Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHealth File - Miscellaneous - 101 CRICKET LANE 10/28/2019 (5) Rubina Hendley PY105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen,MA 01844-2669 Madelyn Morris Thursday December 12,2002 Deputy Regional Director Bureau of Resource Protection DEP,Northeast Regional Office 205 Lowell Street Wilmington,MA 01887 Sent via Certified Mail Re: Request for DEP Investigation of the Town of North Andover Board of Health Failures to Enforce and Implement 310 CMR 15.000,Title 5 of the State Environmental Code Dear Ms Morris. In a recent phone conversation with Mr Steven Corr at DEP Boston, I mentioned that my husband and I had documented evidence from the public record that a Board of Health had repeatedly failed to enforce and implement Title 5 amongst various licensed contractors. As a result,this Board of Health's activities have failed to protect public health, safety,welfare and the environment and innocent homeowners have been left with the burden of sorting out the resultant problems arising from these violations. Mr Corr assured me that DEP has a process for evaluating the performance of local Boards of Health in light of public concerns and he referred me to direct our complaint for your attention, copied to Ms Sharon M Pelosi at DEP Boston. It was a real pleasure to have this interaction with Mr Corr as it was one of the occasions in which a public official understood what I meant about the compassionate component in state law,namely the one that protects public welfare. However, the information I received from Mr Corr was in complete contrast to the information my husband received when he recently spoke with Mr David Ferris at your regional office. Mr Ferris told my husband that our complaint involving North Andover Board of Health needed to be directed at a local level only and further stated that if this Board of Health felt it had any questions that it would itself directly contact regional DEP. Additionally,Mr Ferris denied my husband a request for a meeting to discuss our complaint and present our paperwork with our investigative results. In light of the all the information we have gathered about DEP investigative procedures and enforcement decisions,together with our understanding of the provisions within Policy Enf- 97.003 "Policy On Compliance Incentives For Municipalities",we find the explanation offered us by Mr Ferris to be wholly unsatisfactory and hope that dismissing our concerns in this way is not officially-sanctioned DEP policy. I would like to emphasize that my husband and I can support our assertion that this Board of Health is not only unfit to administer the provisions of Title 5 in its currently-structured state but is also most definitely not capable of self-policing. In my attachment to this letter, I summarize just seven of numerous failures to enforce and implement Tide 5 requirements at various new-construction properties within a subdivision in North Andover. This summary is based on a more-detailed documentation from the /1 public record that we have prepared.These failures are so wide-ranging in their scope that they point to one conclusion only: a dysfunctional entity masquerading as the Title 5 administrative arm of DEP. Our investigation also clearly shows a pattern of"willful blindness",which is defined in Policy Enf-97.003 as: "the deliberate avoidance of learning facts or the failure to acquire specific knowledge when other facts are known that would induce most people to acquire the specific knowledge in question." These failures came to light when we decided,in August, to investigate our own septic system installed to completion in November 2000,whilst our former builder was still owner. We were the ones to inform this Board of Health that this system actually significantly failed to comply with property line and/or downhill slope requirements for the soil absorption system. It was particularly discomforting to learn from the public record that site conditions deviated significantly from those on the approved design plan well before installation work started,due to lower elevations at the property line with the adjacent already-occupied property. That reason alone precluded this plan being valid. Nevertheless,installation was allowed to proceed using this same plan all the way to final inspection by this Board of Health in November 2000. To add to our troubles,our efforts to effect compliance and move into our otherwise habitable home have been unnecessarily impeded by also having to deal with large doses of belligerent and unprofessional conduct on the part of the Health Director and Health Inspector in this Board of Health. For all these reasons,we do not regard the activities of North Andover Board of Health as a matter for an internal review at local level.We also expect greater accountability from DEP in light of the fact that two members of the public have uncovered significant failures at the hands of this Board of Health that have caused and will continue to cause material harm to individual homeowners as a result of the worst excesses of licensed contractors being unchecked and remaining uncorrected to date.Additionally, the Town of North Andover itself has failed to adequately address the numerous complaints it receives particularly with regard to its current Health Director and Health Inspector administering the Title 5 process. Between us,my husband and I have managed to gain a reasonably proficient grasp of both the administrative and technical aspects of Title 5 and this is largely because of our background: I have an undergraduate degree in Physiology and Biochemistry, and a graduate degree in Pharmacology;my husband has an undergraduate degree in Cybernetics and Computer Science and works as Director of Engineering in the region. Our analysis of this Board of Health bps been done with the scientific and administrative training we are experienced in. We would both like an appointment to meet with you to discuss our concerns and submit our more detailed documentation of our investigation of this Board of Health's failures.To that effect, I would appreciate a response from you at your earliest convenience and look forward to hearing what actions DEP will instigate to investigate our complaint. Yours sincerely, 4.'t 1 "0& � Rubina Hendley / Enc: 2-Page Attachment summarizing failures by North Andover Board of Health to enforce and implement Title 5 of the state environmental code cc Sharon M Pelosi,Director,Watershed Permitting,DEP Boston North Andover Board of Health: Summary of some Examples of Failure to Enforce and Irnnlement 310 CMR 15.000,Title 5 of the State Environmental Code Within the Walnut Ridge Subdivision.An engineered site of 10 New-Construction Homes, 9 currently occupied(the last one in Dec 2000), bordered by Vegetated Wetlands, served by detention basins for stormwater management, with numerous properties(house only)located within the 100'Wetland Buffer Zone. Consequently, space for the locations of various structures(house, driveway, various access and septic easements, septic system, etc)is limited and little tolerance exists for deviation from approved elevations and locations for these structurrs. The "complexity"of each lot is a matter of public record and there is a complex interaction of these structures within each lot as well as between adjacent lots Failure#1:Violation of 15.003(3) by Board of Health A regulation in the"Town of North Andover Minimum Requirements For The Subsurface Disposal Of Sanitary Sewage,revised June 1997" that is less stringent than Title 5 mandates. This Board of Health regulation that we detail in our documentation,is virtually the first step in the local Title 5 inspection.process that ensures septic installation work does not proceed in the event that site conditions differ from approved design plans with respect to location and elevations of the foundation.The loophole presented in this regulation enabled contractors in this subdivision to deviate from approved elevations (even though there is an overall requirement to comply with approved plans) and resulted in significant problems faced by homeowners -problems we have documented for their negative impact. Failure#2: A property occupied since May 2001 where,according to public record, the top of the distribution box and leach trenches are installed at a minimum of 48" to 54"below finish grade,in violation of 15.221(7) for a maximum of 36"below finish grade to the top of these components. No variance sought. Failure #3: A property occupied since May 2000 where, according to the public record,the downhill slope setback to the soil absorption system is not the 15 feet per 15.211(1),instead for leach trench #3 is less than 5 feet and for leach trench #2 is less than 10 feet. No variance sought. Failure #4: Failure to ensure that the numerous recorded septic grading easements were depicted on the approved design plans as per 15.220(4)(b)—only 1 out of a total of 9 septic easements (appurtenant to one property in and over another property)was depicted. More significant, was that no septic easements were depicted on the plans showing all the various structures approved by Planning for this subdivision. Because the location of these septic easements was not depicted,neither Board of Health nor Planning were able to consider the impact of various structures such as driveways, detention basins, septic systems, etc.Additionally,by omitting these septic easements altogether, at least one extra lot was allowed to be squeezed into the subdivison. This has resulted in the following problems in the field: • the wetlands have possibly been overburdened and the site and individual lots are intolerant of relatively minor deviations from approved plans because space for siting of various structures is limited—problems arising as a result are documented; • various septic easements have been permanently compromised and are unusable due to the siting of structures that cannot be relocated or be subjected to any elevation changes; • at least one septic easement is inappropriately sited,in that it impacts a detention basin; • Board of Health keeps a record of easements on file but appears not to understand the significance of the Title 5 requirement needing septic easements to be depicted on plans irrespective of whether or not they form part of the design requirement for the system depicted. Situation not helped by the concomitant ignorance of this provision by the engineers/designers who submitted these plans and of the engineers reviewing these on behalf of the Board of Health. However,most laypersons (including us) understand the significance of such an omission! Failure #5: Two properties occupied since August 2000 and Sept 2000,respectively,without receiving Certificates of Compliance for the septic installation,in violation of 15.021(5),but receiving Board of Health sign-off approval on the Building Permit.The reason for no Certificates of Compliance being issued,as stated to us by the Health Inspector,was that certain Title 5 requirements remained unfulfilled and were "minor"in nature—if indeed these are minor then compliance should have been sought before occupancy. Failure#6: Frequent issuance of Disposal System Construction Permits well before Foundation As- Built location and elevation plans were examined, a requirement under local regulations that supplements Title 5 requirements for sufficient inspections both prior to and during septic installation, such as those under 15.020(1) and 15.021(2) and (3). The subsequent approvals of these Foundation As-Built plans by Board of Health after permits were issued was often an academic exercise rather than a true attempt to look for deviations from the approved foundation plans.Any lax approach at this stage is seriously negligent because this is a crucial early inspection stage in the septic installation process— caused numerous problems for homeowners as a result of deviations from approved locations and elevations. Failure#7: The various administrative failures above, that appear to be routine operational practice at this Board of Health,played a large role in allowing a septic installation at our property that according to facts in the public record should never have been allowed to occur in the first place,let alone proceed to completion.This system is in significant violation.of Title 5 requirements with respect to property line and/or downhill slope requirements. Before we,and our own independently-retained engineer, could attempt to effect compliance,we had to both detect and unravel many of the failures listed above.We have documented more extensively the myriad problems left on our doorstep, all as a direct result of this Board of Health's administrative failings.These include loss of a section of a recorded septic easement that is permanently compromised by location of a permanent structure within it,preventing us from its use for meeting setback requirements at the property line for our existing non-compliant system. The dollar costs for dealing with this non-compliant septic installation have already run into the tens of thousands for us. Will* Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen,MA 01844-2669 Sandra Starr,Health Director Friday November 22,2002 Town of North Andover 27 Charles Street North Andover,MA 01845 ur ;om pN: C Sent via Certified Mail NX 25= Re: Septic System Installation,Lot 2 (101) Cricket Lane Dear Ms Starr, In our letter to you dated August 15,we asked"... at your earliest convenience,we would appreciate a letter from your department indicating exactly what is required in order to issue us a Certificate of Compliance for our septic installation.". To date,we have only received verbal information from you regarding all matters related to the septic system non-compliance issues at the above property.Your latest demand involved a verbal cease-and-desist order to the slope retention wall work being performed at our property via a site visit by your inspector,Mr Brian LaGrasse. In subsequent communications,including a phone conversation with Willis,you insisted that our instructions to Mr Daniel Giard,whose name is on your department's list of installers, to obtain a Permit for the repair to the leach trench were not acceptable to you and neither was our using Mr Steven Ericsen,our certified engineer/designer, for certifying the slope retention wall plus barrier installation.You have demanded that we ask an installer to accept liability for both the repair and retention wall plus barrier work and for the installer to obtain a Permit under those conditions.We are unable to find any installer willing to accept this degree of responsibility or liability. More importantly,we are unwilling to partake any longer in this debacle regarding your handling of matters related to the septic installation at our property. We wish to comply with state law.That does not mean concealing the role you have played, whilst our former builder was still the owner of record,in failing to prevent the installation, as per the original approved plans, from proceeding in the first place because existing conditions significantly deviated even before installation work started.That was negligent enough.You then allowed work to proceed as far as final inspection stage in November 2000, once again whilst our former builder was still the owner. We have filed a formal complaint against you and Mr LaGrasse with the Department of Environmental Protection for your mishandling,incompetence and misconduct in all matters related to the non-compliance of the septic installation at our property as well as irregularities and viola 'ons you have allo d at others in this subdivision. Sincerely, 4" Willis A M Hendle bidle Y Runa Hen Y cc Heidi Griffin,Director,Community Development and Services Division Mark Rees,Town Manager Rosemary Smedile, Chairman,Board of Selectman PON 00. 1�k�00�11 • Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen,MA 01844 Ms Heidi Griffin, Director Tuesday November 12, 2002 Community Development and Services Division J Town of North Andover 27 Charles Street North Andover,MA 01845 NOV i 8 MR Sent via Certified Mail Re: Encroachment of septic easement appurtenant to 101 (Lot 2) Cricket Lane, T Walnut Ridge Subdivision Dear Ms Griffin, My husband,Willis,and I are the owners of record for the above new-construction property that we took over in late May 2001 from our former builder,with a Homeowner License Exemption for its completion prior to receiving occupancy for ourselves and our son. We discovered in September this year that a septic system installed at our property in early November 2000 fails to comply with Tide 5 and local regulations regarding setback and/or side-slope requirements for the leach trenches nearest to the adjacent lot line.The only way to bring this existing installation into compliance is with the construction of a slope- retention wall,with the inclusion of an impervious barrier to mitigate sewage breakout, neither of which were originally installed. Our septic designer submitted this wall plus barrier revision to the original approved plans on Monday October 21 and we received notification from him on Friday November 8 that your Board of Health had approved his proposal. At a meeting we had with Mr Rees on Thursday 31 October,one of the concerns we expressed to Mr Rees was that our ability to use a section of our deeded septic grading easement had, effectively,been permanently compromised.At Mr Rees'suggestion,we are making our concerns known before the subdivision is conveyed to the town. The driveway for Lot 3 cuts across our lot line, but much worse is that it also encroaches upon a section of a recorded septic grading easement appurtenant to our lot in and over Lot 3. This property was sited in the wrong location and at a lower elevation compared to the approved plans (refer to enclosed copies of approved and as-built plans of Lot 3) and the driveway that serves it has rendered a section of our easement unusable for the purpose it was deeded to us, namely the right to access, excavate, add fill, etc. Had our septic easement not been compromised,we could meet setback requirements firstly,by building a slope-retention wall plus barrier in the area within our lot beyond the end of the leach trench closest to the lot line and secondly,by adding fill into our easement area to the side of the same leach trench. Should we decide to go ahead and use our deeded easement,not only would a large section of Lot 3's driveway need to be removed,but also, after adding the required fill,the elevation of the replacement driveway in this section would result in a significant raised hump. We cannot,in all sanity,leave our neighbors with this obstruction. Thus,we have been forced into the position of the considerable extra expense of extending the slope-retention wall plus barrier into this easement area,instead of the much shorter wall length we would have required had we been able to add fill instead within this easement. I would also like to point out that none of the numerous recorded septic grading easements have been depicted on any of the Definitive Plans for this subdivision. A similar situation exists with regard to the absence of septic easements from the various Septic Design Plans, with the exception of one septic easement only (other than ours) having been depicted, namely that for Lot 9. The only easements that have been depicted on these various plans are the access/maintenance easements for the drainage systems and detention basins. This omission has played havoc with and added delay to the efforts Willis and I have been making to seek compliance for our failed septic system. Our septic designer was relying on the veracity of the original approved plans on file,none of which he had prepared,in order to revise them for inclusion of a retaining wall and impervious barrier. In September, he submitted his first proposal for a wall plus barrier within our lot based on the information available from the approved plans,which did not depict any septic easement appurtenant to our lot. This first wall plus barrier proposal was rejected by your BOH because minimum local setback requirements to wall footings could not be met within our lot. It is fortuitous that Willis and I knew about our septic easement in and over Lot 3. Once we pointed it out to our designer and, for the reasons above, further discovered that a section of this easement was rendered unusable,we could still seek compliance by siting a retaining wall within the easement,which is the proposal that subsequently received BOH approval. Meanwhile,it appears that no action has, to date,been taken by the relevant town departments to examine the implications of this omission at other lots. I have just described the material loss to us by due care not being exercised by the builder/developer at Lot 3 with regard to our easement rights.Your Conservation Department, for example,needs to consider the impact of the septic grading easement, appurtenant to Lot 5 in and over Lot 4, which if it were used might impact the detention basin in its vicinity. In the matter of interference with our septic grading easement,Willis and I would be grateful if you would ensure that the appropriate parties are informed and let us know,at your earliest convenience, the process for having our grievances resolved. Sincerely, AJ/ / Rubina Hendley Enc: 1. Copy of Final As-built of driveway area at Lot 3. 2. Copy of Approved Definitive Plan showing relevant section of Lot 3 driveway. (The septic easements for copies 1. and 2. drawn in by hand since never depicted.) 3. Copy of recorded Septic Easement Plan. 4. Copy of Approved Septic Design Plan for Lot 2, 11-1-02 revision. cc Planning Department Conservation Department(letter only) Board of Health (letter only) Mr Mark Rees,Town Manager(letter only) LcY & Street %�/ ��°rC,� j e� Map/Parcel 7 a�lo CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL Has plan review fee been paid: YES NO Permit# Plan Approval: Date: a?DU:" Approved by: �s Designer-_J,46,cr , Plan Date- / / Conditions: Water Supply- — Town Well Well Permit: Driller: Well Tests: Chemical Date Approved Bacteria I Date Approved Bacteria II Date Approved Plumbing Sign-Off: Wiring Sign-off: Comments: Form "U" Approval: Approval to Issue: YES NO Date Issued By- Conditions.- Final Approval: All Permits Paid? YES NO Well Construction Approval? YES NO Septic System Construction Approval? YES NO Certification? YES NO Other? YES NO Any Variance Needed? YES NO FINAL BOARD OF HEALTH APPROVAL: DATE: APPROVED BY: SEPTIC SYSTEM INSTALLATION CONDITIONS: Is the installer licensed? YES NO Type of Construction: NEW REPAIR New Construction: Certified Plot Plan Review YES NO Floor Plan Review YES NO Conditions of Approval from Form U YES NO Issuance of DWC permit: YES NO DWC Permit Paid? YES NO DWC Permit # Installer.- Begin Inspection: YES NO Excavation Inspection: Needed: Passed: By: Construction Inspection: Needed.- As Built Plan Satisfactory- YES- Approval of Backfill: Date: By: Final Grading Approval: Date: By: Final Construction Approval: Date: By: Certificate of Compliance: Approval: Date: Lot & Street Z a 0,&C4.!�;7- L Map/Parcel CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL Has plan review fee been paid: NO Permit Plan Approval: Date: Approved by: Designer: r /2,�/i ,4C�� Plan Date: �� Conditions: Wate ply- Town Well- Well Permit Driller: --^ Well Tests: Chemical Date Approved Bacteria I Approved Bacteria II Date A ved Plumbing Sign-Off: __ Wiring Sign-O Comments: Form"U" Approval: Approval to-Issue: YES NO Date Issued By: Conditions: Final Approval: All Permits Paid? YES NO Well Construction Approval? YES NO Septic System Construction Approval? YES NO Certification? YES NO Other YES NO Any Variance Needed? YES NO FL TAL BOARD OF HEALTH APPROVAL: DATE: APPROVED BY: SEPTIC SYSTEM INSTALLATION t Is the installer licensed? NO Type of Construction: REPAIR New Construction: _ _Certified Plot Plan Review NO -Floor Plan Review NO _ Conditions of Approval from Form U YE NO -Issuance of DWC permit: - YE NO _DWC Permit Paid? —. YES NO --DWC_Permit# - = Installer: _ ors SQc,�V r- _ _ Begin.Inspection:_ NO -Excavation Inspection: _ -Needed.- Passed: /b on Bv: -Construction Inspection: Needed`. As.Built-Plan Satisfactory: YES: = Approval of Backfill: Date: By: --Final Grading Approval: Date: By: Final Construction Approval: Date: By: Certificate of Compliance: approval: Date: AWMWA� ELEE ll UEN l�� �' r�i S��;Vff NORSE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 3 Pondv/ew P/aCe rvn0sboro,Mass.01879 !� G rEL.649-9932 To A) VILE, ?,*' o z CT l ti WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ COZIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION E U.- THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: Q For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ For review and comment 0 ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS COPY TO SIGNED: F k f�-�-�✓`.v �� ��Yc�t�/' �� Est�'+'/� Willis&Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen,MA 01844-2669 Thursday August 15,2002 Sandra Starr Health Director TO"v N OF NORTH ANUU BOARD OF HEALTH Town of North Andover Health Dept 27 Charles Street North Andover,MA 01845 AUG 15 2002 j Delivered by hand on Aug 15,2002 '� RE: Certificate of Compliance for septic system at Lot 2, 101 Cricket Lane Dear Ms Starr, We are working towards receiving sign-offs from the various town departments prior to receiving an Occupancy Permit for the above property. We had originally hoped to schedule our final building inspection for the week of August 5. However,during a visit to your department on August 8,we discovered that a memo dated the same day had been filed by your Health Inspector,Mr Brian LaGrasse,advising the Building Inspector to not issue us the Permit as there is no Certificate of Compliance for the septic system at Lot 2.We learnt from Mr LaGrasse that this was as a result of a letter from the septic system installer,Mr William Sawyer of ARCO Excavators Inc,that had been filed with your department on April 22,2002. It was at our counter visit on August 8 that we learnt for the first time of the claims being made by Mr Sawyer and also of his refusal to sign off on the installation,as he had not disclosed any of these to us either verbally or in writing. The landscape contractor for our project was Mr Michael Arrasmith of Atkinson Tree& Landscape and the company, "Wickson Inc",referred to by Mr Sawyer was a sub-contractor of Mr Arrasmith's. Our landscape contractor has also not at any time mentioned to us the "warnings"Mr Sawyer claims to have made. Our scaled landscape plans showed the locations of the septic leach field and the components up to the septic tank and that no further grading or extra loam was required in this area.Additionally,Merrimack Engineering had staked out lot line markers at our request prior to our landscaping work beginning.We believe that the company"Wickson Inc"also installs septic systems and, therefore,we presume that they are aware of the due care required to be exercised over a septic system installation. Mr Sawyer has claimed in his letter to you that"the lot was sold before I was able to complete the final grading on the septic system".We not only have documentation to show otherwise,but we were also present at the lot while this work was being completed. ARCO Excavators began work on the septic installation for Lot 2 in late October 2000. By November 2000 they had completed this work as well as all the remaining site sub-grading Lot 2 required. Our builder also had ARCO Excavators spread the screened topsoil he had ordered over all areas on Lot 2,including the septic system area, for our builder's landscape contractor to do finish landscaping(hydroseeding and planting). However, the latter did not occur and from January 2001 we were involved in negotiations with our former builder for us to take over completion of this property. We asked our builder to have ARCO Excavators complete some extra work on our lot before closing,including spreading an extra layer of topsoil over our lot up to the detention basin,in preparation for us to assume finish landscaping only and driveway installation by our own contractors after closing. Not only had ARCO Excavators,in November 2000,already completed finish grading over our whole lot,including the septic system,they also completed the extras we asked our builder for when they returned in early April 2001,well before the property was sold to us. It has come as a great surprise to us to learn that your department is not signing off on our Building Permit since both septic and site finish grading had been completed by ARCO before we closed. With reference to Mr Sawyer's other allegation that"they have made noticeable grade changes including a stone retaining wall',please refer to the attached letter we received from Ms Julie Partino dated August 13,2002,in which she states that"lot development has been completed in substantial conformance to the approved plans",based on an As-Built of Lot 2 dated June 25,2002,prepared by Diversified Civil Engineering.We have also received Form-U sign-offs from DPW and the Planning Department.As for the"stone retaining wall"referred to by Mr Sawyer,we presume that he means the one located at the opposite side of our property to the septic system.We fail to understand its relevance to the septic installation. In order to resolve this situation,we have retained the services of Mr Steven Eriksen of Norse Environmental Services Inc. In the meantime,at your earliest convenience,we would appreciate a letter from your department indicating exactly what is required in order to issue us a Certificate of Compliance for our septic installation. We are grateful for the assistance given by your department to date towards resolving this matter,and we would like to minimize ny further delay and expenses. y Sincer , Willis Hendley Rubina Hendley Town of North Andover Office of the Conservation Department Community Development and Services Division 27 Charles Street Julie Parrino North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Telephone(978)688-9530 Conservation Administrator Fax(978)688-9542 August 13, 2002 Willis & Rebena Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen, MA 01844 RE: Lot 2 Cricket Lane DEP 242-904 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hendley: I have reviewed the As-Built plan prepared by Diversified Civil Engineering dated June 25, 2002 for you property located at Lot 2 Cricket Lane. According to the As-Built Plan, it appears lot development has been completed in substantial conformance to the approved plans. I am also in receipt of a letter from Norse Environmental proposing minor landscaping activity near and along the detention pond slopes. I have reviewed the letter and sketch plan and hereby authorize the proposed activities. Please keep in mind no changes to the shape, size, or topography of the detention pond may result from landscaping activities. In addition, landscaping activities may not impede water flow or infiltration through the basin. Disturbance to the stabilized slopes must be kept to a minimum to reduce siltation. Activities in the buffer zone beyond those reviewed and approved by my Department must be submitted for approval. If you have any questions, pl eel free to contact me. Sincere Julie P o, Conser ation Administrator CC: N ACC Heidi Griffin, Community Development Director Bob Beshara, DPW Clay Mitchell, Interim Town Planner Steve Eriksen, Norse Environmental HOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 6M9540 PLANNING 688-9535 d Willis &Rubina Hendley 105 Rolling Ridge Lane Methuen,MA 01844-2669 Thursday August 15,2002 Sandra Starr Health Director Town of North Andover Health Dept 27 Charles Street North Andover,MA 01845 Delivered by hand on Aug 15, 2002 Dear Ms Starr, RE: Septic system at Lot 2, 101 Cricket Lane We enclose a copy of the As-Built of Subsurface Disposal System,prepared by Merrimack Engineering, together with an incomplete Installation Certification for this property. Sincerely, Rubina Hendley pp Willis Hendley AN& TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSTALLATION CERTIFICATION The undersigned hereby certify that the Sewage Disposal System V) constructed; ( ) repaired: by located at JO1 CRIc'K.r=-t— 43 L4:rr L� was installed in conformance with the North Andover Board of Health approved plan, System Design Permit # dated with an approved design flow of 4Ac' gallons per day. The materials used were in conformance with those specified on the approved plan; the system was installed in accordance with the provisions of 310 CMR 15.000, Title 5 and local regulations, and the final grading agrees substantially with the approved plan. All work is accurately represented on the As-built which has been submitted to the Board of Health. Bed inspection date: L///1/00 Engineer Representative Final inspection date: Izzwo dayla, l 4,A .•t.(ii►� Engineer Representative Installer: Lic.#: Date: Design Engineer: Date: gl'l 3I0 v; '. t^yy j. Y��JM -A. Ave-o Town of North Andover f �aORTM, Office of the Conservation Department Community Development and Services Division Health Department 27 Charles Street «,use` Sandra Starr North Andover,Massachusetts 01845 Telephone(978)688-9540 Health Director Fax(978)688-9542 MEMORANDUM TO: Mike McGuire,Building Inspector FROM: Brian J. LaGrasse,Health Inspector RE: 101 Cricket Lane DATE: August 8,2002 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 Ar1 an . 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 E ARCO Excavator's Inc. 22W7 j, P.O. Box 70 Kingston,NH 03848 -- --- -- (978)685-5113 North Andover Health Department Sandra Starr,Health Director 27 Charles Street North Andover,MA 01945 RE: Lot 2 Cricket Lane Dear Sandy, This letter is a follow up to a conversation I had with your inspector,Brian LaGrasse,on Tuesday,April 16,2002,in regards to the septic installation permit issued to me for Lot 2 Cricket Lane. As you may be aware this permit was issued some time ago. The issue date was actually 5/24/00. What you may not be aware of is that the lot was sold before I was able to complete the final grading on the septic system. Since the new owners purchased the property they have hired other contractors to regrade and landscape the site. They have made noticeable grade changes including a stone retaining wall. Today while I was working on Cricket Lane I personally observed Wickson Inc. driving a large rubber tire backhoe directly over the system components. This occurred many times during the day. I informed Wickson of the potential damage to the system and my warnings did not result in any change in activity. This is what prompted my phone call to Brian Lagrasse. In addition to my concern for the septic system I wanted you to know the following: 1) ARCO is not currently doing the work on this site 2) I will not sign off on the certificate of compliance for this system 3) I do not feel that any future liability of the function of this system should lie upon ARCO Excavator's Inc or myself. If you have any questions regarding this correspondence please do not hesitate to call. Thank you. Sincerely, William Sawyer,President ARCO Excavator's Inc. Town of North Andover, Massachusetts Form No.3 of NORTH BOARD OF HEALTH41 e • o w DISPOSAL WORKS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT S^GNUS Applicant NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE Site Location LCiyLJ�� Permission is hereby granted to Construct ( or Repair ( ) an Individual Soil Absorption Sewage Disposal System as shown on the Design Approval S.S. No. /US/ CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF HEALTH • � r� l Fee D.W.C. No. n� t` INSTALLER PROJECT MANAGEMENT OBLIGATIONS As the North Andover licensed installer for the construction of the septic system for the property relative to the application of l,✓/�crrrl � �`/�—� dated ?y � for plans by M e/rl�0uC 4, and dated /'f/3 J�� with revisions dated 3 �-y�yy I understand and agree to the following obligations for management of this project: l. As the installer I am obligated to call for any and all inspections. If homeowner, contractor, project manger, or any other person not associated with my company schedules an inspection and the system is not ready then item two shall be applicable . 2. As the installer I am required to have the necessary work completed prior to the applicable inspections as indicated below. I understand that requesting an inspection, without completion of the items in accordance with Title 5 and the Board of Health Regulations may result in a $50.00 fine being levied against my company. a) Bottom of Bed—generally first inspection unless there is a retaining wall which should be done first. Installer must request the inspection but does not have to be present. b) Final inspection—Engineer must first do their inspection for elevations,ties,etc. As-built or verbal OK from engineer must be submitted to BOK after which installer calls for inspection time. Installer must be present for this inspection. With pump system all electrical work must be ready and able to cause Pump to work and alarm to function. c) Final Grade—installer must request inspection when all grading is complete. Does not have to be on site. if 3. As the installer I understand that persons or companies not associated with my company may not perform the work required by my company to complete the installation of the system identified in the attached application for installation. I further understand that work by others unlicensed to install septic systems in North Andover can constitute reasons for denial of the system, and/or revocation or suspension of my license in the Town of North Andover plus significant fines to all persons involved. 4. As the Installer I understand that I must be on site during the performance of the following construction steps: a) Determination that the proper elevation of the excavation has bees reached b) Inspection of the sand and stone to be used. c) Final inspection by Board of]Health staff. d) Installation of tank.,D-box,pipes,stone,vent,pump chamber,retaining wall and other components. 5. As the installer I understand that I am solely responsible for the installation of the system as per the approved plans. No instructions by the homeowner, general contractor, or any other persons shall absolve me of this obligation. Undersigned Licensed Se tic Installer Date: l— &00 2 �. APPLICATION FOR DISPOSAL WORKS CONSTRliCTION PERMIT DATE• CURRENT INSTALLER'S LICENSE;_Jj�V—0 LOCATION: �OT #� C�/'•G`G�te r- 4rt LICENSED INSTALLER:—I 4�& Pl 6^^-xcridaa�is SIGNATURE:�T TELEPHONE# Or-6-113 CHECK ONE: REPAIR: NEW CONSTRUCTION: _.. IF NEW CONSTUCTION, PLEASE ATTACH FOUNDATION AS-BUILT. Administrative Use Only $75.00 Fee Attached? Yes No Foundation As-Built? Yes No Floor Plans? Yes '� No Approval Date: C AM FORM U - LOT RELEASE FORM INSTRUCTIONS: This form is used to verify that all nec.essary approvals/permits from- Boards and Departments having jurisdiction have been obtained. This does not relieve the applicant and/or landowner from compliance with any applicable or requirements. * ***********APPLICANT FILLS OUT THIS SFCTICN*********************** APPLICANT Gtr'\CVt-A- PHONE `T-1 - 6`4 -L4 8e !d - V- LIX-ic� LOCATION: Assessors Map Number �0� PARCEL �- SUBDIVISION LOT (S) STREET C`r,ckZ N Lw. ST. NUMBER 16l ** *** OFFICIAL USE RECOMMENDATIONS OF TOWN AGENTS: CONSERVATION ADMINISTRATOR DATE APPROVED DATE REJECTED COMMENTS TOWN PLANNER DATE APPROVED DATE REJECTED COMMENTS FOOD INSPECTOR-HEALTH DATE APPROVED DATE REJECTED SEA S �,CTCC)�R-HEA�LTTH DATE APPROVED DATE REJECTED COMMENTS •� PUBLIC WORKS -SEYVER/WATER CONNECTIONS �S q DRIVEWAY PERMIT FIRE DEPARTMENT RECEIVED EY EUILDING i,1 1 ECTOR DA"E Revised 9\97 im 1 zx-/ Town of North Andover t NORTH A OFFICE OF �ro•s,`.o COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES 27 Charles Street :l 9 •" North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 `°^• F° °"` 5 WI11JAM J.SCOTT 9SSACHu5E4 Director (978)688-9531 Fax(978)688-9542 March 25, 1999 Les Godin Merrimack Engineering 66 Park Street Andover, MA 01810 Re: Lots 1-10 Cricket Lane, North Andover Dear Sir: This letter will serve as your notification that the proposed septic plans for the lots specified above have been approved for dwellings with a maximum of nine (9) rooms. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, Sandra Starr, Administrator SS/gb cc: Copley Development BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 i Now own of North Andover, Massachusetts Form No.2 o� No 1'4 BOARD OF HEALTH fr/,�&LA o X. 19� w DESIGN APPROVAL FOR ss"C"°St� SOIL ABSORPTION SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM Applicant— &)1&Z T 1 Z"� 72Z Test No. Site Location_Z6 Reference Plans and Specs./�/�/�Ic�/�I�Ci� ZYZZ, ENGINEER DESIGN DATE Permission is granted for an individual soil absorption sewage disposal system to be installed in accordance with regulations of Board of Health. C AIRM ,BOARD OF HEALTH Fee o�- Site System Permit No. 'Jl S1 TIC PLAN SUBMITTAL 1 RM LOCATION: LDT 7- (f'P'16 LrT ZA)•I E- NEW PLANS: YES $125.00/Plan REVISED PLANS: r)�D $ 60.00/Plan SITE EVALUATION FORMS INCLUDED: YES C!0-') DATE: s- I I-17 l DESIGN ENGINEER: ``I1'V-21 t-16 61cl- C4 ("6ro?,,)Y DATE TO CONSULTANT: *If.you want your plans expedited, please submit four plans and included a stamped envelope with the correct amount of postage to mail plans to Port Engineering. When the submission is all in place, route to the Health Secretary. SEP' C PLAN SUBMITTAL FC M /:�11 - - l LOCATION: LOT Z- G' G � C (U (.u,,�F Cv 5 J NEW PLANS: $125.00/Plan REVISED PLANS: YES $ 60.00/Plan SITE EVALUATION FORMS INCLUDED: YES NO (ou DATE: I " " DESIGN ENGINEER: r N G DATE TO CONSULTANT: *If you want your plans expedited, please submit four plans and included a stamped envelope with the correct amount of postage to mail plans to Port Engineering. When the submission is all in place, route to the Health Secretary. Town of North Andover f AORTN OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES - p 27 Charles Street '► North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 WILLIAM J. SCOTT ,SSACNUSEt Director (978)688-9531 Fax(978)688-9542 February 25, 1999 Les Godin Merrimack Engineering 66 Park Street Andover,MA 01810 RE: Lots 1-10 Cricket Lane Dear Mr. Godin: This is to inform you that the plans for the septic systems proposed for the subdivision of Walnut Ridge have been disapproved for the following reasons: • The septic tank detail does not show the inlet tee extending a minimum of 10 inches below the flow line, nor that there needs to be a 3 inch space above the tees. (310 CMR 15.227(6)and 15.227(4)). • There are no benchmarks shown within 75 feet of the septic systems. (310 CMR 15.220(q)). In addition, for Lot 1: • Abutters' names are not shown. (NA 8.02j) • Design specifications for the proposed retaining wall are missing. (310 CMR 15.255(2)). For Lot 3: • The high water alarm for the pump chamber is not specified as to be located in the house. (310 CMR 15.231(9)) • Slope easement is required from Lot 4. (310 CMR 15.255(2)) • The slope of the two lower trenches will be in excess of 8%and at minimum a baffle is required to decrease the velocity. (310 CMR 15.232(3)(a)) Please consider a velocity reducer at the high end of the two lower trenches. BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535 �1 Lot 4: • Please note that the septic tank is drafted incorrectly. Lot 5 and Lot 6: • Scale of the Plan view is not shown. Lot 7: • The scale of the Plan view is not shown. • Pump Note#4 neglects to state that the high water alarm is to be located in the house. (310 CUR 15.231(9)). Lot 8: •- The estimated seasonal high water elevation-has not been adjusted to the highest existing grade. This results in the leaching area being less than 4 feet to groundwater. (310 CUR 15.212 a&b). Lot 9: • Slope easement required from Lot 10. (310 CUR 15.255(2)) • Slope to d-box exceeds 8%, therefore, at minimum, a baffle is required. (310 CUR 15.232(3)(a)) Lot 10: • Fill around system runs to property line of abutter. Toe of slope required to be 5 feet off the lot line. (310 CUR 15.255(2)) • Trenches#1 and#1 do not show 4 foot separation to groundwater. (310 CUR 15.212 a& b). Please feel free to call the Health Office with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Sandra Starr,R.S. Health Administrator Cc: W. Scott File Feb-09-99 10: 15A Paul_ Turbide, PE/PLS 508-465-0313 P_05 February 9. 1999 Sandra Starr North Andover Board of Health Administ-ndor Office of Community Development and Services 30 School St. North Andover, MA 01945 RE: Title V review for Lot 2 Cricket Lane Dear Sandra, Fnrlosed find the"Checklist for North Andover Septic System Plans" for the above- ' Mentioned site. The following is a list of all the`Problem' areas and deficiencies Port Engineering has found. • 310 CMR 247(z1 states that for a minimum of 27 of i Is to'/s inch Stone is to be placed on the top of the leaching bed. The plan design calls for a layer of filter fabric to be laid on top this stone. There is no regulation that 1 could find that allows filter fabric to be laid over the peastone, and therefore 1 would recommend that the filter fabric be removed from the design. • The septic tank detail should show that the inlet tee is to extend a minimum of 10 inches below the flow line(227(6)),and that there is to be a 3-inch air space above the inlet and outlet tees(227(4)). • Nate 13 states that benchmarks are to be placed within 75 feet of the disposal area before constriction. A condition of approval of this design should h:,that the bencnmarit will tie set as noted. 1f you have any questions or comments please teei tree to contact me. Sincerely Carlton A_brown,PE PLS 1 ►n 111111'1' I M111, 1 E N Un 11 IN F LM1 I I IN G Civil Engineers& Land Surveyors One H=rr6 Street Newbury port,MA 01950 (978)4b545+4 FORM 11 - SOIL EVALUATOR FORN1 Page I i0VA10 No. ...................................... BOARD OF HEALY Commonwealth Of Massachusetts WorITH AWWvr--R , Massachusetts iam 26 7909 A f A oil uitab'li issessme t or 0 - it e.- S gg -D Sposal Performed By: ...WtUtPvM. ........ ............ Witnessed By: ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Owner's N u m. Location Address or Ad="s,&M 5H0t!-c T-H V a L e JA' E Tck 1 New construction Vr Repair ❑ Office Review Published Soil Survey Available: No El Yes Year Published 1q0.j Publication Scale P.-MPAO Soil Map Unit .................. Drainage Class Soil Limitations .......HIAP94iT�..... ................. .... Surficial Geologic Report Available: No ❑ Yes ❑ Year Published.7....- Publication Scale .................. GeologicMaterial (Map Unit) 777777�............................................................................................................ . ......... ................................................................................................................................................................ ........ Flood Insurance Rate Map: -ZS�- DqO 0006" e, k occ-'O'f- Above 500 y ��_2.. 5) ear flood boundary No El Yes Within 500 year flood boundary No Yes ❑ Within 100 year flood boundary No Yes El Wetland Area: National Wetland Inventory Map (map unit) OAJ . ..... ................ . .... Wetlands Conservancy Program Map (map unit) .. ............................................................................ Current Water Resource Conditions (USGS): Month A0605-1- Range Above Normal El pormal I Below Normal El (hssume Other References Reviewed: . V.S, 6,S HARD R�,j T- �,���- FORM It - SOIL EVALUATOR FORM Page 2 On-site Review Deep Hole Number Date:O i.4.1.-q—t Weather 7q�......... Location (identify on site plan) .....�V.Fr.......b.f-.;Lr. 04.11-1 Va......... ......RSA.................................................. Land Use Slope (%I Surface Stones .... .H...11.1-4 Y....................................................... Vegetation ....W-0 DEFD.............................................................................................................................................................................................. Landform ......ND-1ZAJ-14fF................................................................................................................................................................................................. Position on landscape (sketch.on the back) ................................................................................................................................. Distances from: Open Water Body .......1.001teet Drainage waV.J.0.0.-t feet Possible Wet Area 1-00t feet Property Line .....1.0..±- feet Drinking Water Well .1.0.0.t feet Other ......................................... DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG Depth from Surface Soil Horizon Soil Texture Soil Color Soil Mottling Other (Inches) (USDA) IMunsell) (Structure,Stones,Boul0ers, Consistency, %Gravel) e�01-&r4 AP L 0 4!-.P- 4 q4tv) -Z'f> FAV,I-,S; Z,�;xj 4,11 -1 4" <Fl A-i a 6 CAV) 110" Parent Material (geologic) ...... ............................................... Depth to Bedrock: ...�4A............ Depth to Groundwater: Standing Water in the Hole: Weeping from Pit Face: Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: FORM 11 - SOUL EVALUATOR FORM Page 3 Determination,for Seasonal High Water Table Method Used: ❑ Depth observed standing in observation hole inches ❑ D pth weeping from side of observation hole inches Depth to soil mottles W.r...3.6° inches ❑ Ground water adjustment . feet Index Well Number Reading Date ................... Index well level ................... Adjustment factor .... Adjusted ground water level ............-.............................. pepth of Naturally Occurring Pervious Material Does at least four feet of naturally occurring pervious material exist in all areas observed throughout the area proposed for the soil absorption system? If not, what is the depth of naturally occurring pervious material? Certification I certify that on ��`��`�'Cd (date) I have passed the examination approved by the Department of Environmental Protection and that the above analysis was performed by me consistent with the required training, expertise and experience described in 310 CMR 15.017. n r Signature&����� Date �`` � FORM xz - PERCOLATION TEST COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Wo1Z114 A►.1WVaC , Massachusetts Percolation Test Date: Time: _' Observation Hole # Depth of Pere 4Z �tZl '_ (v5 ��t, Z"Z '� = �7 Start Pre-soak t , 4 ,Z 7 End Pre-soak Time at 12" Time at 9" Time at 6" Z Z7 Time (9"-6") *—C '3 2 rat l� , Rate Min./Inch ty t l Ivjl/.i I Site Passed 0/ Site Failed ❑ �i ,,,,( Performed By: LDS �tUn i 1�� Witnessed By: Comments: _ ..................................................................................................... i (I �! t �.. �! :I I i�� if ,�� �; rt i I;t ;;i 1 }:' �; u. �f i i ��1 i , �� -i44 i �t jf :i; �}� ��I '° i { �4i .. l� �� ;�f i�! i�� ��, i� if 'I �r ,, �f r , ��� ,, ��, _ �� �� �i !� ,t. 4 � � � n u � ����J�� � c � ,�, i.I _ /� � � �41 _ 1'�� 4�I Alm% H lit -A/ 7� 601 311 �Ij /,00, IU�� �ft/i.�lL✓ �,ti�� jJla! .rc16/yi/1�' �� /U�r� I:I�/�✓ r �3 V6)I e�el ;7,4rh 14411 214� Lem jo,17; pelol'