The meeting’s most discussion centered on the septic system upgrade for a property on Brookline Street. Trevor Fletcher from Grads Engineering presented the case for the necessary improvements to the property’s failing septic system. The existing system’s tank, positioned beneath a patio and unsuitable for effective gravity flow, required an elevation adjustment that involved removing the current tank. Fletcher’s proposal called for variances due to site constraints, including setbacks from property lines for both the tank and leach field, as well as encroachments into the floodplain and wetland setback requirements. Despite these challenges, Fletcher assured the board that the system’s elevation would remain consistent, mitigating potential flood risks. The conservation department had already issued a negative determination for the project, allowing it to proceed without a wetlands permit. The board, satisfied with the conservation clearance, approved the septic system upgrade through a roll call vote.

Parallel to this, the board considered the septic system replacement on Highland Street, where an existing cesspool was failing. The property, set for acquisition by a construction company, required a compliant system for renovation purposes. The proposed installation involved a 1,500-gallon tank linked to a 1,000-gallon tank, feeding into a 20 by 38-foot leach field. This plan adhered to upgrade regulations without necessitating variances. The board swiftly approved the upgrade.

Another new septic system proposal for zero Brooklyn Road was also deliberated. This involved a 2,500-gallon tank and two 45-foot leaching trenches. The project required a water quality test to ensure compliance with local well regulations. The board confirmed this proposal’s adherence to local regulations and Title 5 standards, with approval granted following a unanimous roll call vote.

Financial discussions emerged as another focal point of the meeting. Notable was the issue of an unpaid invoice from the engineering firm Weston and Samson related to landfill operations. The board had previously allocated $3,000 for this purpose, but an oversight led to the invoice not being presented at a selectman’s meeting. It was proposed to pay 60% of the bill now, with the understanding that Weston and Samson agreed to wait until the fall meeting for the remaining balance. This step was deemed critical to maintain good relations with the contractor.

Additionally, the board reviewed routine expenses, such as the monthly trash and recycling costs totaling $54,413.35, and approved a refund of $125 for a resident’s duplicate sticker payment. These financial matters culminated in a total monthly warrant of $73,81.77, which the board approved unanimously.

The meeting also touched upon the solid waste and recycling enterprise fund’s financial reporting. However, the absence of the accountant, Elizabeth, necessitated the postponement of this report until the next meeting, scheduled for April 13. Despite this delay, the board committed to providing an update during their subsequent gathering on April 27.