Uh, good afternoon and welcome to the December 8th, 2025 meeting of the board of health. Um, which I'm calling to order. Under master law, chapter 3A, section 20F, this meeting is being recorded. And please join me for the pledge of allegiance.
I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, justice for all. For all. Thank you.
First on the agenda, the director's written report. Any questions on that? I did not have any mad. >> All right, we'll do updates. >> Okay. Yeah. So, not much just because of the holiday um with all the time off,
but uh we're still uh working on obtaining quotes for the installation of irrigation well at the transfer station. The challenge has been finding a contractor willing to bid at the required uh prevailing wage rate. So, we did have somebody come down. I'm just waiting for the quote to come back and
um we'll I'll update you once I get that back. I'll update the board. >> Anything else? >> Nope. >> Okay. >> Could you just um talk about the um interviews you're having? Are you have
are you set up interviews for the part-time animal control? >> Yeah. So, we have an interview tomorrow with a candidate for the part-time on call animal control position. Um, and then we have uh another interview um for Thursday morning with another candidate.
So, um hopefully one of these candidates proves to be, you know, capable and um willing to take on the on call role. >> We've had a few. >> Yeah, we've interviewed quite a few. >> Worked out. >> Yeah. So, >> okay. Um All right. Um, we'll move on to
minutes. >> I didn't see any um um issues with the October 27, 2025. >> I'm fine. >> Okay. So, I move that we approve the minutes for October 27th, 2025. >> Second. >> Motion made and seconded to approve the
October 27th 25 minutes. All in favor? I >> I That's unanimous. Thank you. I didn't see any issues or changes to be made on November 24th. >> I'm fine. >> Okay. So, I move that we approve the minutes for November 24th, 2025.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I That's unanimous. Thank you. >> Um we'll move on to board member updates. >> Okay. Well, um This is um uh
this is not a a topic that necessarily um falls under the board member updates, but I I don't think it kind of stretches it too far. Um so I've been um thinking a lot about uh the
future implementation of um the regulations regarding cesspools and um and one of the things that has really been concerning to me is um addressing the cost issues because costs have gone
so up so much over the previous period of time more likely to go forward in the future and thinking about what we could do about that. Um and one of the uh unfortunate
um what's the right word? Um stumbling blocks to do that is the fact that we have a community septic plan uh I mean grant program and we also have the legislative tax credit which recently
got um kind of upgraded and expanded but it only applies to failed systems. And uh and so that just creates not logistical problems but I mean that
but in this context of the whole process of making the determination about whether a system is in failure or not and how the rate of regulation doesn't title five doesn't really deal with the environmental impacts
uh related to set school's impact on environment because they hadn't identified, you know, nitrogen sensitive areas at that point at all. And so, uh, and it applies to both the tax
credit and and the and the, uh, community program. So, it seemed to me that there was an opportunity for, uh, some initiative there to see if we could um, there's kind of like a two-part kind
of kind of come up two ideas about it. And one is whether or not um there's something legislative that could happen with that and that and that those two programs could uh meeting the the community separate
loan program and the tax credit that there could be legislative amendments made to that to deal with the cess cess pools and perhaps exempt them. Maybe not all, but you know, just just to talk about that with the legislators. Um,
because we have an advantage in, you know, Senator Rogers being where he is and our representatives here and and they're being really plugged into that. So, that was one idea. And then the other idea was so we have authority to
declare a system failed. um if uh uh under title 5. Um but how does that but can can we >> I'm sorry the door has to stay open for public access >> but can we use that authority
um in an effective way um and just thinking about the uh the septic loan program you know possibly working with D to do something you know to to see and talking about ourselves you know because
uh if if there is um some way that we can use that authority effectively for that purpose. Um and so uh and so that's what I wanted to do. I um
uh so I I thought you know one step would um you know uh be to reach out to Steve Olette and just see just like take the temperature. Is this even worth talking about? Um because obviously the
state has its own financial issues. Um and anything that maybe reduces tax revenue would just not even see the light of day. Um but uh so unless
you all I mentioned this to Matt in passing just conceptually I think it's really would be a really good thing to do if we were successful. Um, and I just thought I might test the waters. >> Um, so I think uh that is um it's worth
pursuing. I think we need to put it on formally on an agenda. >> Um, so I'd suggest that we put it on the next um agenda which will be in January. Um, and if there's, you know, without um formally representing the board because
we can't take the vote on this at this point. >> Yeah. It's not a votable. >> If you wanted to do some research and Yeah, I just wanted to, you know, >> I believe there are other towns that have done declared um cesspool as failed and the timing would be good in that
>> um they have to be replaced by February 1st, 208. So, the 2-year timeline, it would all fit into place. And if the purpose is really to >> make people eligible for more uh financial um support for doing it, that
I think that would be excellent. Um, so why don't we um >> I guess we could I guess what we could do. It for me it was just saying I'm thinking about this and I wanted to talk to some people about it at at this at at
this point without like you or anybody here at the hearing about it you know you know through the great fire. >> I would suggest you know doing doing some research and come back. >> Yeah. Okay. >> What information you've learned and we'll discuss. I mean I think there's
those two options the legislative and the board health authority and figuring out a do we want to proceed and b which is the better avenue more timely and you know um effective avenue and then we can
once it's on the agenda we can you know take a vote to proceed in a certain way >> and maybe there are other allies we can get advocacy allies who were involved in the at least on the tax credit stuff like the Ocean alliance and maybe there are other people out there who would
support this, you know. >> Sure. >> So, okay, that's that's >> okay. So, um so that would go on to the January what's that date? January 5th. >> 5th. Yeah. >> 2026. Um anything um not voting wise,
but any other comments you want to contribute to that? Well, um I informally have spoken to Steve Wlette about it. So, he said he'd like to hear more about what the ideas are and whether the board, that's something the board Okay, >> wants to pursue. So,
>> okay. Well, we don't have a board vote on that yet, but after January 5th, we could potentially move forward. Okay. >> Uh, anything else, Phil? >> That's it. >> Okay. Donna, >> yes. Um, well, I'm in opioid settlement fund advisory committee
on hold. >> Yeah, I was going to say limbo is the word. Um, on hold until the change in um >> town administrator. I have had the opportunity to informally chat with the
new town administrator um um about, you know, what's been happening and where we'd like to go from here. So, so, um, but I, um, um, I'm still working on some of the key,
um, areas, uh, that I would like to see funds go to, and one of them is in the school department, and I'm going to be working with the superintendent on developing some kind of assessment, uh, tool to survey the
students, faculty, parents on where they think the funds would best be utilized. So, so I continue to work on that particular those particular issues. But in terms of moving forward with an RFP and then management of um the uh the
business part of um of the funds is the question that's up in the air. >> Okay. January will come soon. >> Yes. >> Okay. But I I I you know I already talked about and we know that the health
notes is in for November, but do we have a health notes for >> December? Well, I'm going to was going to pick up on that and say thank you for doing that column. Um I have in the last couple of well in the last week gotten um outreach from two town residents
about um one was um um New Bedford um um doing a press release about recycling and you know where to bring Christmas trees and what you can do about Christmas lights and this >> this and such and whether we you know
can do something like that in Westport >> as well as um a resident who's a member must be a member mber of the little Compton Garden Club, which is sponsoring a styrofoam collection day. Um, and of course, this is the time of year when people get a
lot of styrofoam in their um the packages that get shipped to them. Um, and styrofoam is, you know, it's bulky, doesn't break down, it's, you know, it's just a not good for the environment. So, um, so I I did post something on
Facebook just to get that out. Um, it's January 10th, I believe, but I thought a column about sort of combining and I'm waiting to hear from the land trust whether they're recycling Christmas trees this year. I think they did last year. Um, so trying to get some
information. So that's what I'm thinking for December. You know, holiday time is, you know, think about recycling. Um, unfortunately, West New Bedford has started a food waste recycling, you know, sort of like
a composting program. um at there. So that would be >> if we had time and resources uh to support that in Westport, that would be lovely, but we don't. So >> um so that's what I'm thinking for December. >> We must have a city collection, right?
Is that what they're doing? >> Yeah, they're partnering with some >> company. I think No, I don't think it's collection. I think you have to go to the trans their facility >> um to bring it. Is Little Compton going
to allow anybody to bring the styrofo? >> It didn't say it was resident only and this woman who emailed me was a garden club member um asking me to promote it. So, I'm assuming that that is um
>> and where in Little Compton County? Where's that going to be? >> Um St. Andrews by the Sea. I think there um I um if you look on Facebook, I have the poster there. U but I will include it in the um in the column. So unless
anybody has a better idea for December um that'd be great. Okay. So that'll be what I'll do. >> And you said the date again. Could you repeat the date? >> Remember >> January 10th. >> January 10th, I believe. Okay.
>> I'll I'll double check on that. Okay. Uh, anything else for board member updates? Um, okay. Um, Mr. Rodri's, I know you are not I mean, you're here for the 440 >> Yes. >> hearing. Does that have a butter
notifications? Yes. >> Yes. >> So, we have to wait. >> Okay. And the 430 is >> it's going to be continued. >> Okay. So, um, can we wait till 4:39 and just call that to continue it? >> Yes. So, we have a break. We can wait
till 4:40 and we'll take a recess until um 4:39. >> Okay. >> So, you can >> I'll relax. >> Take a break. Um so, um I'm ask a motion for a recess until 4:39. >> So, moved. >> Second.
>> Thank you. All in favor? I >> um so we're uh re um convening the December 8th board of health meeting. Um, and I'm going to call a um hearing for 127D Petty Lane for James Weldon, a
two-bedroom repair with stone bed and Fuji system represented by Mark Rogers. I'd like to request that that be continued till at least the 5th of January. We're going to we're working a butter well notification to get water testing done. So, there's been some
delay in trying to bring this in front of the board. >> Okay. Okay. Um, I'd accept a motion to continue to January 5th. Do we have a time? >> Yes. Uh, 4:30 p.m. >> So moved. >> Second.
>> Motion made and seconded to continue this hearing to January 5th at 4:30 p.m. All in favor? >> I I Okay. Thank you. Um um then the um we'll call a 440 um
hearing a for 99 Sylvia's Lane for Betty Anne Stoy um two-bedroom repair with a BSF bottom sand filter and a Fuji on a 5,250T lot also represented by Mark Rodri.
>> Good afternoon folks. Happy holidays. >> Thank you. It is here and it felt like it today, didn't it? >> Micro products analysis and design engineering. Uh I'm presenting a septic repair plan for a very small lot, 99
Sylvia's Lane, owned by Betty Soy. She's the trustee. Uh that map 72, lot 45. And again, it's 5,250 square ft. the the site has been surveyed by a land surveyor by South Coast Engineering. So
this is the delineation of that property onto which I placed the proposed septic repair system which consists of a Fuji CEN5 pre-treatment system for denitrification. a small pump chamber, 500gallon pump
chamber pumping up to an 8x6 bottomless, I'm sorry, a 6x8 bottomless sand filter. Uh, lots of troubles with property line setbacks, well setbacks. Uh, there are several in the area.
They're all shown on the plan. I have a a number of waiverss that I'd like to present here uh regarding the system proposed. The setback between the Fuji tank and the pump chamber to the north property line is 5T versus the 10
ft required. The setback distance of the bottomless sand filter to the north and west property lines are 5T and 3T respectively versus 10 ft. Uh that three-foot setback is to the uh right of way. Just just for the information on
that, that's to the right of way, not in a budding property, but the right of way. Set back of the bottomless sand filter to the crawl space is 14 ft versus the 20 required for a crawl space. [clears throat] And then there are are several wells that I've listed
in my schedule here that are less than 100 ft but greater than 50 ft. That includes the site well itself for 99 Sylvia's Lane. I've got that at 55.7 feet. There are two wells to the west,
I'm sorry, to the north of the property uh belonging to Donateo at 104 Sylvia's Lane. There is an existing well that is proposed to be uh replaced by a new well uh that is a design that's been
submitted to and approved by the board of health here. uh Lenny Potter design. Uh that's that installation and that well has not been drilled yet, but I I did notify uh and put on my form both of those wells on the site for the location. And lastly, we've got
Constanway at 100 Sylvia's Lane, which is to the west down on the low side. I've got 56.1 ft versus the 100 ft that we're looking for. Uh but beyond that, we did not do a percolation test there. We did do a civ analysis to accommodate
the regulations for the sizing of the bottomless sand filter and the separation distance between the outlet invert of the Fuji tank and the high water table is 10 in versus the 12 in that we're seeking for the uh regulation
uh in this case and that's all I have. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Um let me turn to uh Matt for his report. So, no issues uh with the plan. I just point out that the plan was stamped by a
registered land surveyor because of the property setbacks and it will require a two-bedroom deed restriction >> and all the usual IH. >> Yes. Yeah. Um while you're here, Mark, u just to notify you that uh board did um amend
its um local septic regulation to um this is not for this project necessarily impacting but future um to reduce the to um you know we had two the total nitrogen testing per year for two years.
>> Yes. Um yes uh and that the homeowner had to come in to get that deduction for that. We're just requiring the first two years and it's no longer >> okay >> continuing. So it should relieve some of the burden. >> Oh good. I appreciate that because that that is burdeny to some of my clients.
So um we feel like we get the first two years we you know if there's >> I support that good >> data to be of concern then we would revisit but um for that particular property but I just want to let you know that. >> Okay. >> Um >> I have a question on that.
>> I'm sorry that's not relevant at the moment. Um okay. Uh board member questions about previewing about the um project at 99 L. >> Um I have none. I just did as far as
border testing we needed on all the properties. >> Um we have it >> I mean on from if we approve the plan going forward. >> Oh three years of water testing. Okay.
>> Yes. I'm expecting to see that as well. And if I may, if you don't mind, uh, Mr. Chair, uh, the wellwater testing for 100 Sylvia's Lane, the baseline well test, I spoke to Matt about it, was not pre presented prior to this hearing. Uh,
that was a seasonal resonance and it was it was winterized prior to getting to this point. So, what I've worked out with Matt is we will get that baseline test. The installation is planned for the springtime. So, with the the property coming up, we will get that
baseline test. I've spoken to the owners of that property as well. >> Uh, so that's just a stipulation that I failed to mention that I wanted to bring to your attention. We'll have that before start of construction. >> Okay. But given that it's a DITE system, there's not much more we
can >> require anyways. Okay. Um, >> thank you. >> Any questions, Phil? >> No. >> Okay. Anything else, Donna? >> No. So, I move that we approve the plan for 99 Sylvia's Lane um dated 11325
um with uh variances as written in the plan because there's a lot of them. uh with the following conditions. Whole harmless agreement, two-bedroom deed restriction, 3 years of uh water testing at all properties and then concom
review. Did I miss anything? >> I think just approving the SIV analysis. >> Oh, and approval of the SI analysis. Well, I is that's on the is that >> it's not it's not a waiver thing, but we usually >> approval of the SI analysis. Yes. Thank you. >> Second.
>> Okay. A motion has been made and seconded for um approval of the 99 Sylvia's Lane project for all of the requested um local upgrades and the civ analysis with the conditions as outlined um in the motion.
Um all in favor >> I >> I that's unanimous. Thank you. >> Thanks Mark. Appreciate it. the 15 Ball Street is the voter notification as well. Is that right, >> Mr. Is that
>> is that you? >> Welcome. Um, just checking. You have a better notification for this? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Technically, we need a minute or two. You can give it to >> Thank you. Good afternoon. Uh Greg Bonovitz,
Borderland Engineering. >> Let me just officially call the hearing. I just was checking about the notification before starting. Um so I'm calling the at 450 hearing for 15 South Wall Street um owned by Apple Grove LLC.
This is a three bedroom repairing a stone bed on a 9,024t lot. uh represented by Borderland Engineering, Greg Woodvitz, if I got the name right. Um >> yeah, so I'm here on behalf of um
Appleton Grove LLC uh for 15 South Parall and um the lot is uh it's an existing home, three-bedroom home. Um and uh it's a repair uh septic system and um the lots about 9,000 square ft uh
served by a private well and the houses around are served by private wells also. Um currently there is a uh system in failure. It's a older septic tank that runs to a leeching pit and um and a well
that's in close proximity to those um to that uh leeching area in the backyard. So the current well is approximately um 30 to 35 ft away from the leeching pit. Um and the the leeching pit is um less than 50 ft away from the neighboring uh
septic system. I'm sorry. The um the neighboring well is about 60 ft away from the um the leeching pit. Um so what we're proposing is um a repair to the to the home with a standard um stone bed.
We've um making sure that we're u meeting exceeding the um separation to the groundwater table. Um we're at 4 and 1/2 ft above the groundwater table. Required is 4 ft. Um so standard um pipe and stone leeching field and a two two
compartment 1500gallon septic tank. Um so the variances that we're here to ask for are uh the neighboring property at 19 South Bal Street. Um again, the existing well is approximately 60 feet uh away from um their uh our septic
system that we're going to be removing and um the the new proposed septic system is going to be 62 ft away. So, we're improving that slightly. Um and then our own well where we were previously about 30 ft away from the the field, I mean the system and um now
we're going to be about 69 ft um to our uh proposed leeching field. So, we're improving both of those. Um, we did have the well tested at 19 South Ball Street and that passed um all the criteria for the um for the testing.
>> Yeah, the nitrates were low. So, um and we don't have any test results on the existing well, but because it's being decommissioned. >> Exactly. Being decommissioned. >> Um I did What is the distance from the well on 12 South Balt?
>> That's across the street. Yeah. to our uh septic system >> because it wasn't really just trying to >> 2020. So where >> I'm assuming it's >> about 130 ft away >> just by scale.
>> Okay. [clears throat] I just wanted to make sure because >> Yep. >> It would be >> exactly >> in future it be helpful just to have it even though it's more than 100 just to have it. Yeah, I did put the the one on the other one and I >> Yeah, the 164 to the 891 state.
>> Okay, sorry. Um, let me turn to Matt for his report. >> So, the design is fine. I just remind the board that there is a maximum feasible compliance waiver request in here. I don't know if they've reviewed the board's reviewed it or has any comments on it. >> Yep. Um, do you want to address that,
Mr. Bonovitz, first? Uh the maximum feasible compliance for um the system is um you know the criteria for that um through public health and safety and um would be um just the the cost the extra
cost involved with any other system that would potentially be you know um protect the public health better. Um so >> so you're for based on financial consideration. >> Exactly. Yeah. Um >> well the the well results don't indicate
there's high levels of nitrates, right? >> No, but we um asked for this for any well that's less going to be less than 100 ft. >> Yeah. >> And we don't have the results of the well on the property, >> right? >> Granted, it's being decommissioned. So um we'll get well results right
>> once if it's approved and testing proceeds. But >> um okay. Um other questions from board members. So, one was a comment and the other one was um so in one of the uh notes
>> on number 17 says that there are no portable or non-putoable wells within 150 >> ft. But >> unless as shown on the plan is the >> Good question. Yeah, good question. I've had >> Unless as shown on the plan. Okay, good.
Okay, >> that's a standard language. >> Okay. All right. I've seen and I Okay. And so because it's a new well, there's a replacement well, >> we get into this issue of the variance issue, right?
>> And so >> Yeah, cuz no new well can be drilled less less than 100 ft. >> Right. Right. >> And so h how how >> I mean he did the I think all the abuters have been notified anyways. >> That's what I think. Okay. Yeah. So what I'm speaking to
>> Yeah. Yeah, that you're you're issuing a variance on a new well, but this is um this is an existing property. So, >> right. >> It's just that title five says you can't install a well >> or install a new well within 100 ft of, you know, unless it's 100t away versus
the local upgrade approval. And so, we've been trying to figure out procedurally about that. I mean, >> I don't I mean, I don't have a problem with the outcome. I mean, I think the outcome is fine. It just occurred to me that we could if we treat it as a variance then you have to do a finding
and I think >> yeah we could do a written finding and we'll post it up on the bulletin board. >> So and to me it seemed >> we should be consistent and we have been doing that for um wells where there's no less than 100 ft new wells less than 100 ft where there's no other option. I mean
obviously you have a very constrained lot >> you can't put it anywhere else that would be further away. So um but we'll treat it as a variance. So um and because we don't in some cases if voters hadn't been notified they have to come
back and do the formal variance hearing but we can um we can combine it or consolidate and have this hearing serve as the variance hearing because the others have been >> um okay >> so just say so I made so I think we're
supposed to make two findings one it's not manif manifested justice >> which I felt like this is an upgrade of a system that you know was just accommodating the property and uh as you pointed out all the wells are further
from the uh further from the SAS than the existing system um uh and in terms of the which also fits into the how the outcome is a better environmental outcome. Mhm.
>> So I don't I don't think I think what is being proposed meets the full variance standards that title five requires 412 or whatever it is. Yeah. So okay >> when when these so I've never seen the
well amount put in included in the maximum maximum feasible compliance. Usually, it's the cost of the septic. And in this one, you've included 25,000 for the septic and 26,000 for a
well. >> So, >> they might not have to redrill their well, right? >> Yeah. But usually MFC, >> we don't think we can make the case. Um I um he did check off both site water
quality conditions and financial. >> Okay. >> And because the site um the well results were very you know were fine uh for the abutter which is downgradient. Correct. >> Mhm. >> Um which is our best proxy for the
impact of the existing system. Um so um but I I understand what your point is that the the um to make the case for financial hardship um the fact that they have to drill a new well is it is believe you me a big
financial um impact on the homeowner. But in terms of the um uh rationale for making a financial argument um 25 it's very close um
to the um based on the assessor's value um it would be 35 and these days um the the 10,000 may be a low estimate. >> Well I mean you're you're talking about if it was a D9
>> adding the D9 component adding >> but my question was I've never seen us combine those >> no we generally don't combine well with septic we generally do we we generally want to see >> you know your conventional system combined with a dite in that total cost
versus the the conventional septic with the well but in this case I think >> the the point is proven >> okay any other questions or concerns? >> Nope. >> Okay. Uh I would entertain a motion.
[snorts] >> Oh, okay. So, um move to approve the plan for Appleton Grove LLC at 15 South Baralt. Is that how you pronounce it? >> Yep. >> Street. a three-bedroom repair, a plan
dated 82925 uh for subject to concom review, a three-bedroom deed restriction, um uh a local upgrade approval and at least variance u for the minimum setback distances to
the new wells. For the site well, it's 100 from 100 to 69 and for number 19. It is um 100 down to 62. Um
uh and three years of well testing. I guess this will also be like the other one just commencing when the well is installed. >> Um and hold harmless agreement. >> Did you mention Kong?
>> Yes, I did. Okay. First time. >> Yes. Second >> motion made and seconded to approve the project for 15 Bald Street um uh with the um a variance approval um
for uh site and number 19 B Street and distances with the conditions that um were enumerated in the motion. All in favor? >> I that's unanous. Thank you very much.
Thank you for coming in. >> Okay. Um we've already discussed topics for the next regular meeting based on your >> accessible close out. We'll also um have on that agenda the the next meeting
after that would be follow on Martin Luther King Day. So we need to reschedu that. >> Um >> are we going to do that now or? >> No, no, no. That's on the next agenda topics for the next regular meeting. Just to give you a heads up >> cuz I know the following day I'll have an opioid settlement fund advisory
committee meeting. So just that >> if you do it you could well if we did it I'd have to be done to get to my meeting at 6. So >> okay but we'll discuss that on January 5th. Yes. >> Um do we have any unanticipated business? >> N okay then take it away D on that.
Being non further business, I move that we adjourn this meeting at 5:01 p.m. >> Second. >> Motion made and seconded to adjurnn. All in favor? hide that so you know it's like a scratch.