Everyone, welcome. I'm going to pause for one second as Libby bounces over. There we go. Welcome to the June 24th, 2026 Littleton Board of Health meeting. With me tonight, uh we have Matt Wson, Kevin Davis, Libby Donigan, myself, Dan
Kaine as vice chair, but acting chair this evening. We also, um will be introducing our new health agent momentarily. And for one of my co-hosts, can you move Michelle into the move her up as a panelist? >> Moving it now.
>> Thank you, sir. >> Oh, she's she's just uh listening. I don't think she can participate. Well, it's a good thing it didn't work then. >> She'll raise her hand if she has something. >> All right. So, the first item on the agenda of our last board of health
meeting, we did share that our inaugural um health director has tended their resignation to be a little bit closer to home. So um since that point position has been posted, interviews have occurred and our first order of business
this evening is to vote to appoint Kellyo as our new health director pending background and select board approval. So >> just yeah just to clarify there for
folks um the process is we go through the interviews then HR makes an offer then this board votes to um basically approve that person for hiring then because of the step level of the hiring um position it has to go for the select
board because they just by default must approve something that is hired at above a step three I Sounds like a plan. >> So, we're all aware of that. Um, and then they have >> they have a meeting uh on July 13th. So,
any start date has to be after that because um it has to go select obviously. So, um I'm pretty sure they're already aware of that, but in the absence of Chair Baker being here, Dan, if you wouldn't mind making sure we've connected with the select board to
say uh are we on that agenda and make sure that's all going true. I'm betting Michelle took care of it, but let's just >> and Marker is still our um person. So, a little letting him know that so he can take it to the select board I think
would be appropriate. Mr. Chair, >> thank you. >> You're welcome. >> I apologize. I make my own notes of things to do. I apologize. One moment. >> That's fine.
>> All right. I think at this point I will entertain a motion. I'd like uh to propose a motion to uh accept Kelly Ko
as the health director um for the town of Littleton. >> Um before I second a motion, there were some questions that the public had about the process. I just want to make sure these are answered publicly for, you know, to ensure public trust in this
process. Um, somebody noticed that Kelly's name is the only name on the agenda this evening and they were wondering if other candidates were interviewed as well. >> Uh, I was probably connected most closely so I can throw out an answer. Um, uh, you are correct. Um, similarly
to the last time that we went through this process in our Francis, we did only end up with one name when it came time for the public hearing and public meeting. So similarly this time um position was posted open for 2 weeks that's the typical process there were
multiple applicants applicants were reviewed um and we as a board members who were involved in the process as well as other uh participants from town uh basically came
to the decision that Kelly Kao was the most qualified candidate and that was the one we wanted to move forward with. Sounds good. Thank you. And you followed all the town bylaws and whatnot in this process? >> Absolutely. >> The town
>> HR director was involved and ran the process from the start to the end and she makes sure we follow all the rules and town administration and um other folks were also involved in the interview. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. >> I I second the motion to move Kelly
towards a vote. If I could ask you to make sure you add the key information on the public hearing which includes the date and the hiring level. Would you mind adding that to your motion, Mr. Davis? >> I have no problem doing that. Uh that the would be for the health director
effective July 13, 2026 at grade 16 step 7 with a subject to select board approval. >> I second the motion. >> Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Roll call vote. Kevin Davis.
>> Kevin Davis votes yes. >> Libby Donigan. >> Libby Donigan votes yes. >> Matt Wson. >> Matt Wson. Yes. >> And Dan Kaine votes yes. >> A tentative. Congratulations. >> So I did just take a feedback for that
public question. Uh it looks like we actually had 12 applicants for the position that were reviewed and that it looks like from the screening process that yes, Kelly rose to the top very very quickly. So yes, we it went through
the process and we had we did have 12 candidates, you know, apply for the position. So, all right, Kelly, would you like to take a moment and just say hi, introduce yourself, and uh tell us if we're pronouncing your name correctly, all those important things.
>> Yeah, sure. So, my name is Kelly Callo. I apologize that I am in a car. Um I'm just leaving another board meeting, so um I am currently the health director in Carlilele. I am looking forward to coming to Littleton. Um, I'm excited to make some really good changes here. Um,
andor continue the great work that the Wilton Board of Health has been doing. Um, I am very friendly with um, the town. Um, and I'm looking forward to it. >> Wonderful. Thank you so much. We are are excited to have you join our our little
community. So, looking forward to a strong and healthy future for for our department as we continue to grow. All right. Thank you. >> I don't see any hands from the audience. So, I'm going to say that audience is
good. Libby, were there any other questions? I hadn't gotten anything from the public. Had you heard anything else or questions from the from the public about the process? It did go it did go quickly. The position obviously is is mission critical for our town. So, it it
was not a a long drawn out pro patient process. It was done with intent. So, it was purposely >> expedient but not rushed, if that makes sense. >> Um, people wanted to know if Kelly would be committed to our town. Um, but I'm
assuming that with her being on the call tonight and making these efforts that she is committed to our town. >> Absolutely. I actually grew up in Littleton, so I'm very famili familiar with the town and I love Littleton. >> That's awesome. That's really good to
hear. Thank you. >> Yes. Hopefully I grew up in Littleton is as strong an endorsement of committed to the town as anyone could ever possibly ask for. All right. Well, in that case, um, thank you. Congratulations. Welcome. We look forward to, uh, the select board process
and HR wrapping up their pieces and hopefully we'll have a July 13th start. I now have, it is 7:10. we can move to our 705 discussion around private well regulation which we've had been working on for a while and we had started
working we started back on at our last meeting. Uh I have it pulled up I admit I forget where we left off. If anyone remember which section we dropped off on >> Yes, if you pull it back up I I do remember which section we left off. >> Stand by. Working on it.
>> No worries. Thank you for zooming in. >> Definitions. >> Pass that. >> We are >> for for all the audience. I apologize. I'm scrolling really fast. I'm just trying to get back to where we were. I I
know we did water quality testing requirements and I think we ended up at >> we're past that or I think we're right at the maintenance. Let's see. There was a section we right there well construction requirements.
We made it through all of that. Um, so this evening while we do have Kelly is listening in, we are not going to make her work. Although she is actually serving as our interim covering health agent until position is filled.
So, um I don't think we want to necessarily stress her skill set unless she really wants to as far as and she has not had a chance to I'm sure look at our draft well regulation at this point and I'm not going to ask her from the car to try to active actively participate in the discussion. That's
just not realistic or fair to her. So, >> yeah. Um >> I I'm actually not the interim right now. Um I believe that you have somebody else acting as your in >> Oh, okay. I apologize for that misinformation then. That's that may have been that may have been a change from the last I heard.
>> Um, >> all right. So, I apologize to the public for that misinformation, but no, thank you for clarifying and and speaking up. >> Well, then we're really not going to ask her for anything, right? >> Yeah, exactly. Real quick, uh, Dan, I know we had talked about in the previous
section about creating a table. Did anybody get a chance to work on the table? Yes. Um I sent the table to um Kevin Baker not realizing that he was on vacation right now. Um do I have permission to send it to Dan to give out
to members here? >> Sure. >> Um I just realized that we don't have anybody from the admin support side from land use at the moment. Um, I am hoping they will review the
tape for minutes after this, but I admit I am not taking minutes at the moment. I'm not sure if anybody else is taking minutes and I have not talked to Sophia, I believe, from Lanuse, who is our covering admin. Um,
>> I've been taking some notes. I can >> All right. So, we will Thank you very much. minutes >> and yeah, hopefully she'll be able to just follow up with the video and we'll be all set. But I I apologize. I just realized that >> trying to anticipate.
Thank you, Madam Clerk. >> Good, good catch. Do we need to pause, Libby? Do you need to catch any details? Like, do you have the vote recorded? >> Um, I don't have the vote recorded. Um, so Kevin Davis made a motion. H.
You seconded. >> Yep. >> And then it was uh all four people voted. So Kevin, Dan, Matt, and Libby all voted in the affirmative. Just a little housekeeping.
No problem. Okay, I'm good to move on. >> Sorry about that. So, yeah. No, if if you happen to have the the table, then I will
pull that up and we can share and insert Yeah, I think that was one of the major doouts from the last time was to get a table together. And then the other duo, if I remember correctly, was some general wording around
um uh shallows. Like we needed to figure out a couple of the shs cuz we were, as Dan pointed out correctly, we were not we were making requirements with that were not worded
as thou shall something like that. So, we weren't doing the policy wording correctly. If I may make a suggestion or request, >> of course. Go ahead, Matt. >> Um, I think we should try to just get through the rest of the document based
upon the meat of the document and then this thing has so many track changes built in. I feel like our next meeting we should just start at the top and say approve, approve, approve, approve, approve. And anytime somebody says, "Wait, wait, hold on. I'm worried about the we say great, leave it and move on
cuz this thing is becoming so hard to read and interpret that I just love to get it mostly cleaned up." Then we can come back and just look at those few changes that were still left that we actually need to talk about. Like Kevin was saying, the ones where we might need to change some language around. >> That makes perfect sense to me. I like
that idea. All right. So, well construction requirements section nine. >> Get it out. >> Awesome. >> Pretty straightforward. Part one. Yeah.
Part two seems pretty straightforward. I'm just going to slowly go along and as we get to anything of interest or comment, speak up. >> Section three, straightforward. >> Section
four, agree straightforward. Again, this all looks a bit boilerplate kind of language. What I would ask is that we compare this to the dra I'm pretty sure this was the draft language that we got from mass d
and I would make sure that we don't have anything and maybe bounce this off those But yeah, it's all pretty straightforward. >> It's a good question because I think this this document is approaching two
years old. So some of this language could have been >> could be outdated if if there's been any updates. And you're right, if it was a draft, I'm not sure how solid the source document was. >> When we started this, we took the model language from the DP site. So, I know I
remember that specifically. >> Yeah, >> we just we just need to finish this up. >> But I'm saying like what has their language changed? >> Oh, peace. Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> So, I guess we should somebody needs to do a sidebyside.
>> Uh, you can just do a quick word comparison. Just get the source document of the new one. And um yes, I I have no problem doing that. I saw that Matt, if at the end of this, Dan, you wouldn't mind just sending the team's location
where that is in an email, uh, that would be most helpful. So that way I can just do a quick comparison. Put it in the same directory. You're on mute. I didn't hear a word you said. >> No, I apologize. I am on mute. Um I I'm
one I just did a quick look and it looks like there is two different versions available. A 2023 version of model rags. >> Uhhuh. >> And then a 20 4 updated
>> Well, since >> anything I'm going to go with the 24 if everybody's okay with that. >> I would agree. So, I don't think we have anything I did not see in my very very quick search anything newer than that, but we can double check that as well. Um, as
far as Teams, uh, Libby had a question about Teams, I went in and I could get to the minutes folder. That was the only folder I could access. So, like the board of health files I could not access. So, we can put it in under
minutes as just a draft, but just be aware that it's probably going to be there because the board of health generic folder was not accessible, at least for me. >> I will check during our meeting and see what's going on. So, uh, keep going,
>> Mr. and I will check right now. So again, this section all looks pretty um prescriptive engineering tech engineering and operational techniques for how to drill
a well meeting the rags. I'm not sure. Nothing is jumping out at me as far as something that we would probably change either e either welded or threaded. Again, this is probably beyond our technical expertise to to edit.
Okie dokie. And then we get back to edits that we have done in the past. to the sky. So >> again, not sure about our offsets if that is local or if that was state recommendation.
I'll figure out something. Relatively tactical still. However, Yeah, maybe I should get her involved. Um, I'm looking at number three. Irrigation wells. We prohibit the use of silox spiggots
for irrigation wells. But then line seven, I'll just spig not silox spigots. Sorry. All right. No, I apologize. I I >> Never mind. >> Yeah, I think that seems pretty normal.
>> Yep. No, I Yeah. Don't connect non-potable agriculture wells to portable water lines. Seems pretty straightforward. >> So just just going just pause for a second there. So um we've said the irrigation well description at the very
the definition at the very top of the document. Um I know we have one for irrigation well. Um, if a homeowner has a well and connects to town water because they have that convenience and then decides to just use their well for irrigation, technically according to
this, they need to apply for a permit to do that. Is that is that what we want? >> Word that says that >> I think is that number three or four? Yeah. Is that
is that what we want? >> So the reason yes because what you're asking them to they're you're asking them to label it appropriate. You're making sure that it's disconnected from the house. There's a whole bunch of things you're making sure that that is going to be happening. So yes, I think that makes a lot of sense
>> and it doesn't put them into I know our discussion last time we were you know we took out a lot of requirements for the you know homeowners private drinking well and we similarly took it out because we were talking about only requiring things on commercial irrigation. I just don't want it to look
like when you switch from drinking to irrigation you have to actually go through a process. It seems a little wonky if that like has a cost to it for example. I I I hear what you're saying, but time of come out and inspect it, it's going to have, you know, a cost associated
with going out and doing that. So, >> but that's but that's my point. Like, I'm a homeowner. I've had a well for years. I've been drinking it for years now. I just want to water my grass with it. >> I I understand. But there are things that we're asking that irrigation only
wells not be connected to the house's portable water supply. that we have a label on it that says not for use for human consumption. There's a whole bunch of requirements in there that we want to make sure that it's labeled appropriately and it's done appropriately that there's >> but that may be different. >> Okay. So, as a home, I'll just
completely skip the process and say that it's non- irrigation well >> because there's no there's no other thing in the in the entire rags that >> urges me to reabel it. And so I I would just leave it as a drinking well,
right? >> I So I disagree because it says conversion of a pre-existing drinking well to an irrigation well should require permitting and approval by the Littleton Board of Health. It's what it says. So I you know I I think and it's going to be
one of those things that um is probably going to come up during the sale of a house and you're going to look at it and go, "Oh, look. No, this is an irrigation well. Was it previously inspected? No, it wasn't. Okay, now you're going to have to go get it inspected. I'll be quiet now. Libby has her hand up. >> Okay, Libby, your hands up.
>> That's okay. Um, I was following your conversation. Um, do we have a way to hold anybody accountable if they weren't coming to the town to ask for a permit and we weren't in the know? like is there a way that we would know about this and be able to hold anybody accountable
other than like you said if this is coming up for the sale of a house if somebody just wanted to use their well for watering their lawn is you suggested Matt Wson then like do we actually have a way to hold anybody accountable >> I guess I'm asking why hold them
accountable why bother >> would we even have a way like if you just decided to use it for your lawn irrigation Would we even know? >> Not, right? Not unless somebody like turns me in or something. Right. So, that's kind of I'm getting and Kevin
mentioned like the sale of the house. Like that's the that's the one time that it starts to benefit me as a homeowner to all of a sudden say, "Oh, no, no, no. That's not a drinking well water. That's an irrigation well." Because then I I would have to have it tested before
selling the house. So, but in in the meantime, if I just decide not to drink it because I'm getting town water, I could still drink it, right? And I guess maybe that's the difference. If I if I have town water, I might keep my my well running to my house just fine
>> because if there's some problem with town water, I can switch over to it. So, I don't know if there are already bylaws at lewd at the water department that says when you get hooked up to town water that you must disconnect a well
from your house. I don't know if there rules around that. You're shaking your head. No, meaning that you've already done that. >> It's my right to have a well. Anybody can put a well in if they want if they get a permit. >> Time out. I I understand that, but I don't know if there are regulations for that. I have no idea.
So if I may, one, we decided we are not permitting irrigation wells. There is no permit process for an irrigation well. >> Correct. So if I convert my portable water to an
irrigation well portable or not, I have a couple things I need to do cuz one, so for example, highlighted area two here is that you cannot have two sources of water into one building.
So that would if that stands then that is going to be not a permitting process but it is going to be a plumbing a water department in conjunction with the plumbing inspector regulation which needs to they going to need to make sure that the existing
drinking water well is disconnected from the the dwelling when town water is now connected to the dwelling. >> So that is not a permitting process. So I think that that line of shall require permitting and approval. We don't
require permitting and approval for any other irrigation well. So I think that language needs to probably go because that does not reflect any other language around irrigation wells. However, we above we may want to make it clearer,
however, that with that switch, if you are switching or whatever, it says you can't have two water lines coming into one one building or two two sources into one building, then that's going to be a plumbing inspector enforcable regulation rather
than a board of health permitting process. >> And go ahead, Matt's got his hand up. Never mind. Um, at the top of this document, it's a $100 permitting fee for an irrigation well. And and I think we should have a permit
for it at the very least because we talked last time about requiring potential testing if a irrigation well was used for commercial purposes. Um I also so and the reason why number two is there by the way is so that if
something's wrong with the well water that we don't have a backflow going into the town municipal supply. We definitely do not want that to happen. So that is another reason why you disconnect if you're connecting from the town water.
So yes, I understand Matt, but no, I I disagree that we should allow if you've converted to town water that you should allow that. So I Yeah. >> Okay. I apologize for not not I mean again this we've went through many
versions of this document over over time that we did require permitting for irrigation wells. So I mean I think that's fine. I think two and four together meet the objective of eliminating crosscontamination and
documenting a new new irrigation well even though it's pre-existing just change of Yes. And again we have six no plumbing connection irrigation to a habitable structure. And then there is
11. Did we skip 10? I think we skipped 10. No. Oh, 10 was geothermal well construction. Got it. And then there's 11 is irrigation wells.
Got it. And then there's where's 12? There should be no plumbing connecting an agricultural well to a habitable structure. All spot certification addition to itself must be identified by Yep. totally
okay. All we have for agricultural wells. Was there anything else we >> Mr. Chair? >> I thought we had Yes. Go ahead. >> I I do believe we we reached out to the agricultural commission and asked for
input on this and we received uh less than a positive feedback on that. So maybe reaching out again just to make sure that there are no other changes. thoughts. >> One second. I just need to close the
door so that way sound doesn't travel. One moment. >> Can you repeat the name of the commission he reached out to? >> Agriculture. Agriculture Commission. >> That's what I thought. Just wanted to make sure. Thank you. >> Yep. >> I'm back. Sorry, I was just closing the
door to the room. and I feel I feel like we had more of a discussion around agricultural wells as well. But >> wasn't it that we basically figured out that that was all going to be covered by >> state
requirements? >> Yeah. There is >> shouldn't do it. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> And even if we simply you know we may even just want to put a line in agricultural wells are you know water quality testing operations etc are governed by
>> MG MGL whatever and you know CMR whatever and other applicable D guidelines and regulations or whatever just reference it out. We just may want to acknowledge that while they should be anyway, acknowledge that that's that's
kind of where we're looking for. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Regulation. >> Challenge of course is that if there's changes at that level or they change rag numbers, then we may need to edit. And I've talked to a couple of our farmers about this and um they wanted to
make sure that we understood that they get tested that water gets tested by the state and that we should as a board of health uh and a health department accept that same state level testing that they have to do for their agricultural wells
into our stuff as well. So if we have to require testing that they should do that too. just feedback. >> Yeah. Know if we can keep it as consistent across as possible. Agreed.
>> All right. So, homework. Talk to egg again for thoughts, feedback. Is is there a situation in the agricultural community where they potentially are using one well for both agricultural and irrigation and it's
meeting the state needs for agriculture. Therefore, it's probably totally fine for irrigation, but we still might have some overlap. I'm probably talking about a very very small percentage of possibility. I can ask the three farmers that I've
talked to um and I will find out if they have if they >> Yeah, I'll find out. I'll ask >> just a similarly like kind of one of those if you've met the needs of an agricultural through the state then don't worry about our requirements for
an irrigation well if they're co-purposed on your farm. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, I'm >> I'm 99% sure an agricultural well is you Yeah. We've Okay. Yeah, I'll ask. >> Thank you. And before we keep going, I saw
something up at just above section 10 geothermals that I need to ask about. Right there. Where did that 10 come in that had municipal spelled wrong? because I would say that is not in line
with what our community members would want. Actually, I think from a board of health perspective that that is a better um from a health perspective that is a better way of doing things
because you are like guaranteeing that the water in town is safer than the wellwater. So, >> and I disagree that you can that you can
guarantee that. >> Okay. >> So, so what's I I can see a couple different things here. One, if I'm on town water and I choose to put in a well, I can still stay on town water. I can
have a portable well that I just use for irrigation, but know that I have a backup source of water when the apocalypse comes. That's not necessarily a bad or problematic thing. Um,
I think it's cons it's consistent with our Title 5 septic language that no new septic system if there's town sewer available in front of you in front of the dwelling. But I I I
think I kind of agree with Matt going I we require if if I can if I don't have tile water in front of my house and I can have a drinking well and I have to test it and make sure it's portable and all that goodness. Why is it that I can't do that if I happen to have a pipe in front of my
house with town water or have both not both connected to the system and prevent crosscontamination but have a portable well that I just choose not to use as portable and just use to irrigate. I I guess I'm just not sure
as long so our concern is one I I hear you that hopefully our municipal water is higher quality, tested more often, treated more effectively than a residential well. But as long as they're not
cross-contaminating, I'm not sure what's to be gained by saying you can't other than it's consistent with septic. If you got a pipe in front of your house, you can't have septic. If he has a pipe in front of your house, you can't have a drinking well. But I'm not sure
if that really meets any meaningful function since you have to pick one or the other to be connected to your dwelling. You can't have both connected to your dwelling. Mr. Davis, >> so I think um if the language right now
is that we're only supposed to be so the town water is tested I believe if not once a year, twice a year for a whole litany of fun things. And um if uh I know the town does that testing. Um if
we are going to allow people to have a well that is on their property then we need to have some similar level of testing that is done yearly. If the town is doing the same testing yearly. So we can't have it both ways. uh from a
health perspective if we are in town looking for things in the water and currently filtering them out and then you you kind of see the dichotomy here like I I don't I don't see don't see that.
>> Okay, I'm let Libby take this one. Libby, go ahead. I I think my concern here is that based on our last meeting, I understand that a lot of this is just suggested guidelines for homeowners with private wells that we can't mandate this unless there's
something like the sale of a house or a landlord. So, like, are we saying that we're mandating this or are we saying that we're suggesting this, the water quality testing or the well construction?
>> Um, well, both, I guess. Okay. I know we went back and forth quite a bit on requirements for water testing for pot for drinking water wells for private drinking water wells and I think we've kind of landed on
at initiation. So, a new well and a change of ownership that other testing is challenging to logistically enforce and okay, so I don't test my well, we're
going to go out there and turn their well off. We're going to cut water off. Like, it's there are some enforcement challenges, I think, if we really tried doing that. And I know we did get a lot of push back early on in this process around water quality test, private well
testing mandates um due to cost if it wasn't at some designated time like change of ownership or some other concern. There was a spill, there's a you know an accident, there's, you know,
damage, a known damage, that kind of stuff, repair. Um I I I guess I'm trying to figure out so if we're not mandating annual testing of all private wells in town then why do we
do mandate why why would we again that face le piece why would we mandate testing >> frequency that matches the town water supply if I happen to have a water pipe in front of my house compared to if I
Don't cuz that sounds like Kevin that's kind of what you were putting there that if I have town water in my in front of my house then I have to test my wellwater the same frequency and for the same things that the town tests their water for. But we're not making that same mandate for a house that does not have a
town water line in front of it. So, so that's so from a water quality perspective, we know that the town tests at least yearly for a lot of the things that we are asking private well owners to test for when property changes hands,
right? And if we're not if we're saying you can't um uh have a you know no new well no new drinking well shall be this is saying no new drinking well water wells shall be
constructed where municipal water is available. So that's what that's saying. So when we have new like no new drinking water wells. So if they exist that's fine that we're not going to say you know there's a problem with that or anything like that. This is about new drinking wells. So that's what that's
talking about. Um I I I firmly believe that if we are going to be doing, you know, if the town is doing that type of testing because of the size of the town and we have those requirements to do that, then the individual should be
doing that type of testing um for that thing. And then maybe what we need to do is have is team up with um the water department to offer discounted water testing for individuals in town that are on wells and maybe we should do that
already. So just thoughts for that >> Mr. Wson Dr. >> First I don't think the analogy between septic systems and drinking water is is appropriate to bring up. um it's in versus out. And so I think it's a very
important distinction that we I I don't think it's the same kind of ballpark. Um septic, yes, that causes its own issues with the earth and everything around it. And so we say if you have the option to connect town sewer, yeah, we're going to force that so we can get that stuff out and reduce the risk to your property.
Drinking water is an entirely different situation. So uh you know, Mr. Davis says guarantee that town water is a better source. Well, until we built a brand new water treatment facility down the road for me, I guarantee I had better water than what the town was
providing because I have treatment in my house for my well. And so the town water until we built that plant had a higher level of PAS, right? Cuz that was the line that was set by the state and that's what the the town was using. So I
actually have better water. In addition, my water doesn't run through miles of town water line. I appreciate that the water's tested and it's a great source and I I'm not trying to say that people in town shouldn't trust it. It's a great source, but I think that it's
inappropriate for this board to basically disallow people from having the choice if they want to to have their own private source of water. And no, I will reiterate that I don't think we should, just like we're not
requiring the drinking well water testing above, I don't think that the situation should change at all here. I think it should be a thing where if you choose to have a drinking water well on your property, fine. And here are the recommendations for testing that. And as
a board of health, that's what we're saying to help keep you individually safe. Lindy. >> So if somebody wanted to put a private well on their property where municipal water is available, would the engineer for this well be responsible for making sure that it's following codes and
bylaws? So there is some system of accountability with this. >> You Yeah, you still have to go through this process early up where you're applying for a permit and going through that and there's initial testing, >> right? So you know it starts safe and then you're saying homeowner
keep testing on this cadence like every other well owner in town if you would like to do that. >> And then just like with plumbing work is this something that's you know inspected and made sure that it's following our codes. >> Yes. >> Yeah. We just passed a whole section
that tells them if you're a well digger you have to follow all of these things. There was a section that we went through all of that. >> Yeah. Then I guess I don't see why a homeowner should be shouldn't be allowed to have this. Like I I understand your point, Matt, where
you were saying, well, there were pests in the town water for a time. You you had well water with a treatment on it and you felt like that was safer for your family. I don't see why we couldn't allow that if you wanted to spend the money to install a well
and have it follow our bylaws. >> Well, Mr. >> But what I'm what we're what we're getting at is once you install the well and we recommend that you do these tests, the town repeats the test so that you know something is going on. You have
an idea that's going on. We're not requiring people to do yearly tests if they have the drinking water. Well, and that is my point is that we the town is doing a service to say from a health perspective, we are making sure that our
water is at a higher quality because you're not we're not requiring people we're suggesting and again that's the whole language thing that Dan brought up. We're suggesting that people do this testing um you know on a on a higher repeating process but we're not
requiring and that's my point is that the town is required to do it because of the population size by the state right that's so from a public health perspective I get independence and I support people making independent decisions get it got it but from a public health perspective and since
we're a board of health we should be focused on what that means that's all I'm Can can we have a two-tier regulation? However, >> although if you have a if you have a drinking water line in front, you need to do the yearly inspection. Absolutely.
We can make whatever we want. It's our document. >> Well, we we can, but is that appropriate? >> I I I'm being I'm being really I'm being serious that >> No, I know. C can is that appropriate? And is that equal protection that is
that defendable that if I want to put a well in I now have to do all these other things cuz I happen to have water in front of my house than if I don't because now we have two different classes of drinking water wells. We have two different classes and expectations
and costs for residents depending on whether you have a pipe in front of your house or not. And I'm not sure if that's defendable from a Well, we have an amazing group of attorneys that we can ask. I
>> I'm just I'm just not I I have a little bit of a concern with saying two >> two classes of of of well owners. And I just I find that a hard one to defend if we're establishing. They're both drinking water wells,
they're both portable, they're both following the same rules, but this group has to use this stuff and some other group does not have to. I I think that's going to come up with a protection challenge. >> Well, so we can ask, right? There's no question. There's no harm in asking.
Number one. Number two, um, again, if we're looking at it from a public health perspective, that's that's where that's my that's where my lens is. I'm not >> Well, in that case, then then let's let's go back to the beginning then and make everybody have to test their water
to the same regulation every year. >> I was for it and I got told that was not a good thing. And well, I'm just if if I'm I'm just trying to if that is the mindset, then we need to be consistent. A drinking water well is a drinking
water well. Um >> I'm >> But we're a different piece here that this is this line is you can't put in a drinking water well if there's a pipe in front of your house. >> Yep. >> What your testing requirements are and those things, that's a different discussion. Right now, you can't. If we
say you can then we can talk about what how you need to manage that well perhaps but right now you can't from this reg this draft regulation does that need to go away that says you can and now it's treated like any other drinking water
well except you can't you have to pick it's either pipe from the front or pipe from the back which you know you don't get to have both going into your dwelling. Well, that's in a different that's in a different spot. That is that is you can't have two connected at the same time. That is not the same that is
not the same thing that's being said there. >> Right. This says I can't have a new drinking well if there's a pipe in front of my house. >> So, should we stick with that? Is that a reasonable requirement? If you say that
you need to test and those other things, that's again a separate discussion. I I I'm kind of leaning towards if again we we see every summer with droughts we get boil water orders because the water levels too low contamination even through treatment plants or you got a break in a main
you've got concerns with boil you got a boil water order and I can go the well in my backyard is going to be providing me cleaner water without a boil water order than what my municipality is able to provide me right now even if it's temporary. Um,
I think we just need to look at that line before we get to Okay. Yes. Or if it's a yes now, how do we manage it? Um, Libbyy's hand has been up, but I'm not sure if it just never came down. So, let's go with Libby and then we'll go with Matt. >> Sure. I guess if I'm looking at this through a real public health lens and I
want to consider the bigger picture, too. So, you know, what is the cost burden on people to test their water yearly? Because I, as much as I agree, I would want my water to be tested yearly if I'm drinking it. Um, from a, you know, a regulation and when I'm putting
in my body standpoint, we also need to consider the cost burden on people and we do have several people in town on fixed income. So, I just want to make sure that we're taking the fuller picture into account here. Is this is this going to be a burden on people to pay for testing every year or do you think that the
water department really is going to be able to come up with a program that makes something affordable for people that are on fixed incomes? Yeah. >> Um, so what this also means is because it says water is available that means
that the water is like in the street. That doesn't mean it's actually at your house I would say. And so no new drinking. So, you could have a house where your water, I don't know, let's say your well runs dry and you have to redrill and put another one in a different location, a different depth that fall into the new drinking water
well. And because there's water under the street in front of you that's not connected to your house, this would say, "Sorry buddy, you can't put a a new well in your property. You are now going to be forced to do a plumbing project to connect to that town water." So, I I think that is again inappropriate.
Second, I'll go back to a a homeowner if they so choose can respond faster than the town. This town was notified that the state was changing the PAS requirements and the town said, "Shoot, we have to build a new filtration plant." Okay, that did not
happen very quickly. And so if there was something like that that happened and you as a homeowner said to yourself, you know what, I don't want to keep drinking that beautifully tested town water for this new concern. I for my household
would prefer to put my own well in at my cost and put my own treatment, you know, filtration system in so I know exactly what I'm drinking. I I 100% think that you should be permitted to do that. And I I know we
are a board of health and we are responsible for the public health, but I think we are coming dangerously close to to overstepping what we should be doing. And it's been talked about a lot and I still firmly feel like we should not be
requiring testing of people who have this. I know it's one one is where municipal water is available but remember the other group is where municipal water is not available and the testing burden is expensive and the state does not give us good guidance on how that should actually be performed
and so I think the handholding needs to stop at listen homeowner we're checking to make sure the well's good when you buy the h when you install the well we're checking to make sure the water's good when you buy a house and everything else is going
to be your responsibility, but here's what we tell you that you should be doing. I think that's the way to stand on it. And I think that should apply exactly to somebody who chooses to say, you know what, I similarly don't want to pay the
water rates of the town. I would like to put in my own well as an investment and then not be held accountable to whatever the costs are for that town water >> and these wells wouldn't be drawing from the same aquifer as like the town water.
It wouldn't be a conflict there. Well, Libby, unfortunately, the the town decides to pull water out of an aquifer, and it could be pulling out of my aquifer, actually, because I don't have access to town water, but they're happy to pull
from an aquifer that my well actually might be into. So, I'm more worried when we connect the line to Harvard and say that we're going to start supplying water to another town because I happen to be on the Harvard line. and I start to worry about, hold on, when is my
aquifer access going to get threatened by that. Who knows, right? We can't see underground. That's a really hard thing to figure out. Davis probably has a sonar and he can he can sort that through, but I I don't know. That's a tough question, but it's two-way street. >> Okay, thank you,
>> Mr. Davis. So, first thing, um, first point, um, you as an individual homeowner, even if you're connected to town water like I did, I went and got my I got went and got a treatment plant, whatever word you
want to use, installed in my house to take care of all of that stuff. So, I went and did that to filter out all the PAS and all the other things that are there. So that is me taking individual responsibility even though the town uh it took it 2 years to put in the
treatment water treatment facility. Um so yeah that's there. Um second thing is um we can also put language in that line to say that if you have an existing well and it fails and you go to dig a new
well this doesn't apply. Since we can create that policy, we can also create that language to go around that problem. So that way if an existing owner's well fails that we can add that language there to have that exclusion. So that >> but why would you if if you're so
important on not allowing somebody to use the wellwater if they have access to town water, why would you why would you permit somebody? allowing if if that is a concern and that is something that you brought up, we can put that language in there to say if you have an existing
drinking well and that's what you want to do, then that is totally a reasonable thing to put in there. There's >> no if 10 is important for public health, then you can't have an exception for somebody. If you think 10 is important
for public health, then you can't have an exception for for a well fail. Matt, all I'm bringing up to you is that since we're creating this document, we can put that in there. I'm not saying I'm for that. I'm saying we can address that. Okay.
>> And and I just like to say that if you have say an RO unit on your town water line, you are paying a lot of money because that RO unit wastes a lot of water that you're having to pay the >> say that I had an I didn't say I had an RO unit on my house. >> I'm saying if you do that's a one of the
most popular water treatment. I did >> systems that somebody had. I'm not saying you Kevin Davis. I'm saying a homeowner in town. >> You threw out the suggestion that somebody could be on town water and add additional treatment options if they so wanted to be even safer than what the
town was providing. And I'm saying if I wanted to if I was worried about the PAS because the town had to take a long time to build a facility and I wanted to put in my own RO unit. Now I'm having to pay the town quadruple my rate for anything that I'm drinking because of the RO unit
flushing. So again, personal choice if that's what they wanted to do. Just like it's a personal choice to have a well in your house. Get it? Got it. I'm I'm only I'm only making a statement and a direction
a policy direction in one way. That's that's all I'm saying. I'm not we're not prohibiting people from choosing to to do that to put on an additional treatment in their house. Not saying that at all. >> But I'm saying that you're if if they choose to do that, you understand that
it's at a much higher cost because they have to pay town water rates to get that water and then they choose to treat it. >> Again, that's someone's choice to do that, right? We're not prohibiting a person from making that choice if they want to have an RO unit to do that. But
you're forcing them into a more expensive option is what I've seen. An RO unit on public well versus RO unit on on on a private well versus RO unit on public water. That's more expensive. >> I understand what you're saying, but
that is their choice. But I think if we're arguing choice, then I am not arguing >> that way since favor as well. Like if you want the choice to put a well in your yard so you're not drinking puss while our town system is being completed.
>> I would actually think that you so I think I think because of the >> it becomes I feel like it just becomes ethically difficult to argue choice in that. I'm no actually I think I actually I have no problem arguing exactly the
stand that I'm on right now. I have no problem doing that. None whatsoever. But that's my stand. That's okay. I have no problem with it. I have no problem with Matt's stand or your stand or anybody's stand. I'm just saying this is my preference. Would
we like to table line 10 for this moment? >> Sure. Or would we like to change that or remove it? I have no problem tableling. I have no problem removing it. It's it's you know I've stated my opinion about it and if we want to if the if the overall
majority is saying remove it okay I'm fine with that. It is what it is. I made my point. Not a problem. Thank you Kevin. I agree. we get to these like lines like this and it's like well do we do we do a quick vote of the
group to just say take it out or leave it in because eventually we're going to have to just do a public hearing on a vote of the entire 28page document and Kevin might vote no because of line 373 right >> and it's and it's well within my right
to do that >> that's his choice yeah this seems to be like that's that is the lynch pin for my no vote um one word >> I would like to I would like to not get there because I'd hate to have like one line be like the thing. But but yeah, like I said, I don't know if we have the
process like do we do a vote? I'm happy. Also tableabling. Um Kevin Baker's not here if we wanted to make sure we got a fifth opinion. Um but yes, I think it's it's something that we should figure out as we work through a document of this complexity to say, okay, just is whoever has the the typewriter in control gets
to delete it and then we move forward or if we kind of have some other thing. We've heard a lot of opinions, but I couldn't tell you which way a vote of five of us would go on, you know, 10. >> So, by the way, uh, uh, Dr. Wason, the
there are multiple ways that you can remove PAS from the water besides RO. Uh, and there are a whole bunch of different things that you can do. And one of the way I have a way of doing that without doing RO. So >> yeah, I just say like it's one of the most common ones because it's so small
and compact and people do it because even people who live on like a a municipal service water they often be like oh I want the the pure taste of an RO kind of thing and so it just be hey >> I know I know >> we have good water here that don't have
good tasting water but um it it can be a personal choice to do that. Yep. Yep. All right, ladies and gentlemen, we are now at 8:03. Would you like to continue working on well regulation? Would we like to table the well regulation
conversation and move on to the remainder of our agenda? I am open to thoughts from the floor. >> How much more do we have left in the document? Question, Mr. Vice Chair. >> I'm going to scroll. We went through agricultural wells and we have
decommissioning requirements, enforcement, hearings, appeals, penalties, variances. >> I'm going to interject. Um, >> I just pulled up the if you look at the very top of this, it looks like this is from a 2023
document. So Kevin, if you if we're aware of a 2024 thing existing, I say before we spend any more time at the bottom of this, even though we probably don't have many changes, we should do the >> I'll do the merge. I'll do the merge. It's not a problem. It's super simple.
>> Yeah. That that way that way like why waste any time on a sentence down there that's been changed already? >> Yeah. No, I I'll I'll make sure that we put in at least um another 14 versions of number 10 in the document somewhere else. Just kidding.
>> It'll be number 11 now and I won't know what it is. >> We'll go to 11. Sorry. Move your reference. All right. So, we're going to table or close discussion for the moment. continue discussion but clearly for this
meeting for well >> we did great we got through a bunch of sections we did awesome >> all right thank you everybody for your robust discussion around well regulations again I'm taking a peek we do have
folks in the audience I apologize while I was sharing my screen I was unable to see if anybody had hands up. >> I was watching. I did not see a hand up. >> Okay, thank you very much. Yeah, cuz I was sharing my screen. I looked. I couldn't get outside of of us. So, thank
you for that. It is now time to move on to our infectious disease decision support tool. Dr. Wason, if you have anything to share. You're on mute, sir. >> Not a whole lot to discuss. wastewater
levels continue to be like super super low. Um you'll note that the uh Littleton weekly case count graph shows that we have a case in the week of July 11th. Um which is curious because it's June 24th today. Uh, so I have to figure
out why the Massachusetts um data that they put out has already started the 2026 27 season and appears to include part of the month of July. Um, because all these quote zeros right here were just were just null values for
weeks that were skipped in the data. Um, so we're going to ignore that. But I think there's probably no cases. However, if we have one case in the week of July 11th, um I will be definitely watching this data as a future prognosticator of trouble.
>> What what betting system is it? There's some sort of betting system where you can bet on the future. >> Take your pick. I'm sure there's there's plenty out there. Um so, yes, you could be betting ahead on on the data that we provide here in Littleton. Um uh armo virus update here. both are still
considered low for triple E and Westnau virus in um Littleton testing it starts in June as you also are aware it's almost the end of June and no test results that I uh have seen have come across so no mosquitoes have tested
positive for either triple E or westnau virus at this point and then it's the end of respiratory viral season so they collapse both the the last sections for Now, any other questions or thoughts? >> Mr.
>> Uh, we just got to make sure that the conversations that we had with Francis surrounding the number of vaccine clinics and things like that get passed along to Kelly so that way we don't lose her momentum as we change to the new person. Pretty pleased. with sugar on
top. >> Yeah, makes sense. >> Sure. >> And then I know there are a lot of other kind of infectious agents that are still popping up in the news. Um, we don't have any risks to our community right
now that I'm aware of, but uh, uh, Ebola had a positive test in France, very recent memory. And um I think that's the only other one that hit the headlines most recently. >> The person who contracted or was exposed
to the haunt virus on the ship uh was most recently released uh out of the Nebraska facility. Um so that was he's no longer there. So that's all I got.
Thank you sir. Uh I see no hands or questions from the group or from the audience. Our next item is administrative matters. Um I know we did get a packet um with some minutes. If folks had an
opportunity to review the packet and any of the minutes in the packet >> and if it's not listed as a public hearing, can we vote on minutes? >> Yes. Kevin said yes. >> Uh I was gonna say administrative
approving minutes that yeah we can >> we can do that. >> We can approve minutes. Yeah, we can approve minutes. >> But I agree with Kevin. I have not reviewed them. >> Say so if I will ask everyone to review the minutes that were in this packet including June 10, 2026.
And I apologize. That's it. That's the only one from our packet was June 10th. So, our last meeting any correspondence, >> Mr. Davis? >> I did get one correspondence from a
individual welcome welcoming our new board member. So, they were very happy to see a fresh new face on the board. So, they were very happy to see that. So, round of applause for that. And then the other um concern they had also was
the uh leaving of Francis. And I told them to stay tuned. Good things are coming our way. Um we're actively interviewing and so hopefully they'll get to watch this and see that there is the new person that's on there. So that's all I had.
>> Thank you, sir. Miss Donigan, >> um I received some correspondence um regarding tonight's meeting and if we had interviewed other candidates, but I brought those questions earlier in our meeting. >> Thank you.
>> Um I have not received any correspondence, Dr. Way. Anything correspondence? >> Um no correspondence. I think the only thing I would raise is um obviously uh Sophia Lindstöm was reaching out to help
coordinate us for this meeting. Um that was just a gap in knowledge for me for sure because I didn't know what coverage we had. But we will still need something on the meeting of July 8th. So, um, in advance of that, I just want
to make sure somebody's taking the lead to say, obviously the m the minutes were created, but we just didn't we didn't know that existed. So, um, if somebody could help run that and make sure we have our proper agenda and everything for that.
Go ahead, Kevin. Uh it was also stated that they have several um applicants for the replacement of our admin staff and that as soon as Kelly gets voted by the select board that she was going to have
the opportunity to do that. So that is forthcom forth with so not negating what you said just piling on to give information. Sorry, Miss Donigan.
>> Sorry, I didn't mean to raise my hand. >> Oh, okay. Sorry. Um, I think just for us certainly we have identified Sophia's coverage for us in the office and we appreciate that. Um, as we're working with our, you know, interim coverage professional as well as
interim coverage admin support. Um, we just need to figure out and we'll talk with Kevin once he's back as well about how we ensure that sorry Kevin Baker our chair once he's back um disregarding kind of workflow
process for correspondence questions concerns that they are retrieved either from phone or emails you know on a regular basis and then shared appropriately to appropriate parties and we'll work with her. We know
at least the the cases that we knew for this one and any other hearing pieces we're going to have for the next board meeting just nothing falls through the cracks for the for our meetings between now and end of July.
All right. If we have no other correspondents, um board member updates, public input, we'll start with our board. Any members of the board have any updates or anything they'd like to share? Nothing. Okay. Last time we talked
briefly about the natural gas storage that was raised. Is that uh I I'm not very connected to it, but is that is there something ongoing? Is there something we need to be doing? Or France has departed, so I'm not sure if
we need to be doing anything. I would mark and see what's going on at the select board level to see if we're needed to interject from a board of health perspective because we have different responsibilities. But the last that I heard and so this
was the chair turnover like so I was the chair from the previous thing was that um we have responsibilities for noise and we have responsibilities for nuisance o you know nuisance things so odors noise things like that. Um I have
had not heard back from town admin or from um the board uh the select board to um see where we need to interject. So let's start again. Um, I talked to Mark
briefly tonight during his office hours and he seemed to think that we probably wouldn't have much of a purview here and I said, "Well, it's supposed to possibly emit a high pitch noise during the vaporization process." Um, and it's my understanding that the
equipment is on Littleton land. So, I feel like some of the information I've received is conflicting about what our role is here. So that's about as much as I know about it right now, >> Mr. Davis.
>> So it is the it is entirely in the purview of the board poor CMR sections to deal with nuisance things and noise is one of those nuisance things and there are decibel levels and all that kind of good stuff cuz if you go out right now and set your decibel level to say this is what my noise was now before
that went in there, this is now not supposed to be. So >> yeah, I've done a little bit of research on some of these facilities, but most of the data that's out there is on more permanent facilities. So, I feel like it's we need to hear from National Grid
or from other facilities what the decibb actually are going to be like, especially in the winter time when you don't have leaves on trees and things like that for how it'll impact our residents. Cuz I found information about bylaws that it should
be under 55 dibels, which is kind of conversational, but then also as loud as a motorcycle revving. So without having more concrete data on these sort of temporary facilities like this one's supposed to run from November to April,
um it's hard for me to be able to say that this data would apply to this facility. One of the challenges with our authority to deal with um noxious odors and noise and those things is that we are unfortunately somewhat responsive cuz
again some things you can predict, some things you can't. We have town noise bylaws that are measured at property lines, but you can't measure noise at property lines until there's noise at the property line. So it is hard to proactively address them. address some
of these concerns. We can certainly, you know, reminders whether it's from us or whether it's from select board or zoning or anybody else. Reminders here are town bylaws around noise and you must be compliant that it's hard for us other than saying you need to follow the law
to take any really active proactive action until there's actually a problem. You can't speed. We can't go out and stop people from speeding until they speed, >> right? you know, we we put up signs, we have like regulations, but until it actually happens, it's hard to enforce.
>> Yeah, I fully understand that. My guess is, should we have a representative at the public hearing with planning board um scheduled for July 9th to go in and say, here's our board of health. We're asking you, you know, to tell us what the decibb would be, which was asked of them to bring to this meeting and the
May 14th planning board meeting. um a planning board member requested that they bring the decibb you know the expected decibb to this July 9th hearing you know but is it should we send a representative to this July 9th hearing with planning board to say we're asking
you to really respect this and if it's louder you know do we need to work with planning board on this to mitigate things or like what's the plan like do we have a responsibility to try to get ahead of Mr. Davis, >> I believe we do have a responsibility
that we should at least state that the the board of health does have a um legal responsibility around noise as a thing. Um I believe select uh board member uh
Mark Romacher is incorrect in his statement that uh the board of health doesn't have any jurisdiction and that I believe is completely inaccurate. Uh cuz we have that in the CMR and I believe you know we've gone over that several times. Um, so you know, we can go there
and there are, like you said, there are town bylaws which already have that in place. And so, um, I believe that that's I think we should go in there with that and send somebody to state that. The other thing to do is to I do recall us
saying that we needed to send something along from our health director from the two meetings ago, I believe, and I don't know if that actually went. So, I don't know how we want to follow up on that, Dan. Matt, go ahead. >> Yeah, I
this is a really crummy situation and um I'll I'll repeat again. It's it's the same stuff where the authority we are given is, as you said, Dan, it's reactive. Yes, there are town bylaws that talk about noise, but they weren't
created by the board of health. And so I don't I I don't understand. I don't think we can demand to be involved. I I wish I wish all the parties were working together enough that we would be included. And I think maybe the right thing to do is for our
chair to reach out directly and say we should be involved in this to Libbyy's point having a representative at that upcoming meeting. But the but the the town has decibel level requirements and so I I I can only assume that they are
then following those appropriately and not setting themselves up for a failure of of that regard because yes whether we get a complaint or not if it's over the decibel limit it would be on the town then to address it because it's still over the limit
whether this board gets a complaint about it. So, it's it it feels very awkward to me and and I do wish we had some future where this board of health was involved preemptively in any commercial system that was likely to
cause noise or oldactory disturbances so that we could be ahead of the game and be partnering with people and not having to be reactive and trying to be, you know, everybody was was great about it until the board of health came along after and was was negative about it. But I don't know how we can really do it in
the framework that we have right now. But if you can find something, awesome. >> I mean, did you guys endorse the school building project? That's not built yet, but did you like have a public stance on the school building project about whether or not that would be good for
people's health or not? >> Not that I aware of. The only the only project I know we've really been involved with was the expansion of the um marijuana processing plant, but that was
pitched to us as a courtesy presentation, not something that we actually had a say in. Even though that was a a facility that had like outstanding complaints about odors.
Mr. Davis. >> So, just for everybody's reference, uh, CMR 7, uh, 310 CMR 7.10 provides the legal framework for controlling noise in Massachusetts with clear definitions, enforcement, authority, and health-based
rationale. Boards of health can leverage it to protect public health, safety, and quality of life. Just FYI. And in there, there's nothing to say that you can't say something ahead of something knowing that the gasification
process is going to create a high-pitched noise that's going to be blah blah blah blah blah. >> Great. Then then it's our purview to ask for a sound analysis of what this is going to produce so that we can review it. And I think that means that we should have a say in the approval of any
steps going forward. I think it still means our ter needs to talk to whoever's in charge >> and Mr. Baker's at town. And then that question of course is who
actually is the I mean ultimately it's the select board but it's also planning and the building inspector and >> so a as we've seen certainly that we have a variety of
departments and boards who have standing in concerns around issues and it's how do we work together and h have a a unified voice townwide of how best to address these issues. Certainly from our town bylaws that the noise ordinance
appears to be enforceable by the senior police officer on duty at any given time and the building inspector um despite noise also being under from the state level a board of health enforcement action. So, not saying that
the a town can't add additional people to be enforcing town bylaws, perfectly appropriate, but it's how do we best work together and that be consistent across the board. Mr. Davis, uh, CMR 752 is the enforcement provision says any
police department, fire department, or board of health official acting within his or her jurisdiction area is hereby authorized by the department to enforce as provided by blah blah blah blah blah. So, there are enforcement provisions already lab uh I'm just going to go turn
on the light. I'm not leaving the meeting. Sorry. Just means that the sun is set. My apologies. Um, I will reach out to Kevin and does anybody have an interest in
being at the July 9th landing board? even if it is simply as a a resident with knowledge and interest as opposed to actually representing the board. I don't think we need to do a joint meeting. If we have three or more
members, obviously it becomes a a formal meeting that we would need to post. Yeah, I have no if I'm back in town from vacation, I would love to go. >> Libby, >> I'm probably going to be there with the sustainability committee anyway.
>> Please be clear which hat you're wearing when you speak. >> Oh, yeah, for sure. Always. All right, LMG, for those who haven't looked at, there is actually a page on the town website regarding the the project. If you haven't had an opportunity to review it, it's going to
be on the old Kimble I forget the name of the farm, but the the Kimble residential area behind um the Toyota dealership where the homes were built, but not completed. It's going to be taking up a um basically one lot in that area. So,
it actually is some distance away from residential properties, it looks like. But there is a a focus map and a little bit of what's going to be there. But it sounds like it is in fact all tractor trailer based other than manhole
connections into the gas lines. Everything else is trailerbased on concrete pads that will be brought in for winter and then removed after that. >> So that's a residential district then. >> Mhm. >> It is a residential district without
residential things. It does look like has lower limits. >> Yeah, it's it's it's it's zoned residential. It is not zoned industrial or light indust industry. So, Matt, you are correct.
>> And the access road is that like bus entrance um at Kembles. >> Yes, it is correct. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. So, it won't be through where the like where the road is blocked off off of Great Road. It will be accessed from >> and I've learned that the vaporization equipment will be on the Littleton in on
the Littleton property. >> All right. Any other administrative or board member updates, comments, or discussions? Seeing none. Anything from our audience? We have a few folks in our audience. I don't see any hands.
We certainly appreciate folks coming attending our meeting. We certainly are open and welcome to hear any comments folks may have or any issues that we may need to address that we are not aware of. We again we like being proactive but often we need to be reactive because we
can only work with what we know. Same thing I used to tell my students I can't fix it if I don't know about it. So as folks are aware of things we appreciate you being here attending our meetings. Please share comments, issues, concerns with us so that we can be do our job to the best of our ability.
Protect our town and our residents. All right. I believe we're at the end of our agenda. We have some homework for all of us. Does anybody have any last comments? Otherwise, we will entertain a motion. >> Make a motion to adjurnn.
>> Second. >> I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, roll call vote. Kevin Davis. >> Kevin Davis votes yes. >> Libby Donigan. >> Libby Donigan votes yes. >> Matt Wson.
>> Matt Wson. Yes. >> And Dan Kane votes yes. That concludes our June 24, 2026 Littleton Board of Health meeting.