Uh good afternoon. Welcome to the Westport Board of Health meeting on June 23rd, 2025 under Massal Law, chapter 3A, section 20F. This meeting is being recorded and we have one member, Phil Weinberg, on remote on the video screen
there. Um please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag to the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. Thank you. Okay, we have had some te technical difficulties. We'll hope that uh the audio works okay. Um, so moving on directly into the agenda, director's report.
Um, the written report. Any questions on that? Short and sweet. I have none. Okay. Um, your verbal update, Matt. Uh, well, there was, um, I can give you, uh, I was away, so there was nothing on the
report, but just give you a heads up that the transfer station, uh, paving is completed. Um the the improvements look good. Um so we had the the um the lodge area where the sheds are was paved around the shed uh the office and over
in the parking area for the employees. And then we had three aprons done uh going into the one going into the compost lot, another one going into the bike recycling and and scout lot and then on the exit from lot three as well.
Um so um those look good. We had the uh landfill hill mode. It was getting quite thick and um our consultant George Campbell recommended that we get that tended to. So we did. Um that looks really good. Um they did that last week
on Thursday. Um but uh other than that for the transfer station, there were some new signage coming in that uh should be in this week and we'll get that installed uh hopefully by the end of the week. So,
and it's um important to note that this is all um from an earmark in uh the state budget courtesy of Senator Rodri. So, we thank him for that. Okay. Anything else? Um so, animal
control um uh Gina's been uh you know on call on her rotation schedule's been working out great. She's scheduled to start um right after July 1st. she's going to transition from the staffing agency into being a town employee. So, that's exciting and um it's exciting
that we have somebody um to help out Nick over there. So, it's um been working out pretty good. So, that's it for now. Okay. All right. Thank you. Um you the board of health did issue a heat advisory um over the weekend. Obviously, everybody knows it's hot. Yeah. So, but
I I would say we did we did post something on the web page about that. Um there's a couple of postings. There's one with general tips and then there's another one specifically to do with uh medications and how the extreme heat can affect people you even if it's over the counter medications how that can affect
you. So yeah, but there is an alert up on the board of health page and we did send an e alert out for those. Okay, thank you. Okay. Um going to move to uh director approved plans and I think why don't we just hold the 142 Dunamman's Lane and do
that at the same time as we do the variance the 141 because it's sort of a combo plan. Yeah. Um so what we have is um I'll have Matt you go through 202 Saudi drive and 117 Braen.
Sure. We have a five bedroomedroom new construction on a 60,128 foot lot at 202 Saudi drive uh for Sergio uh Pinkis. Um, this one has been through Concom and
utilizing a quick four and a singular. We have a three bedroomedroom new construction on 117 Braenpoint Road on a 25,893 ft lot utilizing a quick four and a singular air. And this one's also been through Concom and will require a deed
restriction. Okay. All right. So, I I move to endorse uh the director approved plans for 202 Saudi Drive and 117 Braen Point Road. Um I believe the three Great Plen Point
Road meets a three-bedroom deep restriction. Yes. Okay. Motion made and seconded to approve those two projects. Um all in favor? I I unanimous.
Okay. Well, hold on. Um 142 Dunovan's Lane. So um we move on to other business. Um we have a request from Megan Mahoney um who did not pay her equin permit on
time. So um I'll turn that over to Matt. Yes. This just a simple request um from Miss Mahoney. Um she's requesting that we wave the late fee for her ecine permit. Um she just didn't catch it coming through the mail.
Um she's been, you know, um on time in the previous years. This is her this is the first time being late. So um we'll leave it up to the board on, you know, how they want to proceed with that. Well, I I see the note from Nancy. I
presume we had um six late permits and um the others have been paying the fine. So um either we I recommend either we um
maybe allow one time um but can't become a practice or we not break the press. Those are the two options I think. Um, my feeling Whoops. Do I? Yes. My feeling is if if we've had somebody
who's been in goodstead for a period of time and they missed one um that we we can't give a a one time raise for that. If somebody has a history of always being late, then I would say no. But I believe that um when I spoke with Matt
earlier, he said that they had a history of paying on time. Okay. So, um any thoughts, Bill? anything any objections to that? Um, no. I mean, I um
I'm fine with uh any uh outcome you two guys agree on. Okay. All right. So, I move that we wave um this one-time uh request for uh late fee renewal that we w we accept the um
request to remove the late fee. Second. Motion made and seconded to grant a one-time waiver to Megan Mah for late fee payment. Um all in favor I. That's unanimous. Thank you.
Um I'm I'm going to push this um South Coast Public Health membership discussion till later. Let's move on to um the Pineeridge Comprehensive Permit local septic rig section 7 waiver discussion. And I think Billy, you've
been taking the lead on this. You want to kick off that discussion? Okay. Um so this is kind of the followup to um the meeting that uh the chairman of uh the ZBA convened with um
representatives from the board. that was there, conservation commission, the developers um you know team and the uh ZBA consultants and um I think what came out
of the uh discussion on the section 7 uh per rates was uh that the developer um you know you know made it clear that uh uh two things
I I I think you know one was I think their recognition that um unless the conditions that existed back in 2006 where they got a very fast perk rate
which allowed them to site um the SAS in the area that's designated on the plan that unless that happened again which seemed uh likely because their recent test failed both our local regulation
and title 5's regulation in terms of the maximum length of time uh permitted uh to to do a sighting that they were going to have to relocate um the SAS someplace um on the I'll call it the owner's
property and there was some kind of discussion about there being a lot Oakland acres and um you know where they might put it. Um and um so I think there seemed to be some resignation that they
going to proceed um with that, but they're going to uh do a um further at least at least one further test at that location sometime in September.
And if it turned out that uh that they could not achieve a a rate that would allow them uh given the size restriction there to construct an SAS, they would look elsewhere. And um but I think the second point was
that they were also clear that um they weren't that they wanted to pursue a waiver um decision from the board and that should the board um enforce our
local regulation that they would challenge that in front of the housing appeals authority. whatever you know their formal title is. And then that they also if they were there that they also um I guess would consider um also
seeking a waiver from uh the new construction denrification requirement. And um so what I proposed is um what I thought was the
most productive outcome um because I think this is a situation where um uh although the boards of health you know obviously can be more stringent than uh D this is a situation say
different from denaturation. in which uh the EP hasn't um or title 5 hasn't articulated a specific standard that title 5 does have a specific standard you know which allows a per rate twice our rate and the burden of proof is
going to be on us as to why uh 30 is the maximum um but I do also think that there's an openness there to do um kind of a maximum practical will um you know
extend um solution to the problem. So what I propose is that in lie of a the decision um standing alone rejecting or accepting um
the the request waiver that the ZBA issue a permit condition as part of its comprehensive permit. And essentially what it says is you know go ahead uh developer you need to do your test. We're going to be involved um in you
know um reviewing that you know according to our standard approach um on that. If the test fails, then um they would go ahead and conduct other perk tests and that would be done in
consultation, you know, with u with the board of health as to where those kind of made sense and how many perk tests, you know, would be required. And then uh the third uh provision says if they
achieve a perk rate um that is 30 or lower then that is where the SAS should be located um if they can't achieve a perk rate um uh within that maximum that
they would achieve a um uh then they would take the net closest rate Um uh so essentially coming as close as possible you know uh to what our maximum is and
um you know consistent with the maximum extent feasible um you know which gives them an opportunity you know to make the case that you know there's a site there but it would be an
extremely complicated engineering situation Um or you know that's kind of similar to what um the upgrade regulation you know talks about you know maximum feasible compliance looking at looking at both at
um financial and at engineering um principles and um and essentially would you know work out in discussions between you know the office and our office and the developer as to really what be the
most practical um resolution of the problem if there wasn't a you know 30 minute perk on uh that came out of any of the um testing that they did. So that's the
proposal that I was advocating we present to the CBA and see if we can get a condition that would I think get almost everything you know that we want
consistent with not shutting the project down which I don't think we would be successful in achieving if the outcome was that they couldn't find us back without 30 well you can't build this you can't build this project. I just felt it was highly unlikely that the housing
appeals authority would um support that effort. Um okay. Um let me turn to Matt first and then board comments.
I um I think Phil's comments in you know this draft is good. Um, like I think we Phil, we talked about the likelihood that the CBA probably wouldn't wave the 30 minute sprinch perk
rate. So, this is a good plan and to see if they can condition um their um their their request to um um Falland and Deli. So um but a lot of
this will come also um I think when they come to the board of health um with their proposed plans we can also talk again about you know all this stuff in in this draft as well. So I think it's a good Okay. Um, Phil, I can you clarify?
You said that uh were they sort of maybe I don't want to put words in your mouth threatening that if we didn't if the ZBA didn't grant the perk rate waiver that they would then ask for another waiver for the dite that they
don't aren't currently asking for. Did I get that right? And I think that um there's uh well again um
this was a comment made you know in passing. Um, and so it's it didn't get a lot of scrutiny, you know, at the time as to what exactly
they meant. I think that what I real I think this is relevant to your question. I think that what I realized is that this was considered what what's in front of the CPA right now is considered a temporary
uh plan. And there's in the uh ZBA process opportunity to kind of go back and forth. Um um and so it might be that they would um
you know they they come to us hopefully we would work it out. that would obviously affect what the final plan would look like because you know the um the SAS would be relocated and there's a similar thing going on you
know with storm water management. I think that what he was saying, and again I don't know what the legality of this is, is that if they have to take an appeal in order to move forward on the project and kind of get a final plan
permitted and they're going to the uh to the uh uh housing and they're in front of the appeals court, excuse me, and they're in front of the whatever the appeals court is called. I don't know necessarily what they have to do to preserve their, you
know, right to pursue the waiver on the D9, but it was just a suggestion that it's going to cost them a lot of money to do close to 40 D9 systems and they agreed to do that. and um and maybe
because they thought they were vulnerable to uh uh our making the case that having D9 was a local concern of a level that they
could um if they didn't want to have to defend against. So, in any event, it was an it was an issue that, you know, that was raised that, hey, if I'm going to go to court, I'm going to bring all my issues there where if we could just move
this process forward, then they were willing to honor their agreements to do. Um, okay. Well, I I I don't know how the nitrogen loading requirements would
come into play in terms of requiring dite anyways. Um but um I'm not a lawyer, but as a lay person, if they didn't ask for a waiver at the
ZBA, how can they then in an appeal request uh a judgment on something that they didn't ask for? Well, I I mean um
I don't really know the answer to that. I think that they you're talking about denrification still, right? Yeah. Yes. Yeah. So, yeah. So they they they filed for a waiver and then
um and then they chose to withdraw the waiver um kind of voluntarily and so it's no longer right now before the ZBA board, right? But I don't know
if there is because there's a bit of more process to the final final um determination. I don't know whether um uh if the ZBA
in order for this to make sense, the ZBA has to say, "Okay, we agree with the board, us, the board of health, and we're going to deny the waiver. We're going to lock them into requiring um no more than a 30, you know, a 30
minute per inch per break." and um and that decision is going to come out of the is going to be part of the next is going to be part of the next step. Um so
whether they have a right to come back and re um you know reassert um a request to wave the uh denaturation. I just don't know the answer to that. Okay. It was suggested
in the broader sense that they could, but um you know, we didn't drill down on it. Um the ZBA's lawyer wasn't there. So, all right. Okay. We won't belver the point.
Um uh at this point, I just I you know, just point that out. Okay. But I don't think that Yeah. I don't think necessarily that that is I don't think fear of that is a reason
a big reason why we shouldn't make a decision about the 30inch waiver uh 30-minut waiver. I think that it's difficult for us to make that case
um because it is it's a real concern about the potential, you know, I understand kind of the protect the general protective nature of that, but um it's hard to make a real
site specific specific um challenge to that or enforcement of that to the point that it would potentially kill the entire project. That's what I think would be very
difficult for the little research I did on this and the way that the regulation is set up that we would be successful in that. Okay. Um and this and this is the next best thing. So that's why I'm advocating
that not just to protect the data. Okay. Well, uh, one would be concerned about a project that stands on a knife's edge of like either it's doable or not doable on that thing. Um, that, you know, factor that, you know, you worry about the the
overall environmental impact. But I I take your point. So the question before us now is um, it's of course the the decision is up to the ZBA. We just want to make a recommendation uh about the conditions you're
suggesting that the ZBA issue and and so the the appropriate motion would be to recommend that we make this recommendation to the ZBA. Is that the recommend is that the motion you'd like to make? That that's Yes. I would like to make a motion, you know,
to recommend the um uh the set of um conditions that uh should be imposed on the percolation rate um in lie of a um full waiver
of the of the denial of the waiver. Okay, I second. Okay. So motion has been made and seconded to forward those recommendations to the ZBA with regard to the Pineriidge comprehensive permit waiver request um of a local board of
health regulations. All in favor? I I that's unanimous. Okay. Thank you. Um we have hit 4:30. So I'm going to um move into our appointments. Um and we'll call the first hearing uh 4:30 p.m. Greg Nicholas representing 1985
Main Road. John and Moren Biser, a five bedroomedroom repair of a 1500galon tank and pipe replacement on a 37,655T lot. Mr. Nicholas, good evening.
Blaze. Thank you. And the water just came back. Okay. All right. So, the record south coast engine geyser the property at 195 C road
plan for everybody to see. We have it on. Oh, you have it on. Okay. So, what we have here is an existing five bedroomedroom home and in addition was built onto the home. You can see garage slab foundation. the
eastern side of that where little jog is they added a twocar garage and took the existing garage which was more like a carriage garage. I can't imagine a car would have able to fit into there but anyway and they turned into living space and that's on a slab and the slab extends through the narrow section of
the house right up to where the main house is. Even though this house isn't that old, it's very interesting footprint as you can see. And it had this slab. And when they built this, they put a nice little pipe coming out as you can see, just clean out next to it. That was the pipe that came out. And it was after all
this was done, I was contacted to can I put a septic tank in? I said, "Okay, well, you have an awful lot of constraints on here and pretty much painted the way it's going to be by this um outlet that you put in." Having said that, I'm not sure that there's a better
place that they could have put it or a different place they could have put it because of the patios and whatnot and the fact that this is all slab. So, two issues that came up is the location of the well, first of all, the abut as well, the locus well, and the setback to
the property line, which you can see on the plan is 2.4 ft. the street here, um, Hillside Avenue, the abut's deed across by across the street, which is 1991D Main Road LLC. Their dean describes that they own the
fee in the entire street. Becomes a common theme for the other hearings tonight. Um, so 2.4 ft set back to the property line. Also, the issue here is this line you see over here, the velocity film limit, which comes right
up across the um building across the garage right by the edge of the tank. And that left me with 42 ft to the set back of the well. Now, when this first started doing this, I discussed with Matt, I believe Matt, you discussed with some members of the board about what the
options were here. is an existing septic tank, thousandgalon tank over here uh at elevation of 9 uh within the regular uh within the river zone and everything else. So I thought do I put another tank there
or do I go to the well? So discussion it was a pine that you know the well is something that we can live with a catastrophic flood here. We don't need two tanks ripped out of the ground. So that's the plan you see in front of you. Okay. Now, having said that, the uh new
tank will pump back to existing pump chamber and pump back up the hill to the uh septic field which is shown on the east side of the property. Uh it should be noted there's no increase in design flaw. There's just a bathroom added to this living space. Okay.
Um and where does the piping go to the septic field? I didn't see it. The septic it's not here. Um I asked the person who put it in when he bought it. Yeah. 20 years ago. He said it goes somewhere by that el that willow tree and goes up this way. He said, "You're going to put this in?" She says, "Yeah,
I will. Do you know where it is?" kind of. I'm not going to dig it all up. He says, "I'm going to get it." Okay. Okay. Okay. All right. Yeah. Um All right. Sorry. Um let me turn to Matt for his report. Yeah. So, Greg and I
talked about this and um tried to get the tank in where it would be able to go without hitting the grading issues and maximize the distance from the wells and this seemed like the best most likely, you know, the best spot for it to go. It
is down gradient from the wells. Mhm. Okay. Um just a curiosity question. How did a five bedroomedroom septic design with a 1,00gallon septic tank get 100
gallon septic tank down here? Yeah, I have no idea. It's an old It's an old system. I don't know when did plant originally done. 1992. Yeah, maybe a little older than that. Yeah. Yeah. I guess it doesn't require Yeah, I didn't.
Okay. Yeah, understood. Okay. Um any uh questions from the board? Phil, do you have any questions? Um so I just want to direct this to Matt because I did you see my email back?
Yes. And Greg Greg did uh he did notify all the abuters as required in the full variance. Okay. All right. So um yeah. So, so the reason I'm
raising that is because under the um the provisions for the local upgrade approval um you know sets a um minimum of 50 foot setback um you know from the
system and I think in previous uh cases where this has arisen we've considered the septic tank as part of the system. It's doesn't the regulation doesn't say you know less just 50 ft
from the SAS and that then has taken us to the full variance scenario in which um and I do think I you know I I respect um you know the decision that that you
know that this is the location you know which is uh the most you know, is this maximum feasible compliance for, you know, for this for this, you know, location. And I just didn't know if procedurally, you
know, we had to get to the issue of, you know, is this equivalent environmental protection because I know this issue has come up before and I'm just looking to see whether or not there's something we had done in the past that we would just
to be consistent in our decision on this. So, that's was really what I asked Matt was how we handled this before if we're going to treat it in that treat it as a uh
a full waiver. And I appreciate that the notification was done the same. It's just that the performance standards for us to grant to approve the plan under the you know formal variance procedures are
different than under the local upgrade approval. So, yeah. So, um in equivalent environmental protection, um I mean we it's just so there's no increase in flow. Um they
just added a tank even though the tank one of the tanks is less than 50 ft away. in the past. Um, we've I I don't have a specific situation to compare this to, but I know that we've allowed it when the site constraints were um as
tight as this, but um I think Greg, we talked about the about maybe adding dite or or something to create an equivalent environment of protection and it just kind of wasn't an option for for this area. I think we had talked about that
putting a I mean putting a dite pret putting a dite uh tank into a system that's already treated by one that's not dite I'm not sure that you'd be achieving anything at all um put in the course of the URI
I'm I'm not sure there was much they could do on this for this particular site just to be um kind of a nurge about this the um 1540443E,
it says the SAS shall not be located within 50 ft of a private water supply. Well, it doesn't say system. So, since it's just a tank, I know, but I
Well, I don't know. I don't think I'm making this up. I don't think that uh So, okay. Maybe I've got it wrong, but I know that it's it's it's come up previously. Yeah, I think so. If I've got it wrong, then I was
getting corrected. Well, I I think the Yeah, I Well, let me see. I don't have the the SAS is defined as system of trenches, galleries, pits, field, blah blah blah together with the affluent
distribution lines which receives effluent from the septic tank or treatment system. So that's why I'm thinking the SAS is 50 ft away from the well. The septic tank is not but
and it says another provision where the is where failure of the system is solely due to failure of the septic tank debox or a component. Um so I think it's a little fuzzy. Um, but
we could just I mean it's worthy of a further discussion maybe when we're like at a working meeting or where we're in person. I don't want to belabor this particular hearing. Um uh so the question is at this point um
is the proposed upgrade to by repairing the tank and the or replacing the tank and the piping um adequate to meet you know the best possible maximum feasible compliance. Um, and I
what I'm hearing from Matt is yes, that there and and the engineer that there really isn't anything that they could do differently that would be uh less impactful. Yeah, I don't have a problem with the
outcome and I think it's significant that the tank is uh at least significantly down gradient from the from the well based on the topographic delineation. So I didn't have a problem
with that. It was just more well I guess from maybe my warped or misunderstood consistency with how we dealt with the issue. I wasn't, you know, trying to throw a roadblock in the outcome. Okay. Um so what I'm going to suggest is that
we um I'll entertain a motion to approve this project um as proposed. Um but we can revisit that topic so that we have clarity and we don't um spend you know sort of rehash it at every time that
this comes up that we try and be have a clear understanding of that. Um um but it sounds like from a practical point of view that we should approve this project is my sense is that and you agree you you said you
you're fine with the project as proposed. It's more of a procedural thing. Is that correct? Yes. I mean, I'm looking at the I'm looking at the U. Yes, I'm fine with that. I'm just say
I'm looking at uh 15405G, which is where it has come up. Um where it says reduction of system location setback from water supply lines, private water supply wells, but not within 50 ft of the well.
And so when it came up was well when they talk about reduction of system location what are they including in the system and in other examples we said well they usually say the SAS if they mean the soil absorption system when
they want to refer to the soil absorption system but they say system and so that's where I think it's come up before. Okay. Anyway, that's just that's just my world view. Okay, it's
fine. We can move on. Okay. Well, I have just one thing. Can we do it contingent on a plan that shows how how it flows into the SAS because there's nothing here that shows that it is I have to dig it up to find out where that is. Well,
you're going to connect. So yeah, so um do your best on an asbuilt? Yeah. Yeah, I'll figure it out. Yeah. Okay. So the um uh so the as will will document it. Is that all right? Yes. I just want to see
where it's going. Yeah. It looks like it's it's going back into the system. I'm concerned about that tree to be honest with you about Okay. Um okay. I'd entertain a motion to approve the project for 1985 C Main Road. And I don't think there are any other
particular conditions that we are the variances we've got the set back from the pro. So I move that we approve the plan for 1985 C main road. Um the plan dated 53125 um with the following variances.
Set back from the property line 2.4t 4 ft. Um, less than 10 ft required and the set back to the well from the tank to 42 ft less than 50 ft required with the following conditions. A whole harmless
agreement and a five- bedroomedroom deep restriction. Second. Okay. A motion has been made and seconded to approve the project at 1985 C main road with those conditions. All in favor? I. I. That's unanimous. Thank you. Hi.
Which I've forgotten now. Okay. Um I'm called 4:40 p.m. hearing. Greg Nicholas representing 141 Dunovan's Lane for Cody and Rachel Flynn. This is a two-bedroom repair with a Presby system on a 12,572
foot lot. And we are going to be discussing 142 Diamonds Lane at the same time. But let's go through the Okay. Um, would you prefer that I give you the background on the property because that's probably going to be germanine to the whole
thing. Yeah, let's start filled. I don't know how I'm going to show you the plan over here cuz I didn't know you were going to be here, but I'm going to give the background on it and I'm not sure. [Applause] Um, well, let's see. We have the we have
the GIS map, right? Yeah. Um, this is the man called reference. Okay. So, wait a minute. GIS map doesn't look anything like it.
No. The GIS map's not right. Oh, is it? Not right. No. Okay. You have a copy of the plan, Greg? Uh, yeah. Um it'll be a way for a little time before we get to the plan. Okay. You had
another copy. Take a look. Um well, we'll do the best we can. Um probably hold it up the screen if you want to see it. Okay. Anyway, um so what we have here are essentially two plans for 141 and 142. Mhm. 142
is an increase in design flow from two bedroomedroom to a 3bedroom while 141 is a repair twobedroom making two-bedroom. Both of these lots are currently serviced by cesspools. Uh at least one of which is in obvious failure and that's the one at 142. So going through
the history on the planet I guess um Matt do you have it? Okay. 142 on lots 31 1920. Wait.
Okay. 142 isn't director. Okay. I'm just Okay. Okay. Uh so 39 well what is here listed as 31 19 and 20 correct? Okay. What is that
roughly equivalent to 39 and 40-41 on the GIS? Yeah, let's see. Yes, it's these two. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, it's for over here is where it tends to get messed up. So, yeah. All right. So, all of these
lots are owned by COP. Lot 31 was owned by somebody named Martins in turn who in turn told it to coach Corp in 2008. That is notable slot. Slot 1920 is where it gets interesting.
the chain of title here from Donovan, Mr. Donovan's Lane, to Kevin Flynn, who is a late husband of Lance Flynn, who was sitting back here, who then in turn transferred the land to Cody and Sarah
Flynn, her children, son, daughter, hence named Kosan Corp. And she was the um they were miners at the time. She was a custodian. Eventually it transferred to them and then Cody and Sarah turned it into Kos. So why is this all
fascinating? If you look through all these deeds, verbiage in the D includes the entire right of way. It goes from the north side all the way to the very end. That's not a question of a private way where owners own the halfway. They own
the entire fee. This is a land court deed. Now, as a land surveyor, I'm not supposed to opine on who owns what. I'm supposed to tell you what the property lines are, but where this is in a land court deed, and it's consistent all the way through. They own that land. So, I
did this all afternoon. I'm trying to make sense of this. The total area of lots 19 and 20 is 14,391 ft. Lot 31 is 6783, giving me a total of 21,000 square ft. The total area of the
right of way is 16,888.13 ft and the total area of those three lots plus the right of way of 38,63.89 ft which is exceeds the 25,000 ft
threshold for DI system. Okay. Now, as you've seen in the plan, we're putting two separate systems on that. The second system, which is the one where we're here for the for the waiver, is on lot two, which is this lot down here. Total
of 12,000 or some odd square ft. And that deed is here, which is owned by Cody and his wife, Rachel Flynn. This is the repair. It's not subject to the nitrogen loading, but this is not a normal thinking nitrogen
board. Okay. So, I wanted to look and see, okay, if I add the 12,000 square ft, that's going to give me a total of 50,636.00 ft aggregate for these parcels. So, for 40 141 and 142. Okay. Now I use the term
aggregate. You have enough on the right of way plus the three lots 31,1 19 and 20 to support the new system. Lot two does not have a nitro loading requirement.
So the question is how can we get this permitted? No, I believe that based on the calculations for area that is permittable, but it's a little bit different than a simple septic repair. So, I thought, do we have to do an
aggregate plan? Well, if this was a new construction for a two-bedroom, we most definitely would, but it's not. So, it's not subject to the metric. However, I'm putting it on there on, you know, combined area. So
without even getting into why we're here for the variance, I mean I would defer to the board how you want to handle this. Most definitely I would expect a full deed restriction on lots 2 and 31 19 and 20 to say this can they can never
have no increase in design flow. If you think this warrants uh aggregate plan, it's something we can do. Um, I don't think it's necessary, but I'll defer to the board on that for the reasons that a repair doesn't require
it. Okay. Let me ask the lots. I mean, I know that they're currently in common ownership, but can but they're separate deeds, right? So, so there's um that's a
um to me that's an issue um because if they sell one of the lots then then the whole thing is messed up in terms of Okay. All right. Um go ahead. I'm sorry. I don't know that I've thought it all the way through. I just know that it's
it's it's a you know it's a tangled Oh, it is web here. Um we do have a proposed easement for that somewhere, right? You and that would be a condition, right? But um
and I guess the easement runs with the deed. I'm not a lawyer. I've said that before today. But um here um it would definitely have something wrong with the deed. Okay. That would allow whoever you know everybody thinks oh you know it's my son and daughter I don't know if you
would have you no one's going to live forever until everything's going to get sold. Right. So it would have to be an easement that would be acceptable to the land court that says you can do this. Yeah. Okay. And um
how do the not strictly relevant, but how do the I mean if the Flynn's own the entire road Mhm. they control that road. Um
I I it's not Well, if I can guess where you're going, it's essentially across the property. So, I mean, you know, if that were the case, I don't none of the abs are here. No, the butter can say, "Oh, great. Fix a road, fix a park in my room, do this, do that, and the other thing." Yeah.
This is the old um reason there's no numeration ways. They used to dedicate land to the town and say, "Here, it's yours. Deal with it." Yeah. Okay. But this is still a private way. Where is it? The section. Yeah. It's shown on court plan, but the fee is
owned by the SL. Okay. Well, actually co Okay. Um well, I'm going to turn to Matt for his input because this seems um complicated. So, we talked about it being common ownership. Mhm. It's owned all of it's owned by the Cos Corp, right? COA Corp.
Cody Flynn. Um Cody Flynn is half a co- Cody Flynn. He doesn't have any coach. Well, you're the president, correct? Yes. Okay. All right. Um, that's owned by Diane Flynn. The right way. Yeah. The right of way and coach Corp. Yes. Cody
Flynn on lot two is a separate ownership. Yes. Okay. So, Cody Flynn owns this and Cos Corp or Diane Flynn as the president owns 31920 and the entire right away. Correct.
Okay. But those are separate. That um to which lot is the right of the entire roadway attached? 19 and 20. 19 and 20. Okay. The house is on 31.
Correct. Okay. And co owns 31 19 and 20. Okay. So there could not be construction on 19 or 20. No. So in effect practically functionally
it's all one big lot. Correct. Yeah. With uh I think there needs to be some legal I'm sure you they have or somebody has
legal um counsel to assure the ownership and all that lines up. Um, okay. All right. Sorry. I'm good. I don't I think Phil might have some. Okay. The
one that is an attorney. Oh, yes. Phil, do you want to see? I don't know if this I can hold it up. Yeah. I don't know where you I don't know if you can I don't I'm sure I can see Phil. Well, I I I I see that. I I I see what you're showing me, Gra, but I I've not
done it before. Um I'm I'm only confused because what's in front of us on the package seemed to be like a a very minor waiver issue with the depth of the of the system. And I don't you know, and I'm
it was really hard to follow the other discussion without seeing the plans for the other parcels. I apologize for that. Well, if you look the reason I like made the connection is because if you look at
the plan for the 141 Donovan's Lane. Yeah. Um so you see the GIS map which is not correct according to Greg. Um the um lot that's owned by
it. Yes. Yes. That's a lot. 49, right? That's 141 Dman's Lane. That's the one in front of us. 142 is across the street on the eastern side, and that was a director approved
plan, but I when I looked at the GIS to look at lot sizes, it didn't add up to what and and there's one over there that shows the lot is 14,000 square feet. It's a tiny lot, is it? which was a success. Yeah. So that's when I why I
was questioning that's why I'm combining the two discussions because they're all intertwined. Um so if you look at what the plan um for
both 141 and 142 rely on lot 4041 and 42 and 42 I mean based on the GIS this one does this is this one included too no just
one 40-1 this way here should be should line here and this line should not be there. Okay, the 1920 was sold as a common deed going back to D. Okay, so if you look on the GIS map, 4041 is where the um
the um systems will be located. Correct. Do you see that Phil on the on the plan? So, so there there are two
Uh 40. So 49 and um and 39 are owned by the same entity or a different entity? No. 49 which is lot 141 is owned by Cody Flynn. Correct. Yeah. And 142 is owned
and the next lot um 4041 is owned by Kosar Corporation which is Diane Flynn. Oh, so it so it's going to be a shared system because the second system for both. No, he's got two systems proposed
on the same lot though. And the way he's getting the the area is by including the entire easement, the entire roadway because that is owned in in in its
entirety by Kosar Corporation Diane Flynn. Um, which is lots 39441 on the GIS map. Not the same as Okay. the map he just showed you. The entire access road is Yes. That's how he's getting the
square footage. Um, so I know so not not only does there need to be an easement for 141 Dunovan's Lane to cross the roadway over to that other lot.
There needs to be some way of recording that that all needs to stay permanently in one common ownership um in order to uh you know not correct
a a boundary halfway through in the middle of the septic system. Um so it the chain of title Greg has brought all that documentation. We haven't seen that. it's not in our packet, but um and I don't know that it
would help us because it's probably um too complicated. But um so that's those are some of the nuances here. Um but let let's talk um about the um system design and
uh dite non-dight whatever. Um just sure. Oh, that's that's the proposed reason. I'm sorry. That that's the proposed reason he just gave me. Oh, okay. Um, which address is part of it. I'm not sure the
point that this is the point about this part. Okay. Um, so from a um just from a technical or engineering perspective, uh, Phil, Donna, Matt, any comments or
concerns about the design? And then we have to deal with the land encumbrance piece of it separately for part of the Well, I mean, one of the concerns I have is you're saying that the lots
is this is this configuration in front of us on the plan exactly where the system is going because you said the lots are not the same. The lot lines don't match the GIS map that we have in our packet. Okay. Um, it's essentially
backwards. All I know is that when I looked at this plan, I was very confused. So, makes you feel better. I rehearsed this all over. Yes. Yeah. No. And and and certainly there was concern about the sheared lots and the some of the legal the concerns
um of what would happen if anything sold and how that would impact on the owners. Um and so so my you know my concern was the sharing of um a lot for for the SAS's that's where
the crossover is not for the design of the one for I think that we were which one are we talking about both of them 141 or 142 we're sort of talking about both of them but the variance request is for 141 correct which is uh the one
closest to the river. Correct. You want me to talk about that? I could. Sure. Okay. For 141, this is the one that's the long thin line. Yeah. Long thin one closest to the rhythm. Okay. There's an existing cess pool as you can see pretty much right on top of where the proposed
tank is going. Um the options over here to locate a SAS on this lot are severely limited. If you look here on the plan, you have the existing well with a 50ft set back which is shown for the purpose of locating.
Yeah. Yeah. Showing you back in the tank 100 foot, you're going to be way up in this corner which would be the souththeast corner of the lot right near the benchmark is shown. You're not going to fit anything over there. Um you also have to the north which is the roast as
well. uh would squeeze you in as you know be another constraint that I really don't think you could put any kind of an SAS on the system and make 100 ft from anybody's will. If uh we start running down toward the river, then you know you're not want to go there, right?
Right. Um so your option would be limited to a um to like a um a bottomless sand filter, something like that. I don't really think it would be the best solution cuz it's still going to be not going to be um 100 ft from anybody's well isn't going to work. So
hence that's why I proposed putting the pump in and running it down to this lot that is owned by the family with the understanding there's going to have to be some legal legal you know deeds easements what have you something that's going to uh satisfy not only the board
but the land court and anybody who's going to may want to buy this land you know we have a septic system right uh we don't want a problem so it would be there will be some work that has to be as far as graphing something up to satisfy all heights involved. Yeah. So
anyway, uh the tanks itself, the reason I'm here for the variance is because of the slope in here. Um I'm not going to make uh 3 ft below grade. There's no way. I'm even showing a small cut around tanks to make it so you're I think 4T. If I look over here, uh stop the tank
1466. Finish grade is uh 19. So yeah, little 4T grade. Both tanks are H20 which is required because of the the heavy um load. Um and I also check the manufacturers and spec out over here that they can go as much as 5t in the
ground. So okay, more less than 5 ft on each of these. So that's the reason why we're here for this plan not withstanding all the other fun stuff. Okay. And this is uh an existing two-bedroom house and it's still a two-bedroom design. That's correct.
Okay. using the pres. Okay. So, um any questions just on 141 the design or that I mean I think we will have conditions around the legal aspects
that we'll hash out. Any questions on that? I don't this approved the local upgrade waiver allow well allowing the uh the system components to be below 3 ft
to be greed in 3 ft yeah maximum cover over the septic components uh 3 ft maximum allowed 4.2 Um one so one thing that the requests usually have but I didn't see in this
like if you comparison to setback things would usually say you know the distance should be 100 ft but it's you know 85 ft because I understand that you you want to go 5 5.8 ft below ground. No based on
okay 4.2 well the cover letter says 4.2 two for the septic tank and 4.4 for the pump chamber. But you were just giving us the math down. Okay. 1466 double tank 19.
So that's um 4 4.34. Yeah. Okay. And yeah, the other one is 148 15. I don't know. Okay. I don't know where you see that, but I think we should put that in the motion. Okay. Sure. So it's in the cover letter. We
can whoever does the motion can use that as the frame of reference. Okay. Any other concerns? Uh no after that. Okay. So So that Okay. So then it's uh the
conditions would be um and and there's uh no concern about the it's well then the question is what is
that lot 141 lot size by itself? What is the lot size on that one? the one the one just 141 uh 15 shooting 12,572.
Okay. So, it's an undersized lot for um and is there no nitrogen loading? Not for not for repairs. No. Okay. Okay. So, it needs a deed restriction, a two-bedroom deed restriction. It needs
an easement, a permanent easement to um the other lot and which is also conditioned upon there being um that the ownership I think of the the
roadway and that combined lot what everything that's under Kosar Corporation stays under single ownership. Okay. I'm making this up as I go. Will this all be in a motion? I don't think I can make that fast. Um, does that make
sense? Um, well, to the attorney, I would want to say if that makes sense. Um, so I know. So, we're talking about the the LUA, the two-bedroom deed restriction, the permanent easement, and a subject to a requirement that the the
the all the land associated with the getting all the numbers right stays in a single ownership. Not the not 141 but all everything associated with
142 plus the roadway has to stay in single ownership. Are we talking about 141 and 142? Um this is 141 but because this SAS is going on to 142. Um and then the old harmless and
whatever else. Yes. Com. Okay. Is that is that um if I covered everything, Bill? Um um I was thinking about that, but just a point of information if you include the
road and everything and is it is it right? So you have you have um you know SAS's on the property that are serving five bedrooms. Is that right? No. Um yes yes
okay and there's 50 correct okay so okay so that's the issue so then I guess uh and so the significance
of um I mean I think that I I I think I think that that's fine. I mean, I'm always, you know, I always get a little bit hesitant when you have a an edict that
says this property shall never be, you know, um shall always remain as, you know, in the hands of one entity. I I think it's I mean I think it's okay to say that and then you know people can
find it out in the land court at some future event and maybe they'll have to come back to us. But if that makes sense for us now by way of having security we want to approve that. Um I think we should just go ahead and
do it. Okay. All right. Are you prepared to make the motion? I can try but I'm going to need help. I move that we approve the plans for 141 Donovan's Lane owned by Cody and Rachel Flynn
dated when is it dated? 52825 um for a two-bedroom repair with the following variance. Is that correct? Depth of components. Um
um let's see the crest death of components are greater than um 3 ft below grade and with the following conditions hold harmless agreement two-bedroom deed restriction concom review
and a permanent easement to the other lot. Did I miss anything? Um, just that we want to mention that Phil had asked the specifics. Um, we're granting the waiver of the 3 ft maximum, 4.2 for the septic
tank, and 4.4 for the pump chamber. Okay. Did you get that, Bob? Uh, yeah. Um, greater than 3 ft. Let's see. greater than 3 ft. Yeah. So, it's 4.2 ft for the septic tank and 4.4
ft for the pump chamber on the um permanent easement. Can we name the lot? You just said other 142. Wow. Well, I don't know what the that's true because we have something that's different. I can submit this and you can
read it if you something you want change in the verbiage and it does include the SAS and Grant's intended for replacement of the primary disposal area under law 1920 of set in sewer lines leading to the same from their property in the D was land in
the furnace required pursuant to Massachusetts blah blah blah. Okay. If you know if you want to look this over and have changes to it that's fine. Yeah. No you want to take this one. Um but um so the easement is um for
the um how So, the GIS naming is not correct. Is that what you're saying? The GIS naming of the lots. Uh, can I see it? I think they put the line in the wrong place.
Well, I just want to the legal reference to the lot number. Uh, that would be for which one? Uh, for 142. 142. Yeah. What? Because that's where the easement is going to. Okay. All right. The legal reference for that
would be Oh, you want I mean cuz the G I guess that says I I'll use this land court plan number lots 31920. Okay.
So it would be a permanent easement uh to lots 31,1 19 and 20 under land court. Oh okay. Filing 19447D. Did you get that from? I think so. Okay. Okay. So I moved.
Is that is that suit Phil? That's fine. Senator, I'll second the motion. All in favor? I I unanimous. Thank you. That's That's only
141. Now we go to 142. 142 is director approved. We've gotten the background explanation of how you managed to get all the square footage for that. Yeah. really talking about the middle of how I did it.
Um, so we just need an endorsement of the director of police plan for 142 Dunovan Lane um using a quick board of singular. This is for um because they're adding one bedroom. So it's considered new construction.
So moved. Um second. All in favor? Okay. I I thank you. Okay. 142 does not require any concom um what was the same I don't know we
don't have that yeah um I can tell you right now 142 it's been through concom already thank you very much thank you for coming thanks
sorry that was so painful of what that he's oh Oh, I can send I have a copy. You want me to give him this? You could just email it to me. Um, yeah. Okay. [Applause]
Okay. Um, we're going to return to our regular business. Um, uh, one second. Okay. Um, so under other business, item number two, South Coast Public Health Collaborative Membership Discussion and
vote. Um, I think we'll probably hold off on the vote. Um, but let me uh just sort of give a little quick background what we're kind of want to um update the board on and sort of see where things go. I should just check in case there's
been anything. Um um so as you know we've been um the lead agency for the five member what was six six it's five member um collaborative south coast public health collaborative
um with the member towns of Marian Rochester Freetown and Lakeville um it is an annual award of $400,000 a year. We have three staff members um who are shared amongst those communities, two um
agents for doing inspections and the um sort of the educator coordinator um in Olive um and um as the grant amount has increased and the you know the with the staffing and
the sort of getting all the communities all on board to sort of try to move that ship in a consistent direction. Um it's been a lot a lot of work for Matt. Um and the um when it first began at a
lower amount, the um grant would allow funding of a stipen for the director for the additional workload of $5,000. They have DPH has increased that stipen to $10,000 um in light of the increasing workload
and um lately um and probably will only get worse the um uh documentation and reporting requirements since this is uh federal funding original source. Um, so we're sort of getting into um a uh
sort of a like u um a a a mismatch between the workload and the um support um in terms of from Matt um and from the town um and and
what we're trying to assess um we had approached the town before about increasing ucing Matt to the allowable stipend. Um, and that was not um wellreceived at that time. We decided not to pursue it. Um, but um, it's sort
of gotten to a point where we want to um, we're exploring that with the town again to see, you know, is this something that you are willing to support? Um, and and um, the stipend is a
tied to the grant. it's paid for by the grant. Um but it's something that we so we need to assess kind of where we where we will how we will go forward. Um so um we're um
kind of checking in with the town um officials and town board uh select board to see, you know, how they feel um about um supporting um the grant going forward. um because the end of the fiscal year is a time to reassess
whether um the additional workload and Matt has described to me he spends about 10 hours a week at home on this um on top of and you all know how much he works on um
the the transfer station, the animal control, the nurses um office and the board of health. Um it's it's a pretty heavy load. Um and there's you know the staffing is is um there's there's not a
lot of backup. Um uh so um so we're that I wanted to update you um where we were at. We want to get some feedback from the town and then um probably at the next meeting make a decision about whether we should go forward or not
based on on on what kind of support we get. So that that's kind of my overview. I'll let Matt jump in if there's anything he wants to add. I think it covered everything. just like like you said, you know, I already put
in well over the 40 hours a week here and then trying to maintain that after, you know, at home and after hours, which like I said, I don't mind doing, but the grant, you know, and I because I I believe in the program. Um, and I believe, you know, in what it's doing
and the help that we're giving to the other communities, but like like they said that the state recognizes the increased workload for because of what's going on at the federal level, they really kind of, you know, drill down into what we have to do and report and
that all falls on my plate. Um, and they raised the stipen amount to 10,000, you know, rightfully so. So, it doesn't impact the town budget. it comes out of the grant. Um I don't you know I I just
feel like it would be fair to um you know receive that. Um and um and I asked Matt to check in with DPH about you know how's this with other collaborives and and um our contact she oversees 13 or 14
out of the 51 and she checked in with them. They're pretty much mostly at that 10,000 level. And Matt is probably one of the star performers, the top performers in terms of all of the uh collaboratives. And and yet he's only
getting 5,000. So, um again, it is tied to the grant. It is a a stipen that is sort of separate from, you know, his salary for his regular duties because it's an acknowledgement of that extra workload. and uh I hope that we can um
muster support for the from the town for for that. So that's kind of the update. Any any comments or thoughts? Well, my um part of my comment is that this collaborative that we are um involved with and Matt is
leading um brings revenue to the town. And separate from that stipen, how much does the town get? It's $65,000 a year as an admin fee for being the lead community, right? Um so that the town is
benefiting from Matt's work and that the you know my feeling I feel really strongly about this if if the DPA acknowledges the workload and that managers of these
collaborives should be compensated then I'm in full support of the compensation um we know how how Matt works with this um collaborative and all that he brings to the town by his uh willingness to do
this. So he has that as he has my support. Thank you. Um I should also mention you know the um by the staff are um hired through the town under the grant paid for completely by the grant
and they're housed here. So um but they get deployed out to the other communities as requested for support. um and we request support from them as well. So, we've only been able to manage the workload on the board of health with
the support of some of those additional staff and they've been able to do things that we wouldn't otherwise be doing. So, we would have to shrink our outreach, our communications, um and you know, just to do the core
functions that we have to do um if if we didn't have the support of of the grant. So, and that's the whole point of these grants is to supplement boards of health that have been sort of shrinking in support um and funding um over the
years. So, um you know, I think it's been a real boon for the town and I hope that um that that value is recognized. Okay. Um, so I think we're going to postpone any dis sort of final decision about how we
move forward based on what feedback we get from the select board um and town officials. Um, so I'll put it back on the agenda in two weeks. Um, and we can reassess where we are at that point. Um, did you have anything else you want to
add, Phil? Well, I um um we don't have to get into it now. Um, but I just was um curious if you had received, you know, feedback as to what
questions or what concerns, you know, might be raised and how we want to address them. Yeah. Um, because it does seem like such a no-brainer, for lack of a better character. I I think the
concern that I've heard is that um what's the impact on other department heads? My argument is they can go out and get a $400,000 grant that pays the town $65,000 and allows for a stipen for$10,000 and we'd support
their stipend as well. Um so it's the initiative. Um it you know um I I understand you want equity maybe in the town or um but uh you also need to reward
work and performance. Um and so um I think that's the one of the main concerns I've heard. Um uh and I think you know the town is pretty strapped for funding. Um, so you would think,
uh, I don't know, maybe they think this t the I haven't heard that explicitly that the grant somehow is a drag on the town, but um, they don't I don't think they're um, as well and maybe we haven't done a good job selling it, you know,
advertising the benefits to town, the town or town's people. Um I think we did one column on it a few years ago, but maybe we should do another one. Refresh um people's memories about the benefits that um the grant provides to this town
and the other participating towns. And did I understand from either one matt or you said I don't I don't know but that it was the um grdors
initiative as a result of the increase in funding I increase in reporting requirements that they chose to increase the grant
you know the allowable typing the allowable yeah you know was that the process yes that came from DP because I think it's important you know to make the case that
this was not something that was specifically directed towards the you know grant manager but was it was a
decision by the grtor right to in recognition of additional workload that they were imposing to offer um you know additional additional foods yeah I think they recognized they had to
incentivize otherwise people were going to say okay I'm done um so exactly right yeah and I I have tried to convey that we have communication from DPH that expresses that um you know that I I'm
working on sharing with the town officials but um you know it hasn't been right you know I'm working on it so uh so stay tuned we'll discuss it again
in a couple weeks and hopefully we'll have good news to be able to allow us to move forward in a way that we all want. Um, okay, moving on. I want to wrap this up. Um, it's a hot afternoon. Uh, board member
updates. Uh, Phil, I know you've talked about Pineriidge. Is there anything else you want to raise? Um, no. Well, let's see. Um, uh, nothing that's really worth, uh, you know,
spending, you know, spending time at time on. I the only thing I would just say is that the hazards management plan is moving forward and um I saw really in
or was saw a really good presentation on extreme heat from um vast DPH through MIA did the presentation and um so I think that that there's a lot of support materials out there that will be helpful
for going forward. Yeah. Great. Thank you. Uh Donna, well that the team was at River Day. Yes. And we had a lot of wonderful educational material. Our
emphasis really was on um prevention of uh tick and mosquito um vectorbor diseases. And we had some swag we could hand out which was the hit of this the day was the bags with the
antique no tick tick no ticks um on it. So but we we did spend uh time educating the public and being part of River Day and we had other materials as well. So we had some things for the kids. Um so it went was it was a good day. It was
hot and we did talk about the heat advisory with people um as well on that day. So, okay, thank you. Um uh just uh one quick up or two quick updates for me. Um
we're trying to work on that. As you know, we got funding for the household hazardous waste day. Um but the state getting started. Maybe could you could mute yourself though. Yeah, that's that's a trick.
You really have to meditate back together. You could just mute my phone. Yeah, sure. I got it. Um uh household hazardous waste day um the statewide contract for um household hazards waste providers
expires June 30th and they have not issued new contract yet. So, we're sort of on hold on that. Um, and I have done a um a refresh on the data about uh cesspools and unknowns. Uh, so I'll give you some quick statistics. We sent out
224 letters to um property owners um a couple years ago around um the cesspool require upgrade requirement. We um have about 57 that have come through with plans and maybe completed. I don't track
that. Um, so we're we're whittling away at those. Um, we started with 838 unknowns, which is um properties where we had no record of what septic or cespool might be on the property. And the 838 I should say is those where the
house was built before 1960. So presumably a cesspool but unknown to since then we've identified three as cesspools based on pump records um and we have had 74
um uh properties with plans coming in. So we generally they were assess pools that are being upgraded. So that's about another 100 or so. Um so we're down to 731 um unknowns. Um, and um, I know we
talked about doing in phases. I have a map um, Phil, you're not going to be able to see this in detail. I would have forwarded it. I can forward it to you electronically um of all the known and possible sub cess pools in town and you
can see where they're clustered. And I would I'm recommending that we should we uh go forward with a you know a mailing or something or phasing. The areas that I would target are um Cadman's Neck, uh Drift Road below Hicksbridge,
um Main Road below Cornell Road, and River Road um being, you know, sort of uh a river adjacent um and um a sort of a high concentration of um unknowns and
potential cesspools um that should be addressed. Um the other of course big cluster is right along Route Six uh where we have a new sewer line coming in anytime soon. Um so u but that I sort of leave that for
another day. Um so just a just a quickformational update. Um at some point we can have further discussions about you know how we might um proceed with notifying homeowners who don't have a plan in our records. um they may have
one and that would be great. They could share with us but um they may need a title five inspection if they don't know or um um but I suspect a lot of them are cess poolools because the age of the house.
So that's my update. Um do we have any anything else on anticipated? Yes. No, no, not anticipated. I just have a question for Phil. Um, do you need me to send that um draft off of the the um Pine Ridge um document off to Roger?
Oops. Context put some context in it into the letter. So, I'm going to do that so you can send it over to Maria tomorrow. Okay, great. Thank you. Yeah, cuz I think just as it stands now, it just
needs a little introduction to it. Sure. Okay, great. Thank you, Phil. Appreciate it. Yeah. So, I'll send it to you and Yeah. Mhm. Okay. Um well, that being um conclusion of the business of the day and I move that we adjourn this meeting
at 5:41 p.m. Second. All in favor? I. That's unanimous. I Thank you very much, everyone. Thank you.