A notable topic of discussion was the property on Cold Hill Drive, where Neil Jackson proposed building a garage that would obstruct the planned location for a septic system (SAS). The board had previously approved a system design that allowed the SAS to be positioned closer to the wetlands, specifically 62 feet, deviating from the standard requirement of 100 feet. However, the variance for water table separation had not been granted. Neil submitted a repair plan for a three-bedroom house, detailing a smaller SAS designed to utilize a 1500-gallon two-compartment tank, a filter, a single pump, and a separate pump chamber. The design included two trenches with six Elgen B43 modules, venting, and the reuse of existing plumbing. The existing well on the property was located about 80 feet from the new septic tank, consistent with the previously approved system. The board expressed concern over the lack of notation regarding neighboring wells, which would typically be included in such submissions. They agreed to approve the design conditionally, contingent upon the submission of the PE stamp and the verification of the distance to neighboring wells.

The board also discussed a property on Bachelor Street, involving a repair submission from Neil. This property featured two houses and raised concerns about the legality of the second dwelling. The board questioned whether the existing septic system could support two houses, as only one well and one septic system were in place. They suggested that the building inspector evaluate the legality of the second dwelling before proceeding with any septic system approvals. The consensus was to refrain from approving the septic system until it was confirmed that the project was legally permissible.

Another issue addressed was the inspection of Cruising Cafe, which had recently undergone a pre-operational inspection of its kitchen. There were issues with the water supply, prompting questions about whether the inspector should return for a follow-up inspection while the cafe was operational. The consensus was that the inspector should indeed return to conduct an actual inspection, taking temperature readings and ensuring compliance with health regulations. The cafe’s septic system had limited capability, necessitating the use of disposable plates and utensils to minimize waste. The discussion revealed that if the cafe intended to serve more than 25 people per day, it would need to meet public water supply regulations. The meeting participants considered allowing the cafe to operate under certain conditions, specifically that it could not serve any products made with the well water until compliance with the DEP was achieved. The inspector noted that the cafe owner was frustrated with the ongoing regulatory process and expressed concern about financial pressures.

Further discussions centered around temporary food events, emphasizing the necessity of permits for such events. It was noted that events should not be treated uniformly simply because they involved similar types of gatherings. The board emphasized the importance of ensuring proper sanitation and food safety measures, particularly as events could attract large crowds without sufficient infrastructure. They agreed that a one-size-fits-all approach to permitting was insufficient and that each event should be evaluated independently to ensure public health and safety.

The board also discussed the permitting process for temporary events, particularly regarding food vendors and sanitation requirements. There were concerns about the sanitation protocols, specifically the need to measure the number of portable toilets (sanicans) in relation to the number of attendees. The board proposed implementing a fee structure for these permits, suggesting a $200 fee for each event permit, with an increased fee of $400 for permits issued with less than 30 days’ notice. This fee structure aimed to ensure the financial viability of the permitting process and account for potential additional inspections.

The meeting also addressed specifics regarding septic system permits, including the approval of a replacement septic tank and the conditions required for its installation. The approval was contingent on providing necessary documentation, including confirmation that neighboring wells are beyond the required distance from the septic system. Discussions highlighted the need for clarification from the building inspector regarding properties with potential zoning violations before moving forward with the septic system design.

The board deliberated on the implications of allowing different food trucks to operate at events without proper oversight, noting the risk of inconsistent sanitation practices. They debated whether food vendors should operate as temporary establishments with specific regulations or as permanent entities, emphasizing the need for adequate advance planning and communication with local businesses.