental shock and agonies believing Ms Starr's decision that we had no other option but to remove the ENTIRE existing septic installation and replace it with a new one, because she had failed to ensure that the most fundamental and vital Title 5 requirement of deeded septic grading easement needing to be depicted on the original septic design plan. It was entirely due to vigilance on our part and the decision we made to study Tide 5 for ourselves that we were spared this removal and replacement at a huge cost to us.] We are as much the victims of the negligence of your Health Director and associated contractors with regard to our septic installation as are the equally innocent homeowners living in a property in this subdivision discharging sewage and household waste for the last three years to a septic system that is in technical violation of Tide 5. What is likely to happen at the point these homeowners might try to sell their property? Discover how the town had allowed contractors, perhaps long gone, to leave them with this impediment to selling their property. We were also present at the time of Mr LaGrasse's visit and the cease and desist order came as a total shock and surprise to us and we expressed as much to Mr LaGrasse. Mr La Grasse went on to inform us that we were performing work allegedly in violation of an administrative condition in which: Page 15 of 18 • a licensed septic installer take out a permit for our wall installation work and for a minor repair to the end of a plastic septic pipe damaged during tree planting preparation work by our landscaper; • then for this installer to stand around the whole time the wall work was being done; • then for this installer to agree to certify the entire septic installation (original and new). Mr La Grasse informed us that unless we complied with these conditions, all work on building the wall would have to cease. We asked Mr LaGrasse to cite specifically where the requirements we were expected to comply with were mentioned in the regulations for the circumstances we were under. At this point Mr LaGrasse did not answer our question, but instead informed us, with a very broad grin across his face, "that's Steve Ericsen's job and he should have known better than to let you go ahead with this". We pleaded with Mr LaGrasse to be allowed to complete the work because we had a miniscule window of opportunity left before winter conditions made work outside impossible for the kind of work we needed to do. Our plight clearly satisfied the spiteful behaviour that we have time and time again been subjected to with Mr LaGrasse. As he walked away from delivering his cease-and-desist order, he threw his head back laughing and as he got in his car and drove away he carried on laughing. This was also witnessed by both our contractors, whose disbelief at Mr LaGrasse's conduct mirrored ours. Mr LaGrasse's notification of a cease and desist order at this time of the year, within the context of the entire circumstances behind the septic installation issues at our property as well as the manner in which your officials had treated us to date, effectively ended all hope for us to be able to occupy our home -to -be for the late 2002 holidays and meant we would have the massive expense of an empty, but otherwise habitable home, to support until the weather broke in the late spring/early summer of 2003. The requirement we were given to fulfill by Ms Starr of our needing another septic installer taking over the responsibility for installation of the original septic installation at our property is also in complete contradiction to the statement she made to our septic designer, Mr Steven Ericsen, in September 2002, in which Ms Starr would act as administrative sign -off for the existing septic installation (in light of Mr Sawyer's refusal to do so for our original installation) and Mr Ericsen would act as the certified surveyor as the administrative sign -off for the wall construction. Not just content with shielding the original septic installer from deception involved in our septic installation, Ms Starr has backtracked on the procedure she outlined to Mr Ericsen. In the days after the cease-and-desist notification was given, we both spoke to numerous officials and also spent running around frantically trying to find a way to comply with yet another set of `verbal' conditions that defied commonsense as well as our understanding of the regulations (of course, no support along those lines was ever given us, despite the fact time and time again — including our written request to Ms Starr originally made in August 2002 that has been totally ignored to date — we asked for these in writing). Page 16 of 18 The response from your Town Manager has not helped because its reference to administrative requirements he claims we should meet contradict the ones repeated time and again to us by Ms Starr and Mr LaGrasse. Further, in his letter, your Town Manager states: "Your filing a complaint with the Department of Environmental Protection against the Health Department staff is within your discretion. However, it is uncertain whether the Department of Environmental Protection has jurisdiction in the matter. If you believe that the actions of the Health Department staff were unwarranted or not in compliance with regulations, you bring the matter before the Board of Health at their next scheduled meeting. If you wish to do so, please contact Ms Sandra Starr at 978-688-9540 to be placed on the agenda." Needless to say, in light of our entire experience with your officials and with Ms Starr and Mr LaGrasse in particular, we find this suggestion to be almost beyond belief In the case of our trying to put our existing septic installation into compliance, Ms Starr has turned what was a straightforward corrective process into a contorted and ugly proceeding with additional problems created for us, entirely due to her's and Mr LaGrasse's own administrative mishandling, negligence and outright hostility towards us and by Ms Starr's shielding of the septic installer's attempts to mislead. Despite your Town Manager's stance, there is absolutely no justification WHATSOVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, that the form your officials' behaviors and decisions have taken to date could be construed as necessary or reasonable for our circumstances. As for the traits outlined in the "Customer Service Follow Up Form", issued by your Community Development & Services Division, these are an excruciating reminder to us that these, the most basic of concepts in public service that should be automatic in their execution for all, have purposefully excluded us. We consider it is disgraceful indictment on your town that your officials have given the `welcome mat' of such nasty associations with our home -to -be and that because of the environment we have encountered that has been so discriminatory, retaliatory and lacking in impartiality towards us we are forced to resort to using our attorney to make sure no more of our rights and liberties are violated. Yours sin rely, Willis A M Hendley ', �-, "f 0� ",`may Rubina Hendley Page 17 of 18 cc Ms Kathy McKenna, Planning Building Department Ms Julie Parrino, Conservation Mr Hmurciak, DPW Mr Beshara, DPW Mr Tim Willet Ms Sandra Starr, BOH Mr Brian LaGrasse, BOH Ms Heidi Griffin, Community Services Development Lt Melnikas, Fire Inspector Page 18 of 18 OF aORTN ,� Town of • eB1CNUBE4`9 NORTH ANDOVER COMMISSION on DISABILITY ISSUES Mr. Bob Nicetta Building Department Commissioner Town of North Andover Building Department 27 Charles St. North Andover, MA 01845 May 5, 2003 Dear Mr. Nicetta: 120 Main Street, 01845 (508) 688-9510 FAX (508) 688-9556 My name is Nancy D. Murphy, a newly appointed member of the North Andover Commission on Disability Issues. As such, I am writing to request a date when Mr. Jim Lyons, Vice Chairperson of the Commission, other delegates of the Commission who may be interested, and I could tour the New High School Survey to inspect it for compliance with the A.D.A. Please notify me at 978-683-0686 or Jim Lyons at 978-687-4288 as soon as possible for the earliest available date and time. We will then give you a final count as to how many commissioners will attend. Thank you. Sincerely, Aet4�i Nancy D. Murphy cc: Jim Lyons RECEIVED NA 1 7 2003 BUILDINGDEPT. �1� � V�/, g� i��l r Si6�ia3 VM I M��crwg N� �, - f""`1 e TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER 120 MAIN STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 f p1pRT11 � 0 `ttlYD I° tiO 0 00-1 A SSA USE SEXUAL HARASSMENT POLICY OF THE TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER I. Introduction 1303 u�QTA It is the goal of the Town of North Andover to promote a workplace that is free of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment of employees occurring in the workplace or in other settings in which employees may find themselves in connection with their employment is unlawful and will not be tolerated. Further, any retaliation against an individual who has complained about sexual harassment or retaliation against individuals for cooperating with an investigation of a sexual harassment complaint is similarly unlawful and will not be tolerated. To achieve the Town's goal of providing a workplace free of sexual harassment, the conduct that is described in this policy will not be tolerated and a procedure has been outlined by which inappropriate conduct will be dealt with, if encountered by employees. Because the Town of North Andover takes allegations of sexual harassment seriously, we will respond promptly to complaints of sexual harassment and where it is determined that such inappropriate conduct has occurred, we will act promptly to eliminate the conduct and impose such corrective action as necessary, including disciplinary action where appropriate. This policy applies to all individuals, both male and female, working for the Town. It applies to all employment relationships, including supervisor/subordinate and same level employees. All employees are prohibited from engaging in behavior that is sexually harassing in any way. Supervisory level employees are responsible for monitoring the workplace to keep it free of sexual harassment and for reporting to the Town Manager or a Complaint Officer any violations of this policy that they become aware of and any complaints of harassment reported to them. Please note that while this policy sets forth our goal of promoting a workplace that is free of sexual harassment, the policy is not designed or intended to limit our authority to discipline or take remedial action for workplace conduct which we deem unacceptable, regardless of whether that conduct satisfies the definition of sexual harassment. II. Definition of Sexual Harassment The legal definition of sexual harassment is broad. "Sexual harassment" means sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: (1) submission to or rejection of such advances, requests or conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of employment or as a basis for an employment decision; or (2) such advances, requests or conduct have the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance by creating an intimidating, hostile, humiliating or sexually offensive work environment. Under these definitions, direct or implied requests by a supervisor for sexual favors in exchange for actual or promised job benefits such as favorable reviews, salary increases, promotions, increased benefits, or continued employment constitutes sexual harassment. In addition to the above examples, other sexually -oriented conduct, whether it is intended or not, that is unwelcome and has the effect of creating a work place environment that is hostile, offensive, intimidating, or humiliating to male or female workers may also constitute sexual harassment. The following are a few examples of conduct which, if unwelcome, may constitute a hostile environment: ♦ Unwelcome sexual advances - whether they involve touching or not; ♦ Sexual epithets, jokes, written or oral references to sexual conduct, gossip regarding one's sex life; comments on an individual's body, comments on an individual's sexual activity, deficiencies, or prowess; ♦ Displaying sexually suggestive objects, pictures, cartoons; ♦ Unwelcome leering, whistling, brushing against the body, sexual gestures, suggestive or insulting comments; ♦ Inquiries into one's sexual experiences; ♦ Discussion of one's sexual activities; and ♦ Continuing to invite an individual to engage in social or sexual activities after being informed that the individual is not interested. Town of North Andover Sexual Harassment Policy Page 2 Sexual harassment is not limited to prohibited behavior by a male employee toward a female or by a supervisory employee toward a non -supervisory employee. For example: ♦ A male, as well as a female, may be the victim of sexual harassment; a female, as well as a male, may be the harasser. ♦ The harasser does not have to be the victim's supervisor. The harasser may also be an agent of the employer, a supervisory employee who does not supervise the victim or a non -supervisory employee (co-worker). . ♦ The victim may be the same sex as the harasser. ♦ The victim does not have to be the person at whom the unwelcome sexual conduct is directed. The victim may also be someone who is affected by such conduct when it is directed toward another person. For example: The sexual harassment of one employee may create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment for another co-worker, or may interfere with the co-worker's work performance; and/or An employee who is forced to work in an environment where preferential treatment is given to those who submit to sexual advances may be adversely affected by such conduct. In addition, the dissemination of sexually explicit voice mail, e-mail, graphics, downloaded material or websites in the workplace is strictly prohibited. All employees should take special note that, as stated above, retaliation against an individual who has complained about sexual harassment, and retaliation against individuals for cooperating with an investigation of a sexual harassment complaint is unlawful and will not be tolerated. III. Training The Town recognizes the importance of educating and training its employees on how to recognize and prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. Therefore, all supervisors will be provided with training, at the Town's expense. Training shall be provided by either an outside source or the Human Resources Director, as determined by the Town Manager. Training of all non -supervisory employees and officials may also be provided, at the Town's expense, by either departmental supervisors or the Complaint Officer. Additional training may also be required, at the discretion of the Town Manager and/or the Board of Selectmen. IV. Complaints of Sexual Harassment If any of our employees believes that he or she has been subjected to sexual harassment, the employee has the right to file a complaint directly with a Town Complaint Officer. This may be done in writing or orally. Town of North Andover Sexual Harassment Policy Page 3 and The Town of North Andover has designated: Ray Santilli Assistant Town Manager & Human Resources Director North Andover Town Hall 120 Main Street, North Andover, MA 01845 (978) 688-9516 Lyne Savage Town Accountant North Andover Town Hall 120 Main Street, North Andover, MA 01845 (978) 688-9523 as Complaint Officers. They are vested with the authority and responsibility of processing all harassment complaints in accordance with the procedure outlined below. In addition to the two Complaint Officers, employees may report complaints to their respective departmental supervisors, who will refer complaints to one of the Complaint Officers. V. Sexual Harassment Investigation When either Complaint Officer receives a complaint, he/she will promptly investigate the allegation in a fair and expeditious manner. The investigation will be conducted in such a way as to maintain confidentiality to the extent practicable under the circumstances. The investigation will include a private interview with the person filing the complaint, the alleged harasser, and with witnesses. In addition to witness interviews, the investigation may also include a review of any documents, journals, recordings, photographs, voice mails, e-mails, telephone records, or other items that may be relevant to the allegations of harassment. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Complaint Officer/investigator will report the results of the investigation, in writing, to the Town Manager. If appropriate, the complainant and/or alleged harasser will also be informed of the results of the investigation. Depending on these results, disciplinary action may be taken against the alleged harasser. In the discretion of the Town Manager, the complainant may be informed of the imposed discipline. The Complaint Officer may make follow-up inquiries to ensure that the conduct has not resumed and that neither the complainant nor any witnesses interviewed during the investigation has suffered any retaliation. Town of North Andover Sexual Harassment Policy Page 4 5 VI. Employee Responsibilities Each Town of North Andover employee is personally responsible for: (1) Insuring that the employee's conduct does not sexually harass any other employee, applicant for employment, recipient of public services, or any other individual in the workplace. (2) Cooperating in any investigation of alleged sexual harassment by providing any information the employee possesses concerning the matter being investigated. (3) Supervisory level employees are responsible for monitoring the workplace to keep it free of sexual harassment and for reporting to the Town Manager any violations of this policy that they become aware of and any complaints of harassment reported to them. VII. Disciplinary Action If it is determined that there has been a violation of this policy, including but not limited to inappropriate conduct or any failure of an employee to meet its obligations under the policy, the Town will take such action as is appropriate under the circumstances. Such action may range from counseling to termination from employment, and may include such other forms of disciplinary action as the Town deems appropriate under the circumstances. VIII. State and Federal Remedies In addition to the above, if you believe you have been subjected to sexual harassment, you may file a formal complaint with either or both of the government agencies set forth below. Using the Town's complaint process does not prohibit you from filing a complaint with these agencies. Each of the agencies has a 300 -day time period for filing a claim. The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (E.E.O.C.) JFK Federal Building, Room 475 Boston, MA 02203 (617) 565-3200 2. The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (M.C.A.D.) Boston Office: One Ashburton Place, Room 601 Boston, MA 02108 (617) 994-6000 Springfield Office: 424 Dwight Street, Room 220 Springfield, MA 01103 (413) 739-2145 If there are any further questions, please feel free to contact either of the Town's Complaint Officers at any time. Town of North Andover Sexual Harassment Policy Page 5 Mr. Anthonv F. Pacillo III 2324 Turnpike Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: Contractor's Yard 2324 Turnpike Street Map -108, Parcel -0008 Dear Mr. Pacillo: The North Andover Zoning Enforcement Officer notified you via Certified Mail on April 30, 2002 that you are operating a contractor's yard, stone processing, screening plant and stockpiling of said material at the referred location, which is in the Industrial -1 (I-1) District. Pursuant to Section 4.132 — Industrial -1 District — the above uses are not allowed in the District. Today it was observed that the material stockpiles, a screener, backhoe, bulldozer, and a skid machine (similar to a Bobcat) where on site. I am of the opinion that you have not ceased the operation within the thirty -day receipt of the Certified Mail notice, which was May 17, 2002. The operation of the contractor's yard facility must cease immediately upon receipt of this notice. Pursuant to Section 10.14 — Penalty for Violation — "Whoever continues to violate the provisions of this By law after written notice from the Building Inspector demanding an abatement of a zoning violation within a reasonable time, shall be subject to a fine of three hundred dollars ($300). Each day that such violation continues shall be considered a separate offense." Enclosed is a copy, for your reference, of the April 30, 2002 correspondence to you, which indicates that you have had sufficient time to comply with the Zoning By-law. Pursuant to Section 10.4 of the Zoning By-law you have the right to aggrieve this decision within thirty days to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Yours truly, D. Robert Nice tta Building Commissioner / Zoning Officer CC: Heidi Griffin, Director CD&S Thomas J. Urbelis, Esq., Town Counsel CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT NO: 7000 0520 0021 5970 9818 MacMILLAN LAW OFFICES BRADFORD PLACE 145 SO. MAIN STREET • P.O. BOX 5279 BRADFORD, MASSACHUSETTS 01835-0279 THOMAS KIRWAN MacMILLAN OF COUNSEL DOUGLAS A. MacMILLAN LISA M. MULLEN TIMOTHY C. DAY May 22, 2003 D. Roberts Nicetta, Building Inspector TOWN OF NO. ANDOVER Municipal Building 120 Main Street No. Andover, MA 01845 TELEPHONE (978) 521-5272 FACSIMILE (978) 372-0688 Re: 101 Cricket Lane i No. Andover, MA Dear Mr. Nicetta: Please be advised that this office represents. Willis & Rubina Hendley, owners of the above - captioned property. As you are aware, the Hendley's are attempting to make all the necessary completions to the property so that they may acquire the requisite occupancy permit. Given the amount of turmoil and confusion that has occurred in the past, I would respectfully request that your office produce within the next ten (10) days, in writing, a punch list of all items which you maintain are necessary for the final sign -off and issuance of an occupancy permit. Needless to say, my clients are anxious to complete this project in an expeditious manner so that they may move into their new home. Your efforts in this regard would be greatly appreciated. Please feel free to contact my office should you so require. Thanking you for your attention, and awaiting your response, I am, V trul y Thomas K. MacMillan TKM Jpm cc: Willis & Rubena Hendley Mark H. Rees, Town Manager r s Page 1 of 1 Nicetta, Robert From: Santilli, Ray Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 2:54 PM To: Griffin, Heidi; Hmurciak, Bill; Dolan, Chief William; Starr, Sandy; Parrino, Julie; Lagrasse, Brian; McKay, Alison; Nicetta, Robert; McGuire, Mike; Woods, J. Justin; Melnikas, Lt. Andrew, Sullivan, Jack Cc: Rees, Mark; Rosemary Smedile (rosemarysmedile@aol.com) Subject: 101 Cricket Lane Thank you all for the timely updates provided on the status of 101 Cricket Lane. Please be advised that based on the recent letter authored by the Hendley's, both Town Manager Mark Rees and BOS Chairman Rosemary Smedile have deemed it best that I serve as the intermediary for all communications and interactions between the Hendley's and Town personnel. Mrs. Smedile has conveyed this message to the Hendley's. Thus if any of you, in your official capacity, have a need to communicate with or respond to the Hendley's, please contact me immediately. If you have any questions and/or concerns, I will be available to meet with you to discuss them. Jai "V sada Assistant Town Manager & Human Resources Director 5/21/03 i Nio>Aobert FW: 101 Crickett Lane —Original Message -- From: Nicetta, Robert Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 1:58 PM To: Santilli, Ray Cc: D'Agata, Donna Mae; Parrino, Julie; Starr, Sandy; Melnikas, Lt Andrew Subjec4: 101 Crickett Lane Ray: To the best of my knowledge the Plumbing/Gas and Electrical Inspectors have already signed off on the building pem*4ard. The building card must be signed off by the Health and Fre Departments. Upon notification that these sign offs have been obtainedr Lpcal Inspector McGuire will then immediately perform the final inspection of the premises. The Certifi(#te of 0ccuqW upon final inspection can then be issued. TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER OFFICE OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES 27 CHARLES STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 D. R. Nicetta, Building Commissioner FAX TRANSMISSION Telephone (978) 688-9545 FAX (978) 688-9542 TIME: DATE NO. OF PAGES 3 TO: /a% 5a/v-fT HI FROM: r+ -N \AN C-Cw v t v'— SUBJECT: BUILDING DEPT FAX NUMBER 978-688-9542 To Fax # r1 g 9 S / REMARKS: h 2A rG e,—VP!/L'lI a 4p S `Q t f A' % /"v e-1 U 04-d J n> `14 C -- y BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDINGS 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER Office of the Building Department Community Development and Services 27 Charles Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 D. Robert Ni.cetta, BuVirrg Commissioner May 27, 2003 Thomas K. MacMillan MacMillan Law Offices Bradford Place 145 So. Main Street P.O. Box 5279 Bradford, MA 01835-0279 RE: 101 Cricket Lane North Andover, MA Dear Mr. MacMillan: Telephone (978) 688-9545 ITAX (978 ) 698-9542 Please be advised that this office has received your request for a listing of the required items necessary for the occupancy permit. Please be advised that the building permit card must be signed off in all of the boxes i.e. Board of Health, Plumbing and Gas, Electrical and Fire Departments. The Building Inspector is the last to sign off and for that to happen the dwelling must be ready to be occupied. The exterior grading must also be complete. Should you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 978-688-9545 between the hours of 8:30 — 10:00 AM and 1:00 — 2:00 PM. Respectfully, Michael McGuire Local Building Inspector 1mP°�a� Town of North Andover Building Department 27 Charles Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 (978)688-9545 Fax(978)688-9542 APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY / INSPECTION ADDRESS LOT NUMBER �-O T,2 SUBDIVISION xk- aT P-' ty4- c DATE REQUEST FILED �& V aL- ;�Dn, DATE READY FOR INSPECTION WOK lSe4rr• ri irlCA 5 r I 64 oZM-2_ FIVE (5) DAYS NOTICE PRIOR TO CLOSING DATE IS REOUIRED ALL WORK AND SIGN-OFF'S MUST BE COMPLETED WITHIN THIS TIME FRAME. A RE -INSPECTION FEE OF TWENTY-FIVE ($25.) DOLLARS WILL BE CHARGED IF THE STRUCTURE DOES NOT MEET ALL APPLICABLE CODES. SIGNATURE ROUTING CONSERVA OFFICIAL USE ONLY y fk�LL- __jAF DATE 7--01 INDICATE THAT THE�fA'TER METER HAS BEEN INSTALLED E INSPECTIWREQUEST DATE. Page 1 of 1 Nicetta, Robert From: Santilli, Ray Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 2:54 PM To: Griffin, Heidi; Hmurciak, Bill; Dolan, Chief William; Starr, Sandy; Parrino, Julie; Lagrasse, Brian; McKay, Alison; Nicetta, Robert; McGuire, Mike; Woods, J. Justin; Melnikas, Lt. Andrew, Sullivan, Jack Cc: Rees, Mark; Rosemary Smedile (rosemarysmedile@aol.com) Subject: 101 Cricket Lane Thank you all for the timely updates provided on the status of 101 Cricket Lane. Please be advised that based on the recent letter authored by the Hendley's, both Town Manager Mark Rees and BOS Chairman Rosemary Smedile have deemed it best that I serve as the intermediary for all communications and interactions between the Hendley's and Town personnel. Mrs. Smedile has conveyed this message to the Hendley's. Thus if any of you, in your official capacity, have a need to communicate with or respond to the Hendley's, please contact me immediately. If you have any questions and/or concerns, I will be available to meet with you to discuss them SarrtM Assistant Town Manager & Human Resources Director 5/21/03 BY HAND D. Robert Nicetta Building Commissioner Town of North Andover 27 Charles St North Andover, MA 01845 Re: 101 (Lot 2) Cricket Lane Dear Mr Nicetta, Willis & Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844 May 28, 2001 We are still resident at our address in Methuen, but we closed on the 24, 2001. We purchased it from our forme Corp, before construction was complete. The property requires finish work only, si; installation, kitchen cabinet installation an The original building permit for the above Please advise us what steps we need to tak need to schedule the remaining inspection: Yours sincere JL - Willis Hendle, Rubio Cc Michael McGuire, Local Building Inspect 07--i8-©� / ~- & YP 1- S14&A `� f� • tN �afGH r c�rV Oot� 1r' `O -e fb D1 1 e c9. �sAP �Y c�evri --