The meeting’s most significant outcome was the board’s approval of a motion to address cesspools during property transfers or when a system is deemed to have failed. This decision aligns with efforts to protect water quality, considering the environmental risks posed by cesspools, which often lack proper sewage treatment capabilities. The board acknowledged that while Kingston is not leading in prohibiting cesspools outright, as seen in neighboring towns like Duxbury and Marshfield, the new regulation marks a proactive middle ground. The regulation will take effect immediately upon publication.

The conversation on how to effectively disseminate this new regulation highlighted the absence of a traditional local newspaper, with suggestions to use the town’s website and social media platforms. While a new nonprofit newspaper was mentioned, it was deemed unsuitable for legal notices. The Halifax-Plimpton-Kingston Gazette emerged as a potential publication venue.

In addition to cesspool regulations, the board explored the integrity of Title 5 septic system inspections. Concerns were raised about the potential for fraud and oversight lapses in current practices. The possibility of requiring a witness for Title 5 inspections was debated, with arguments for and against the feasibility of such a requirement. It was noted that current inspections are conducted by licensed professionals who submit reports to the local board of health. Instead of mandating witnesses, the board considered creating a vetting process to ensure inspectors are credible and trustworthy.

The board also discussed implementing an annual registration fee for Title 5 inspectors, settling on a $50 fee. This amount was chosen to deter casual participants and ensure that only serious businesses engage in inspections, thereby maintaining high standards. The board recognized the need to balance regulatory oversight with practical considerations, such as the health department’s resources.

The role of garbage grinders in septic systems was another point of contention. These devices, often installed under kitchen sinks, can impact septic systems not designed to handle the additional waste. Title 5 regulations stipulate a 50% increase in leach field size if a garbage grinder is present. However, the absence of explicit regulations regarding their installation poses compliance challenges. The board emphasized the importance of educating homeowners about these risks rather than imposing fines.

The meeting also touched on the need for updated soil evaluations for septic systems approved before 1995. Given changes in environmental conditions over the decades, such as groundwater levels, members generally agreed on the necessity of reassessing older systems to meet current standards.

Additionally, the board examined the complexities of reviewing septic systems for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The existing fee structure for new constructions was scrutinized, with a proposal to set the ADU septic system review fee at $175. This proposal aimed to reflect the effort involved in the review process while considering the varying levels of oversight required.

Finally, a brief consensus emerged regarding frozen dessert testing protocols. Concerns were raised about the reliability of self-submitted samples for testing. The board approved a motion requiring in-person lab testing to ensure the integrity of the process.