Anything you feel like >> doing find you're going to be promptly. >> I'll just call on you repeatedly and immediately. >> Guess we're there. This first one is tough though.
>> We're going to need someone to read this. >> I'm just talking the mic really well though. Pull the mic. Pull it over. There we [laughter] go. >> All right. Hi everybody. Good evening. Welcome to the uh August 3rd meeting of the board of health. We're calling it to
order. Can someone read the mission statement? >> Yes. The mission of the Felmouth Board of Health is to protect and promote the health, safety, and well-being of the residents and visitors of the town of Felmouth. The primary functions of the board of health to achieve our mission
are to prevent and control disease, enforce state and local regulations, promulgate local health regulations, identify and protect from environmental hazards, and advocate for a healthy community.
>> Thank you, George. Anyone recording besides us for our minutes? Okay. Thank you to the members of the public for attending this meeting. Brief statement on rules of behavior. Public comments will be allowed at the discretion of the chair or vice chair
tonight as time allows and will be limited to two minutes per speaker. Before providing your comments, please state your full name and all comments must be delivered in a manner that respects others. Does anyone on the board or in the audience have anything not on the agenda that they want to
discuss? No. Uh the only thing I'll mention that I don't think is on our agenda tonight is that there's a planning board meeting regarding um well, one of the topics is going to be duplexes and um Jed thought
one of us should attend that's on August 11th to talk about septic systems. So he is willing to to attend. >> He is >> he is willing to Yeah. >> Great. >> Pending a check on child care.
>> Okay. Well, no other public comment. All right. Let's get rolling. 24 school street, the Woods Hole Daycare Cooperative. The applicant is seeking a variance from 105 CMR 430.101.
Required ratio of counselors to campers. Are there folks here to present on? >> Just a wild guess. It's the third row. [laughter] [snorts] >> I have lots of support. Okay, >> you'll have to um excuse me. I've never used one of these things before. Um
so, thank you guys for for for letting us come and talk to you and your consideration. Um as you know that you have all the papers but um we're requesting a variance um because the required ratio of counselor camp counselors to campers
for the board of health is 1 to5 for under age seven and we are just asking that um you might allow us to have a variance because um we during the school year we are licensed under EEC which I
don't know do I do this I'll show you. >> It's one to five for preschool. >> All you do is [laughter] >> just rolling it >> there. That's your request. >> Yes, that was my request.
>> All right, there you go. There's our license. >> So, so our license um for the preschool is one 1 to10 ratio. And basically, I'm just asking if we could either go with the ratio of 1:10 during our school hours, I mean, during our summer
program, or if we could get a modified ratio of 1:7 or 1:8. Um, if you guys determine that it's it's appropriate. Um, we believe our our program structure, staffing, and safety practices and longstanding compliance
with EEC provides us a safe and well supervised environment for the children. And I just want to note that our our program doesn't change during the summer um the to the best of my knowledge working in in summer camps um the reason
why the ratio is lower during camp season is because there is stuff like archery and um horseback riding and swimming and all that. And we the only thing that changes in from our program is the location. We have we move out of
our our 24 school street home. So, um, the Children's School of Science can be there for the summer. Um, they've been there for 101 out of the 102 years they've been in existence. So, so that's one of the things that we we do. Um,
however, like I said, our program doesn't change at all. Um, and we still run by our EEC licenses on top of what the board has has asked us to do. And the reason why I'm asking for this variance is because it's a hardship on
our our um budget as a nonprofit. Um we have to double our staff during the summer and also that makes it a little bit harder for the kids um to adjust to new staff members and also our teachers are have been with us and they they're
through the summer so we don't really have to replace anybody. we might need an extra person in the summer just to cover break um breaks or vacations. So, I don't know if you guys have any more questions. And I also have a parent, a
board member and a teacher that's been the program for over 10 years. So, yes, Scott. Scott. Yeah, I would agree that the two reasons why the ratio um changes in the summer would be
primarily the camp's trips. So if the trips are similar, is your staff also similar and who they are? >> The staff between the two >> the are staff is the same other than >> Okay. So that would that would be the second reason was would maybe the level of staff knowledge. let's say camp
counselors are teenagers themselves type of thing would be one reason and the other reason would be that you're going swimming archery >> and axe throwing or whatever it happens to be. So if those two things to me in my opinion then it's if it's the same program that's running during the during the school year it's the same program.
So that's my opinion >> and also the other other thing that I just want to point out that we were actually discussing this in the hallway earlier is if we're take like we have a wonderful program and um we do have staff that comes to us during the summer. However, I know that other
childcare centers don't have the reputation or or the staff coming back to them and at being nonselfish. the staff would be able to go to other places that might need them more than we do. I don't know if that makes any sense and I'm sorry
for saying that and but I'm just saying like these people that come to us it's like oh yeah this is great and we can it's it's a little easier with us because the ratios are so low but they they might be needed someplace else that has the camp environment that we don't have. So, George, you want
>> actually have a bunch of So, why not call it a summer school instead of a camp and just operate your license that you already have? >> That's a good question. Um, I don't know why. I know that we've always moved.
This is um I've been in as director here for a year and a half. Um, before this I ran my own childcare center in Spartable. Um, I've never had to move locations during the summer, so I'm not quite sure. Um, as of
last year, it was still new to me, so I just went with what what everybody did. So, this year I'll be looking more into it. Um, next, well, for next year, I'll be looking more into it. Um, I just know that during the summer, it's always been the board of health. Um, >> so what did you do last year? the same
last summer. Same thing as this year. >> You asked for a variance. >> No, no, I have not asked for the variance. I didn't know I was able to ask for a variance. >> So, how did you So, how did you operate last summer? >> The same way under the under the board of health
>> with a with a with a 1:5 ratio. I see. All right. Good. >> With the one to five ratio. And as an experienced director, I'm like, what? you know, I mean, >> and so in the summer, are you at the congregational church here? Okay.
>> And um so the same people who are do the school year also do the summer. >> Yes. Okay. um in in your so there are requirements for when
variances can be given and there are three of them. >> Um and one of them is that you show that your insurance is the same and that they know that you
>> So how does your insurance company feel about the number of staff? Well, are we have the same insurance company for the summer and for the school year? >> Yeah. >> So, it it they it doesn't matter to them. You know what I mean? Like the
insurance is the same both ways because >> So, are they aware that you're operating under a different license and you're not meeting the standards of that license? >> They are. So, the insurance company would need to be made aware of your >> Yeah. Yeah. We need to aware that we
would be going if um if um we're granted the the variance, they would be aware of the fact that we wouldn't be at a 1 to5, we'd be at a 1 to 7 or or we'd continue with the 1 to 10 that the preschoolers have. >> And you already operating this this summer? >> Yes. Yep. We've operated every summer
since >> at a you already started. You're not started um >> um >> June 29th, actually. >> And are the kids the same kids? >> Same kids. One of the things you mentioned is that in addition to the location being
different, you're outside instead of inside or outside a lot more or outside more. >> I mean, we're outside as much as we can in both locations as much as we can. Um I mean, we're outside just because the weather's better, not necessarily not
necessarily because the location is different. It's just the weather and it's a summer. So, I mean, that doesn't really have a bearing on on outside time. [clears throat] I mean, we have we have water play days outside with the sprinkler in the summertime >> that we don't necessarily do in the
winter time because >> Yeah. >> You know. >> Yep. [laughter] >> Right. >> Yeah. So, I mean, a agreeing and reiterating with some of the things that have already been said, as Scott said, the summer camps you don't have, you just have to be 18 years of old of age,
at least three years older than campers. So, that's why there's a different ratio there. Um, and to George's point, is it you said you haven't looked into whether you could simply extend your regular license across the summer months. That would be seemingly the most direct path
to continue. >> And I'm not sure why that hasn't been done before. I mean, that's something that I' I'd look into, but right now I'm just looking at if this is the proquay of pro whatever of what we're doing, like I want to, you know, hopefully
change it to make it better, you know, for for everyone. Right. Um >> so that George also mentioned the three things that we have to assess under to grant a variance. And the first is that
the enforcement of the regulations as they stand would do manifest injustice. >> It's very difficult for us to make that finding without knowing if this other path is available to you. >> The only thing that um honestly I can say is the only thing I can think of is
I know it's very difficult to find space And it's possible that the first congregational church because I'm not sure how long they've been there. At least 10 years, right? >> How long we've been going >> to the first congregation church? >> 30 years. >> Yeah. So the only thing I can think of
is that the um the square footage might be slightly different and so to find so EEC might have a different square footage than the board of health. That's the only thing I could think that would possibly make it so the license can't
extend to or the fact that it's in the base, you know, in a basement area as opposed to where it is. I'm not positive, but that would be from my experience that would be the only reason why I I would think that it wouldn't we just wouldn't extend the EEC license through. It could also be where the
bathrooms are located because the bathrooms are located down the hall and our bathroom and usually bathrooms in a childcare center are closer to the classrooms. So, it might be something as simple as just the structure of the church and why we can't continue with EEC and why the board of health
regulations were sought after to begin with. >> Okay. But it sounds like you don't know that you can't cons continue with Okay. >> Any other um It certainly I don't think it could be a
a manifest injustice is a pretty high bar that this >> it is a high bar >> and um although I was trying to look up the exact legal definition which no doubt there are is case law about which I won't understand even if I found it.
Um, but I just think the problem with with this kind of thing for me is it's a very low probability that any harm will be done, but if there's any harm done, it's a going to be a huge harm.
>> And the if you're already operating within the confines of the board of health of the Massachusetts uh board of health regulations.
Can How long much longer are you in session this summer? >> Um for the rest of the month. >> So just to do this for four more weeks this year that you're already doing and then finding out for next year if you
can just be a summer school >> um would seem to make more sense to me. Um one of the things that um I was told um that is if we get the variance it would cover it would go for year to
year. So I'm also looking ahead um but originally we were on the agenda for the beginning of July. So [laughter] right um and unfortunately things happened and now we're here now. So that's one of the reasons why we just want I just wanted to proceed and completed what I started you know
>> um >> and I don't know if any of my my fellow >> I was just going to say that we were >> Can you come to the podium and give your name Thank you >> Kim Fisk. >> Um I was going to add that um we w we do
plan on operating next summer. So when you were saying four more weeks, um that's four more weeks this summer, but then we would, you know, obviously continue next summer and beyond, >> right? But then you would know if you could be a summer school instead of a
camp and this wouldn't be an issue. >> No, you can't. >> Oh, Scott. So recreation camp means operates for any period of time any period of time between June 1st and September 30th of any year or
keyword orif fewer than 15 business days during any other time of the year. So since they operate between June 1st and September 30th, they need to get a recreational camp license the way that reads. >> I don't think that's correct. Maybe I'm reading it. I think it's exclusive in
the way you're saying it. It's that is you can be a summer camp if you meet >> but you can certainly be a summer school. >> Yeah. I'm wondering millionaire. >> Yeah. I'm wondering if there's a cut off the EO I don't familiar with the thing is is that we just do rec camps. I'm not familiar with what
>> early education regs are and they might have a cut off of June 1st. I don't know. >> And there's probably a good reason we only do actual camps and not schools. >> Right. Because it's >> because we don't know. >> Right. Right. right? >> The risk benefit ratio here, which as I
said, they'll, you know, you're near this big parking lot if you're outside at the school, I mean, at the church. >> Um, and >> we have a fenced in playroom, >> right? >> Yeah. But I mean, these are concerns
that Department of Early Ed would want to address with you. I think the what the board is leaning toward is continuing as you are for this summer and start the process of determining whether you can continue or extend this license year round to maintain that
lower teacher ratio >> and and the license explicitly notes that you operate under uh Department of Public Health rules in the summer. I don't know why that's there on on a condition of your license. Um,
but I I just, as I said, this is one of those very low frequency, very high-risk kinds of things that worry me because I don't know anything about it. I don't know
enough about it. And there's a reason for the rules being as they are that >> I mean, it could be simple case of they've historically done it. We've we don't know what they do during the year. you've issued a license and quite frankly don't need it. >> Correct. >> Well, it does say the program operates
on the DPH for the summer. Operates under DPH for the summer at a separate location. >> It does say that, right? But we none of us know exactly why that is and whether >> right >> whether this existing license could be extended to cover the summer program as well.
>> And well, by the writing on the permit does >> it it [clears throat] doesn't say they qualify. It just says that they operate under a different license. Not that >> Oh, operates under DPH. Is this license, is it? Oh, I see what they're saying.
Under under 430. Yeah. Yeah. Runs under the DPH. >> Yeah. It's two different regulatory dur. So, it probably has an expiration date on it, >> right? But we definitely can't think we can rise to the level of manifest injustice without even knowing if that you have another legal pathway that's
perfectly valid. Can I ask you to consider um raising it from a 5:1 ratio to a 6:1 ratio? >> Not the full 10:1. >> Any variance? >> Any variance. >> Yeah, it's it's a variance from an
established regulation. That is our where we have to clear that bar. Okay. >> And and also your handbook says that in the summer you operate under uh the department of public health um reg Massachusetts Department of
Public Health regulations and comply with them which you wouldn't be if we >> well put an amendment in there saying with this variance and we'd end up putting the variance in with our handbook. Um and we'd also have the parents sign off on the fact that they know that that's that would be our ratios. So,
>> and our parents are very um >> respectful and they trust >> us, you know, so that wouldn't be um I didn't know if this was I I understand where you guys are coming from and it's it is August so um I didn't know if there was a possibility for um us to
like I don't know how it works but to keep it open like and for you guys to I know that the first um thing to do is to figure out why EEC why we haven't done that >> to continue this discussion Yeah, like if it's possible to like leave it and like have you guys mull it
over some more, I guess you could say. And so when we >> if if the first the first thing is to say, oh, why does the EC license us during the school year >> um during the summer if we could basically pause and come back to this instead of starting all over again and
then like possibly you guys might be able to vote on it in case you know >> or look at it in a different way in case um depending upon what EEC says, >> right? So you would come back to us with a definitive answer from EEC. Yeah. So we can continue kind of >> we can continue it not to any date
certain, but you would contact Scott and let him know that you had additional information and he can just put it back on our agenda at that time. >> And I think any further discussion of it would also we would also need to see proof that your insurance company was going to ensure you. It's it's the order
of these things. We would need to know that the insurance company was on board with it, not the other way around. >> Right. >> You have one more. Go ahead, Rebecca. >> Can you come up and give your name? [laughter] >> Are you looking for provision number two out of the three?
>> Yeah. So, >> Rebecca Sanderson, Matt, I'm the vice president of the board of directors and a parent and just wanted to make sure we understand what those three criteria are. >> Yep. That's a good question. So, I'll read them to you. The enforcement there number one, the enforcement thereof would do manifest injustice. So, that we've been talking about that. Provision
number two, the applicant has proved the same degree of protection required under 105 CMR430 can be achieved without strict application of the partic particular provision. And I think we've talked about that tonight um and that I think you're meeting. And then when
insurance is utilized, the applicant has provided written confirmation from the insurance carrier confirming the continuation of full coverages if the minimum health and safety provisions are varied. And do you have any additional information or can point us to how
manifest injustice seems like a really high bar? So how you would evaluate that? >> It's a good question and you were looking for a definition. >> Yeah, >> I don't think uh by denying it we would
be manifesting injustice because we're not sure the other path has been investigated to the fullest, >> right? and we don't have that other information, >> but I think they're asking like down the road if if EEC um says no, you cannot
continue like what would they need? >> Manifest injustice generally is there's no conceivable way to meet the regulation and deny somebody reasonable use of their property in the case of title five, which we're very familiar with
that one. >> We are. uh but to not to deny reasonable continuence of a practice I would say >> it's a challenge >> something that is plainly and obviously unjust which I don't think this would
meet that standard high >> bar it's a it's a tough one especially in that you've been operating this way >> for many years so >> okay >> we're pretty limited in our ability to >> but yes you're welcome to continue it to
reach out to Scott and um put it back on our agenda at any point >> to continue. >> Okay. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Next item on the agenda, 57 Captain's
Lane, local upgrade approval request, no increase in flow in a three-bedroom design, seeking title five setback reductions to the coastal bank of the reduction to the or the setback distance to the coastal bank of 50 ft. The SAS
resides on the coastal bank. The other variance is for the septic tank to the coastal bank of 25 ft. The septic tank resides on the coastal bank. >> Mike, you're here to present. >> I am. Thank you,
>> chairperson. Um, for the record, Mike Borelli, Felmouth Engineering. I represent the applicant. [snorts] The applicant has applied to you for setback variances from a coastal bank. In this case,
a coastal bank is by definition a coastal bank but has very limited function as a coastal bank. It's more than 100 ft from all other wetland resources. It happens to have the slope required to
meet the definition and it happens to also be in a flood zone. the actual existing house as it sits today and existing septic system that serves that house sit on what would meet the definition of a coastal bank. In fact,
the house is the coastal bank runs through the house and in this case the existing septic system is seawward of the bottom of the coastal bank in some areas but it's actually sort of on the on a lawn area that happens to have a slope steeper than 10 to one. And the
definition is steeper than 10 to one and in a flood zone. It's not eroding in any way. It's the yard of the house. It's more than 100 ft from all wetlands. Um so the applicant uh came to us
because he wants to do a renovation. The renovation includes um if you look at the plan here uh removal of this back section of the existing house and reconstruction of it
effectively in the same location very slightly bigger like a foot or two at most the balance of the renovation is interior here.
This is currently served by a substandard title 5 system. In that I mean it's a 1,000galon septic tank and a leeching pit. Um the aspill sketch basically a hyro hieroglyphic. I had
trouble even understanding it, but I know that it's the septic system is generally here the where we're proposing a new septic tank. The bottom of the leeching pit would be certainly less than 5 ft from the high
groundwater. Um the assessors assessed the house as a threebedroom. I did a walk through and there's five rooms that would meet the definition of bedroom. the existing house in my opinion
and because the system is substandard in size of tank and the fact that the leeching pit doesn't meet current title five uh standards I recommended to the owner that it was a good investment when he's doing the project to put in a new compliant title five septic system at
least in all ways except for this matter of the coastal bank. Uh I also advised the client and he has incorporated into his renovation plan that the house become a truly three three-bedroom house as as is what it was
assessed as. Um so the new house has two it's a walkout style house meaning that the basement level lends itself to having habitable space.
There are two rooms that um have privacy, doors, windows, and in excess of 70 square ft. And they're they're used as overflow bedrooms today. Um the renovated house will completely
eliminate all that in the lower level. It'll be a wide open unfinish uh no no dedicated room space wide open um with the utilities that serve the house and things like that. A stairway up to
the next level and on the next level um there'll be uh one bedroom and on the second story too. So, um, the spirit of the design is to maintain
the number of bedrooms that the house was originally assessed to have. Um, since there's no increase in flow, we've shown that we could retrofit with an IA system. Um, but we're not proposing it
today. This property's uh one of the side streets off of Davisville Road and this system as designed is far superior to the one that is currently on site. So I think this meets your
regulations as far as um they are relative to whether or not there's a trigger for an IIA. With regard to the setbacks to the coastal bank, there's really no other place to go.
The function of the bank is uh if I put on my uh wetlands hat, its only function is to provide storm damage prevention and flood control because it happens to be a vertical buffer the flood waters. It's not eroding. It's it
serves no other function. uh installation of this system under the ground won't affect its ability to continue to function the way it has always functioned and the interests of coastal banks will be uh maintained.
I think that sums it up. I'm happy to take questions. >> Um okay, so I'm glad I didn't just miss it. I was looking everywhere for the existing system. I was like, why can't I see it? Um, okay. So, it's up where you're showing the new tank, and it
looks like we're in the the flood zone. >> Yes. >> Um, are there buoyancy calculations? >> I didn't provide them. I I could certainly provide buoyancy calculations for the tank. >> And this is in a nitrogen sensitive
area. Did the idea of an IIA come up? >> Yeah. Um I, as I just said, um we don't believe it triggered anything. Um there's five bedrooms in the house as it sits. I don't know the history of those, but they've been there for a very long
time. >> How many? I'm sorry. >> Five by definition. Um I don't know how long they've been there. The assessors assess it as three. the renovation will truly have three. Um,
>> even with those all the areas, there's an office, there's two finished areas in the basement. >> Those are the existing I think >> this one. >> Yeah. The existing floor plan shows two finished areas in the basement which
will be >> eliminated, >> unfinished, if you will. >> Okay. >> Yeah. One of them is just over 70 square feet and I was very interested in the last few weeks ago hearing about >> a small room only having one occupant
but the other one's bigger but the bottom line of all this in my opinion is the potential total daily flow is being reduced from what it is today. >> Yeah. >> Um and you said no place else to go with a different configuration. That's what I was looking at right away is could this
have gone onto the east or southeast portion of the property with a slightly different layout to stay off the out of the flood zone >> um >> off the top of the bank. >> If you try to put it I'm trying to direct you with my my mouse up here. um
setbacks to the cell wall um property lines uh requirement for ejector pumps and all things like that would come into play and I don't think there'd be any you'd still be within you'd still be within the you'd still require setbacks from the top of the
coastal bank in this case we happen to be on the coast be on actually on the coastal bank because it's a very gradual sloping yard. It's in my opinion not what the uh regulations contemplated for
setbacks from coastal banks when they were originally promulgated. >> Would they be willing to uh be restricted to the three bedrooms? >> Yes. with of course a condition of that being either sewer or uh a
retrofitting with an IIA. If some day down the line, which I can't even foresee, they might want to do something in that lower level that becomes real bedrooms, but certainly a deed restriction would be appropriate. >> So, Mike, they're adding a second story
or are they >> they're renovating a second story? >> There's one right now. So, it's just adding a dormer. Is that >> Yeah. >> Changing roof lines? >> Could you use bigger paper next?
[laughter] >> Um, so what's it? Is the square footage changing a little? A lot? Not very much. >> Not very much at all. Is it very near measurable as far as footprint touching the ground? And then the square.
Therefore, like any floors, the only changes is um changing roof lines allows for a more >> headroom space. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Um
so, where will the the Sorry, I probably it's probably right in front of me quite literally here, but the new the three bedrooms, where are they going to be on this? Uh let's see. >> Are they in the second floor?
>> Two on the first and >> first floor on the second. >> One, two. Third room is on the second floor. >> Former three. >> If you go to >> bedroom existing um >> one and two.
>> I see. If you go to um >> Yeah, I think >> the proposed first floor which is >> actually the one floor above the basement. >> Yeah. >> Um >> is that >> where your cursor is right now? Yeah.
Okay. So, the two existing ones that are there are going to stay stay and then the third one is moving on the second floor from the >> there. There were two in the basement before and those are going away.
>> And then the attic's getting kind of blown out into some additional rooms. former and the former bedroom three is moving to the back I guess >> and becoming a remodeled office
>> office. Yeah. >> And it was designed to be be just that. There's no there's no uh privacy to that. It's right at the top of the stairs. It's truly intended to be a home office. And again the deed restriction
would be acceptable >> George overall thoughts on well if you can believe the plan which we're about to believe because good building plan we can see what's going on it's going from it's getting one bedroom
less uh and it's designed with the accommodation for an IIA system. Should it be required? I don't know what we want to do as far as adding when that should be added if it needs to be added. As you remember,
you voted last time, >> right? >> For a certain time period in which it would be reviewed and be added. Uh but other than that I think we can move forward. >> Yeah, the last one was three years but
that was to evaluate >> three or two three >> I believe it's settlement three >> uh and that was because to double check sewering. >> Okay. So what I think just to make it clear you're requiring the IIA and you're going to have them up to three
years because what you did last time essentially is saying you need one or the other. You either need sewer or you need IIA. And if sewer doesn't come in, you have to put the IIA. But that assumes that you have to do something. So I think what you need to do on this is vote that you do not want a standard
septic system for a long period of time here. You want if you want to vote that time frame like it's what you're seeing. You'd have to say that an IIA is required here for whatever purpose. >> Three in three years. >> Okay. That's I think that's an important distinction because you're not you're not saying that the system's suitable
for indefinitely. Okay. allowed for 3 years and then you would the owner would have to come back for if there was some extenduating circumstance that being sewer was imminent they would do it.
I mean, this is the same situation. I think it's by location situation. It's um and and I have no idea what the I have to admit, having thought about this, >> I don't know what the cor not the
correct thing, the right thing that is correct has no moral imperative. Right does and I don't know what the hell the right thing is. >> This is slightly different than that. I think >> well it's not getting as much bigger maybe but it's still right next to a a pound.
>> Well, your regulations as they are today have triggers. >> Yes, >> it's an increase in flow for a renovation and we're not increasing flow. >> I don't think you should be putting any constraint on this unless you change your regulations in some way.
>> That's exactly the discussion we had last time. But the thing you're leaving out is that anytime there's a variance, >> it's it becomes a minimum standard, not and and on a case-byase basis.
>> And Scott, >> you need to change the rake ASAP. >> Yeah, >> because this is this is this I absolutely don't agree with this at all personally. >> I proposing this. I want to >> Well, I'm just saying with throwing IAS because they have to come see you is not there shouldn't be a mechanism unless
you put it in a code saying anytime you need to come to the board of health for a variance of any type, you may need to put an IIA. That needs to be in the regulation >> because I'm advising clients based on your >> as am I. Can you renovate a house and either decrease or not increase bedrooms? You should, unless you change
your regulation, should not have to come back in three years and say, "Well, the sewer didn't come by, so I guess I have to put a denite in when I didn't increase bedrooms." >> Because you did look at this building permits over a certain value. Essentially, that's what you're doing now is a building permit over a certain
value. Is essentially the thing you decided not to do, you're doing in some kind of regard. I so let me emphasize that the reason we didn't do it was because I believe we we thought we could not write an adequate rule and so we
were going to do it on a case-byase basis. And so here's a case and I'm not I am I want to emphasize I am not um moving making a a motion that we require
an IIA here. I'm saying in fact what Scott is saying, we need to get on this regulation right away so we don't torture ourselves and everybody else every two weeks on Monday nights at 5:30. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. >> So, I'd just like to ask a question. We did pass the policy which is you show you could fit an IIA in there. >> Yeah. >> We have it on a plan. >> Yep. You're supposed to put it on a
plan. You've demonstrated at least a 6 in drop so it could fit there. Under what circumstances would that IA ever be installed? >> Well, you' Well, the wershed plan would determine when it was needed. So when we finish the wershed plan for example
let's say for example we split Davisville because it's it actually one side of Davisville will be in one watershed the other side of Davisville is on the other watershed much like Aapescans are done um for I I want to say this is
Green Pond's wershed or one of them great pond it's Green Pond watered >> when that plan's done it's going to identify who's getting sewer and who's getting IAS and at that point in time you're going to have a regulation that says okay everybody who's going to have to have an IIA at this point in time to meet the wershed rag will need to put it in.
>> Be a town regulation. It ain't just in your >> Well, it'll be the wershed to comply with D's watershed regulation. There's already when Amy l comes to see you guys in a few weeks, there's going to be maps that's going to show sections of town that need IAS. Then you write a regulation that says anytime you sell a
property or transfer a title or replace a septic in those areas since we know those areas are not getting sewered. You'd want more triggers than what you have. Now, again, I'm giving you my opinion. Um, I don't know whether this is going to be a future Davisville is tricky. I'm I'm assuming there'll be a
lot of sewering on Davisville. This one probably could be. I don't I wouldn't be as certain as sea coast and exactly where the houses are going to where the sewer line's going to be and so forth. But when that wershed regulation's developed, you're going to definitely be changing your rag to match what the
wershed rag needs. So that's why you have an IIA whether it be here we require them on ones that you don't see right just about every septic plan that you don't see but what by right so to speak is also showing the IIA reserve area because I don't know
whether plum hollow or some you know other pot will >> right >> yeah I I do see this as different than the last one in that there is no significant increase in the size of the footprint nor is there an increase in
bedroom count. Um it is a renovation >> between now. A scenario that might come up is let's just say in two years these folks decide to sell the house and sometime prior to that decision you you learn more and you add another trigger
that upon a sale >> Mhm. >> you must upgrade. Well, we've set this up to be retrofitted for an upgrade, but there's no plan to increase flow. I move that we accept the proposal as it stands. >> Finding that it's a better situation
that's there and that there's it's an improvement to the existing situation. There's a reduction in the number of bedrooms uh with the condition that there be a deed restriction to three bedrooms.
>> Standard set of conditions >> standard setting 10 milligs per liter nitrate. Uh, no. Because they're not putting >> Sorry, I automatically went. >> Yeah. >> We won't get there with this system. [laughter] >> Set A, not set B. >> Right. Right. Yep.
>> You have to meet 60. >> Okay. So, I have a motion in the second. Any other discussion? All in >> I. >> Oh, all in favor? I >> I. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And I do want to point out um
for those of us those joining us, our meeting has to end at 7 PM tonight. Um so we're going to work as hard as we can to stay on schedule and get through as much of it as we can. We are going to move to five Rivers View
Road, an IIA approval request in a Falmouth regulated nitrogen area assessed two-bedroom home with a proposed fourbedroom septic system. Applicants propose installing a clean two nitro advanced treatment system. No other variances requested.
Mike, you're going to present. >> Thanks again, Chairperson Roth. Members of the board, my name is Mike Borceli. I represent uh the applicant, David and Diana Wald. This one um is opposing an IA septic
system. The existing house is a two-bedroom house. The house is has been put on the market. In fact, I believe there's an there's a purchase and sale agreement pending,
and I was uh tasked with getting as much permissions as I could to um get approval to put in an IIA system for um a four bedroomedroom capacity home
increasing from two bedrooms to four. Um, the buyers wanted to have the ability before they purchased it to have the potential for adding two bedrooms, which could be
there's it could be a tear down rebuild. It could be building a um going up another story. It could be expanding to the south. Um so we propose a system with a nitro that meets all the
requirements setbacks etc. Um and proposes a four bedroomedroom capacity leeching field and a four bedroomedroom capacity septic tank and nitro system.
Um, one of the submitt requirements is that there be a sign off or an acknowledgement that when you put in an IIA system, you have some responsibilities. So, we submitted one. The seller wasn't willing to sign that because he's not
going to be installing this and he's not going to be maintaining it. So, we thought it made sense to have the buyer uh if you I don't I didn't know a better way of doing it. So that's why >> um >> I just happened to notice they were different.
>> They Yeah. So the form says I David Wald but is signed by Kevin M. Carroll. >> We can if you're willing to vote this we can maybe you can put a condition that prior to issuance of an installation permit we
provide the proper sign off. um by giving him the I've spoken to them that fully understand what they have to do with an IIA system as far as you know maintenance and testing. >> Okay.
>> So really what you're applying for is an increase in the number of bedrooms. >> Yeah. The buyer wants to know he can >> Yeah. No, I I just want to make sure. >> Yes. >> Okay. I suspect if assuming the sale goes through, they'll hire an architect. They'll figure out how to do it and
>> find out it's too expensive and not do it or find out they can do it and will have already gone through this process. >> Right. Smart. A motion to approve the IA system used for five view road
finding that lot is big enough to do without variances and that an IIA system meeting the banner is being proposed that it get less than 10 mg per liter total nitrogen
and with the standard set of conditions Do I have a second? >> Uh, yes. >> Okay. Any further discussion? >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> Thank you very much.
>> Okay. 303 Old Meeting House Road. Variance and IA technology approval requests. Properties located in a regulated nitrogen sensitive area. proposed construction of a two-bedroom ADU. Applicants propose installing a clean two nitro advanced treatment
system. Variance requests from 310 CMR 15.211 is to reduce the setback distance between the proposed soil absorption or absorption absorption system and a foundation wall from the required 20 down to 17. Hi Scott, go ahead.
>> Good evening. How are you? Wow. >> Again, for the record, Scott Machelli, professional engineer from Falmouth, uh representing the owners of the property, Lacy Blumel and Jeff Maxwell. Um, as you stated, this is, uh, the owner's desire to build a two-bedroom ADU,
[clears throat] uh, on this property. It's an existing three-bedroom home, so it's an increase of two bedrooms to make it a total of five. Uh the proposal is to add a nitro 2KS system uh 2000galon two compartment
septic tank and to do an entirely new leechfield system. Uh the existing system that's there the septic tank is undersized obviously not a two compartment system two leeching trenches um still in working order but just the way the the
property laid out um it made more sense to just replace it all. um and change the elevations a little bit. The the system's kind of deep now. We're going to change the uh the invert coming out of the existing home as part of this
because the existing invert right now pipe comes out under the existing deck. The the septic tanks partially under the deck and if we just redo the plumbing basement, we can lift it up about a foot and a half um and bring that system out
front. Um the lot's pretty big lot obviously 56,000 square feet. Um the leechfield uh is going to have four 500galon pre-cast chambers surrounded by 4 ft of stone. Um just due to where we were trying to sight the leechfield in
the back. Um the variance that we're looking for to the foundation wall is just a slight reduction of three feet from 20 down to 16. Um, and I think that's kind of the overview.
>> And it looks like you a 40 million barrier at that corner. >> Yeah, I have. Even on that slight reduction, I don't think it was necessary, but we added it uh just to prevent that that migration towards the foundation wall.
Can I move that we not discuss whether this is a trench or the other thing? >> You don't have to. They're jumped right together. But um I would like to ask the health agent if in his opinion test bit
one is representative of the reserve area. Test bit two is fair representation because it's new construction. As you know, title 5 calls for two in the reserve and two in the primary and is neither and neither.
>> Yeah, we you could just uh put in the conditions to do further test pits at time of install. The soil is not going to change. Not on that, not in that road. But yes, >> you do one in the reserve area just so that we have one for the record. >> Yeah, we do one in the reserve, one at
time of install in the field. Yep. Other thoughts or concerns from the board? move to uh approve this with the finding that it's an IIA system uh and
adequately spaced uh with the provision that a test pit which demonstrates whatever the correct word is about the time of absorption or the time of drain >> installation. installation >> installation
>> when they go to put it in they'll do some extra tests the perk test >> demonstrating appropriate percolation rate >> yes >> which we need to modify by the way all the three we've said that about in the past because they just say a test pit they don't say that it has to be a
successful one >> true so continue so a test pit is advanced at the time of installation that confirms the percolation rate >> yes >> and other >> and the standard conditions and 10 milligrams per liter.
>> Second. >> Any additional discussion? All in favor? >> I >> I Georgia. >> Oh, I Yeah. >> So, is it a trench or is it the other thing? Just kidding. I don't want to know. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> This one's both, George. It goes around the corner continuous and then discontinuous. >> Okay. Opening >> 9 943 Sandwich Road. IA technology approval request in an regulated nitrogen area. Assessed three-bedroom
home with a four-bedroom septic system. Applicant seeking to build a one-bedroom ADU. They propose installing a clean two nitro advanced treatment system. >> Okay. If you want to talk about it, you just use your roller. >> The roller from up and down slightly.
Okay. >> Yeah. Got you. >> Um, good evening. My name is William Collie of Collie Site Services. We prepared the septic plan for our client uh the owner of 943 Sandwich Road. He's
proposing to put a a one-bedroom ADU on the property. Uh, presently there's a four bedroomedroom house on the property with a four bedroomedroom SAS. He intends to modify
the interior to make it a threebedroom for the house and then add on the onebedroom ADU. So there would be no extra flow. Um, so we're looking for approval on that.
Any questions? >> So, I believe when the when May came Bill, >> huh? >> When they came when he um the owner came to see me, the mayor came to see me that he did state that he wanted the additional bedroom. He didn't want to get rid of the bedroom in the main
house. That's hence the reason why we scram you guys scrambled on Thursday to have this Dight. So, this D9 as far as I was told was for an increase in flow because air did not want the owner of the property did not want to uh nyx a
bedroom in the main home because if it's not a net increase, I wouldn't have had you here tonight for an IIA. So, I think I I just just just for the record, I think his design is also showing the additional bedroom for the Leechfield as well. >> Now, I have a question.
>> Yes. How old is the uh existing system that could use a thousand gall? >> Not very old. >> Thousandgallon tank. >> Well, no. The the tank might be, but I don't think the legion field's all that old. I'd have to look it up. I think the >> okay cuz
he's got a th00gon tank >> which made me think okay it's four bedroomedroom design but a 1000gallon tank to me would have meant >> where are you seeing thousand >> oh existing thousandgallon tank >> you use existing
>> existing I believe is 1500 >> yeah I think it's 15 >> goes on the plan I'm sorry maybe I missed Paul, >> there was an in uh inspection uh report done in 2013 and
>> that's where we where we got that >> the existing doesn't have a volume shown on the plan >> existing tank >> points it doesn't say about >> right it's we certainly can confirm in page
>> the second page Um >> second page >> you have 1500galon reuse existing tank. >> Yeah. So it does show it. There's a second profile sheet above the uh
where the perk log would go on his sheet >> that was installed when >> do we have records of that or >> we do. I mean I didn't pull them. >> Okay. If I remember correctly, it might have been about 10 years ago or so. But again, if I if you want, I can can't
really check without tying into the system. But >> I think he recently did it with the anticipation of putting in ADU, George, if I remember correctly. He added the extra bedroom then and then the rules have changed in November when he came to pull the thing. If I remember correctly,
that leechfield's not that Bill. Do you remember designing the leechfield? We didn't design. >> You didn't do it. All right. Yeah, that I didn't look up. >> I can't remember the person's name. >> Actually, I might have it now. I don't have it here.
Oh, reuse existing SAS. >> Existing 1500, a new 1500 going in, then the nitro, and then reuse the existing fourbedroom SAS. So is the is the written request to NYX a bedroom?
>> Well again >> it's three exist. So what correct me I I shouldn't be doing this for you but my conversation with air >> the way I understood it was uh air was going to recessive four bedrooms he wanted to get rid of one of the bedrooms so we could
do the ADU without increasing the SAS >> I'll double check with him because he >> Oh so you're saying it's assessed as four bedrooms but it >> Sorry I think you just said it's assessed at four bedroom >> it's assessed at four bedrooms.
Okay. So maybe that's the >> talking about modifying the inside to three bedrooms and having the ADU one bedroom. So the SAS uh the flow wouldn't have >> I certainly am not going to allow a building permit to exceed the number of
bedrooms of four. Right? So if he >> if he only if he has three in the main house, he can have one in the ADU. >> If he takes out two bedrooms in the main house, he can have two in the ADU. Right? >> But he can't have more than four bedrooms because this leechfield's only sized for four. But everything here says it's an existing three-bedroom house,
>> right? >> Yeah. >> So, we have to go by this. >> Well, that's how it was addressed to me. So, essentially, when I talk, the reason why I wrote this agenda without that letter, so typically to get them on the agenda for tonight. I It was a three-bedroom home with a fourbedroom
septic of the anticipating of doing an ADU. >> That's what I remember. You're telling me that he's actually got four in the main house. He's going to go down to three. >> Designed initially for four bedrooms. Three bedrooms in the house. >> That's what we're asking. >> I told him there would have to be a walk
through at some point to make sure there's not another room that would uh meet the criteria. >> Yeah. >> Uh of a fourth bedroom. And if so, it would have to be changed.
So it sounds like the proposal that we have to consider is what's on in in writing here and stink. Am I missing something? But >> well >> this
>> right right y everything in the plans seems to indicate three bedrooms in the main house. That's exactly what >> and I'm and I'm talking to actually John right now if that's okay with you. So John and I >> Bill wasn't here for the conversation. So the engineer that that you're John
who works for you. >> Um I'm just that's why I'm asking John because that's not the conversation we had on Thursday. The conversation we was is an existing three. They put a four in. They want to use that bedroom credit in the ADU but because they're adding the bedroom now after November 15th 2025
they have to put the IIA in. That's how I remember the conversation and I Does that makes Is that how the letter is written? Correct. >> It's the letter and the plan all show >> all show an existing three-bedroom home and they're going to the fourth. That's exactly how the >> total including the AD.
>> Correct. Right. Because there's only three in the house now. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, >> we do want to confirm it a walk through which I will do or ask for the existing floor plans. But on that property now is a three-bedroom home served by a fourbedroom septic. The ADU will be the
fourth bedroom, but since they're adding the bedroom after November 15th and new regulation went in, they're here tonight for a nitro for for a dite. That was the >> and I think the letter is correct. >> Okay. >> To approve what's stated on the letter.
Uh and if anyone wants to add any here to fors and whereases uh other than the standard conditions in the 10 milligrams per liter >> I'll second but uh the conditions are different of course
>> no I'm saying not with different conditions with these conditions for discussion with these >> and that the house be deeded as three bedrooms with a onebedroom ADU. >> Sure. >> Right. And dependent upon a walkthrough to confirm that indeed there are only
three bedrooms in the primary dwelling. >> Indeed. >> Second. >> Okay. >> We've got a motion and a double second. >> Double second. >> Any discussion? >> All in favor? I
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. >> All right. >> Are we to the well variance? >> We are 328 Elm Road irrigation well variance request. Do we have someone here tonight for that?
>> Probably not. >> Scott, is that you? >> They uh put a request in and they put it on the uh application, but I'm sure to look at it. >> I think this one was pretty straightforward. I couldn't find >> I couldn't find any um septics within 50
ft. >> So I did I did check 318 is the abuter. I provided you 318's uh location. It's in the backyard. Um approximately 25 ft from the property line. So if you
line that up, it's somewhere lining up similarly to back of the home on the existing home. So, I didn't see where there'd be any septics within 50 ft. And so, that's kind of where we are. So, you see the applicant did provide a 20. I don't know
why the applicant put a 25 foot radius, not a 50, >> right? >> You can see in blue. Um, it is a 50, but the septic for the butter at 318 is is still 50 ft away. >> 318 is to the north. >> 318 would be the one to the north. Yes. You don't really need to worry about
that one because that's already 50 to the property line. So there's a butter here which they would be encroaching on the 50, right? That a butter the effect of the butter is the way I'd look at it. The septic I is on the other page and looks to be to be 50 ft out. >> Okay.
>> And um so that's where we are with that. >> So to show you >> Oh, is this >> so this is George? This is the butter t. Okay. >> So this is where the the applicants as well is going to be. This is the 318. So this is this property. >> Oh. Oh.
>> So I have to pull records from >> Got it. >> I pulled our sector. So this is more in the backyard. So put it like that. >> Yeah. >> Neighbors leeches around in there. >> Okay. >> Move to approve. >> With the understanding that he will have
to move his well if the neighbor has to relocate their septic system for any reason. >> Yeah. >> Second. >> Any further discussion? All in favor? I >> I >> All right.
>> Uh move to continue the plastic recycling discussion. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I George. >> Did you just I >> Yes. I I
>> I >> Okay. >> And a request. Can we not reprint this for every meeting or do we have to? You tell me what you We will print nothing out for the next one. That's so much easier than printing something out. >> Okay.
>> Katie does her best I can to sort of decipher everything. [laughter] >> So, remarkably, we are okay on schedule or even ahead of schedule. Um the continuence of plastics. So, we are on
to the discussion of the IAA system monitoring performance and data. >> I'd like to move to continue that discussion. >> Okay. Um, all in favor of continuing that discussion to our next meeting. >> I And I still need
>> at this current pace, I think Miss M. Roth, Mrs. Roth should be the new uh board chair, >> new chair. >> I still need some comments. >> Yes, I I've been negligent and we'll stop being negligent or at least be less negligent. >> Um
>> Um >> Okay. So, we also have discussion of the current well regulation and the application process which was continued. Do we want to tackle that tonight?
>> Didn't I thought we said we were going to change it to 10 and and you were going to set up hearings. >> Well, you did discuss the P the second item with the next item which was the P foss and whether you wanted to do something with that as well. If I remember correctly, you wanted to tie the two together >> and have a conversation Doug Carson at
the base, which Amy did email la later last late last week. So >> then we should probably continue. If that's the reason, we should continue until we've heard from the folks at the base about Wells. >> Yep. And I have an update on that. >> You sent the email you sent out earlier.
>> I did. Yeah. >> Yeah. Um, just have to dig things out from my giant stack of papers. Um, >> yeah. So, I >> meeting in August is that the
>> Yeah, I corresponded with Doug Carson and Carl Champion at the Air Force. um and they are happy to come present to us to give us some information on their process of identifying and testing wells that are in their FTA1 and um Ashim
Valley plumes. Um they would like to bring their consultant or not bring have their consultant participate. He is in New Hampshire Scott. So there's a request to see if we can do a hybrid meeting. It sounds like that's an FCTV limitation.
>> I don't think we do it as a town. Oh, we don't do it as a town. >> Okay. >> So, we would have to all be hybrid to correct >> hear from that consultant. >> We're all be all be not hybrid but >> or sorry, all be remote.
>> It has to be one or the other as far as I know, but I will double check. >> Okay. >> Can it be Zoom instead of that other thing? So, I >> We did Zoom last time for you. >> Another >> We did Zoom upon your request last time. Did we do a Zoom? >> Um, >> okay. Good.
>> Yeah. So they did suggest coming at to a meeting at the end of August. So if we can look at our schedules, >> the one thing is we do have Amy L on August 31st. So I think that one should be in I don't know if you want to keep that in person. I don't >> Oh yes, that should be in person.
>> Yep. And August 16 17th um Jed will be gone. >> Will be gone. >> So we cannot meet on that day. So, let's try to find a revised date. >> I think September. It would have to be September. >> Well, let's Yeah. I mean, do we want to
try? >> Let's see. >> From September 6th to September 22nd, I'll be in Greece. >> Wow. Okay. Do we want to try to
>> And I won't connect via Zoom. What if we did a fully remote meeting on August 24th just to get an update from Joint Base? >> That would be good. >> Is that feasible for folks?
>> I'm getting there. Uh >> August 24th. Yeah. Um, yes, but I probably couldn't do 5:30 on the 24th because I'm having a refill at
4 in Boston. >> Okay. What time we could do? Maybe Tuesday the 25th. >> That would be fine with me. I mean, the traffic could >> Yeah. No, it could be an >> here by Tuesday probably. Yep. 25th. >> August 25th.
>> Remote. >> Removed. And that will be for the update from Doug Carson and the consultant. >> Yep. And then we can discuss >> purpose of >> the PAS >> figuring out what we do as private wells and monitoring for >> PAS. Correct. >> Yep. Okay.
>> Works for me. >> So I will say >> meeting 5:30. >> Yeah. Let's let's try for that. And because we've talked about it now, I can email around about the schedule and we can try to home it in for everyone. I think Jed should be back by then. So
hopefully we can all participate. I'll confirm with our friends at Joint Base. >> So nothing on the 17th and a potential Zoom on the 25th. >> Well, the 17th would be a meeting. >> No, we can't. >> No, we can't. We don't have
>> How okay. >> Is that agenda looking pretty loaded already? >> Well, no. Anything on the agenda after tonight will go on the 31st agenda. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So 31st will be busy >> August 30 >> because I'm gonna give at le you're gonna need at least an hour with Amy LOL. >> Yeah,
>> at least. I mean it's a very >> you know you really need to spend some time with that. Right. >> Yep. >> Yeah. Could we for the remote meeting with Joint Base? Could we add >> put a couple other things >> if a couple quick septics or an IIA comes in? Sure. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Good. >> Okay. >> I just don't want to get so so behind. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Um, the other thing, it's I don't know if it's expressly on
our agenda this way, but we need to talk about how we amend our regulations to address the issues we keep coming up against. >> Oh, right. >> Um, >> suggestion talk. Let's let's I think you're going to have a lot more clarity with Amy's conversation with Amy as far
as wastewater. You're talking about septic. >> Okay. But >> I just think looking at the map and maybe thinking things through, you might want to have that first before you would ever really start thinking about >> except I don't want to be tortured by this between now and the 31st. So I
would move that we that we not that we just not consider anything that's in a nitrogen sensitive area until after we get this settled. >> Well, they you mean you want to change the rag? Oh, you mean? >> No, I'm Well, I do want to change the
rag, but until we can change the rag, at least until we meet with Amy, which I don't think is going to be nearly as productive in terms of time schedule as you think. >> Yeah. >> Um that we >> not here ines nitrogen >> sensitive areas
>> until you just have to be anyway, George, because the only meeting we currently have scheduled. >> Well, you couldn't get a regulation in before like October. >> That's not what he means. He said don't put them on the agenda at all. He doesn't want to >> I don't want to discuss them. If somebody applies for a variance, >> I don't want it to be on the agenda
until after the 31st. >> It won't be anyway because our only scheduled meeting now is the 25th. >> As long as it's less than 40 as long as it's less than 45 days because after that it's de facto approved. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Correct. Of somebody else. >> So if they apply today and you didn't
hear it within 45 days, they can cut it. >> Yeah. we have a an obligation to respond. >> Okay. >> Um Okay. So, August 25th will be the remote meeting assuming everyone can commit to that >> and we'll have a limited additional agenda besides that update. August 31st
we'll meet with Amy Lel >> um and have other agenda items after that including discussion if there's time discussion of modification of our home rule septic regulation. >> Yes. Okay.
Um, we are at minutes >> with 11 12 minutes to go. >> June 22nd. >> Oh, yeah. This I have a bunch of >> Yep. Uh, it's June 22nd.
Okay. Yep. I have a bunch on this also. >> Uh do you have anything before the top of page two? >> I do not. >> At the top of page two in the second line area around the
affluent maybe or is it really influence of the primary and is the primary primary SAS? I I don't know what this >> Oh, these are the primary and reserve areas for the >> So is it affluent not influence
>> around the observation >> the page two the 20 oh it's actually the third page at top second line in bold >> oh
what >> maybe I have a It's submitted page two. >> Um, >> right. >> Well, this is page one. >> Yep. [clears throat] >> This is page two. Oh, is it the same? Oh, it's page two is repeated
>> of page two. >> Got it. >> Somehow top of page two, the second line. >> So, yeah, this is what he's puzzling. >> We've already corrected that in a prior meeting. you changing it again.
>> Ah I looked at the >> I have in my correction I have submitted plan showing the observation cover and a test pit within a reasonable distance of the primary area and reserve. That was the part that was corrected. >> Okay. >> And the unit should meet the 10 milligram per liter of total. >> Oh so we don't have the corrected
version of the minutes. >> It was only we only went partially through and then you continued. >> Yes. >> So I have some corrections that you probably made. >> Okay. Um, wherever it says a test pit,
>> it ought to say a test pit which demon which meets the percolation test requirements or >> Well, we can do that going forward, but if we didn't say it at the meeting, we can't put it in the minutes that we said it. >> We didn't vote. So, it's >> okay.
Um, >> I agree with you >> and I I don't think you need to specify that it it >> meets anything. A test bit is a test bit and you only know what it is when you do it. >> But,
>> but if it doesn't if it fails, we dug the test bit. We did what you asked. I'm putting in my system there. >> Yeah. You can't put in the system if the test bit proves that it can't go in as you had designed it. That's already covered.
>> I mean, if we don't need to say it, that's great, but we ought to be explicit in the future anyway. >> Okay. Okay. Any others on page two or can we go to three? >> Oh, all right. Uh, yep.
Good. Page Oh, why am >> we stopped? Do you remember where we stopped? >> I'm Why do I go to page five? >> I think that was where where you stopped. We're all jumbled up over there. >> We were still in the discussion of that. >> Are you out of order? Are there other?
>> No, you've got frequently. >> Five. Here's three. >> Oh, okay. So, I have nothing on three. >> A whole situation over here. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Nothing on page three. >> No. Okay. Page four is where I had
edits. Um um in toward the top under Mr. Toppools seconded we start with a paragraph that begins with Mr. Kroger. >> We're on page four. >> Yep. >> Um >> label four down the lower left. >> All right. or 20 years after nitrogen
reducing technology if we can add reducing. >> What parag Oh, >> I got it. >> The first paragraph under your second. >> Yes. >> And then the next paragraph, [clears throat] Mr. Rolland added that the Can you scratch best available
regulation? [laughter] >> I think he's just saying that the regulation the board of health adopted and approved is for new construction. Um, and then that should not stay on that same sentence should not say on commercial properties. >> Yeah,
>> that should be removed as well. I'm not sure what he was getting at there. >> Was he the lawyer >> designer? >> Okay. >> Um, next paragraph, Mr. Hoyelder.
Uh, third line down. The board is allowed to put conditions on variances. George, do you think >> that ensured degree of environmental protections are in place and the board of health is mandated by the state to reduce nitrogen? >> Okay. So, you're comfortable with
comfortable. >> Got it. >> Um, >> next paragraph, Mr. Hoyfelder clarified >> that >> second sentence. Title five is being invoked >> under the Not under the
This should be the new Falmouth regulation, correct? >> Well, it was I wanted to make a point in there that it we were not saying it was new construction, >> right? >> Where where do you want me to add?
>> Okay. So, you want >> So, it is the way. >> Yeah, I think I think you could leave it as it is. I read all of the ones that I had said and I said, "Yeah, okay. I don't remember saying it that way, but >> but it works. >> It worked. >> Okay.
>> Three. Five. Okay. Five. >> Um, do you want to clean up this sentence? Mr. Mr. Rland went on to explain. Sorry. Page top of me. >> Okay. went on to explain the tank and
pumping chamber >> whether new house and an existing house the leech >> spell leech >> le a c >> lefield is in the same is the same in either scenario he was making a point that didn't matter
>> that they would be placed in the same place whether we were going to put an IIA there or not the tank and the pump chamber and a new hole It's just a confusing >> for the existing house. >> Yeah. I I found a lot of dis confusing
discussion that evening. >> Yes. >> Okay. A little further down. Miss Roth Rot. Sorry. It's okay. >> And the next paragraph uh in the second line
um is I don't think expensive mandate. Expansive is what I'm guessing >> or extensive. I think it was expansive. >> Okay. And then two paragraphs farther down, Mr.
Hoyfelder said, and in the second line there, a trigger for possibly requiring not versus requesting. It would also be that sentence should say um puts in an application rather than an applicant.
>> Uh yes. Um five. Now where's page six? God. Any other comments on five or six? >> No. >> Okay. >> On seven, the
the third paragraph down the second line. They don't know. Not they don't know. Oh, they don't know it will be quite a while. I think they don't know if it will be
quite a while. Okay. >> Even though I said it, I don't remember exactly what I said, but I'm pretty sure I didn't say what's written here. >> You don't know. It will be quite a while. I could hear you saying that. >> Yeah, it'll take years to get the
waterershed plans out. Was your point? >> No, not now. >> Correct. It's not. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Um, >> further down, Miss Roth asked how many times the board has looked at nitrogen sensitive areas, remove and if you would, where they were
requesting a variance and required an IIA, I think was my point there. We've required an IIA in those circumstances. And then remember that discussion >> at the very bottom of that page, page
seven, um, chapter two of the state sanitary code would suggest single occupancy for two of the current bedrooms. It was only applicable for those two bedrooms. any um comments on page eight.
>> No, page nine. >> I didn't have anything else for the duration. >> I think I concur. I think that was it from me as well. >> Move to Oh, towards you.
>> No, I'm good. >> Move to approve with the changes we've made. >> June 22nd. >> The June 22nd meeting. >> I'll second. >> Okay. Um
motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor? >> I. >> All right. >> I've got three minutes left. Yeah, we cannot review the July 2nd one or sorry the July 13th ones because there's no quorum for that because I
wasn't here. >> Ah, okay. >> For that meeting. Um, if you George, if you want to just >> motion to continue discussion of the July 13th uh minutes >> to the next meeting >> to the next.
>> Oh, sorry. Second, George. >> All in favor? >> I I um Okay. July 20th. Do you want to try to go through those, George? What is Do you need to walk out the door at >> 7? Uh, very little. I've got a few things. Okay, go ahead. Go.
>> Unless there's Okay. Um, on page three. Um, one, two, three paragraphs up from the bottom. Mr. Ram provided an update, etc. Um, oh,
actually, I don't have anything to say. That's what he said. It's just false. >> Okay. >> It's not at all what the conservation commission wrote. They wrote they don't have they don't do IIA system considerations period.
>> But that's not relevant. So, uh, shut up, George. This George, >> I'm on still on three. >> Okay. Um, a little further down says near coastal bank is being buffered with a title five system, but I think it's upgraded.
The cess poolool near coastal bank is being upgraded with a title five system >> with applic >> or replaced. Either one is fine by me. >> Yeah. buffered makes no sense. So >> yeah, so replaced is better.
>> Okay. >> Um >> um >> page four. >> Page four. Uh right under the all in favor, the multiple air ideas were floated for compromise
on a just take out the word landing. Or maybe it's >> ending with >> Yeah. Ending with >> ending with >> an approval >> of this project is designed. >> I got hurt that
>> by the way. >> And all my other ones were the business of the test pits actually passing. So I would rather anytime on page six and elsewhere where a test well close to
where this test these are test pits would be the more correct thing. They're not wells. So on page six I think there's three maybe four references to a test well.
>> See test hole which is >> six. Let's see Mr. Hitfelder at the end there. Uh, test well close to where the SAS is. >> Test pit. Y. >> Um, second full paragraph from the bottom.
Test well done close to the road. And the last paragraph, third, fourth line up. Test. >> Oh, yeah. >> Well, it says >> I know. I think we do that because you use a monitoring wall symbol on the plan. So when you're not thinking,
that's what you say. >> So three instances where well was replaced by >> Yep. I achieved three. >> Great. Got them. >> Any other comments on this set of minutes?
>> Move to approve with those changes. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Nice job people. >> Move to adjourn. >> Second >> with all deliberate speech. All approved or all in favor? >> I. >> Impressive.
>> Yes. Good. I think we need a new chair. >> No, we do. [laughter]