A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to a proposed 30-unit, 55-plus development located in the new senior housing overlay district. A representative from TH Development presented an overview of the proposed system, highlighting a drip irrigation system designed to manage wastewater. The system includes a 500-gallon primary septic tank followed by a secondary 4,500-gallon septic tank and a 4,500-gallon pump storage tank. The representative noted that the system had been revised based on previous comments from John Leno, addressing concerns about the sewer line’s location and the need for variances due to tank depth.

The discussion on the drip irrigation system included its compliance with EPA standards and its innovative approach to managing wastewater. The representative explained that the time-dosing system would balance water flow throughout the day instead of creating peak loads during morning and evening usage. The system is designed to hold 24 hours’ worth of flow. A backup generator for emergency power was also included in the design, which would be fueled by an underground propane tank. The representative highlighted the importance of maintenance contracts for ongoing system operation.

Concerns were raised about potential freezing of the system in winter. The representative assured the board that check valves would prevent freezing, although acknowledged past failures in similar systems. The discussion included questions about the system’s installation and whether freezing would be an issue. The representative emphasized that proper installation, including the check valve functioning, would mitigate risks associated with freezing.

As the conversation progressed, there was clarification regarding the separation distance between the system components and groundwater levels, leading to a variance request. The representative explained the necessity of connecting the bottom of the septic tank to the wet well, which was below groundwater levels. Measures to ensure the integrity of the connections were discussed, including the use of stainless steel straps and corrosion protection sealants.

A member of the public, Joseph Canelo, identified himself as a direct abutter to the project and voiced his concerns. He sought clarification about the implications of the proposed system on the neighboring properties. The representative addressed his concerns by stating that the final as-built plan would need to demonstrate no impact on abutters, emphasizing the importance of the grading and septic disposal area.

Debate focused on the specifics of the variance requests and the system’s design. The representative outlined the measures taken to address previous comments from town officials. The board members discussed the need for additional details regarding the variance and its implications for the groundwater connection. They confirmed that John Leno recommended approval with specific conditions, which would include thorough testing of the system’s watertightness before operational use.

The discussion also centered on a variance request pertaining to septic tank installations, with a particular focus on ensuring that the tanks would not float due to groundwater levels. Calculations supporting this assertion were shared, noting safety factors with ratios of 2.73, 1.62, and 4.97. The topic of standard setbacks on Legion Fields to property lines arose, with a noted standard of 10 feet, although the variance request did not exceed that limit.

Concerns were raised regarding how much higher the tank would need to be than originally planned, primarily due to the connection requirements. The invert of the pipe was stated to be at 6846, with groundwater at 7065, necessitating that the entire structure be raised approximately five and a half to six feet to accommodate the connection. It was pointed out that while the tank itself was compliant, the issue lay with the connection and the implications of setting a precedent for future variances in new constructions.

The board deliberated on whether they needed to vote on the variance that night or if further deliberation was appropriate. It was suggested that additional time might be beneficial, especially since approval from the conservation committee was contingent upon the board’s decision regarding the septic plan. The urgency of timely decisions was acknowledged, with a potential delay causing further complications in the approval processes with other committees.

Local environmental concerns were also expressed. A participant raised issues about the potential for increased runoff and groundwater contamination due to the proposed addition of 4,300 gallons of septic output daily to a one-acre property that was previously not subject to such drainage. There was a cautious acknowledgment of the high groundwater levels in the area, prompting worries about the capacity of the land to handle additional septic inputs without adverse effects. The participant referenced past experiences, underscoring the difficulties encountered when their own septic system had to be replaced, stressing the need for careful planning.

The need for barriers to manage runoff was discussed, particularly in relation to neighboring properties. There were mentions of creating swales to redirect runoff effectively and ensuring that the elevations of the new construction did not negatively impact adjacent lands. The conversation revealed a degree of apprehension about the implications of the construction on surrounding properties, particularly related to water drainage and potential flooding.

The board agreed to carry the discussion over to the next meeting, allowing time for further review of the variance request and its implications. The next meeting was set for the first Wednesday of September, emphasizing a commitment to examination of the proposal before any decisions were made.

In addition to the senior housing project, the board also considered a proposal regarding the fee structure for farmers’ market permits. The idea was to introduce a permit fee for non-food vendors, specifically for those selling packaged food items from their home. The proposed fee would be $75 per event or $150 for the year, which is notably higher than fees in surrounding towns that range from $50 to $65. The board members expressed some hesitation about the proposed fee changes, emphasizing the need for further discussion and information on what other local markets charge their vendors before making a decision.

Additionally, the board addressed the issue of reinspection fees for septic systems. A suggestion was made to change the fee structure, implementing a $100 charge for any inspection after the third visit. The first three inspections would remain free, which was seen as a reasonable compromise to avoid overburdening homeowners who may already be spending significant amounts on septic system installations. The board agreed that a fee structure accommodating the complexities of large projects while protecting homeowners was essential.

The topic of mosquito control was also brought up, with an update indicating positive tests for Eastern Equine Encephalitis (Triple E) and West Nile Virus in Halifax. The Department of Public Health recommended an aerial spraying in the affected zones. Members discussed the importance of public awareness regarding mosquito bites, particularly for vulnerable populations like young children and the elderly. Residents were advised to eliminate standing water and take precautions, especially during peak mosquito activity hours.