Good afternoon and welcome to the July 21st, 2025 meeting of the Westport Board of Health, which I'm calling to order under Mass General Law Chapter 3A section 20F. This meeting is being recorded and please join me in the pledge of allegiance.
I aliance 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 for all.
>> Okay. Um moving on a to written report from Matt Arando our director. Any questions? I know I'm assuming that we'll go through some details
report. So um but any other >> No, I'm good. >> Go ahead, Matt. >> Okay. Okay. So, the on call acco position has been posted with Ael and Associates and um I have a an interview uh Wednesday morning at 9:00 with a C
possible candidate. So, I'll keep the board up to date on how that goes. Uh we all know Gabby, she had left the collaborative and has taken a position with the town of Marian board of health and you know that's horrible for us but good for Marian picked up a good
>> she did a great job is a great asset to the town while she was >> uh the American Public Health Association and other medical professional societies uh are suing um the HS
the Health and Human Services for unlawful vaccine changes. On July 7th, the APA filed a lawsuit uh defending vaccine policy along with the American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians, Infectious Disease
Society of America, Massachusetts Public Health Alliance, and the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine. The director of the Health Human Services, uh Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Juniors. Unilateral vaccine changes, unjust firing of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Appoint Appointment of Individuals with antivaccine viewpoints to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and
steady drum beatat of vaccine missin represent an imminent danger to the nation's public health. These actions are designed to undermine more than a half a century of vaccine policy and erode public confidence. So I don't
think we need to discuss that. I think it um >> I don't know we discuss it but I hear here here I'm very glad to see people um who have worked in the field for years who have expertise in the field to challenge the current policies that are being put in place.
>> Yeah. Makes our jobs harder. makes the year much harder to help keep the public health. >> Okay. >> Okay. The South Coast Public Health Collaborative has posted its uh fiscal year 25 annual report on its web page. Just some of the uh fiscal year 25
highlights include health communications, training and professional development and environmental health and shared services. The full report can be found on the um South Coast Public Health Collaborative web page.
MIMA is um has a hurricane tabletop exercise which I put a copy of Chief Chief Baldwin's email in in to the packet. So if any of the board members want to sign up for that, the information is there on how to do that.
>> Do you know if there's a limit on how many of us can go because I would like to be part of that. >> There was no limit expressed to me when I talked to the chief about this >> and I wasn't sure Phil wanted to be part of that as well. Phil, do you have any thoughts about that?
>> About being part of the tabletop? >> Um, that's >> were you plann attended planning to attend? >> Uh, yes. >> Okay. >> But there's that I understand that if we wanted anyone of us wanted to attend, we
could also attend. >> Yeah. Yes. >> Okay. I just want to make sure that because if there's more than one of us then is considered a quorum, right? So, so I just want to make sure >> Yeah. >> Unless I'm going as a citizen instead of
a >> um if Phil you decide to go um I just for safety sakes I would just have some post um so that there's no question because people can get squir away about stuff like that even though it's not really
It's not a board of health meeting. You're not making board of health policy decisions there. You're just giving input to >> Yeah. And my my concern or my point about that is that I went to a climate resiliency committee meeting with Phil and I suggested that we do some that we
have something like this. >> Um and it's being done. I don't know if it's because I suggested it or it was already in the works, but um I I really think it's an important um uh process for the board of health to be a part of
as we would be part of emergency disaster support if there was anything that happens in Tennessee. Well, clearly um uh disaster preparedness and support, you know, sort of the infra the federal
infrastructure for that is changing and um making it putting more of the burden on states >> um and individuals. So, um we are all responsible for getting ourselves prepared better. Um um so
I think this is a really important topic. I agree. So that is on August 12th, 2025 at the fire department home warning. Okay. So just um Phil, if you decide to go, just let Okay. Nancy know
so she can post. Thank you. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> A new storage shed has been purchased uh using this the state air mock funds that we received from Senator Rodri's. Um the picture of that shed is is up and um
looks nice. Um, and then on uh July July 8th, we uh were awarded $6,19 from uh Reworld Seamass for the purchase of a new universal waste shed. And
that's where we, you know, take the Mercury products in and all that. Um, and the copy of the letter was part of the packet. So, and that's been ordered and will be um in place the last week of the month. >> Great. um looking even better down at the
transport station, >> right? >> Including with all the other improvements from the um from the funds supported by Senator Rodri. That's great. Okay. Anything else? >> Not on that report.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Um then we'll move on to director approved septic plan. >> Sure. We have a one-bedroom ADU being constructed at 17 Riverview Drive for a Brad Gford on a 54,180
ft lot. Um, it's been through Concom and um I believe this is one that's going to have a one-bedroom septic. In addition, the house has its own septic system for the house. >> Okay.
>> Um, but everything was looking good there. Um, we have a three-bedroom repair on 50 Cross Road on 18 acre lot for a John Montano uh using using a Presby and it's been through Concom.
We have a three-bedroom repair on a 7.4 4 acre lot at 832 Main Road for Kevin Cand Candias. um utilizing a quick four and it's been through Concom and we have a four bedroomedroom repair
on a 40,200 ft lot at 106 Highland A for a John and Eene Dupont and it's been through Concom utilizing a presby system >> that doesn't need a deep restriction system >> right >> okay
um when I was entering these in the septic database there's one of them That was an unknown. So, cross one more unknown offer. I forget which one it was, but okay. Any questions on the the um plans? >> I have none. So, I move to endorse the
director and approve plans. >> Second. >> Um all in favor? >> It's unanimous. That's for 17 drive, 50 Cross Road, 832 Main Road, and 106 Avenue. Okay, moving on.
to um the minutes from the July 7th meeting. Any questions or concerns about those minutes? >> I have none. >> No, I'm good. >> All right. So, I move that we approve the minutes for July 7th, 2025.
>> Second. >> All in favor? I Thank you. [Music] Okay, starting under other business, um
124 Tickle Road, septic design discussion. I'm going to open it um um for you, Matt. >> Sure. Um Bill Smith, the engineer, is here as well. >> Okay, sure. Come on. Forward.
informal. We're all informal. >> Um, do you want Bill to run down the the outline? >> Sure. Why don't Bill, why don't you start first? >> It's the property is on 124 Tickle Road. Uh, my my client is Jason Martin.
There's an existing threebedroom uh home there. What they'd like to do is remodel the existing home, create a twobedroom home. They would also like to add a separate one-bedroom ADU. Um,
it's in the Mount Hope wershed. Um, and he was hoping to be able to do that as a conventional system and we just want the board's input and and direction on that before we started designing a system for him. We're not increasing the number of
bedrooms, but there is new construction that's associated with the project. >> Right. Um, so it's a 20,000 foot lot. >> Um, and what was the original design for?
>> Uh, I could not find the original design. So, it's an old system and it's again he's he's willing to replace the system. Just the preference would be if he could do it as a conventional system that would be uh
desirable. So it would be I just just to clarify. So it would be um an upgraded system for um the existing house and the ADU. >> Correct. >> Okay.
>> And we'll keep the number of bedrooms at three. >> Okay. >> Just we're going to shuffle them around a little bit. >> Okay. >> And I just wonder if you had any uh well data information, well tested information, which is sometimes >> I don't at this point. Okay. He
approached me last week. I approached Matt and then kind of uh it moved pretty quickly to this point. >> Okay. Good. Yeah. So, this is um we don't know at this point if you need any local upgrade approvals. Correct.
>> That's correct. >> Okay. Um let me turn it to Matt first before I dive into my questions further questions. So, I just had some notes that were typed in the bottom of the email. So, we just the lot is only sized
for two bedrooms. Um, if decommissioning a bedroom, should we allow, you know, allow that third bedroom back if they're going to decommission a bedroom? And if the current system, you know, is designed for three bedrooms, it um is it
is it the system failed, Bill? >> It isn't failed. >> Okay. >> But it's I think it's marginal. >> Okay. So he his intention was to replace that with a with an upgraded system >> and the lot is undersized now for three bedrooms. Do we require DNI? There was
just some questions about about this, right? >> We don't know how far it is from the well or anything like that. We don't know well data um and we know refresh my memory on um nitrogen loading
limitations. Does that only apply to new construction? Is that the >> It applies to Yes. So if it's an upgrade increase in flow, it would apply. >> Yeah. >> If it's brand new construction, it would apply but it doesn't apply to repairs. >> Okay. But we don't know what the design
flow was for the original septic system since you can't find a plan, >> right? >> So, we can't confirm that there's not an increase in in design flow. >> Yeah, the property is old. There was I
don't think there was anything in the file, >> right? Mr. Smith couldn't find any. So, um I'm kind of squirrely about not performing D night. Um especially if we don't have the
the we don't know yet how far it is from the well. We don't have well data. It's only 20,000 square feet. Um that makes me a little uncomfortable. >> I think we will have enough room to
maintain 100 ft between the the system and any any wells just by nature of the lot is fairly long and linear. >> Oh, okay. >> But again, I I haven't done the too yet and got all that information >> and and you don't know about butter wells either then.
>> We we'll certainly of course I'm not but I mean for for our information to try to give you guidance at this point, >> correct? >> We're sort of um we don't have a lot >> of key information that we want to have. Um >> so
>> so >> maybe we defer the the decision until I get some more information. Um worst case is I got to put an advanced treatment system or denied system. Anyways, let me pull together the pertinent information and then you
know if if we can make it all work then I'll bring it back before the board and you can give me some direction. >> Okay. Well, I mean, conceptually, will the we're treating this as an upgrade which would be subject to our maximum feasible compliance rule.
>> Is that how we're thinking about it? >> Well, I don't know if we're going to treat it as an upgrade or an upgrade with an increase in flow or from the standpoint it's going to have an a independent ADU. Is >> that's new construction? >> It's new construction. Will it require
DIY because of that? or because it's an existing three-bedroom septic, is the board going to um not go down that road? I don't I don't >> We don't know that. We don't have any confirmation that it is a three-bedroom septic design. >> But if these >> if there's going to be
>> It says three. >> So, it's a three-bedroom house now. and he's proposing to install a three-bedroom upgraded system.
Why would we why wouldn't we just where's the increasing flow? Because we don't actually know what the existing system was designed for. that and it >> yeah that's what I'm asking the board is
that what >> to me that's >> I I don't I don't feel for me I don't feel the need to know what the existing design was for in the sense that
whoever put the system in didn't build it big enough for three bedrooms but which I assume would mean like digging up digging it up and measuring it. It seems to me that he has a three-bedroom house.
He's up all he's doing is um upgrading that system except he's just breaking out one bedroom separate from the existing the existing um home. So I would just
treat it as an upgrade and a I mean that's my opinion just a maximum feasible compliance which have you are you familiar with that process? >> Uh a little bit >> honestly not much. >> Okay. Well I mean so we look at we look
at the well data to see if you know you have high concentr concentrations of nitrogen in the well over five. We look at whether the well is upgradient or downgradient of the um the system the SAS
um we look at what the cost of the system is in relation to the assessed value of the property. There's a form that you go through >> okay >> to you know to do that. Um so uh
and then we based on that, you know, make a judgment call as to whether or not we think this is an appropriate u situation. And it really particularly on smaller lots, it is if
um because you have if this was a new construction, you'd be subject to the nitrogen loading limits. Okay? And so this is taking the principle that even though it's not new construction, you're you should design a system that's
maximally feasibly compliant. And so that's how and that's how D policy and then our policy as we expanded upon it. That's the criteria that we look at and it's all in the form and that can
>> anyway that's how I think about it. Before we go there, um, are you saying you don't believe that building a standalone ADU is new construction? >> Yes, standalone ADUs are not new
construction by D. It's all considered one facility. the property is um this was a question that was hanging out there >> and I think what DP made clear is that
um you treat the property as a whole as a facility and if you and uh and so as long as the
all the sources of uh all the flow from all the dwellings is equivalent to the existing flow. It is not new construction. >> Okay. >> That's that that's that that's how I
understand BP's policy. >> It is. It's just that the new construction of the building conflicts with our local rig. >> Yeah. But we're Yeah. Well, >> because Yeah. Because the increase in in design flow. That's why I'm asking what the original design field was because
that does meet that does trigger the new construction definition. >> Well, the only but there's no record of that in our files. No. >> So, >> I think that that is a it's a
>> it's a dead end question. I I think and there is a conflict on its face with well it actually isn't both our regulations
both the D definition of new construction and our definition of new construction is the same what and I thought it was a I thought it was a problem like what's the answer to this and how D answered that is that there is
a definition in title five that's called the facility. What's the facility? And in this case as I read it and uh they treat um
all the they treat the the lot as a facility. And if you bel build build three if you said I'm going to go to a one-bedroom house and build two ADUs, it doesn't matter because it's three three
bedrooms. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> And and and that's how they get around it because otherwise um you know everybody would have to be building D9 systems for a single bedroom or because you have to build them. you actually
have to build, right, a a a two-bedroom. >> Well, that's how they got around that rule, >> right? So, they got around the rules to by the facility. They said >> Yeah. >> because previously you couldn't build a one-bedroom septic system.
>> But now you can as long as there's another system on the on the site that's either onebedroom, twobedroom, or threebedroom. just add them together and just take that number and it's greater than you know two or more bedrooms generally. Well, this is different because it's going into one one system,
>> right? >> Right. It may be a little bit different if you are bu you say I want to build completely separate >> system then then I think we might be and D might be and it's okay well that is new construction because you have >> two separate systems >> okay
>> it's more looking at one system for all the sources count the number of bedrooms that's how I see it >> okay so then if we're pursuing the maximum feasible compliance approach to addressing this then the key criteria will be the um well distance and water
results. >> Generally, we don't pursue water analysis unless the well is less than 100 ft. Now, we don't we we don't do it based on lot size. We haven't done that in a long time. So, if the well's less than 100 ft away, then we would >> do the water analysis and all that uh
for the lot. So, we'll just have to wait to see what Bill comes back with on that. >> We have I mean it may be if it's long and narrow the butters may be an issue. So, >> okay. I'll gather some information. Thank you for clarifying that. It was a
little little fuzzy when when Matt and I talked and that's why we wanted to bring it before >> before you opinion. >> Okay. Um so you can follow up with Matt. >> Sure. >> Thank you very much for your time. >> Thanks, Bill.
>> Okay. Um >> we have five minutes before our first appointment. So let's do the next agenda item which is um you have seen the proposed amendment to Matt's contract. It's sort of fixing up some um problems
that came to light um around allocation between his base salary and the stipen for the grant. Any questions on that? >> No. >> No. >> So I move to approve um uh the the director of public health contract
amendment. Second. >> All in favor? >> I say no. Thank you. >> And is have your discussions with the appropriate people since this came up on a previous agenda, has that removed the >> We'll find out tonight.
>> Oh, okay. You have Okay. So, it's up in the air. Okay. All right. >> Do you want Is it important that we all show up? >> Um, leave that to I don't think so. >> Okay. >> And I think we're hoping it'll be >> smooth. Is that good? Is that all right?
>> Um okay. Um you know the semiannual testing requirements for nitrogen reducing systems discussion. I put that on the agenda. it had come up recently in I forget where what context um um
uh and I wanted to revisit that but I'm thinking we should have a working meeting because we need to revisit a number of things where um there sort of a mismatch between the workload in the office and
what we can do and so prioritizing sort of our key things um I think my inclination is on this one after the first two years of uh twice a year that we um drop it either entirely or
um unless there's some whacking numbers or something. I don't know um if there's some exception but um I think we need to simplify our lives and um be good you know homeowners I'm sure will be happy about that too um but there's other things that sort of so sort of in the
context of a larger discussion about what are our priorities and where do we want to put our energies um limited energies and staff resources um so I would suggest that we postpone the discussion for that and schedule a working instead.
>> Um where we broaden the discussion. Um there's not a super urgency to that, but um do you want to schedule a work? >> If you want to schedule it now, we have a couple minutes before the next before the first hearing, so we could do that now. Um
I'd like to do it on off weeks between um meetings. So either next week or the first second week of August would be possibilities. Um oh wait a minute.
Do we have am I mistaken our next meeting is August 4th? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> I have in my calendar then the next one after that is the 25th. That's not right though. Is that >> Oh, it should be the 18th.
>> All right. I just messed up my calendar. >> And then the one after the 18th falls on Labor Day, >> right? Okay. So, we could look at that as well. Um Um I'm around not going anywhere
unfortunately. Um, what how how soon do folk do you want to shoot for the week of the 11th? >> August 11th. Is that reasonable? >> Seems okay to me right now.
>> Probably the the Wednesday will work better for me because Tuesdays kids. So >> the 13th >> the 13th um 10 o'clock. What's the period? >> Um, >> that work for you.
>> No, I'm off those two days, the 12th and the 13th. >> How about Monday the 11th? >> Oh, you're you're off the 11th. >> No, >> Monday the 11th. >> Yeah, I think I think I should be okay.
>> Okay, then. What else? >> I don't know. I don't know if we want to. And this really relates, you know, to a lot to Matt's workbook. Um you want we want to be able to say anything more about the um water regulation.
>> Oh well we really should start talking about that more because um there's some changes and everything else. We we if anything we really should develop an application um for that especially with the electronic permitting coming down the line for us. >> Um
>> yeah I mean >> I'm just suggesting that as an agenda item. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> It's um it's fine with me. We want to do a working meeting on the 11th. >> I'm talking about 10:00. >> 10 to noon. >> All right. >> Okay.
All right. Um I know we didn't put it technically on the agenda, but um Labor Day. Well, I think I said let's see how the workload is and we could just maybe skip. That'd be wonderful.
Otherwise, um are you do you have concom on Tuesday the 2nd? >> Um I've been following >> Oh, um >> so >> it's been tracking the same as the as the board of health. So I usually we have back like I have backtoback
meetings. Yeah. I have Monday, Tuesday meetings. >> Okay. >> Twice a month. >> Okay. Well, how about we tenatively say Wednesday at 4:00 if needed if there's agenda. What day are you talking about? The >> Wednesday the 3rd as a replacement for
Labor Day. >> Wednesday the 3rd. Okay. >> You're talking about September. >> September. Labor Day is September 1st. >> Okay. >> Um just as a question mark. Just hold it for now. >> Okay. Um and we'll we'll revisit next
week next meeting just >> because the week after that I'm in a conference from the 9th to the 12th. So >> Okay. >> All right. Okay, I think we're at 4:30, so we can call Mr. Potter is here today. Okay, we're going to come back to board
member updates after um our appointments. Um okay, I call 4:30 uh variance hearing for uh 65E Cummings Lane by Joan O'Connor. Uh this is a two-bedroom repair with a stone bed on a 10,200T
lot representing Mr. I hope you had a successful failure. >> Yeah, >> that in action here some more. >> Anyway, this is one part of Westport Environmental Design for Joseph Okconor
65 Common Lane. It is a 10,800 foot lot. It's a two-bedroom home. existing cess poolool be remove uh install a title 5 compliant leech field 12 by 35 and that is um the only
variance needed is the well less than 100 ft more than 50 proposed distance is 80 ft and the water test I believe came out satisfactory in regards to nitrates 4.8 I believe I'll turn to Matt for his report.
>> Really best. It's a small site. I did some measurements to see if the well could be pushed out 100 ft, but it's really not possible on the lot. So to get it 100 ft away, I don't think there's much more you could do. >> Okay. Since the world test results were
good, we need to any questions from everybody. No. Okay. So, I move that we approve the plans for 65E Cummings Lane by Joe O' Conor dated 6225
for a twobedroom pair um with a variance of the well distance from the SAS of 88 and the following conditions. is a whole harmless two-bedroom deconstruction concong review. >> Second.
>> A motion made has been made and seconded to approve the project at 65 acres. >> Did she say three three years of water testing? >> No, I didn't say anything about water testing. >> Don't you have a test for >> Yeah, three years. >> I am sorry. Three years three years.
Thank you. I call you. I call you. >> She's usually one time. >> I know. >> I >> That's all right. >> It's not perfect. >> Um Okay. Uh so uh just to reiterate the uh conditions on the plan are two
veteran deed restriction, holdless concoming. >> Um all in favor? [Music] Excellent. >> Yeah, it's two minutes, right? >> Um, next hearing is it? No, we have 5
minutes before the next hearing. So, um, let me start with board member updates. you've done. >> Um I'm working on the health notes for the beginning of August um on medications the heat's impact on medications
um and medications impact on people when it's heat is high. So I'm I'm working on that. Um and I am um actually the opioid settlement fund advisory committee where the new website for the town is not live
yet but I began training to so that I could um uh put the minutes and the agendas and have an opioid fund advisory committee website um or page on the website. Yeah. and and so that all that
information the abatement agreement I posted on there so people can see what it's about and I will be managing that as the chair of the opioid settlement fund advisory committee. Um, I've asked um Olive for some
assistance um when it comes to adding and downloading some other important information uh to go on the site. But I've begun that process and um and I'm currently working on um uh also the uh police night out which is August 5th um
at 4:00 at the old high school where the police will have a variety of um educational things for the community. Um, but the opioid settlement fund advisory committee will also have a table. Um, we're also going to be um I'm going to have something set up where I ask people for input um that they write
down how they want this money to be spent and to see if they just could um uh because part of it is community input and I want to get more community input on how the funds could be utilized. One of the things that we were talking about is what Dartmouth has done. And what
Dartmouth has done is they've hired somebody um they've hired a specialist in addictions um who's going to be kind of managing where the money goes and also looking at resources in the community. And so that's one of the things that we're we're kind of looking at. But um
my my goal would be um to have this person be working in the school department and in the town. that that would be a a role that if if the select board um uh would agree with something like that. But but anyway, so the work continues and the opioid settlement
funds we um have spent very little money um and we uh again I repeat this are slated to receive a million dollars by 2038. So we have some funds to spend to do some good in town. >> Great. Thank you for your dedication and
hard work on that. important. >> Um, >> okay. I know you have some longer agenda um, sort of dates you want to mention, so I'm going to hold off because you only have two minutes and that's never
enough for you. >> Um, I will just mention uh something I've been meaning to get to. Um we received a clinical advisory from DPH around um treatment prophylactic orient
sort of um treatment for tick born particularly Lyme disease because it's been a banner year for ticks in all of southeastern Mass. Um and now DPH is is advising that um if you have had a
tick um embedded for the 24 to 36 hours that it may it's entirely appropriate to get a prophylactic or preventative dose of doxycyc um and they're encouraging physicians
and health professionals to to look at that new guidance. Um, >> so that I think that's important to get out there. I just haven't had a chance to um, uh, put that in lay person terms so people are more aware of. I think a lot
of people nowadays have a straight line to their doctor if they think they have um, risk of lying to get a doxy cycling um, prescription. But um, I just want to get that out there. I just haven't had a chance to do something on that. So, I will soon.
Um, okay. I think we are close enough to 4:40 p.m. to call the hearing for uh 488 Old County Road. This is the Headtown Landing store. A commercial repair with a maximum of 284 gallons per
day using a Presby and a Septitech Dite system with Zenus Engineering representing. Excuse me. Good afternoon. For the record, Nile Zer from Zenith. Um, so I'm here on behalf of Jimmy. Um, he could un
unfortunately couldn't be here um cuz he had a he has a sick relative that he's tending to. Um, so I'm just it was my understanding um that I I know there's been discussions had on this, multiple discussions had um I believe the plans
have been updated to where they need to be. Um, but that's why I'm here to answer any questions um that you have. >> Okay. Um, well, then we'll turn to Matt first. Um, and um, we have a cover letter with the specific um, waving
request that you're looking for, upgrade approval, local upgrade approval request analysis and the reduction of the setback between the proposed SAS and the private water supply well from 100 to 84 ft. Is that correct? >> Yes.
Yeah. So, Niles and I, we're going we're back, you know, for a few times, but everything is correct and, you know, to where we asked and just, you know, for the record, we asked for the um, you know, to treat the project as repair rather than new construction. Allow them
to use a civ analysis and move a perk test. Continue the current food service use, no expansion of any type. Designed the soil absorption system for a maximum flow of 284 gallons per day. Require installation of a ditrifification
component. Install grease trap in accordance with title 5 section 15230. And um applicant is to contact D to see determine if a public water supply designation is necessary. No expansion of the current food service operation
including additional bathrooms or seating is permitted. So everything that I see on the plan indicates that they're in compliance with this list with the exception is I don't know if anybody's contacted DP about the public water supply yet. >> That's I'm not aware of that.
>> So that's uh something to ask the the current owner or the applicant. I guess >> has there been any outreach to determine um from to D to determine if you need a public water supply law? Do you know that?
>> I was not aware of that. Um the we do the well testing every year on the first of the year when we do our permits. Um it's actually tested twice a year, once by ourselves and then once by the waterershed across the street. Um
that's all I knew that we were asked to do. >> Um that's something that the board had asked for back on May 13th when we sent this letter out. >> Okay. Um okay. Well, let me
backtrack to um uh questions from the board and then we can talk about um conditions and how how we may assure that that occurs. >> Yeah, I'm fine with the design and and all that. I appreciate the cooperation
that developed between you all and and Matt to figure it all out and um you know I'm I'm glad for your business that it's all going to work out. >> So that's great. Um and I mean to jump ahead. I think the
question that I had because it's it it hasn't come up um before. Usually when we have deed restrictions, it's based on the number of bedrooms and it's pretty easy to track. >> You can go and look
and and here I don't know and it seemed to be there are two things that we're looking at. One is the gallons per day which I don't and the second part I I didn't catch all the verbiage but it's no no additional seating or
>> expansion or seating or bathrooms. >> Right. Right. So Um, >> so I don't know if what your idea of what might be a deed restriction would look at would you know would that would
would those conditions be recorded in a deed restriction or is there some other mechanism put in the plan? You know, may I don't know if that's a condition that's in the plan. So when we approve the plan, it has that those conditions in there.
It doesn't have the all the conditions it has. You know, in the plan it says it's a it's designed for a maximum of 284 gallons per day, >> right? >> I don't think it's in the plan with no expansion or anything like that. We didn't ask for that to be put in the plan in the notes, but we can um asked
that be put in and that way the plan of record would have all those conditions in it. the um and I believe because when Jim Aguia came in, they were measuring the flow somehow so that the the property must be metered with in order
for them to me measure the flow. So, >> um that's what we would do periodically is check on the flow to make sure it's not exceeding the 284 gallons. >> I mean, we didn't weather low farms way back. Were you here then? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Well, not for when the original >> improvement was. Yeah. where we did a
thing where they were restricted to a certain number of special events >> because their because of issues around is they didn't want to build an entire system that was on a regular basis big enough to handle
every you know um and so and I I I I uh I was a neophite then so I know that was a condition that was said I don't where it was recorded, but I'll shut up and see what you guys said. >> I think it was just recorded uh internally. It wasn't recorded
>> probably in the minutes or something like that. But >> so, are you saying that there should be something recorded that said there's a deep restriction for no increase in flow or no increase? No, >> I'm I'm I'm I'm asking the question because normally it's something we would
we would do is somehow have a record of that. I don't think it it could be in the plan. I don't know if D-restrictions. Uh yeah. So, I'm raising it, but it it was central to what everybody worked out the restrictions. So, I'm just I just
wanted memorialized in a in a public way so someone doing doing due diligence would be able to come and look at the plans or, you know, and say, "Okay, you know, two decades from now when the store gets sold they say okay now I understand what
I'm buying >> right and I think as we know there was a history of um the last time the septic was repaired in the minutes we had way before my time but no change in use and obviously there
was change in use food service was added without >> um so um my so minutes aren't going to do the trick um so I'm I think probably the um adding notes to the plan would be
the um probably the easiest because a deed restriction I don't know how we would write that. >> You could do a deed restriction restricting the flow like the 284 gallons a day and record that. But I guess you could we could do up a deed
restriction with all these conditions and see see how that goes. But yeah, but I think it definitely should be on the plan. So the approved plans would have all the conditions. >> Yeah. Um so I'm I I think we would my suggestion is we have all the conditions on the approved plan. The question of
whether we want a deed restriction for the 284 gallons per day. That's um something for the board to discuss. Um are there any other questions? No. So how would we um want to word that
conditions? Because if we if if you're going to restrict like the usage to so many gallons a day, 220 gallons a day, do is do we want that as a condition or is for commercial use only with no expansion?
>> Um I think we Matt has a you sent a letter with the things that we required. Yeah. >> So we have it documented in writing. So that letter can the engineer can use the wording from that to >> but if we were going to approve today
wouldn't we need to have that in the conditions today >> we would need to outline yes the exact wording can be a little uh different. Um, so any other thoughts?
How do people feel about whether we do a separate deed restriction for the >> flow maximum to 84 gallons per day or um just in it's already on the plan? >> It's designed for that, but I'm not sure it's written as a maximum.
>> It is. They changed it for me. >> Okay. Okay. >> Uh is that sufficient? I would I mean t just speaking from my experience typically you know the deed restriction would be you know we talk about the flow which I think is the biggest thing here. >> Yeah. >> Um and then the deed restriction could
be written in a manner that would restrict the flow. Um and then anything else that you know no upgrade uh you know no increase in flow which I think is generally kind of insinuated with the fact that there's you know there's no no increase on the
284 gallons a day. So that's typically, you know, with the deed restriction, like me as an engineer, generally I'm going to look at the deed, make sure it what it references, and if there's a restriction, that's where I'm going to look, go into a design plan. I mean, I think generally everything is there. Um,
but again, it's up to the board completely, and it's your it's your recommendation. So I can just tell you my experience, typically the restriction, >> okay, >> um, with the deed reference on the deed reference is enough. Um, but that being said, that's up to you. It's your comfort level.
>> Yeah. Um I um deed restriction is fine with me. I was I didn't know. Thank you for clarifying that work. >> The flow like you said the flow on the deed restriction is fine but I think we really you know this they could still
expand if we would just say we limited it to the 284 gallons a day. we we have to be explicit about expanding bathrooms or expanding the business because they could still put in bathrooms and theoretically at some you know point be
under 284 gallons a day. So I think it all has to be spelled out um you know restricting the flow and restricting all the other things on this list. Um whether it's all in the same place or two different places it just all needs to be spelled out. >> Okay. So, um, you've we've already
spelled it out in the letter, follow-up letter from that meeting. So, um, it's just a question of form. So, it seems like if we want to do it once, we do it in the deed restriction and we can refer to an attachment which specifies all those.
>> They can use that as an exhibit um, as an exhibit for an attachment that letter and have that attached. I think that would be a full >> Okay. Okay. And the concern is the proximity to the river and our concern about impact on it in the river too. >> Well, this is an upgrade. I mean, it's
repairing um and it will be D9 which is sort of the best case, you know, we can expect um because you can't it's an existing use, you can't restrict it in a way that wouldn't allow it to continue to be used. So
>> the other thing I wanted to mention, I'm sure you already are aware, but the conservation commission did approve this as well since the last meeting. So this was approved by the conservation commission. >> Okay. >> So I'm so I'm thinking that we put the
the gallons per day restriction in the uh as it as part of the deed restriction. and then someone has a belt and suspenders that all the other restrictions could go into a revised plan. >> No, I think what
>> or you going to do everything in the deep restriction? >> That's what um not refer to as an examp attorney to do that essentially. They would come up with the language and how they're going to do it exactly. But my re my recommendation is that way there's
no >> you know issues with transferring conditions and what have you literally still right there. >> Okay. And I I guess I was only saying I just from a uh thinking from a due diligence part I
I still think it would be helpful to put it all in the plan as well >> so that someone who went came to the office and said what's going on you know with this you know not everybody would
automatically go to the go to the um you know the registry of deeds >> so that someone could come into the office and know what it is looking at the plan. Um, >> how about we just put in a condition like a a note refer to
the board health letter of da da da. >> Yeah. Yeah. Where would you where would you want me to put that on the >> maybe under the general notes? >> Yeah, the general notes under the important notes. >> Yeah. So, important notes of the board of health. Yeah. Put them there. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> But that way you don't have to spell everything out.
>> Yeah. Yeah. That's fine. referring to the same document and um >> that's good >> that that might >> I I wasn't I'm learning more um and that you you start with a deed >> yes >> as a place for um information. So that's helpful to know.
>> I just want us to be in a position if something should come up in the future we can say it was easy to find out you know before you went and did X it was in the plans you could have looked there. >> Okay >> that's But I think by referencing that weather that
>> yeah so whatever you whatever you think is you know the most efficient way to do it I'm fine with that. But is the board comfortable with voting on voting on tonight with the idea that I get the uh get your office to >> approval would be conditioned upon an
updated plan with those with that note and reference >> the date restriction and I don't know what other conditions >> and somebody could just get back to me about uh because I don't know if Jim Aguia reached out to D about the public water supply just kind of got to get a kind of circle back on that.
>> Yeah. Well, that can be one of the conditions. So, we won't sign off on moving forward until we have that answer. >> Thank you. >> Uh, okay. Does >> Yeah, I'm not sure how to motion. >> So, do you have a date in the letter?
>> Okay. So, >> all right. Well, I will I will I will throw up a draft motion. >> Okay. Thank you. Um uh so I move to approve the plan um for Rory Courtier. Is that right?
>> Correct. I >> close enough. >> Close enough. At 488 um old county old county road a commercial repair on a plan dated 4825 >> but updated 7825.
>> Oh, okay. I was okay. >> Well, That's true. >> Okay. Again, but um uh subject to well I received com review. I don't know if there's a stamp on the plan for that but
yes. >> Okay. Okay. So forget that. Um uh so subject to approval of um a civ analysis um a local upgrade approval allowing a
setback um to the site well from 100 ft to 84.9 ft. Um and a deed restriction that would include a limitation on the flow, the septic flow to be 284
gallons a day and conditions as set forth in a letter um from the board dated May 13, 2025 setting out additional um operating restrictions and engineering
restrictions. And um a holdless agreement. Uh 3 years of well testing. >> No. Yes. >> Uh less than 100 >> less than 100 ft then. Yes.
>> Three years as well. >> Um a uh a hold harmless agreement and a um >> how do you want to say what the D is doing? approval of a public water
supply. >> Yeah, somebody's going to reach out to D to see if if they're going to require one or if it's even possible may not even be possible to get one there. Okay. >> In which case, it'll get bounced back to us to make the decision. >> Okay. The condition being, you know,
what further inquiry D on a public water supply. >> Sure. >> Okay. >> All right. And an updated plan with the note. >> Oh, and Oh, right. and and an updated plan with the notes uh reflecting the
maximum allowed flow of 284 gallons and the restrictions set forth in the May 13, 2025 letter from the board. >> Second. Okay. Motion made and seconded to approve the plan on those based on
those conditions. Um Bob, did you get them all? >> Yes, ma'am. I did. >> Yes. Um then I can call a vote. All in favor? >> I I that's unanimous. >> Thank you. Congratulations. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. And call a 450 um discussion uh for 266 Howland Road with uh Len Potter. This is to discard discuss number of bedrooms and capacity of existing less.
>> Hello Mr. Potter again. This is for 6 622. >> No, this is for 266 266. I'm sorry. All right. The situation is this. Glen Potter, Westport Environmental Design,
and I'm here for Charles Henley who owns 266 Howland Road and Title Five inspector did an inspection. Um, has he done one recently? 2022 is the one I'm I know was done,
>> right? >> But that would have been expired. But regardless, um the system I repaired the system in 1982. And in 1982, a contractor's plan was acceptable to
the board for repairs. And we didn't do per tests on sites. We went out the with the agent. We dug a test pit, looked at the soil, and knowing in general what the area perked at, we we assigned a
rate to it and uh and designed a a septic system based on that rate. The water table and the so and the perk rate was is good here. We thought it was good soil. I designed an 18 foot by 45 foot wide leaf field and it comes out to I
forget 810 square ft I believe and in 2022 the system failed title five inspection. So you want to call me and I said no problem. I went down and did a break test in anticipation of doing the repair. When I was there, I dug back
into the leech field to see where things were, and the leechfield was clean. The debox was working at a more than normal level, and no sign of standing above the outlets, and the stone on top was just as clean as can be. The homes only used
from um June until September. And it's it's not uh I haven't seen a lot of people there. I'm sure they have parties on weekends or whatever, but the man wants to sell the house and it's lo and behold, I guess the title five inspector claimed it's a four bedroomedroom house.
I guess the border of health went there. Did you guys go there? Did you go there and do a bedroom inspection? >> No, it was um there was this is the one where >> he put four bedrooms. >> He put No, he put um >> four bedrooms with a threebedroom design
or vice versa, but there was nothing to reference that with. >> Right. Right. >> We weren't sure how the title five inspector came up with his calculations. >> Um, we talked about this last week. >> Plan from 82 says three bedrooms, right? >> What is it? >> The contractor plan from 1982 says three bedrooms.
>> I did that. Yeah. Right. >> Three bedrooms weren't a big thing back then. So, you just did what you >> Well, this inspection form says based on a design plan. He says it's a fourbedroom design. >> No, the design plan. You've got it in your file. >> Okay. >> And it says three bedrooms right on. I
looked at it with Matt the other day. So that the title five is not accurate. >> No. So anyway, the title five inspector somehow we claimed it's four bedrooms. He did his bedroom count. >> Regardless, the perk test I got in in 2022
was 115. And if you take the 810 square ft times the loading rate for a 15 minute per inch perk rate, which is 0.56 gallons per square foot, you come out with 459 gallons a day. I did the calculation
>> and therefore the system is actually large enough to support the four bedroomedroom house. >> So that's that's my plea on behalf of Mr. Henley. >> So my question is if he's going to sell the >> he's going to sell >> he would need to do another title five inspection. >> Absolutely.
>> Yeah. >> I thought he had done one already and it came back with a four bedroomedroom house and that I don't ask me and the plan said three. So when you looked at the old plan, you saw three and then he had four, but it needs another title
five inspector. >> Okay. So the question is, what exactly is your question? >> Okay, I've got a plan, original plan. It says three bedrooms,
>> but the house is actually a four. Mhm. >> So my question is with the septic system the size that it is is actually sized by today's standards for a four bed home. >> Okay. >> So therefore in my opinion it's it's passed title five and it's fine.
>> Okay. But we don't know until we it has to go through another title five inspection. >> No it has to go through another but I'm I'm certain it's going to it would pass. If it passes, your question is if it passes >> for a fourbedroom,
>> it would qualify as a four. >> It would qualify for four bedroom. That's my question. >> Okay. Um Matt, any thoughts? >> It's a system from 1982. It's not how we size things today. So, it's a little
weird for me to, you know, say it's okay. But if Lynn says it's can accommodate 449 gallons a day or whatever um he said in here then and it passes then I guess it would be okay.
>> Well, you're using the current loading >> calculations. >> Yes. So, uh, if the dimensions are right in terms of the 18 ft by 45 ft
and, um, you know, the and the flow is right and the >> rate is current, >> but it all comes down to if it passes or not. >> Yes. If it passes. Yeah. >> So, all that would be >> okay as long as it passes.
>> Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And then if it doesn't pass, >> I guess we'll have another discussion. >> Then we start all over again. >> Start all over again. Okay. Well, it's always a pleasure to see you. >> I know. I know. But I'm I'm trying to
push work to the side. >> More work. >> Yeah. >> I really think the house the man is elderly. That's why he's selling the house. I mean, he was there in 82. And I don't see a big party house there. and
and uh I think as you consider it the way the system indicates what it is. I don't think it's that bad. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Uh well, we're waiting see what he >> But it it doesn't really seem that much,
you know, different that someone who builds in, you know, just builds excess capacity into their system in a way, you know, makes a bigger >> Well, we always made it bigger. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So now in So that's what >> Yeah. You know, my my greatest argument,
not to hold you up, is one or two perks, a very small system for a two or three bedroom house. >> Yeah. >> And I like to make it bigger >> because I the the faster perk rates are the ones that fail first. >> Yeah. >> Because you need more square footage.
>> Right. Right. >> And and uh but man, it keeps slapping me in the hand and won't let me. It keeps can uh keeps a good eye on people if you >> that they have to come into the board before they just throw another bedroom in. So it keeps the process in line.
>> Yeah. Right. Right. I'm just saying. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Small. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. Good luck with that test. Don't have work to do. >> Have a good night. >> You too. >> Okay. Um, we're returning to board
member updates for um um no updates. >> Okay. So, you know, this relates to the to the Pine Ridge situation in which um
kind of the status is um we've gotten a written commitment uh from the applicant to incorporate DITE, which he had been saying, and I think it be it would be realistic um the next
meeting is on the 30th that we would request est that be placed in the as a condition of the permit. Uh so that it would apply not only to the applicant but anybody who if they sold
the property it would apply to everybody. So that's you know so that's a good thing. I think that um we resolved the issue of the 100 foot setback
um and accepted the 50-foot um you know the the the 50-foot setback um in part because of their made a commitment to do D9 right >> you know which was consistent with um
you know what uh the bylaw which then became our regulation did. And I think that where we are now, which relates to the uh the section 7 perk rate loading rate issue,
is that um so uh they the applicant was continuing to push for the waiver of that, you know, kind of a blanket waiver of that
and going up to 40 from our limit of 30 um you know inches per minute uh or minutes per inch I guess is a better way to say it. And um and so then I proposed that
um coming out of the discussion that happened at the working meeting that we set it up so that um if they could fit the existing system that they had proposed in the
site plan um uh going up to 30 minutes an inch then um then that would solve everybody's problem because they wouldn't need a waiver. But if they went beyond 30 minutes an inch um and they
had to relocate, then this other process would kick in where they would in this case with just the board having jurisdiction. Um look at various places on u on the property and do more than
one. do one or two different perk tests and and that there would be an obligation subject to maximum uh practicality to pick the rate that was closest to 30.
So that's what I proposed as a condition. Um and what their response came back just very recently was a variation on that which was to
um say okay give us a waiver for the present location. So if we can So if their present location would accommodate a a leech field that was
larger than uh that was that had a um a perk rate greater than 30, but it could still fit into that location that that would be
acceptable and that we would and that would be waved. So, so rather than um having the existing site be limited to 30, it could go as high as 40 um but within the confines of the of this of of
the of the existing area. And then um and then the second part of it, the second variation from what I had proposed was the process would be the same in terms of looking for a new site, but instead
of it being a decision by the board um as to what site would be the final um location that it would go back to the ZBA and in some sort of uh and so that the
ZBA would then if would make the determination as the extent to which the waiver um would be implemented. So,
if we thought that, okay, there's a site at 35 that we the board say that's the one that we should go that you should go to. And if they disagreed and said, "No, we want this site that's at 40."
And then the then the CBA would make the decision. And so um so that's where we are on it. Um, one of the things that I did, which I think I sent to Matt, I think I
sent to that is once I got this letter, I uh through the secretary um of the ZBA uh petitioned the chair to require the
applicant to create lots, create maps with looking at the at the existing site and what a constructed uh landfill at the um
1 in and 30 minutes and 1 in in 40 minutes would look like because I thought that that would give some would take these abstract numbers and say well it's like you Cinderella and
the three sisters. Can you actually really fit this thing? You know, like what's the limitation? How much? Because if it's like, oh well, we could go to we the applicant. If the applicant says, yeah, well, we look at the 30 and gee,
it won't even fit a 30-inch one. So, there's no there's no issue. Oh, okay. Well, yeah, there's a little bit of wiggle room there. And well, are we going to fight between 30? I you know so it would make it real to the people there and also to the public and so
that's what I requested. I don't know if I don't know but I don't think it would be difficult to do. So um and my final thought about it is that um I think given the
prepundonderance of uh you know that that essentially the burden of proof uh as to whether or not uh the I if the if the ZBA failed to
give this waiver favor and the applicant appealed. I think it would be based on my very limited understanding of it and it's probably something that the ZBA council will look at and advise the ZBA on is
what's the likelihood that um a denial of the waiver would be successful on appeal and would that as the applicant suggested also give him the opportunity to say well we're also um not going to
commit to a denitrification for all 38 homes. So I think getting a commitment to do denitrification is an important victory for us from
where it started. And um I think it's more difficult to make the case that the difference between 30 you know 30 minutes per inch or 40 minutes per inch is one that we will say you know
presents the level of threat to the public health and the environment um that would be successful on appeal. Um, so I think there's room to compromise about it and I think that's
what will happen at the next hearing. We'll have to see. >> Um, can I just ask for clarification? You'd be referencing 40 minutes per inch. >> I'm sorry. >> It's 60, right? Yeah. Okay. 60. I apologize. Yeah, 60 minutes. >> Just want to make sure that we're >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. 60 minutes per
inch. >> Okay. So, >> so >> and one other postcript you just mentioned to Matt is that I'm also asking this for the reserve area as well because everyone because the reserve area is going to have to accommodate
whatever this is and the reserve that was part of the mapping part because the reserve area is within some closer proximity to wetlands and the 50-foot setback. So, I don't know if they went
as high as 60 that it would uh that it would trip the 50 foot setback requirement cuz I think we looked at it and it was like I forget an acre or an acre and a half. >> It was quite large and it would that 60
ranch in its current location I think would encroach on the >> and and they seem to acknowledge it. So somewhere they may have looked at this and said, you know, we can fit somewhere between, you know, whatever the more
than 30 at the at the current location, not as much as 60, but you know, somewhere in there. And then that's what I was hoping these maps would indicate. >> Um Okay. Uh, I appreciate that you're
trying to help them um be smart about their planning. Um um a concern I have is that the perk failed 60 minutes per inch in that location
in February. So, >> right. Well, so they have to go back and I mean this is all part of the um they're going to have to go back and test under
so they're looking to get out of the ZBA process and move on to arguably or you know in theory coming to us and saying, "Okay, now we have to do a per test." And then we
would go out and do, you know, and that's clear that that they would want to do the perk test there >> and it would be all formalized. >> So when they go out and do the perk test, I know that we're going to want more than the standard amount of holes. So for such a large system, so
I believe it was our the ZBAS consultant, um, Brian Dunn. >> Mhm. And we said that the standard is you you go each corner and then the middle. So five holes. >> I would recommend that for both for the primary and reserve area. And then we
would it would be designed on um on you know force per. >> Yeah. But I don't think the ZBA and so I don't think the ZBA gets into that level of detail. Um, and that's
what's interesting about coming back to them and actually deciding what it is. I don't know that the ZBA or that the ZBA's council will recommend that the
uh uh the proposal that if the that the ZBA make a determination as to where the, you know, SAS should be located because that's really a state regulatory
thing and the way the um uh you know so uh so I don't know how I don't know how that's going to happen. They may you know the chair or members of the board may say like that's for you guys to work
out with the board of health. um which then you know might affect whatever the condition is. I don't know. >> So I think the key things we want is uh a condition requiring dite as they've
committed in the five um holes five perks per um location. What other key? I mean, I I understand you're It would be nice if we if they did all this planning so that we
wouldn't have to speculate about things that may be off the table anyways, but they don't they're working off a plan that we know right now doesn't work. So, they don't seem like they're going to be um you know, you could lead a horse to water,
can't make them drink. I don't think we've been trying to make them, >> you know, with drink and um so I think from from a the ZBA perspective, we need to keep this short and sweet. We, you know, in
include the DITE, the five whole um the five perks per location. What other things do you think are essential um that Uh, we would want to be conditions.
Um, well, I'm hung up because I don't think that I hear what Matt I hear what Matt's saying about it and part of it is part of it is I'm speculating because I don't know
what the rules of the road are for the ZBA. um making setting permit conditions related to state regulations which are you know
enforced by us. So for them it's and this is so for them it's usually we're going to wave or not going to wave and and so because I thought that
um on this on this particular issue that if it if the only option was wave or not wave they were not going to wave. I mean, they were going to wave it. Excuse me. They were going to wave it.
Um, and so then I proposed the conditions that I thought would get us what we wanted, which is 30 at the existing location and then if they go offsite,
as close to 30 as you can get. And I must, you know, rather than just rejecting that, they came back with a variation of that. And uh you know which would
require um you know which would allow them more more >> uh you know more more >> leniency or expand you know ability to go beyond 30 at the current location and
then but would still more or less implement the um the searching for another location and it seemed to me that um if that if something came up what
they're asking for which I don't even know is if it's allowed I mean but this lawyer is someone who's worked with the ZBA and one thing I did realize coming out of the other hearings is you can keep coming back to the ZBA and changing your plan
for a long time um that if we if there was an impass between the board of health and the applicant as to what site to pick that we'd go back to ZBA as the judge and the judge would make the final call. Um, you know, and we would have a
chance to present our case there and uh um so so I'm just saying I I don't know I don't have an answer. That's you know that's where it stands. What I don't think is that we would say, well, as part of the condition, you the ZBA has
to require the applicant to do five tests. I think Matt can say, "Look, that's the rule that we're setting. >> You know, if you want to do the test, it's going to take this." I don't think they're going to care that much about
that. Um because that's we make that determination. >> Okay. >> And that's auto. >> Yeah. I mean, I think that you know or or you know they may say well is that the standard thing to do you make everybody do five and then
it would get into okay well >> we don't because we don't really have we never had a project that at least in my time that was this large >> yeah yeah you could say well you know >> but but the problem >> the option to require additional perk tests is under title five not just our
local regulation >> it's title five >> yeah no it's a title five thing that's what I mean so it's like we have right we Okay, you're right. >> We have the discretion to do this. I don't think the ZBA is going to say, "No, I'm going to overrule that and say it's not right." >> No. Okay. I I just wanted I was thinking
of the local regulation. >> No, there's no then we have discretion and if they don't like what we decide, they can appeal to D or superior court or whatever. We're going to say, "Okay, we're not going to give you I mean, I think that they can I I think that they
can go back, but it's not it's kind of like >> how big a deal are you going to make out of digging five holes versus three holes versus one hole? I mean, they're there. They've got the machine and they're just going to dig the holes and pour water in it, you know? I mean, it's not like
saying, >> you know, >> Okay. So the so take the five per holes thing off the table. What we have said to them ZBA at this point they're meeting next week, right? Is that right? >> Yes. >> Mhm.
>> Okay. Um we've given them our best guidance and it's really between their lawyer and the ZBA. I think I don't know that we can have any more influence. >> Yeah. I mean, I I
think that we can push them on uh uh right now it's they've made it open-ended
as to as to just let us go, you know, grant us the waiver for the existing site for the existing location. But I think as a practical matter, we're going to be able to compress that down through the maps, I hope, and say, well, look,
the practical limit of that is is x amount, you know, based on the numbers. And so maybe you just leave it at that. Um, it's more >> But isn't that something that's going to happen in front of us, not in front of
the human being? Yes, but we're going to get uh because there's because it's like this, you know, GE, right? This geometry problem, you know,
which is you got this much space and you just plug into those numbers and see what the how big of the dimensions of the system is. It's just it ought you know the engineers ought to be able to work out how how big it is you know maybe it can you know take 60 but I
don't think we don't we don't think it can so and that would just end it there you know so if if it turns out that when they actually go out and do the perks
they get a result that is above that at that site and the reserve certain areas then then the more um lengthy complicated process of finding a substitute site and how that
works out is more complicated and I don't know what the what the uh >> but that's going to be before us not before this >> exactly that's well under our under our rule it will be but under under what they're proposing if there was I think
it would mean if there was a dispute between us, then they would come back to the ZBA. And the way that I've written it is that um
kind of following I think what you take from title five in a way, which is this is what you should do, you know, to the maximum practical practicable extent. And so if
They they so they said, "Okay, well, you know, here's a here's a site, you know, at 40 and here's a site at 35." But because of the distance be of the 40 site, it's twice as expensive for us to build the SAS here
than it would be to go to the, you know, the go to the uh, you know, so we're saying, "Hey, 35, you got to do it here." and he says, "Well, I can do a 41 and it's half as expensive or I don't have to build two pumps to pump it up to
get to there." And then we said, you know, 35 or nothing, then I think that they want to say we're going to go back to the ZBA because there's it maximum practical. At least that's how I think it would work. It would be a negotiation
and I think we would be reasonable like you know like the upgrade rule is which is you know be realistic about it and don't make people spend enormous amount of