Thank you. Call into order uh the meeting of the Falmouth Board of Health, a joint meeting with the select board. >> Okay. Well, thank you all for uh for being here. Um, as you know, the uh the
impetus for this meeting was a memo you sent to our board back and it's in our packet back uh a couple of months ago. Um, oh jeez, I apologize. We're going to do the pledge of allegiance. I thought
Okay, >> I thought you had to pay me. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. >> Okay. Sorry about that. So, as I was saying, the uh the impetus for this meeting was a uh a memo that our board received from the uh board of
health discussing or wanting to discuss the equitable cost distribution of water quality management planning and in particular uh as as as has come up with respect to denitrifying IIA and septic
systems and is there a way to uh uh in their words uh have fair distribution of costs in Falmouth's efforts to meet water quality targets. Uh and so I'm going to turn it over to uh to to to the
board of health and you've looked at this a lot and certainly we want to hear what your thoughts are so that we can hopefully put together some thoughts of our own and policy going forward. >> Uh thank you, Mr. chair. Um yeah, in the
discussions uh within the board of health and with members of the public and with the water quality management committee, it's become clear that this is a quite a complex calculus. uh there would be quite a few factors involved and um so
our thought is that it it's it's worth uh setting up a committee specifically to address this issue and and um work through the concepts and develop a a consensus plan. And with that, I'll I'll turn it over to the rest of the board of
health to see uh what comments they may have. Go ahead, George. >> Uh, I don't think I Yeah. Um, as the select board knows, uh, over the next 10 to 20ish years, Falmouth is going to be
implementing the water quality mitigation projects that the Commonwealth mandated to restore the health of our embements. The comprehensive set of costs related to all those watershed plans is likely
to be more than a billion dollars across the town. That will include the cost of sewers, waste treatment, an outflow pipe, and the installation, maintenance, and monitoring of five or
8,000 or more than that uh ditrifying IIA septic systems because it's a staggering amount of money. I want to repeat the town that is
the taxpayers of the town are going to spend more than a billion with a B dollars in the next 20 years or maybe it's 25 or 30 or whatever but it's that
kind of number of years. While it's expensive first of all we don't have any choice. the state is mandating that we make these improvements uh and also uh they'll benefit the entire town and all the people who live
here. However, as currently aortioned, the cost to individual taxpayers will vary enormously depending on whether they happen to get a sewer that they're required to connect to or they have to
install an IIA septic system or they don't have to do anything. Uh last December uh both the board of health and the water quality management committee uh as you mentioned wrote to
the select board encouraging you to form a committee to identify fair ways to distribute the cost and if possible ease the financial burden. And I just really want to encourage you to do so and to do
so now. And I think there are several reasons why it needs to happen or should happen soon. First of all, it's going to be a difficult task. There is no out there fair system that everybody's going
to agree on and there never will be. And that's why people kind have been discussing how to pay for capital expenditures as a group since uh I'm of Greek ancestry since at least 3,000
years that I know of. um the uh large variations of the financial burden amongst uh different property owners. Uh if that is seen as an issue is likely to
reduce support for the entire project. Even though if the watershed plans aren't implemented then everyone will have to do an IIA system. Nonetheless, people tend to vote for anything tend not to vote for anything that's going to
cost money. Knowing the financing plans for all of this concurrently with the development of the watershed plans will help uh the town develop its long-term capital budget and h people knowing that I think
will help. Uh, also the board of health on a regular basis now is already making decisions that are related to this kind of thing and how those decisions get made can have a big impact on individual
taxpayers and what they have to do or not do at their homes. And lastly, uh the more property owners that know what group they're going to be in, uh that is sewer, septic, nothing,
uh the harder it's going to be for people to fairly come to an agreement on a plan. This is a longterm thing that we know about humans. It's not that humans are
bad. It's that humans are humans and financial incentives have conscious and unconscious strong influences on the decisions we make. So it's always a better idea if you can
say lots of political philosophers to make decisions about how systems are going to be created of the interactions of people before those people know what role they're going to play. So, you don't know if you're going to be a king or a popper
or somewhere in between. So, I really hope you'll uh develop a committee uh and do it really soon. I think it's extremely important. Thank you. >> Anyone else?
>> I think uh pretty much said it all. It comes down to equity. uh somebody who has to put in a 30 $40,000 IIA system uh will get the benefit of the sewer only when they sort of go to an area
restaurant that uh uses it and might take the dump there and they'll get a benefit. But when he goes home right now as it stands, he's going to hope that thing in his background backyard doesn't break down and that DP doesn't come and
say or the town have to come and say, well, you're going to have to do something about it. And that person would rightly feel, I'm sort of getting doubled here. I'm paying in part for the sewer and now I have something in my backyard. Now, some of the costs are a
little bit unknown because we don't know if a town chooses to use IIA systems, which Felmouth undoubtedly will have to do quite a few. We heard a number there. I usually say it's at least north of 3,000. Uh we don't know what the monitoring
scheme will be like. Uh and that's going to be a cost how we'll do that. So I think the suggestion to the board uh the request of the board is to form a committee of people know what they're doing with the finance piece of it. We don't the health piece of it we sort of
do and trying to figure out how we equitably spread the cost of nitrogen mitigation across the watershed equally or at least in some sort of par with somebody who's hooked up to the sewer.
That's all. And and then the another piece of this is the fact that this is a um a mandate from the state. And there while there are certain
uh types of funding already available from the state um it's clearly insufficient and there should be I think from the town um a conversation with our state
representation and um a to to attempt to address some of these essentially unfunded mandates. >> Anyone else?
>> Uh the only thing I would add is I think George his his thoughts were really carefully constructed and valuable. It is going to be a very inequitable way if we leave it to everyone has to take care of their own backyard. It'll be fairly inequitable. Um it's easy to believe
that some of the largest houses that face the water will carry big burdens. That's not the way it will work out. Um and I think the leadership, you know, at the point this starts to really impact people. The impacts will be significant, very significant for some people who may
have to make very hard choices about can I stay here in Falmouth, can I stay on the Cape? And I think we as leadership want to know that we did everything that we could to make this as fair as as possible. So, so just so I understand when when
you know when you're talking about this, I I assume you're talking about some kind of monetary relief to individual property owners based on some consideration. I mean, is that essentially what we're talking about at
the end of the day? >> Well, um, not so. Yes. relief, but we have to remember that the relief's got to come from someplace. So, this is going to be So, what we're suggesting is that the cost or at least I'm
suggesting, but I think we all agree for the whole thing, the outflow pipe, the new sewers be more distributed across everyone in town. So whether you get sewer, you do nothing, or you have an
IIA system, the cost are not going to be equal because we that's too complicated to even try to do, but at least fairly distributed. Now, what fair is is hard to say. So there's going to be all kinds
of considerations. A lot of things will depend on your lot. they run into a rock or you know all kinds of things whether you're doing a septic system or connecting the sewer. So we couldn't possibly make it equal for everybody but
at least make some attempt to distribute it more fairly. And so yes, it's relief but it's relief that's coming from us cumulatively. So it's everybody having similar skin in the game. Anyone
on the select board have any thoughts, Mr. Brown? >> So, I've attended a lot of the water quality management committee meetings, and there was some talk during those meetings that maybe the town should take a more of a leadership role in perhaps identifying the best available IIA
technology, innovative alternative septics, and maybe purchase those units and deliver them to the owners. Then another idea would be to have a program like Masttec is considering developing having a a monitoring program so that takes the burden off the owner and it
makes it more efficiently and effectively managed. So I I personally would like to support both of those. Another way you could tackle it would be to just turn to the 7030 split that we do with sewer properties. That's been our standard. We have to decide each time what the equitable amount is, but
seems like each time we do decide that it's the 7030 split and we could do that also and leave the owners to choose their own technologies. So that's another way we could go. So those are my first thoughts. >> Okay. Anyone else? >> Mr. Richardson. >> Uh only thing I'll add is I I agree with
uh Mr. Goldstone that I do think the state needs to be more bought into this. Um this is a climate initiative ultimately coming Beacon Hill, which is totally justified. Um and we absolutely do need to to improve our waterways um transition, but uh this is very
expensive and as a lot of towns across the Commonwealth are facing tight fiscal budgets and upcoming revenues are not unlimited in their growth. So I think we should go to our our state uh partners on this one. >> Yeah. Well, I I certainly agree that we probably should have a discussion with
our state delegation. Uh and I'm going to ask Mr. wrenchure to maybe put that on on his uh list of things to uh to try and set up for us. Um you know, as as as these big issues uh keep cropping up,
I'm going to ask uh you know, Mr. Johnson, stop. Do we know what other towns may be doing or any other towns have have we heard that are looking into this, you know, equitable fairness issue that uh that the board of health is
raising and how they might be dealing with it or thinking about it at this point? >> Yeah, I won't say that I have I won't say that I have uh comprehensive information on what other communities are doing. Um I have uh been at some of
the clean water uh Capen Islands water protection fund meetings where um occasionally the other towns give an overview of of what they're doing. We haven't really focused too much on the financial end. It has been more what are the projects that they're doing, what is
the timing and how does that impact the Cape Fund. What I can say anecdotally is that there's definitely a mix and you know there we should probably look to some of the bigger towns like Barnstable that has a challenge of our magnitude. Some of the some of the Cape Towns you
know Brewster is going to have maybe some IAS and that you know the the the magnitude of their projects are so much smaller it's not all that helpful. This would certainly seem to be uh an issue that would benefit from some kind
of regional approach uh to the problem at least with respect to the towns on the upper Cape as a you know as as a first thought to maybe put something together and with them uh and start that start that discussion with them as well.
Uh but but certainly we hear you know your thoughts, your your concerns. We appreciate you bringing it to us. Um uh how how do the members of the board feel about setting up some kind of a advisory committee? Mr. Reid,
>> uh I would be in favor of setting it up. Maybe it's not a committee, maybe it's some a working group so that it has a short time frame. Um it's project based. I guess I have a question for the health commission before we move on. Of the three options that Mr. Brown outlined.
Did you have any thoughts heading into this beyond just the overwhelming cost concern? Did you uh have anything not written in the paper or in the letter that you would suggest us considering? I think from from my perspective um we
we we've bandied around a few ideas but um I think we really need particularly people with a financial background as as George Hyelder noted to uh to tackle the problem more in depth than we've been
able to so far. But I I I do right now I like uh Mr. Brown's third comment there. essentially, you know, a 7030 split treating uh the IIA systems collectively as another wastewater treatment plant um
that's distributed. Um so, so that there's less of a difference between those uh those sewered and those not sewered. >> Thank you for that. And aside from the financial background, are other are there what other considerations for the membership of this group that we ought
to be considering? I'm guessing someone with state level uh knowledge of financial town financial who else >> certainly nitrogen management. >> Okay. Um >> I think the water quality committee,
somebody from the town in finance, um one of you probably um I think it one of us. Uh regards the state as we say in critical
care medicine and scuba diving, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them. And I think if you wait for the state to act before the town acts, we'll be way too far down the road uh on this.
>> Mr. Chair, >> understood. Yeah, Mr. Richardson. >> The only reason >> representative of the state here. >> Yeah. The only reason I I do think it is a good time for it uh and you are right, we cannot wait. Beacon Hill is very slow
working there. Um the government is planning to take up an environmental bond bill uh this session in the coming months. Uh and I think that this is something that they have they announced a lot of grants the other day. Uh found with actually we were on the lower end which surprised me but um this is
something they're paying attention to. As you mentioned this is a mandate from them. Uh and I think that uh there will be opportunities uh if we get in early enough to to hopefully see some funding to this because this is again this is very similar issue for MASHBY you know for Barnstable uh and I would hope that
the governor and and and her team would be focusing on this. >> Okay. Thank you. One one more and then I want to move on to these other items that you've asked. >> Just to be clear I don't mean we shouldn't go to the state just that we shouldn't wait. >> Yeah. Don't hold our breath as you said.
Okay. Uh Chair. >> Yes. >> Sorry, one last question for town management. Um, is this a a starter or a non-starter question from the perspective of um town management?
uh with regards to formula establishing this this committee and having the discussion and >> that one and then the financial concerns are are we able to in your >> I guess if we do the 7030 split that money comes from the state yeah
>> no so yes to so on the financial side yes it I'm not going to say it's a non-starter but it's a concern somebody the money has to come from somewhere and I I don't suspect immediately it's going to come from the state and the amount that's going to be impacted So that very much needs to be part of the discussion.
>> Thank you. >> Sure. Mr. Brown, >> I just would like to throw in one comment that I'm not sure I would agree on the working group format because it's going to be in a very big issue and it's impactful financially. I think we need to have a standing committee that takes
minutes and public posted meetings. So, >> okay, we'll have to, you know, have some discussions about the best way to uh to set it up and and reasons for or against one way or the other. >> So, you've asked us, I think, to discuss short-term rental regulation by law, or
that's something you wanted to discuss. Uh, is that is that true? Because you, you know, in all honesty, been pretty silent with respect to the short-term rental law up to this point. Uh, as you know, you know, the committee has been
very active. We appreciate Mr. Man's uh involvement with the uh with the short-term rent rental committee uh advisory committee and Mr. Brown's chairmanship of it, but um you did mention it, so you know, I thought we would chat a little bit about it.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, George. >> Uh in short, when we were asked to uh appoint a representative from the board of health, we uh I'll speak. I was a motion not to do that. simply until uh
the board of selectman would commit to in that whole plan introduce the concept of a housing inspector at the same time because we used to have a housing inspector and to just take money from short-term rentals just to say we're
going to charge you $300. There's always a little implied warranty when you have a permit that you've done something for. You've inspected the property according to chapter two of the state sanitary code. You found it acceptable and you've sort of passed it.
I just wanted to throw out to the board of selectmen that it's the bane of every board of health the housing problems we have when there are complaints. They tie up tie up our inspector. They tie up a
lot of hours doing inspections. And even a rip screen in the middle of August can mean you're going to write something, give the person an order to correct it. So I believe that in order to do it properly, the board would have to commit
and you could do that and incorporate it in your fee, but have an inspection before you sort of bless it or give it a permit. Uh, and without that, it's really meaningless. It's just collecting
a fee for, yeah, you have a short-term rental, will give us $300. But without an inspection, I think the town opens it up to liability because if something happens at that point, the property wasn't inspected, wasn't even looked at, then
we'll be uh in the morass of hearings about whose responsibility it was. And I think the health agent probably gave you some testimony on how much time this board has taken up in housing complaints. So, it was just sort of a
notice that in doing anything with short-term rentals to think about how you're going to operate it, whether it's going to be an inspectional service also, so that the people who are actually renting can know, okay, the board of health's been in here, it's at
least approved. uh without just paying a fee. >> Mr. Brown, >> well, we do anticipate there'll be some type of inspection, whether it's uh self inspection or uh fire department inspection. Uh just a general safety
overall overview. Hasn't really been determined yet how the uh the program would be implemented. Right now, we're just coming up with the bylaw to establish the parameters of what we're trying to do. would create a safe space for renters and create an environment
where neighbors are less impacted by the way that things are managed because sometimes they're really want run well and others not so well. So we want to have a kind of a even the playing field on how they're all managed. I agree with you though it is a it could be a timeconuming and Mr. again has made
that clear that we're going to we're creating a lot of work when we create this program >> and and I agree with you uh you know a sign up on a permit does have some implicit implicit understanding or acknowledgement that you know the the
the housing is is is ready to go >> for for short-term rental do we have the staff to to do those types of inspections Mr. Again, >> right now, as the bylaw is written, it's much more of a registration. Handling
registration is something you do on the computer with some documents that sent to you and a fee and so forth. Actually, having an inspector do whatever number of rental units we have on a rotating basis. No, we don't have we have a a health inspector who does interdisciplinary, so does food and
general complaints. We don't have a dedicated person. um housing when there's a tenant landlord dispute, it takes an amount of time. Um these would probably might be quicker um ones, but still would take time. Uh smoke detectors, egress, lock screens, and
things of that nature. Um so yeah, there would have to be at least one perhaps more dedicated just to do inspections of each of the unit. Um the bylaw does say every other year, so that would cut obviously cut down the amount of time. You would assume that you would inspect twice. I mean, every other year as well.
Um, but yeah, that would be that would be a definitely a staff need. Registration is a much simpler process. Um, but like with the board that said, you're not really doing the the sort of the public health end by making sure that the units are um inspected prior to
giving a permit. Um, so >> anyone, Mr. Brown, >> just expand on it. there is language that says that uh the owner is certifying that you know it's safe and habitable and you know meets the housing code. So it puts a little more responsibility on the property owner.
So u we will be discussing uh later this evening uh the the short-term rental bylaw which is one of the articles on the warrant. Uh, I will mention to the uh to the board uh that I'm sure you're
familiar with with the bylaw uh that I myself have have raised questions about your board's u ability to issue rules and regulations under that bylaw. Um I
have asked that um that we consider amending that that provision so that any such rules and regulations uh that you might adopt written policies, rules or regulations would be subject to the approval of the select board. Uh I feel
that that is a is an important u responsibility that the board uh as an elected board has to the people in the in the town of Falmouth. So, I just wanted you to know at least where I'm coming from with respect to that
provision as far as implementing the uh you know the um the bylaw and and its requirements. That's your your jurisdiction per per state law. So, um just wanted to get that out there.
Um okay. So the uh the next item was to discuss allocation of resources from the embarcation fund to address concerns regarding public health and environmental concerns in Woods Hole. You want to chat a little bit about
that? Tell us what what you're thinking there. >> Sure. We've we've had uh um the the smart uh task force of citizens concerned with air pollution and and other disturbance from the traffic uh
associated with the fairies and uh and with the fairies themselves. Um and in general I think the board concurs that that there is a a health issue with um with the substantial amount of
traffic. um most of the the traffic uh required to uh con sustain a population of in the range of 100,000 visitors to uh Martha's Vineyard on any given day in the summertime has to pass through Falmouth. Um so it's really substantial
and um there was a report uh commissioned uh by the state uh several years ago called the CASS report uh that that suggested that we should expect in the range of about a 2% per year increase in that traffic. Um so assuming
that's meant as a compounding increase in the next 15 years that would be about a 34% increase from where we are right now. Um so this this is a big problem that uh that found this gonna have to deal with in one way or another. Um but it's
obviously super challenging. Um some of this the solutions that have been suggested are to have um a freight ferry that that runs out of uh New Bedford. Um that may have its own own equity issues. I'm not sure um what the
pathway of that freight through New Med New Bedford would be. Um, but it would reduce overall uh miles driven uh probably because a lot of that um traffic does come from the south. So it wouldn't have to come all the way up
over the bridge and down into Falmouth. Um so this is a big issue. Um uh we looked at some of the lowhanging fruit that we that we might be able to address and and we wrote a letter to the
police chief asking if they would um uh have an officer down at the ferry terminal um to enforce particularly the the idling law and I believe that's happening now. I haven't heard an update recently. So that's that's very good
step. Um because >> I think we had pretty good success last summer with respect to uh to the police presence down there. Mr. >> and as part of this upcoming FY27 budget, we was actually proposing to add some additional funds uh to uh he he ran a little short, but it was uh highly
successful. And they did more than just I mean that that was an important piece, but it was more than just the uh the monitoring of the >> the idle. >> Yeah. Um, so terms of lowhanging fruit, um, there's not a whole lot else unless,
um, we'd be definitely be interested if the select board has has any ideas on what to do about about the issue. >> Um, Mr. Johnson, with respect to the imbarcation fund, can you talk a little bit about that? Are you can you the
amount that we have and how we go about, you know, accessing those funds or possibly accessing those funds? Sure. We I I believe we're bringing in um in the neighborhood of $4 to $500,000 per year and much of that has historically
been allocated toward public safety um primarily public safety recognizing that a portion of the public safety work is associated with Woods Hole and the um the Falmouth Harbor area. Um there is an opportunity if you know depending on
where revenues go if they you know if they stay where they are or they grow you know there might be another 50 to $100,000 per year that could be allocated. So that's your that's your potential spending opportunity. I' I'd be interested in hearing, you
know, in the in the future from you with respect to some concrete ideas, uh, you know, that would touch upon the environmental and hazardous situations down there from your perspective as to maybe what what we could spend a some money uh, you know, on on trying to
rectify those problems. >> Mr. Chair, >> yes, Mr. Richardson. >> I I just have two thoughts on this. Uh, I think the board should send a letter um to the new Bedford delegation, uh, including perhaps their city council and mayor. I think this is something and
Doug, I know you've worked closely on this with a number of different groups. I think it's something we need to be more collaborative on with our partners on the south coast because I think it would be mutually beneficial to get freight out of Woods Hole and but also get it into New Bedford. I think there'd be a lot of economic opportunity there. Um,
that was the first point and I forget the second. So that's all I got. >> Well, you know, >> no, I remember. I remember >> what >> do we have an update on u meeting with Mr. Chrysa, the new director of the steamship?
>> I'm actually meeting with Alex uh this Thursday. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, I mean certainly let's not forget that it's the steamship authority that's been blocking the new Bedford freight for years. So, it's not something that's in our control, but uh I agree with you certainly trying to uh
>> you know to reach out to uh to whomever we can to uh to get that on the table again is is an important thing for the for the people in Woods Hole and and the town of Fmouth completely. So, yeah, go ahead, Mr. Brown. >> I was just going to say I I know that
the overall traffic is up probably 2%. But if you look at the freight, which is the heavier polluters, it's more like six or 7%. And that's continuously increasing for a lot of reasons, but one of the reasons is they're no longer M. Mr. Packer used to barge fuel over there
in big barges and he pump it into a big holding tank. And then he's discontinued that because it was time to rebuild the tank and he said, you know, I've got better things to to do than rebuild this whole infrastructure. So now the fuel is being trucked. That's a big change. a
lot of their uh waste sludge is being trucked off in in trucks also. So there's there's a there's a lot of reasons why the volume is increasing and the freight and those trucks are less restricted to uh the standards that vehicles are restricted to.
>> Okay. >> Yes. >> Dr. Um so so one of the the significant health considerations that um we um have been questioned with and we have um talked to the D about is actually air
pollution directly coming from not only the truck traffic which we've um have have uh started to address through the the enforcement of the idling laws um but a just the traffic and b the fact that um the fairies themselves
may in fact be um close to violating pollution standards. Um the southeastern Massachusetts has certain is part of an uh air pollution zone. Um the um it's
challenging to actually determine whether or not any particular vehicle, including a a ferry, is actually violating pollution standards because the they require expert assessment on a
somewhat regular basis that is not inexpensive. um it in actually is literally trained eyeballs in some cases. Um and so it might be that the town investing some
resources in that um in doing more than just the uh inexpensive um air pollution monitoring, but an actual um professional assessment. Um I believe it's called a MarkV eyeball. uh
to uh to assess um the the potential for pollution directly coming from the steamship authority, not just from the trucks. Um sort of an additional thing to think about in terms of truck traffic is the fact that with
the recon upcoming reconstruction of the Sagamore bridge, the Bourne traffic on the Bourne Bridge is going to be increased by some staggering amount and um uh the truckers themselves may wish
to have relief in order to be able to make their fairies. So, um I think thinking ahead more than just a few years um would probably benefit all of us including the steamship.
>> Yes, doctor. I I think this is an area where talking to the state even if it takes a long long time is the way to go because as I understand it and as you mentioned most of the issues are tied up in the recalstance of the steamship
authority to do anything. So they just bought new fairies and new engines for some of their fairies and they're not nearly the cleanest diesels that you can buy and but they seem to completely ignore as I'm a washer I believe is the
expression anything that gets said to the steamship authority is like talking to the wall and I don't know who at the state regulates them but that would seem to be something worth discussing >> well um you know in the in the summer we
did have Mr. Davis here and his staff and we were able to uh at least speak to them and and get some discussion going and we're hoping that um that we'll be able to continue that collaboration with the uh Mr. Krisa. So I'm sure Mike will
pursue those ideas uh when he has his meeting. So, so I guess the final item and you know got about another five or seven minutes here is the uh flow neutral law and uh I know you wanted to you know discuss discuss that as well.
Um, we did have a recent uh variance request at either the last meeting or the meeting before by uh from the uh property there on Dillingham that you know wants to increase the uh affordable housing units there and housing units
and and the dental office there right across from uh FCTV. So, uh, that's the, uh, the only, uh, application that I remember within the past couple of years, but we expect some may be coming up soon. Um, I know that Lacuina had
submitted an application, but they hadn't submitted all the necessary paperwork. So what are you thinking on, you know, improvements to the process, how we want to how we should be looking at these waiver requests from your
perspective? >> U Mr. Chair, if I could >> before we move on, um just I don't think we really came to any kind of consensus on the uh previous request. Is there going to be any action by the board tonight on that? Are we going to >> what
>> recommend some type of monitoring program or looking into it at least? >> I think we'll we'll look into it. I don't think we're >> I know we're not ready to recommend something, but should we have a consensus that >> I mean I'd like to request that we write a letter to interested parties on on
this >> as a future agenda item request if that helps move it along. >> Yeah. I I would just like to, you know, say that I think we should do something about it. I know there was a an attempt to do some monitoring, but locations were difficult to find and I would say that a more appropriate location would
be actually on Steamship Authority property. >> So, see if we can hopefully move that somehow. >> Okay, Mike, maybe you can bring that up to Mr. Prrisa. >> Yep. Okay. >> Thank you. >> No, I think I mean I didn't mention because I think there is consensus that
we want to get that type of uh you know program from uh from from the steamship authority. So, okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Right. I'll I'll let George Ofelder speak more on the flow neutral bylaw. >> Okay. I hate to be the rabble riser on
two items on the thing, but flow neutral has always been a mystery to me. Flow neutral, the words imply a certain thing. And uh I've abstained from some votes that we've sent up to you because apparently the board of health has to
make a judgment on whether a system could be placed at the properties requesting and could fit a title five without significant variances. In the past years that I've been on the board, uh we've seen some come up where we've
said absolutely not. could never fit that 2,300 gallons for that particular expansion that's being requested. It goes up to the board and we see it passed. And I go, that doesn't mean flow neutral to me. That means flow positive.
So, I guess I'd like to ask what the intent of the bylaw is. I saw this operate very effectively in Province Town where they said flow neutral because I would have to say up you can fit it or you can't fit it under title five. If you couldn't fit it under title
five in that particular flow neutral you weren't allowed to go forward. I think that the town is going to spend a lot of money per gallon and houses are going to have to be hooked up. But the more we give away that's discretionary, that
isn't neutral anymore, then that's less houses that get done or the same number of houses get done, but somebody else pays for the flow that was sort of given away. I'm just a little confused on what flow
neutral means. So that's why we brought it up as a as a thing. I think I would just ask the board if it comes to the board of health, which it's supposed to for the flu neutral bylaw, merely for a
thing uh a rendering of whether it could fit a title five system. I would ask the board to very very carefully not give away flow if it couldn't be there to begin with under title five. Now, that's using it as a growth limiter. Uh but
then again I keep coming back to those words. What does flow neutral mean? >> Would you have anything to say Miss Lic? >> Hello. Hello. Hi. Whoa. Uh Amy L, the town's wastewater superintendent. Um
the flow neutral bylaw. I think we could have a whole another discussion about the flow neutral bylaw and I' I'd actually welcome that another evening. There's not enough time to have a complete discussion tonight. Um the goal
there are the state requires the town to have a flow neutral bylaw in order to get um 0% interest SRF loans. And there I I can't
speak for the state, but a part of that a part of the reasoning I believe is that um you the town needs to have some control over flow um so that its wastewater
treatment and discharge capacity is not overwhelmed by growth within a planning area. So it it the intent a major part of the intent is to give the town more control over redevelopment so we don't
lose uh lose control of our our capacity treatment and discharge capacity. Um there I know initially there was discussion before the flow neutral bylaw was passed. So many years ago there was discussion about the idea that a flow
neutral bylaw would um a goal might be to make it so that a sewer doesn't allow more wastewater flow than would be allowed by the the current title 5 uh regulations. So a property that's
limited in its redevelopment right now because of septic regulations once it gets sewarded should still have depending on how you feel about it some level of regulation. So I think the the basic the origin of our
flu neutral bylaw the basic basics of it is is required by the state for a 0% interest loan and uh and they the state wants the town to be managing wastewater growth wastewater uh yeah wastewater
growth the um when the town passed the flow neutral bylaw I believe that the town was focused focused on um the new sewer service areas that were under discussion at the time, the Little
Pond sewer service area, and the majority of those parcels um are single family homes. And that's really what a lot of the discussion had been about. But this flow neutral bylaw applies to all existing and future sewer areas. So
before the flow neutral bylaw existed there was no such control or regulation of redevelopment on main street for example and that has been one of the challenges of the flow neutral bylaw I think is that it's on the one hand you
know sort of a lot of the thinking about it was related to redevelopment within a new sewer area but the bylaw as written applies even to main street David's Ticket Highway where many of those
parcels couldn't have originally put a um Title 5 septic system on the parcel to meet their needs. Um and certainly can't now. So I'll hush up for now, but that's that's um an introduction to some
of my thoughts on it. It could use improvement and uh I have been wanting to make suggestions on that. >> Okay. Well, we'll certainly add it to future agenda items for the select board to uh you know take take a review of the flow neutral bylaw. So, uh so thank you
very much for uh for for joining us this evening. Thank you very much for all you do for the town and your service to the town. So, >> are we not going to have any discussion >> on >> on the flow neutral by? Well, I I you know, I don't want to go too far along
since we've got a long agenda and we got to start our meeting at 5 uh 6:30, but if you have something to say, >> well, just uh I definitely think we should uh update it because if you look at Main Street, there's a lot of >> space that I would think could be potential for redevelopment for
apartments and housing, but if they come to us, they're never going to be able to show that they can fit this Title five. So, I think we're missing out on some opportunities, especially along Main Street. And at some point, I think in those sewer areas, we're going to have to face it. The bylaw, the flow neutral
bylaw doesn't really work. And I mean, it's holding us up right now, I think. So, sooner the better. >> No, I I agree. And that's why I think we need to put it on the agenda for future future agenda items. So, yes, >> Mr. Chair, >> Chair Kroger, uh, can I take a roll call
vote to pause our meeting? Okay. Um, can I have a motion to pause our >> motion to pause our meeting while we move to a different room? >> We have a second. Okay. Mr. Goldstone. >> I >> Yeah, we'll be moving. We'll be
reconvening in the woodeneck meeting room here in the center. Uh, Mr. Topulus >> I. >> Miss Roth, >> Mr. Hoyelder, and Mr. Kroger. I Okay. >> Thank you very much. >> Thanks very much. reconvene.
>> Second. >> Second. >> All right. All in favor? >> I >> um would someone like to read the um the mission statement, please? >> Sure. Mission of the Falmouth Board of Health is to protect and promote the health,
safety, and well-being of residents and visitors of the town of Falmouth. Primary functions of the board of health to achieve our mission are to prevent and control disease, to enforce state and local regulations, to promulgate local health regulations, to identify and protect from environmental hazards,
and to advocate for a healthy community. >> Thanks, Amy. And is anyone recording besides the health agent and the recording secretary? >> Okay. And um brief statement on rules of behavior. Um public comments will be allowed. discretion of the chair as time
allows and be limited to two minutes per speaker. Uh before providing comments, please state full name and all comments must be delivered in a manner that respects others. And does anyone uh on the board or in the audience have any comments on items not on the agenda
tonight? Okay, thank you. Our first item is 46 Fox Lane IIA septic system approval request. Good evening. For the record, Tim Santos from Maryland engineers land surveyor
representing the applicant. Prop is located at 486 Fox Lane currently developed with the existing threebedroom home service by town water and two cess pools. The applicant's here tonight looking for your permission to install a new sixbedroom tunnel 5 system and is
adding the nitro system as part of the denitrification process to it. So that's what we do for that. You have any questions? I'm more than happy to address. >> Thank you. And there are no variances otherwise. >> There's no variances.
>> Okay. >> Just the IIA. >> Okay. Thanks. Anything from the board? >> Are they adding bedrooms? >> It's an increase from three to six bedrooms. >> In the septic system. >> In the septic system. How about in the
house >> right now? not increasing flow, they're just increasing capacity. They're increasing the capacity today. >> Okay. Go ahead, Scott. >> Well, according to the the new regulation that went into effect November 15th,
>> when he pulls a building permit to increase flow beyond the three, they'll already have the dite. Therefore, would be a I would be able to sign on it. >> So, I think he's just put putting it in early based on what they might be doing later. I see. Okay. Beating the rush.
>> Go ahead. >> I just wanted to confirm with Scott that's not in the zone two at all. >> No, >> I see it says it on the plan. I just wanted Fox Lane is in West F. There's no zone 2. It's west of 28A. >> It's downstream of Crocker Pond.
>> Yeah, but it's not in the state zone 2. It's not near town. Well, >> no. That's a script. Is it >> any issues? >> Okay. Uh motion to approve the use of an IIA
system for 46 Fox Lane. >> Second. Do you want to >> do I need a finding? >> Second. Or at the standard set. >> Oh, this with Yeah. with this with a standard set of conditions and a e affluent limit of 10 milligrams per liter or less.
>> Second. >> Any further discussion? All >> in favor? >> Thank you. Our next item is 85 Bricktown Road
system request share septic system with 40 units covering 62 bedrooms seemed to install an drone type again for the Tim Santos representing
road. This past year, 2025, the project went before the zoning board of materials. I received a comprehensive permit to construct 40 units totaling 62 bedrooms. Part of that approval process was the
aim to incorporate the denaturation system into the separate design. So we have incorporated the amphone the anthrome plus into design in between the equalization tank and the fire pump chamber each field will be pressure
dosed the system is designed to meet 303010 I have camper drone representatives with me this evening board has any questions we be more than happy to address them thank you anything from the board
>> yeah to Look at what we had out there in the field. What's been reported by the people operating these things? I have Capewide 37 systems, 12 of which could meet that 10 and the other ones don't.
So I guess my biggest question is how can we expect it to meet that? >> The um have all those 37 had the a plus reactor with them as well? The only one I know of is the one we one we haven't
found with and that that average of course using the accepted ones would not meet 10. >> Okay. >> Or has quite a record of not meeting 10. And these data are from 2018. I just
went right through all the database. There's another one in Falmouth. I don't know the property because these are coded. But that also does not need 10. It's had eight samples since 2018.
Perhaps you could tell me which one that is. But there's another one in Thma ampid room. >> Um yeah, I believe so. But part of the I think part of the issue is a lot of our initial plans, especially when they're below 10,000 gallons per day, hadn't had
to meet 10, I think, historically. Um, so we would just do a straight amp drrome reactor which is mainly set up for lesson 19 with the title five. Um, with the addition of the plus that helps us drive it down to lesson 10 and most of our plants above title five,
especially out in the cave have the average plus. We have plenty of data that shows that it meets um, less than 10 on those applications. It's but more mainly a permit driven thing whether it has the plus or not. Um so with this one we have the plus gra which is our
additional ditrification system where we add supplemental carbon to it to help drive down the remaining um the nitrification process to meet that permit. >> Okay. What you're saying is there not many out there that have the plus or that we would have in the county's database.
>> Correct. Yeah. So most of our ones that required pluses were greater than 10,000 gallons up to this point. Now that we're seeing more requirements for less than the standard title five of 19, um we've had made adjustments with our with our process design.
>> Just introduce yourself. >> Oh, sorry. Mike Sparks with FR Mahoney. Sorry. >> Thanks. >> Yeah. Sorry about that. >> And so the without the plus unit, you're saying that nitrification is sufficient. It's complete.
>> Correct. But ditrification needs uh needs the added carbon. >> Correct. Yeah. Or even just a little bit more resonance time in that reactor um to get that. So u but most of we always design them with supplemental carbon and then allow the operator to adjust the dosing.
>> How about the alkalinity? >> E alkalinity for both the plus and the regular amidrome systems. We design a system with alkalinity addition because we tend to see that being uh uh deficient. So the system is including an alkalinated dosing system as well. >> These these are the ones we have from
the county database. Other little ones with blue shading have GKN higher than 10 which would indicate to me there's a notification problem with them. So I just wonder what your comment would be on that because that's we're concerned that of course
alkalinity is first step for nitrification and then the dennite. This is uh as you know from the construction we are requiring a banner system which I don't believe is on the best available
nitrogen technology is it? >> Yeah we're we actually have to submit our stuff by the end of February I believe get a letter with the state but >> but they're not on it yet. >> Yeah. Yeah. So we got to split that and actually for the meet that technology we're to meet the lesson 10 we're going to have the drone plus submitted not
just straight a drone. So, is that the plan you submitted with the epidural plus? >> Correct. >> And there's an alkalinity feed to that as there is in all of your systems. But in those particular ones with all the blue on them, >> yeah,
>> doesn't look like they're quite I mean that's 10 milligrams per liter DKN or most that hopefully it's just ammonia, but doesn't appear that they're nitrifying when they're when they get up that high. your other ones look like
when you're down around 10. Of course, if you had 10 and you're at 10, you're not doing anything but a septic tank, but >> Right. >> So, okay. I mean, I'm just just trying to open the discussion before the board
that we don't have them on a list. The data indicate that they definitely can reach 10. I don't know what asurances the board is going to require for like perhaps a monthly monitoring
for a while to make sure they're each 10. How's the development going to occur? Do you know? Is it they building a number of houses all at once? >> We're building them as as fast as we can rent them. As soon as we get the permits, we're ready to start foundations and we don't expect to stop
till we're finished. >> 25 of them. So they'll probably come online fairly quickly. >> Yes. >> All of them. >> How is the emperor going to do as it ramps up to meet the flows that are going to come in not all at once but
rather kind of slowly? >> Uh traditionally it does well with that. Um we have a lot of applications in schools where we see a big oper a big up and down between the summer and then the weekends where it handles those those adjustments well. It's a fixed film process as you know.
>> Yeah. So it does a pretty good job kind of maintaining that biological layer as needed um with the system. So >> is FR Mahoney going to be the operator of the system? >> We are not in operations but we do work. Are are you the one operating most likely? >> Okay.
>> And could you identify yourself, sir? >> Winston Steman from Alcape Environmental. >> I have quite a few amphrones. None of none that are >> none in Fmouth >> ramped up to the these numbers here. >> No,
>> if I ran this I wouldn't see >> most of them are on Nucket that we're doing on those >> Most of them are on Nucket that we're doing and off Cape. >> Uh these are out on Nucket also. >> Yes, Nantucket. We're getting some pretty good numbers. We're getting down
below five on a few of them with no no feed and we have a couple of outlayers and it's definitely abuse from uh the homeowners. >> In what way do they use what actions are the homeowners taking to cover?
>> One of them that we have is uh housing authority and they're dumping large amounts of grease. They actually did a um inspection >> and they had one of the turkey basters >> in an upstairs kitchen that they were using as cooking with and they were just
dumping that grease right down into the system. Just it was killing it. We're doing better with it, but we're still struggling with it because they're dumping quite a bit of grease. But uh most of the other ones we do pretty good and we have a very um up and down um
you know usage over there >> and they tend to do pretty good. Um I have a few bigger ones that we have that we do do alkalinity and carbon. >> I have one in Webster. We're rate at 10 with it. It's a groundwater discharge
but we're nowhere near um capacity with it and I'm not using chemical and we're below 10 on that. So it operators can usually get them down pretty good. >> I recall with the auto camp that >> was a ramp up period. I mean there were
other issues. >> There was a lot of issues. a lot of issues with the install and they didn't have the plus unit at first and that sort of thing. But >> as I recall, and I'm not totally sure, it's a little while back, I think there was an issue with some higher numbers
first and they were waiting for the system to become fully inoculated and functioning with sufficient flow and that sort of thing of um to to to reach uh performance.
Is that is that a feature? And if the if the housing development goes in gradually, will there be higher concentrations and lower flows at first? What? Um, >> we could feed it if we had to. We could bring in, you know, some some to feed it
if we need to. >> Uh, >> but sorry, bacteria. What would you feed it with? >> Oh, like sewage. Bring in some sewage from one of the pumpers or something like that. Try not to, >> but if we had to. >> Yeah. Okay. So, so one of the things that went on there, I think at I read
some like I wasn't involved with AutoCAM initially, but I did get involved with the with the upgrade, but we have a uh startup mode with our system because we do not want to go through backwashes for the first two months or so because we want to be able to get the biological layer start growing on that.
>> Um so after that point, we can start backwashing and I don't think that was ever implemented initially at at the campground. Um, so that was one of the corrections to that had to be made. >> So it's a shared system. Who's going to
own it? >> The owner of the property. The LLC that owns it, which is >> So they're going to be all rental. >> All rentals. >> And the owner is >> Dan McClo. >> Okay. >> A single owner
>> by me. There's only one person that's gonna own all. >> It's owned by an LLC and the manager of the LLC is Dan McClo. >> Okay. >> So, doesn't our own uh regulation limit us to banner systems or not?
>> Yeah, it does. >> But they're submitting us to >> Yeah, I can I can send an email later. We got >> Do you know how long it'll take to get a response? I know. >> I can call I got to call her tomorrow and ask, but uh some some other questions. I'm going to make sure I fill
out the forms correctly. But um I can ask that at the time. But >> But you think you have everything you need to get it approved? Just a matter of getting eyes on it. >> Yeah. Correct. And submit all the We have a lot of compiled data. We have that a lot of plans for the drone plus that we're going to supply.
>> When is it you plan on breaking ground? >> We're already putting the road in As soon as we get permission, we're going to soon we get Scott to sign off on the building permits, we'll start foundations. >> I've held because of not getting approval for you. It's been what,
months? I'm the only one sitting on the permit application. >> It's the the water's in, the drainage is going in. Uh the base road is in. >> Yeah. You've made it through ZBA. They made it through everybody. So, it's just it's just sitting there last. >> Yep. So, how long do you think after we
approve, assuming that we did, how long do you think it would take before occupation starts happening? >> I'm going to guess around the first week of May, if not middle of May, depending on the weather. This weather's slowing us down quite a bit, but >> things improve.
>> That's break ground, not habitable. When's your first UNO? >> We're going to put we're going to put the first foundation in next week. >> Understood. When do you think your first use in occupancy? Your first person >> May. That's what he's saying. >> Okay. So, it'll be built and somebody will be in there by May.
>> Yeah. I thought it was now 25 of the units are affordable. They're going have to go through a lottery. So, that's going to the units will be built and waiting for those tenants to move in. But, we have 10 market rate units. We can put people in right away. We got a waiting list like
150 names right now. >> Right. So, do I mean If we if we can't approve systems that aren't on the banner list and camp drone's not yet on there and we're
looking at couple of months, three months something and we have uh occupation, how do we work out the timing? >> Go ahead, Scott. >> Well, it's your regulation. So, you could vary from your own regulation and then hold them to a standard that you
still have the same standard. So, you could You could do that in your vote, but it should include that in the vote that you're not following banner, but then still requiring the 10. >> This wasn't advertised. It's a variance. >> Well, you're varying from your own code, so it's technically not a variance
hearing. >> Oh, it's variance from your code. >> Well, I didn't advertise it as a variance. >> Right. >> Yeah. It was an innovative alternative request. >> Do we have to? >> I don't think you do, but >> Hey, you tell me. I don't know. I I'm
not going to touch the public meeting law because I don't touch that law. >> All I know is we've been slapped around for having something on the agenda that wasn't on the agenda before. And if it's
not advertised as a variance hearing and anybody I don't know whether you have anybody who's objecting to this particular development or not, but they'd certainly have cause to say we did not advertise it as a variance.
>> Well, I I would disagree in the sense that there's no requirement with D at this point in time, which in title five to >> That's right. It's not to have an IA to begin with. There's no doubt about that. It's a variance from our our bylaws,
>> our local regulation. >> Local regulation >> which you have in your local regulation how you vary from it. So it may say it in the local region. >> Do you think you could have the paperwork in before our next meeting in two weeks?
>> Yeah. >> State's not going to be able to do it though. >> I understand that. But we have to put it on the agenda for two weeks to go through the approval and we can say at that time that it has been submitted for the papers works been submitted jump
that's all >> right. >> Yes. That's a a little bit >> look I don't want to be the only stick in the mud here but I would see this as a variance and I would see this as if we voted on a variance at this point it would be a violation of the open meeting
law >> and there's a significant public interest so we shouldn't do that. Um, >> right. But if we put it on, >> what what assurances would we have? So, say either it gets on the banner list provisional
by the time you put put it in or close to it or it doesn't. And either way, um, what if what if there's a problem? What if it's not reaching 10 milligrams per liter? >> What do you do if a a banner doesn't reach it? And there's plenty that don't.
Uh >> I don't think we >> we haven't seen a banner system that's gone in that hasn't met it. >> Yeah, we haven't >> since our regulation which we >> quite there's some for there's a few that can maybe not with under the banet
>> ban our >> under our regulation which was recently passed any system that has been approved since then we do not see anything like >> it will happen. It will happen. So what happens at that prophecy, sir, but it hasn't happened yet.
>> Okay. So what what is you know you're asking >> the procedure then would be to sorry go ahead George. >> The procedure would be the owner is going to be on the hook for it. We're going to keep pounding until we get the tent. >> Yeah. The owner and the the operator
>> right >> go through a whole series of steps which may be different for the amphodrome uh to get it to work. Operators are the biggest problem in our industry. George, you you know that. >> I absolutely know
>> we don't have enough skilled personnel. >> I want to ask if they were going to operate or not. The manufacturer of the the system usually operates it pretty well. >> Yeah, we work we try to work closely like if he was operating I talked to Winston all the time obviously on other plants. So we work closely with the
operators when we when >> when people ask us too. It's part of it. They're good system. I've got quite a few of them. We We've had some on restaurants that are just a nightmare to operate and we're getting them down. >> I agree. They're good process control.
They have a lot of ways you can tweak it to make it work. But, you know, it it's just it has not to this point gone to the state and got nonaban. So, from a board standpoint, that's the that's the list.
Right. >> I move that we uh postpone is the wrong word. Continue this >> uh until we have a meeting uh with the variance uh requirements met for the
public hearing law. >> Motion to uh continue the meeting and advertise it the next time as a variance hearing from local regulation. What did he say? >> Do we have a second? >> Second unless I was you made the motion.
>> Okay. I just >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Second. >> Okay, >> George. >> Sorry. >> So, so just for so for clarification. So um you know what I think we're we're concerned about the open meeting because
we're asking it's specifically a variance from they are local regulations but it is a variance because we call out specifically banner I think realistically um we're we're not we're we understand
the system we probably are can can be easily convinced that it's going to re meet Banner. So, even if it's just a filing of the paperwork, I think I would be very comfortable just saying very I
know it's two two more weeks, but um >> the only thing we're going to need is the paperwork is submitted if you could. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> Makes it easier. >> Um do we have any other issues with the system? Do we have any concerns
with uh any conditions that we would be thinking about in terms of um uh making sure it's operated appropriately? >> The only thing I would say is in the findings are going to be the fact introduced into the record that it is
the empidor plus and that there's adequate feed for alkalinity and carbon >> and mon. Do we want how >> just so we know because as I said that list there which it it's claimed and I
believe it not all those are plus there's quite a few of those in fact only 13 out of 37 I think or 17 out of 37 I forget the number can only meet 10 but with a plus they say they can do it
we can trust that they will submit the paperwork >> so the plus is specified. >> Yeah, >> it's shown, >> but it will be added into record as far as our findings >> because we're going to be varying those things. So, we got to make sure we don't
set a pre >> including the alchemy and the carbon. I think agree. Go ahead. >> Can I can I ask that the you allow Scott to at least sign off so we can get a foundation permit and get started? >> It's going to take a I just don't want to lose my sight contractor. I don't
want him to pull off the site. Is is is are those foundation only permits or those for the full boat? >> Well, we applied for full boat, but uh we just haven't issued the foundation permit. We won't go any further than foundation till two weeks from now, which we wouldn't anyway. I mean, we'd be lucky to get the holes dug in.
>> Well, you could put the foundation in at your own risk. I guess it's just getting the building commissioner to >> sign off. He has to you have to sign off. I don't think he'll do the inspections >> in order for them to >> Well, I I right now in in permodizing the sign off, I've got a choice of
signing on a single sign on the entire structure. I don't have the ability. >> No foundation permit separate. >> There's no separate foundation permit for me to sign off on. I >> there could be >> I guess I guess the question is I could sign your permits pending the selection
of a technology. If you don't, the problem is is once I've signed this and you don't get approval for this, how do we >> that would be a way to do it? >> What's that? >> Sign it with pending a selection of a technology. >> Well, they never be able to get occupancy. >> Yeah, I could hold it up at the
occupancy level when you >> because I won't give you a COC on the septic design. >> So, yeah, we'll do that. >> Yeah, we're just want to be careful. So, do you >> I never thought to write this letter
>> requesting a variance for the finals. >> Yes. >> Do a butters need to be notified. >> Yes. >> Yeah. For a local regulation. Do we need it for a local regulation? >> Not under not. I was just reading the section on variances. Not under the section for variances.
But okay, wait. Let's go to section two. For the purposes of notifying property of what is required by an action of the board of health is provided by the bill but should include all owners following within 100 foot radius of any point in the property line. I would
>> I just don't want to come back. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> You heard us notify meeting already. No, because I I call this a local I call this an innovate technically again an innovative alternative septic approval request is what we call it. But since you're asking
for technology that doesn't fall within the new regulations. It's not on the banner list. Technically, it's a variance and we didn't I didn't write it as an agenda item as a variance. I wrote it as approval for an innovative alternative technology. >> Can we need the variance added to the >> Yeah. So what I would write is
innovative alternative septic approval variance variance approval request. >> Do we have our next meeting >> would be the 23rd? >> Yeah. I mean I saw that email but I still haven't >> 23rd. >> Yeah.
>> And just got back. >> 23rd. >> Yeah. 23rd. >> 23rd. Okay. >> Yep. >> Would you guys please hold on to the plan a second time? Yep. We got it. >> It's all out of paper. Yeah. Yeah. Aren't >> you gonna need to revisit?
>> Yeah. You don't need to print more. >> Thank God. >> Okay. Favor. Sorry. Go ahead. >> Yeah. I just So, we're all good then. Yeah. >> I think so. >> To vote. >> All in favor? >> I Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, next item is nine cricket. >> No, no. I mean, if I can start with that one. We had a We had a visitor to the perk test. >> M. >> We had a visitor to the perk test
witnessing the perk test with the health agent. >> Yep. >> Anybody want to raise their hand? Was at the perk test. >> Why? >> And Jed witnessed the worst soils in the town of >> Oh, man. >> Because that street should that street should not exist. That street was filled in by whatever came out of Eel Pal very
very long time ago. >> Oh gosh. >> Uh I No, it was just down the road. So I I called cop for something and then he's like I'm just at this brick test. I'm like I want to witness a brick test right here.
>> And the soils didn't work. >> There's no it's very hard to find native soils. It's just a very >> Oh, it's like it's a fill and mixed in with clay and Oh, god. >> Ooils from real pond and it's awesome. >> It's >> Yeah. And that's a challenging area.
Anyway, >> I wonder what the foundations look like if you go down in the basement. How many cracks are in there? >> Piling is driven into the mud. >> Point of information. Uh, do do we have we hear rules about what they ask?
What's the penalty if what happens if they don't meet it? >> Yeah, you have we're in the wrong part of the agenda. Why don't we talk about that during future? >> Okay. >> Yeah. Is that all right? >> I don't move it on to the next item.
>> Yeah. Okay. All right. >> Um, okay. Do you want to introduce yourself and uh describe the project? >> Sure. Scott Machali representing the shop family trust which is the owner of this property. Uh this is a local
upgrade request for 9 cricet lane in Woods Hole. It's an existing two-bedroom home on an 11,900 ft lot. The lot's encumbered by wetlands on the south side. Uh coastal bank runs right through the property and covers
most of the property. Uh it's in flood zone AE13 and flood zone X. Uh it's currently served by uh primary cess poolool and an overflow cesspool and is served by public water. Um so the
proposal is to upgrade the system with no increase in flow. Uh the new system um would be kind of your standard title five system 1500 gallon tank debox and then uh a leech field that's 12 by 32 uh
but designed by bottom area only. Um all the components will be H20 because they're all app proximate to the driveway access and and the home. Um, it's designed with over five feet of separation of groundwater.
Um, as Scott mentioned, we did a couple soil tests out there in October. Um, they were closer to the wetland than where the system is cuz I pulled it as far away as possible. Um, I did also put on the plan that
there was a soil test done on the Abuing property, which is a new home under construction. That test pit was done in 2024. So, I used that as a comparison as well. And uh the all the test pits were very similar. 150 in of fill pretty
much. Um the one one of the test pits that I did at the rear of this property, we did get into natural material down about that 13 ft. Um it was I took a sample, sent it to have a SIV done, and
it came back as alum sand. Um, but we still designed it with 5 ft of separation because your bylaw. Um, so there's a couple things that I'm looking for relief from. One is in your bylaw systems are supposed to be a minimum of 100 ft away. Um, so this one's going to
be the leechfield's going to be 75 ft away. Um and to uh to set back relief from Title 5, which is basically is because the coastal bank runs right through the
property. It's really a setback that the the leech field is going to be reduced from 50 to zero to the coastal bank and the septic tank's going to be 25 to zero because they're right on it. Um there's really no place feasible on that
property to put the leechfield where you're not into the coastal bank. Um so we tried to maximize this this the distance to the to the wetlands in the back. We've got about 50, excuse me, 75 ft. Um which in your bylaw talks about
just trying to maximize that distance over 75. Um and we start getting pinched by the lot line in the building. And then there's also drainage that comes down Cricut uh lane and goes out to the wets. So we're we're close to we're just
beyond 25 ft from that too. So we're pinched on all these different setbacks. Um and this has already received conservation approval. Went through the RDA process and it's been approved. So that's kind of the overview. Um
trying to do the best we can. So this is uh you know our plan here is that we're going to overx down 13 ft. Um and that's why I designed it as just bottom area only because that wider system I don't
know that I could keep it in the property and not undermine the home >> um from that. So, I kept the foot the the septic is bigger and longer, but it's not wider because of not having to do the 5 foot overtake. I don't want to undermine the house and
I don't want to encroach on the body property. So, >> thank you. I'll just note this is the second time recently that we've seen groundwater observation proposed more than 2 ft >> and they suggest that we need to >> adjust
>> adjust our local regulation on minimum groundwater. Maybe there's maybe the the solution is to add a foot to the groundwater as observed. Go ahead Scott. Yeah. I just wouldn't use this particular one as an example because the fill I think the fill being so dense was
holding up rain water. >> It makes sense. Yeah. >> Yeah. I I which you'd call perched water. >> I think if you want to make that judgment of raising elevation too, you want like real true groundwater, not perched. >> This is not in an NSA at all.
>> But even if it's perched, if it's sitting too close to the >> True. But but it's still a problem. >> It's perched because it's clay. >> Yeah. which is rare but there was another observation like that recently. Can anyone have any comments or questions?
>> They usually am I missing the variances on the plan? >> They are they usually are listed and they are not uh here it is. Yes, you got it >> to the right just above the stamp outlined in blue. >> Oh, two out of three.
Yeah, I forgot to list the one from the local on. >> Um, and this is in a flood zone. What have you done the buoyancy calculations? >> What was the question? What have you done? >> Buoyancy calculations. >> Uh,
good. >> This will also need a deep restriction. >> And yes, and it will need a deep restriction to two bedrooms. Um it is in title five. So >> close less than 3:30 it would require the de >> Yep.
>> Yeah. I initially went Oh gosh. Do we need to >> wait the tank? >> Well, we need to wait then probably need to wait the tank. >> No. >> Was that? >> No. >> No. You don't think so? >> Just the buoy count. >> Just the count. I think the counts are
going to show that it won't flow. But you're right. I should have put Yeah. Um just I mean I know that that drain has been a problem. It was a problem for the
abuing property. Are you certain of that location? >> Because because when they so so the buttering um uh 13 Cricut Lane which is just sort of a uh Oh, the drain line >> just to the left on this, but it's to
the east really. Um, uh, that was that initially was not properly located and, um, caused a problem in the original in that in that design. They were back a couple of times, I think,
>> the 13. >> Yeah, correct. >> It was I just don't want you. It would probably be >> Jen, can you remind us what happened? >> They just didn't It was one of those things. There was It wasn't really on anything. It wasn't really on any plans.
Certainly wasn't properly located and it was a surprise to find it. And it's a it is a storm drain basically. Kind of. I think sort of >> it is. >> Um and and Cricut Lane is is uh floods
um with any heavy rain. So, it's a it's a really it's an important storm train unlike some of the other storm trains that float around here. Um, uh, it seems that there's a lens of clay there. So, some of there's which is a
little weird, but it's what it is. So, it's local conditions kind of thing, but um, and so, uh, if it's if that's properly annotated, you're all right. I just don't know if it was if it was been flagged or if you located.
>> So the catch basin and the drain manhole at the intersection or the angle point was located by survey. >> Okay. >> The rest of it was taken from the Merrill plan. >> Okay, >> that was that I pulled from per ice.
>> Okay, >> for the actual septic permit. So I put a note on the plan that said that's where I got the rest of that drain line. But I definitely located because I did the survey myself. >> Yeah. I mean, I'm not terribly concerned about like,
you know, the le I just It's just in terms of the installation of it. >> So, where's the drain show? >> Goes right off of West or South D. >> Yeah, label D. Yeah.
Got it. And so Jed, the concern is that if the concern >> get caught in that drain, the flume get caught in that drain. >> Um well, it was also installation, like you know, if there's a there's a going to be a strip out and it's going to be a big strip out. Um it would be
problematic for all involved if somebody dropped something through that. >> But it is a good question. If we're talking about this really dense fill and now we've got back fill around the utility, that's going to be a preferential pathway all day long, right? If we can't get water to hurt.
>> Well, all that stripouts being filled with sand, right? >> Yeah. >> You said you're going to excavate down to permeable material, right? >> Yeah. I mean, based on the test pits, we're thinking it's going to be a 13t strip out. Man, that is going to be a
heck of an excavation. >> And we're, >> you know, we're we're about 12 ft off of that drain line >> with the sidewall of the excavation. >> Yeah. >> And the fill was fairly compact stuff. >> Yeah. >> Are you cheating it? Are you going one
to one and then back to >> Well, I think it'll hold up >> or or if it doesn't, I don't think it's going to just keep going and going. Um, so I felt like I could stay within the property with this. That's why I did bottom area only and didn't do the five foot strip out because I could have just
done this with one chamber, twobedroom, one chamber. But with the five foot strip out, it makes it too wide. Uh, gets me too close to the house, gets me too close to the property line for that strip out. So you think effluent will will flow
downward through the fill that you're going to put in and reach the permeable material and will not interact with that drain that we >> Yeah. Because this stuff was crap. I don't think you're going to get stuff migrate, >> right? If it's >> Yeah, it was >> it was
all I know is where it came from. >> Y I'm sure that's right. probably at the with the age of this stuff was more like the MBL stuff. >> Yeah, sure. >> And groundwater flow should be toward that wetland. So you're >> Yeah.
>> cross gradient, not down. >> Yeah. And this is this is definitely a flood zone. There's really no question that uh this is likely to be regularly inundated um starting probably in about 20 years.
>> So So water was encount we're postulating it was perched there but was it consistently present in the will be sand. >> It has to be consistently present. It's too close to the sea level to to have an
open space beneath that. You know, >> I'm just thinking through scenario. >> Yeah. Uh >> yeah, like you we're picturing it as dry sand that the leade is going to move through, but it's not. It's going to do
that for the water. Water's going to sit there preferentially. >> Well, he's going to excavate down to permeable material. So it will then be effectively direct connection to the aquifer between between the leeching
field and the um pond, right? And uh it should per faster than the soil around it. Uh it it might be that some runoff will go into that SAS, right?
Is it because if the is the surface soil is non-p permeable? >> It's not I mean yeah I think it's the surface soil there that's not >> very permeable and I think it's the drains that handle it because there are uh there are yards across the street
that flood on a regular basis from rain. >> Um and they're just it's just a low marshy spot. >> Yeah. you know, backyards, they're always damp sort of thing. >> Um, >> I mean, you're going to slope on top of
the system anyhow of shed water away from it, right? Anyhow, >> and it's really no different to build a build a sort of way down to the groundwater than any other system that you have a strip out near the beach or near a pond
or anything else. It's it's going to go down that nice pvious stuff till it hits the groundwater and then it's probably going to m a little bit. Maybe you wouldn't be able to see two bedroom, >> but it's going to move with the groundwater flow.
>> So, I don't think it's going to like pile up. >> I mean, >> if that soil down below you says a lomy sand, that's and you've got it at uh you know, you've got class two soils and you're loading it lower than
normal. You're not loading at 74. You're loading at >> 666. >> Uh, one quick thing too, just I was looking at the inverts, right? So, my inverter, my second tank's at 9.25 - 4' 7 in. My bottom of my tank is
technically above the groundwater >> at two. So probably why I wasn't thinking of the >> the buoyancy calc >> I saw the H20 there but it's not going anywhere that there's a lot of extra weight with
that H20 tank really concerned about it. Okay. >> So, this is not just a this is a local upgrade approval but from title five variance request. >> Okay. Local upgrade approval is for
repairs and variances are for increases in flow in title five. >> Okay. >> We use a term in our local regs is anything that doesn't meet our code as a variance. >> Right. Title five has a difference between local upgrade approval and variance in title five. >> Title five, a local upgrade approval is
a type of variance. It just happens to be one for a repair. >> Happens to be what? >> For a repair >> existing conditions, no increase in flow. If he was asking for wetland setbacks for an increase in flow, that's what it would be a variance. >> Right? Then we took the term variance
and just used it sort of unilarly for anything that we vary from in our local >> which we just talked about >> right for some tough situation there but I think it did the best you could there. I don't think I don't want to be
standing near the hole when he dug it. No one who's ex installing it now will be far away. >> Not to mention the access down there is horrendous. >> Yeah. Getting the >> with the house under construction right next to it. So there's contractors there. There's just
>> no room for anything. >> In the past you've actually had to improve a tight tank in one situation. We couldn't even get it to work. >> I remember that. >> So you can you think you can do it while assuring that you're not going to crush that drain? I think so.
>> The machines off the drain. >> Yep. >> Just mark it. Yeah, we'll mark it out for prior to the work being done. >> Do we have a motion? A motion to approve the variances
standard set of conditions non-crooked rain >> two bed with a >> with a twobedroom restriction for in the code any >> finding >> finding that it's a very tight lot that
is a lot of fill that needs a very deep excavation so I believe the engineer has done the best they could with that lot um go ahead >> with the requirement that buoyancy calculations
uh be added to the plants. Is there anything else that we missed? >> Just the addition of the other variants. >> Yeah. >> Oh, and the addition of the the the other variants to the plants >> and and caution is taken to not load the uh the drain Jason.
>> So, friendly amendments. Anything else? Okay, >> just a quick question. >> Yeah, >> do you know the invert on the drain? Do you know how deep how low it's >> second? All in favor? >> I >> I
abstain because I have to honestly say I haven't understood a word in the >> That's fair. I have no idea what I'll signal. >> That's all right.
>> Thank you very much. >> Have a good night. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, next item is system monitoring and performance and from
I just want to keep this honest even just brief discussion. I sent out another sort of graph which showed all of the systems with more than I think 10 samples might be. Yeah, more than 10 samples.
And again, we have about half the systems in town that um would not are not performing. But those ones on the far right of the graph with blue shades are the ones that we could focus on
first and calling those in. Anybody who's got like over 40 or something and just slowly start working them down. I mean, and I think the next time what I'll do is just
look a little bit closer using these data to see if we have some operator issues. >> I did I did forward the letter of the operators, the draft letter of the operators. >> Yeah, I've sent it to Katie to send out.
She might have done it this last week. >> Okay, >> I'll check. uh because I think it's a good first and soft step to just talk to them if we can. We can set up a meeting and say, you know, tell us what problems you're having because you're obviously
having some. And by that time, I will have the operators separated out by the ones that are problematic or not. >> Well, we give them name tags. Yeah, we'll give you a blue shade and you get
a red shade and a yellow shade, but it's obvious that there's one or two things going on. Either these things really are not working, a number of them, >> or there's some other explanation for it. And I was looking at like the data
for the fast units >> and I remember that my experience has been when they are not pumped properly every if they're very heavily used almost every year but certainly every two that they fall off in performance
right after that. And I've heard from operators saying hey I told him he had to pump it out they don't pump it out. What do you want me to do? So, I think if that's a common theme, then we just need that that sort of blank letter to
owners. Hey, you were told on this date that this happened that you needed to pump. We don't see it in the records that you did pump or please provide the records or appeal for the help. We just got to slowly get them. We're lucky we
only have 350. There's like 3,000 out there. thinking I agree. Thinking along those lines um with the owners, could we come up with a letter we could send out initially saying we've targeted your
your we've identified your system as a problematic system. Um and we are directing you and your operator to meet discuss a remediation plan implement that plan and sample within a reasonable amount of time frame. I'm I'm trying to
avoid calling in 300 people, you know, not 300, but whatever. Could we give them some to-dos, resample and and send us your data so that if they can fix the problem without our direct involvement, >> right? >> Right. >> That's why I thought we'd talk to the
operators first because we tell the owners first. The owners start yelling at the operator doesn't know what was happening >> to give first the owner the operator's look. We're going to be looking closer at these data and the information because Fmouth is destined to have at
least 3,000 or you say maybe 8,000 of these things. So, we need to sort of work toward compliance. >> And if we meet with them and they all say, "Hey, no, the owners are just terrible." you know, and that's the
prevailing thought and they offer enough evidence of that, then maybe it's okay. Now, it's time to start your operator and your owner both get the letter that says we have to work with compliance.
>> It' be helpful to give the operators a letter, too. >> Yeah. >> Explaining what we're doing that they can then take to their recalcitrant owners and say, "Hey, here's proof. the board of health is is looking at this. The next step is to to bring you in.
>> I would just like to get as much happening before we have to directly call people into the board as as possible. >> Yeah. I mean, >> well, that letter is going out to the operators. Correct. So, that did you see that letter? >> Um, I did I did, but I need to reread it
with this thought in mind specifically. You know, would it is it helpful for them to actually take that to their homeowner? Does it say what we want to say strongly enough so that they could use it as their backup to prompt people to do things they need to be doing? >> I'm sure some of them might take that
just a notice to some of them and say, "Look, they're starting to look at these stuff and I've told you a number of times to do this. They're going to be on your back." >> Yeah. >> So, but it wasn't meant to have that effect, >> right? >> So, you're right. after we meet with
them, uh, then would be the time to say, you know, we're going to start pushing letters to the owners. >> Yeah. >> And to you. So, if you receive this letter, it's because one of your systems is out of compliance and it gives you a little whatever little introduction to
your owner to say, "Hey, there's nothing we can do to dodge this. We just need to start." I think um what we should do before we meet with the operators is have a draft letter to the owners >> ready to go so that we can say so that
we can say you know >> you know address automatically pulled cuz >> y >> you know there some of these are repeat offenders too from repeated samples are terrible mummers. Um you know
your system has been identified as >> as never having worked. Yeah. Uh you know and um whatever our we should talk about what any you know what powers we have what
consequences there are to not meeting their operating conditions. I mean in the extreme case it's denial of occupancy >> right. >> Um which that's >> I think fine. So what you go right to
the you're going to kick out of your house. They know, oh, this is never going to happen. But fines have been I mean there are t uh fines associated with title five and it's a violation of title five when you're violating your approval,
>> correct? >> Because your approval is approved through title five. So, I'll I'll put together a couple of draft letters for different situations >> for the owners. You know, ones that say you're not
meeting the standard or ones that say your samples are tending toward not totally compliance and one that says the world's about to end and you really need to get this straight away. >> And and and I think >> you just have to hold it.
I mean, if there's if there's u, you know, like a a short list of of things to do, like >> I mean, make make it make it more, you know, more make it helpful so that it's
not just you're not doing a good job, but you're not doing a good job and here is how you could do a better job. >> It's a helpful sandwich. Scary. >> Yeah. >> Help in the middle, a little scary at the end. >> Wow. So things like uh make sure you're pumping you've been pumping it in
accordance with the manufacturer which you know maybe once every two years instead of the six years you were used to >> things like that >> and and also you know um talk with your service provider
um and they may have additional >> sure >> guidance sight specific guidance for example I mean I'm just trying to I'm trying to make it as you know to minimize our intervention and use use the existing
>> inter yeah right >> we can't we can't address all three of them >> go ahead >> so what earlier this evening somebody asked so what are the requirements or penalties if we don't
meet the standard of 10 milligrams per liter and I expected one of you say, "Oh, it's da da da da da da da da." >> But it's $250 a day for fine a fine if
you not comply with your permit. >> So if um so for example, if you had 40 units all going into one system, uh is it $250
a day? No, it's the owner you're going to go after and now be decided at a hearing. You know, how grievous is it? >> You know, are they showing? Because we have in the regulation an allowance. If your system isn't
meeting it, isn't meeting the code, then there are things that you can do to show that it's really meeting it, it's just not getting 19, it's just not getting 10. >> Yeah. So once they exhaust all of those,
then it comes, well, what are we going to do about it? Because they're doing everything they can. The technology has a problem. We're going to notify probably the company that sold it to them and say, "Look, this system has never met code, never met your permit on
this thing, just so you know this." because that allows us to start saying there's no way another one of those systems gets put into the file. >> I'm just wondering of somebody's applied for a BART
uh approval >> banner approval. They don't get it. We've already approved it and they don't meet it. There is just this one case where that
is the case and we don't want to set a precedent. That's why we want to treat it as a variance. >> Scott, can you send me a email that tells me where to see this in our regulations? What these
how this works of >> the regulation? Yeah. which which requires new construction. >> Yeah. Oh, no. That I know. No, I know. I mean, well, >> what happens if somebody doesn't meet
>> I mean >> on on, you know, on top of of a fine per, you know, a daily fine, >> being called into the board of health on TV every two weeks
would probably also be something Uh that >> artillery >> was that >> artillery? >> Yes. Being being publicly excoriated. >> Um uh >> I see some
>> Yeah. I mean uh so we do have the example of AutoCAM. Yeah, >> they were not meeting the code and they we required them to >> cease producing and it cost them a lot of money and so they have very strong
incentive a big a big um business with a significant amount of ethanol has really strong incentive to get it right as soon as they can. So, I don't think we have to worry about that much. I don't want to No, no. I'm just trying to answer your question. And and but I think as
well, >> um, with homeowners, I hope we never get there. >> I hope we never get to finding a homeowner a system. That is just not >> what we should be doing here because >> we're in this together,
>> right, as a town. And and furthermore, what we're talking about here are the legacy systems, many of which were not very good technologies relative to today's standards. And so we want to get them to the 19 milligrams per liter they were required to do
>> or the best that they can. >> Or the best we can. Yeah. Yeah. And >> I I wasn't asking to see it because I didn't think it was adequate. >> Yeah. I was asking to see it to help my ignorance because you all know and I
have no idea. >> In a in a here's a question. In a really extreme case where technology is really not working and they're required to put something in for environmental reasons >> by by their permit various permits that they got.
>> Would we require them to replace the system with a technology that >> it's in your regulation? >> Yeah. So that so that so that is a that is >> it's a main not a shell >> right that is kind of the ultimate in in
terms of sticks >> and I think the only place that we would probably do that because it is drinking water concern is in zone two. I mean in the other because right now from this day forward we're going
forward saying banner is the standard >> and some of those were put in and I think it just make them do the best you can because there was no real standard that they had to meet. There was no okay the TMDL says everybody has
to make at least this but in the zone twos that was from day one the standard >> the standard okay >> you know you have to meet 19 if you can't meet 19 you better meet the spirit of 19 by showing that you >> doing the best
>> flush once every week and that's pretty strong >> so so we have different you know once we as we go through this we should make notations or have it maybe a different draft letter
>> um for those in the zone twos because uh that is a different uh level of seriousness if you wish. >> Yeah, we should pay attention to them first. And we've asked I've asked D about that
and they say well that's water supply because I've asked what are the teeth what's the teeth that really allows us to enforce that in the zone too and they said well that's water supply well are you tracking is water supply tracking
their performance the answer was no they're not tracking the performance but it's water supply >> well if it's a septic system system. It sucks. >> Yes. But as far as D is concerned >> and and enforcement because I've asked
them in zone twos, are you tracking you? >> These were approved for zone twos. Are you guys tracking this? says of all the ones they would track, the ones that we might require the local regulations, no big deal to them, but I would think that
they would track the ones that have been approved for water supply >> and they're not. >> So, it's really up to the locals to do that. >> Yeah. >> You know, 660 an acre. >> Yeah. >> For, you know, how many systems went in for 660 an acre? They wanted three
bedrooms on that half acre lot. We have quite a few of those. Have you in your data analysis so far, have you isolated the zone twos to see how we're doing? >> No, I have not. I I know that the database of the county has it, but I'm
not sure how accurate they are. If they would have been that would have been said during a hearing, >> right, >> their board of health hearing and if it wasn't mentioned, then uh we knew it but it wasn't a zone 2 wasn't referenced in there. might not have gotten into their
database >> as a zone. >> So it could just be a merge. This is G. It's just a GIS merge. >> Could ask town GIS to do that. >> How many systems we have in zone two? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> How many IAS and Well, I mean you could
you have you could look at the specific ones that are not >> being do. >> Yeah, it's pretty that's a straightforward. >> Yeah, that would be that'd be very useful >> since I pretty much have the streets that are in zone 2's memorized. George. >> So, so wait, are we is that an action
item? Are we going to do that? >> Yes. I'm going to do three letter three letters of different uh draft letters to homeowners and they're going to have this sandwich in it. >> But what is Right. But what about the mapping?
>> Oh, the mapping. I don't know. >> Uh >> well, if you just send me a list of all the 350 of them. >> Oh, yeah. Okay. just highlight the ones that are on streets that are in zone twos. We don't have a lot of zone twos. So, >> yeah, that be >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
>> And are the zone twos because of private wells? >> Well, be both. It's a little trickier with town wells, but I know I mean with private wells, but I pretty much know where the private wells are by street. >> Yeah. >> Private wells. If you have a septic
system and a well on the same lot, it's considered a nitrogen sensitive area for the code >> even before these marine NSAs came in. >> And then in addition to that, the public water supply wells and then long.
>> Yeah. >> Question. You're looking at sampling data. Do we know do we have systems out there that they're not being sampled regularly? Hence, they're not showing up analysis >> yet. So, if I may, >> so if I may, I think it was before your
time, Amy, there was a um the county would send a shot across the bow to the homeowner that doesn't have an operation maintenance contract. >> Okay. >> And then if they don't comply after two letters, generally that we get involved and I'll send the letter. >> And if that all strikes out, they come here. They haven't had to do that in a
while. But that's somebody without an operation and maintenance contract. >> Someone looking to whether the operator's doing the job. That would really not be >> the sampling. I'll see whether that can be filled >> because technically in our regulation
it's quarterly for the first two years. >> And we have most of the people came before us who want reduction. They show those eight samples. >> But what if they didn't? You're right. That's a good one to look at. But >> for that, you'd have to look at the
years back when we required sampling four times a year. We didn't always do that. >> No, >> we just let it go in accordance with the uh >> the approval letter at the time. >> But there still would have been minimum sampling quarterly, but at least annual something that they might not.
>> Yes. >> So sometimes the samps you board decisions in the past would say per manufact per their approval letter, >> right? for their approval letter >> and that's and they are really bound to do what was in their approval letter at
the time and the approval letters change over time like now uh which is really kind of interesting all the general use approved nitrogen systems have to sample quarterly for the first year
I mean they never did that so all the new letters going out for folks that's what it says So if the testing is not being done correctly, that's on the county. >> Yeah. >> Because the county is getting paid by the town >> to me to track this for us.
>> So I blame the county for any lack of data. >> The county is not getting paid by the town. >> I meant by the res. >> But yeah, that should be I mean this kind of goes back to our questions to the county database like what can you do
with this database? And it seems like it should be >> zone twos and whether the samples are I believe the samples in accordance with the letter that they get from >> the town they're being sampled in that
and they are flagged if they're not >> okay so they're so you think they are being flagged if they're not sampled not to >> more the more recent ones I would say the past maybe three or four years before that the letters we never
required it in the letter the finding or whatever we did to the person when they came in for the approval >> because we didn't always just approve by it was just they came before us but it wasn't like if you have no variances you
can just we wouldn't see them >> but there came a time when that entered into our policy that they would come before us for all IAS so we would know where they are >> how old are The oldest. >> Oh gosh. They go back to 99.
>> Wow. >> There's some RSFs in here. Yeah. >> Yeah. Omni. >> Omni. >> Some old terrible. They're not working at all. >> It's not in business anymore. >> And the research sand filters.
>> You see the different media. >> So, uh, when do we pursue this meeting with um with operators? Um well if I may the letter say to give back to us with dates >> with dates. >> So how I always plan on doing that if I
don't if I hear crickets >> because of cricket lane made me think of it. >> Yeah. Um if I hear crickets then I perhaps we'll just set a time. >> Okay. >> It'll be at a future meeting and just set a time >> and provide a remote option. >> Right. >> Sure. >> I think that >> if we can Yeah. I think we need to firm
that up that we can do that because a lot of them they won't do them alone. >> They're not going to show up here at night after, you know, doing systems all day and the other things they do. >> Yeah. And some of them are off.
>> Yeah. And they're going to be looking at the clock and saying, "I'm going to do this for what?" >> Yeah. Um, is there any consideration on these in in systems that are serving commercial versus residential?
>> Uh, I filtered all the stuff that I sent out as single family residential. >> Okay. Because in here, which is the big >> Yeah. There's plenty of uh >> there's some commercial that are really >> and there's Yeah. Commercials are not
working. >> Oh, really? Yeah. I um >> and I would suggest that there are certain commercials that you're not going to work because they don't use a whole lot of water. So, their concentrations are going to be really high.
>> Okay. >> Uh they're off they have offices in them or something like that. So, it's not like they're getting a whole lot of use, >> but the concentration would be high. So, you know, people are taking wizards, but you know, >> but if there's a hotel, for example,
that does not appear to be functioning, >> right? >> That would be worth pursuing. >> That's would be worth pursuing. >> Yeah. Bigger impact. >> Yeah. Big hotels tend to be on the groundwater discharge permit white door.
>> Um I 311 Gford >> 31 Gford. What's 311 Gford? >> That's the >> No, no, couldn't mess it. >> Oh yeah, that's on a uh that's one of my
systems, right? >> No, the the the >> it's a modular fasting to this though. So 311 to Gford is broken down. So Mike McGrath does the memory care section, the old part of it. >> That's the atria, right? >> The atria other section is the fast. So
the fast unit 311 is the one that is the newer part that is not a memory care part. That's >> okay. So that's not the that's not the mess that >> correct. >> Okay. Because it maps maps. I think it would be I could be >> No, I looked at the I didn't look at GIS, but
>> yeah, >> um >> is it groundwater discharge? >> I don't know. It's uh I don't know. >> You think the memory ch would be? >> I would think so, too. That's got to be >> No. 311 is I don't This is Google
mapping it behind Jack's restaurant. So, >> yeah. I don't know. Anyway, so that was my question is, you know, is is >> I think we've got to all of them, but commercial is a horse.
We have to go after them. Even this system is going to be a big residential system. We don't have any big resins, >> right? >> Yeah. I wasn't aware that this was going to be a um
>> rental only, single single owner, single operator. Well, that in some sense that's really simplifies. >> It does. >> It reduces the it reduces my concern in terms of having, >> you know, the resources for an operator, a close operator attention to this.
>> We're off we're off the >> Sorry. Okay. >> Uh, okay. >> Anything else on that? >> Thanks, George, for all that work you're doing. >> Okay.
Moving on to review and approve minutes January 27th. >> General note, I would get um just do a search and replace and do a consistent title five capital T title and then the number five >> and on the first page 54 Sam Turner Road
the paragraph Mr. Voidfielder clarified terminology. I think that is supposed to say title five that are not necessarily in alignment with this system >> uh sorry page one the same 54 Sam road
item >> the paragraph beginning with Mr. Hoyfelder >> so is this correct that >> oh not nec not necessarily in So, >> yeah. Right. Isn't that what the point of this is?
>> Don't you make >> uh is it correct that both George Hfelder and Scott would agree to do some followup action items on that? >> Right. Did those happen? >> I did. I followed up. I didn't get any
reply from Southeast region at all. I called say twice. uh um and have not had a return call yet. I'm going to keep bargaining them because we have there's two things I'm going to ask about. One is this and the
other is with the IIA systems we're getting a lot of um ADUs which requires certain things for two specific types and things like that. Well, if they use an IIA system, which a
lot of them will, how does that two compartment tank thing do for something like a fast? I mean, because two could go into a fast, but it's not a two compartment septic tank. So, does it just go with
the technology? I want something in writing from them on that, but also this one, which is the urine tank, >> which I have not heard from yet. Okay. >> I prepared by a letter a an approval
from the board and what findings they might have should they ever get that approval with a set of bindings. Uh because it's either going to be treated as a variance from title five or variance from the titank regulations in title five. I'll share that if I ever
hear from DET and then we can move forward with that approval and give it an official set of findings and requirements and conditions. That's what >> Okay. And so that they're just going to
wait on that until we hear something from the D. >> Yep. I mentioned to him Scott I mentioned to Dutch Brown to pipe through that tank completely so that There's nothing going into it for storage until we hear from
>> D. Scott, what were you going to do there? >> I don't recall. >> I think you were going to do the same thing. See if you could rouse some. >> Yeah, I think that that's what the minutes say, but I have to go back to my notes. I don't have my notes.
>> You'll ascertain code compliance. >> Good reminder. um question. I'd let it go at the time. So, these minutes are probably probably are are accurate, but 554 173 Mtox Road.
Mike Borscelli uh referred to an earlier version of our regulations that um a raise and reconstruct is new construction. Um, that's not it's an increase in flow, right? Isn't
>> the razor rebuilds are are included in your dite requirement regardless of whether you're adding >> Okay, fine. All right. So, I couldn't remember what I wrote. All right, never mind. >> That's our to it. It's fine. >> In the motion for that item, I was just trying to figure it out. Pedify variance
is required and that new construction, I think it's new construction will apply, comma, with the standard set of conditions. >> Is that right? Okay. >> Okay. So, width you're adding. >> Okay.
The discussion Uh it's the bottom of page uh five. um that the uh
lead letter had gone out two years ago and the question is are they keep track and then they sent it out again. >> And the question is are they determining
who responded the first time? So the no progress is letter went out uh two years ago. And are they sending out the letter repeatedly to the same people even if
they've responded? >> I'm lost where we are. We're starting on the bottom of page five. >> Okay. >> 7:15 discussion. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So the letter went out two years ago was sent out again without it being known if
to the same recipients. >> Uh two recipients of the first one who had already responded. Are they asking the same? >> Yeah. >> Emily on page three
under 85 brick kil says Mr. program at the beginning of the paragraph. What I was saying was once the plus unit was installed that would be capitalized uh the system properly set up is now
ready to be performed. Is that what it's called George? Plus >> the sorry >> capitalized. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Plus >> I think it's a plus sign right George? Yep. >> Yeah. >> Oh, plus sign. >> They wrote it on their plan as pl
>> they I thought it was plus sign. >> That'd be really confusing in a sense. >> Yeah, >> but the way it's depicted in their plan set or the word. Yes. >> So, I added So, it's once the amp drone plus unit.
>> Perfect. Thank you. The freshwater pond quality continued discussion outside. We discussed sending letter directly to select board members ahead of joint meeting. Submit old letter regarding cost accommodation as an additional topic.
Did Did we draft a letter? >> I believe we did. Sorry, where are you? >> Uh I'm in the I'm on page five of the freshwater pond quality. >> There's a draft letter that when I asked the end of the week, George, is that a final draft? You tweeted the week >> last week tweaked it.
>> That letter that I wrote, I thought that Kevin was going to put the final touch on it. >> Okay. >> And should I um go ahead and send it to the selector? >> If you do that, please CC me. So I have an archive of it. That's all. >> Okay. >> And then we're saying submit old letter
from the board regarding cost accommodation. >> Is that a separate thought that >> that is the cost accommodation is what we >> talk about. I just didn't do that because it became clear that they already had seen it.
>> Yeah. >> Connected with the >> But it was >> But yeah, maybe we just get rid of that sentence because it's kind of confusing. Wait, Jed, you you want to keep it? >> Just make it there >> because it doesn't have to do with >> I understand that but it was part of the discussion. So, it should be part of our
minutes. >> Then we should be clear regarding cost accommodation on IA >> or it could even say fair distribution of cost. >> Hey, there you go. I had no idea what that sentence piece was about.
>> You're the one who brought it up. Absolutely. >> Because it was out of context, it was hard to >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I didn't >> I know we're I didn't raise the point yet earlier, but the whole 7030 split just is sort of this mysterious
>> I it's our but the point is fair. Whatever Whatever you know Yeah. We we'll see. It doesn't really matter what we say right now. It matters whatever this >> Oh, yeah. >> this this committee decides. >> Oh, yeah. Absolutely. But but I'm just saying, you know,
>> it's >> something. >> Okay. >> I have no sense of whether they were interested in it or not. >> Yeah, they were. >> Well, yeah, >> we can talk about that in a minute. Um,
>> anything else on the minutes? Motion to accept the minutes of January 27th as amended. >> Second. >> All right. All in favor? >> Okay. New business and schedule future meetings. Is there any um
there anything we should do in response to our discussion tonight with the select board? Any new agenda items? Any new discussions we should have to follow up? Do we have an expectation of them following up with us or
>> on the on the fair distribution cost and the size of the committee? >> Not until they actually take action and they ask for one of us to participate. I don't think we will need to discuss with them again unless anyone else >> unless they sort of Yeah. If they don't,
>> if we don't see anything happening there, >> I mean, I think >> what's a reasonable amount of time to >> um Well, I think that the water quality management committee will actually continue to push this
um and they are they are advisory, but they are definitely active and their meetings are um reasonably their meetings are well public well reported. I should say. >> Mhm. >> So, I'm sure you are, too.
>> Yeah. Thank you. Right. >> Oh, by the way, now that you're here, I can embarrass you. Congratulations on your degree. >> Thank you very much. >> What was it? >> I got a MFA creative writing.
>> This is pretty creative, >> right? >> Is that I follow everything now. I know so much about that. I thought I would. >> You should see never wanted to >> because a I need to leave and even more women on the board.
>> Right. >> Right. >> Such a appealing offer. However, >> um did I hear my did Chairman Mscali say that they select board is looking to um change it. So any regulations we might will go through them or was that
specific to a certain item? >> It was not clearly stated. What was he saying? >> It was specific to the shortterm rental bylaw. >> Yes. >> And if the short-term rental bylaw were to be set up in such a way that it
um allowed for additional regulations to be promagated by whoever >> that his desire would be to have those regul that those regulations subject to approval of
the select board. Um my opinion of that is that if they want they they want to do it then the select board should do it. It should not there shouldn't be we're a regulatory board and and it
shouldn't be something that goes to the select board. If select board wants to do it, the select board should do it. And it should be >> it's public health. They can't I mean >> well that's what the >> the deal is chapter 2 is chapter two. You send an inspector into a place to do
an inspection under chapter 2 state sanitary code. They cannot unsee what they see. >> They have to write enforcement. For whatever reason, this bylaw is supposed to come with a future board of health
regulation on top of it. >> I think that was the intent of this bylaw, >> which I found a little different because usually we have bylaws. We have regulations. I don't need to follow two. >> They don't overlap each other. >> Yeah. But I think the intent was that you would have a future regulation that
would require the public health component of the registration. >> Well, the public health component is already in front of us. We can't go less than check to the code. >> No, but you can make a requirement that they have to be inspected >> often. >> And they have to fully comply with the
state sanitary code and they have 21 days to fix or they can rent for this and you could get you can make a regulation on top of it. >> Yeah. The >> do something like that. So here's the thing. I'm just going to caution if we do that. There's you guys, as you know,
>> there's a lot of things we regulate >> and on the on the scale of importance, having one or two full-timers doing nothing but rentals and then having a part-timer do food and having a third party do our communical disease makes
absolutely no sense to a health agent. got all >> that's my only thing and I have cautioned everybody who's on the short-term rental is that yes to certain people the short-term rental thing is extremely important >> but what's if we we need to think about
ranking things and do we have a 20% of the health department dedicated to chasing short-term rentals when long-term rentals are much more of a public health issue than short-term rentals because >> the short-term person could go home >> or the short-term person can deal with
it for a week. The long-term person is stuck there for a very extended period of time. >> So I from a public health standpoint, could I not write this please? >> Back ass is the way it's what's the way this whole thing is working with short-term right
>> but there was there has been a death >> of somebody at a house that was an Airbnb that didn't have a smoke or fire alarm. >> Yes. And it could just as well have been
somebody break their neck on a step that wasn't in good repair. >> Yeah. >> So my inclination would be say just what you did. You have to meet the code and we outsource that. They find their sanitarian to go in and do it and ours can go in and inspect. Interesting.
>> And then they issue the give you the report and say that property met the code. >> Yeah. That way there's no full-time person doing it. The only thing you do is get yourself an electronic reporting system for chapter 2, the state sanitary
code. Have them go right through and do the clicking and that's it. >> Interestingly, the building code says that thou shall be done annually. >> Oh, that's their code for >> the building code. Just put it in there starting the building code.
>> Good luck with that. But their building code is not the senary code. No, but think about this. Think about this. If it's going to if it's going to work its way out to be that requirement, a CSL or otherwise sort of CSL means a construction supervisor's license. That's how it was originally written. I
can see a scenario where the building department, health department have a housing department with both criteria met in one inspector because you could do that in one inspector do both, >> right? >> You're not going to want to physically have two people driving around in town.
I agree. chasing short-term rentals and not I'd rather have people triple up on my restaurants. I mean, it's just the way I look at public health. I'd rather have a communical disease nurse full time sitting in my office rather than using the VNA. >> I'm going to eat a restaurant. I'm not going to rent a short-term rental in
town. >> That's the problem with this whole direction that we're going. >> That's >> um uh if I might for a future agenda item. Wait, one before we leave this for one very quickly. I know I got to go home,
too. Um, if we if the intent was that the board of health was actually going to pass a regulation, >> I it would have been great to know that because that we might have had. >> So, I I don't know if the select board knows that. I I just think when they thought about this that they you would build on a regulation. Okay.
>> I don't think the group knew that per se. I just know as the short-term rentals working and the way this was originally come, it's been several years and different iterations over the Oh, I know that that was brought up in the past. I don't know if it's still true. >> So, so the short-term rental bylaw kept
changing right up to the time that the select board like the >> Friday before the select board was going to review it in terms of of inclusion on the warrant. So, um I think that there
are probably still changes that need to be made to it and you know some of the question some of this debate will come on town meeting floor and it might be if the board of health is in >> you may want to have this as a future agenda item on the next agenda to review. >> Okay. So, so I think uh it would be
probably appropriate for example for the chair >> on town meeting floor >> to discuss whatever issues the board of health >> might have with this >> with this bylaw that we haven't read yet
>> because it indirectly involves us. >> Okay. So definitely put that on the agenda. >> That is a topic for next meeting. Sure. Um >> uh we we um in in reviewing these minutes reminded me that we did have a
question about for the water superintendent. >> Yeah. >> Um we obviously have had challenges getting the water superintendent to respond to us directly. Um, I think uh we could put a letter together to with
certain response items that we want from the water superintendent, send it to the water superintendent's boss and the town manager and as well and say we would like to have a discussion of these particular items
amongst them. the lead letter response, the the response rate, any data that they have on it, uh drinking water protection, including status, the monitoring wells, um zone A incursions,
um and uses um zone B protections and the status um and any other status updates on freshwater protection, for example, the ponds and and the the implications of cyanobacteria. blooms in
the ponds that have uh drinking water wells adjacent to I don't know if there are other topics of particular interest that but I think I think we need to keep moving on this. Yeah, I think there's the permit.
Remember, they said they were going to renew the whole permit because of uh the new treatment plant. >> Having the disinfection and they had a scoring that they had to to see how critical something was,
>> but that changed as soon as a new plant went in. And >> are we in the process of reviewing? >> Okay. >> And renewing that. I think there was supposed to be a a whole redoing of that, >> right? Okay. >> There was uh there was also just the the
long pond management plan, >> right? >> Uh management. >> Okay. >> That that was supposed to be reviewed in context of the new treatment plan because the old one had a whole thing about uh I think giardia and everything
else. But that changed when the disinfection >> Yeah. uh >> changed and other process changes. >> Uhhuh. But it also that that plan also indicated that the board of health would be >> yes
>> consulted on v in various ways and that never happens. And um you know I know Jed you you mentioned by email in the runup to this meeting and to the meeting the joint meeting question of the YMCA.
>> Oh right. What did you what what are you thinking? >> Why can't the YMCA be in sewer? >> Yeah, me too. But that's a little I mean the horse has already left the barn, right? I mean, we're pretty far down the road with that. >> We approve a septic plan. It means that
their septics installed by any means. >> No, they barely ground. >> Are they with >> just broke ground? >> Did they Oh, they >> Well, technically speaking, they broke ground. Did they get the permit forgiven? >> Permit fee. >> Yeah, that was a request. >> That was a request. I have no idea.
>> Let's add that to the list that we'd like to talk to the superintendent about. Then is uh you know, >> was it the right decision to to the septic system in where the YMCA is? And if not, is there any recourse?
>> Just talk with about it a minimum. >> Talk to them about >> the water. water. >> It's waste water. You' be talking to the waste water. >> No, no. >> So, protection along pond area. >> Oh, I see. Just >> Yeah. Yeah. Because >> should we uh >> It might be both.
>> And I mean, supposedly if the process went correctly, he would have been apprised like you said, the water superintendent should have seen the plan and signed off on it, >> right? Or raised the flag. >> Or raised the flag. >> Yeah. There should have been
communication between this department and this department, right? >> Uh >> because we went right to the IIA system. >> Yeah. >> Um so that's future. >> Yes.
>> Uh well, also what there were some other things that we hoped to talk with the select board about that weren't on the agenda. And you know, maybe some of that's on me because I'm >> No, I list There was the ponds commond. >> Well, the pond letter wasn't done yet, so I didn't put the ponds, but there was
other things on there that like conservation around >> pond. We put that on there, too. >> Yes, they didn't put that on the agenda. I think they think it's going to be handled with the pending um town meeting article to hold. >> Okay, good.
>> Looks like that's >> all right. Anything else? All right. Second. All in favor? >> I oppose.