Okay, we're off and running. Okay, good evening everybody. Grandby Board of Health 15 July 2026 and Lee's here as well. Good evening, Lee. >> Hey, Bill. How are you? >> Very good, sir. Thank you. Um,
>> good. Good. What we'll do is uh we have a kind of a special meeting tonight. We have a regulatory review on the perk test season at 7:35. So I'd like to go through uh the laundry list before we start with Al Weiss at
7:15. So meeting minutes on for June 30th, 2026. Mile Lee, did you guys see any issues with the minutes? >> None on my side, Bill. None on my side. >> Miles, you good with those?
>> I am. >> Okay, Colleen, we're good with the minutes. Thank you. >> Okay, >> just highlight those. Okay, Colleen's time sheets. You have two time sheets, Colleen. One for the end of Oh,
I see what you did. You had to break it up because of the fiscal year, I guess. >> Yes. >> Okay. The first one was uh um 17 1/2 hours and that was through the end of the
fiscal year on the 30th and the second was acred on 1 July through uh the 11th for 38.9 hours. So, um, Lean Mile, you good with Colleen's time
sheet? >> Yes, I am. >> Okay, I am, too. Colleen, we're all set with that. Thank you. >> Okay. Okay. Next, money turnover for the 15th. Let's take a look. Okay. Permits, incoming permits, $500.
Licenses 200, fees 250. So, total revenue 950. All checks, no cash. So, we brought in 950 for the period ending 15 July. Uh
Lee, Mile, you guys good with that? I am. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Yours truly, Bill Shaheen. Invoice for inspections. Obviously, I'm going to recuse myself on this one. Uh, Colleen.
So, Lee, why don't you take that? >> So, Colleen, you have some invoices for uh for Bill Shaheen's uh inspections. he turned in. Um, so Bill is not going to vote on this.
It'll be me and Mile only. Uh, I would make a motion to accept the invoices and have Colleen uh, start the proceedings to make that payment. If you're good with that, Mile, then we can um, get right past this.
>> Okay, perfect. Then, uh, we should proceed with that direction. Thank you very much. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you, Lee. And and similar for Mile. Mile submitted a an inspection. Um >> Yep. >> for 35. And uh Lee, you're good with
that? >> Yeah, I would I would fully support um having that invoice taken care of. >> Okay. So, we're all set with that, Colleen. Thank you. >> Okay. >> All right. Now, we have FY26 bills payable for this is the mileage only.
Mile had uh $2.40 and calling mileage to town hall 3680. So that's FY26. >> Are we good with that? >> Yes. Yes. Thank you. >> Okay. Mile, >> I'm recused, aren't I?
>> Uh he he can't comment. >> Oh, you're on your own. Yes. Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. Yep. So, I'm good with that, Colleen. Thank you. >> Okay. Yeah. And you had some, too. So, recuse on yours. >> Okay, I'm recused on that.
>> Okay. Yeah, we got it. >> Okay, thank you. Okay, this is fiscal year 27. So, this starts July 1. Bills payable to uh MHA for um membership $75
and the mosquito district 5280. That's $5,250. Not 5250. 5280. That's a mile. It's 5250. And I was asking Colleen what that entails. Colleen, could you just
reiterate what that money what that goes to? >> Uh, well, they come out and they set the traps and um keep uh an eye on all of that through the season. So that's yeah,
that was that was voted in to do and as far as I know it goes uh you know every year. So, I think we've been doing it the last uh well, I don't know if it's five years, but uh yeah, the last several anyway, right,
Lee? I think >> Lee, remember years ago we used to have the mosquito dunks? >> Not here. >> Yes. So those round little discs that they would put in different um catch basins in uh so forth in different parts
of town. Yeah, I remember that. >> Yeah. So, I was talking to Colleen prior to opening up tonight, and maybe she could call one of the uh one of these groups to find out if they're available, what the price might be, because I always thought that was a fine solution
for residential folks to be able to buy or be given some of the dunks to put in standing water on their properties. >> Yeah, it seemed uh very reasonable on a cost per dunk um that's the right term
basis. But I guess my question Colleen, do we have uh any reports from this company from the Pioneer Valley People? >> Yes. uh control district as to the um
numbers of West Nile or other >> they do they do send us I can forward any that we've gotten um I think usually if I see you know depending on what it is if it says West Nile or whatever I do send it along. So, um, but
>> there is >> they keep us informed on what they're doing. Mhm. And >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, it's not just us throwing $200 out the window. It's actually >> hopefully not.
>> Well, yeah. I mean, it's it's cheap insurance if you get if you get bit or somebody does get bit. Uh so I'm assuming that uh either there is very little activity and maybe that's all due in fact to the uh program that they're
administering throughout the valley. So it's probably a good thing. >> Yeah, they go to different locations in town and put traps and then test the mosquitoes. >> Okay. Just for a for positive versus
>> that's what they're doing. Oh, I see. Okay. >> Yeah, that that's what they're doing. Yeah. >> Okay. Mile, would it make sense to you to pursue those mosquito dunks if they're available at a reasonable cost? >> Yeah. BTI has been shown time and again
to be reliable. It's not a huge impact on the um I guess like the sort of you know species reliance mosquitoes as long as you're doing within reason. The big
thing I encourage people is if they uh create ova traps with them, which is when you use a five gallallon pail with a two or three gallons of water in it and and you put a little grass clippings and you put a dunk in there, essentially creating a a trap. It's pretty >> Oh, I see. I gota Okay.
>> Very effective. And you can use them as like, you know, repositories around a property. The thing I make sure people know is that they need to do two things. is put u some kind of like a yogurt container lid in there so they can
actually observe uh what's occurring if there's dead larvae if there's flotillas of eggs activity. It's very hard to tell without that because of the way the water changes from the the organic matter breaking down. And the secondly and
probably most importantly is monitoring them uh regularly because those dunks are only good for about 30 days. Usually you could get away with half a dunk in that much water, but if you let it lapse, that will become a breeding ground for the mosquitoes. And then
lastly, you got to make sure there's a stick in there so that way if there's a rodent or a critter that falls in, they can get out. And I >> Okay, ask me how I found that one out. >> Okay. Well, actually, that that's really informative. Colleen, could you put this
for discussion on an agenda item for next meeting? >> And we'll have Mile, we'll have you reiterate this talk, but we'll put it on the agenda, Mile, because I think this is the perfect time of year to discuss this. >> Sure. >> Lee, does that make sense? >> Yeah, it's Yeah, this is the perfect
time to >> Yeah. No, it's it's a fine time to discuss this. And I that's a very fine idea, Mile. I've never never heard of that approach. That's excellent. So, um, running on this same topic, um, I don't
know how it works, but the town, uh, does have some type of a, uh, you know, uh, voice activated system for different announcements, town meetings, uh, things of that nature. Is
that something that maybe a little shot could be mentioned on that thing or is that for emergency situations only? >> Uh I believe we have to get permission. >> Yeah, I think that I think the selectmen operate that.
>> Yes. >> Yeah. And I think there's some particular about what goes out for notification. And I think >> I'm not even on the list. I used to be on the list. You have to actually sign up to be on that notification list nowadays. >> They Yeah, they lost somehow they lost a
lot of the names. So, you have to resign up. >> Okay. >> Or the red code red, I think it is, or whatever. But I think it's there's a blurb on the uh website about doing that because they lost a lot of their names. They don't have a lot of the town on it now.
>> Okay, good enough. >> Oh, that's not going to work. Okay. All right. All right. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. So, I guess our next item is um a disposal permit for 149 Taylor for Neil Neil.
>> Um I don't remember which one that was. >> That's 149 Taylor, which is >> Is that a Dbox? >> Well, let me see. Hold on. It's Natalie Hill property. >> It's a It was a conditional pass.
>> Yeah. Yeah. That's it's going to be a distribution box. >> It's a D box. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah. Is it Dbox only? I see. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Oh, I It's a good size system. And the
system was 149. Taylor Is it a debox and a tank or just a debox? >> Just a debox. >> Just a debox. Okay. Uh my are you good with that? >> All good with it. >> Okay, I'm good with it. Lee, you're good. >> Yes. Thank you.
>> Okay, we're all set. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Hold on. I got to just send one quick message here. Okay. Okay. Next one. Well, permit app for lots nine and 10 East State Street.
That's the Wallers property across from the uh ice cream parlor. And that's Connecticut Valley Joe Dilk. And let's take a look at that one. I was looking at it about five minutes ago.
Here it is. Is Al Weiss on online? I don't see him on here. >> Okay. Lee, this is the Wallers's property. It's right on 202
right across from Cindy's Ice Cream. >> Yes. Yeah, I saw uh I saw a clearing on that location a couple weeks ago. >> And Colleen, when did we approve that plan? It was the plan was dated March of this year. When did
>> April April 3rd? >> Okay, so that's approved and I guess that's the same plan. So, I don't see any reason not to approve this. So, are you good with this, Mile? >> Yep. >> Lee, you're good with it?
>> Yes. I spoke to uh Mr. Wallers earlier today. Um, and he's supposed to get uh Joe Dilp to give me a call to meet him on site to uh locate the wells on these
two parcels, which >> Excellent. Okay. Yeah, >> that's not happening. >> Yeah. And you have to Yeah, I think the two parcels are kind of combined now. But the important thing is the well arc is very very close to this the
proposed septic tank. So, uh make make sure you you just care carefully do the layout on this one. >> Okay, gotcha. >> Okay, very good. Okay, we're all set. Thank you. >> Okay. Okay, next one. Temporary food
permit for Immaculate Heart of Mary, uh, Summerfest of this year. So, let's take a look at that. Let's see. That's Father Budro Barbecue Chicken. Lee, they do this
every year, don't they? >> They do, in fact. Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. I'm I'm good with this one. Mile, you good with this? >> Are you good with this project? Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. Colin, I am too. So, that's all
set. Thank you. >> Next one. Um, installers permit for uh Daniel Bernache. And he's had a permit. He gets permits every year, doesn't he? >> Uh, he has had permits. His last permit was a few years ago, though.
>> All right. Well, just take a look. >> So, he lives at 165 Chap Street in town. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. It's a house he's building, just so you know. >> Oh, that's the one you did the design, didn't you, Neil? Oh, yeah. That's a beauty. >> Oh, I see. So, he's getting this permit
for his own house then. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> All right. Fair enough. Okay. I'm good with that one. Neil or Mile? >> I am. >> Lee, we're all good. Thank you. >> We're all good. Okay. Thank you. Okay.
Now, we have appointments. It's now 7:17 and um our first appointment is Al Weiss. Al. Well, I think El may not be showing up for this. Lee, why don't you brief us on your findings at Seven Green Meadow last week?
>> Sure. Um, we met on site uh Josh Kler that did a couple deep holes off the uh edge of a of the raised SAS. It's a pump system. Little standing water at the bottom. 49 in maybe 47.
>> Is it my audio or or >> I can't hear I can't hear very well. >> Okay Lee, your audio is cutting out. >> Okay. Is that better now? >> Yes. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay. So, uh we dug two deep holes.
Uh found the modeling. Uh went down about 10 ft. Uh there was some standing water uh well below the uh well below the system. Uh went walked through the garage at
length looking for floor drains. There was none present. um grabbed a handful of soil and um for what good it did try to uh breathe deeply across the soil
looking for some trace amounts of VOCC's or oil >> that I could determine. Right. >> Um, and Allan took several samples of water to the lab with some he had some
special vials that he presented and took the samples and went to the lab. So, the samples were in the lab probably within no more than 20 minutes of the water sample. And I haven't been
appraised as to the results of that. Uh but again, it was looking for some hydrocarbons and other contaminants in the soil. Uh I don't
know that it's negative, but I anticipate that it will be if I can make that assumption. >> Okay. >> Um didn't find anything. The auto body business for the most part is inactive right now. I understand that the owner of the property has suffered a coronary
event um some years ago which has precluded him from doing any work. >> So the business is there um in location only but there's nothing going on.
Okay. I'm just curious, did he use the little brown vials with the tefloncoated caps? >> These were clear, but yeah, they were they were a teflon cap. >> Okay. Yeah, that's that's typical for for VOCC's. That's good. And again, I
looked at the analytical results from the lab at Quabin and their outsourced lab, Phoenix, and everything was in compliance. So, that's a go. >> Oh, so so that's perfect. >> Yeah. And also, did you take a did uh
did you or Al look in the garage to see if there's evidence of a past floor drain? >> I did. Um Al walked through it prior to my arrival. And when I got there, I went
through every aspect of the garage, including the uh spray area. Um there was some steel plates on the floor which they were using for in the past for frame straightening
but there was no evidence of any floor drain um anywhere in that building. >> Okay, good. Okay, so I guess we're we're clear to approve that project going forward that design. Colleen, >> okay, >> my you good with that? >> Totally agree.
>> Okay, so we're all good with that. So, seven Green Meadow is uh good to go. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Okay. Uh got another couple of minutes here. I guess Al's not here, so we covered his project. Uh this one 149 Carver, not Taylor, but Carver.
And this is an inspection by uh Ernie Mcool. That's Lori Mcool's husband. Um let me call that one up. Okay, this is the PA property
and it passes. System was designed and installed in 93 and I actually looked at the uh existing design. Oh, this is one of Jean Galooa. Remember Jean Galooa, Neil?
>> Uh, no. >> No. Jean Galooa developed he was he did a lot of development work in Belchuretown in Upper Carver Street in Granby. >> Oh, Pete Galooa. >> No, Jean. >> Oh, really? Okay. I knew Pete >> Jean Galooa. This is back in the 90s.
>> Okay. >> And anyway, and it's funny because I'm looking at the signature on the permit and it was uh it was Dick and myself. Um, actually, Lee, were you on the board in 93?
>> Um, I might have just got on. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Because Dick and I signed it. I think it was Bob Senior that actually did the design. So, I'm looking at the design now. But anyway, that's lot six carver,
which um I guess is number 149 currently. And it's a good size system, 1,080 square ft of leeching area. And I I think we should uh accept
uh Ernie Mcool's inspection on that one. Uh Miles, do you have any comments? >> No, none. I agree. >> Yeah. Lee, are you good with that? >> Yeah, I am. Thank you. >> Okay. So, we've we've accepted that one, Colleen. >> Okay.
>> Okay. coming up on 25 after. So, the next one is Neil's. It's 80R. Now, Neil, that was that was Lenny Lasers's old property, wasn't it? >> That I'm not sure about. >> Yeah, because there was a there was a
fellow there was a >> Christmas tree farm out there. >> Yeah, that the big parcel I think it changed hands a couple of times. Len Laser of US Builders, I think, owned it at one time. So this is ADR. So let's take a look at it.
This is Miss uh Myinski. >> And it looks like um you and Dick went out there on the 20th of April. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Water table at 58. Was it Was it tight till? Was it
>> Yeah, it was Yeah, it was pretty tight. >> It was bony till you came in at 22 minutes an inch. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> It wasn't horrible for that soil. >> Yeah. And let me take a look at the design. I think I sent you some comments
a couple of days ago. Um, oh yeah, there's Did you correct the typos that I had called out? >> Um, the per testate I did. >> Yeah, because you you've got it at 221
minutes an inch. So, that's obviously >> that doesn't that one doesn't pass. >> Yeah, that doesn't pass. >> Yeah. And the only concern I have, I talked to Dave Desa on conservation about this and this is one that I would
really prefer you to file for an RDA on right away, please. >> Okay. >> Okay. Could you do that? And then once that's gets in the works, we can revisit the approval of this next meeting. Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. So, that's ADR East Street.
That's on hold uh till next meeting. They're going to be filing with conservation. Uh Lee and Mile, you good with that? >> Yes. >> Okay, thank you. Oh, one of your pipe elevations I think is off too, Neil. The upper trench, the
uh pipe end. Check your numbers. There's a discrepancy in your numbers on that. >> Okay. >> Okay. Anyway, that's good. Okay. So, that takes care of that. um approval for building department applications.
I think we had a 154 Pleasant. They have to submit the septic plan so we know where it is before they build their structure. And the same thing at uh it was 220 Taylor. Uh that's Laura Gay's house. I think they got to do the same
thing. And Colleen, there's one more, wasn't there, that we looked at. Uh, well, I know somebody talked to me about the It's the first one on the list. It must be the most recent one. Um,
I thought it was Jabe Street, but I don't have the list with me. >> Okay, that's we we can deal with that. >> That could be deal with. >> Bill, there's a couple other things on the list to be signed. Uh, the two mobile food permits for Latitude Restaurant.
>> Oh, okay. Okay. >> Okay. at uh for some events at Deer Creek Farm. >> Oh, this is Latitude Burgers and Latitude Pizza. >> Yes. And they are operate out of Latitude. The Latitude Restaurant in
West Springfield. >> West Springfield. Yeah, that's that's actually a that's actually a very nice restaurant. >> It is. Yes, it is a nice restaurant. >> Yeah. Okay. And the owner is Jeffrey. Yeah. See, >> can can you read his I'm trying to read his last name.
>> Yes. Handwriting is uh Om. It looks like D A I J N W. Maybe. I'm not sure. >> Wait, his name. Wait a minute. Let's see if this >> Okay. >> Oh, yeah.
Anyways, yeah. D A I G. >> Oh, here it is. Yeah, Dano. Dano. D A G N E A D. Okay. Okay. So, he's got his safe serve. He's got his allergen awareness training. He's got his workman's comp and he's got his
liability insurance certificate and he also submitted his common vitular license in West Springfield, which is fine. So, yeah. Do you guys see any problem with either of those two submitts, the pizza place and the burger facility?
>> Those look good to me. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Are you good? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Okay. >> This is interesting though on on the pizza. >> Oh, I see. He's He's calling his
facility woodfired pizza. So he's not he does not have a woodfired pizza oven in his mobile food truck. >> I see. All right. So again, it's the same same submitt package. All right. So we're good with that, Colleen. Thank you.
>> Okay. Great. And then there was a COC for 288 Ammerst Street. >> Let's see. 280. Oh, 288. I see that. I see that. Let's take a look at that. Okay. Al Weiss design. Donnie has put it
in 288 Ammerst. Oh, that was a Martin Liberty. Was that a new buildout for Martin Liberty Lee? >> Yes, it's way in the back. >> Okay. >> Um Donnie Hes just completed the septic.
Uh the house is Oh yeah, I'm looking at the plan. It is way, way, way out back. Wow, >> that's way out back. There is a trailer on the property with a little solar panel next to it. I >> Yeah,
>> doesn't mean anything. Maybe they're living there while they're building. I don't know. >> Yeah, >> but the SAS is is in the wells in. Uh they're just going to start framing pretty quick, I guess. >> Okay. Okay.
I'm just trying to think. 288 because I know there's a >> It's It's just past uh on Ammer Street. You go >> It's just past It's past Bachelor Street, right?
>> Yeah. Just coming from the notch. Once you go past Bachelor at your next left, there's two driveways side by side. first one next to Bachelor. Uh heading up into the woods. >> Okay. Okay.
I don't I don't think they came before conservation. And the only reason I ask is that's really close to a natural heritage estimated the habitat uh arc. But um because Neil Neil, are
you online? >> I guess not. Yes. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Neil, your property with Phoenix is that 294 or 284? >> 294. >> Okay. It's 294. So 288 is on the south side of Bachelor
Street. Is that right? >> Yes. >> Okay. Oh, I see it. Okay. It's It's one of Oh, I see. It's one of the projects on Aldridge Lake. All right. I know exactly which one that is. Okay. And um
Lee, how far from the lake was the system and you're just estimating? Oh. Uh, I don't know. Maybe five, six feet. >> Okay. Way off. >> All right. Okay. Okay. I got you then.
>> I'm just looking at the grades. >> Okay. Fair enough. >> All right. So, we're all set with that, Colleen. Thank you. >> All right. It is now almost 7:35. and we'll have our regulatory review. So, who do we have on board that wants
to join our discussion tonight? Neil, you're here for that discussion, correct? >> Yes, I am. >> Okay. Uh Paul, are you here for that discussion? >> And uh ma'am, are you here for the discussion on the >> Yes. Yes.
>> Regulations. >> Eva Chenres. Yes. >> Okay. Okay. And and Mile, did you invite some designers to this? >> Suare. >> I did. >> Are they here? >> I don't see them. So,
>> okay. All right. Well, I was I was hoping we'd have a whole bunch of folks here to have a nice lively discussion, but >> we'll have a lively discussion amongst ourselves, I guess. So mile um just for the record
this is um a beginning the board is now commencing a set of regulatory review topics this will carry on for many meetings many meetings I'd like to limit
discussion tonight simply on our perk test season what we call our normal season which has traditionally ally been March and April of every spring and I can actually read. Let me grab the
uh septic rags. And this is in our document which we promulgated last year which has actually been in effect for a long time but we actually promulgated
officially last year and it's entitled grand septic regulations more stringent than that defined in title five. So tonight's topic involves percolation tests and I'll read the uh three items of
interest for tonight. Percolation tests for new construction shall be conducted during the months of March or April. Number two, the called
or determined or designated high groundwater table for new construction must be made during the months of March or April. Okay. And number three is
the called groundwater level must be called at the higher of the actual observed water level or soil modeling. So you actually look at both parameters. The one that is most restrictive will control the design of the SAS. So those
those are the topics for tonight. Again, the March and April criterion. So, Mile, why don't you're the new guy on the block and I think you're most interested in this. So, why don't you why don't you lead off, sir?
>> Yeah. So, um in terms of actually conducting the percolation tests only in March and April, I did um literature review on this. Now, to kind of state my bias, I'm from a medical field. So
literature reviews and medical fields are very different as there is a a an incredible amount of research that might go into something like a new drug or a certain disease state and that's
always being cited by a billion different people. I find that in engineering literature that's not necessarily the same. So when things seem to be kind of demonstrated, they're mostly once they're rep replicated, it's
pretty demonstrable like that. So uh in terms of determining the water table in March and April, I think that we have Stal is the one locally
with the other author Morgan and they had a paper by the name of soil morphology water table cumulative duration relationships in southern New England. Um, and this is where they observed uh
20 different water tables or at different sites in southern New England over 18 months and essentially compared the redoxorphic features of the soil modeling to the actual water tables that
they um observed directly thereafter. and they found that the RMFs are pretty reliable in determining what the water table is like. So in terms of you know
establishing water table, I don't think there's really a lot of discussion in that regard. But in when it comes to percolation testing, I did not find that there was a lot of research looking at this specifically in um like time delineation
uh experiments. Um, one that I did find was by David Hill and uh, he had it's it's considered a bulletin, but it's um, percolation testing for septic tank drainage, principles of water flow and sight and
seasonal variation. Uh, and what uh, he found was that there is variation from season to season. Um but and this is probably no shock to anyone uh moisture content certainly has a lot to play with
that what they also found wasn't necessarily that percolation tests are more reliable during the months of March April because of the moisture content. It's that moisture contents can
vary from season to season. you can have a very an incredibly soggy August and then not have reliable results outside of those facts because someone performs the percolation test incorrectly.
So what I have kind of gleaned from that was that one of our most protective steps is that we have witness percolation tests. And I think that this is good because say I become a registered sanitarian and I don't know no one's going to witness my test. I
feel like I want to really kind of turn things up for my company and I think every single place has an 8minute perk and if no one's there to see it then someone's going to follow me and use those calcs.
>> The problem is with that the only people that benefit from that are the lawyers. The lawyers love people that operate that way. They love it. >> I hear you. I hear you. But I'm just saying, you know, this is like in a worst case scenario. And also the assumption is that people are going to
divert to behaving criminally or that we need to protect people for behave that way, right? is that having the witness test to me is what enables our soil evaluators or our people who
are going to perform the percolation tests to show that they're doing it reliably and that it's certainly the ground conditions leading into that test are important. But like any test,
the percolation test is not perfect, but it has a set of standards that need to be met. So we need to consider if us restricting people and their ability to proceed with their projects and the availability of people
that can actually perform these tests as well as well them being witnessed is actually more beneficial in the long run when we already have the most protective step in place which is a witness perk.
Well, I don't know if I go so far to say that. Okay. Anything else, Mile? Right now? >> Nope. >> Okay. All right. Let's back up a little bit. We got two topics on the table. One is the determination of a reliable
statistical high groundwater level. That's number one. Number two is the reliability of the percolation test itself. So let's talk let's talk on the first piece.
Back in the 90s there was a technical report put together by a company called Defo Weight and Associates and it was done for the Commonwealth of Mass DP. Actually it was D. It wasn't DEEQ.
It was D at that point and this was the pre precursor. It set the stage for the new Title 5 that came out in 1995 that we're essentially using today. And the main thrust of this was to use
science and engineering to develop a methodical method to design soil absorption systems. And of course on this board were a lot of people that are pretty well known. Uh, one was Pete Venamman, former
faculty member at UMass. Pete worked in soil science for many, many years. He and uh, a couple of his colleagues authored several papers on hydric soils and on uh, soil science with respect to
septic systems. And there are a couple of law firms involved. Rackommen Sawyer and Brewster and Rakcommen Environmental Services and a couple of other firms. But one of their main premises was how
do we reliably determine a water table. So that's where this whole idea of modeling came in. They said in certain soils the modeling that is the oxides if you will that form within a soil mass
are reliable means of determining the statistical high water table and statistically they even say in their study and the research points to this it's reliable eight years out of 10. So 80% of the time it's about where it is. Some years
it might actually be a little bit higher, but eight years out of 10 it's a reliable methodology. But there's one problem with the modeling approach. There's certain types of soils where it doesn't work very well. >> Yeah. Coarse sands.
>> Yeah. One of the coarse sands. The coarse sands, they don't work for various reasons. Most importantly, you don't have you don't have the iron coming in from above. The sequestering of the iron doesn't hang out at the water level at the water table long
enough to form an oxide because of the high permeability of the coarse sand and uh the fact that there's not enough biological activity in those soils as a result of the fact that you have high permeability to cause those reactions to
occur. So for those oxide reactions to occur, you need bugs and you need iron. And unfortunately in the coarse sands, it's not a reliable method. And if you look on page 48 of this Defo Weight
Associates report from the early 90s, it states exactly that. It says it's unreliable in coarse sands in Granby. Guess what? We have a lot of coarse sand sites. I think everyone would admit that. Neil, would you admit that we have a lot of coarse sandy sites?
>> You do have Y. >> Okay. Um, there's another type of soil in town that is equally difficult to determine water table. What is it, Neil? >> Well, some some of the the soils are have a red color to them. So, you
>> That's right. It's the reddish brown tilts. Because if the oxide forms as a result of biodegradation and oxygen oxidation reduction, guess what? The models are the same color as the matrix. So you can't see it. You can't see it.
Particularly in the summertime. In the summertime, you dig a hole in the summer in glacial till it's all dust. You dig the hole and there's dust all over the place. You can't see anything. So we have two types of soil in Grandby, which do not work really well with modeling.
One is the coarse sands and two are the red brown hills. And there's a lot of sites around town that fit that fit that description. So therefore, Dick Bombader and company decided years ago, you know, I think doing the March
April approach is a very fine safeguard to pick up problems with the modeling approach during the spring months. So that's why Grandby has always opted for March and April as their traditional high water season. Now on the perk end,
we have actually made a change. Years ago, you couldn't even perk out of season. Now there's out ofse perks. So if you do your deep holes in the spring and the whole reason is to establish your water table so that you have sufficient offset from the bottom of
your SAS and that and again if you research most failures of septic systems they occur for two or three reasons. The most predominant is water table too close to the water table or in the water table. The second is abuse of
the system by the homeowner i.e. put a garbage disposal in and don't tell anybody about it. Or number three is you got leaky toilets and you don't care and you're just pumping a thousand gallons a day through the system. Those are the three prime reasons systems fail. So if
we can at least control the first one, if we can make sure we have sufficient separation off the water table, chances of having disasters in town are minimized. And again, I don't have any definitive data, but I've been in the business long enough. Neil, you've been
in the business long enough. I would venture to say the failure rate of septic systems in Grandby that is bleeding out of the ground are lower than a lot of communities. Would you agree to that, Neil? >> Yeah. >> Okay. And this is the reason we do it.
We do it to help the homeowner. We do it not to help the lawyer. We don't want the lawyer to make money. We want the homeowner to execute clean property transfers with no headaches going forward. And that's the reason that we have established the March and April
season. And son of a gun, it seems to have worked for the last 50 years. So Lee, do you have any comments, sir? Um just to reiterate what you said about
uh course when I took my soil evaluators course at UMass they mentioned multiple times during the course that the geologic recharge in this area was
during March and April. Um and the other point that I want to mention is that the mass DP western regional office uh talks about doing deepole observation seasons and
they they have a December through April 30 time slot which they prefer. Um, and as you pointed out, we tuned it up a little bit more to only March and April. But
the other point that I think is important that I cannot recall that a building lot in town was never allowed to progress into somebody's home
site because of this regulation. Out of season perks have been done many times >> to accommodate the homeowners. Yes. >> To accommodate the homeowner. There hasn't been a single building lot that was ever refused or not used because of
this regulation. And as you pointed out uh correctly, this is done to ensure the homeowner uh an extra layer of safety and longevity of the SAS. It's not because
we want to be difficult. It's because we want them to get the absolute best that they can get. And again, I I think the inconvenience of a March and April uh deep pole season
along with the out of season perk, I think that's a very small price to pay for the additional statistical assurance that we will be calling the water table at its statistical maximum level. And I think
that's has again I don't see any evidence to the contrary. It seems to me as though all the evidence says that's worked really well for a long time and I would just I would recommend keeping it up. So So Mila, why shouldn't we keep this up?
>> No. Um actually before I answer that question, let's I just want to work back as well. So firstly, Bill, this was supposed to be a sciencebased discussion, correct? >> That's right. >> Okay, lovely. So you you just used the
three most deadliest words in medicine and they are in my experience. So I want to discourage anyone from saying Graanby has the lowest failure rates in their experience if we don't have data to back that up.
Do I Okay, hold on. Hold on. >> Do I not believe you? >> No. No. I I believe you. No, I think I think actually Colleen has the data, but it would take a lot. Colleen, you could dig that data up, couldn't you, if you had to? We're not going to ask you to do
it. But I think you have sufficient data in your file to determine systems that have broken out of out of the ground over the years because they would be reflected in the minutes of of our meetings >> and you can normalize them against other towns with similar soils.
>> If if if we if we could get other towns to participate in the survey, sure. So then that's not >> Sure. Sure we could. Oh >> okay. So so firstly there's there's that very very important point. Okay. Um and
secondly it just to make sure we're reading the same regulation. Percolation tests for new construction should be conducted during the months of April or March. But you guys are saying that we have an
outofse perk test available. >> Yes, we do. And that's been on the book. >> We should update our language. The language should be updated then and that should be made very clear so designers are can know what what the rules are when they want to want to play. >> Right.
>> Yeah. Hold on, Colleen. That's actually in there. We have to look through this very carefully. And then Bill, there is no denying that the proximity to the water table is the number one cause of >> system failure. But that's not the
question. The question is how close is close enough? >> Well, now that's going to be another topic for another. That's not tonight. That's not tonight's. >> I'm just, you know, academically jousting. Well, you know, I got I got plenty I got plenty of data. I got data from every state in the United States on
that that we can go through. No, I hear you. >> So, I think we can be very innovative. >> No, I hear you. >> And so, to go back to your question >> about why we shouldn't do this. I think we've all just done a really
good thought exercise and I think now is a good opportunity to turn it to Neil or any of the other people who are here that want to weigh in. >> Absolutely. That's why I'm glad Neil's here. I wish some of the other folks were here. I thought we'd have about a
consortium of a dozen designers, but apparently Neil's here. So Neil, what's your take on this situation? Well, I mean, I'd have to agree that, you know, in certain soils, it's really hard to determine my groundwater with just
modeling. I mean, I've been back to sites where I would have called the water table a lot lower and was in there there when the water was high and it was actually standing water, which I would have never guessed. But, so I I I do
agree. I mean, having the out of season perk kind of it makes it so you can live with it, I guess. >> Yeah. >> You know, I don't >> You're right. I I don't see that in our regulation. So, we're going to have to we're going to have to clarify our language on that. But, that's a good
that's a good pickup mile. >> Yeah. Because if you can do the out of season perk, then it doesn't slow things down. >> Right. Right. Right. because we did one a couple of weeks ago with you over on Trouy Street. >> Yeah,
>> that was technically not a season park. A little bit of history on this. Um, when I was doing a lot of septic work myself 20, 25 years ago, one community, which will remain nameless, they had similar regs to Granby, we had
to go in there in March and April, we had a really high water table and my client wanted the design for that property. We had to do it the oldfashioned way. We took the back hoe and we dug an island. We had to dig a circular trench around the perk area and
put pumps in there and dewater it. Talk about expensive. >> Yeah, that town doesn't have a perk season anymore. >> Yeah. I don't know. I don't know. All I know is I remember doing that distinctly and wow, what a project that was.
>> Oh, I've done that. >> Yeah. And again, the other way you've done it, you've done little cut off trenches with pumps or dewatering dewatering ditches. There's a lot of ways to do that, but the point that Miles's bringing up, it's always good to do your perk test in saturated soils.
You don't want to have unsaturated flow. There's there's problems with saturated flow versus unsaturated flow, which we're not going to get into tonight. But ideally, the best way to determine soil permeability or perk rate is with a
saturated system. And that's why you got your pre-oak. And of course, remember years ago, the we had the overnight soaks. Remember the overnight soaks years ago? Those are another pain in the neck. The state took those out about 15 years ago. >> Yeah.
>> So, anyway, so it's now 7:57. Um, uh, Lee, any closing points of discussion? We're we're at our cut off time now. >> Well, >> no, I think I mean it's it's good to uh
kick this around. Um, I um, you know, I I still think it's important to, uh, understand the
geologic re recharge time of the year. And again, as Neil uh just pointed out, um you guys just did a out of season to keep the project in motion and not deny
anyone the ability to um keep their construction project forward. No one's been stopped or denied. And again, we're trying trying to protect the homeowner um from
a possibility strong possibility of having a system located in the wrong location or the wrong soil at the wrong depth, which would be crazy expensive to do it two times. It's expensive once.
It's out of out of the park two times. Right. Oh, Miss Jenros, did you have a question, ma'am? >> Well, no. I'm just waiting uh uh when you guys going to discuss my >> Oh, okay. Okay. I think you're with Neil. Okay, we'll we'll wrap up. Milo,
anything else on your end, sir? >> No, I guess the closing question I have really with is what this comes to establishing the water table. Um and that we stated that coarse sands are present and red soils are present in Graanby, but there are places where they
aren't present. >> Oh. Oh, there's a lot of soils in town where modeling is a very effective approach. Absolutely. But again, there's a lot of there's a prepoundonderance of coarse sands and red brown hills which make use of modeling as a standard
practice very very problematic in this town. perhaps a regulatory language which accommodates those sorts of properties. >> Well, then that becomes a problem because then you have to then you have to write technical language that
distinguishes soil types in the regulation and I think that's not a smart thing to do. >> You want to try to keep these regulations as clean as possible. >> Yeah, we talk about it more in the future, but thank you. >> No, I hear it. But no, good very good discussion. Thank you. And Paul, did you
have any comments on your end? >> Nothing on my end right now. >> Okay, you're all set. Okay, thank you. Okay, uh Mile Neil, um Lee, thank thank you. Good discussion and we'll come up with another topic next time. So, we're
closing that discussion, Colleen. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, I think our last item for tonight is to Barton Street. So go ahead, Neil. >> So I I did talk to uh this G Miss
Gangris and um neither she or the buyers are interesting in splitting the cost of a system. I think you would come up with >> it makes perfect. It makes a lot of sense in this case.
>> I know. I mean I think unfortunately it should have never passed nine years ago, but it did. So >> yeah, >> I don't think it's a good solution. >> Yeah. How many lineal feet of of pipe did you end up with when you and Lee went out there last week? >> 77 ft total.
>> It's 70. Yeah. See, the problem is at 77 ft. The specified number for this project was 204. So it's about a third. The grandby requirement for passing SAS on a title five is 60%.
60% of the modern uh uh leeching area. So I did a quick calculation based on 440 divided by6 gave me 733 square ft of leeching area
which would be the modern the modern value. Now notice this this old one was a 500gallon daily flow because they added 100 for the beauty salon and they had 600 square feet because that was based on article 11 which was 1.2
gallons per square foot per day at that time. That's the old old code pre uh that was the pre-1978 code. That was article 11. So anyway, to make a long story short, there's no way you're even close to 60% of the required leeching
area on this. And again, I think it's for the best of all parties. I I feel badly that they have to put the system in, but I think in the long run, it's for the best of all parties. So my you okay with that? >> I'm not okay with that. I make a vote on if we can actually pass this or if we're
going to compel a replacement. Lee Lee Mile, you got to look at our regulation. We have a regulation that it's a 60% regulation. >> It's item item six, title five inspections. A soil absorption system
must be replaced if its capacity is less than 60% of the current design standards for the potential use of the structure. So, it's right in there. >> Okay. Now, can I say something now? >> Oh, yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am.
>> Okay. Uh, my children are residents of Graanby. I purchased the garden and prop for a building equipment storage because my husband just died and I needed the store to store his equipment before I
made a decision what to do with it. At that time of the purchase, the system was approved by Mr. Bambier and since nothing since that time nothing has changed. I did not add any extra
bedrooms. The system was even bigger now the hair salon. Now in November of 23 2023 when I was thinking about selling Barton property title five was passed and witnessed was uh miss uh Lee. He was
at the property but I changed my mind at that time because my son wanted to live there. Now Massachusetts environmental laws are very strict as it is and I went through all that extra and vigorous
testing done which are costly and my system was my system passed all of them and it was done by the expert of Mr. Neil Jackson and it proved that the system was
working properly. I really would appreciate that you would sign up and let me sell my house on July 30th. >> Thank you. Thank you for your interest, Miss Jen. Again, there are two issues on this. Number one, it didn't meet the 60%
standard. And that's the reason we had Lee and Neil go out there to televise or scope the pipes out to determine the amount of available leeching area on that system. And number two, which is a lesser issue at this point, is that the
water table call back in nuh 2017 was 15 in, which does not meet our 18-in offset criterion for existing systems. But again the key the key issue
from a regulatory point of view with respect to the grandb regulation is item six. Subsurface soil absorption system must be replaced if its capacity is less than 60% of current design standards for the
potential use of the structure. >> Was that regulation was that regulation in effect nine years ago? It's it's in effect right now. It was in it was actually it was in effect nine years ago, but it had not been written
up as such. Let's let Lee chime in. Lee, go ahead, sir. >> Well, the the the data I don't remember the evaluator, but there was an evaluator. Um, it might have been Mr.
Chin. Yeah, it was Bob Sheen. It was Bob Sheen Jr. who's a very capable soil evaluator. >> Yeah. >> Well, he did water table. >> He he he what happened with that, Neil? >> He did water table, but we didn't know
where where he did the test. So, if you read If you read Greg's report, he did it very close to the system according Look, let let me let me here. I have I have the old test. Let me read it here. Hold on. Right. Yeah. And we were close, too.
>> Yeah. Hold on. But you guys are at 70 in and they were at 15 in. That's a big discrepancy. >> Who's the soil evaluator? >> It was Robert Sheen Jr. >> And he did it near the near the system.
>> Yeah. Hold on. Let me read this. Wouldn't it be Phil then that he's near? >> Hold on. Hold on. >> Here it is. Certified soil evaluator Robert Sheen Jr. and this is uh May of 2017 conducted a
water table evaluation in the presence of board of health agent Loland. Mr. Sheen had no knowledge of the depth of the system when he made his water table evaluation. So in medical terms, it's kind of a blind study, which is a good
thing. Soil modeling was observed 41 in below grade and weeping water at 51 in below grade. I determined by digging into the system that the lowest point of the system was
26 in below grade. Therefore, not in the water table. Please see attached documentation. So, he had a 15-in offset. And it was a blind study. It was a blind study, which is a good thing.
So, Lee, what's your opinion of this information? Well, given the soil evaluation data from Mr. Sheen, it tells us that we don't have adequate separation.
>> But I but I would Yeah, but I didn't even I wouldn't even hang our hat on that. that what I would think the big problem is you've only got 70 lineal feet of pipe and the original design called for 204 lineal feet of pipe.
>> Right. Well, that was that was the other uh revelation when uh Bob Norman ran the camera down. >> Yeah. that the the second distribution box, I think there was four lines and
they were approximately 8 ft in length per line. >> And on the main system, if you will by the driveway, there was four lines there and they were averaging
um 11 uh 11 and 12 feet per line. So yeah, the the how it happened I I can't >> Yeah. Do do you think the lines were actually longer, but the pipe was
crushed at that point or you couldn't make that determination? >> Uh the camera showed uh it didn't show a collapsed situation that I recall. Neil, you made >> No, no, no, it didn't. It just showed
basic looked like the end >> just showed that the the pipe came to an end. Okay. >> It didn't show a a collapsed or or root involved situation. It just >> ran out of ran out of line. >> Well, in my opinion, this is pretty
clear. This does not even come close to meeting any of the criteria. And again, they spent good money to put in a new septic tank and deboxes. They can probably salvage one of the deboxes and put a SAS in and they'll be good to go.
That's my opinion. Can I I got a couple questions. >> No, go ahead. Go ahead, Mile. >> So, this is for all this is all for title five to sell the house, correct? This is this is what we're Yes. Correct.
>> Okay. If Mrs. is decides to not sell her house and this board votes that in order for her to pass her Title 5, she has to replace the septic system. If she doesn't sell her house,
will she be compelled to replace that system? We've done this many, many, many, many, many times on this board. people tradition when systems are replaced in this town, it's typically a time of transfer, >> right?
>> It's typically a time of transfer. >> So, so we're not identifying that this is a public health risk. I I think it is in my opinion it is a public health hazard because you don't have sufficient separation off the water table and you
have a grossly undersized leech field >> allegedly by one evaluator you don't have separation and by another you have >> well again again by the TV camera we had a grossly undersized system you can't dispute that it's grossly unders sized >> there's these are two separate things so
I'm just making sure I'm teasing >> yeah yeah so so forget about the water table for now >> I would love to The fact that the system is grossly undized in per our regulation is reason enough to fail the system. >> Okay. Is it sized to do something
though? >> It >> Well, Neil, you'd have to do the calculations. >> Yeah, >> it was good enough. I think it's I think it was 240 gallons per day. >> It's two beds. And does that include the the grandby kitchen? The 110 for the
kitchen. See that? All right. So, so it so essentially it's a one-bedroom house then. >> And that's ridiculous >> if you count the kitchen. One bedroom. >> Yeah, that's ridiculous. Yeah. Again, um my thought is let's cut to the chase.
We won't I'm recommending we don't accept the title five as a pass and get let's get started on the repair and Neil. How fast can you get this repair drafted? >> I mean I could I could get doing it right away if if that's what Mrs.
Giggress wants to do. I mean, I I you know, I I I agree I agree with you >> and and again and again and again. The fact that we have a family moving in, the last thing we want to do is give lawyers money on this. That's the last
thing we want to do. And the lawyers will be coming after everybody, the former owner and the engineer >> and probably the soil evaluator. So my thought is let's stay out of court. Let's do the right thing. Let's
put in a new system. Lee, what's your closing thoughts on this? Well, given the advantage of the camera and the length of the pipe and um Neil's
expertise and the calculation of what the house can support called to increase the available subsurface absorption system on that piece of property.
As we all can remember a short time ago, house was sold with a bad title five. It resulted in litigation which resulted in triple damages
to the selling party and we are not wanting to repeat that. But it seems like >> that makes sense, folks. >> Seems like I bought a house with a bed
title five. >> How was this system ever accepted and approved and put in to begin with? >> This system, sir, was put in in 1971. This is a 56y old septic system.
>> 56 56 years. We didn't even bring that up. >> When I purchased that home, I purchased it with the bad title. Then >> it was a 56y old septic system. >> Yeah. >> Would anyone buy a 56 year old septic
system? >> But straight >> face. Does that pass a straight face test? Neil, look at me and say I'd buy a house with a 56-y old septic system. >> Well, how did you guys pass it back in 2017? >> Who was the who was the evaluator?
>> Well, I mean it is a p it is a passing system. It's just there is no failure criteria for size of system. that that basically that kicks back to the board of health decision that it fails to protect the public health and I I can't
argue with that. Um I I I just think it's unfortunate that it passed nine years ago. >> Well, that's right. I I guess nine years ago they didn't scope out the lines apparently. >> I think that's the bigger issue is how
this thing passed um previously. Yeah, that's a good question. But again, >> because then she would have ended up with a brand new system and she wouldn't be in this financial burden and uh position here. >> Well, >> based on the size of the system with the
Ben count back in two, I think that system was 200 17 was that last um deed transfer. >> That's right. That's correct. >> I mean, wouldn't this have all popped up at that period of time? I feel like there's some liability >> actually in 2017.
>> In 2017, Neil, we had the zero plus offset from water table criterion. >> Yeah. >> And he met 15 in which was 15 in higher than zero plus. >> Right. >> In subsequent years, Paul, we went to a
4 foot and we reduced it to a three-foot requirement on a transfer. Now we're at an 18inch requirement on a transfer which is actually consistent with the Connecticut code which has been in effect since 1980.
>> Right. I mean >> this board at this time believes 18 in and again we'll get in this to our next one of our next technical uh roundts but we believe 18 in is sufficient to provide adequate
treatment of water on a property serving serving a a private well. I mean and there's the other part of the reality. I mean, this thing's been in use for how many years, and you guys did the inspection. It looks great. I I hear
what you're saying. I'm not disagreeing with you. Everyone's agreeing with, >> you know, but but I can see Neil's argument. If it passed 10 years ago, why wouldn't it pass now? And in 10 years from now, well, it's 67 years old, let's go, let it go another 10 years. You
know, we just keep kicking the can down the road like the federal government with a deficit. So at some point we have to say >> yeah that that should have been failed in my opinion in 2017 I think issue >> that >> I hear you I hear you there
but anyway that's my thought on the matter Lee what's your closing thought >> I understand um the frustration I really I really do get Um
it was looked at several different ways. Um many of them in retrospect probably uh you can view it as being looked at incorrectly possibly. I understand that
um it was a marginal system how it got put in as it did all those years ago. Guess how that occurred. Uh but the um current data suggests
number of bedrooms and kitchens that system can serve um are quite limited. Now the only and I'm not a lawyer. only way to
maybe entertain this and I'm not trying to start trouble um is to do a deed restriction. I don't know if if I can ask that to Neil. Is that something is that an option or am I talking on that?
I I think that has to be accepted by the Graanby Board of Health and I mean it would definitely it would have to be a twobedroom deed restriction. It would have to be but but you can't unbuild a house. You can't unbuild a house. That's the >> No, you're right. You're right.
>> So I I I don't even want to entertain that. That's absurd. You can't unbuild a house. >> Bill, you absolutely can unbuild houses. >> Listen Listen, you know how much it's going to cost? You know how much it's going to cost to unbuild the house? Why don't you just put the leechfield in?
Have a nice big house with a new leechfield rather than a lousy Leechfield with a butchered up house. It's absurd. You You're going to spend money one way or the other. Spend the money on the leechfield. Get rid of your 56y old leechfield. That's ridiculous in my opinion.
>> Here me out. And I appreciate Lee's point, which is we're trying to get someone who has gone through a great deal of financial strain and multiple tests to get to this stage. Now, we're m
we're making a critical decision for them. And are we going to compel this person to replace it if sell the house? >> It's the criterion. It's right in our regulation. I I read the regulation.
Shall I read it again? Let me read it one more time. >> One more time. I would love to hear it again. >> Let me read it again. Hold on. >> I hear you. >> I'm gonna read it one more time. >> I'm trying to come up with an elegant solution to a >> Oh, no. The elegant solution is the two
people to split it down the middle 5050. That's the elegant solution and that's the fair solution. Well, >> is that is that is that on the table with the with the buyer? Paul, >> I can speak for the seller only. I
represent the seller, but I don't I think based on what she's accepted, uh I don't think um she's interested in doing that. I think uh her frustration right now is how did she buy this house in 2017? And who who in this meeting was on
that board and passed that thing back then? And where's the liability? if they passed something that shouldn't have been passed. I mean, that's the biggest. >> But the the regulation changed, Paul, between 17 and today, the regulation changed
>> in terms of size. >> It's in in terms of size and the water table separation. >> Isn't this grandfather isn't existing? The the regulations that we promulgated last year says the subsurface soil
absorption system must be replaced if the capacity is less than 60% of the current design standard for the potential use of the structure. Period. And then it also says the SAS, this is
number five, must be replaced if there's less than 18 in of separation between the bottom of the SAS and the high groundwater table or ledge, whichever is higher. So, there's two
there's two violations. It's number five and number six. It's right in the it's right in our code. I'm sorry, but that's just the way the code's written. >> How is how do we have a passing Title 5 now that that's sitting in my hand?
I'm looking at a report that says pass. So, how how did that pass? What's the date on that? >> Eva, when did you do the inspection? >> Just a couple weeks ago. because the the title five is deemed
passed by the inspector, but the inspector has to be vetted through the board of health and that's why we're here tonight in this vetting process. >> I mean, you understand the confusion all this. >> Oh, no. I hear you. I unless you're in this business, there's a lot of nuances
of these regulations, Paul. I appreciate it. I appreciate it. But again, in fairness to everybody, if people just shook hands and say, "I'm sorry, I'll pay 50%, you pay 50%, we won't have a problem." Because I am so afraid with
a new family moving in, and I've heard rumors that five individuals are moving into this house. If this thing blows out of the ground, first of all, you're going to have to replace it. So, you got the replacement cost and you got expert witnesses, you've got court costs, and
you've got attorneys fees and could be it could be double or triple damages. So, if the system costs X to replace today, after there's a lawsuit and all the dust settles, never mind the stress, it might be two or 3x.
>> Well, we've got to do you guys a favor. We're trying to do you a favor. >> Yeah, we've got Dakota Richards um on the the Zoom there. Maybe he can chime in about that. I do. He works for the town also, correct? >> He's on the assessor's board, >> right? Okay. >> Dakota, are you there?
>> It looks like he's here. >> Yeah, he's on. You have to unmute. There you go. Hi, Dakota. >> I'm here. >> Now, Dakota, are you working for the seller or the buyer? >> Paul represents the seller and I represent the buyer.
>> Okay. You're representing the buyer. Have you been listening to the discussion? >> I got on late, but the majority of it, yes. >> Okay. There's two failure criterion with person went to our Grandby local septic rags. The water table SE and the 60%
rule. Those are clear as a bell. Again, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a mediator, but I've done a lot of this negotiating over over the years with clients. This is a perfect case where 5050 split makes sense. That's what I
would recommend. Again, I don't want us to be the negotiating or mediation body, but I think the 5050 split on a 56 year old system would make some sense. I can't speak on half on behalf of the
client, but um part of the how I read it is part of our agreement is that the seller is providing a passing title five to us. Whether that means replacement of a system or if the current report passes, that's
a little bit above our pay grade. So, shall we close this discussion for tonight and continue next time >> or shall we just say it's a failure and uh get Neil cracking on a on a design.
I think what we're trying to do here is to move forward and we need some give and take here obviously system
which um doesn't meet the current codes and by Neil's calculations doesn't support of capacity is that the house presents itself.
No fault of the current owner of course, >> right? >> But this is what we have. If the new buyer moves in with what everyone is talking about
until passing title five and in 9 months if four or five people move in and the system fails due to the flow of water
then everyone is going to be looking back at this discussion and wondering possibly why didn't we work together to solve the problem and we're trying to get past this
discrepancy but that means that we're also asking the seller to have some understanding ing and as well as the,
you know, the buyer and seller have to work together here and we want everyone to get out of this thing in a reasonable fashion. Not denying that we shouldn't necessarily
be in this spot, but we are. We have to bury the hatchet, if you will. and come up with a solution
outside of court cuz it has to be fixed anyway. Uncle spending three, four, $6,000 on an attorney to argue and have this thing drag on for six or eight months with no one living there.
>> Mr. No, go ahead. Go ahead. You're doing good. Go ahead. Keep going. >> I don't like what we have, but I'm asking the representatives for both parties to
down talk about this thing. Um, and I have no idea what expenses we're talking about. I don't think it's going to be perfectly high because a lot of the parts are already in place. We have to lengthen
some of the leech lines. Um I don't know from Neil's perspective what that means financially. >> Yeah, you have to put in just one quick
one on on the technical end. Again, I'm not designing this for you, but this is a perfect case to use Elgens with a two-ft water table offset. >> Yep. >> And I bet I bet you do a debox with some Elgen lines,
no pump, no pump chamber. Very simple system. That's just my feeling. >> Yep. Absolutely. >> Lee, does that make sense? >> Yes. fast um inexpensive um very little if any soil hopefully
brought in. Yeah, cuz we we have to think the soil or at least a good portion of it is is already on site. But again, I don't know. That's that's Neil's calling, not mine.
>> Right. >> And again, the beauty of doing the SAS is you don't have to worry about it for another 56 years. instead of being on pins and needles and telling the homeowners not to use water and not to run the the jacuzzi and stuff
like that. >> And I'm hoping that somehow the representatives of both parties can can and quietly sit down and and think this thing through and work together >> so that everyone gets what they need.
There's no There's no reason to be punishing the seller. There's there's no way that a seller um it could be one of us
um and possibly know how the system was underdesigned in the first place. I I I completely get it. Um, and I'm asking the buyer's representative to
explain to their client that um, should not have occurred. it did occur. And by putting a little bit of money into this thing, they're going to get the benefit
a completely updated that should get you 40 plus years of use or not a lot of money. And if they stay there for say 10 years and so
it's the chances of it failing are very very low. It could happen if they abuse it but we don't need to just >> play hard ball all the time here.
>> I just think there's too much risk in approving this one. Well, as it is, it's undersized by Neil's, >> right? Yeah. >> Apart from the fact that it doesn't meet our rigs, it's still a very risky
proposition going forward. >> Yeah. And and and again um if it does fail, which the mathematical probably is there that it will fail because it's quite old and quite undersized.
Um then the proposed buying party I'm angry and look for some type of financial uh payback which is you know then maybe in court
you'll maybe you won't. Um, today is the day to solve the problem. And it's not it's not going to be pleasure for anyone to work together, but
it's a good a time as any to consider it. That's my opinion. >> Well, well said, Lee. Thank you. So, have we exhausted this discussion? Well, I got the clear picture.
>> Oh, I I think I think your light went out, Miss Jingris. >> Oh, >> well, that's okay. No worries. I know it's warm out. I keep my lights down, too, when it's more warm in the room.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Okay, no worries. So, Neil, is what Lee saying, does that make sense to you? It does. I mean, if if the buyer and seller are willing to split the cost, that's obviously the
easiest solution. I mean, it should have never happened, but it did. Um, you know, it's over 50 years. How much money are we talking about roughly? >> Well, I think that's not for this board.
I think that's for you to prepare a plan and bid it out, Neil. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Ly, anything else? >> No. >> Okay. Lee, are you okay? Everything good?
>> Yeah. I just hope that uh I didn't waste anyone's time here. I'm I'm hoping that the buyer and sellers uh agents can uh understand the dilemma everyone's facing and uh
work together and let's move forward and >> okay so so for the record Colleen we did not accept the uh title five for two Barton It's deemed a failure. Okay. Colleen, anything else on the
agenda? >> Bill Allen here. Can I speak? >> Oh, hi Al. Yes, sir. >> I had a medical issue. I'm sorry. >> Oh, no. No. We approved seven green meadows. Good. You're all set. Everything's golden. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for going out there and doing that.
Thank you, sir. Thank you. Bye. Bye. >> I don't have anything else. No. >> Okay. Dakota, thank you. Miss Jingris, thanks for coming in. Paul, thank you. Neil, >> Colleen,
topic for our round table for the next >> Yeah. What do you >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Let's What do you want to discuss next time? >> Uh, can we do another one that's not Oh, how about uh replacing thousandgallon tanks with 1500gallon? I think it's just
1500gallon tanks. I don't think it says two compartments. >> Yeah, we can we can discuss that. We can discuss that. >> Let's discuss that one. Hey, hey, by by the way, Mil, your technical your technical references which you downloaded, I'm sure. Could you forward those to me? >> Yeah, sure.
>> Yeah. Hey, and by the way, by the way, and and I'm gonna just I'm gonna just stop the recording right now. Hold on. I'm just going to stop the recording. >> We have to close the meeting. >> Yeah. No, I'm going to stop the recording, but I want to just chitchat one. Say one thing.
>> Yeah. Yeah.