A major highlight of the meeting was the detailed examination of the regulations governing oil storage tanks, particularly in the context of property transfers. Confusion arose from the language used in the existing regulations, specifically paragraphs 5.7 and 5.8, which did not clearly distinguish between single-wall and double-wall oil tanks. This ambiguity led to discussion among board members, who noted the necessity for 110% containment for new above-ground fuel or waste oil storage tanks, regardless of their location on residential properties. However, it was clarified that double-wall tanks do not require additional containment when installed outside.

The board debated the potential impact of these regulations on property transfers. It was noted that during property transfers, above-ground fuel storage tanks must either be replaced with double-wall tanks or provide 110% containment. This requirement was questioned, with participants seeking clarity on whether having a double-wall tank would negate the need for additional containment.

A suggestion was made to separate the regulations for commercial and residential properties into distinct sections to avoid confusion. Additionally, the board explored the feasibility of requiring inspections during property transfers, though it was confirmed that current practice only mandates inspections by the fire department when leaks are visible. The discussion also touched on the need for a database to track the status of oil tanks in homes, given that many older homes may still have single-wall tanks without proper containment.

Recognizing the complexity and potential implications of these regulations, the board members collectively agreed on the need for a rewrite to enhance clarity. A consensus was reached to adopt a model from surrounding towns that had recently updated their regulations. Consequently, a decision was made to continue the public hearing on this matter, allowing time for necessary revisions and clarifications to the regulations.

In addition to the oil storage regulations, the board also conducted variance hearings for local properties. A discussion centered on a property on Moon Penny Lane, where a variance was approved with conditions. The variance involved the use of IIA technology to upgrade the property’s septic system due to the failure of existing cesspools. Board members raised concerns about allowing a seven-bedroom house on a half-acre of land in a sensitive area near the Oyster River. Despite these concerns, the variance was granted, with conditions including a deed restriction limiting the property to a maximum of seven bedrooms and a requirement to connect to municipal sewer when available.

The approval process included detailed conditions for monitoring and performance standards. The system’s affluent is to be tested twice annually, with specific testing conditions drawn from Massachusetts D standard conditions for secondary treatment. A performance standard of 19 milligrams per liter for total nitrogen was set, with certified lab water meter readings to be included in a semiannual report. Concerns were raised about the choice of testing months, May and October, given that these may not reflect peak usage times. The rationale for this decision is to be clarified by an individual knowledgeable about the regulations.

The meeting also included a brief discussion on proposed revisions to the Board of Health’s fuel storage systems regulations. The primary goal was to update the regulations regarding double-wall fuel tanks and property transfers to prevent potential leaks. The fire inspector, present to answer questions, aided in addressing inconsistencies in the language of the regulations that had led to confusion. The dialogue underscored the necessity for further clarification of the language used, particularly concerning the financial implications of compliance.