Good afternoon and welcome to the Westport Board of Health meeting of August 4th, 2026. I'm calling this meeting to order. Under Mass General Law, chapter 30A, section 20F, the meeting is being recorded. Um, and please join me for the pledge of allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay. Um, we'll start with the director
public health written report question on that. >> I don't have any questions. Yeah. Um okay. Well, um I know Joe was very busy. You could tell on the food related the with the um fair
and such. Um uh let's go on to your verbal report. I was just going to say that they've been working with the town administrator to um get the job the open positions posted and find different ways to get people to apply. Um because as you know we're very
short-handed up there and um so we'll see how our latest round of uh strategic talks, you know, impacts that people applying. But um >> okay, >> so far we haven't re we haven't received any health agent um applications since
February of this year. Um you know, we got the part-time C position posted now and we're trying to hire into the grant positions. So, >> so the full-time agent has been um we've been without an agent since the
beginning of the year and it's been posted and we haven't received any resume since February. So, um that's obviously a problem and causing a lot of delays in u especially around septic
work. Um, is there and at this point we're waiting for the town administrator perhaps to do some ne negotiations with the union and then there might be some um strategy to
um make the position um attractive enough to get some candidates. Not really sure about the health agent position, but the I developed the scope of work for um doing perks and um just waiting for him to
kind of negotiate with the union on that and um we'll get that out to um we have a couple consultants um that we'll push that out to to you know for bids. >> Okay. >> Which will be um we're going to push it out to park and um MBL.
>> Okay. to see if we can get them to provide soil evaluator is to come in and um you know schedule the perks, do the perks. The only issue with that is you know paying them which is you know >> a lot more expensive than >> it's a lot more expensive and if it has
to come out of the health agent line item doesn't get it gets maybe 20 weeks max and um then that line item will be depleted and then we don't have a line item to hire a health agent because it'll be empty. So, um, still kind of trying to talk that through with the town administrator. Just
>> Okay. So, we're running up against a wall here on the agent, health agent. >> Yeah. I mean, >> okay. >> Just trying to um >> Yeah. Um, that is the situation we're in
in town. And then we have a part-time clerk that has been posted. No resumes yet. >> No, it was posted maybe last week. So, we'll give it some time. >> Okay. And the nurse, >> no resumes yet for the nurse. >> Okay. And we're trying to do something
through the collaborative to try and get some support. >> Yeah. So, I have somebody covering Maven right now for us at least. Um, that's being covered. >> Um, which kind of leads me to my next thing. Uh Westport has an unprecedented amount
of uh uh tick illness cases, Lyme disease, alpha gal, and u besia. So [clears throat] we've got some tick education up on the web page. Um, you know, we can only encourage people to follow the guidance about
ticks and, you know, when to use uh the peromethine for the clothing and the tick repellent for the skin and, you know, wear light colored clothing so it's easier to see the ticks if they're on you and um just stay away from heavily populated tick areas. I have
some signs being made that I'll have posted in certain areas. Um, you know, maybe down at the dunes, down at Cherry Web. We got a lot of people who say there's, you know, ticks down there. >> Um, interesting. And just in the different some different conservation areas around town. >> Okay. All right. >> And that will be one of the things we'll
going to focus on tonight at the police night out. I'm going to have a lot of stuff about ticks and information. So, >> Okay. Um, [clears throat] anything you wanted to talk about beach testing? >> Oh, yeah. I just wanted to say that um
we do beach testing once a month on Mondays and um yesterday we did the samples, brought them to the lab. We got notification that three of the beaches uh were over the limits. So, we went out this morning, drew new samples, dropped
them off at the lab, and we'll get the results of those tomorrow, and we'll take it from there. If the results um still exceed the the limits, then we'll have to close those three beaches. Um, which would be uh two public beaches and one private beach. >> Okay.
Okay. Um, any other updates? >> Uh, transfer station. We made it through Colin's vacation with our contractor. Um, everything went well. No issues. Colin's back, so operations are normal.
>> Okay. All right. Um, anything animal control we should talk about? Anything update there? All set. >> All good. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And there is another position that's been vacant for about 2 years. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> We cannot compete um, you know, salary wise and I think that's part of it. We're not compensating people >> who want to apply. >> Yeah. Um, so [clears throat] we only can do what we can do with the staff we have. And when we're that many holes in
the staffing, um it it leads to inability to keep up with uh things. And I I know people are frustrated with that, but um there's not a whole lot we can do and we've been trying as many creative solutions as possible and
haven't gotten too far. Um okay. Um anything else on that? Um we can go to um board member updates. Should I Why don't I just start because tonight please night out. Um I'm going representing representing both the
opioid settlement fund advisory committee as their chair and the board of health. We're going to have two tables. I'm going to have one focused on the opioid settlement funds. Um and I don't know if Val can do you can you see this on camera? [clears throat] >> Okay. So um I'm hoping that people will
come. I want them to participate. We really want to know what people in the community how they want to spend the money. We have almost $400,000 now. We're going to be um getting a million dollars by 2038. Um we've spent very little. Most of it's been on
administrative and educational um educational um events. Um but uh we have some ideas and I like just like the um I think it's the planning board did um where they had
people come put stickers on to say this is a priority and then add um ideas about how to spend the funds um because I would like to um be able to move forward and start with some programming
um by next year. So, um, so anyway, so this will be up. Um, we'll have information all about the opioid settlement fund, um, and the committee and the work we're doing. Um, and then, um, we'll also have a table with, um,
focused on board of health and predominantly the ticks, mosquitoes, the the vectorbor diseases um, and some about heat. So, and protect yourself from heat exhaustion, that kind of thing. That's it.
Just on a health related note, um I know that the whole um psychosporasis um >> uh um problem um uh that is um has led to potentially um I don't know if they've
been confirmed a couple of deaths in Michigan associated with that. As far as we know in Massachusetts, we are having the normal level of cases. Um, so we don't have an outbreak here that's associated with contaminated lettuce, um, and other fresh produce. Um, so, um,
we haven't we don't we haven't put out an alert on that because it's it's, um, it hasn't affected Massachusetts. >> Yeah. >> And and I sent something I forwarded it to Matt from Rhode Island. I also get Rhode Island public health alerts. Um and there was a case of someone being
bitten by I think it was two lonear ticks and has a rare case of something called bourbon um uh disease. So it you know we we don't know what all the things that ticks and mosquitoes can um um transfer
to us. So again the easiest way is prevention and and doing the things that Matt had said at the beginning. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, uh, thank you. Um, Phil, anything you want to >> Um, well, actually, I just kind of I was thinking about the same thing that Matt
was talking about with posting signs and, uh, so I was thinking that one thing that we could do, although maybe you've already done it, is to reach out to all the land conservation organizations and see whether both here and in Dartmouth, for example, and see
if they would do post signs. and I happen to be on the Cape and the federal there's a sign at the National Seashores that has pick signs on for all their beaches. So, I thought maybe we get a
coordinated approach to it and >> so that's one thing. Um, and I'm going to meet with some of the representatives there this event, talk it up with them and see if they're interested in doing it. Um so the other thing is that the U
climate resilience committee draft is moving for this is in-house kind of thing moving forward. Um and uh and so at sometime actually in the next couple of weeks going we get a
semi-final draft and it's going to contain uh recommendations for what we're recommending should be done in all the various sectors and um so what I'd like to do is to circulate it
among the people at this table and just get feedback because almost all of it is either stuff I found or self- brainstormed and um so I want to get feedback on that and maybe some prioritization that we think you know
should be the um how the list should be organized in some way. Not quite sure how it's going to ultimately be organized but it would be good to be able to pass that information on to the people doing the final draft. >> Okay. Um what's the timeline on that?
>> I don't really know it. I mean, it really it really kind of depends. So, you know, without >> Is that something you want to have on a um >> uh meeting agenda? >> Well, yeah, it wouldn't hurt. >> Well, I probably
I'm I just thought, well, we could do it a couple ways. I just thought I would circulate it to you all and then you give me some feedback and then I'd kind of consolidate it or come to a meeting and talk things through. I I don't
>> Okay, let's not do anything formal yet. We'll just you distribute and then um based on >> u you know sort of the feedback we can decide if we should have a public forum you know have it on the agenda form like for discussion.
>> Um okay um >> that's >> all right. Thank you very much. Um um we it's just about 2:44. We'll call it 2:45. Um and um since this isn't a hearing, we can Why don't we proceed
with Sean Leech uh discussion about a replacement well for 424 River Road um owned by Charles Cowing. >> Good afternoon. for Cass Cowing who's the owner of the property here on 424C. Uh just a little background on this
particular property just to refresh board's memory. Uh there was a repair done uh by Mr. Potter, excuse me, 2011 for this system for the existing house. Uh we came forward last
year uh as Mr. Cowing has was demoing the house and building a new house under new construction guidelines we provided a denitrification system. We put a denitrification between this and the existing field which passed title 5. Uh in this process as things are getting
constructed on the on the whole night itself the well which is located down near the river about 50 ft from the river has been compromised. Uh the water is no longer I would I would say portable. Uh so the action
needed is to put a replacement well. That's a shallow well. So I've put together this little sketch for everyone. This is in color. showing. >> Okay. So, what you're looking at here is this site itself with the river being
oriented on the top of this thing. And what we're looking at is two things. So, in the middle, you'll see the existing system for the uh locus property. And around it, you'll see two blue lines. One is a 50ft offset, one is a 100t offset. You'll notice that the existing
well structure is just about 100 ft from that particular >> and the well is >> the well is on the right. Okay. Okay. So, uh what I also show here is next door uh the property next door they have a well and they have an system and what you see in the red and the red hatched
area is 100 ft from their septic system. >> Okay. >> Okay. what you see hatched in green. Uh you probably don't see the little triangle in the bottom of the lot itself. There's a little triangle right there that is outside the 50 ft, but
everything going towards the river is outside the 50 ft from the existing leech field. Uh that's configured. We need to put a replacement well here. Getting 100 ft away from the system is probably not possible in any way, shape, or form as it just pushes the well
closer to the river. Uh, and that we feel that you put a deep well there, just basically going to suck up salt water. Uh, we're looking at trying to get 100 ft away from the septic system next door. Uh, you see that red dash line that runs through pretty much half
the property. Uh, there's only one location that I show preferred location number three. We that's in the flood zone and it's probably too close to the river in the existing well and it probably if you drill a well there, it'll probably be compromised very quickly. Uh the soils here, and I
brought soils maps for everyone, uh are very stony, sandy, rocky soils, and it's consistent throughout the whole lot. Uh so there's not going to be much of a change as far as some kind of dam or
break in the uh lot itself uh to provide some kind of wall between the salt water and the well itself in that green shaded area. So what we're proposing is up in the very top where
the little green triangle is where it says preferred location and it says number two but we're calling it number one is a place where we'd like to drill the well which would be upgradient of both septic systems 100 ft away from the budding system next door 50 ft away from
our current system and of course that would require old harmless uh to go along with this particular request and uh basically so getting a variance and we think That's the best location for the well with probably optimal water quality on this particular lot. There
isn't really a lot of places to go uh on this particular lot. I we'll take suggestions, but where the new house sits, the driveway, the existing septic system, the septic system next door, it's pretty much there is no nothing heading to the bottom of the page.
Nothing within 100 ft of that well. Uh there is a small detention pond just upgradient from it. But this well would probably be the most preferred location as it is upgrading from both systems. 100 ft probably 120 ft away well away from the well next door. So we don't
need to do any notification there or hold harmless and disrupt the person who owns that well next door. Everything is basically on our lot. And the hold harmless that would be required from 50 ft from the system is not uncommon for a
small lot like this that's on the river. >> [snorts] >> Um what are the what's there's another there's a detention pond just above gradient you see the contour lines and then it's an empty lot going to the what the south I guess the south heading up towards where it's putting
stone lane >> okay >> if you look on this if you look on the soils map I've circled where the house is and basically as well would be going up here. And this is all vacant land up on top there. >> And who owns that? >> Uh Richard Beers. >> Okay.
>> He lives up on River Road. He has a up on River Road. >> Um turn to Matt. >> So this is does fall in the new construction guidelines and I understand the dilemma. I do.
[clears throat] I'm just trying to figure out how to get around a few things. One being 15029 in title 5 which states [snorts] it's a violation of title 5 for any person to construct or install a water supply well closer to a system component
than the relevant setback set forth in 15 to11. One, it doesn't provide for variance for that. It just says it's a violation. So I need to look a little deeper into how to get around that. Secondly, um and just is treatment
system. There's no treatment system that can treat the salinity of a well that maybe you know if you put it 100 ft away and it sucks up salt to treat it out then you have to discharge it somewhere. That's the problem. So you're discharging the salt somewhere that
you're treating. Basically, if you look at reverse osmosis and you see what the problem is with reverse osmosis is trying for every 20 gallons of water you filter, you get one gallon out of it and the rest has to be discharged somewhere and it really is an appropriate place to
discharge. >> And how you have indicated that the well is compromised and um well, you've given us no documentation of that. Is that correct? >> Can I can I speak to that? >> Absolutely. [clears throat] Now, just
state your name. Can you just state your name for the camera? >> I'm the property owner at Fortune4C River Road. >> Um, it was about 5 years ago that uh the well first ran dry on us.
>> Mhm. Uh we were weekenders at the time. That was the low place on the well. And um we got it working again. uh we got water out of it again. It was uh I
think the summer after that that it went dry again on us and from then on uh it's been not quotable. Um it has a strong smell to it. We con went to great lengths to try to fix this. We you know
called a bunch of people. Most of them responded immediately with oh that'll pass. that's just a a sulfur gas problem and that will go away and it never did. Uh it was never votable again. Um we
started construction on the new house and realizing this is going to be a full-time residence for us. Two people there all the time and uh that um you know the well was having run dry twice on this with just the weekend use. Uh we resolved we've got to do something after
building a new well. And um uh that's kind of the background. I mean, is that what you need wanting to hear or >> um Sure. So, a couple of things related to that then. You have well test results that document that it's not codable.
>> Well, we got well test results back that showed um colifform and in the water. >> Okay. >> Uh it did not prove to be feal codififor. >> Okay. Uh however the caulifform levels were significant. I don't have those results with me. I'm sorry.
>> That's okay. >> Um but yeah, we did we did >> do a private test of it. >> Okay. So caulifform um has been the only identified problem >> uh that I recall. I think there were some other mineral results that seem to be a little
>> there was high sodium and the typical iron that West Water has. >> Okay. Um, and is that a what is the describe that current well? >> It's a shallow well. Okay. Shallow well with a structure on it. And the reason I think they're getting cififor bacteria is it's on a fairly steep hill and you
get a lot of surface water coming across the whole site. So >> where and when it could be from anywhere, but it's pro that's probably the problem with the color form part of it. And but you were talking about a deep well earlier and >> well that's what that's what's preferable is a deep well for as far as
for better quality water and more >> and so why can't you do a deep well outside of the 100 foot zone >> the only place that would be outside well I say both 100 foot zones that's the septic system next door and
the the system on site is that little triangle up to the upper leftand corner northwest which is probably 30 to 40 ft from the river And so >> most likely if you do a deep well in that close to the river, this is a cabinet next problem. Also, you're going to suck up salt water if you go down
more than 20 to 25 ft. May >> may I should >> say one other thing? Um it's a little hard to tell from these plants. I mean, I know they have elevations in them, but it's a little hard to describe this how steep the slope is here.
>> The um water that flows down the hill. We've done a mitigation storm water mitigation um uh executed some storm water mitigation plans in the past and still
with all of that effort and care we do get a lot of water flow down down the hill. It's it's quite steep and and the idea here is to get as much up gradient as possible at the at the high high point of the property.
>> Okay. Um, let me I I have some further thoughts, but I'll let me open it up to um board members. >> I'd like to hear from Phil. >> Oh, [laughter] um well um
I had previously talked just Matt about the um regulatory provision that he referred to which if we went down that path would require the full variance process. I hadn't really thought about it as being a violation versus I think
that's just maybe driven by the location where it is not necessarily making it exempt from um the full variance process but I haven't looked into that and uh
that's my comment for that. >> Okay. Well, I think in my read of the regulation, it's pretty clear. Um, so I think we would have to at the very least get some sort of um interpretation from
D that would say that this could be um >> No, I know I know they have given relief similar to this in the past and I think that's possible to do. I agree with Phil as far as you know if we installed that well then it would be a violation. It
falls under the 15211 and then there's a whole rigma roll around that. This is why we're coming here asking for the variance to to install a well. >> Uh it wouldn't be the first time that there's several cottage communities that have run into
this and Cadminist being one of them. I know there've been wells that have been within 50 ft reinstalled within 50 ft. We were I think I was in front of you on one couple months. >> New construction though. >> No, it wasn't new construction. You're right. >> See, that's a that's the sort of
>> Well, this is a replacement well. Yeah, this is kind of the same thing. It's a replacement well for that was for an existing house. And granted, we under your definition, it's new construction cuz they reconstructed, but it's it's not like there was never a well on this property and that we're installing a well.
>> The well is was in existence and we didn't anticipate this issue. Well, I think we would we need to get more guid my opinion. We need to get more guidance from D because I'm not comfortable with the the circumstances here are different than than past examples and I'm not
clear that D is going to say the same thing that we can ignore that provision of the regulation. >> No, understood. Um, and so I I would not be comfortable proceeding um without um some more definitive ruling from DP that
the circumstances here are um um >> I think you're going to find something similar next door to here. And I think you're going to find something similar as time progresses in many wells in these little cottage communities where we're going to run you're going to run into this problem of there's nowhere
else to put it. We can't be without 50 ft of the well. Not not necessarily new construction, but they may have been new construction 10 years ago or 5 years ago and then all a sudden the world just goes bad, >> right? Well, >> I mean, and I'm in agreement with that cuz I
feel like we need to hear from D, but I still come down to people need water. So then what do they do if they don't have a a well to access? What are the options if there's no well? you have to truck in water. Um, not
ideal obviously. Um, but I I'm also not familiar enough with um desalination um of of wells um and what the impact is it. I mean you described it but I don't know. >> So there are a couple systems that are
installed in Atlantic Avenue uh most recently. Uh I can't think of the address, but on the corner of Atlantic and Hurricane. Uh they installed one and the problem there was literally they had to put a leeching field in for the desalinization, >> which to me, especially when you have
undersized lots, putting salt back in the ground that you've taken out of the water is kind of like a vicious cycle that eventually it's something's going to go wrong. >> It's one thing to have a desalinization plant to discharge to the ocean. It's another thing when you don't have anywhere to discharge it. >> Can you discharge it back to the river?
I think that would require an EPA permit. Uh that's why you don't see small time desalinization. You can't discharge point discharge to the river. So, so I guess another piece just related to this desalinization
is whether we could see or that you could conduct a a well test and give us the data on the extent to which the um what you're finding exceeds the recommended level because I think sodium
or however they describe it has like a recommended MCL. It's not MCL, but it's in there so we could just see how much disparity there is. Um because I thought that some I hadn't
really thought about it as a desalinization. I thought about it almost as you know like people buy like under the count under the counter filtration systems, >> right? that might not work if you know you had whatever two or three times the
you know recommended level whereas if you were 5% over the you know so exactly what that is I don't know how that handles the other issue the taste issue that you were >> that you were talking about >> totally separate from that but also I
>> and there's a supply issue at the end of the day also >> yeah yeah my my last thought on this just because I've been wearing My climate resiliency hat [laughter] would be that [clears throat] um you
know what we have you know what we are predicting is that as sea level rises it's you're going to get a problem with wells located in this because the sea the salt water will intrude into the
groundwater and make the wells more and more or less and less portable you know which is why they putting in a whole new system, you know, along the Atlantic Avenue homes that are previously served by a well that was too close
>> that had that kind of intrusion problem. >> Is this a um I I don't know exactly where on River Road is this >> uh putting at the end of Pudding Stone Lane even though it's 424C which is >> somewhere between let's see how do I describe spindle rock well it's 48
carries. >> Yep. Okay. >> Okay. for it's >> it's north of >> how far is away from your house. >> Six six lots. >> Six lots north of J. >> So that because there are some um
um public I mean communal or public water supply wells in you know that southern end. How close is >> No, no, it's way up. It's we're talking halfway. We're talking between Ed carries and lane. It's It's halfway
between the ocean and Adam. >> Oh yeah. >> Okay. Well, I'm just Phil raises this point which says if this is a problem for Mr. Cowing presumably it's going to be a problem
for a budding. You know, >> there's >> I mean, the slope of the land probably is similar. >> Probably three cottages here on this particular location that may have an issue shortly. I'm not saying they will. Uh, but this is just one of many cottage
communities that were built on the river, you know, >> cuz you were talking about this is vacant land, right? Would there be a possibility of doing a shared well or a PWS to serve both this current problem and foreseeable future problems?
>> I think if everybody could work together, I think the answer is yes. But I think one of the problems and uh I know I'm familiar with Mr. Beer's property. He has a a water supply problem and several other people do as far as yield. Uh this particular section
of river road is not >> been known for being very uh water. Exactly. Uh but a deep well would be required just to get enough supply to for a single family home. And we're talking a two-bedroom house here.
>> But this whole area if this is vacant land. >> Well, right above it, this contour you see here is a detention pond and then there's vacant land just above that. And it's a vacant lot all the way going up to Mr. Beer's property. I believe >> he has a septic set up in his backyard,
but that's several hundred feet away. >> It's a buildable lot. >> Yeah, it is a buildable lot. >> Turn into a house. Can I Can I say something? What Phil was saying that maybe we can get some water test on the well and see if it's salt. the the
experience with the harbor water study is that the the saline level in the well supply varies over the season, right? >> When people are using more water, it becomes more saline. If it's dry, it
becomes more saline. So, it's it's a it's a moving target. If you do one test, it isn't going to tell you much. The concern is you punch a well, you know, let's say 30 ft from here, 100 ft away from the well, and that becomes compromised. Then you start the pin
cushion effect where you're basically, you know, throwing darts at a dart board and hoping one of them comes up for a couple of years and then you do it again. You know, uh, ideally the most preferred location would be obviously 50 ft. anything
within 50 ft is a whole different issue, but also far enough from the river and far enough from other things to give you your best shot. There's no guarantee there'll be enough supply there, but it gives you best shot. >> Yeah. I mean, that that's a you know, you're talking about shooting darts. You you only got one shot here and it
doesn't work. >> Well, that's just it. Then you then you you have to formulate another problem, another solution. But >> right, I mean I I think it would be prudent to begin to look for um a longer term solution that is um you
know a neighborhood solution um given the likely progression of um climate change can't avoid the words. Um uh you know um
but in the meantime I I don't think we can in my opinion we need more information [clears throat] um both from D. I think it's I I take your point Mr. whiten about um a point in time may not give us um
uh you know may give it gives us only a point in time data around salinity but it's better than what we have right now which is nothing um and um I think we need to then um you know you can do some
research with D or um you know I'm not sure what the best way is to to get some guidance from D on that um we get some data from the existing well and then we could reconvene and sort of see where
where things um lie. But right now I'm not comfortable with the language that's is here um to say that we can proceed with just a variance. Mr. >> May I ask for another reading of the
violation? I didn't hear. >> Sure. Um I can read it to you. This is section 15.029 construction of wells near existing systems. It is a violation of 310 CMR15 which is the septic regulation uh state regulation for any person to construct
or install a water supply well closer to a system component than the relevant setback set forth in another in 310 15.211 which is um 100 ft from a from a um septic system basically. Um, and this
is just over 50, there are provisions for um, when you're putting in a new septic system that is within, you know, from the 50 to 100 foot range of of a, um, of an existing well. Um, because
putting in a new septic system, if you have to, you know, bring a cesspool up to compliance or whatever, um, [clears throat] it doesn't go the other way. Um, so you can't install a new well closer to a septic system, an existing
septic system. So that and it does not give any provision for an ability to give a variance to this provision of the regulation. So um so it's it's a sticky wicket um not um
not something we have to um kind of uh navigate with D to figure out if there is a solution. Um, but I'm suggesting also in the meantime to to be thinking ahead about, you know, are there other neighbors? You, it sounds like there are
well supply issues with an immediate neighbor and so maybe a a bigger community solution might be something you it's worth exploring. Not a solution for right now. I understand that, but it's just something to
>> I'm a little u uh I'm a little nervous about a short-term solution here. >> Um I take Mr. Weinberg's comments about climate change very seriously. I don't
think we have a lot of time. I think building it by the river is short-term solution, >> right? Uh and u parenthetically I'd like to ask a follow on question. The
presumable portability of the water. How does that help me when it runs dry? >> It it does not. But it it you've been addressing you've been or the what's come before us is two issues. one is the
portability and one is the uh supply >> total supply. Um we're not sure I don't think your engineer can guarantee you you're going to get either supply or portability in this situation. So >> and I'm sorry to interrupt. >> Yeah. >> So I I'm just trying to get as much
information as we can right now to address um what you're acknowledging would be a short-term solution to begin with. um um and that may factor into
um what DP might say recognizing that long-term um you know something else is going to have to be done. So um but I think the better the more data the more information we have the better we can
present or your engineer can present a case to D to to make that argument. So if I get something from DP which allows you under a provision to grant this variance >> Mhm. >> Uh they by some miracle tomorrow let's
say uh uh how quickly could we get this under is this a uh butter notification type thing because we're not really >> a variance? Absolutely. Yeah, >> it's not really a variance to any of
Butter's stuff. >> It's a variance to title five, >> right? >> So, it would be a variance in that respect. So it's >> we find out it's going to be actual variance to title five versus variance from >> it won't be it won't I don't think if it doesn't affect any butters then it
wouldn't be for the butters but it would be a varian >> I'm just trying to see quickly how quickly this can get rolling because I don't want to you know string it out to uh too far and again as stated you know you got one shot here and it may or may
not work >> well the variance Um um you have to notify all about letters period end. It says it doesn't say um based on whatever provision it's no application for a variance shall be
complete until until the applicant is notified all of Butters by certified mail at his Roman expense at least 10 days before the board of health meeting at which the variance request will be on the agenda. So >> that's the difference between the local upgrade and the variance is you have to notify all of us. >> Yeah.
>> Um so um I suspect I mean you have 14 days to the next meeting but I don't I suspect that we can't it would not happen at the next meeting. I suspect I don't Good luck getting a response from D that
fast. >> Yeah. Yeah. I don't think that's going to happen. Um I I don't I'm not sure if I should talk to Jim Mclofflin or someone entitled Brett Row or somebody in title five to tell you the truth of who has the jurisdiction here. >> Jim Mclofflin doesn't have any jurisdiction over private wells
>> but he is he's underwater supplies you know so I'm not sure if >> but he doesn't have any jurisdiction over private wells. I've already had conversations with him about not the specific issue but he only oversees public water supplies and always kicks it back to the locals >> on private wells. So we wouldn't be
breath. >> I think that's what's going to happen. They're going to kick it back to you. >> Yeah, most likely. But my intention of contacting D is just to say what's the path around this and can we do this, can we do that? And see what they come up with. Yeah. So, and that's what I'm
going to reach out tomorrow uh to them and I'll >> Well, I think partly I I think the way that you framed it is whether or not that particular provision that we're talking about is uh subject to or within
the jurisdiction of the you know the the septic variance. >> That's part that's the I think that's the that's the big issue. I would um I would say if you could also
um educate us more or refer us to something that Matt or one of us could look into about the salt um about the desalination part you know what I mean would be helpful. I mean,
part of this is because um like this is going to set a precedent in some ways. >> It's been done before. I can tell you that. >> Yeah. But not with this board. >> No. >> So, >> okay. >> I don't not new construction. So,
>> yeah. Yeah. So, yeah. I mean it right. I mean, if it's an upgrade, it's you know, you get up to 50 feet. So, it's not an is you can't but it's clear you can't go less than 50 feet. you're if you were if you had a well and you if you had an existing well and you're
moving your system where it was then you know you would it would just be covered by the upgrade rules >> but if let's say I came in with you and this under your definition of new construction this the old cottage existed here and we had the same problem could it be granted >> if we came through and the the previous
cottage was there there was no new construction provision here >> we need a replacement well what do we That's the way I >> I think the rule I I I it this is the odd part of the this is the odd part of the rule. I think you have because I
think what the rule says right if you have an existing system and then you move the well then you're subject to the 100 foot rule. If you have an existing system or a seess pool and you want to put a new se
new septic system in >> then you're subject to the upgrade rule which is right you you you don't have a you have up you can go as close as 50 ft >> okay before you would then have if you if you said this is going to be 49 ft
then you'd have to get a full variance so >> beyond 50 ft here. So if you were moving the system and this is the existing your preferred location number two was the existing well you wouldn't have this issue. It's just that for whatever reason Title 5 doesn't want wells new wells placed
within 100 ft of an existing system. >> Right. I understand that and I understand that completely because what you're going to find out on another aspect and we had when I was on the board and this >> was it wasn't the problem 100 ft to the existing system on the current lot. It was the neighbor system that was
basically preventing any new location of a well. >> Right. Right. But it's an existing Yeah. >> And that was had nothing to do with new construction or the existing system on the lot. It was completely >> a you know the butter's radius is around their 100 foot were taking over the
whole lot, >> right? Yeah. >> So it probably be a good idea to >> Well, that's you know that's why there's >> Okay. That's why there's flexibility in the variance standard. >> Yeah. I mean, I think they must be a
it's probably an in-house policy because we're not the first ones that have come up with this, I'm sure. So, >> yeah. >> So, >> okay. So, um can >> I ask a question? >> Sure. What is the practical difference between giving a variance to put a septic system
within close as close as 50 ft from a well or putting a well 50 ft from a septic system? I think one of the differences if you have a well and it's it's we would get well test results and everything looks fine
then um the presumption is you can do things to protect that well um with the septic design. Um when you have a well that's not um you you don't know what the well is
going to produce in a new location. So it's just it's a higher risk situation I think is part of the problem. >> But it's their risk not >> yet. I I I can't debate the the >> merits >> the the way the regulation was written
because I didn't write it. Um um but we are trying to be consistent with and so what we've given you a um some >> we'll get an answer. We're getting Yeah, we're getting because for instance, if this septic system, the preferred location number two that you see in the
uh to the right of the lot up towards the river, it's a little bit further away from the river, 100 ft away from our system, but definitely within 100 ft of the system next door. >> This this location right here, you can get 100 ft away from our system, which you couldn't possibly get,
>> right? So, but you have a location three. >> Yeah. You know, >> I mean, the other option is relocate the >> the chance of that. I mean, that's so close to the existing well that the chance of getting that is that's still within a 100 ft of the system location. That's the second blue line that you see
is the 100 foot radius, >> right? >> So, this location, which is identified as number two, is really number one. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Okay. That's because that was that was the one we felt had the best opportunity meeting maximum feasible compliance. So,
>> Okay. Okay. >> Yeah. And that that is outside. >> Can I can I also point out that preferred location number three I think we're talking about which is close to where the existing well is. >> Yeah. >> It's directly down gradient.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean it's not preferred location. That's why I mean it does meet the 100 foot requirement but >> you know if you don't you don't have any good >> options for the least bad option. Well,
that's that that's significant and it's it's kind of great. >> Well, um you certainly have a challenge here um with this property. Um and I hope that you'll >> come up with an answer. >> Come up with an answer. And >> Matt will probably have a better chance of getting an answer than I will.
>> Well, why don't you and Matt can answer that? Probably not necessarily me, but >> I'll send it off first thing in the morning and try to get an answer before lunch. [laughter] >> No. Yeah. I mean I don't know what
it's not Friday so you should get somebody there. >> So are we trying to reach GP2 or matter if you're going to like >> I I don't I mean >> yeah I mean I think both you know >> I think the more you try you know the more >> I think he has the best shot because he is
>> the health director here that you will get an answer. >> I just want to know what we're doing. >> It would be helpful. You said you have some well results. It would be helpful for us to have those. Um, and then, um, more information about desalination
would be helpful just to educate us. Um, and then, um, >> I'll get the address of the one that was actually approved, uh, which is on Land Avenue. And you can see >> we had the manufacturer come in and it was quite ownorous, more than I ever thought would be.
>> Um, and then, um, you know, this is not for won't impact this decision-m process, but I would encourage you to think the long long-term options. >> Um, >> it's always a good idea. >> I may it it may be nec I don't know if I
could find the old results. So, we may have to do a new test. >> Okay. >> Um, it now I mean I know there's stuff in the regulations about you know a town run test or rather you know these be a private test. You're okay with private results?
>> Oh yeah. We pretty much they're all we don't have a town lab and it was just we used to be able to offer sort of a courier service. We can't anymore. So you you're >> you're just I would just call the lab have them come draw the sample. standard
portability would be you know the best option so we can see >> I think you want to go one step above standard portability because uh although they'll test for sodium they won't specifically call it new parameters like manganesees which has become a big [clears throat] very common water now
>> you can advise your client >> okay >> but um yeah um so if you need to get new results that would be helpful >> okay >> but one way the other uh thanks for coming in I appreciate your time >> thank you. Thanks.
>> Okay, I'm going to call the 255 variance hearing um for this is a a combo deal um for um 12 Old John Reed Road owned by Glenn Ellis, a two-bedroom repair with a stone bed on an 82,764
ft lot and also one for 101 John Reed Road. Um also owned by Glenn Ellis. uh a two-bedroom repair with a stone bed on it, thousand square foot lot. And um while those two addresses sound a lot different, they are abing addresses. Um
and we have some we'll need some clarification about distances and stuff. >> Aren't they by the same person? >> Also owned by Glenn Ellis. Yes. Um so >> why the numbers I don't know. >> Represented by Len Potter. So here you go, Len. >> Hey, Len Potter here for West
Environmental Design for Glenn Ellis. I'm doing Let's do 12 first. >> Yeah, good idea. >> Yeah. Sometimes I got a good idea. [laughter] Oh, okay. So, 12. There's a rather large lot. It's
82,000 ft², but there are resource areas all through. The properties both are in the U velocity zone. So, we have an existing house on 12, two bedrooms with a cess poolool. So my only intent is to
put in a 2,000galon two compartment tank and pump up to the leeching field as as shown on the plan. U the well point currently existing well point 56 ft to the proposed area that's full of uh iron
and whatever they don't use it. So the proposal is to install a new low point located in the north in the southwest corner of the lot. Uh 76 ft to the proposed area and 63 ft to the tank. Um
that's already been it's a weld point and the Mr. Ellis has someone to put the point in with a well driller's license and get that going and get the results back. Um and that's all I can do. So I'm asking for a variance through and it's
it's an error waiver required bottom on the right hand side of the page. It should be 310 4051g proposed leech area less than 100 ft or more than 50 and above as well proposed distances. It's more it's more than u
it's it's 80 ft to 101 John re and the other one's over 100 ft walk to the south. >> Okay. So >> to the north I'm sorry. So that's pretty much it. So essentially it's one variance. It's out of the buffer zone, but it is in the flood zone. Blossoms.
That's pretty much it. >> Okay. Um >> I think it's the cover letter that's confusing then. >> Mhm. [clears throat] >> Cuz that had different numbers. This these both have been approved by
conservation already. >> Yeah, I saw the same thing and I saw from the well to the SAS one said 74 ft and one said 80 ft on 101. >> The proposed point is supposed to be 76
ft. >> That was for 12. Yeah, 12 was 76 ft. But then from 101 >> 80 ft. Oh, I saw something that says 74. So, I'm I'm confused, too. >> Um, it's the cover letter. It's
>> okay. It doesn't specify in the cover letter >> we try to rely on for the making the motion. So, um, so it's um 74T from the leechfield, 57 ft from the tank, and 80 ft from
>> No Sorry. [laughter] 76 ft from the from uh proposed well point, 80 ft from the existing well point at 101 John Reed. >> Uh that's that's it. And 56 ft from the existing, which means nothing cuz
they're going to pull that pointer out of the ground. >> Right. >> There's no room for anything else. >> Okay. So that's going to be abandoned. >> Abandoned. >> Okay. So the existing well will be abandoned. >> Correct. and the distance
from four. Okay, we're doing 12. >> We're doing 12, right? >> Yes. Yep. 12. >> Old John. So, it's um 76. >> 76.
>> Mhm. >> And what about the butter? Is there >> He's over 100. He's over 100. >> 100. Okay. So, it's just 26. 76. And that's it. And 101 is 80. >> No, you said that was over 100. I'm
confused. >> What? Which one's 80? And which >> 80 is 101. Mr. Ellis's property to the south. >> Okay. >> His own well on on 12 is 76 ft. >> Okay. >> And the Abua to the north is over 100
ft. Okay. >> Okay. >> The plan says 101 80 ft. >> 101 is 80 ft. Correct. >> Okay. 76 and 84. >> 12 Old John Road.
Old John Reed Road and 82 the property 101. >> 80 ft from 101. >> Yep. >> So a butter. So, what's the distance between the proposed well point and 101? That's what we need to know because the other one's being abandoned. We don't
care if it's 80 ft. >> Uh, it's over 100 ft. >> Okay. So, then it's not I mean, if we were giving the condition, I mean, the condition would be that you would abandon, you're [clears throat] abandoning the the existing well point
at 12 re at 12. If you look at 12, if you look at uh 101, you'll see that the well on 12 John Reed Road system on 101 is over 100 ft. And that is uh
that's that's from the existing wall besides that's from the existing well. >> Okay. Okay. Well, I think we just want to make sure that the proposed well is >> more than well over >> is well over 100 ft. So, >> the SWAT's 94 ft wide. >> So, the only thing that we really have
for 12 is 76 ft distance. >> 76 and 80. >> Okay. >> 76. >> But if the well is being abandoned, >> Yeah. Then you don't then we don't well I guess it depends on the timing of
stuff. But >> what he what he needs to do is he needs to get a permit to install that second well point for the the well. >> Okay. Well, I don't mind saying 80, but then you're going to abandon it. So, but I understand >> the abandoned well comes out. That's
that's it's you can't use it now. >> Okay. >> So, >> it's only a spear you pull out of the ground, >> right? Okay. Well, I don't I don't mind putting it in, but it's just >> so the So, this is a very a local upgrade approval to allow the septic
system, the leech field. Is that right? It's the leech field to be 76 ft away from the proposed new well. >> No, new the new SAS. >> 76 ft from the proposed SAS.
>> Right. >> Yeah. Is that that's correct? Right, Mr. Potter? >> And 80 feet from the SAS on 101 John Reed Road. >> The new >> Okay. for the
>> proposed new proposed >> well. So this I think this would require um it would be subject to abandonment of the existing well. >> Yes. And then all the usuals, well testing and >> yes,
>> hold harmless and con soon as you can pull the permit and get it in and we can get the water tested and make sure we know what we got. >> Right. But we need that abandonment also. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Um sorry. Um Matt, did you
weigh in? >> I did weigh in yet. No, but >> got here. I just uh I just when I reviewed this, I talked to Len about it and the well exists. So because it exists, I think it should have a variance. But then he submitted
this letter. As long as we the board has something showing that, you know, saying that the that well is going to be abandoned, then the board can condition the approval based on him, you know, the letter saying that that well is going to be abandoned. >> No, I want the abandonment to happen.
It's conditioned upon approval is conditioned. >> Yeah, that's what I'm saying. The board can condition the approval on that abandonment. >> So, um that's all I have. The subject system design is good. >> Okay. So I have just one picky point in
light of the um discussion we had in the previous case which is that the um rule is um that
I'm just thinking about the sequencing of of of the of this. So that just to say so when so you want to put the well the proposed well in before you install
the septic system, right? Because if you want a local upgrade approval for the septic system being 76 ft from the well, it needs to be an existing well.
If you put the system in first and then you want to move the well uh and then you want to put the well in then you're going to run into the discussion that we had before. >> I thought the well was going to be 100 ft away though. >> No, the the proposed well is 76 ft to
the proposed leeching. >> Oh, I thought it went into 100 ft. >> No, no, no. >> From the butter. >> The steps are the first thing to be done is to install the weld point. Then I got to find another spot for it. >> Okay, I don't mind that part of it. I'm just saying that
>> the well goes first. Has to go before. >> Well, the man's dying to put this well point. I've been holding them off for a month and a half. >> Okay. Well, I'm Okay. >> You need a >> Yes, that's right. That's That's what I'm saying is that you have to put the well in before you put the septic in.
>> That is correct. And test the water and let's see what it comes back. I may have to put that wall out in the moon dock somewhere. >> Yeah. I just wanted to make sure because I didn't want you to put the system in and then put the well in cuz then you'd run into the same problem we just faced. >> No, no, no. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> We have to dance around that proposed system >> and find a spot that's going to work. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Well, I would move that the chair propose the [laughter] second. There's no reason why the chair
cannot propose. It cannot move. >> She usually does and I say so moved. >> No, no. I mean then then someone who had seconded and then she would say so. There's nothing. >> So we're talking about 12, right? We're not we haven't even gone to 101
and you know >> I think she hasn't. >> Can I just tell you >> when? >> I'll tell him later. >> I little thing to fix. >> Mhm. You'll see it when you Oh, maybe it's on.
>> Okay, good. It's only on page two. >> All right. Well, I mean, I can try to wing this, but I'm You'll all help me. I know you will. >> I move that we approve the plan for 12 John Reed Road >> [snorts]
>> um dated 61126 um with the following conditions. A whole harmless. Do we need a deed restriction for this one? This is a big big one. >> Big one. No. >> Concom review and um the abandonment of
the old well uh with the variance of this is where I'm going to mess it up of the distance between the well and um the SAS of 80 ft
>> or is it 74T? 76 >> 76 >> 76 ft >> that's for 12 and then do we have to do it for 1012 with the distance >> 101 is 80 ft >> and the 101 from the well from the SAS to 80 ft
>> okay the with being clear that the well point is being installed prior to proceeding with any other activity. >> Okay. So, the new well point, abandonment of the existing well, and
then you can proceed with the >> and the water test. >> And the water test, >> right? Three years of water testing. >> Well, I'm just saying we need the initial water test >> to determine what quality the water is. >> I may have to turn around and stick the well point somewhere else, >> right? But
>> I don't think I'd have to because it's it's old doom. The back when you go this way, the lower cut, they filled it in. Even on the strata here, you can see there's almost two feet of fill where the septic's going to go. >> Okay. >> Did you get that, Bob? Um
>> I think so. >> Well, at that point, if that's not the right place, you'd have to come back in and men the plan. >> Correct. >> Yeah. So, it's um >> but the three years of well testing would be assuming that it goes forward. Correct. That's still a requirement and correct
>> you will revisit this if >> I agree. >> You um >> don't hit Good water. >> Okay. Okay. Is there anything else that we need to add to that or we all set? >> Did you get the whole bonus? >> I said almost.
>> Okay. I was >> I think of you every time I write that down. >> Second. >> Okay. A motion that has been made and seconded and I'll I'll try and summarize just for 12 John Reed Road um for installation of a new well point
um and abandonment of the existing well subject to a satisfactory water quality analysis can proceed with a um septic system upgrade based on the local upgrade approvals of a distance of 76 6
ft um to the proposed well on the subject property and 80 ft to the budding well on 101 John Reed Road. Um, subject also to hold harmless 3 years of well testing concom
[snorts] um all in favor >> I that's unanimous okay that's 12 John 101 [clears throat] isn't it the same pretty much >> 101 has a water test on it >> so what I'm trying to do there is again
replace assess pool uh and the varian is needed is again well variance. It's um proposed leech area is less than 100 ft or more than 50 ft from the owner's well. Proposed distance is 74.
Uh it's 100 ft away from the well on 12. It's 100 ft from the well at 100 John re and uh its own well is only 74. [clears throat] >> Okay. And what about the tank or something? >> The tank's more than 50
>> more than 50. >> It's 27 ft for the tank from the rear. 26 ft. That gives you 53 ft right there. 5T 58 ft. >> Okay. [clears throat] And 101. John Reed has the water quality
test which shows elevated lead. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Because of the water pipes. >> Okay. And what is >> solid joints? >> What should >> So lead levels exceed maximum contaminant level? Do what do we'll
turn to Matt before we go down a rabbit hole >> with the lead levels? >> Mhm. Pat will when she gets the uh notification, she'll send a uh a D letter out, you know, about the lead and the the um health effects from elevated
level up letter levels in the water. And um that's about all that we do and recommend that they take steps to treat it. >> Treat it. Okay. Is he planning on treating it? >> Do you know what's up, please? >> Do you know if he's planning on treating the
>> Yes, he is. Okay. He was planning on on actually taking this house and knocking it down and raising it above flood zone, but it was so expensive. So, he knows he's he's going to keep this house. He's going to sell the other one. >> Okay. Um
Okay. So, um anything else on this? Okay. >> So, it's just >> again entire lots in the flood zone. Yeah. >> But we're outside the buffer zone. >> Okay. and Concom has approved it. Okay.
>> Um so they did. >> Um anybody want to make a motion or I don't see >> I don't see a concom stamp on here. >> No. >> No. But that >> because it's still in your office. It
hasn't gone to conservation. >> They held a hearing on >> Okay. Okay. >> We could go Tuesday. >> Okay. >> Phil, can you do that? >> Okay. So, um, uh, make approve the plan. I'm not sure I got the numbers, but for Glenn Ellis
at um 101 John Reed Road, a two-bedroom repair and a plan of 61126 subject to concom approval, a two-bedroom deed restriction, a local upgrade approval
for the SAS sent back to the well of 70 sight well 74 ft and the SAS set back to the well at number 12 at 76 ft. uh got for this. I don't know if that's right. >> 74
>> 74 to 101 Reed Road John Reed Road. But there is no setback. >> Okay. >> To 12 Old John Reed Road. Correct. >> It's more than 100 ft. >> Okay. >> Correct. >> More than 100 ft from the
>> from >> the abandoned the abandoned well over here. The new well even further. >> Even further. Okay. So I'm just being clear. So we just >> the whole harmless agreement and three years of well testing. >> Yes. >> And uh advisory about the
water lead and the water. >> It's the solder in the water pipes. I don't know. >> Yeah. Okay. Um >> is that second >> motion has been made and seconded to approve the pro. Ooh. Do we need a deed restriction? It's 10,000. >> Oh, that needs two. >> I did. Okay. Thank you. Sorry, I missed
that. >> Um Okay. All in favor? I >> I that's unanimous. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Partner. >> John De >> That's not me. That's my poor draft. >> Oh, I should have collected that one.
>> No deed restriction on the first one. The first one has a large lot. It's 82,000 ft. >> 82,000 ft on that lot. >> Thank you much. >> Thank you, Mr. Potter. >> Okay. Um I'm going to call the 305
variance hearing for three Donna Street um owned by the Evelyn Sullivan Estate. This is a three-bedroom repair with a presby system on an 804 and it's 6 foot lot. Greg Nicholas represented. I didn't know I had a street. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. You're famous.
>> I am so excited >> to drive down it >> for the record. Greg Nicholas of South Coast Engineering. I'm [clears throat] very disappointed to say I have no wells anywhere near here. Um, as was stated, we have an 8,400 ft lot.
So, regardless of the fact that there is no well over there, that would have been a nightmare. there's uh that's serious constraint on trying to get a system to fit on something that small. So also compounding that was that we did the perk test even though I had done actually three other systems and
starting with some beautiful sand. This is a glacial tilt. We had to wind up getting a soil analysis. So the system wound up being quite larger than I expected. Nevertheless, I'm not sure that would have um avoided um at least one of the um local upgrades
that I'm requesting. So looking at the plan u first of all we have a analysis like I mentioned we have a setback to the existing to the foundation 12.9 ft from the u proposed field and also the tank in a pump chamber 5.2 ft from the
tank and 4.3 ft from the street line. The reason for that is a steep slope over here. I couldn't do anything as far as um you know moving it back and forth, moving it closer to the street. Well, I couldn't raise the 10 foot from the house anyway, but the tank itself was going to be very deep and that was what
necessitated the um the pump chamber. I couldn't get a gravity feed um for that reason. So, the biggest constraint on this property is the 8,400 foot lot. I'm very happy it does have public water, so that took the well out of it. Um and that's pretty much overview of the
project. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nicholas. Anything, Matt? Uh nothing on the design, all the uh variances, but I briefly talked to Greg about um because it's such a small lot um and I know it's on the water line,
but uh a deed restriction might uh be best in this case just because um I had a conversation with the EP about other properties and even though nitrogen loading it doesn't really fall under that because there's no well and septic on one lot. as the
water line. D cautioned me that you can't just have unlimited bedrooms pounding nitrogen into the ground. It's still a concern and on a lot this small a deed restriction, you know, would be advisable. >> Okay. >> Um, so I talked to Greg about I know you said you were going to talk to the property owner. I'm just not sure how you made
>> Yeah. I mean, in principle, I really aren't in the center of the whole thing, but a lot of times that if we say, "Well, that makes common sense." Uh, it's not going if it's not written down. even the things that I wrote down to say what were they thinking when they wrote this law. Um I don't really have an objection to it. I'm not going to argue
over him. But to your point is that it does make common sense. I mean it might be something you want to think about putting in a wrong regulation >> because you know >> if somebody asked you why is that? Well because they felt that way. This guy is not objective but somebody might.
>> You know I got into one in that I had to redo the whole thing because it was a deep restriction. That's the time that I argue with Chris Shim about it. But >> yeah, just because it's a de restriction, they got all kinds of That's not going to happen here, but >> okay. >> It would be nice if it was codified somehow.
>> Okay. Um I'll take your point on that and uh we'll keep that in mind. Um I think we'll be revisiting that regulation anyways around cess poolool. So it would be an opportunity for us to um but >> if they I I mean it is small, but let's say
someone wanted to put in an ADU Then what they were faced with a deed restriction even though they just connect it to a sewer. >> What now? Well, I'm just saying the scenario is is that you're that that it
would prevent I think it's a I think it's a big step to impose deed restrictions
on lots that are connected to sewer. >> When do we call it quits on the number of bedrooms? What if they wanted to raise the house up? But I I would I I I just think it needs more discussion. Well, that would >> I just gave the example of an auxiliary dwelling unit,
>> you know, because the you know that is there's a big there's a you know there's a big initiative behind that which is to allow um and I don't know how small this I I mean I don't know how small the lot is so you know but
>> small you know or someone would say I'm gonna you know knock yeah I'm going to knock down this house and I'm going to build a six you know I'm going to build an apartment building and It's going to have three floors and you're going to have two bedrooms in each floor. >> Well, that would have
>> I mean, we're setting a precedent here. It doesn't mean that this was going to, you know, do it because we're afraid of nitrogen getting pounded into the ground. >> So, first my it was only just a for your consideration. It wasn't a recommendation. Just telling you my discussion. >> Yeah, it is. I thought you were saying
she's she's connected to the sewer. She's not connected to the sewer. >> There is no sewer. water line. >> Oh, a water line. Okay. Well, that's different. >> This is a small lot. Um, and >> I I'm not sure there'd be room for an ADU and the septic system and the house.
So, um, I think it's not an u a constraint, an an undue constraint on this particular project. I think you have I think it is worthy of further discussion and that's why we would do it in the context of a regulatory change because
as Greg said to codify it >> um and we need to then justify that um and figure out what the parameters are >> if there's a three-bedroom deed restriction that's all can come back to the >> the change it agree >> and and um you know with a proposal that
says we think this is appropriate and we can re-evaluate So, I think for now a three-bedroom deed restriction is um appropriate in this case and um we should put it on the a future agenda for when we figure out a strategy around cess poolools and reopen
the regulation. >> Agreed. >> Okay. So I move that we approve the plan for three Donna Street um dated 7126 with the variances of a tank to the
street distance from 5.2 ft and 4.3 ft. Um let's see tank to street distance. Yes. And then the SAS to the foundation
12.9 ft um less than the 20 expected and then a civ analysis with the following conditions a whole harmless agreement and a three-bedroom deep restriction. >> Second uh motion made and second and
just to clarify the second part of um the distance the 4.3 is for the pump chamber. for the pump chamber and that's less than 10 the rank the required 10 feet >> right as for the >> Did you get that? >> Okay. Thank you.
>> All right. Um that was seconded. Correct. Motion made and seconded. All in favor? >> I I that's unanimous. Thank you very much. Mr. >> We'll have a little >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um
we um two things I want to just topics for the well not necessarily for the next regular meeting but just um where are we with health notes just sort of wrapping up on the board member updates. Um,
>> okay. You did the heat one. >> I did the heat one >> and I did something. [laughter] >> Um, did we do one? We were going to do one, but
I've lost track. I've been >> I think I think it might be a good one to do for uh ticks and and tickborn illness since we're having a big problem right now. I thought we >> What did you You did heat. I thought we did something with >> Yeah, we did with >> We moved the
>> I [clears throat] got to go back and look at my computer. >> Yeah, we moved the heat one up because the heat I was Oh, we were going to do it on drought, but then we got all that rain. >> Yeah. Right. Right. >> Okay. So, tickorn um would be next and um I can
>> take a crack at that. Um and at some point we'll do the climate resilience and huh 104. Um, I have to look at my notes. I I don't know why I think maybe it's because I've been focusing on ticks, but that we did something, but I'll go back and look at my last one
before, but I think an update given the um the uptick in tick born diseases um and the new, you know, we I I'm pretty sure we did one about that included the alpha gal, but now with we have increase in bambiosis as well, we should
>> there increase in everything. the the ticks are bad and they're they're spreading >> it is >> terrible diseases >> that are affecting so many people and I worry about kids especially in the summertime going into you know going to
camps and and and that everybody's doing tick checks every day check for ticks every day >> yep >> at the end of the day >> all right so we'll work on that for the next column and then we'll figure out our fall um And the last thing under um
not uh unanticipated is um um department health goals um that uh we have to submit and we wanted to discuss those and I I know it's short notice but you got a copy of the draft from Matt. Um
did you um and Phil and Donna get a chance to look at that? >> Um >> can I just add one more thing going back to the updates? So, we have a contract nurse that's going to be in town tomorrow at the COA doing blood pressure
and a little education around tick born illness and ticks with the seniors. So, it's going to be Connie from um Rochester. >> Okay. >> All right. Just to give the board the heads up on that. >> Okay. Okay. Good. Um >> that's nice. >> And she's also the one covering Maven, right?
>> Yes. >> Okay. Which we absolutely have to do. Everything else doesn't want to pay for you. We don't do it. Um, okay. Um, and I just want to make clear that all of these are subject to
adequate staffing. Um, I'll leave my letters um for goals. >> Are we going to go through it or are we just Let's do headlines on each of the goals, regulatory compliance, doing inspections and reports, etc. as well as possible.
Um, any comments or concerns about that? Hearing that, goal two, improve customer service. Again, we need staff to be able to keep up, but do the best we can to
um respond to resident inquiries, process permits, and maintain professional communication. Any concerns about those goals? >> No. >> Okay. >> Electronic permitting and digital records. Um,
I would say this is sort of on goal. >> Hold on a second. So, um, I'm sorry. So, um, >> we've had no comments of goals one and two. Okay. >> We're talking about goal three, electronic permitting and digital records. >> I hesitated to put a timeline down
because I don't want to be held to it, >> but I do think eventually we have to move into that at some point in time. I just don't know. We >> can't if we don't have the staff. >> All right. So, take that off. You want to describe because that all goal three has to do with that. So just
take out goal three. >> We can't do it. We don't have the staff to do it. >> Um well as >> if we hire a part-time person. >> Well, we're working on it, right? >> I did somebody did inquire with me
personally about the position and then there was another suggestion of someone else um that was made to me by someone else. So there were two people possibilities for the part-time. >> So we do have that up top. All board of
health goals contingent upon adequate staffing. >> So I mean that that goal three would be no different, you know, would still fall into that. >> Right. >> Well, I think we can't move forward until we have >> the staff person. >> The others we had staff that we just
don't have anymore. This is a new position, additional position. I shouldn't say new. it's additional FTE part-time FTE to enable us to do this. So I think maybe what we do um this one is subject to
um a hiring part-time worker >> or something. I think we've already Yes, we've already said contingent upon adequate staffing, but I think we need to be explicit on
that one. Um, >> so we'll just put PN subject to hiring part-time work. >> Yeah. staff development um conduct annual evaluations ensure staff complete certifications and
CEUs and um that's safy is the department of public health state public health standard workforce standards um cross trainining um for goal four any comments or
concerns about that. >> Okay. Goal [clears throat] five, resident outreach and public health education. We of course help with that. >> Yes. >> Um >> provide residents with accurate and timely information, support community outreach efforts, educate residents on applicable public health regulations,
foster positive relationships with the community, professional inform. I think that's I think that's pretty good. Any concerns about that one? Okay. So, transfer station
Um well, one is safe operations. Um conducting safety inspections, identifying hazards, and maintaining compliance. Uh why don't I just keep reading and if you have something you want to add or a concern, just say hold. Goal two,
equipment and facility maintenance. um completing prevent preventative maintenance, clean and organize grounds, minimize equipment downtime, maintain the landfill cap is required by the licensed site professional and state post postclosure regulation
requirements. um efficient operations, tracking incoming waste and recyclables to ID opportunities to increase recycling. Ensure waist streams are accurately identified and labeled um handled um and efficient loading,
unloading and material transfer to minimize delays and maximize operations. Um, under goal four, staff development, annual safety training, cross trainin employees, encourage employees to obtain required licenses and certifications,
and encourage eligible employees to obtain a class B commercial driver's license, which would be really helpful. >> Um, conduct annual employee evaluations, provide coaching and feedback. And then customer service. Provide
courteous services to residents. Address c customer concerns promptly and maintain efficient operations to minimize a customer wait times. >> Are we doing any composting? >> What post at the at the transfer station? Composting. >> We're selling the compost. This rather
than selling them. >> We're not. We haven't. That was one of the things that we had talked about possibly doing, but because of the workload and everything else that's happening, I was like, we have to put this on hold for right now. So, we sell composters. We do cut we we do have the big giant compost pile. We're just not doing food composting.
>> Yeah. >> Right. Right. Well, okay. >> Well, then I I mean, you might want to add recyclable/combust compostable materials that come in. >> Um, >> increase opportunities to increase
recycling and composting. >> Okay. Um, so just compost um yard let's see I think I I I wouldn't want to use the word composting because that people implies too much so just
yard waste maybe management >> um >> well be calling it waste and it's waste so you don't need to identify it I didn't know I I'm not pushing for this I just fig if we were doing it we would include it >> Matt was saying we we have a
>> yeah we already we have the compost pile we sell compost is with and you know we have people drop off everything they take stuff out so it's pretty good >> okay >> we're doing the best we can with the resources we have >> okay um animal control goal one response
and enforcement meet established response times for emergency and routine calls of course this is um I think we should also put animal control goals contingent upon adequate staffing
because we can't respond to emergencies 24/7 um because we don't have a second person. Um so I think we would add that here. Staff um complete investigations promptly.
Enforce licensing and animal control ordinances consistently. That's for goal one. Goal two, documentation and compliance. Complete reports within 24 hours. Maintain accurate records. Ensure compliance with regs and bylaws. Animal care and public safety. Ensure proper
care and handling of all. Um when we save all animals, um that's uh animals that animal control has taken >> or something. >> Animal care and public safety. Ensure proper care and handling of animals. So
anything that animal control is involved with would be >> proper care and handling. Right. >> Yeah. Um okay. Maintain safe equipment and vehicles. Coordinate coordinate with veterinarian shelters and reg rescues as
appropriate. Um staff development. Complete required training and CEUs. Participate in animal handling and public safety training. Crossrain staff were appropriate. Be helpful if we had more staff to cross. [laughter] >> That would be very helpful. Community
outreach, promote responsible pet ownership, increase dog licensing compliance, participate in community events and educational programs. >> So that last one, participate in community events and educational programs. I know police out tonight and Nick, you know, wanted the table, but
he's on call and it's hard to have him be there and then be on call and, you know, so that, you know, is directly related to just having one staff person. Oh, well, I mean, I could add stuff to a
table or add another table and just be the board representative. >> I think something to think about next year. It's too hard to put it together in, you know, a couple hours here. So, >> yeah. No, but I'm but I'm saying that that is an option and just check when I'm doing events because that's one of
the things that I've kind of taken on is that I would um education's important to me and I'd be out there. So if there's other stuff when I say what does the board want me to to present then that's one of the things I would be presenting. >> Okay. >> Yeah. In the
>> in the future >> might need two tables. >> Well, we've got two tables. I've got one for the board of health and one for the opiate >> committee. But um >> we could have a corner for animal control. >> I can do the whole gamut. I just need some help to pull everything together
and set up. >> Okay. We'll we'll we'll follow up on that. Okay. Um and then shared expectations for all departments, foster positive, respectable, collaborative work environment, maintain accurate records, operate within approved budgets,
identify opportunities to improve efficiency, customer service, communicate effectively with town staff, town residents, town officials, and partner agencies. Okay. Any additional comments or concerns? um in in all of this when it talks about
where the issues of communication um is that somehow for us to be able to um have consistent communication about all things board of health and to
whether or not it's I know that you post things on Facebook. Um we don't have a board of health Facebook page though. I know there's a town board on Facebook. >> Yeah. So, so I think that you know consistent communication and having
um we we do that in a couple of ways. One way is the shorelines when we do our column and I get positive feedback about columns all the time that people appreciate us educating. Um if there's another way for us to brainstorm how we can be consistent in our messaging and
communications in the community. Um, uh, one of the things that I have brought up, um, I know we have our little thing out in the front that has the lights on it and tells people what's going on. I somehow think that if there's a way we can work within the town to bridge the
communication with the northern part of Westport because people, if they don't come to this part of town, don't see those things. So, is is there a way for the and I brought this up to um a couple of the select board members and Chris, is there a way for us to have some kind of marquee in the northern part of town
that communication? So, when there's a public health announcement, we can do a public health announcement. When there's a community announcement, it could be done in the northern part on Route 6 somewhere on Route 6, which is well traveled. So I I you know it's just something that I' I've been thinking a
lot about is that our consistency and communication across the board in town um is important but for the board of health when we have critical incidents or things happening um communicable diseases that we really want to be able to flash that and people say well
everybody reads Facebook. There's just something about writing on Route 6 and seeing a flashing um sign that gets your attention. >> Yeah. I [clears throat] mean I think uh my experience with communication the town generated communication is not
great um and it's it's it's not well supported in terms of >> um messaging. >> So but in terms of our just in terms of our our goals is how do we then improve
our consistency and communication in the community about what's happening? So, our messaging is consistent. The message itself is always consistent. It's getting it out there that we hit the roadblock, right? Because we're limited. We have our town web pages and
[clears throat] you know, when I send it over to Tanya, she puts it up on our Facebook page. >> That's about it. Um, >> TV. >> Oh, and we have TV. That's right. I can't forget about TV. >> But, how do you know how many people? But I just think from our I mean, that's
also a way for us to do that. But but I also I'm I am concerned about consistent messaging and you know when there's especially when there's critical events happening >> if there's a critical event we do have
well I've been told we have that code red system if there's something that critical >> but the code red system didn't work I got it from Plymouth when fire happened in mid city >> you got it from Plymouth but our code red system is still not being used Even though we have it,
>> if we were using it, then you would and you signed up for it, then you would have got the message from >> West Point. >> Yeah. Cuz that that was Mid City. That fire was a big deal. >> Yes. >> And and what I got was an alert message. >> Yes. >> From Plymouth. >> From Plymouth County.
>> But but what I'm saying is we have the system. We're just not using it. >> Okay. >> So, um that not under control. >> No. So to the my point is we're limited on the way we can get communications out. Um and but we use every I from to
my knowledge the town has a town web page and I think Chris or Paula may control that. So I will if there's something critical they will pop it up uh on that page. I've never personally been to the site to see it >> Facebook page. >> Yeah. So, um, but there is that avenue
as well. But I take your point and we we could possibly if there's something critical move one of our digital signs up to the Route Six area. We have two of them. We move both of them up there. >> I'd like I'd like something bigger and better um for the town. So, I'm I keep
putting that buzz in everybody's ear. >> Okay. >> Um Okay. Is there any other business? >> Uh anything else? If not, okay. So, um, being there no other business, I move that we adjourn this meeting at 4:11
p.m. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> I that's unanimous.