A significant portion of the meeting focused on the septic system challenges facing properties at 2038 and Main Road, owned by Cherrystone and Driftwood Realty Trust. Both properties required essential septic system repairs. The property at 2038 had a cesspool with no tank, necessitating an urgent upgrade, while the property at 2040 had an existing septic design that was deemed inappropriate due to its proximity to a river. A representative from Northeast Engineers proposed a denitrification system to be shared between the two homes, with a strategically positioned leaching field to comply with environmental regulations. The plan required a variance concerning well setbacks due to the location of existing wells.

The board’s discussion revealed complexities surrounding the ownership structure, as both properties, though under one owner, were classified as separate entities. This distinction necessitated specific deed restrictions for each property—one with a three-bedroom limit and the other with a one-bedroom restriction. The board underscored the importance of groundwater testing and a hold harmless agreement for the shared system. The proposal’s approval was contingent on meeting conditions related to shared systems and well testing regulations. The board agreed to proceed with approving the plans, conditioned on compliance with the requirements discussed.

Another highlight was the exploration of compliance with Title 5 regulations for shared systems, focusing on financial mechanisms for operational and maintenance needs. Despite some uncertainty, the board clarified the nitrogen testing requirement, adjusting it to two years due to the use of an Advantex system. Concerns were raised about the proximity of a cesspool to an existing well.

The meeting also addressed a repair plan submitted for a property on Donovan Lane, presented by Mark Rodricks from Analysis and Design Engineering. The plan involved a three-bedroom repair system on a small 420 square foot lot, requiring an additional parcel of land. The proposed system included a Fuji CN5 nitrogen reduction pre-treatment unit, a small pump chamber, and a bottomless sand filter. Due to the lot’s constraints and proximity to the Westport River, several variances were requested, including those related to setback distances for the bottomless sand filter, the soil absorption system, and the Fuji tank.

Board members deliberated on the variances, acknowledging that the plan provided the best solution given the lot’s limitations. Technical aspects, such as the toe of the slope and the necessity of an impermeable barrier, were discussed. The board approved the plan with conditions including a hold harmless agreement, a de-restriction for three bedrooms, and water analyses for three years. A baseline water test was also mandated.

Adding to the robust agenda, the meeting featured a presentation by nurse Linda Pierce in observance of Emotional Awareness Month. Pierce emphasized the significance of understanding and recognizing personal and others’ emotions, linking emotional awareness to mental health and stress management. She outlined strategies to enhance emotional awareness, such as building resilience, developing healthy habits, and practicing gratitude. Pierce highlighted the availability of flu vaccines and announced a blood drive scheduled for January 16, 2024, encouraging online registration through the American Red Cross.

A board member acknowledged the vital link between emotional awareness, mental health, and stress management, especially during the holiday season. Personal insights on journaling as a method for emotional expression were shared, noting that self-awareness can enhance relationships with loved ones.

The meeting also touched on the implications of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in the context of septic systems. A property on Longwood Drive, with a proposed detached ADU, was used as a case study. The board considered tying the ADU into the existing system as a viable option. Concerns were expressed about regulations surrounding occupancy permits and potential flow increases to the septic system. The unique nature of the case prompted questions about how similar situations might be handled in the future, particularly in terms of attached versus detached ADUs and occupancy permit implications.