##VIDEO ID:beYXmaPbydc## um we'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible liberty and justice for all all right Matt you wan to um start off or you can look through do we have any issues with the written portion of the director's report I don't have any questions I don't have any questions with that so Matt you want to talk us through the uh your oral report yeah so just um just a couple items uh this week is um flu vaccines we've administered 143 food vaccines so we're running we're running down we're almost exhausted the um food vaccines that we ordered for the year and Bron book inspections um are done so that's great I need completed so we're going to be packaging up the books and sending them in um uh next week uh beginning of next week work yeah any any like big news out of the inspections that you knoww of uh no everybody was um fine there was no issues with the uh any of the inspections um to my knowledge I'm not really supposed to know so but the inspectors didn't say anything to me about it okay that's good all right um moving on to director approved plans yeah so we have a um a three-bedroom repair on a 19450 ft lot on 149 Forge Road for a Brandon Kamara um it is replacing a Cess pool and it's going to require a three-bedroom deed restriction we have a four bedroomroom new construction on 1260 main road for Jeffrey andreid um and um and that's uh I'm sorry it's on a 65,8 122t l okay that's utilizing a quick four and a micro fast but that's it for director approved plans that I have okay so then I move that we endorse uh the director approved plans for 149 Forge Road with a but with the uh condition of a three-bedroom deed restriction and for 1260 Main Road um with a microfast system and we'll need the um the total nitrogen testing for two years um second all in favor I I all right moving right along we have the minutes of uh December 5th 2024 um you have any comments on your minutes no I do not so do you I don't all right so I move that we approve the minutes for December 5th 2024 second all in favor um and then we have the minutes for December 9th yep and um I'm fine with those I am as well so I move that we approve the minutes um for December 9th 2024 second all in favor I okay all right barreling along um let's see our other business was a proposal to um cancel or to skip the December 30th meeting and then just proceed to our regularly schedule meeting um in January which would be January 6th January 6th okay okay so moved second all in favor I all right any uh any update from you I don't have any well it's quite all right well I mean I updated about the um op advisory committee the first meeting um that we've had um and I will be attending uh there's going to be some kind of opening at Star and I'm going to go and there you can ask questions so I'm going to ask about there in um any involvement with us in wport around this or any suggestions that they might have great um so um my only update is that uh we've been talking about um the need to provide guidance to homeowners and the regulated you know Community engineers and the sanitarians about how to uh implement the Statewide as well as our local um uh Statewide statute um uh regarding accessory dwelling units and um so Matt and I have been working on that we've discussed it a little bit um at our meeting and the Massachusetts Environmental Health Association um sent around a notification that uh the department Mass DP Department of Environmental Protection is going to issue guidance um by February 2nd which will be really helpful and that um what they are doing is soliciting uh input or questions because the guidance is going to be in a frequently asked questions format which I think actually is probably what we should do if we need to follow up on our own um do a frequently asked questions so anyway um Matt and I are going to start um working at the beginning of the new year um with the questions that we would want the d guidance to answer and um I think uh and of course there's kind of particular significance for us because we're one of a group of communities that you know requires nitrogen reducing systems in certain circumstances and so we have to clarify uh what how that will apply or not apply to um new accessory dwelling units so so that'll so that will be um um that would be really helpful and then we'll know how to proceed consistently with um how those are being implemented because as the statute um gains momentum and we see more of those of course so that's that all right and now as scheduled Donna is going to sing Christmas carols for the next 20 minutes and you know I've been looking forward to that for my sweater that has bells on it and I could have done jle Bells um all right so um go ahead so we may want to consider schedule in a working meeting for the FAQs yeah and um you know develop some and get them submitted to D yeah yeah yeah definitely yeah well you know so you know I thought kind of because Idle Hands kind of thing that I while we have some holiday time here you know that I would work on that and then send you something and then we could look at that for the um for the uh for the working meeting because Matt and I have exchanged um kind of a draft When It Was Written not as FAQs but more of guidance where kind of set out the scenarios what we thought the what I what we thought the answers you know should be is how they're regulated in back ground because now we have to kind of it's like Jeopardy now we have we have before we were giving the answers now we have to formulate the questions for D so we kind of have to work it backwards and I think but I because we've made the progress that we made so far I don't think that will be that hard to do um but I know that they're you know kind of focused on the accessory dwelling unit pieces and but I think we also want to talk just generally about this issue of increasing bedrooms as it relates to design capacity even though I think D considers the accessory dwelling units as a different um uh like a different breed it's not exactly the same thing so we need to kind of figure that um I mean draw attention to that and then um see if they can clearly you know parse that out for us and and then there's another whole issue of um you know what does compliance mean for systems that um may be you know non-conforming systems and how that works even if they have good design capacity maybe what they have in the ground now doesn't conform and so just giving some clarity about that too so anyway I think we've identified the issues that um we really want some CL on I think we just have to urge the EP to maybe um expand the scope a little bit of what it what they might be thinking the what the questions and what the answers are needed basically you know so didn't you mention up the one of the meetings about us trying to coordinate and make sure we're on the same page with is it the building department yes well because the building department this is more about adding I was going to say just about adding bedrooms but I think it maybe applies maybe applies to both but they didn't really um distinguish between the situations where um there is excess Capa design capacity in the system so their message was if you add a bedroom um uh to your house then you have to decommission a bedroom so whereas I think we were in the place of saying well if you have a three if if your system is designed for three bedrooms but you only Built two bedrooms then you can add a bedroom at least looking through the title five lens and I don't think and it's not a criticism of it because it's it's not apparent you know to people who are not you know soaked in this stuff that that there's a difference so but I think what will come out of this particularly is that we'll have a unified um you know message or that um the building compartment can just refer or when we put the frequently asked questions can just have the same link on their Pages we'll have on ours when it's finally done you know so um yeah so I can give you an update on the transfer station U if you'd like that would be great so uh Tim's last day is uh the 31st um we've uh posted that the select board approved the uh the new position which is the transfer station Foreman it's been posted in-house and outside at the same time um we've got a couple resumés that came in from the outside um and the union posst and will come down on on uh uh tomorrow actually at noon time so and then then I can start visiting the resumes that are coming in from the outside oh good where did you post the position outside yeah so the town post everything through indeed okay um so uh if we have somebody and we can start them right away on January 9th because I have to find the person have the select board um appoint them on at their meeting on January 6th I could stop the person on the 9th that's going to leave us like a three-day Gap without a driver so my thought process there is to possibly approach the highway department and see if they can assist for those three days if not we'll have to go to the outside and get Contract us to just keep us going for those three days um so that's hopefully if everything goes well only be 3 days that we're down without a driver that's good yeah uh but we'll just see how it time you know how the timing of it all goes right um okay so that was for that and then we had some airock money that came through from uh Senator rodri's office through n DP um for the transfer station for transfer station improvements oh it was $75,000 and went down there a few times trying to figure out how we can do some improvements and I you know come up with a plan I'm going to I haven't got it sketched out or anything for the board yet but I will get it all drawn out and share it with the board what my idea is on how we can use that money to improve the transfer station excellent when did we find out about that a couple weeks back okay I mean we we've been talking about I me Jim uh the Town Administrator you know um has been talking about it but it finally came through officially a couple weeks back so and is it all is it kind of Rick and mortar kinds of things that the money or that the the grant or the allocation is really focused on or is it other kinds of improvements well that was one of my questions because it didn't really come with a a book of what we can use the money for yeah okay so I um so it it'll be some brick and mor type improvements that you know for sure but um I have questions on whether or not because of the improvements I have in mind we're going to need a few more dumpsters so can we use the money to purchase dumpsters for that and some other things so um I don't know the answer to that what are the other things you're thinking about to use the I mean for the improvements like what would you like to see happen down at the transfer station other than two new well it's more than the contain is it's um so we're going to expand so when you pull in you can see that there's dumpsters right in front of you right you got a trash metal glass and then it kind of goes this way the the wall goes off that way mhm so we're going to expand that part of the wall out and we're going to put we're going to move the glass dumpster into that position going this way along the wall bump down the metal and then put another trash dumpster in so you'll have two trash available because we're just getting so much business with trash it's it'll be good to have two containers available and then we're going to buy another trash container for a backup so when one gets full somebody can pull the full one out put the empty one in and we can empty the full one so we always have a rotating uh number of uh dumpsters so we we shouldn't get in theory shouldn't get so jammed up where we um have to shut down a service yeah so if if you do all those improvements do you have an idea what that's going to cost you're saying I'm waiting for the quotes to come back so we have to we have to you know extend the wall we have we have to do some Paving we have to do some regrading I mean it adds up quick if I had to guess were already just from those improvements alone probably in the 50 Grand range but I don't know until I get the quotes back just a guess um just within the transfer station but just kind of a different topic which is so how have the um Boy Scouts um you know fared well at their new um location or is that or or or has their you know uh people has their drop off dropped off so I don't know I don't have I haven't received any feedback on that the only feedback that I received is some people are leaving stuff down there that shouldn't be there oh um I see but I that you know that's inevitable it's not a big deal right you know they can either just bring it up themselves or you know get one of the attendants will come down and right right right right I don't know um if this been a drop off and off yeah yeah cuz people are going in I see people go in they they you know they still donate I just don't know to what degree right they did put something on Facebook I they showed a picture of some of the things people were leaving that they should be leaving yeah yeah well I think it was really a problem even though I don't think they would blame us for it you'd probably have heard about it if if it wasn't work if it wasn't working out for them as we all kind of hoped and planned it worked so yeah it's kind of a no news is good news really I think I think we expected there was going to be a drop off just until people got used to the new flow um but I don't I haven't really heard yeah yeah that's good ining close and 4:30 yes yeah we're at 420 I don't know if this is um uh just trying to look at the um yeah so this is not um one where the um local upgrade approvals are have any of Butters right uh the 4:30 hearing do yes yes they do okay all right okay I'm just going to ask you Matt what are some of the um priorities you see for the Board of Health because I know that we're going to have be having a meeting um to talk about setting some priorities from the board's perspective but I wonder from your perspective what you see are the um the things for us to focus on or priorities that you might have for the new year really haven't thought about it but um I have a little bit but Staffing continues to be a concern I think we're very under staffed very very our workload versus our staff ratio um doesn't the math doesn't work out um I did ask for uh the administrator if I could add in a um halftime cerk for FY 26 but it was pretty much a no a couple reasons you know uh just need somebody to help out with some of the um data entry some of the Oddball things that we collect permits on that a very timec consuming financy um you know the food permits and the temporary food permits uh Pat does a good job but it it it kind of keeps her uh busy and then the counter and the phones it's just you know it can be very overwhelming at times not to mention it might not be a bad idea to kind of get somebody in and train them just in case you know you uh if Pat decided to retire someday then you'd have somebody that could backfill possibly the position have some knowledge of how the system works in the office I think would be a good thing but I get it the overall budget isn't great so um it's hard to get these positions approved well the other thing that I think would would fit into that is um you know our um upgrade of the um well regulations um and so um and I think you know we could work on that during the first half of 2025 um because we made some progress but have um run into the complexity of uh the uh standards you know for water quality testing and water quantity assessment that I think we need to get more input from experts um but I think you know it's something that we could accomplish you know during the first quarter of the new year one of the other things I thought about as a priority is I'd like to see some of our older regulations get you know revised updated to be more in tune with 2025 you know the some of them pretty old and times have changed and I just think they need to be updated or maybe even some of them eliminated alog together and kind of re brought back into the fold in a different way can you think of one off the top of your head that you're thinking of um I just some of the ones um I don't know maybe the lodge capacity well regulation the sanitary dog regulation the shelfish uh stockpiling regulation um they're very old definitely the storm water regulation I think that we need to take a hard look at that and um make it a little bit more um scale it back potentially a little bit still keep it but kind of you know it's very comprehensive and it's very costly to the uh people who have to um put together these uh storm water regulations for new construction yeah well we've been trying to kind of coordinate for a few years around how the wetlands program regulates storm water how the planning board regulates storm water in terms of um you know subdivisions um and then how we regulate storm water for um often times like single family homes um and and then D also has draft regulations out there that are looking at climate change and are um uh ramping up the um standards for how you address um anticipated climate change in terms of storm severity um green uh manage you know uh kind of Greening U storm water management controls more and uh but so again you really need some expertise in that to for us I think to really go back and if we could get a unified approach figure out how to do it um but it is sitting on the Conservation Commission one of the most frequent um uh things that we hear where someone is developing um property particularly if it's commercial related um but even you know larger housing projects you know even if it's a single family home that a Butters come in and being concerned about what's going to happen with the storm water when they put in this driveway you know because there are the basements are already flooding those kinds of things and so I think um it's helpful um because the wetlands regulations don't really regulate single family homes um but to have the Board of Health through its storm water regulations you know uh be able to say to a Butters well they're going to have to show how they're going to manage storm water even if it's not a big subdivision and um so uh it I don't know it tends to make better neighbors of there was just something that wasn't there about a business that wanted to expand and then the neighbors were in a residential area yeah and it's legitimate yeah and it's legitimate and uh and so it is like how do you reconcile someone who wants to use their property in a reasonable way but neighbors who don't want their situ bad situation ex exacerbated by it and but I don't disagree with Matt that you know how the current regulation goes about doing that is necessarily the best or the most efficient or costeffective tool to do that you know because it's not rocket science to to control storm water and um and maybe you don't need all the analytical work just to say you know capture all the rain water for your roof you know when you have a lot of impervious surface you have to you know manage the storm water so it's infiltrated you know back into the ground which is you know so okay a lot of fun stuff to do in [Music] 2025 are we close enough than sir 427 427 y think we're close enough Mark you're going to we're close enough okay I us thank you stor one of my favorite topics I know we should get your input what's a favorite topic you were targeting where my peeves have been associated with the single family residence versus commercial activity and if you get pushed to storm water D style it it it it it appears to clients especially yeah what did you just do where where a retention system is larger than a septic system you know so yeah yeah and the regulations of setback vertical setback to water tables also a challenge so when I get overwhelmed I I punt on those and get people with more expertise than me so Mark rcks analysis and design engineering I'm here for a uh local upgrade approval request for a second system repair at 155 Plymouth Boulevard for service realy 2 LLC over here on South W Tupper pond it's a small lot under 13,000 Square ft currently served by a Cess pool so the elimination of the cess pool is critical at this point and required and what I've developed here which is also going to be going through conservation in the upcoming meeting I believe that's the 7th of January coming up so that's on the agenda for that hearing uh I'm putting a bottom sand filter in pre-treated with uh a two compartment 1500g tank and the advantex ax20 RT system uh that's on the east side of the existing uh dwelling uh off to the West is the pond South W Tupper Pond where we located the uh bottomless sand filter giving us I believe still the smallest footprint possible for this lot uh the waivers are primarily associated with setbacks to property warning so I'll do that very quickly see what we've got uh and the offset to the Wetland resource area uh the vssf the bottomless sand filter is per my notes that one is I believe the number I have is approximately 27 ft from the high water elevation of the pond versus the 50 that we're searching for hence brings me into a notice of intent with conservation uh it's going to going to require some uh architectural work there's an existing deck that portions thereof or perhaps even the whole thing that that's the owner's decision uh needs to be displaced and replaced with the filter um the tanks go into the front if you will and that is a limiting factor in terms of space available uh given the fact that we've got a an elevated uh concrete uh driveway SL parking area to the East and the setbacks of Wells which are shown on the plan throughout the uh sighting also left me some constraints to try to maintain 50 ft to Wells uh for the tankage and 100 feet for the proposed bottomless sand filter we have achieved that with the plan so the emphasis here was to try to get to 50 and 100 setbacks and that's been achieved but there's not a whole lot of real estate to work with to achieve that the other waivers that I'm looking for again are are associated with with property lines I point out that the the land has been surveyed by a professional land surveyor and I've accompanied his stamp on the plans as well given the setbacks that I'm about to convey the distance of the advantex to the southern property line is 3 and 1/2 ft versus 10 the setback of the bottomless sfil to the Souther Le property line is 5.4 versus 10 set back distance of the advantex to the crawl space is 8.9 ft versus 10 ft BSF to the crawl space is 5 and A2 ft versus 10 ft setb distance at the bottom of sandfield to the surface water as I said is 27 versus 50 uh the other points that I have here for local waivers is the C analysis was performed uh per D guidance a requirement for generally speaking for the design of a bottl of sand filter and lastly the requirement of the separation distance of the in and Outlet teas of the tank and the advantx to the water table and reduced to 1.4 in of proximately versus the 12 they're looking for so I was able to achieve at least one but again I've got a inch to spare that's it good no not now I have anything that's pretty thorough and I reviewed these a few times and I everything's looks good I don't have comments so if you want I was just looking at the well is not on their property is it corre yes it is it well it's it's a standalone well but it's not located on the property okay that's is correct I don't have any questions you want to you want me to do it you want do it I'll do I'll try I think I okay I think you'll succeed all right um so I move that we approve the plans for 155 Plymouth Boulevard owned by pre frers real realy prus pharus realy the second estate freris okay uh dated 11 2824 um with um the variances as stated in the plan but I'll just basically um uh summarize distance from the system uh to the South property line at 3.5 ft um versus 10 required distance between the bottomless sand filter to um the South uh property line 5.4 in excuse me feet versus 10 ft um distance between the system and the crawl space 8.9 ft versus 10 ft required distance between the bottomless sand filter to the crawl space 5.5 ft um versus 10 required distance from the bottomless sand filter to the surface water um now this plus or minus 27 ft um where 50 is required and Civ analysis and separation of the inlet and Outlet Tas 1.4 in versus 12 in required with the following conditions a three-bedroom deed restriction hold harmless agreement a concom review and two years of total nitrogen testing is there anything else that seems right to me so I will second that motion all in favor I I all right thank you sir happy Holidays happy holidays than to you be happy New Year before you see us again I see you just after the new year yeah all right thanks guys thanks we go yeah I don't think he's expecting any of bus yeah so you could probably move them up if you wanted to yeah sure all right so when don't we um convene U the hearing for 1636 uh drift Road 1336 W drift Road afternoon good afternoon okay I'm here for Diane mour 1636 brother dri road which is a small cottage on the river she owned the propert Ross the street originally bought a cottage and put a good size house on that prop upgraded The seate Bu the whole thing she sold that house and she still owns the cottage but the cottage that she owns on the Riverside is tied into the well on the opposite side so she wants to drill her own well I did a plan and I showed that the well is 100 ft away from all SE systems I did the three plans three properties all around her and I showed that on the skips that I MaDee I 100 ft away her own septic system is about 88 ft away uh the well as I'm as I drew it located it it's about 55 ft to the back side of the house and it's a it's a backwards l so there's a big deck in the back maybe 16 ft out along with that L portion so the system would have to go approximately probably 75 ft away from the uh the well I got to be careful of the river so I don't think I get 100 either way but I do know the well would be 100 ft away from all systems around it and probably around 75 ft I think from the post system to this property there there's no PL on but I I checked there's nothing did looks like on here you have it's um the new well will be 88 ft from the leech field from the existing leech field but I'm I'm considering that if it had to be replaced you might end up being 75 so you're over 50 ft less than 100 I can't get 100 ft I'll be too close to the River's Edge less than 50 ft well she needs to get off that well that's on the house that she sold uh another sh well I guess that was a condition of her sale so um I've talked to you know Matt about this and I and I think that um the path that the path that you end up taking or that comes out of the the discussion kind of depends upon the the sequence of it because if you had kind of made the determination that you would want to upgrade the system then I think the path that you've indicated of getting a local you know upgrade waiver would be the pathway to do it right but if you first start with the well then you're in the well permitting pathway and um the way that I see it is because the title five says you can't put a well with you know construct or install a new well within 100 fet of an existing system that you would then need to go with a the a full variance route well I think that's what I'm asking for okay just trying to be up for and honest with you say the Lu field isn't I I can't say it's failed right been there years 100t of field right that's the VAR than I'm asking for yeah yeah okay you put them a lot closer than that right I know replacement well yeah well and and so um I think what we were thinking that so um so this is by way of It kind of advice in the sense of I think what I would want to see if you had forly made the variance application would be to have a um Title Five inspection so that we would know what you know whether or not it was a failed system for example because you've kind of got the the standard of you know meeting the equivalent Environmental Protection so I think um you know so that would be a first step and then uh you know and I don't know whether the well is upgraded or downgraded but any of that information as to okay so that's a good thing yeah so then you know putting that together in in your application you know with a um you know with a uh uh way I the way I figured it and I think you would I think you we'd be favorably disposed to that because I think it's you know better to have the well on the site and have a shared well exactly yeah so I agree I I think I agree with that but just kind of if you're going to if you're going to do a Title Five upgrade the proposed well would be part of that variance procedure right you going to drill the well and see what the water quality is we are down next to the there are several Wells around it yeah but make sure that you got a good water supply that the nitrates are low the color form is not present so why can't you just drill the well first make sure you got good quality and then go about the business of repairing the subject I think that's I think that's an okay way to do it but just almost like from a purely administrative part of it it's like I'm going to apply for a well permit or I'm going to provide for a septic system permit and then when you go with the well permit route which I'm not disputing your logic then you're there's just different criteria that and you know a different um set of Standards you have to look at and I think the most important thing would be to have a maybe in both cases you know to have a a Title 5 inspection oh condition the well permit drill the well and just request a Title Five inspection to be done yeah well yeah I yeah I mean you right I agree I mean you could I mean along with the application for the permit then you could also request um a variance to install it and I think what we're saying is that um uh that that should and if you ACC company that right with with a Title 5 inspection um you know would seem to be better than us approving trying to get it approved and as a condition of approval of doing a Title 5 because then we won't know what the condition is before we approve it I mean you know so because then if you that's what I think because anyway um I'm just saying that if you let the world be drilled and condition upon a title F inspection being done I de want to pass right it's just it's just all three listen to this time well I guess what we could do and I haven't you know I mean you have to see the time and um you know uh ananya's not here also but so if we did it that way we would have to condition the permit on having a that is the well drilling permit to condition upon having a Title 5 inspection that did not that establish that the well was not that the um system was not in Failure right let's assume that that you know because otherwise it's not just doing this inspection it's like what's the results of the inspection let's just assume that the system's going to fail okay okay and then it's going to be upgraded but in the meantime she need she's got if the system fails and it's not a public health threat there's no one even living in the house so she's got two years to upgrade that septic system but at least she can get off that other well and begin the procedure that's your choice right that's your choice but I can't put the well any other place than where I put it no I I hear what you're saying I hear what you're saying youve seen the plan right yeah okay yeah I mean um I should well I I don't I mean I have something more to say but I would you know no I I'm agreeing with you okay I think that what you um I mean I do understand kind of the Practical logic of what you're saying I think that um but in order so you know Title 5 the provision says it's a violation of Title 5 to put a a septic system put a new well within 100 ft and the way to get around that or to address that is through the variance so the it's the last point I think in uh is that and then the variance says in order to get a variance you have to you have to demonstrate equivalent Environmental Protection and I think what we're reaching for is the way that you would um meet that standard is to um is to come back with an inspection that shows that the system hasn't failed if not then what you're asking the board to do is approve the installation of the well even though there's a failed system there and um I have just trouble reconciling that outcome with what the variant standard is because you're not getting equivalent Environmental Protection you know by by doing that and you won't know for I mean the problem is you really won't know for a while whether this newly drilled well is you know drawing I mean how would you make the health determination because you've got a brand new well it's not like you can test the well which happens in other situations where you can know okay you know um you know the well was less than the existing well was less than 100 ft and guess what your water quality is fine here we don't we don't know so it seems just say it seems like the choice could be avoid you know go ahead and just let's just upgrade the system exactly I know what you're trying to get yeah I'm not I'm not I'm not pushing you that way I'm not I'm not pushing you that way doesn't say that you have to put a well 100 ft away from the system under grandfather lot conditions we put Wells closer than 100 feet many many times yeah shallow well the shallow well goes dry gets polluted oh we're going to throw a Aran well right here and it gets done it's been done for years look at Small's Village well I'm I I'm saying this I I'm I think it's I think that there is a difference between uh I think there's a difference between replacing a well in which I think that you would I think what we would say or what I would say if was in that situation you know um we need to do uh you know test the well and show us what it is and then we'd say okay well sure you can put a well next to that because well here you don't have that you know what I mean I got to start somewhere well no so and all I'm saying is a place to start is to is to do a uh you know is to get a title 5 inspection if you really think that the system has failed then well I shouldn't say that but my best guess but I can't I you got to give my client the the uh ability or the right to do an examination I'm not going to do it you're a TFI inspector even though I am one right right no exactly you would yeah yeah I mean because I understand you know what I mean because then you know I mean you get you know then someone come and say well yeah I want to you know I want to I want to put the well 50 ft from this from you know from the existing system and you know you said and and the oh yeah yeah exactly you don't know you know it's in the back yeah you know yeah exactly it's a non-conforming system my location to the back of the house at 55 ft so I know the system is going to be more than that I assume because of the location of the river I'd have to be probably 75 ft even though I'm about 88 ft now yeah so what I would like you to do is to Board of Health write a letter to Diane law the owner okay okay and tell her that you like a Title Five inspection before approving the well okay and if it comes back in failure she has the right to she's got two years to upgrade it and then she can decide what she wants to do question sooner or later okay all right but I can't speak for her she's not even around I mean she's okay Annie how big is this slot huh how big is the lot in training it's not very big they put it on the plan I don't I don't think so I don't think so I mean the other thing about the plan and why we thought the inspection made sense is that you don't you don't show where and it's not a criticism but it doesn't show where the septic tank is I I don't know what I know that's another reason it's not where the Well's going yeah I I you know and so and so the the way that the well you know the the the uh prohibition against citing the well doesn't uh you know doesn't say only the 100 ft it says the tank it says it has to be both you know it has to be done in compliance so that's the other thing that would get out of it so but the house to the ri from the well Stak to the house is 35 ft the house is 20 ft at on on the North side the width so that's 55 ft and the system's behind that so I know that the system if there's a tank there it's it's beyond 50 ft okay well that okay so not where where I'm okay I'm talking to her caretaker okay who's been working on the properties for a long time okay so I guess so what you're asking is that we would uh send a letter to the effect of um you know that you know we understand that you are seeking to uh put a new well in on the property prior to us um considering an application for that we want you to get a title 5 inspection of the property um to determine what the status of what the status of the existing septic system is and then if if it does fail give you the two years to update it up update it to install it so will the board what say um well then well let's let's that's I I I wouldn't I wouldn't agree to put that in the letter let's see what the let's see what the inspection says and then and then figure it out because um uh because it still goes back to if it is a failed system then you would be coming in and saying or if I understand you let me syn the well now and then she would have two years in order to upgrade the system and um I I'm I don't want to necessarily say I agree to that have to think about she's not asking for it I'm just trying to be reasonable and give her options I'm sure she wants to do it she's she's not right right I mean if it's failed then the easiest way to do it right would be to go through a local upgrade approval then you don't have I mean the regulation right gives you the gives you approval know to do it and then we could say you know do two years or well test 18 months so give me two years too bus you're never going to be able to retire no okay if you could send that letter to her I will talk to okay the gentleman who I've been dealing with I know Diane I did the whole Pro thing across the street for her yeah and then he can give give her that information and then you send her a letter that way she gets a direct the bo okay I don't are you okay with that now I'm fine I just because of the schedules this week I probably wouldn't be able to get to that till Monday well that's all right yeah talk to her I just want the bo to Sor directly so it's not something I'm Dreaming up okay all right cuz I got plenty to do I don't I agree okay okay all right very good all right thank all right thank you thanks man have a merry Christmas you too and a happy New Year much Happy New Year no it's okay oh look at that good timing maybe you're out there anyway okay all right so now we are ready to consider um the proposal for one uh9 drift Road uh um to um resolve uh the location of the um the septic system for uh uh an upgrade I hope this is a very simple thing basically this is the design plan it was a repair for 1009 oh Sean Le North East Engineers uh a design plan for 2009 which met all the requirements for repair including adequate leing fuel bu with an IAB field what had happened essentially was uh when the installer put it in he put it about a foot too close to the neighbors's well uh for whatever reason I'm not sure why and everything everything else is fine uh I think part of the reason is I think he was looking at the on-site well which is more than 100 ft away than he was the actual well itself uh the well next door which is closer uh so uh we approached the neighbor with William gner uh he has signed off on a the fact that it's 99 ft and he has requested and sent to not having to have as well tested even unless can usually a condition for a leaking field that's too too close less than 100t to a well um you know it's a matter of semantics I think I think 199 ft makes a huge difference but we need to have a request for certificate of compliance to meet the 99 foot to the existing well for the abutter long and short okay so um I think that um given the uh relatively short distance um you know or the difference between compliance and non-compliance and I think what would be involved um cost wise and disruption wise to actually you know trying to move this a a foot I'm inclined um to allow um this this kind of like a case in first for me first impression I never had one where someone was asking but I'm just saying so I'm you know so we have to kind of figure out what to do and so yeah and so uh uh and the uh and so uh I think the pieces of this that we would want and I talked to Matt about it you know is hold harmless agreement for you know from the applicant I also would like to get it from the abutter if that's possible um I think it is okay I I don't think it's a problem I've discussed it with him they've already signed a whole harmless and a deed restriction for the property okay uh and they're ready to record it subject to this vote tonight okay right and a and a and a and a three-bedroom right the three-bedroom deed restriction and um and I think doing that conditioned on the approval of doing that um getting conditioned on um a uh uh a certificate of compliance being filed by the engineer and and I think we would then treat it as a local upgrade approval right I mean but not yeah okay uh guess technically it's in the it's in within the sand of the overdick that's what the problem is here and you know unfortunately it is what it is and the facts are the facts so uh we're not trying to hide anything but it is what it is okay and then okay so um so generally you're you're okay with that now okay so yeah I I had wanted a hold harmless as well yeah yeah well so we'll do it as we would as if it was so well I would say you know I want to um I guess we I guess what we're really doing here is approving a um I think it's a variance for post install yeah but right right you know I mean you so it's not actually the I guess we're moving to approve the plan uh uh the certificate of compliance for um the uh for the property at 109 drift Road um owned by um Ivon and Emily wble um the plan the the the the draft COC so to speak is undated um and it would be if we I mean this is the actual as what was built I mean elevation wise it's all in compliance and everything's it's just this one dimensional and uh and uh and so we would approve it under our local upgrade approval uh authority to reduce the setback of the sight well from 100 ft to 99 ft from uh right from 99 ft um with um a hold harmless agreement um from both the um owner and the abutter uh at U 10 1017 drift Road uh are we then going to look for three years of well testing which is normally what we would do or not for the the who doesn't want us well tested yeah so so we decided not to do we couldn't compel that that's why we're getting the H Harless so we won't do that and also this is conditioned the approv his condition upon obtaining a uh a certificate of compliance um issued in conformance with Title Five did you just make that motion I just made that motion okay and I second that did you get that bom just the oh so we wanted to have the condition upon the submission of a certificate of compliance executed in accordance with title five so we would pass in the as Bill plan and sign the certificate of compliance based on the variance you just gave for yeah okay okay and uh right with the hold harmless and the and okay so um so uh motion's been made seconded all in favor I I all right I if a chance I have a question yes oh yes I heard you were going to have a question uh so uh a month ago we you approved a uh shared system for 2038 2040 Main Road and when we're looking at the financial mechanism right we're looking at right I brought up a suggestion to Nancy that maybe there should be options in place already so that it'd be easier for you to approve the financial mechanism rather than you know somebody suggesting something you looking into whether this is adequate or that type of thing you know yeah it really really doesn't matter you know to the applicant it's just a matter of their attorney saying what would you like to see right right uh mean typically uh a lot of the shared systems are usually multiple people shared systems or multiple owners in this case it's two properties uh with a common ownership or a common thought process and the question would be what would you like to see yeah we've got the documents all ready to go for the easement and uh hold harmless and everything else we're just looking to see what do you need for a financial mechanism that's required as part of the E okay so um uh We've when at least when I went back and looked at it and looked at the definition of owner and um and facility definition and then what you know the shared system it seemed to be saying to me you know that um a facility is um you know you know is you know the land and all the buildings upon it owned by a single owner and that owner is defined in terms uh you know includes a trust and what I understand it is that each of these are owned by separate trust but the trustees is is the same for both which was then leading me to think that this wasn't um that we could treat this not as a shared system but you know as a system serving a single facility in a sense um I mean it has to be a budding property so you have two properties side by side trustees are the same and that a single system is serving both properties but um almost as if you remove the property line per se you know that you know that you would treat it as a single system because it's owned by the same people and so if we wanted to go down that path then I think the first step would be to submit the trust documents and so that we can look at that and see um you know as a way of kind of confirming yes we don't we don't have a problem as as a shared system which kind of cleans it up okay we don't have a because rather than get semantics and all I it's easier we looked at it as uh it's easier to say it's a shared system because at some point it may be a shed system they may sell one of the properties or change hands or whatever okay the issue would be what do we do for finance so when we looked at that issue before in the context of a larger development um we um it was a a combination of um a set aside for the regular operation and maintenance um and then um also putting a um what's the right word like a uh an anticipation of of replacing uh significant components of the system and um and then trying to do uh forgetting the you know kind of you know the terminology like where you kind of um you know you mathematically like go back in time and you say okay well this you know if it's going to be if we assumed a a life expectancy of I don't know 20 years or something 25 years then you'd kind of go back and say okay well in order to reach that amount you know you build in some inflation factor and okay they have to contribute you know every year into this kind of thing so um we could share with you you know what we put together in this other context and just take a look at that because I was thinking because usually when you talk share systems like it's larger facility or larger amount or anything this in this case because I was thinking you could do both and this just a suggestion you know a financial part of but also a recorded part of it similar to what the uh planning board requires for a common driveway whether it's an association you this whoever owns 20 38 is part of the association the association are required to kick in x amount of dollars per year exactly regard and then and then it's on the deed and then the person right that's how right that's how you do it the question is what's the dollar amount and so that's what you have to C you know so that's what we you know so that's you know what we came up with um and uh and you know but who administers I mean you know at the end of the day 10 years from now when none of us well yeah yeah well it's um well I think this is where part of the financial Assurance not you know would it would be you know on the like in this was call it a Condominium Association and it had a like a Board of Trustees and it was their responsibility and the documents setting this up put the responsibility on on them to you know kind of set it aside and collect you know collect that money and put it into an you know uh you know a dedicated account that would you know accumulate I mean probably I don't expect like this is is this just having a standard Title Five system no it's got a deification okay you know so I don't know it you know it might be that you would say okay I'm going to put in you know five years of on andm and every third year I'm going to bring it up to five years so that um that's typical what the planning board does for their homeowners association they do you know okay we we knew could the X amount that's the first five years you're probably not going to have a problem and then that's after that things start yeah my question is it sounds like a legal issue not a board of health issue well we're supposed to approve what it is I think part of our involvement is from the technical point of view what it what activities would we want um you know you know Financial Assurance for and then putting a price tag on that so that'd be like a Board of Health thing and then it would similarly from a cost point of view it would be okay what happens if you had to replace the dite system 20 years from now right and then you would say okay well you know what would this cost 20 years from now you building some you so we ended up having to do that I don't know who else does it but I think Title 5 says we're supposed to do it okay come up with the number your responsibility is to assure there a financial mechanism right and and and I'm not sure you know the DP kind of like okay it's your problem and and basically you can call for whatever you want and there's some forms I think that there's there's a bunch of forms in there's there's a special forms that are attached to Title 5 so um I do remember that we had to um that was an issue for a large development right where it was a shared system and that was and I know that we did talk about and you worked on that um but I didn't know for in this circumstance where it was two properties yeah you have two properties own by the same person yeah the same trust but different trust thing and same weird we felt that we could just as sh system that way simplif because someday down the road it may be two different on right and so I think that that is the I mean I think that's why it's worth investing some time in it because we wouldn't necessarily be tracking that if a transfer you know if a transfer came up um you know need a document to be recorded yeah you know as part of the uh Grant of easement right a homeowner association or whatever you what actic system Association whatever you want to call it that says you are responsible for a you know operation maintenance replacement you know basically what it says in eement all all the check all the boxes you know for this regardless of Vault claims or anything else someone one the other because the question you have you always have the problem is okay if you do have two separate properties and one guy says I'm not chicken in that's his fault only there two weeks of the year I'm only there you why would I why would I have to do it you know yeah you know yeah I mean I think I think it's really designed you know from the public health you know point of view that if you know the system failed and someone you know and one of the contributors says I don't want to I don't want to pay in or I can't pay in I don't have the money you know to replace the system then you know you're creating like this public health problem because it's like okay well you have to vacate the house you know you don't you don't have a working septic system so this is kind of saying the money is there the board can just access that money and say okay if you don't want to you know if you don't want to do it then we're going to make sure that everyone has a pop to piss it well well that's I mean if you do home ESP with a bond and Tak care of the problem and it also notifies any future owner that you're 50% on the hook for whatever at least 50% for whatever happen or up to 100% for that matter right right yeah no I mean it's in septic system concept but it you know it's just like what condos do for the roof yeah exactly you know it's that kind of thing but usually they just have insurance policies you know you know that kind of stuff it's easier for condos because they have condo documents that state are right right who's responsible right for this kind of stuff okay so um so if you want to go that route I guess you know that we can do it in just saying you know that it doesn't sound like uh you know we're going to like kind of get to this you know like in the first couple of weeks of the new year right we'll start to you know start to they just concern because start to deal with it I mean I think I think it would be helpful to you know start just putting the numbers together and and uh uh you know for us to you know to look at it like here's the uh you know the onm cost and you know then here's the uh you know I guess it's mostly you know for the replacement of the denitrification system and then I don't know to what extent you know there's not a lot of huge Plumbing in this you know it's not like no it's usually uh the onm is easy part that's fix that's kind of a fixed cost it's like who knows what's going to go wrong you mean pump goes wrong here right right right yeah yeah and then exactly yeah so and I you know don't know if there's anyway so I think that would be a place to start we we can go back and look at what we did in that other case and um you know provide you some guidance too based on that yeah because they're just trying to kind of wrap it all up basically they're not looking for an occupy fromit anytime in the near future but I just didn't want to wait till two weeks before the ocupy like okay here I am what do we got right right okay okay all right great thanks good Christmas everyone and all yes you okay so um any more business no more business hey being there no more business I move that we adjourn this meeting at 5:116 p.m. second all in favor I I thank you