constructed, but prior to covering it or puning the systemTnto usefMbreover, pursuant to RSA

485-A:30-b(f), the property owner is required to share the approved plans for his septic sy
with the water well driller. And, pursuanttcuELSA'^5 -A\TQ^^(^f:;-the-prapeny'owm
to submiT^nefidedpIansto the department if the water well cannot be constructed in the
approved location, or within the approved area. The department was notified that the water well
on Mr. Pellino's property had been constructed when the department received his complaint in
June 2013. The department discovered that the septic system on the property had been
constructed,_midwasj2msntl^^
staff inspected the piTopSty while
inve^figatingJhe_cpmplaint in July 20lXT^e department attenipedTo reacquire a copy of the
approved plans from the designeiTtiieimtaller, the Town of Effingham, and from Mr. Pellino.
The designer passed away sometime after 2002; neither the installer nor the town kept a copy of
the approved plans; and, if Mr. Pellino has a copy of the approved plans he has refused to share
them with the department. The department ultimately imposedfinesupon Deny Well Company
for, among other things, failing tofilea timely water well completion report, and failing tofilea
Mr. Pellino states in his grievance that a well could be driled only in the location shown
on the approved septic plan or in a different location shown on an approved amended plan
submited by him or his designer. Mr. Pellino concludes that the well is unlawful because it was
not driled in the location approved on the original plan and there is no amended plan depicting
the well in its current actual location. This may be true; however, since the department does not
have a copy of the approved plans, it cannot determine if the well was driled in the approved
location. Compliance with the statutory requirements falls upon the installer of the well, in
consultation with the property owner and, if amended plans are required, with the septic system
designer. The only notice required to the department^^ien a water^wdftTs^riled in the approved
location, or area, is set out in RSA 482-B:10 and the New Hampshire Water Well Rules at
Chapter We 800, which requiresLthe licensed drillertofilea water well completion report with
the board within 90 days after the well is constructed.
- _
'

If the well was installed in a different location than shown on the approved plan, contrary
to statutory and regulatory requirements, Mr. Pellino's remedy was with the New Hampshire
Water Well Board. If he was dissatisfied with the board's decision, he could have appealed its
decision. He did not do so, and the board's decision on his complaint becamefinal30 days after
it was issued. The department does not have authority to overturn afinaldecision of the board. In
fact, the department's decision to issue an administrative order, or impose administrative fines
may be appealed to the board. See RSA 482-B:16,1 & II.
If the well was installed contrary to applicable statutes and rules, and Mr. Pellino has
suffered civil damages as a result, his remedy lies with the courts. Respondents believe the civil
case arising from this dispute is pending. The department has no authority to grant civil,
equitable, or injimctive relief for any such disputes. More particularly, the respondents, in
denying Mr. Pellino the relief he has sought from the board and the courts, have done nothing
more than adhere to the statutory and regulatory limits of their positions with the department.
B. As Against Kerry Bamslev
Response to Pellino Grievance dated 9/22/2014

Pages