HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous - Exception (67)North Andover Board of Health: Summary of some Examples of Failure to Enforce .....__.._
and Implement 310 CMR 15.00O, Tide 5 of the State Environmental Code
iithin the IYlalnut 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 structures. 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;
000,
• 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.
Sandra Starr, Health Director
Town of North Andover
27 Charles Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Sent via Certified Mail
105 Rubins e Laney �'I / re—/Ur
105 Rolling Ridge Lane �./�
Methuen, MA 01844-2669
Friday November 22, 2002
Re: Septic System Installation, Lot 2 (101) Cricket Lane
OF HEAL7H
ff Nth 25=
I
fi '!
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,
1�� r
Willis A M Hendley Rubina Hendley
cc Heidi Griffin, Director, Community Development and Services Division
-Mark Rees, Town Manager
Rosemary Smedile, Chairman, Board of Selectman
Ms Heidi Griffin, Director
Community Development and Services Division
Town of North Andover
27 Charles Street
North Andover, MA 01845
Sent via Certified Mail
lIkAY-11
Rubina Hendley
105 Rolling Ridge Lane
Methuen, MA 01844
Tuesday November 12, 2002
NOV 18
Re: Encroachment of septic easement appurtenant to 101 (Lot 2) Cricket Lane,'
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 Title 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
Of
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'
tG^ l
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.
(I'he 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)
I . Ale NORSE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
3 Pondv/ew Place
Tyngsbo% Mass. 01879
TEL. 649-9932
TO /',X% /iN i� c� Vf A ACLzz
INAS , UUAL
OAF[
JO• HO "
ATT[h TION
ME i FT l ti
❑
2Z2r
❑
Approved as noted
❑
WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Attached ❑ Under separate cover via_
❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans
❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order O
the following items:
❑ Samples ❑ Specifications
COPIES
DATE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
❑
2Z2r
❑
Approved as noted
❑
As requested
❑
Returned for corrections
❑
For review and comment
❑
❑
FOR BIDS DUE
19
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
IQ
For approval
❑
Approved as submitted
❑
For your use
❑
Approved as noted
❑
As requested
❑
Returned for corrections
❑
For review and comment
❑
❑
FOR BIDS DUE
19
REMARKS
❑ Resubmit copies for approval
❑ Submit copies for distribution
❑ Return corrected prints
❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
. COPY TO
SIGNED:
Town of North Andover `4
OFFICE OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES
27 Charles Street
North Andover, Massachusetts 01845
WILLIAM J. SCOTT
Director
(978)688-9531
March 25, 1999
Les Godin
Merrimack Engineering
66 Park Street
Andover, MA 01810
Re: Lots 1-10 Cricket Lane, North Andover
Fax(978)688-9542
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
0L
0 --•
....
I/
Fax(978)688-9542
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
own of North Andover, Massachusetts For No, z.
M6RTM BOARD OF HEALTH
a0
? •_;t. !.
, w
DESIGN APPROVAL FOR
SOIL ABSORPTION SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
Applicant >/ LT-` ZX Test No.
Site Location Z6T. - lC,e—%r Z'P/V,: �;'
Reference Plans and Specs.leb-el'lk4k,Z,��
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.
Fee *A
C AI MAN, BOARD OF HEALTH
Site System Permit No. 015
S1 TIC PLAN SUBMITTAL 1 RM 19
LOCATION: LD—r
NEW PLANS: YES $125.00/Plan
REVISED PLANS: YES $ 60.00/Plan
SITE EVALUATION FORMS INCLUDED: YES 0
DATE:— I I - q
DESIGN ENGINEER: �11�7021 t-1 A e,1�
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.
SEPT C PLANSUBMITTAL FC l.S
LOCATION:
NEW PLANS: YES $125.00/Plan
�.
REVISED PLANS: YES $ 60.00/Plan
SITE EVALUATION FORMS INCLUDED: YES NO
DATE: I ^ ! q " q of
DESIGN ENGINEER: M Ci? i' i "P z K- 1< k G
DATE TO CONSULTANT: Zq
*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
OFFICE OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES
27 Charles Street
North Andover, Massachusetts 01845
W -LIAM J. SCOTT
Director
(978)688-9531
February 25, 1999
Les Godin
Merrimack Engineering
66 Park Street
Andover, MA 01810
RE: Lots 1-10 Cricket Lane
Dear Mr. Godin:
u ti�eo
2 - �L
o - A
-
_.. " 4
Fax(978)688-9542
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. (3 10 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. (3 10 CMR 15.231(9))
• Slope easement is required from Lot 4. (3 10 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. (3 10 CMR 15.232(3)(a)) Please consider a
velocity reducer at the high end of the two lower trenches.
B()A.?D GF APPEALS 688-9541 BUILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 688-9540 PLANNING 688-9535
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 CMR 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.
(3 10 CMR 15.212 a&b).
Lot 9:
• Slope easement required from Lot 10. (3 10 CMR 15.255(2))
• Slope to d -box exceeds 8%, therefore, at minimum, a baffle is required. (310 CMR
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. (3 10 CMR 15.255(2))
• Trenches # 1 and # 1 do not show 4 foot separation to groundwater. (3 10 CMR 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
February 9, 1999
S2_ndra Starr
No:* Andover Board of He lth Adim;nist-#-c!7
Officc of vvrnmunity D.-Veiapm--,it and Senices
)0 SeLI001 St.
North Andover, iviri 01845
RE: Title V review for Lot 2 Cricket Lane
Dear Sandra,
508-465-0313 P-05
Enclosed 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
Ergineerirag has, found.
• 31c0 CM -R 247(2) states that for a ronin-Imum of T' of I IS to 1/2 inuh stone is to be
placed on the top of the leaching bed. The pian design calls for a layer of filter
fabric to be laid on top this stone. There is no regulation that i could find that ailvws
filter fabric to be laid over the peastone, and therefore i would recommend that the
filter fabric be removed from the design.
a 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)).
i iLTGacc 13 rates that bencL iiwarks- are to be placed within 75
..fat o: t. €' disposal are -a
I)efofe rron truct.ion. A cOnidition, iii 8s} pyoval of tiais design should be that the
benchmark will be set as noted.
If you have any questions or comments please feei free to contact me.
Sincerely
Carlton A .gown, PEIPLS
Civ;D Engineers &
Lanni $tirveyor5
One Harris Sireei
Newhtiryrnrt, MA
4)950
(978)465-8594
FORM 11 - SOIL EVALUATOR FORM
Page 1
No ...................................... 6 0 A
ai`'
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Wof TIH AWWVr--R , Massachusetts 199
• . V *10A A- - - ----- __-t 0-- n. . nifty Qaut ao %1-e11%1e>nl .. _..-
Performed By: .... W.l.UtA.M. ........�V. l l i �................
WitnessedBy:.:::: �rH.1�1:�D :A::::.: TA R.::::::::::::::::_.::::::::::.::..:::.::::::::::..:.::::::::::.:::.:::...:..::.......:::.::.::.:..:.::::::::.
I.oation Address or
L01 1 2
l
New Construction Er Repair ❑
Office Review
oar, Nam. d-0PLV--%(
T�� 5.0 e-zrCle-( Or -1"/a
HCF-T'H V e- 1`i , P"i A. o 1044
Published Soil Survey Available: No ❑ Yes
021,
Year Published ... Publication Scale .11.1.510tlo Soil Map Unit . .b.
Drainage Class ..... ....... Soil Limitations ...... Ma!�?wm...................................................... Cl�n1To,
Surficial Geologic Report Available: No ❑ Yes ❑
Year Published ....... - Publication Scale
GeologicMaterial (Map Unit).....77777-..............................................................................................................................
Landform ......................................................................................................:...............,......I............:..
.............................................. \
Flood Insurance Rate Map: '25 01115 000& G 4ocoo(�-
Above y
500 year flood boundary No ❑ Yes
Within 500 year flood boundary No Yes ❑
y
Within
100 year flood boundary No LJ Yes ❑
Wetland Area:
National Wetland Inventory Map (map unit) ....... 14.....:...11=.....D!�`�''ETi}................
Wetlands Conservancy Program Map (map unit)....................................................................................................
Current Water Resource Conditions (USGS): Month Av u
Range : Above Normal ❑ plormal I
Below Normal ❑
Rtssumeo
Other References Reviewed: MAPS
FORM It SOIL EVALUATOR FORM
Page 2
On-site Review
Deep Hole Number Date:!? -J.41. -q—/ Time:Weather .........
.................. I ....................
Location (identify on site plan) ..... .....V%5% 4.111V.a ....... ......
Land Use
Slope (%) Surface Stones .... H -11-11-1Y .......................................................
Vegetation.... W..O DT.D ........................................ I ...................................... I ............................ I ....................................................................................
LandformNOZAJ-We................................ I ......... ...............................................................................................................................................
Positionon landscape (sketch.on the back) ..................................................................................................................... I ..............
Distances from:
Open Water. Body ....... 1.004teet Drainage waV..-1-00-± feet
Possible Wet Area1.00-f feet Property Line .....1.0...+... feet
Drinking Water Well ../.00.t feet Other .......................................
DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG
Depth from Surface
(Inches)
Soil Horizon
Soil Texture
(USDA)
Soil Color
(Munsell)
Soil Mottling
Other
(structure, Stones, Boull0ers,
Consistency, % Gravel)
14% p
r-S.C,
(0/G Kw
4 1*,)
76—VA v
.7
Lt
tA CA V, I-
Z,
M iz F
q q 110
LZ.
V, eA Fffit- i, -
S;-/(
Parent Material (geologic) ... -11 .4...L .....................
Depth to Groundwater: Standing Water in the Hole: .!4/A
Depth to Bedrock: f -4A ............ %
Weeping from Pit Face:
Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: .361,
FORM 11 sOEL EVALUATOR FORM
Page 3
Detertninatioti 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 60.inches
❑ Ground water adjustment feet
Index Well Number .`` Reading Date ................... Index well level .............
Adjustment factor Adjusted ground water level .............-............................
Depth 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?
A
If not, what is the depthi of naturally occurring pervious material?
Certification
I certify that on �"j''�� (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.
Signatur 244�
Date /�'�!
"A--:.
FORhj �� - PERCOLAT16I TF -ST
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Noe -Of / WWVMZ , Massachusetts
Percolation Test
Date:..
Time:....,
...........
Observation Hole #
Depth of Perc
Start Pre-soak
: 4 .Z
(� L(7
End Pre-soak
Time at 12"
'E7
C}S
Time at 9"
Time at 6"
Time (9„_6")
4 9-� i>u•
Z F� iii ,
Rate Min./inch
S �•-�tki/.I Aj
=1�i
Site Passed Site Failed ❑10 ............................
C ICIa 1
Performed By:
Witnessed By:
Comments:..........................................................................
..................................................................................
RTH
o< z,.aa Le1�
Office of C0N, /tMUNfT'a DEVELOPMENT ANI➢ SERVICES -
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
400 OSGOOD STREET
NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845 SqC
978.688.9540 — Phone
Susan Y. Sawyer, RENS/RS 978.688.8476 — FAX
Public Health ®erector E-MAIL: healthdeptatownofnorthandover.com
WEBSITE http://www.townofnorthandover.com
August 19, 2005
Willis & Rubina Hendley
105 Rolling Ridge Lane
Methuen, MA 01844
Re: 1.01 Cricket Lane
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hendley,
This correspondence is in regards to your property listed above. On a routine review of open
projects it was noted that this property was still outstanding. Your amended subsurface disposal
system plan was approved on December 16, 2003. The Health Department file indicates that this
is valid for 3 years from the date of approval and will not expire until December 16, 2006.
If you are considering installation this calendar year please note that the 2005 septic installation
season closes on November 30th. Permit issuance to install systems end November 15th. For your
convenience I have enclosed a copy of our list of currently licensed septic installers. If you have
any questions regarding this correspondence or any other aspect of your septic installation please
contact the Health Department.
Sincer ly,
r
san Sawyer, R HS/R
^ Public Health Director
Cc: Ray Santilli, Asst. Town Mgr, HR Dir., Interim CD&S Dir.
Enc. Septic Installers List
ff $1,
Land Engineering
& Environmental Services, LLC
CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS & LAND PLANNERS
130 MIDDLESEX ROAD, SUITE 15
TYNGSBORO, MA 01879
TELEPHONE (978) 649-4642 / FAX (978)649-0981
WE ARE SENDING YOU 0 Attached 0 Under separate cover via
[L[EUTEM (11T
—
T a1, /1 , . •f'
, I
DATE
1,00 "0
to 'rt
AITC.T#0W
LX
v -r -F)
Te t C
3 0
d�)C-s C. ir..a Z - i:- k–_a–i—I -r-- I E 0 VI C
ni:r n a gnnq
the following items:
• Shop drawings 0 Prints 0 Plans 0 Samples 0 Specifications
• Copy of letter 0 Change order 0
COPIES
DATE
NO.DESCRIPTION
5c, 0.
A,, i L r j) T -K-,-
3 0
d�)C-s C. ir..a Z - i:- k–_a–i—I -r-- I E 0 VI C
ni:r n a gnnq
TOWN OF
HEAL H Di-:-PAR-
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as chocked below:
yFor approval 0 Approved as submitted 0 Resubmitcopiesfor approval
• For your use 0 Approved as noted 0 Submitcopiesfor distribution
• As requested 0 Returned for corrections 0 Return -Corrected prints
0 For review and comment 0
0 FOR BIDS DUE 19 0 PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS 0 A-4 i (E 1.
COPYTo fu 4. J, I:. Oy
SIGNED:
y x
CIYLL ENGIA'EMAIC, & L A[D PLAIMNIG
DEC 0 6 2005
130 Middlesex Road
Tyngsboro, MA 01879
(978) 649-4642 /FAX (9 78) 649-0981
CERTIFICATION OF SUBSURFACE SEWAGE
DISPOSAL SYSTEM INSTALLATION
I, Douglas Lees, a Registered Engineer duly licensed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
License No. 40930, and working as an employee for Land Engineering and Environmental
Services, LLC certify that we have performed the required inspections of the subsurface sewage
disposal system at the referenced location in accordance with 310CMR15.021. To the best of my
knowledge and belief all work shown on the accompanying As -Built Plan has been completed in
general compliance with the original design plans as approved by the local Board of Health.
Furthermore, the work as shown on the As -Built Plan appears to comply with the provisions of
Title 5 of the Massachusetts Environmental Code (310CMR15.000) and all applicable local
requirements. This certification shall not be construed as a guarantee that the disposal system
will function as required.
STREET ADDRESS: 101 Cricket Lane
TOWN: North Andover, MA
DATE: November 30, 2005 r.%
of'�'CIVIL
4:43®
SIGNATURE: SEAL:
75.106' -
\ -'
11.7! 5ro.w 197 b` �
1 .W197.0 ' ���
/ 8.aw-196.7CED
13
f/ x 19a 1
/
/ x 191 7
P 1
TP -125 / /,;�� ' DE7EN77ON
?�• 199.9/ /�► AREA
LOTI 2
19 2
I � �
13
o \ \
#101
T.O.F.= 202.58
V �
DRIVEWAY
NOT
.. �� PAVED
TABLE OF TIES TABLE OF INVERTS
A B
D—BOX
127.4
44.E1
INVERT IN
2 42.9
51.7
INVERT OUT
327.4
74.4
61.8
NOTES:
1. THIS PLAN SHOWS THE CHANGES TO THE EXISTING DISPOSAL
SYSTEM. FOR LOCATION OF EXISTING COMPONENTS SEE AS -BUILT PLAN
PREPARED BY MERRIMACK ENGINEERING SERVICES IN NOVEMBER OF
2000.
2. THIS PLAN & CERTIFICATION IS NOT A WARRANTY OF THE
SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL SYSTEM. IT IS A RECORD OF THE LOCATION
AND ELEVATION OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM COMPONENTS.
RECEIVED
DEC 0 6 2005
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
HEALTH DEPARTMiENT
DOUGLAS 6.
LEES
CIVIL
No• 40930
GRAPHIC SCALE
3. EXISTING WATER/GAS/ELECTRIC AND DRAINAGE AS SHOWN ON 0 10 20 40
RECORD PLANS BY OTHERS AND WERE NOT LOCATED BY THIS OFFICE.
1 INCH s 20 FT
AS -BUILT SEPTIC SYSTEMWIL IS &RRUB/NAFOR
HENDLEY
OWNER OF RECORD: �� �j�
WILLIS & RUBINA HENDLEY� �T�
105 ROLLING RIDGE 101 CRICKET LANE PREPARED BY
METHUEN, MA NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS Land Engineering &
MAP 107A - LOT 286 EnV%ronmental Services, LLC
JOB# 0317130 Middlesex Road, Tyngsboro, Massachusetts 01879
SCALE 1=20 NOVEMBER 30, 2005 SHEET 1 OF 1 Teleahone (978) 649-4642
D—BOX
TRENCH
2
INVERT IN
198.16
197.77
INVERT OUT
1 197.99
197.48
NOTES:
1. THIS PLAN SHOWS THE CHANGES TO THE EXISTING DISPOSAL
SYSTEM. FOR LOCATION OF EXISTING COMPONENTS SEE AS -BUILT PLAN
PREPARED BY MERRIMACK ENGINEERING SERVICES IN NOVEMBER OF
2000.
2. THIS PLAN & CERTIFICATION IS NOT A WARRANTY OF THE
SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL SYSTEM. IT IS A RECORD OF THE LOCATION
AND ELEVATION OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM COMPONENTS.
RECEIVED
DEC 0 6 2005
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
HEALTH DEPARTMiENT
DOUGLAS 6.
LEES
CIVIL
No• 40930
GRAPHIC SCALE
3. EXISTING WATER/GAS/ELECTRIC AND DRAINAGE AS SHOWN ON 0 10 20 40
RECORD PLANS BY OTHERS AND WERE NOT LOCATED BY THIS OFFICE.
1 INCH s 20 FT
AS -BUILT SEPTIC SYSTEMWIL IS &RRUB/NAFOR
HENDLEY
OWNER OF RECORD: �� �j�
WILLIS & RUBINA HENDLEY� �T�
105 ROLLING RIDGE 101 CRICKET LANE PREPARED BY
METHUEN, MA NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS Land Engineering &
MAP 107A - LOT 286 EnV%ronmental Services, LLC
JOB# 0317130 Middlesex Road, Tyngsboro, Massachusetts 01879
SCALE 1=20 NOVEMBER 30, 2005 SHEET 1 OF 1 Teleahone (978) 649-4642
BUILDING TIES INVERT ELEVATIONS
BUILDING CORNER
= 199.19
A
B
SEPTIC
TANK
DIST, BOX IN
198.16
33
31.4
DIST. BOX
=197.49
END LEACH LINE #2 1
32
38.7
CORN.
LEACH
FIELD
#1
20.7
52.8
CORN.
LEACH
FIELD
#29
.3
72.2
CORN.
LEACH
FIELD
3
74.5
54.0'
CORN.
LEACH
FIELD
4
6
'
0
0
0
N
O
0
N
J
N
U)
ca
/
U)
J
m
Q
CD
/
rn
0
I
rn
c�
V)
c�
0
/
�r
/
43.59'
I�
l�
00
lco
133 ,
I/ 2
4" PIPE CSD FDTN.
= 199.19
SEPTIC TANK IN
= 198.50
SEPTIC TANK OUT
= 198.22
DIST, BOX IN
198.16
DIST. BOX OUT
= 198.01
LEACHEND I
=197.49
END LEACH LINE #2 1
=197.48
vAG
G O�GR P-�\0
1 G �o
1 F0 0
1
1 _
1
-o
�P P
•sem,
o�5
6NN PG.
1•
SPS 1
. 1 0
1
1
1
1 �ry�0
I Q/
75.00'
r lb
{/:
\ NOTE: PLAN & CERTIFICATION IS NOT
A W RANTY OF THE SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL
S TEM. IT IS A RECORD OF THE LOCATION
�1$ \ ND ELEVATION OF THE EXISTING
\ SYSTEM COMPONENTS.
REVISIONS
CHANGED NAME PLAN WAS PREPARED F
o c�
•� i n
l
AS -BUILT
OF
SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
LOCATED IN
NORTH AND 0 VER,
AS PREPARED FOR
WILLIS & RUBINA
105 ROLLING RIDGE LANE
METHUEN, MA. 01844
MA.
HENDLEY
SCALE: 1"=20'
DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 2000
SUBDIVISION LOT #2 101 CRICKET LANE
MERRIMACK ENGINEERING SERVICES
DATE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS • LAND SURVEYORS • PLANNERS
66 PARK STREET • ANDOV..I. MASSACHUSETTS 01810
8/13/02 TEL (978) 475-3555 • FAX (978) 475-1448
Town of North Andover
1600 Osgood Street
Building 20; Suite 2-36
North Andover, MA 01845
978.688.9540 - Phone
Web Site -
www.townofnorthandover.com
E -Mail -
healthdept(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
Invoice Total
$51.00
Total Amount Due
$51.00
Amount Paid
Taxi
Thanks for letting us serve you!
Received b
Received
nature:
!print Name:
+
i
I '
1
,
i
,
i
Taxi
Thanks for letting us serve you!
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 o£ 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 chis 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 has 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,
V&7 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
StN l tsr , - 3- 3 ; 2:38PM ; M.C. & T. ( BOSTON )-� ;# 1/ 2
49o2
FAX COVER SHEET
TELEPHONE: 617.227.8010 1 TELECOPIER: 617 a 227.2630
TO.
NAME Ms. Sandra Starr, IIeath Director
COMPANY Town of North Andover
Board of Health
FAX NUMBER (978) 688-9542
DATE:_January 3, 2443
FROM:
NAME Richard D. Vetstein, Lsq.
TOTAL NUMBER OF PACES INCLUDINQ THIS COVER SHEETIS;
NOTE: )1' YOU HAVEA QUESTION OR PROBLEM REGARDING TIAs TRANsmsiUN, PLEA -SF. CALL 617. 227. 8010
MESSAGE:
NO'1 ICE 1-' CONFI)D' TIALYn
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FAX iS INTENDED FOR TIIF. KXCI.USIVC• USF OF TilIr AnC3R1 SSEF: AND MAY CONTAIN
Ct1N}'i1)ENTIAi. QK 1'RIVILrC?ii) INFORMATION. IF YOU ARC NOT THE INTENt)ED RECIPII�:N-1'. YOU ARk: HEREBY NOITFIE-D THAT ANY
FORM OF DISSLMINATION OF 'Ails CON M MICATION IS STRICTLY P1tOHIBiTEI). tF THIS I AX WAS SENTTO YUII M ERROR, PI .IAN
IMMEDIATE' X NOT1rY TIM,* SENDER I.ISI'Y,D ABOVE.
1 he orighlal nt the transmiltrd dommats will be sent by-.
[ I rint Class [ 1 Mms%enger
1 I Overnight Mui) [xi This will be the only form of delivery of the trtmsmiaed document
MCT/12l 125. t
a
U
A(Av— ory
the Health Department staff were unwarranted or not in compliance with regulations, you
may 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.
I trust I have responded to all of your questions and/or issues. I realize that some of my
responses will not assure you. However, it is imperative that all responsibilities and inspections
conducted by Town of North Andover personnel fully comply with all rules and regulations. Staffs
from the various Town departments are prepared to assist you to complete your project.
If I can be of any assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sinc ely, /
Mark H. Rees
Town Manager
cc., Chief William Dolan, Fire Department
Ms. Heidi Griffin, Community Development & Services Division
Mr. Robert Nicetta, Building Department
Ms. Sandra Starr, Health Department
Lieutenant Andrew Melnikas, Fire Department
Board of Selectmen
JtdN I by -
1.- 3- 3 ; 2:38PM ; M.C. & T
VIA FACSTMUX, (978) 688-9542
Ms_ Sandra Starr, I-tealth Director
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
BOARD OF HEALTH
27 Charles Street
North Andover, MA 0184.5
(BOSTON) ;# 2/ 2
TELEPHONE (617) 227•eo, o
TE4ECOPIER (617) 227-2153o
AL'tw nqmxo
)aauary 3, 2003
Re: 101 Cricket Lane / Willis and Rubina Hendley
Dear Ms. Starr:
j
Kf im
t r
z
This office represents Willis and Ruhina Hendley owners of the property located at 101
Cricket Lane. As you know, the Hendleys are, and have been for many months, attempting to
obtain a certificate of compliance for their septic system. I am. sure that you are well aware of
the history on this lot.
I would like to meet with you to discuss this matter and what needs to be done to enable
the Hendleys to get the system approved so they can finally occupy the home they purchased
almost three years ago.
I will call you to set up this meeting.
RbV:paa
cc: Willis Hendley
Rubina Hendley
Kevin T. Smith, Esq.
MCT/121 i 24.1
Vetstein
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 3 of 18
�A/4 1 e- AW
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 4of18
A,�W—,Yov
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, surnmarizing 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 in the SAME circumstances as ours, but one
that took him FIVE MONTHS to make in the case of ourproperty and 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 5 of 18
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 ofshutting the stable door after the horse has boltec( 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 ofthree 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 WAUs 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 original August 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 6of18
Rubina refused to have any more contact with your Fire Inspector after our plumber
personally stopped by (first on a Monday, when he learnt the Inspector does not work, and
then again the next day) to talk to your Fire Inspector about his unhappiness with doing yet
another flow test with the nice carpets we had had installed. Our plumber then reported
back to us that your Fire Inspector had told him that there was no reason for 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 Willer and Conservation. Regarding the visit to the
Page 7of18
k.
1d;z5w— S7
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 Partin 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 turn, told Rubina that she could not set up an
appointment without speaking to Ms Partin 0). So, Rubina left and phoned Mary again
several times that day to find out the time Ms Partin 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 Rubins had a lengthy cell phone conversation with Ms Parrino soon after Ms
Parrino's intrusion onto our property, in which Rubina informed Ms Partin 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 Partin 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
Partin - 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 8of18
J04(000_1 3G
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 not get a final
sign-offfrom 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 Rubina 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
AAOW
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
'A I I Aww'-sy
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". Rubina 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". Rubina, 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 our properrthat
occurred under the full oversight of your Health Director Ms Sandra Starr reveal
administrative failings on a scale that is staggerinand incidents ofserious
professional misconduct by both contractors and ohrcials 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,
significantly 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 IMPUTABLE 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
A
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 identifying
significant administrative errors throughout this subdivision made by your various
officials and numerous examples ofsignificant violations of state 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 personallyidentifying 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 Start'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 Title 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 Title 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
R � ;
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 s' re
ly,,
Willis A M Hendley
Rubina Hendley
Page 17 of 18
Az#�-Orq
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
,au�C �io
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
TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
INSTALLATION CERTIFICATION
The undersigned hereby certify that the Sewage Disposal System V) constructed;
( ) repaired:
by
located 43 C5(A%1h1«+ct0s L.C-Li
was installed in conformance with the North Andover Board of Health approved plan,
System Design Permit # , dated , with an approved design
flow of 44o 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: I ako
Final inspection date: 11hZ=
Installer:
Engineer Representative
Engineer Representative
LicA Date:
Design Engineer: N QTc , �,,yr„
0
0
0
11-1
0
BUILDING TIES
:-DING CORNER
PTIC TANK A B
DIST. BOX 33
i 31.4
CORN. LFAr.N riri ., 32 I' 1Q
DIST. BOX OUT
A H N = � �•
2 = 1 7,
43.59' 3r
RO- /
�'O�
'0 \
GESREQ
NG \OVA
0� F
co0pP
F
� 6� G•
�.o• 5s 0 P �.
B M;202. 1 0
9' �h
O Aj`1�•
�s
75 pp, OF
X
CERTIFICq�ONIS NOT
\
ESUBSURFACE DISPOSAL
ECORD OF100
TMELOCATION
STEM COMPONENTS. E EXISTING
G19
13
o�
Z
NO
A 'c
n c
& R UBINA HENDLEy m
105 ROLLING RIDGE LANE
METFIUEN, MA. 01844
SCALE: 1 "=20'
DATE: NOVEMBER 17
2000
REMCHANGED NAME P SIONS P41ERRIMACK ENGINEERINGDATE ROFESSIONAL SERVICES }
LAN WAS PREPARED FOR 66 PARK S ENGINEERS • LAND SURVEYORS .
8/13/02 117EL (978) 4 ANDOVER. MASSACHUSETTS PLANNERS
SSSS FAX (978) 475-14� 01810
f
4�
SEPTIC
SEPTIC TANK,,,
AS
OF
SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL
LOCATED IN SYSTEM
NORTH ANDOVER,
PREPARED FOR R� ��•
WILLIS
Dale—.45r
A3
Willis & Rubina Hendley
105 Rolling Ridge Lane
Methuen, MA 018442669
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
RE: Certificate of Compliance for septic system at Lot 2, 101 Cricket Lane
Dear Ms Starr,
C_ - fqO ire'?
F
AUG 15 2002
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 Partin 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 any further delay and expenses.
Sincer y,
Willis Hendley
Rubin Hendley
Town of North Andover
Office of the Conservation Department
Community Development and Services Division
Julie Parrino
Conservation Administrator
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:
27 Charles Street
North Andover, Massachusetts 01845
.Dwe-ll
41
♦ r�'
Telephone (978) 68&9530
Fax (978) 68&9542
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 Pian, 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,
Julie
free to contact me.
Administrator
CC: NACC
Heidi Griffin, Community Development Director
Bob Beshara, DPW
Clay Mitchell, Interim Town Planner
Steve Eriksen, Norse Environmental
BOARD OF APPEALS 688-9541 BITILDING 688-9545 CONSERVATION 688-9530 HEALTH 68&9540 PLANNINIG 688-9535
21ve-Atx:5-
Town of North Andover Licensed Septic System Installers (Mb,'osal Works Installer's)
(Please note that the septic installer is licensed only -- not the company)
Five or more
installations
within the last
Name year # of Company Permit # Phone #
1 Amor, Robert 1 R.T. Amor I BHP -2004-1,349 978-948-3341
2
Bateson, Todd
8
113ateson Enterprises, Inc.
BHP -2005-0053
978-475-1474
3
Beaulieu, Serge R. -NEW
0
lRoadway Excavators, Inc.
BHP -2005-0071
603.893.9189
4
Breen, Peter
0
Peter Breen Excavating, Inc.
BHP -2005-0038
978-687-7774
5
Busby, Philip A. Jr.
0
Busby Construction Co., Inc.
BHP -2005-0011
603-362-4650
6
Carr, John
0
Ramey Construction
BHP -2005-0034
978-683-6791
7
Colosi, Philip A.
0
Colosi Construction LLC j
BHP -2005-0012
978-777-5679
8
Coyle, Kevin
0
Kevin Coyle
BHP -2005-0010
978-479.2818
9
Currier, James H.
0
IJames H. Currier Construction Co, In BHP -2005-0009
978-774-6685
10
Daigle, Rob
1
Creative Builders
BHP -2004-1355
978-682-4948
11
DeLucia, Rocci Jr.
0
Frank DeLucia & Son, Inc.
BHP -2004-1357
978-686-8200
12
DiVincenzo, John L.
0
Andover Septic/J&S Dev. Corp.
BHP -2005-0006
978-521-5251
13
Giard, Daniel
0
Daniel A. Giard Septic Service
BHP -2005-0001
978-686-7653
14
Hall, Bill, Inc.
2
Bill Hall, Inc. i i
BHP -2004-1351
978-689-3711
15
Hartigan, James
0
liames Hartigan
BHP -2005-0028
978-766-0087
16
Hayes, John
0
J.B.H. Compact Equip. Co.
BHP -2005-0117
978-686-5229
17
Henderson, William S. -NEW
0
William S. Henderson
PENDING
978-490-0085
18
Hoehn, Bruce
0
Bruce Hoehn i
BHP -2005-0092
978-372-8274
19
Hutton, Arthur
0
Hutton's General Construction, Inc.
BHP -2004-1356
978-685-2627
20
lacozzi, Stephen -NEW
2
Stephen lacozzi
BHP -2005-0095
978-479-4407
21
Innis, Robert L.
1
R.L.I. Corp.
BHP -2005-0069
978-663-6006
22
Kellett, James
12
Kellett Excavating
BHP -2005-0007
781.953.7146
23
Marsh, Steve
0
The Westchester Co.
BHP -2004-1361
978-742-9778
24
Maynard, Dave
1
Maynard Construction
BHP42004-1354
603-228-4436
25
McKee, Brian
0
1 D.P. McKee & Son Excavators
BHP -2004-0023
781-942-7608
26
O'Connell, Kevin -NEW
0
Kevin O'Connell
BHP -2005-0100
978-658-3933
27
Osgood, Ben , S
5
New England Engineering
BHP -2005-0032
978-686-1768
28
Pearce, Warren
1
Pearce Construction
BHP -2005-0010
978-664-5264
29
Petrosino, Angelo
0
Angelo Petrosino
BHP -2004-1358
978-664-2030
30
Quinlan, Timothy
0
Quinlan &Rand Builders
BHP -2004-1350
978-682-1570
31
Sawyer, William T.
0
Arco Excavators, Inc.
BHP -2004-1353
603-642-8910
32
Shaw, John III
1
Wildwood Excavation, Inc.
BHP -2004-1352
978-474-8088
33
Slombo, Robert
0
Robert Slombo
BHP -2005-0054
603-659-6962
34
Soucy, John J.
10
Soucy's Sewer Service
BHP -2005-0013
978-470-1400
35
Surianello, Joseph
0
Ralph Surianello, Inc.
BHP -2004-1360
617-799-3900
36
Todd, Charles R.
0
Charles R. Todd Contractor, Inc.
BHP -2005-0004
978-667-7853
37
Waelty, Craig(Skip)
4
Craig Waelty
BHP -2004-0671
978-664-2126
38
lWatson, Joseph
2
JW Watson, Jr. Inc.
BHP -2004-1359
978-475-3262
39
Whyman, Jon
0
J. Whyman Construction !
BHP -2005-0005
781-334-2323
40
Zaher, Charles
0
Charles Zaher
BHP -2005-0037
978-441-9429
Note: The Septic Installer Exam is held in January.
March, May. July and September of each year.
You must call the Health Department to sign up for the exam at 978.688.9540.
The testing fee is $25.
j
Last Updated: 8/9/2005
FINAL GRADE INSPECTION
Date:
Address:
❑ LOAMED?
❑ SEEDED?
❑ COVER PER PLAN?
Other:
F
-y
r
PIERCE, DAVIS & PEPMTANO, LLP
COUNSELLORS AT LAW
Joel F. Pierce
John J. Davis *
Judith A. Perritano
John J. Cloherty III
Daniel G. Skrip
Of counsel:
Gerald Fabiano
Jeffrey M. Sankey
Ms. Sandra Starr
22 West Street
Georgetown, MA 01833
TEN WINTHROP SQUARE
BOSTON, MA 02110-1257
TELEPHONE (617) 350-0950
FACsrntn.E (617) 350-7760
July 17, 2006
Re: Willis Hendley, et al. v: William Sawyer, et al.
Essex Super. Ct., C.A. No. 05-01540
Our File No.: 164-0403748
Dear Ms. Starr:
RECEIVED
JUL 14 2006
TO'V%IN OF NORT:-I A^iOOVER
Kip J. Adatris..... .. -- --
Patrick D. Banfield
Mia Baron
John R. Felice
David C. Hunter f
Michael D. Leedberg •
Robert S. Ludlum to
Julia C. Martinescu *
Terrence D. Pricher
David G. Schwartz
Adam Simms f
*also admitted in RI
♦ als dmitted in PA
also a mitted in NY
also a miffed in CT
1 � 2Q46
w— _ R
t
N
As I mentioned today, please find enclosed a copy of the Clerk's Notice which confirms that
the Superior Court (Kottmyer, J.) has granted our motion to dismiss the plaintiff s complaint against
you. The Clerk's Notice allows for an amended complaint to be filed by July 30, 2006, provided that
it "details with specificity the contents of any misrepresentation(s) made by [you], the date(s) of such
misrepresentations were made, etc...." Considering that you told me that you never met with or
spoke to the Hendleys prior to the closing on 101 Crickett Lane, it seems unlikely that the Hendleys
can in good faith comply with the Court's Order concerning their filing of an Amended Complaint.
Nonetheless, we will contact you promptly if and when we receive an Amended Complaint which
names you as a defendant.
Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or concerns.
Very truly yours,
PIERCE, DAVIS & PERRITANO, LLP
Adam Simms
AS/mm
Enclosure
cc: Ms. Susan Sawyer
Daniel S. Morrison, Esq.
CL monwealth of Massachuse'!
County of Essex
- The Superior Court
RE: Hendley et al v Sawyer et al
TO: John J Davis, Esquire
Pierce Davis & Perritano
10 Winthrop Square
5th Floor
Boston, MA.02110-1264
CLERK'S NOTICE
Civil Docket
JUL 18 2006
40 ANDOVER
This is to notify you that in the above referenced case the Court's action on 06130/2006:
RE: Defendant Sandra Starr's MOTION to Dismiss w/supporting
memorandum
is as follows:
MOTION (P#41) the motion to dismiss on statue of limitations grounds is
ALLOWED, provided that leave is given to plaintiffs to file an amended complaint
within 30 days of this order that details with specificity the contents of any
misrepresentation(s) made by Starr, the dates of such misrepresentation(s) were
made and the facts alleged to constitute reliance on the misrepresentation(s). A
responsive pleading will be due 10 days after any amended complaint is filed.
(Diane M. Kottmyer, Justice). Notices mailed 7/3/2006
Dated at Lawrence, Massachusetts this 30th day of June,
2006.
Telephone: (978) 687-7463
Copies mailed 07/03/2006
cvdreault 2.vpd 633033 mottext sullkell
Thomas H. Driscoll Jr.,
Clerk of the Courts
Philip Massa
Assistant Clerk
i
a
s
a
a
i
a
a
a
o
z
el
Wo
H�P4L')
Ig
a0P64u
N
5zZ�
a
A��0
wPQ
v
x
W4
,I-
00
c o
cu
x4QJ)¢
caao
.�
CZ0 60
goo
o
0
Z
Willis & Rubina Hendley
105 Rolling Ridge Lane
Methuen, MA 01844
September 25, 2005
Ms. Susan Y. Sawyer
Public Health Director
Town of North Andover
Health Department
400 Osgood St
North Andover, MA 01845
Dear Susan:
Thank you for your letter of August 191h. We have been laboring under some adversity to
complete our property, and would now like to proceed with the intent of getting into the house this
year.
The last communication that we received from North Andover on this matter placed several
requirements on us, which we believe are unwarranted and are consistent With the behavior that has
characterized our difficulties with the Town of North Andover over a period of several years.
With the apparent change in personnel in the department we would like to use this opportunity
to respond to these requirements and make a fresh start on getting into our home in an expedited
manner. To this end in the following section we have included the original requirement from Ms
Heidi Griffin, and our response. It is our hope that we can either meet to resolve these differences or
receive a follow up mail from your department acknowledging our requested changes.
1. If site conditions are found in the field to be different from those indicated on the de ignplan and/or roil
evaluation, the originally issued Disposal System Construction Permit is void, installation shall stop, and the
applicant shall reapply for a new Disposal Systems Construction Permit (3 10 CMB 15.020(1)).
Prior to commencement of the septic system repair we will retain our landscape contractors
to return the site to the condition prior to the aborted attempt to implement a repair based
on the previous approved repair plan, in November 2002 at which time excavation for the
footings of a larger slope retaining wall was started. This excavation will be refilled, and
slope returned to the approximate grade prior to commencement of work on the new
approved plan. This landscaping does not consist of any work subject to Title 5 inspection,
which will be separately performed by our licensed septic installer.
2. Itis the responsibility of the applicant andl or the applicant's septic ,ystem designer, 4tic 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 andl or imply compliance with any of the aforementioned requirements.
It is our intent that all applicable state and municipal requirements are met. However, we are
not aware of any additional or unusual requirements that fall into this category, and request
that the Town of North Andover notify us if is aware of any that fit this description.
-2— September 25, 2005
3. The piping in the distribution lateral is to be comprised of Schedule 40 PVC pursuant to the regulations of
the North Andover Board of Health.
The piping material will be of Schedule 40 as described.
4. The entire septic ystem is to be inspected by a septic ystem inspector licensed by the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection prior to issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. Previous
notice of three business days shall be provided to the North Andover Board of Health before
commencement of said inspection. The inspection shall include at a minimum all components of an
inspection as indicated in Title 5 plus the uncovering and exposing for visual examination of all concrete
components and all piping shall be examined either remotely with camera equipment or physically exposed
and visually examined. If repairs are necessary a Disposal Systems Construction Permit must be issued
to a licensed Disposal Systems Installer prior to commencement of repairs, with repair inspections
performed by the Board of Health.
In response to some allegations by Mr. Sawyer, the system was video inspected in
September 2002 by Mr. Bateson of Bateson Enterprises, in the presence of Ms. Starr (the
health director at the time) and our expert - Mr. Stephen Eriksen of Norse
Environmental services. Other than the known minor damage to the end of one leach
pipe no other damage was found. If Ms. Starr failed to document this event, we can
provide a written statement from Mr. Eriksen to this effect. We therefore believe that this
requirement has already been met and does not need to be repeated.
The system was inspected and passed to all except final grading (a ToNA requirement, not
Title 5) during its original installation. Given the subsequent video inspection we see no
reason for further inspection of the system, other than the components of the repair as
part of the normal inspection process for repairs.
5. The leach stone underneath the portion of Existing Leach Trench #2 which is slated to be abandoned
shall be removed and the void filled with sand meeting the specifications of Title S fill material.
The leach stones under the abandoned section of pipe will be removed and replaced with
sand as specified.
6. The locations of the property boundaries and the proposed amendment to Leach Trench #2 are to be
staked by a Massachusetts Registered Land Surveyorprior to commencement of construction.
The revised property line and leach trench amendments will be staked by our surveyor —
Land Tech, of Westford MA - prior to the septic repair, but not necessarily prior to our
landscaping cleanup of the area prior to construction.
7. The Certificate of Compliance must be signed by the designer, installer and municipal health official prior
to issuance of an Occupan y Permit.
This will be per normal inspection and approval processes.
—3—
2�ve-,2zt/�21
September 25, 2005
8. Amore detailed plan is to be submitted showing how the retaining wall specified on the design plan will
maintain compliance with 310 CMR 15.211 (1) (4) including the material of construction, placement
of any necessary impervious barriers, etc.
The purpose for the wall is to provide structural support for the slope — hence "retaining
wall". There is no needed or intended role in the mitigation of sewage breakout.
In the judgment of our septic designer, a CMR 15.255(2) compliant wall is not required,
as the proposed stabilization wall is a maximum height of 2' above grade, and for 2/3rds
of its total length of 35' varies between 0' - 2' high, and as such does not require any
footings. As designed it plays no role in mitigating sewage breakout. Common engineering
practices for this type of wall are to use a simple boulder retaining wall, although for
cosmetic purposes we plan on using architectural quality concrete blocks.
Additionally, there is no requirement that the wall be in any way impervious. The guideline
G02-1 (in the first paragraph on page 4 of 5) makes it clear that an impervious barrier
(poured concrete or otherwise) is only required when both the horizontal setback of 15'
cannot be met and the side slope is steeper than 3:1. In our case we can meet the 15'
setback, so this condition is not true and an impervious barrier is not required, only a
stabilization wall.
We hope that these responses are clear and taken in the spirit in which they are intended, namely to
ensure that all appropriate Title 5 requirements for our property are met, but that no unnecessary or
unsupported additional requirements are placed upon us so that we may proceed with an expedited
closure of our approvals and issuance of occupancy permit.
If you have any immediate or urgent concerns, I can be reached at most times on my cell phone (978
257 2636). As our landscapers, surveyors and septic repair contractors will be starting work
imminently, I would appreciate that I be contacted if there are any issues, rather than have them
harassed directly by your Mr. Brian Lagrasse — as was the case last time.
Sincerely,
di -
Willis Hendley
cc. Ray Santilli, Asst. Town Mgr.., HR Dir.., Interim CD&S Dir.
ACTIVITY REPORT -
TIME 04/28/2006 09:44
NAME : HEALTH
FAX 9786888476
TEL 9786888476
SER.# 000B4J120960
NO.
DATE
TIME
FAX N0./NAME
DURATION
PAGE(S)
RESULT
COMMENT
#465
04/27
14:00
89786823637
01:58
05
OK
TX ECM
#466
04/28
09:33
819786490981
01:00
03
OK
TX ECM
#467
04/28
09:42
819787771025
30
1 03
OK
TX ECM
BUSY: BUSY/NO RESPONSE
NG POOR LINE CONDITION / OUT OF MEMORY
CV COVERPAGE
POL POLLING
RET RETRIEVAL
PC PC -FAX
Page 2 of 2
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 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.
4/24/2008
COPY
Madelyn Morris
Deputy Regional Director
Bureau of Resource Protection
DEP, Northeast Regional Office
205 Lowell Street
Wilmington, MA 01887
Rubina Headley
105 Rolling Ridge Lane
Methuen, MA 01844-2669
Thursday December 12, 2002
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 Title 5 requirements at various new -construction properties within a subdivision
in North Andover. This summary is based on a more -detailed documentation from the