TIMELINE: - D - Delineation and Survey

 Section D – Delineation & Survey

Within the first week of Carl Hale’s involvement with Lot 2, David Paulson of the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program requested that Carl prepare a map showing the intended development layout and proposed drainage planning for the property. This request occurred shortly after new groundwater and surface-water flow was observed crossing Lot 2 following recent land disturbance on adjacent parcels.

At the time this hand-drawn intent map was prepared, Lot 2 had experienced only a short period of newly observed groundwater and surface-water flow. Based on Carl Hale’s understanding of the site at that time, the proposed drainage concept was intended to provide a controlled, gravity-fed route for water entering Lot 2 from the direction of Lot 3. The route shown on the map directed water generally easterly across the property and toward the rear of the proposed home site, where Carl intended it to reconnect with an existing intermittent drainage path leading downslope toward Cooley Brook.

The purpose of this proposed route was to preserve drainage continuity, reduce ponding, and avoid concentrating or obstructing water in a manner that could worsen wet conditions on Lot 2.

Despite this proposed drainage approach, activity on Lot 2 was later halted during the 2009–2011 period while wetland and regulatory issues remained unresolved. During that period, Carl continued seeking direction and was unable to implement the drainage concept shown on the intent map.

During the same general period, Carl recalls that the adjacent developer stated that he intended to run a ditch on his own property and discharge water over the side of the mountain. Carl later observed that drainage patterns in the area changed and that water no longer followed the route he had proposed toward the existing drainage connection leading toward Cooley Brook.

Carl prepared multiple versions of the requested intent maps as additional information was requested and site conditions continued to change. Photographic documentation of those maps has been retained.

 D-2 Wetland Delineation During Altered Hydrologic Conditions

Photo Date: April 13, 2010

This photograph shows muddy surface water moving across disturbed ground toward a drainage ditch following winter thaw. Exposed rock, grading, and nearby disturbed areas are also visible.

Based on Carl Hale’s observations at the time, later fill and elevation changes in the surrounding area affected the direction and concentration of water moving from the Lot 3 area toward Lot 2.

This photograph is included to document that wetland delineation activity was occurring while surface-water and groundwater conditions were changing following recent disturbance and seasonal thaw.

Following winter thaw, Carl Hale returned to Lot 2 and observed continuing surface-water and groundwater flow entering the property from the direction of exposed rock and upslope disturbance.

Based on Hale’s observations, the visible water movement appeared to be associated with earlier disturbance in an aquifer-fed area on adjacent land, where rock excavation, soil placement, grading, and other site changes had altered the surrounding drainage conditions.

Carl Hale recalls that Joseph Petronino, an independent environmental and wetlands consultant, arrived at the Lot 2 area wearing field boots and began examining the property.

Because Petronino had arrived without prior explanation to Hale, Hale asked what he was doing there and who had retained him for the wetland-related work.

Hale recalls that Petronino initially said he was working in connection with Fish & Game. When Hale asked whether Fish & Game had hired him, Petronino responded that Kevin Walkowski had retained him. Hale also recalls Petronino stating that he knew Walkowski and had performed other work for him previously.

Hale later received correspondence from David Paulson indicating that Petronino could be retained for wetland-related work.

These recollections raise an important records question: What delineation reports, field notes, wetland data sheets, flagging records, sketches, photographs, invoices, contracts, maps, or correspondence were prepared by Petronino in connection with Lot 2, Lot 3, or the surrounding development, and where are those records now?

 Recorded 2012 Wetland Plan — Lot 2 / Lot 3 Discrepancy

Registry Record: Hampden County Registry of Deeds, Book 19310, Page 275, Instrument No. 38386, recorded June 20, 2012.

The recorded plan associated with this Fisheries & Wildlife notice depicts a wetland/resource area extending across the Lot 2 / Lot 3 area. The plan is significant because the mapped resource is not confined to Lot 2.

Carl Hale recalls that wetland flags were placed on Lot 3 during the earlier review and that he was instructed to have the wetland surveyed and recorded. Hale states that he followed that direction and hired a surveyor to prepare the plan.

Project Locus has searched Registry records surrounding the 2012 filing and has not located a separate recorded wetland notice or comparable instrument indexed against Kevin Walkowski or Lot 3 for the portion of the resource area shown on the recorded plan.

That raises an important records question:

If the mapped wetland/resource area extended onto Lot 3, why was Carl Hale instructed to record the wetland-related plan while Project Locus has not located a corresponding recorded instrument for Lot 3?

Hale also recalls that Kevin Walkowski retained Joseph Petronino, an independent environmental and wetlands consultant, in connection with Fish & Game/Natural Heritage-related work in the area. Hale further recalls receiving written confirmation from David Paulson indicating that Petronino could be retained for wetland-related work.

Project Locus is not concluding from these facts alone that anyone acted improperly. It is seeking the underlying agency, survey, consultant, and Registry records necessary to answer several specific questions:

• What wetland/resource boundaries were identified on Lot 3 during the original field review? 
• Who requested that those boundaries be surveyed? 
• Was the Lot 3 portion ever separately noticed, recorded, restricted, revised, or released? 
• Why does the recorded 2012 plan show the broader Lot 2 / Lot 3 resource area while later plans appear to treat the two properties differently? 
• Were different recording requirements applied to Lot 2 and Lot 3, and if so, what was the documented regulatory basis for that difference? 
• Did Paul Smith prepare more than one version of the survey, and who requested any revision that removed or omitted Lot 3 information? 
• What records did Natural Heritage/Fisheries & Wildlife maintain concerning Joseph Petronino’s work and Kevin Walkowski’s involvement? 

Carl Hale recalls that wetland flags initially appeared on Lot 3 and around the aquifer area. Hale states that he later observed that some flag locations had changed.

A close neighbor also told Hale that he believed Kevin Walkowski had moved wetland flags. Project Locus has not independently established who moved the flags or why.

Hale further recalls being told by Joseph Petronino that Lot 2 did not contain enough wetland vegetation at that time to classify the property itself as wetland. Project Locus is seeking the original field notes, flagging records, survey revisions, and agency correspondence so that this recollection can be compared with the documentary record.

Carl Hale states that, during this period, neither he nor Derrick Hale had undertaken development work on Lot 2 that created the conditions being investigated.

Hale recalls that substantial clearing, loam removal, grading, driveway work, and other disturbance in the surrounding development area predated or occurred outside Hale activity on Lot 2.

The Hale family has made multiple attempts over the years to move forward with residential construction on Lot 2. Those efforts have not resulted in a completed home.

Carl Hale states that continuing uncertainty over the location and regulatory treatment of the wetland/resource area has made builders reluctant to proceed because the family has been unable to obtain a clear and stable understanding of where development can lawfully occur.

Project Locus is seeking a definitive, current determination of the resource boundaries and applicable requirements so the family can understand whether, and where, a lawful residential project can proceed.

The purpose of this exhibit is not to assign blame. It is to establish why the recorded 2012 plan depicts a resource area spanning more than Lot 2, why later records appear different, and why the recording and enforcement history appears to have treated the adjoining parcels differently.

Project Locus is seeking the complete documentary record so those questions can be answered from evidence rather than assumption.
 

Despite two separate house designs—including a modular-home design intended to allow a faster build—and three attempts to move forward with construction, the Hale family was unable to undertake development work on Lot 2 during approximately six years of cease-and-desist restrictions.

During roughly 17 years of ownership, none of the Hale family’s three building attempts resulted in a completed home.

The most recent attempt, in 2024, ended after the family’s contractor advised against proceeding because the location and regulatory status of the wetland remained unresolved. Although Levesque Associates prepared a later wetland plan for the property, Project Locus has not located that plan as a recorded document at the Hampden County Registry of Deeds.

As a result, the Hale family remains unable to rely on a clear, recorded wetland boundary when asking a builder to proceed with residential construction on Lot 2 within an area that has also been subject to rare-species and Priority Habitat review.

Historical photographs show that the broader development area had already been extensively cleared before the Hale family undertook any site work on Lot 2. Project Locus is documenting how that clearing, grading, habitat disturbance, wetland review, and later regulatory restrictions affected Lot 2 and the surrounding resource area.

The historical photographs show extensive clearing that left very little visible cover or undisturbed habitat in the photographed area, including habitat that may previously have supported wildlife.

Project Locus is also reviewing whether restrictions applied to Lot 2 were applied in the same manner to adjoining lots and development activity. That comparison includes wetland crossings, drainage features, habitat restrictions, recorded notices, and other property-use limitations where records are available.

The purpose of this review is not to assume that neighboring properties were treated improperly, but to determine from the records whether the regulatory requirements applied to Lot 2 were consistent with those applied to nearby properties during the same general period.

This photograph was taken from Pitcher Street looking toward Lot 3. It shows fresh fill being placed in the lower area on the left side of the property. Carl Hale recalls that approximately one tri-axle load of soil was placed in this area.

The photograph is included because this work took place just months after the Lot 2 / Lot 3 area was surveyed, reviewed, and later recorded. Project Locus is comparing the timing of this fill activity with wetland plans, agency records, and later changes in site elevation and drainage.

The photograph provides a dated visual record of fill being placed on Lot 3 during the same general period in which wetland conditions in the Lot 2 / Lot 3 area were being documented and recorded.

Project Locus is seeking the underlying permits, approvals, survey records, and agency correspondence necessary to determine how this work was evaluated and whether the fill contributed to later changes in drainage patterns, site elevation, or wetland mapping. 

This exhibit documents the later wetland delineation performed by Levesque Associates after the Town of Montgomery advised that Lot 2 could not move forward toward permitting until wetland issues affecting the property were professionally addressed.

Carl Hale recalls being advised by the Town of Montgomery that unresolved wetland issues were preventing further progress toward a building permit and that a qualified professional familiar with the property should be retained.

Hale then contacted Levesque Associates and paid a deposit for wetland-related professional services on Lot 2.

Before field work began, Hale states that he specifically asked that no work be performed until he could walk the property with the consultant and explain the history of the site.

Hale considered that walk-through important because the property already had a complicated history involving earlier wetland mapping, drainage changes, clearing and grading on adjoining parcels, previous soil and perc testing, and a wetland-related plan already recorded at the Hampden County Registry of Deeds.

Hale also had practical environmental experience of his own, including approximately 15 years working in chemical-waste treatment operations, wastewater-treatment coursework through California State University, Sacramento, and experience as a registered septic-system installer. That experience did not make Hale a wetland scientist, but it did give him practical familiarity with soils, drainage, wastewater systems, groundwater, and the importance of understanding existing site conditions before reaching conclusions about hydrology.

Hale recalls that, before the requested walk-through occurred, he was called to the property and found that the site had already been staked and flagged.

Hale further recalls that within approximately three days of providing Levesque Associates with a deposit, Ryan Nelson, of Levesque Associates informed him that the property was subject to cease-and-desist restrictions and that alterations were not permitted. Hale also recalls being told that he had violated a wetland.

During this same period, Levesque Associates communicated with MassDEP concerning the property. Project Locus is seeking the complete correspondence and chronology of those communications to determine what information was provided, who provided it, when the communications occurred, and what role those communications played in the restrictions subsequently applied to Lot 2.

During the site interaction, Hale was questioned about rocks, trenches, drainage features, stone walls, and other physical conditions on the property.

Hale maintains that many of the conditions being examined were connected to earlier clearing, grading, fill, drainage changes, and altered hydrology that predated or occurred outside Hale development activity on Lot 2.

Hale also recalls attempting to explain that water entering or affecting Lot 2 appeared connected to conditions on adjoining property and to the broader hydrology of the development area. Hale states that he remained cooperative with the process while attempting to understand how those surrounding conditions were being considered in the new delineation.

Levesque Associates later prepared plans and related materials for the property. Hale states that the family ultimately paid more than $8,000 for this work.

As the later wetland mapping developed, Hale became increasingly concerned that the new delineation differed substantially from the earlier recorded Lot 2 / Lot 3 wetland-resource configuration.

The later Levesque delineation and related regulatory process continued for approximately three years.

A significant issue arose when the later wetland work was being considered for recording: an earlier wetland-related plan already existed at the Hampden County Registry of Deeds.

That earlier recorded plan is particularly important because it depicts a wetland/resource area extending into the Lot 3 area.

Project Locus has not located a corresponding recorded copy of the later Levesque wetland plan at the Hampden County Registry of Deeds.

That leaves an unresolved conflict between an earlier recorded wetland-related plan and a later proposed wetland configuration that became important to subsequent regulatory review of Lot 2. 

Project Locus is seeking records that explain:

• Why Lot 2 was required to undergo an additional wetland delineation when earlier wetland documentation had already been recorded. 
• Why it took approximately three years to complete the wetland delineation and reach a final mapped configuration for Lot 2. 
• Whether Levesque Associates reviewed the earlier recorded wetland plan before beginning or completing its later delineation. 
• Why the earlier recorded plan depicts a wetland/resource area extending onto Lot 3 while the later Levesque mapping appears to place substantially greater wetland constraints on Lot 2. 
• What happened to the previously mapped or flagged wetland/resource area on Lot 3. 
• Whether Levesque Associates evaluated the Lot 3 wetland area, the Lot 1 cattail/pond area, and other nearby wet conditions as part of its hydrologic analysis. 
• Whether clearing, grading, fill, driveway construction, drainage changes, groundwater conditions, and altered surface-water flow on adjoining parcels were considered in the later delineation. 
• Who requested, reviewed, or approved the later wetland configuration. 
• Whether MassDEP, Natural Heritage, the Town of Montgomery, or another agency directed or approved changes from the earlier recorded wetland configuration. 
• Whether the later Levesque plan was ever formally recorded at the Hampden County Registry of Deeds. 
• If the plan was not recorded, who was responsible for completing or coordinating that step. 
• Whether recording the later plan was included within the professional services for which the Hale family paid Levesque Associates. 
• Whether MassDEP or another reviewing agency had a responsibility to confirm that a plan being relied upon for long-term regulatory restrictions was properly recorded or otherwise made part of the permanent property record. 
• Why the Hale family was left with an earlier recorded wetland-related plan while a later proposed wetland configuration became central to the regulation of Lot 2 without an apparent corresponding Registry record. 
• What information from the Levesque work was subsequently provided to MassDEP, Natural Heritage, the Town of Montgomery, or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  

The Hale family paid Levesque Associates more than $8,000 for professional wetland-related services and plans.

Project Locus has not located a recorded copy of the later Levesque wetland plan at the Hampden County Registry of Deeds.

If that plan was recorded under another name, book and page number, instrument number, or other reference, Project Locus is seeking that information.

If it was never recorded, Project Locus is seeking records identifying why it was not recorded and who was responsible for completing or coordinating that step.

This question has practical importance because the earlier recorded plan and the later Levesque delineation do not depict the wetland/resource configuration in the same way. 

The later Levesque delineation became an important part of the regulatory history of Lot 2.

However, Project Locus has not located a recorded Registry copy of that later plan.

The difference between the earlier recorded wetland documentation and the later Levesque mapping has contributed to continuing uncertainty over the location, extent, and regulatory status of the later proposed wetland on Lot 2.

The Hale family has made three separate attempts to move forward with residential construction and has had two house designs prepared, including a modular-home design intended to allow a faster build.

None of those attempts resulted in a completed home.

During significant portions of this history, Lot 2 was subject to cease-and-desist restrictions over periods while the wetland issues were being reviewed.

The family's most recent building effort ended after a contractor advised against proceeding while the recorded wetland information and the later regulatory wetland configuration remained unresolved.

The Hale family therefore remains unable to rely on one clear, stable, recorded wetland boundary when asking a contractor to proceed with residential construction on Lot 2. 

Map D-6 — Levesque Associates Wetland Delineation and Expanded Wetland Mapping for Lot 2

This map shows the later wetland delineation prepared for Lot 2 following additional professional wetland review.

It should be compared with the earlier recorded Lot 2 / Lot 3 wetland plan, historical photographs, drainage evidence, earlier survey information, Lot 1 and Lot 3 site conditions, and subsequent state and federal regulatory records. 

The central issue is not simply that two maps look different.

The earlier recorded plan depicts a wetland/resource area extending onto Lot 3.

The later Levesque work appears to place substantially greater wetland constraints on Lot 2, while Project Locus has not located a corresponding recorded wetland instrument for Lot 3 or a recorded copy of the later Levesque plan.

The questions are therefore straightforward:

What happened to the previously documented Lot 3 wetland/resource area? Why was the later wetland configuration focused so heavily on Lot 2? What field data and hydrologic evidence supported that change? Who reviewed and approved it? Why did the process take approximately three years? And why does the later plan that became important to the regulation of Lot 2 not appear in the Registry records Project Locus has located?

Project Locus is seeking the complete documentary record so those questions can be answered from evidence rather than assumption.