So this is the board of health meeting of June incredibly June 3rd, 2026. We have here myself, Katherine Hilton, we have Arlene Reed, William Lavine, Garrett Simson, and we are hoping to
also have Noren Peas and as our guest, we have our our member elect. And um I think we should just get started on things. Um obviously the first thing is always for me to have something to write
with the minutes from last time. Did I send them out? And are they okay? >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> I'll move to approve. Garrett >> second. Arlene.
>> Okay. All in favor? Garrett? >> Yes. >> Whim, >> yes. >> Arlene, >> yes. >> Cat, yes. And Norine is not here. Okay. Um, before we dive into the really
big thing, which is 80 Lake View, I want to go over a few other things that we can knock off quickly. Um, 29 Lake Drive. Um, I got a call from somebody who who has a
place over on Lake Drive saying that um the neighbor's house across the street, which had previously been a rental, but fortunately the tenant moved out apparently in disgust. Um, and shortly after that happened, a whole wall
collapsed on the house. not in retaining wall holding the holding the the thing. The house wall, one of the house walls collapsed. And I've been meaning to do a driveby and see what's going on. Megan is also going to drive by and um take
some pictures and then send it to the building inspector. Um, I don't know if the building inspector can condemn something or if we have to to do that, but obviously the place and and it's a apparently it's a nasty mess and rats have been seen going
in and out and it's a definitely a public health emergency. So, >> but no one's living there currently. >> No one's living there currently, fortunately. I had I overheard um Bob and Carol
Thompson talking to Matteo about um their they had a wall collapse, not a house wall, but some one of their um retaining walls down at the other end of the lake. So things seem to be maybe on the move in the ground over there
>> in the Lake District. >> There you go. Yeah. So that's just for your just for your information. and I'll let you know what happens and if we need to take >> So, are we meant to have an inspection coming up to to officially condemn the
place? >> I don't know. I don't know. I I asked Megan about that and she said she would look at it and she would then um contact the building inspector and between them they'll figure out what has to happen. >> Okay.
It seems pretty open and shut if one of the walls of the house is down and it's full of rats. Yeah. >> Yeah. Really? >> So, so I've also talked with um Megan. I
went to the meeting um of the what is it Garrett? That meet that Thursday morning meeting >> Valley Health Collaborative >> right the it was the collaborative itself. So I went to that and um talked with and it was a it was meeting about
the budget and um so I talked with Megan and the group generally about how we can get out of this funny situation that we're in where we have to have public health money in our budget but we can't spend it because we don't have anybody
to spend it on. And um it seems um because they have set up a a revolving account in Greenfield um it seems that we can um we can pretty much immediately start paying our public health money
into the collaborative account there. Um, I've asked Megan, but I haven't got a definitive answer yet. If we need to have some kind of memorandum of understanding, um, between Shootsberry and Greenfield or Shootsberry and the collaborative or
whatever, um, we did have one or actually we do have one with the with Irving for the district. So, I would assume that we're probably supposed to have the same thing. No, Nororine would probably know this better than I do, but
I think in order to be a part of Valley Health Collaborative, there had to be an MOA orou. >> Okay. >> Um, so there may already be something that exists, but that would have been done
prior to me being back up to Norine. >> Yeah. You know, I have a vague memory of signing anou, but I'm not sure if it was with the collaborative or with Irving. Or maybe it was both. >> Might have been both. >> Yeah, >> because I I think that the grants that
fund that initiative through Greenfield required that. >> Right. Okay. I'll I'll follow up on that. I was thinking that since we're going to be paying money into it, which we haven't done directly um before that
it might take a new a new uh agreement, but and I'm not sure how to find out about that. I'll talk with Megan about it, but I I need to talk with somebody here. I'm not sure. I think I'm not sure who
it would be >> actually. And now I'm starting to have additional memories that I went to a select board meeting because Norine couldn't to explain the relationship >> and that we maybe asked them to approve
something for us to be a part of Valley Health. >> If there was a if there was anou, they would have signed it as well as me probably. >> Yeah. And this is probably going back two or at least two or three years.
>> Okay. >> I'll see I'll see what I can find out. Apparently, this is all this is kind of conditional on the we're assuming that the state grant is not going to be renewed and we're going to have to pay our own way. Um if if it is renewed,
we're going to be put back in our weird situation. So, I have I have mixed feelings about the state grant unless the terms of the grant can be changed. So, we'll we'll find out.
Um, is there anything you guys want to tell me or you know the world at large? All right. Well, okay. So, the big deal tonight has to do with 80 Lake View. And I sent you all the septic inspection
report. I hope you got a chance to look at it. And I was thinking that this is kind of a good opportunity for some of you, Garrett probably and Claire certainly, to kind of get a sense of what these Title Five reports are and
how to read them and what information you can can get from them. Um, historically, Title 5 inspections have been part of Title 5 since this 1970s. It was updated
in the in the '9s to the form that we have now. The difference um between what we have now and what we originally had is that originally there were basically three categories. There was a pass, there was a fail, and there was a marginal. Um, we no longer have
marginal. They either pass or they fail. And if you do you want me to put the thing on the screen share? >> Sure. >> Yeah, that that would be good.
>> Let's see. Is that a host tool >> or or at the bottom of your screen there is a share button? Yeah, the button. >> Oh, here we go. Okay. And Okay. Can you see that?
>> It's scrolling. Oh, there it is. >> There it is. >> Okay. So, you can see that in section B there are a bunch of of course there is conditional pass, but that usually conditional pass usually means that we put some kind of conditional condition
on it, right? will call it passed if you do whatever needs further evaluation. The one that was checked um generally has to do with um
it gen there's two two ways a septic system can fail. It can fail functionally where you get backup or ponding or clogging of the trenches and so on. Or it can fail dimensionally
um meaning that the the the components don't um don't meet the setback requirements. And so usually what happens is it's too close to the well and they usually test the well
right away and then they attach the whale report um to the to the title five report and if it passes then we pass it. If it doesn't pass then it fails.
So what we have in this case is wells just all over the place. Um so if you look at this starred section here okay um numbers 79 81 82 and 83
okay are between 50 we are believed to be between 50 and 100 ft because the inspector didn't really have access to those um and the the the well for This property is about
66 ft. Well, 56 from the tank and 66 from the leeching pit. Um, so last time we talked about this, we said we don't want know what to do. So I asked Megan and Mike Fau for their
advice on it. Um the first answer I got was it's um unless you have passing water test results for all of the wells
that are less than 100 ft away, then you have to fail it. There are a few problems. >> I'm sorry. Can you say that last sentence again? Unless you have passing water test results from all of the wells that are within 100 ft, then you have to
fail the system. >> Thank you. >> Um there are some problems with this. The whole neighborhood is substandard. All right. Nobody meets this the dimensional requirements. Um
this is a very thin um border um of the on the lake at the at the north end. Yeah. And um um it goes up quite steeply right behind number 80. So there's
basically no no backyard of any kind. It's just a hill going straight straight. >> The properties on the other side are tiny. Um, there are at least two, I think, two tight tanks and possibly a
third one. I think there's a shared well there. Um, three of those wells are on the opposite side on the lake side and one of them is right next door. Oh, somebody's here. So,
um, so there's two problems with, um, with getting water tests. First, there's the problem of people not being willing to
get their water tested because, at least for the board of health because they don't want to be on the book if something is wrong. The other problem is that given the multiple irregularities in the area, there's no guarantee that
if somebody has bacteria in their water that it's coming from the septic system at 80 Lake View. All right. So, we could um what Mike Thorough was talking about was make them put in um a TIE tank and we could go
ahead and do that and it might not solve the problem. >> So, I want to I want to go over this a little more a little more fully with you. Um
so at the top of of this page you can see that these are the conditional past um conditions right they can replace broken pipes they can clear obstructions they can reorganize the distribution box
if it's not good um right and of course if it needs pumping more than four times a year obviously it's it's not Um so
all the all the functional failure requirements here in section four are checked no. Right? So we don't have functional failure. We only have this dimensional problem.
Um this is just how they went about it. We don't have to think about that right now. a description of the system. So, so is there a with these abutters I is there a risk of sort of a cascade effect
like like if these guys are all within 100 ft of the septic system, are they all in violation as well? Are they all in violation?
>> I mean, are there they are apparently they've got their own septic systems and they're all just crowded in one after another, right? >> Yeah. Right. >> So, they're all they're all within
they're all too close to each other. >> Yeah. >> Well, some of them may have tight tanks. Oh, >> which would change the >> right the Yeah. >> Right. Right. Um I think the one directly across the street is a tight
tank. Um possibly the one next to that is a tight tank. The other two that are on this list I think are conventional. Um but they are they are all close. And um you know unless there is a
um an obvious threat to the public health by which I mean raw sewage coming out of the system and running down the street or whatever. Um we don't have any we don't have any leverage here. Um, right.
We only have leverage when the title five inspection is done at the point of sale. And >> there are basically two two reasons for doing the title five
inspection. one is just for that reason so that we can intervene at a convenient moment um to bring a system up to code or as close to code as as it can be gotten um and two to inform any buyers
of exactly what is what is on the property. Um obviously it's not guaranteed, right? specifically said that this describes the conditions at the time of the inspection and there's no guarantee of future future um
operability. Um, yeah. So, >> so I'm not quite sure exactly how this cascading cascading repair problem that you're they're invoking um would would happen.
Um often what happens around the lake where the lots are small is that as long as the s system is approximately functional um it's it stays as is and then if it
fails inspection or if there is you know an outbreak or something then they switch over to a tight tank. So, we have quite a few TIE tanks now around the lake. A couple dozen, I think.
>> So, we have we have a few things that could happen. Um, we could say produce passing water tests from your neighbors
and if you can't, you'll be in failure and you'll have to have a tight tank because it's uh 99 and 4,400% certain that a conventional system could not be placed on this on this property. It's
just too small and too um too steep. Oh, >> in that in that case, cat >> uh takes on the responsibility for testing those butter's wells. The person with
the system that is too close to the butter's wells, do they take on the responsibility for testing their neighbors wells? It feels awkward to
turn that responsibility over to an a butter who's not otherwise looking to change anything and saying you have to test your water annually or something like that. >> It wouldn't be an annual test, although
I certainly wouldn't object to an annual test. It would be a one-time test that would that would become part of the Title 5 inspection report. Although we have when we've issued a local upgrade approval
for a system between 50 and 100 ft from a well, we have required water testing annually. >> That is true. That is true. And
I would think that in this case if we order any kind of change we would also order annual water testing. >> Yeah. >> But I don't
I don't know that we could order annual water testing for the other properties. >> Okay. Hm. >> Um, >> okay. >> And for and for the purposes of the
title of five inspection. >> Okay. >> Um, I would think that it would be the responsibility of the owner of this property to get those water tests if she can and pay for them.
Okay. >> Are there other options? I mean, I like your first option. Just compel them to put in a tight tank. >> That uh well, that is one of the options. Um so, okay. So, that's one option. Put in
a tight tank. A second option is um get water tests and basically pass the one that the system that is there assuming that all the water tests are clean.
There is a third option that um that Megan has suggested and it's she sent me a text. Let me find it. >> I reviewed that septic system for 80
Lake Drive. My opinion is that if you can get the water tested from houses number 79, 81, 82, and 83, and they all pass the nitrate level test, then house number 80 would have a passing title five.
>> Oh, wait. If you cannot obtain water samples from those houses or they come back with nitrate levels above five, then 80 Lake View Drive would need a tight tank. But she sent me something else that was that was also helpful. I'm sorry I didn't um I didn't set it up in
advance. Let me look in the in the emails here. Oh, okay. I got to stop sharing for a minute. Okay. So, I said that um that I was concerned
about the water test thing because it would not be absolutely um uh watertight, if you will, um that it wouldn't necessarily tell us what we want to want to know. So, she answered this way. I spoke with Mike regarding
the title five for 80 Lake View. He suggested that if you do not require the water tests, you should at least require replacing the tank before passing. Since the current tank shows signs of corrosion, is located under the driveway, and is not H20 rated,
replacing it should help extend the life of the system, and prevent inadvertent water contamination. I understand why water testing would be difficult since a high nitrate level could be coming from the home owner's house or Lake View Drive, by which she
means other ones on Lake View Drive. So, that is a third option. Get her to replace the the um the tank. So those would be the three options that
we that we have to to in order to fail the system. We would have to I want to read you a little bit from title five. It's about the dimensional
criteria. So if it's less than 100 ft but 50 ft or more from a private water supply well unless a wa well wellwater analysis conducted at a laboratory that is certified by the department for the parameters analyzed indicates an absence
of fecalform bacteria and the presence of ammonia nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen is equal to or less than five parts per million. um unless it meets those criteria, the the
system fails. So, so there's kind of two parts to that. One is if the if the if the tests fail to meet these these
parameters. But there's also the problem that um that we could simply not have the tests available so that so that we don't know.
>> You mean by not having them available the the problem is can you compel those neighbors to do annual testing? >> We're not even talking about annual testing. We're just talking about a
one-time test. one time test, >> right? >> For the purpose of this and I don't think that we can compel them. We could ask them, >> right? >> Yeah. But they don't have any incentive to do it really. And and if let's say
they did fail, they could say, um, yeah, it's that guy at number 80. And number 80 could say, no, it's the two guys who have conventional tanks. They're the ones who are causing the problem. It sounds like it's potentially really
>> complex. >> Um, and and even latigious, it sounds like a way more straightforward approach would be get a tight tank. >> I agree. Yeah.
>> So, >> and how does that work if it's under the driveway? I've never heard of that. Yeah, it happens. >> Huh. >> They have um Well, let's look at the Let's look at the picture again.
>> Like, is that a garage door right next to it? >> Yes. Um >> I thought you're not allowed to drive over these things. Whim, you have no idea how
what kinds of things are going on under the ground because these >> if it's a schedule 40 pipe, I think they allow you like we have a schedule 40 pipe that goes under our driveway out to our Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Here, let me uh Oh, I need to go in. I want to find that thing again. Here we go. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, so here's the picture.
Here's the road. The lakes's over here, right? Here's the septic tank and the leeching pit. And the garage doors are here. Right. She drives over them into the And then back here it just goes like straight up.
>> Right. Um there is >> straight out to what? >> Straight it goes straight up in the air. I mean it goes straight up to the hill. >> Through the woods and then to Wendle the dirt part of Wendle Road. >> No. No. Basically.
Have you been to my house? I know where Arlene has. My house is basically back back here someplace. So, really close. So, when it comes, I'm it would be better if I didn't if I weren't involved in this at all, but I've had to assemble
all this information for you guys. Um um so I'm not an immediate butter, but I am a close neighbor and I won't vote when it comes to when it comes to um voting on this. Um, so, so
there's there's a little bit of land back here, but it's very steep. There's a little bit of land on the front here where I suppose a tight tank could be placed, but there's not enough room there
obviously for a a leeching field, right? And then um then there are other properties here. And then of course it's really close to that well right on the neighboring prop. Um >> guess that's her I guess that's her
well. This must be the footprint of the house. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So we don't have the actual shape of the property >> anyway. That's that's where that's where it is. Um, so so it could be replaced
with um with a a tank that's rated to be driven over whatever that whatever that um description that Megan gave us
R80 or something that um is is made to to withstand that kind of pressure. So the um let me see where the description of the tank is because there is a problem
with the tank. H 20. That's what it's called on what page is this? Page 10. Oh, I'm sorry if that's making you seasick. Okay, says here, "Tank was pumped during
inspection and appeared in decent condition for its age. However, it is beneath a driveway and does not appear to be H20 traffic rated. outlet baffle was still in place but showing corrosion on the baffl and tank walls. Liquid level was correct. So there's it's not
there's not a functional problem with it. That's shown by the the liquid level. Mhm. >> So my bias here is I am loathed to
condemn a septic system that is not in functional failure. >> Now I'm only one of us and I'm and I'm not even going to vote. Um, so, um,
obviously you don't have to just Oh, for heaven's sake verify it's me. Are you kidding? >> Right now, >> that only happens to me when I need to access my email the most. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Sorry.
Um, so that's kind of my bias. I mean, if we had functional failure here, I would I would want to um to replace it obviously with whatever whatever it it takes, but I'm I'm I'm
uncomfortable with the idea of failing something um just on dimensional failure when we have an entire zoning district here in which most of
the most of the systems are in some way um less than less than in less than perfect compliance. So let me hear from >> so one thought that I have related to
whether or not it's compelling enough for the abuing properties to test their wells especially those with conventional systems is that they themselves could be in a similar situation if they look to go to sell.
>> Yeah. Um, so there there might be a reasonable argument to present uh for for the homeowner maybe working with their real estate agent to present to the abutters
to encourage them to test so that we could have um more information to make a decision. But also to Whim's point, you know, pro the more costly but maybe the more easy
way is the tight tank approach because what ultimately what what they're going to face from a buyer's agent is, you know, if they were presented with this inspection report is um,
you wanting for there to be a replace system or to test the neighboring wells and have local authorities confirm what this inspection report's asking us to confirm. >> I'm sorry, did I miss something? Are
there are is this inspection being done because of a um imminent sale of the property? >> The property is for sale. >> I see. Okay. I don't know that there I don't know that there are any um interested um
>> okay it's not >> it's not right on the horizon okay >> as far as I know I have not heard about it >> it it is it's listed though is my >> it is listed there's a sign out front >> sorry I missed I I hear you cat, but I
you know this is sort of the cost of transaction in transferring a property if it's substandard. Not that it's not that it's failing, but dimensionally it's still not meeting the
requirement. Um, and it's sort of a, you know, it's a shot across the bow for these other property owners that yes, they are going to face this same circumstance. Yeah.
>> Um, you know, it it provides I think another compelling argument is that with its proximity to the lake, you know, it really it it potentially
creates a biological problem for all users of that body of water. Um, and it just seems like, hey, it's a cost, but it's a it's a good neighbor
thing to do. Um, and you're going to have to step up and and bring it up to the standard that is expected. >> Well, I want to make I want to make one
thing clear. Um there it is permissible to have the well less than the the statutory 100 ft as
long as it's more than 50 feet and as long as the well passes the water tests that are required by title five. >> I see. So it's not technically in violation. Exactly. That's the thing
here. It does not meet any failure criteria. >> Yeah. So, >> but it but it it's on this this this gray area, this borderline, and that's why this is so difficult. >> It's a high-risk situation for well
contamination either of the the well on site or about swells. >> It is uh I don't know if I would call it high risk. Okay. It is a risk situation, >> right?
>> It is the the the space between 50 and 100 feet between a well and a septic system is generally considered safe in title five, >> right? Could we as
um as the board advise those other property owners of this issue and um and strongly recommend to them that
they undergo well testing. >> We could do that. Um um would they do it? I mean, we can certainly try that. >> Well, because then if they didn't do it,
then we could say, "Okay, they get a variance cuz you're not testing the wellwater, but this was your one opportunity." And then we just go ahead and since it's not technically in violation
then go ahead pass it. >> And are are you thinking about one time well testing whim or repeated ann for instance annual testing? What what sort of scenario are
you >> I I'm just thinking at the po at the point of sale >> at the point of sale one time. Yeah. >> Or >> I mean because I don't know that after
the sale that if there is a fail if someone's well water is contaminated that they can point the finger to that system since there are other systems
that could potentially also be contaminants. Yeah, that's an area as we've mentioned earlier that's a lot of really marginal installations. >> Yeah. >> Right. And that's what makes the whole water testing issue somewhat
>> Yeah. confounding. >> Yeah. It is confounding because we could get information but it could it could not be it could be the information that is not needed. It could be telling us something else and then it would be I
mean what what I'm trying to think about here is basically fairness. I mean obviously we need to be fair to the the potential buyer whenever one appears
um in um not passing something that's not good. On the other hand, we don't want the seller to suddenly become responsible for well contamination if there is any um that they're not
responsible for and that we can't know if they are responsible for. I mean, the fact that this person is the one that is selling um should not put that person on the hook
for everything that might be wrong in the >> in the neighborhood. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Now, now there's a there's a point that I want to make about the lake and that is there is pretty frequent uh
water testing in the lake and we have never had um septic system contamination that we have been able to identify. The lake is actually it's got a it's got a name for being dirty, but it's not. Um the lake
is actually quite clean. Sometimes they have um they have failures, testing failures at the state park um after a hot busy weekend. Um and and that's kind
of small and localized and it washes through. We've got something like 6 million gallons a day or something going through when when the um when the dam is open and um it it gets flushed actually quite quite well.
>> So the belief is that's from the bthers at the state park. >> Yes. Yes. As far as you know, testing in other parts of the lake, um we've in the past we've um we've investigated that and we have not ever found any
indication of sept septic system contamination, nor have we ever found evidence of septic septic system contamination of any wells, right? And so we've had a lot of title five inspections in the 30 odd years I've
been on the on the board of health and many of them because of the dimensional requirements many of them have been have been accompanied by well tests and well tests are I can't think of one that has
been contaminated by by um septic system bacteria. There have been some cases where there's been not fecal but um regular caulifform that usually is caused by
um a breach in the cap on the on the um the stand pipe of the well. So, I just want to, you know, set the the sort of the groundwork on that that so
far, um, septic system contamination has not been a problem at the lake. >> So, even though you're going to recuse yourself, what what would do you think your
recommendation would be? I think possibly the middle way that Megan and Mike suggested, which is um replace the tank >> with a with a tight tank. >> No, just with a regular tank. >> Oh,
>> leave the system in place. The the the place where there's a problem is >> the degradation of the >> Yeah. of the septic tank. They didn't say anything about the That was on page
>> 10, was it? Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. It said the there's corrosion on the baffle and tank. And Megan said um that replacing that
with a new tank that is H20 rated for traffic, >> right? um would extend the life of the system and make it safer. >> Okay.
>> So, that seems to me to be it's seems to me to to be the best way to be fair >> to to all the parties. Um I would certainly like to see well
well tests from the neighbors, but I'll I'll tell you something. If I were one of the neighbors, I wouldn't test my well or at least >> No, I wouldn't test it and hand the results over to the board of health. I might test it for my own my own knowledge, but um you can certainly see
why people would not want us to have the results. >> Sure. >> That's because you're known in town as the sludge judge. What is a sludge judge? >> I don't know. I think that I I assume
that there is it's some kind of um device that they use to measure the the um the the depth of >> of the the tank. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Wait, Whim, are you calling Cat the
sludge? >> Yes. From now on, she is >> here 24 known as the sludge judge. >> Order in the court. I'm I'm working on your t-shirt right now. >> Oh boy, I can't make this.
>> Yeah. >> So, >> this one's beyond me. Yeah. But >> yeah, this is this is really difficult. So if um it seems to me that we could we could table this and think about it some
more. Um you might want to read parts of title five >> or not. >> Or we could just dive in and >> Yeah. >> and vote on it. >> What uh what's the sense of the meeting
here? So, so I do have one question. So, so if we took that middle approach that you're talking about, Cat, to to replace the tank, the existing tank with a new properly graded tank, does that
ultimately address if somebody came back out to reinspect, does that ultimately ultimately do away with that asterric on on this current report where it talks about, you know, this well for this house is plus
or - 56 ft from does that still come into play? >> That's a really good question. >> When a new when a new inspection is done, so in other words, are are they still, you know, so they replace the tank, but then they're going to come
back out and give it that same um >> no >> same marking? >> No. Um obviously all of those all of those whales are still going to be there. >> Yeah. >> Um but it's not going to be reinspected
um unless or until the next time the property comes up for sale. So this is in our jurisdiction, right? We want to be we want to be on the right side of the law here, but we do have some I think that we do have some leeway. Um we
what the what the the um certification here is needs further evaluation by the local approving authority and that's the board of health. So we have we have what's the word I'm looking for? Um
we have leeway. It's not the word I want but it's the one I got. Right. It is a >> and also we would be following the council of
those experts, right? >> Yes. Yes. People who have had the title five training that we haven't had. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I mean, so it doesn't sound like a liability.
Um >> what something that we used to do back in the day and this is possibly be when there was marginal or maybe it was even when the when the form was the one we use now um is that we would well
whenever we're we are expected to to rule on whether the inspection is a pass or a fail when it's when when when it's that particular one is it three Um um we
generally send a letter and require that the letter be made part of the inspection report and when in it we give our our judgment on how on on the
condition of the the system and we can then sort of explain what the problems are. All right. So that we so that the inspection report
does what it's required to do with respect to potential buyers, which is to give them a clear picture of the sit situation as it is at this moment.
Right? So that we would explain that um that there are these these um wells nearby that we are requiring if if we were doing this thing we whatever we requiring we would explain what was being required and I think that we would
also want to add that in the case of failure a tight tank is probably going to be the only option. Mhm. >> Yeah. >> Right. So, we would we would make sure that all the information that a potential buyer ought to have would be
included in the final form of the inspection. So, if you'll excuse me for a minute, I'm getting thirsty. I'm going to get drink water. >> So, H20 tank replacement would not also
include um wellwater testing. >> I'm sorry. replacement with a tight tank. Is that >> No, with the H20 conventional tank. >> Y Okay.
>> Yeah. But it would not include the the um uh requirement that the wellwater be tested only in the case that after the tank was replaced. But >> so I don't know about that whim because
whenever we do a local upgrade approval which is the approval of a system that includes a setback between 50 and 100 ft from a well even a single well
we require that they do annual that the owner do annual well testing >> and I think we would require it in this case too don't you? Yeah. Well, it's the standard. >> Yeah. So, that was my question.
>> So, that So, that means we're talking about four abutters. Is that right? Three or four of butters. >> Four. Yeah, it it mentions four um four addresses. >> Yeah. >> Passed annually. And that feels
I have to say that feels awkward that when a neighbor is incurring a local upgrade situation that we then require the other people to take on the burden of annual >> No, we can't we can't do that. We can we
can put the annual testing requirement on the property that we are >> Yeah. but not on the other >> but not on the others. On the other hand, >> um you know, usually if there's going to be a problem, it's usually going to be
the nitrates because they move right laterally through the soil rather quickly and um or readily, I wouldn't say rather quickly. Um obviously the on-site well is the
closest one, right? So if the on-site well is can is passing the test. That suggests that the other wells are still okay.
>> Sure. Right. That makes sense. It's not a guarantee. >> No, >> but it makes sense. Yeah. So, so let's say what what if we recommended um this
uh H20 tank replacement um with annual well testing and then what if the the water testing
um showed contamination? Would they then have to dig up the brand new H20 tank and put in a tight tank? So, they'd have two tanks they'd have to go through. H >> And how many how many well test failures
do they get before you say, "Oh, nope. Not not okay. >> Well, I think it depends on what they fail on. If they fail on colifform, um we would have them disinfect the well
and try again. If they fail on nitrates, um no, they would that would be they would immediately have to go to a tight tank. There wouldn't be any other way, right? Because nitrates would be a pretty clear indication that it was
coming from the septic system. Yeah. >> Whereas colifiform sometimes it comes from from the ground. >> Yeah. So I mean as long as they understand that could as long as they understand that
risk I mean >> right >> so here's the other thing is the seller is going to be paying for this upgrade right >> presumably seller's responsibility
sometimes sometimes um buyers and sellers make their own arrangements and um the the buyer takes it on, but it's basically this the seller's responsibility by law. >> Yeah. Yes. So, they won't be around.
They won't presumably they won't be around anymore should nitrates show up in the wellwater a year, >> right? >> Um so then >> so they're buying that risk.
>> Yep. But I mean we're all dying that risk with the given that we all have wells and septic systems. That's just a condition of life in Shootsberry. >> Yeah. >> Garrett, what do you say? I guess we go the
I guess we go recommend the the middle route of encouraging them to replace the existing tank >> with annual testing. >> Yeah. Yep. Yeah. >> Very. >> I don't think that we could encourage them. I think we'd have to require it.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, yeah, that's what ultimately >> Yeah. It sounds like that's the safest course of action. without involving all these other neighbors. >> I guess what I'm confused on, Cat, is
what you brought up at the beginning of this discussion about what Megan was >> recommending about we could pass it if the neighboring wells all tested. Okay.
Okay, tell me what's confusing. >> So, it it seemed like that was kind of the starting place of of this. And so I'm just I'm trying to to understand if if we have them go down the road of
replacing the tank while the inspection report says that it, you know, it's not properly rated, but it's it hasn't failed. It's structurally okay.
We have them replace the tank, a new a reinspection or a new inspection by that's, you know, required by say the buyer's um financing still brings up this other point. Are we
still in the same place of they're going to want the neighboring wells to be tested? That is a possibility, I suppose. Um, >> and maybe I'm just getting hung up on
the neighboring wells and really the >> best solution is to just to um have them replace the tank. The It seems to me that Megan's proposal that we could have we could replace the
tank presupposes that the other wells like the well on site are not being affected
by this septic system. And we don't know, of course, if they're being affected by their own or each other's septic systems. Um, I kind of lost my my thread there.
Um, help me out here, Garrett. What am I trying to answer? I'm I'm just trying to to think through all of the elements that are listed here, you know. So, there's the not ideal tank that's currently there
but has not structurally failed. And then there's conversation in this report about the neighboring wells and advice that we've received from
Megan that says that we could pass this system based on well testing from the neighboring properties. And as we've previously alluded to, the
fact that the well testing on the the property um that we're discussing that very well seems clean is an indicator, but obviously not a guarantee that the other
wells are probably doing fine also, >> or at least if they have a problem that's not being caused by >> Exactly. It's not coming from this property. And and and the the point of this also is you want to allow these people
to sell their property, right? I mean, you don't Yeah. >> Right. Right. We don't want to be holding up a sale or a pent think there's one in the works, but we don't want to be making possible. >> Yeah. So while I I think we could get
around this um the current system is not structurally failing. However, there are defects noted. It's not clear that it is
H20. So you you know strong enough to be driven over. And then there's some the the concrete is showing age. >> Yeah, there's corrosion. I don't know. >> Corrosion.
>> I'm not sure it would be corroding, but it was been it's been noted. >> Yeah. Well, >> yeah. >> I wonder I wonder if we should have sort of plan A and plan B
in which plan A would be see if you can get the other wells tested. See if they pass. >> If not, replace the tank with a conventional H20 rated tank in the same place where it is
now. Yeah, but you'd have to put a time limit on it. You'd have to say, you know, this is the buyer's responsibility to see if their kind neighbors will will test their wells within 30 days. >> It would be a seller's responsibility.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Did I Is it Oh, that's >> I seller. Yeah. Um otherwise, yeah, you go to plan B. Because I think we all agree if we were in that position, we probably would we
even if we liked our neighbor, we might not get our well tested, >> right? >> Um >> yeah. because then you're opening the door for the sludge judge to come after you,
>> right? Um >> I mean we we could present it as those options, cat, you know. So option one is to uh provide the board, you know, to work with your neighbors to have your their wells tested and provide the board
with results. >> And option two is replace the tank. >> Yeah. >> Well, here's another here's another question. Um, if that tank is somewhat substandard
and replacing it would potentially extend the life of the system. Do we want to if plan A works and everybody's well is tested in terms of claim? Do we want to
not require the tank to be replaced? >> Yes. Yeah. That that's that's the exclusion, but that's a a much lower probability that that that everyone is going to go
along with A. Um, so I think the default is going to be B. Put in the new H20 and test your own water. Yeah, I expect so too. Just in the on the off chance the plan A
actually pans out. Certainly. Certainly there are other septic tanks in town that are not in perfect condition and we get we get
um pumping reports from the septic system pumpers and they usually comment on the condition of the tank whether it's good or fair or occasionally poor. So it would perhaps be overreaching for us to insist on replacing the tank
if >> the first plan um >> is >> successful. I mean, you could get away with it though since it is in their driveway
and and it and according to the inspector, it it may not comply with that uh that weight, >> right? of vehicles. >> Yeah.
>> Which would cause further breakdown, I guess. Um >> I guess I mean that we we're figuring it's been there for 50 years. >> O yeah. >> So >> but but the condition of the tank
is described as having some corrosion. I can't remember the other thing, but not cracks and >> Right. Right. There's no sign of structural damage or failure on the tank. It's just the corrosion and fact
that it's not >> it's not rated for traffic. Obviously, not getting cars driving over it, you know, day after day. >> Yeah. Yeah. And on that ground alone, as I think Whim has said is,
we would have plenty of grounds for asking that they upgrade the the tank. >> But remind me, did they did they get the results of their own wellwater testing
back? >> Yes, I I read the results. It was no colorform, no. >> And it was fine. Yeah, >> it was fine. There was not no um >> it was um within acceptable limits I
should say. >> Yeah. Yeah. Like the maximum um contaminant level was like 10 and this was like >> 0.14 something like that. It's well it's well within the >> So our other option is just to approve
it, >> right? Hey. >> Yeah, we could approve it, but we >> then we have the problem of the other wells. >> When you say approve it, you mean approve like declare it,
>> give it a pass. >> Yeah, give it a pass. But you know, you could with a stipulation of annual testing. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, so I I think I've got hold of the
thought that I lost before and said that Megan's suggestion about the replacing the tank was was predicated on the supposition that if this well is good, the other well is the
other wells are good. and that um replacing this tank with a better tank would basically protect the the whole neighborhood um in into the future. >> Mhm.
>> Yeah. And but is do we have grounds for requiring that? You know, I I mean, ideally, yeah, they would upgrade their tank, but if they can meet safety criteria
without that, are we >> are we over >> our balance to require that they replace it? >> What would be the grounds for requiring that we replace it? >> Can you say that again? Sorry. I'm just I'm just asking I'm just wondering to
kind of to myself what would be the grounds for requiring it? Um obviously if there were some other component that was substandard >> it would have to be replaced. And in
fact, we've seen that there are conditional passes where um where there are um conditions that things have to be replaced
>> and that's how that's how it gets passed. um that as part of the basically as part of the inspection they go they discover that one of these things is um um
affecting the system and they they fix it right sometimes they don't even they usually they don't even ask they just fix it >> but this isn't one of those right
>> now. Yeah. How much how much authority do we have here? That's the question. I'm not sure. That's a legal question, right? Well, I think it is. On the other hand, sort
of from a practical standpoint, we could fail this system, right? That that is within our authority. We could say you don't have you don't have um uh water test passing water tests from all these
abutters and therefore your system is in failure and you're going to have to replace it and we know that replacement would be a tight tank. So we have we have a certain amount of leverage here >> right and when I don't know exactly what
our sort of statutory authority is but we have a certain amount of leverage we can say okay you don't have that but rather than fail your system and compel you to have a tight tank we are offering you this other option which is replace
the tank with something that would is more likely to be protective of the public health in the future. Well, the other thing is that if they did go all the way to this um probably
most expensive option C, which is the tight go right to the tight tank, >> it is indemnifying the ultimate buyer of this property should any of those other properties
have difficulty with the purity of their wealth. wellwater cuz they can then say, "Hey, it's not us. You have no claim against us. We we have a brand new tight tank."
So, I mean, there's a lot of peace of mind, I would imagine, in that since all those other wells are within the 100 foot. >> Yeah. Is this a a year round residence or a seasonal place?
>> It's year round. >> Year round. >> At least it's year round now. Um and it has been for I'm not sure how long. >> Not that that many years. Many years >> because its current status doesn't
obligate the next owner. >> Right. >> Keep it in the same. >> Right. Right. But it's it is it's not the kind of place that you couldn't live in the winter. People do. Um
I wanted to look at another picture. I feel like we haven't gotten any any closer to >> I know. No, you were right. Uh, it's a >> one. >> Yeah, >> it's complex.
>> Is there anyone at DP that we could pick their brain or I wonder >> or >> Yeah. >> or who is the uh
I I couldn't read the signature the in of the inspector. Who was who filled out that title five? >> It's somebody named Luke Ruddy. And uh he's in he's located in um
in over in 978 uh somewhere. Let me let me go back to the top and see. >> Templeton. >> Templeton. Yeah. Never heard of him before. >> Yeah. So I don't think you know asking another inspector who who you know what
their opinion is that wouldn't be helpful I don't think. >> Yeah probably not. So, the H20 traffic related septic tank requirement went into effect statewide in March of 95.
>> Okay. >> And this report seems to suggest that the system went in in sometime in the 70s, right? >> I think so. Yeah,
that that makes sense given what I given what I know. >> So, it's been 30 been driven over for since the regulation for age 20. It's that's 30 years ago.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And that that further reinforces Garrett's earlier suggestion that we request that they replace the tank with an H20 and perform manual testing uh even though it hasn't technically
failed. >> Yeah, I mean that I I think Whim originally suggested it. Um, I'm just trying to think through whether or not we're acting
it if we have the authority to just fail it based off of that alone, >> right? I know what you're saying. Yeah. >> Well, we wouldn't necessarily be failing it. If you look at the certification categories, we have pass, conditional,
pass, and failure. And obviously what we need to do is move that X from three to one of those others. And it could we could move it to conditionally pass and say it will pass if you replace the septic tank
>> and perform annual testing >> and perform annual testing >> which and the annual testing falls to the new owners. >> Right. the B. Yeah. >> Right. It would have to be it would have to be attached to the deed.
>> Yeah. >> And be registered at the registry. >> Yeah. It's a condition of the sale. So, I I think that's where I'm I'm going to fall um on this is that that's we'll conditionally p, you know, recommend that we conditionally pass it based on
the replacement of the tank because ultimately what I think is going to happen is the financing agent for a buyer, if they look at the Title Five inspection, they're going to
have concerns. >> Yeah. about this system, >> right? >> So, you know, a buyer may not even be able to proceed with purchasing the property if whoever they're working their finances
through um won't do it because of this report. Mhm. >> I think I'm landing in the same um to I'm arriving at the same conclusion that Garrett is
that we require an H20 tank and annual testing. >> So you don't think >> so as to give it a conditional pass? I'm sorry. >> Right. And so you don't think that
the other untested wells in the area will can will be a insuperable barrier for the financing agent of the buyer. >> Well, no more so than um
any other local upgrade approval we issue. Right. >> Yeah. Right. Except that the only thing that's different about
this is those other wells, right? Usually we're it's a it's pretty cut and dried, right? Their their well is too close. Their well is say 70 ft away. We test well uh it passes. We require annual
well testing and it's all very clean and and right settled. >> Uh this is a little less >> for us to say that the um the owners of the current property the um 80 Lake View
or their buyers test their well. We're accepting that their well is like a monitor representative of the status of the other wells. We're >> essentially saying that that's a
um an indicator of the other wells status. That's an indicator of status of the other wells with respect to this septic system because it's no
guarantee that they don't have problems, >> right? >> Have their own. Yeah. >> Exactly. >> Exactly. And that's why that's why, you know, testing all the wells, even if we could get it, is not going to tell us. >> It isn't. No,
>> it's better to steer clear, I think, of of those other properties. And I'm not sure that that a mortgage lender would I I just don't know. Um, but I've never heard of that where they would
look at the abuing properties and condition the sale based on on someone else's obligation to make sure that their wellwater is portable. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> But they will have access to this inspection form. >> Yes. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, you know, so if if we conditionally pass >> based on testing the neighboring wells, that it's that's a one-time thing, and you still have the issue of of this
older tank that's under the driveway. >> Um, so it it I think it just seems that the best approach is to conditionally pass based on replacement of the tank.
Yeah, I'd be willing to second that. >> Yeah, me too. >> Okay. Does somebody want to make a motion and go slow so I'll take it down word? >> Uh, so feel free to word smith with me here.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Um, so I'm thinking >> uh that I would move to conditionally pass based on the information presented in the title 5
inspection provided a tank upgrade to an H20 rel rated tank and annual testing well. How many years though? A limit on the
>> No, every year. >> Every year. >> Well, and and so so that's the the motion. And then I have a a question for you, Cat. So then how does that work once the property sells and ownership is transferred? How does that annual testing requirement get conveyed to the
new owner? We have well first of all the the the letter that we write giving our further evaluation that's being asked for in the report becomes part of the report and is made available to any
prospective buyer. In addition, because the property is changing hands, in addition, we could require that the that our letter be registered at the registry of deeds so
that it would also be attached to the deed for the house. And that's about as much as we can do except that when another when another person moves in, we could conceivably
send them a letter letting them know that there is this annual annual um testing um requirement. And in this motion, we would want to add the parameters. And I
don't think we have to spell that out right here. our usual parameters for wells and our usual timing because we want it to be um to be tested at the end of the summer. >> Okay, I think that's a friendly
amendment. >> Very okay. Okay. So, we have a motion on the floor to give a conditional pass to this system
based on the information that we've received, which includes um a passing well test, provided that the existing septic tank
be replaced with a new tank with the H20 rating and also provided that annual water testing for the appropriate parameters at the appropriate time be performed and the results be
um um forwarded to the board of health. >> That's good. >> Does that does that satisfy your motion there, Garrett? >> I think so. And does that seem consistent for everybody else and what
we've talked about? >> Yes. Um yeah, you are citing the um the title 5 report and do you have to repeat
what it says about the um the condition and the the distance from the well and all that? I mean, do you have to repeat all those details or just say, uh, given that we reviewed
the report, here's what we are, >> Whim, are you talking about the motion or are you talking about the contents of the letter? >> I'm talking about um Oh, good question.
Um, I guess that's the contents of the letter it would be with those details. >> Okay. Um, well, all the details. Well, yeah, we
would probably want to lay it out in a in narrative form, right? Yeah. >> Here's the situation. Here's what we want you to do about it. Here's how we probably want you to do it. >> Okay. Good. >> So, we have a motion on the table. Do I
hear a second for that motion? >> Second. >> Further discussion. >> All right. Hearing none, let's go to a vote. We'll go down the order here. Garrett. Yes, >> whim. >> Yes,
>> Arlene. >> Yes, >> cat. I should abstain, which is somewhat hypocritical of me, but um I'll do it anyway. Um all right. So, the motion passes.
Um I will I will draft a letter to this effect. Um, do you want me to circulate a copy of this letter for your review before it's sent?
Um, couldn't hurt. Um, I trust you'll represent us well, but um, and I don't I don't need it. >> No, I think we I think
we've talked it through pretty thoroughly. >> Okay, Garrett. >> Uh I don't I don't think I need to see it. And I think what we've come up with is consistent with the guidance we were receiving from Megan and
>> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, do you think that in the letter we should um we should mention the fact that
in case of a failure here? Um, we'd be looking at a tight tank in the future or is that not is that sort of beyond the scope of what we're doing here? I think that that's
um maybe conf potentially confounding. I I think if we get a um if we get a bad well test then we address it. >> Yeah. I I think it is beyond the scope
of this decision. >> Okay. >> Um action. >> Okay. So, what I'm going to say in this letter is that um um there are
several concerns that have been raised. Um that um that we feel that probably the the the well result
the water result from this well suggests that it is not having an effect on other wells in the neighborhood and that we are conditionally passing this and the condition is that the tank
should be replaced and the water should be tested annually. >> Okay. >> There we are. I think I think this is I think this is a good choice. It's it both puts some
some burden on the seller to to make the situation better but without without creating an undue burden of um putting in a tight tank and also pro
possibly seeing the property value fall. >> Yeah. and and especially since they're the type of tank they've got right now is not really uh rated it's not rated for the setting
in which it is you know the being driven over >> right and it's true that probably for 50 years they've been driving over it but for 50 years they've been driving over it and how how much of that is it expected to take >> right >> the fact that it hasn't it hasn't
collapsed yet doesn't mean that it's not at some point. >> All right. Well, thank you for your detailed and lengthy consideration of this. >> A tough one. >> Yeah, it was very tough.
>> Hey, can I ask a quick question before we adjourn? Um, are are you familiar with this campground on Wendell Road overlooking the lake? It was a property that
apparently just sold. Uh, it's wood. It's a wood lot. it it's there's no dwelling on it, but someone it looks like um the new the buyer has
I don't I don't know what they're planning to do. I mean, it looks like they're sort of setting up for a summer camping scene. >> Tell tell me more. Where is this exactly? Um, it is towards the Camp
Anderson end of the dirt part of Wendell Road. >> Okay. So, down toward the bottom. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um and and if you are driving in that direction, it's on the lakes side of
>> of the road and and you'll see a bunch like like a bunch of picnic tables and and giant rubber made containers full of household stuff and um
and it looks like some clearing maybe has happened. I don't know. It's I've never seen anyone there or I'd stop in and say, "Hi, new neighbor. What's going on? >> What's happening?"
>> Huh? That's interesting. I'll I'll uh I'll drive by and see. I have not heard anything about it. >> There were It looked like there were maybe two parcels for sale there. a a
you know right next to each other. Um >> and are they still for sale as far as you >> I think one I think one is and I think this one probably sold is my guess. >> Huh.
All right. Well, I'll go. And >> because there was that other camping scene, remember we talked about? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Um I ran into the person who who
informed us about that and asked him if he'd seen anything recently and he said no. That uh they seem to be they seem to be gone. They did get um they did get um I forget what they call it. Served they
got served a a a notice from the sheriff's office. >> Got it. >> Um to to not to not do that. And I have to assume that they they did not do that or else they've hidden themselves really well. And that's a problem because we
can't legally go on their property, right? Unless we're invited or unless I don't know the police need to go there or something. >> Yeah. Well, see what you think. I mean, if you happen to be driving by. >> Yeah, I'll go by and see what I can what
I can see and also try to figure out what the parcel is and then I can then I can find out who owns it. >> And if it did just change hands. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> It might have. Uh-huh. Okay. Is it a is it a good size
parcel or are these these tiny lake parcels? Do you know? >> No, they're they're bigger. Yeah. >> Um they're up a tier up away from the lake. So, you know, they're they're right on Wendle Road.
>> On Wendle Road, and they're on the lake side of it. Yeah. >> All right. I'll see what I can find out. >> All right. I'd get on the I'd get on the map right now, but um that I don't that probably
would not be helpful. >> No. All right. >> All right. Do you think we're done? >> I think so. Um, no decision currently about early July meeting that that discussion
was circulated earlier. It depends on whether we really need one, but >> yeah. Yeah. I thought we just wait a little bit and see what the see what business comes before us. >> Okay.
Um yeah, that that is all I have on my uh on my list here. >> Okay. >> Okay. Well, thank you all for your really hard good work. >> Thanks.
>> Thank you. >> And I'm going to declare the meeting over. >> Okay. Okay. >> Have a good night. Good night. Good night, everyone.