HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous - Lot 2 Old Cart Waycl
QN
LIN
13 LN of
L -o -r 2-T mm GSD �/JE�r I-✓i4�
.
-- (AL)ATER StdPPLI l 6�E 0—'UAJ APPROUCD O-IE5 [IWO
3G �_ 3o S6 SCPTlG SiSTE," PE51C
SPP-{ov��v
<'-oAJ iTiays
D l 5,(j PPRU VEp
R�45oNS
CYG4V4T(o/J )AJcPEG —pOA,J
FINAL W5P6—�-rloo
/PMOVw6 lurhoi;�ITy
'5fprf C SYSTEM i j s- A l t,4T►OA„J
Nrc- 7 -l1? -0? -�J, FAIL
P(;Rd\JE1>
AWTIOMAL, W5Fb:::�j-(Otis
ksAPt')?OvFID
R�So Ns
FV AL APPROVAL
Da rC
APffZ)UjNG AUTJt01?�Tly
DACE l2-Z-� APP)3ovvJ6
7 AS-tx/,jr
wa'T dor Revd as G,�� f r
LGo t l v1G� - C> c wG 5 V-' l Id�Yr �L v��vGr �7
,^ { T aN y uat�
W s G, Ccs it,- ®Tw ' I
3
Ha"bfd Gr Z- ao���
Y'(2 " G' MG`S- � ('--z
wv-�CT' --�) L) c 0 rg
Wl(On-rcvV6 -,a:� r -r -
a,„ d-4)
av► ��,�� � �c �s e�� S
V%C/��
L
�-z5- om � d , � o �( d �
wl 7
��� '-�"tI
-,ttax� - ate
b 3 ok o
1 -6-n"OT:
4
VV'/'i'
00.
/Ii;/;i ,frig '� RIFT,
.��':'�'�'�/ .'. t'i t t i
fig
i'i'i / /' iii /' t' t / / / /' t'
'i't'i'i'i'i'i/'i't'i'i'
A 7 T10a Q A R � 11AW U 5
ANDOVER
H ANDOVER
HOUSEHOLD
BRING YOUR LEFTOVER:
Pressurized cans
Waste oil
Pesticides
Paint thinners & solvents
Oil based paints (no latex)
Oven cleaner. Drano & toilet cleanser
Car waxes & battery fluids
Chemistry sets
Wood preservatives. stains & varnishes
Photographic and pool chemicals
Outdated pharmaceuticals
Fertilizers & herbicides
Rodent. mosquito & weed killers
No -pest strips. flea collars & powders
NO BATTERIES will be collected.
ALLOWANCE: 5 gallons or 5 pounds
Proof of residency required.
WASTE
COLLECTION
MEAAIMACK
COLLEGE
For more information call:
Andover: 470-3800 Ext. 255
North Andover: 686-3812
-�r t�� �-�rc�s�•r
6"Q
1 Ylq LTJ L 1v10 f GGA, � l moi/ �JVe �(& P WG"S tTo 'be-
-T{
be-T{ v5 To S�v�
Z- and Tk- ,- 1,1-5 '� o
�--d to be- e-vn Ic4r-9<5?d —
r
{ pp
rot p ► e w4 -L s
I
(,�►�e (�n.G,�r�S Off, �aV'1'��O'�T l0� � rrt� �'Gtt� � �-S TU
be
�v� 1 �1C� � y1�T t'"� `�Y`cwt
S � � lain i'Q �-�✓OK I,r�,� [S �✓ �
�s6pmq IV, C) ++r e -CT i. cwr
LAJC-
l� tti JT T'c�,
To vk4c
tow and t s
I
ZrI Zcr
rr
c Irk ►'✓l-f'aOL-- To �
G4Pid C'S-bv,t-r wc. -3 "b" ✓roT�S - l��yl�r,
7. inti r e-ider,tia? t-ui ldincjc4 shall be equipped with residential
1nk'i.er systems ii -i accardance with NEPA 13D and the. North
Fandover- Fire 1)r-partment Requirements.
0. All �tr.rr_tram. �iha.l 1 clearly post the street number on the
bui l_lino 1.,joth numbers) 3'' high clearly visible from the
driveway.
9. Wooden 91,.r„,rr_1 r a i is i n areas where slopes are steep.
10. DistL11-ha CIC.& Uf c.5a1-th and natural foliage shall be Iirnited
anc1, in accord<ancc_ with the plan. In particular:
Flo clittirrg helnw elevation of 210 or above
e 1.4e ti<at i..rn of 255 on Lot 19.
(b 1',lo cutting br=low elevation P-00 (except for
errl;rance areas on street or above elevation 270 on
Let 1.E3.
(c) No cutting below the retention wall (at existing
on Lot 17 except for grading on
Low -r- left corner of the lot; also no cutting_
ahove elevation 270 on this lot.
11 Reforestation and landscaping of distrubed and cleared areas
shall be comnle-ted in accordance with the standards
enumerated in Section 5.13(6) of the North Andover Zoning
Bylaw. in `rarticular, attention should be placed on
nlanti�,n dirc�ct)v adjacent to the road cuts, the retaining
wall acrd the rF,ar part of the cut area especially on Lot 19.
12 ErclsiOl-I ..=,rrd sedimentation control plan shall be provided and
i. rnFr l emr=r a t cad .
4 e r
Ar
N
0
Three Special re`wits [nm'n'/,`
Coventry Subdivi,;iop
(1) Lots 27 � 2B, <2) Lot�� \7,\9 � 1?, (3) Lots 24,25 � 26.
The Plannxnq Bna,Jt|'efollowing findings regarding the Speci�l
Permit Application;
1. The appi/to the restrictions that not more
than three (3)lots be �erved by a common driveways,
spe�ific \oration of the common driveways are
appron,�iate d'/e to existing steep topography found on each
lot i�voL/�d'
3. Their d��inn and location will not adversely affect the
�urroundi''g o/nperCies.
4. Adpquatu ubrd� have been placed on their design which
w�ll mee� pub|ic 1)ea1th and safety concerns,
5. The pul a`id intent of the regulations contained in the
Zooing B;}are met with the Special Permits before us,
Upon making the abnve fiodi,'gs, the planning Board votes to
conditionally approve the Sp�cial Permits with the following conditions:
1.
Ea=;ement�; fo` the driveways between the lots shall be filed
with I;hc
Reglstry of Deeds Office.
2.
No oc.cunancy
rPermit shall be issued to
any structure
accessed
b, a rommon drivewey until the
standards inc}uded
in Lhis
dprision nre met by the applicant.
3,
8ackout
a/eas shal he provided at the
termius of the
drivewa�
� t
adjacent cet tn the st ruc ure.
4.
The d' i.eV!*�
pave(nent section shall be
a minimum of 12' wide
and -ie te,ceed
22' wide,
5-
A permanen�
�tooe msrker 12"x12" and 4'
high above grade
shall �e
p1aced at the entrance of the
driveway where it
�n�ersect�
*id` '-'it-, road. The marker
shall not be
obstrurL
bv p!an/ing or structures,
The marker shall be
engro,'d
to a dc -,.nth nf l" and be 2^ in
height and be placed
at Lhe \nc`
n~ the p�rler in ascending
numerical sequence.
numh_e's s1--laL1 be overlaid
with a flat black oil
ba�e p*io/.
'uazE aoinosaa PuETl9m E 30 la93 OOT
uTglTM uOTsTnTpgns aq4 uT 40T Sue uo pasn aq lou TTEgs sapTOTgzag puE
sapTOTIsad 'uoTgvjapom uT pasn aq TTEgs pup '6IaTIUA quaquoo uaBOagTu
-MOT aqj 3o aq TTEgs aauo uMET pup 3uTduospuET 103 PazTTTIn szazTTTIJad 'T'7
-Sla adoad aql 30 aTITI aql glTM un' TTEgs Pup 'suOTITPuoo 30 19PaO sTgl
anTAjns TTEgs uOTITpuoo sTgz 'Eaiv aoinosaa PuETIaM Sue 30 la93 (OOT) Pazpunq
-auo uTglTM IOT Sue pamOTTE aq TTEgs STTO Tani 3o a2uaols punoa2a apun oN '0'7
'alTs aqj uo suaiv aoznosaa puETlaM Sue g2noag3 ao zapun ssud of sE
paionalsuoo aq 30u TTEgs uOT3TPPE Pup 3uTPTTnq sTgl ao3 SaTITTTIn aql '6£
L£'7-Z'7Z# aTTd
japun panssT asog4 02 uOTITPPE uT panssT ST suOTITpuoo 3o zapJo sTgy '8£
'paisanbaa sT aouETTdmoo 3o
ajvoT3TjzaO E uagm paggTmqns aq TTEgs METSq Pup 43y uOTl3a4ozd spuETIaM aql
3o uoT43TpsTjnC aq4 uTggTM suaav TTE 3o uETd oTgdva2odoT �,:ITTnq-syr, uy
'suaiv aoinosaa puETjaM Sue 3o
laa3 OOT uTgjTM suoT4PJalTE Pup sainjonals TTu 03 saouElsTQ 'o
'suazu aoznosaj puET19m P9aalTE
10 PaTTT3 TTE 30 saPuJ2 Pup suOTIEnaTa ,:ITTnq-sy,, 'q
'uaiv aoinosaa puuTIaM Sue 30 laa3 OOT uTglTM
pagon.zjsuoo SSRM a2EuTEzp TTE 30 suOTIEnaTa ,ITTnq-sy,, 'E
:2uTMOTTo3 aql 03 PaIPM aq jou inq 1S3Tjzao
ITTM 191laT PTES 'suoTITpuoo 3o zapzO STgl ql-TM aouETTdmoO SuTXJT3zao
zaauT3ua TTnTO TEUOTssa3ozd pazaasi2aa u moz3 ooyN aq3 04 Jal3aT E jTmgns
TTEgs luuOTTddE aqj 'TT 'ON suOTITpuoo 3o 94uamaJTnbaz aqq of uoTITppE uT 'L£
•METtCg uoTIOalozd spuET39M zanopuy g3JON 30 umOl aq4 30 SITzog3nE aqq j apun
panssT ST uOTgTPuoo ST U 'aznivu 2?uTnuT4uo3 E 3o 93E gDTgM suOTITPuoo Sue
30 a3uEmzo3zad j o3 apEm uaaq suq 'ooyN aql 03 Al 04ou3sTlus 'uOTsTnozd
lvgl paPTnOzd 'joaCoad aqj 30 uOTIaTdmoo zai3u pasuaTaa aq TTugs Pup
'Tasunoo uMol pup ooyN aql 04 AaO33E3sTlvs saTlaud jo Xgzud E Aq pau2Ts
aq TTEgs '3oazag suOTITpuoo TTE 30 uOTIaldmoo aql uo PauOTITPuoo aq TTugs
Aauom 30 ITsodap zo puoq PTES '4zoM 3o auamaouammoo aao3aq zanopuy g3JON
3o uMos aqq 3o aainsuail aqq glTM palsod aq TTugs pup 'ooyN aq4 Pup
'zainsuaal uMoy 'Tasunoo uMoy of �Szo3ou3sTlus sloadsaz TTE uT aq TTEgs goTgM
'000''7$ 3o junomE aql uT PapTnozd aq TTEgs aanopuy ggJON 30 uMOJ aqj
of 2uTuunj saTITanoas 9TquTgo2au zo Aauom 3o ITsodap E jo puoq zadozd y 'g£
LS'7-Z'7Z# 'd'a'd'Q ZSF7d IOVINOo SNOIZIQNOo d0 Nacrd0
-9- a2Ed.
& -Z-62 - 20�
J CrA✓r t-Avk,�Vz) s �� N-�o . 40-ugn
Otw) Sek,-)e-y-W)rr 7-6t-( Tovl�- dtJ OOT«Ld
Vol-
S,'- T vYA c. cL)Se - k-4nirLaoce- w i
or V-)OTcr.re.���
:: Mr. and Mrs. Dave Howard,
'Phis letter is in regards to the ceptic problemthat
the Howards have occurred at their house in the last two months.
In my twellre years of plumbing and constructing experience
>'ve never seen a septic tank settle five inchos_ If it did
f i vo i ncho 1.h rn..r i.n hr.r:i ld incl rlr a i n I<� i ncl from the
I��>rr:;� Lir Lhc tank trould have snapped ofC.
Sincerely,
Ray Maille
Licensed Plumber
C
r SEWER
SERVICE
flN SOUCY, Piesldent
1
ti
01-U C'zu,:t
1-L
Y
h v .
tA E
1
119 West Street • Methuen, Massachusetts 01844 • (617) 683.5709
fl '
✓�.+• SEWER
SERVICE
)I 11,j SOUCY, President
jLys L L FSir'LK� ���1 iP
_ r,
U V / �(..� ,
r
1
119 West Street • Methuen, Massachusetts 01844 • (617) 683-5709
C.P. McDonough
4 Asl
North Reac
Tel. (61
December 15, 1987
Mr. Michael Graff
North Andover Board of Health
Town Hall
North Andover, MA 01845
CQ Raymond T. Fraser II. P.E.
. rr vice President
McDonp,ugh
Constructlon.Corp.
Road • Utilities' • Excavation .
Demolition
Equipment Rental :• Sepic Systems • Gravel, Fill, Loam
Complete Engineering and Design Services
100 Ainsworth Road • Wilmington, MA 01887 • (617) 657-5800
Re: As Built Plan Of Sewerage Disposal System - Lot 2 Teoma Estates
Dear Mr. Graff:
As a follow up to our previous conversation, this is to remind you that
the subject as built plan, dated October 8, 1987 is incorrect. A revised
plan has been prepared and will be forwarded to you, as soon as possible.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Raymond T. Fraser, II, P.E.
RTF/n
cc: Joan Howard
2.5URV, FIND G�Ew )S /6i srl 1�5 T04111
OFFICES OF:
A1'1'EA L.S
BU11-DING
CONSERVATION
HEALTH
PLANNING
OF NORTH ,ry
Town of
NORTH ANDOVER
ase+C.UsE'4 DIVISION 01=
PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Joan Howard
Old -Cart Way
North Andover Mass.
KAIZEN FIT'. NELSON, DIRECTOR
120 Miain Street
North An(I(wcr.
N'1;1S5;;1 ht1S(A1S()I84
(G 17) (385-4775
June 10 1988
re= As Built Plan
Lot 2 Old Cart Way
The following is an accounting to my best recollection
concerning Lot 2 Old Cart Way as it pertaines to the Septic.
System.
On October 20 1987 Ray Fraser called to inform me that
the as -built plan he stamped and signed for the above referenced
lot was"incorrect". He furthered stated that lie could not tell
me any plan errors due to the fact that you did not pay McDonough
Construction Company.
On December 2 1987 you submitted the as -built plan for app-
roval. Because the usual inspection of the completed septic system
that I conducted appeared satisfactory as well as the conditions
stated on the as -built plan, I signed off the permit. Thus you received
your occupancy permit. At this point in timethe alleged errors were
never revealed to me.
Shortly after taking residence at your new house the septic
system failed and backed up into the house. When the system was
dug up and examined it was determined that the septic tank and the
pipes from the house to tankalong with the tank to distribution
box were installed'vCorrectly. In fact, the septic system was
pitched uphill from the inlet of the tank to the distribution box.
Therefore water would have to flow up hill to reach the leach area.
On May 20 1988 I Confronted Ray Fraser with this information
He claimed that the pipe from the house'to the tank was not installed
when he inspected it.
Town of
n
NORTH ANDOVER
. /,.T1 DN SS"`" SE4 DIVISION VISION OF
I'I_ANNING PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
KAREN } L1'. NELSON, DIRECTOR
120 Malin Street
North And(wer,
W,1;S<1clluse11S () 1845
((i 17) 685-4775
I informed him that he probably should not certify anything
that does not exist. fie countered that the elevations on the-
as-built
heas-built were what the pipe should have been install -ed at.
- lie then suggested that the line out of the tank to the distribution
boxbox was pitched incorrectly because th tank had settled and
further stated that C.P. McDonough Co, routinely has to revisit
finished projects several times to correct errors.
During a subsequent conversation Mr. Fraser stated that
neither the line to or from the tank was installed when he inspected
the system. Previously he had said that it was the line from house
to tank that was not installed. During this conversation he also
statedthat the as -built was not an "as -built", but a list of what
the elevations should have been. The original Merrimack Engineering
plan was a fist of what the elevations should have been. Clearly
His story continues to change with every conversation. Why was it
signed and stamped?
It is my final Conclusion that the original as -built plan
was a misrepresentation intended to give the illusion of compliance
so the septic systern would be approved.
if you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact
me.
DSincerely
'
�-- v
Sanitarian Board of Health
Mr. Ed Smith
Investigative Unit
Board of Engineers '
100 Cambridge St.
Boston, MA
Dear Mr. Smith:
•j,' •
Please be advised that I am lodging a formal complaint against Mr. Raymond
T. Fraser P.E. Civil No. 32237'employed in the capacity of Civil
Engineer and Vice President of C.P. McDonough Corporation, Wilmington, MA.
Xy
My Complaint is based on several irregularities in Mr. Fraser's course
of professional practice, which if not violating legal jurisprudence
would appear to violate professional ethics.
Of specific issues are the following:
1. On October 8, 1987, Mr. Fraser certifed an As -Built of our septic ;
system installed by his employer and brother-in-law C.P. McDonough,
President of McDonough Construction. The system failed approximately
three months after installation.
2. Diagnostic and remedial work performed by Roto Rooter, Sousy Sewer
and Merrimack Engineering:(see attached) discovered the following
inconsistancy in relation,,to our original AsBuilt by Mr. Fraser:
1. The septic tank was placed two feet lower than
the expected elevation.
2: The septic -tank was also tilted three inches toward
the house+'and the D -:.Box was above the tank with
pipes running two inches uphill. The overall uphill
combined,incline was five inches.
3. The outlet pipe from the house to the tank which was ;
installed"by our plumber Ray Maille (see attached)
was the only pipe pitched correctly. This pipe
was ultimately installed again to compensate for
the raising of the tank.
3. Additionally, when reviewing as AsBuilt diagram, the original septic
design and a copy of our plot plan, it was further discovered that
Mr. Frasers As Built revealed an existing foundation for a three
bedroom house with a breezway and two car garage, which was the
proposed house on the approved septic design. We do not have a
breezeway and two car.arage`and furhtermore have a ten by ten jog
in the back which was absent from the AsBuilt, yet would be critical
for minimum set back from' the leaching field. I can only assume
one should measure in relation to a house structure as it exists.
r
4. Due to previous issues of4vork performed in an unworkmanlike manner
by C.P. McDonough Construction, ther was a dispute existing
regarding payment agreements. Consequently, Mr. Fraser, as indicated
K
the the attached documents attempted to stop our receiving an
occupancy permit. This supposition is further supported by
Coleman McDonough's phone call received prior to our occupancy
and stating that "You will never get into that house, you -were
given the wrong AsBuilt and the Board of Health has been notified."
"Until we are paid, you will never get your permit."
We ultimately received out permit, by approaching the Board of Health
and asking for their help and support.
In summary then, I am lodging the following complaints against Mr. Raymond
T. Fraser to be examined by the Board.
1. That Mr:' Fraser certified a system without
personally and physically taking the required measurements.
2. That the certification contained a superimpose
'"proposed foundation" from the original septic
plan. Measurements were falsified further to
indicate a gravity system.
3. That Mr. Fraser in collusion with C.P. McDonough,
attempted:to stop occupancy in a harrassing manner..
by withholding a Certified Public Document for
payment.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. The actions by Mr. Fraser
and C.P. McDonough have resulted not only in great stress and anxiety
prior to and finally after occupying our home. We have spent a total of
$1200.00 for remedial and diagnostic work. Plus the regrading for the
disturbed area. If'it were not for the good auspices of Mr. Graf,
who took the time and proper considerstion'for a family who ;was
financially and emotionally stressed, Mr. Frasersactions could have
had overwhelming consequences.
Sincerely,
David C. Howard
(508) 683-8644
f
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Registration
Leverett Saltonstall Building
Government Center
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02202
Gentlemen:
Re: David and Jean Howard
Docket No. EN -89-014
C. P. McDonough Construction Corp.
100 Ainsworth Road
Wilmington, Massachusetts 01887
November 2. 1988
kw O 'd Mrs .1`✓�
I have received your letter of October 12. 1988, in which you enclose a letter of
David C. Howard dated August 12. 1988, making several allegations against me.
In response to the numbered paragraphs contained in the letter, please be advised
as follows:
At no time did I certify an as—built drawing of the Howard septic system. I did. In
fact, prepare an as—built drawing bearing my certification. However, at no time did
I issue that drawing. That drawing had been prepared based upon my actual
measurements in the field of the system as Installed. At the time that I viewed the
system, the pipe from the septic tank to the foundation of the house had not, as
yet, been installed, nor had any portion of the septic system been backfilled.
I returned to my office following my site visit and prepared the plan, placing it in
my file on my desk. I was awaiting word from the Howards that the pipe to the
septic system had been installed when Mrs. Howard, in my absence, came to my
office and, with the assistance of a secretary who was not aware that the plan
should not be released, removed the original plan from my office.
At the time that Mrs. Howard removed the plan from my office, she was Indebted
to C. P. McDonough Construction Corp. for a large amount of work which had been
done on the property. Additionally, she had not paid me for services relative to
the preparation of the as—built drawing. It was not my intention to release that
plan until, such time as I had verified that the pipe to the septic tank had been
properly installed, at the exact locations noted in the field by me (with markings on
both the foundation wall and septic tank), at the request of Mrs. Howard. The plan
was never issued from my office to the Board of Health, as Is the practice, for the
reason that Mrs. Howard removed the original and only plan from my office before
I was able to complete my work.
1�
L-
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Registration
November 2. 1988
Page 2
When I realized that Mrs. Howard had taken the plait. I did correspond with the
Board of Health by letter dated December 15. 1987. as attached to the Complaint
letter from the Howards. The reason for that correspondence was to inform the
Board of Health that they should not rely upon arty purported certification on the
plan.
In the second numbered paragraph of their letter. the Howards make several
allegations relative to the construction of the septic system. First, I did not
participate In the construction of the septic system. The as -built drawing did not
reflect the proposed construction. It reflected the actual construction completed as
of the time the field work was done. The as -built plan is not Inaccurate with
respect to the elevation of the septic tank, or with respect to whether or not the
septic tank was tilted. The Howards allege that the D -box was above the tank with
pipes running two (2") inches uphill. The location of the D -box on the plan is
accurate as It existed at the time of my inspection. Moreover, in an attempt to
rectify the problem of the tilted tank (discovered while taking as -built
measurements), hash marks were placed for the tank inlet invert approximately six
(6) inches higher than the precast punch out holes.4— OV-CAcclevvn lb?
The Howards allege that the as -built drawing of the septic system inaccurately
depicts the foundation of the home. The location of the foundation wall Into which
the septic system pipe was to be Installed is accurate. Any inaccuracies which may
exist with respect to other areas of the foundation were not part of the
certification relative to the septic system.
In summary, I was not involved in the construction of the septic system; I did take
the appropriate measurements relative to the as -built certification with the
exception of measurements relative to the outlet pipe from the house to the tank; I
marked for the Howards the locations where the outlet pipe should enter the house
and the septic .tank; and I prepared a plan which I intended to hold in my office
until such time as I was able to inspect the final item of work relative to the
Installation of the pipe. When the plan was removed from my office without my
permission, I notified the appropriate authority that the plan was Incorrect. I did
not Issue any as -built certification relative to this septic system, as I had not been
allowed the opportunity to complete my work.
Very truly yours,
Raymond T. Fraser, II
December 13,1988
Mr. Edward Smith
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Registration
Leverett Saltonstall Building
Government Center
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Dear Mr. Smith:
I have received the copy of Raymond Fraser's response to our complaint
relative to the installation and certification of my septic system.
My response to Mr. Fraser's letter is as follows:
First- Mr. Fraser stated that at no time did he certify an as -built
drawing of my septic system, but instead prepared an as -built drawing
bearing his certification. Essentially then, is it that Mr. Fraser
certified and dated a blank piece of paper on which he subsequently drew
my as -built?
Second- Mr. Fraser stated that at the time he viewed the system, the
pipe from the foundation wall to the septic tank had not been installed.
My response to this is twofold: 1) Mr. Fraser dated the as -built as of
October 8, 1987. My plumber contends that to the best of his recollection
the pipe in question was in fact installed prior to this date. 2)Why then,
if Mr. Fraser had not finished his measurements, are the elevations at the
foundation wall and the septic tank inlet not left blank rather than a
"depiction" of what the elevations should have been to the nearest
hundredth no less?
Third- One would have the impression from Mr. Fraser's response that my
wife commandeered her way into his office and took the secret document.
In fact, my wife called the office of McDonough Construction requesting
the document and was told prior to receiving the as -built that it was
ready. My wife was given the as -built by an employee of McDonough
Construction and accepted the document in good faith as being representative
of the actual septic system and not a "depiction" of what the system should
have been if our plumber had followed the "hash" marks to compensate for a
tilted tank. Furthermore, neither we nor the plumber were told about the
tilted tank and the need to compensate.
Fourth- Mr. Fraser selectively maintains his autonomy from McDonough
Construction and indicates that he was not paid for the as -built and his
services. Mr. Fraser never sent an invoice for his services. In fact,
McDonough Construction had included the as -built preparation charge
on an invoice dated September 10, 1987. This was approximately one month
prior to when Mr. Fraser "certified" our septic system. Were we expected
to pay for the as -built one month in advance of the certification?
Furthermore, if Mr. Fraser had billed me separately for his services he
would have been paid, since we weren't at the time "indebted" to
McDonough Construction but in fact were questioning major discrepancies
on the McDonough Construction invoices and had requested that our
Architect/Consultant review the invoices and meet with Mr. McDonough.
Indeed, prior to receiving or requesting our occupancy permit from the
North Andover Board of Health, my wife fully explained the situation
to Mr. Michael Graf, head of the department.
Fifth- Mr. Fraser contends that the "original and only plan" was
"removed" from his office. He states further that when he realized that
the plan had been taken from his office that he corresponded with the
Nor*h Andover Board of Health by letter dated December 15.1987. This
would suggest that the plan was missing for approximately two months
before he noticed even though on or about October 19, 1987, Mr. Coleman
McDonough(President of McDonough Construction) called us threatening
that we had the wrong as -built and that he had already informed the
North Andover Board of Health. We were led to believe that if we did not
pay "every penny" that we would "never get the correct plan" and "you'll
never get in your home". This statement in addition to Mr. Fraser's
letter which indicated that a "revised plan would follow",would indicate
that we did not have the "original and only plan". Again, my wife
went to the North Andover Board of Health and spoke to Mr. Graf asking
if in fact that the as -built complied with what we needed for occupancy
or were we being compromised for payment by threatening our occupancy.
Additionally, Mr. Fraser did not just realize in December that the plan
was no longer in his possession as his response implies since on
October 20, 1987 he placed a call to the North Andover Board of Health.
The timing of his letter coincided with our seeking occupancy which was
realized on December 18, 1987. Mr. Graf to date has not received the
"revised plan".
Sixth- Mr. Fraser stated that I allege the D -box pipes were running
two inches uphill toward the D -box. This was obviously not alleged but
documented by attachments to my initial complaint.
Seventh- With respect to Mr. Fraser's "hash marks", I would like to
respond as follows:
1)my plumber has indicated that no hashmarks existed on
the septic tank. However, there was a mark on the
foundation wall which he utilized. Additionally, he
has stated to me that he would never place an inlet pipe
at a mark(an unexplained one at that) as an alternative
to using the precast punch -out hole. He considers that
an unacceptable practice. Also, there exists an
approximate difference of 1� inches between the
engineering plans of Mr. Fraser's hash mark on the
foundation which was used and the elevations of the
pipe as measured by Merrimack Engineering Services.
2) Also, by changing the location of the pipe and
leaving the septic tank tilted may allow for
adequate flow but does not compensate for other
problems associated with volume.
3) Finally, the North Andover Board of Health does not
consider deviations from precast punch -out holes
acceptable.
Eighth- Mr. Fraser contends that the foundation wall into which the
septic pipe was to be installed was accurate. We will rely on the
expertise of the Board to compare the plot plan attached in the original
complaint with the foundation wall depicted on the as -built and arrive at
their own conclusions. Additionally, if in fact this wall is accurate
then why was it impossible for Roto -Rooter to locate the D -box utilizing
the as -built plan prepared by Mr. Fraser? If other inaccuracies that exist
with respect to the foundation were not part of the certification
process relative to the septic system, then am I to believe that the
10 x 10 extension on the rear of the foundation is not subject to the
minimum set back requirements relative to the leaching field?
Ninth- Mr. Fraser neglected to reference the fact the McDonough
Construction had backfilled the septic system after a call was placed
to their office indicating that the pipe had been installed. Mr. Fraser
was not contracted separately for the as-built;the service was offered
to us on September 9, 1987 by Coleman NcDonough. Therefore the message
regarding the pipe was called into McDonough Construction to the
secretary mutually shared by Mr. McDonough and Mr. Fraser.
In summary, I stand by my formal complaint and Mr. Fraser's response
reaffirms my belief in its integrity. It appears to me that Mr. Fraser's
response raises more questions than it answers.
Thank you for your help and consideration regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
David C. Howard
. ri 4
FL
9
000
co
co
C. T' E7L
ZDI .
1500 GAL
Co�jG.
��?*rl c
T�IWK
p p Zc�2 Zn�
p 4
1 F- x 1" 1. I_ L G�Ae� IIUv=)b' I
Zv5` 33
/l r
� �-�r1 I zV • r_,3C�
1
SrPTIC.TA>J U
u F Nx
w� >IP VAP
acx�
Form 5 DEQE File No.242-406
ITo be provided by DEQE)
Commonwealth
City/Town North Andover
1 of Massachusetts ,applicant David & Joan Howard
Lot 2 Old Cart Way
Amended Order of Conditions
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act
G.L. c. 131, §40
' and under the Town of North Andover Bylaw, Chapter 3.5 A & B
From North Andover Conservation Commission
To David & Joan Howard Gam
(Name of Applicant) (Name of property owner)
30 Old Cart Way
Address North Andover, MA Address
This Order is issued and delivered as follows:
❑ by hand delivery to applicant or representative on (date)
/
CN' by certified mail, return receipt requested on �(date)
This project is located at Lot 2 Old Cart Way, North Andover, MA
The property is recorded at the Registry of Northern Essex
Book 6908 Page 127
Certificate (if registered)
The Notice of Intent for this project was filed on
April 13, 1987
The public hearing was closed on April 22, 1987 (date)
(date)
Findings
The North Andover Conservation Commission has reviewed the above -referenced Notice of
Intent and plans and has held a public hearing on the project. Based on the information available to the
NACC I at.this time, the NACC has determined that
the area on which the proposed work is to be done is significant to the following interests in accordance with
the Presumptions of Significance set forth in the regulations for each Area Subject to Protection Under the
Act (check as appropriate):
® Public water supply
® Private water supply
IM Ground water supply
Effective 11 /1 /87
Flood control
Storm damage prevention
Prevention of pollution
5-1
❑ Land containing shellfish
❑ Fisheries
❑ Protection of wildlife habitat
fl
Page 2
Order of Conditions (Amended) Lot 2 - Old Cart Way DEQE #242-406
12. d Plan entitled "Wetland Replacement Plan, Teoma Estates in
North Andover'. Drawn for Domenic Teoli and Paul Maus
dated: December 1985 - Scale 1"=40'
DEQE #242-406 Lot 2 Old Cart Way
Issued By
North Andover Conservation Commission
Signature(
r
. This Order must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commisslon.
of March � g- 88 , before me
On this 9th' day
personally appeared Jack Lindon , to me known to be the
person described In and who executed the foregoing Instrument and acknowledged that he/she executed
the same as his/her free act and deed.
Notary Public My commission expires
The applicant, the owner, any person aggrieved by this Order, any owner of land abutting the land upon which the proposed work Is to
be done or any ten residents of the city or town In which such land Is located ere hereby notified of their right to request the Department
of Environmental Ouality Engineering to Issue a Superseding Order, providing the request Is made by certified mail or hand delivery Id"
Uie Department within ten days from the date of Issuance of this Order. A copy of Ileo requosl.shall at the same time be sent by certified
mall or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and the applicant.
If you wish to appeal this decision uJder the Town By Law, a complaint must be
filed in -Superior Court.
Detach on dotted line and submit to the NACC prior to commencement of work.
..........».....»........»..............»....................................................»..................................................................................................
Issuing Authority
. Tu
Please be advised that the Order of Condllions for the project a
File Number 242-406 hde been recorded al the Heglelryof and
has been noted In the thein of HUe of the affected property In accordance with General Condition 8 on t 9
It recorded land, the Instrument number which Identifies this transection Is
II registered land, the document number which identilles this transaction Is
Applicant.
SignOure
II
rt
s1�rs LE
ro c�
ro�
® dz
G
� O
CJ I a En, ZO
ttW
0
K �
En00
w�H
� H
O
z
�R
to
O
H
ro
0
z
H
x
O
K 0
to y
Q 0 x
ro ro.
� x
z t
C:
H E.
tai
H
H
En