|
NEW BUSINESS |
1. |
Sign Warrants. |
|
Warrants signed. |
|
|
2. |
Approve minutes of October 28th, 2004 |
|
Mr. Santos made a motion to approve the minutes with the necessary corrections. Ms. Grady seconded the motion. Motion passed. |
|
|
|
APPOINTMENT: Deer Crossing – Septic & Food Permits |
|
Ms. Grady announced the next agenda item. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball questioned the fact that the usual representatives for Deer Crossing and others were not present. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that he was under the impression that Mr. McGrath was going to be here. He was unsure about the other. |
|
|
|
Mr. Santos suggested that they give them until 7:30 PM. |
|
|
3. |
Title V variance Request: Cape & Islands Engineering, 130 Summersea Road |
|
Mr. Ball asked if this was a brand new application. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that he was under the impression that there was an existing home on this property that was going to be razed. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball thought that he had seen something like this before. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that they had a previous septic permit for three-bedrooms. That was why they had allowed the three-bedrooms. That was done in 1994. Even they were at the top of the coastal bank within those distances the board’s regulation did not kick in for that. They had gotten into one of these before. They were providing the denitrification system. They were staying at three-bedrooms. The plan did have an H20 cover for the septic tank because it was within ten feet of the driveway. There was no waterline shown. So they would have to show the waterline with some protection if it was within 10’ of the septic system. They would have to show the drywells that
were there for roof run-off. There was one comment to move them 25’ from the leaching so that there was no interference. There would be a general approval for the FAST system with total nitrogen testing quarterly for two years required and an operation and maintenance agreement. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden asked him if he was referring to the blower. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that it would be from the leaching. It was 10 scale not 20 scale. He pointed out the circles on the plans that showed subsurface drywells. They would be treated like a leaching catch basin and the setback was 25’. The other comment that he had on those would be to move them further down. This was only 16’ to the primary. He just wanted them to be moved down to get further away or use common drywells. Just run the roof drainage into one in the middle. That way they would only need to drywells. They had some other variances to the cellar wall. They were going to provide a 40-mil waterproof member to be installed along the entire front foundation
wall. That would be fine. They were already right at the property line. They had to find out where the water main was too. Those were his recommendations. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady asked if there were any other comments. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball made a motion to approve the letter from Cape & Islands dated January 19th, 2005, with the necessary revisions. The condition of the approval included the general approval for the FAST system with total nitrogen testing quarterly for two years and an operation and maintenance agreement. Mr. Santos seconded the motion. Motion approved. |
|
|
5. |
Title V Variance Requested: Cape & Islands Engineering, 11 Sheffield Place |
|
Mr. Harrington stated that his only comment on this one was that typically in conditions like this the board required a denitrification only if the reserve area was used as proposed in its proposed location. They had the distances to all of the other wells. They had 150’ from their own well and from the abutters’ wells except for the reserve area. Mr. Marsters owned the lot next door so there was no notification requirement because they were within five feet of the property line. You could not notify yourself as an abutter. |
|
|
|
Mr. Santos understood that the developer owned all of these abutting lots. Was there something in place that the owner of lot 7 would be notified that SAS was within that property line or was that even worth doing? |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady stated that it would be after the fact. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington agreed and added that typically the next engineer that came along to design the system for lot 7 would see that the system was within five feet and that they could not be within 10’ of that system. |
|
Mr. Santos was concerned about the property owners. Was there town water out there? |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that it was all well water. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden did not understand why they did not bring town water down into that subdivision. They had that old subdivision in the front and Mr. Marster’s in the rear. They must have voted no to bring in town water. |
|
|
|
Mr. Santos stated that if there were wells in the area they would be treated as Zone II. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden stated that they were grandfathered. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that this was not grandfathered. This was one of the lots that they got the nitrogen aggregation plan for. Correct? |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady thought that that was correct. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden stated that she had done a tremendous amount of lots right before the transition period. She just assumed that this was one of them. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that this was one of the properties that he just aggregated. |
|
|
|
Mr. Santos re-iterated that this was going to be put on to this deed. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that that was correct. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that his nitrogen loading calculations were supposed to be on the plan. He could have them resubmit a revised plan showing the nitrogen calculations for the aggregation plan. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden stated that they did not receive any revised plans in response to her deficiency memo to Cape & Islands. |
|
|
|
Ms. Garron stated all she was in receipt of from Cape & Islands was that letter and the plans. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden stated that she faxed this over yesterday. |
|
|
|
Ms. Garron stated that it was February 2nd, 2005, yesterday and she received the plans with the letter. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden stated that the house numbers were wrong. |
|
|
|
(Further discussion ensued regarding what they did or did not receive from Cape & Islands in regards to plans and wells.) |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden recommended that they continue this until they had the revised plans. |
|
|
|
Mr. Santos made a motion to continue this agenda item until revised plans were received. Ms. Grady seconded the motion. Motion passed. |
|
|
|
APPOINTMENT: Deer Crossing – Septic & Food Permits |
|
Ms. Grady began by thanking Mr. Dalton for sending the information to them. It was very much appreciated. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated that they had a whole plan here and the other party was not here. He was going to suggest to the board that they move on and look at each building as they came in front of them. What he was still unclear about, which was a motion that they could re-consider, was that they has asked Mr. Brady and associates to get under the 10,000 GPD. They did not individually approve separate building flows. He would like that they suggest to the board that they start with Building A and approve each building’s design flow. How did they want to approach that issue. The design flows would be over 10,000 GPD. But, the actual flows would be kept under 10,000. That was where
he was trying to go with this. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden stated that the discussion with the other party, who was not present tonight, was the fact that those systems were found to be failed it was going to be more related to that this evening than anything else. |
|
|
|
Mr. Dalton stated that it was more of handling the failed system issues. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball was going to try to negotiate with that factor involved. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that it was going to be more difficult for them to come in to full compliance through Title V. For one they did not have the land. Once they request a variance the board had the option to take some other and set some other conditions. That was one thing that they needed to discuss with them tonight. |
|
|
|
Ms. Garron stated that there was no one upstairs. She checked the conservation meeting to make sure they were not in the wrong place. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that Mr. McGrath told him that he was going to try to write that letter and get here. |
|
|
|
Mr. Dalton asked if they anticipated that they would request a continuance. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball felt that they had been at this too long. He felt that they should address it tonight. |
|
Mr. Santos felt that going ahead with this was premature. They would go ahead and make a decision. They would be coming back at them at the next meeting and rehash the whole thing all over again anyways. He felt that it was pretty clear. His opinion of the whole matter was that once the building was in failure they would have to follow Title V regulations. They could not ignore that they were in failure. He thought that whatever it was in 1995 should be the current flows. The seat numbers were acceptable. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady agreed but the only thing that was in existence in 1995 was Michelle’s and the barbershop. |
|
|
|
Mr. Santos stated that when they were going through the numbers Mr. Richardi didn’t have a problem with the process of giving up a couple of seats. The numbers that were being discussed kept the flow under 10,000 GPD. It was somewhat less than it was now. But, he was in agreement that that would work and everything else. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball interjected that in 1995 those flows were not at 6000 GPD. |
|
|
|
Mr. Dalton stated that they couldn’t use the 1995 flows. But, they agreed that those seats were acceptable. Carbo’s wasn’t even there in 1995. |
|
|
|
(The tape stops and when it resumes the conversation starts up again as follows.) |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady stated that they were going on GPD. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that they were going on the entire property in an effort to stay below 10,000 GPD. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady was under the impression that what they had worked out still came in under the 10,000 GPD. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that that was correct. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated that they tried to get it down as much as they could. He felt that they would have to continue the discussion. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady didn’t feel that that wasn’t right. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball asked her how she wanted to address it then. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady did not think it was right that they did not show up and they had to continue it because they couldn’t have any discussions. |
|
|
|
Mr. Santos said that he would make a motion to continue this agenda item to the next meeting. At that time they would be put on notice that a final decision was going to be made. They would be putting this to bed. If they did not show up, they would make a decision as to what was best for Title V and for the board. It would be a done deal. He didn’t think it was fair to everybody involved. |
|
|
|
Mr. Brocado stated that they had mentioned a little earlier that they did not have the property to put in a regulation Title V system for all of the buildings. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that that would require some variances to either request a reduction in the size of the leaching facility or request Mr. McGrath…Once you were over 2000 GPD it requires a pressure distribution system. That was no longer gravity a pump was involved, which filled the pipes and the leaching facility. Again there was a cost added with that process. But, he didn’t have the land actually to even provide that size of a system. Even at the old Title V flows if Building D were built out he didn’t have the land for it. |
|
|
|
Mr. Brocado asked what the alternative was then. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington replied that he would have to request some variances. The board would be in the driver’s seat as far as what conditions they could put on it. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated that it might come to that soon. |
|
|
|
Mr. Brocado asked what kind of variances could he request. Would it be reducing the size of the pits or reducing the size of the land area mass that was required to put it in? |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that he would have to reduce the amount of leaching that was necessary to do it. It was kind of a sticky situation where you had the Title V flow 1600 GPD. But, the actual usage of the building was above that. They could use the remedial situation. It wasn’t remedial because they were already over what they had and it was no longer a true remedy. If it was under a remedial situation you could ask for a certain variance. Also, where an innovative/alternative system was being proposed you could actually provide 50% of the required leaching because you start getting credit back. But, the technology that he had chosen did not have any remedial approvals.
Again, that was going to be something that he would have to talk to the DEP about and say, “Look I am putting in this $50,000.00 are you going to give me any credit for it. Right now they weren’t giving them any credit for it as far as being a remedial situation. It merely met their requirement. That was his decision to make. All the other technologies out there had a remedial approval where he could either have a drop to groundwater or he could reduce the…by 40 or 50%, which was huge as far as tearing up asphalt. There were other things out there for him use. The pressure distribution on the systems that were over 2000 GPD. He could ask for a variance not to do that. I would have to be approved by the board and the DEP. The other bacterial augmentation that Mr. McGrath had was another technology and another company that he had started to reconstitute failed leach pits. The board would have to approve that. As far as he knew right now he didn’t have any
approval to use that. It was a new technology that Mr. McGrath had started. He said that it had been tested and it worked. It took some time to work. But, again, the board would have to approve it and the DEP would have to approve it. The board had some leeway as to what they would allow. The board could say no and do it straight Title V. If those numbers start going up, he would start looking for ways to get out of it. That was what they needed him for was to let him know. Mr. McGrath would really be key because as the engineer he would be able to throw some proposed numbers out as far as providing a full compliant Title V system versus a system with variances. Mr. McGrath also had a feel for what the DEP would allow. That was why at the prior meeting suggested that they meet with the DEP. He didn’t think they were quite ready to do that yet. They didn’t even have their numbers straight as far as what they were going to have in the buildings yet. They did not know what
they were designing for. |
|
|
|
Mr. Dalton re-visited the hope of wrapping it up in two weeks. Did they need to send a letter to them instructing them to revise the plans to meet the board’s criteria for the actual uses in the buildings? They could make the other revisions so that they would have something to approve in two weeks. It might speed the process along. It was just a suggestion. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball asked Mr. Brocado if he was aware that the board was in receipt of a letter from Mr. Hajjar requesting the removal of the fourth seat in his barbershop. |
|
|
|
Mr. Brocado responded that he was not aware of this letter. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball revisited the 1600 GPD for Building D move by Mr. Hajjar and that was done by letter. Their attorney just sent the board another letter. He just read it. He didn’t know where it was. They were requesting that he stay at the three seats and not the four seats. |
|
|
|
Mr. Brocado stated that this could be done even though he had permission from the last board of health agent to have the fourth seat. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball asked if this was verbal or written permission. |
|
|
|
Mr. Brocado said that it was verbal same as the original three. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated that he researched his file and the only place he found it in writing it was three seats. He could not find in writing a fourth seat anywhere else. |
|
|
|
Mr. Brocado stated that the original three seats were a verbal communication as well. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball understood what he was saying. But, he found it in writing for the three seats. If this went to court a verbal authorization would not count. The way he re-did the calculations on this the four seats were still in there. He wanted to make this into a little workshop if that was okay? |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady asked if they needed the association’s approval for what’s in…you know how the association had in the past approved so many seats. They didn’t have any problem with the number of seats in Michael’s (Giovanni’s). They could say that now they had sent them a notice saying the association did not approve of the fourth seat. They only approved the three seats for them. |
|
|
|
Mr. Dalton suggested that the question would be whether the fourth seat installed with the prior associations approval. |
|
|
|
Mr. Brocado stated that it was approved by the prior association’s approval. |
|
|
|
Mr. Dalton stated that the current association was trying to reconsider everything and change all of the different uses. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that the board had no record of the prior association’s approval for the fourth seat. |
|
|
|
Mr. Brocado stated that Mr. McQuaid had approved the fourth seat back in 1991. It had been the owner of Deer Crossing at the time, which was Cappazolli. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball asked if he could get that in writing for the board. |
|
|
|
Mr. Brocado stated that if he could dig Mr. McQuaid up he would. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady interrupted Mr. Brocado and stated that they were not talking about the board of health. |
|
|
|
Mr. Brocado stated that Mr. Cappazolli would be more than happy to. He was the one who did it. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated that the board was going to need that information. |
|
|
|
Mr. Brocado stated that his shop went from 340 square feet to 680 square feet to accommodate it. He also pulled a permit for a fifth chair under Charbonneau’s reign. So… |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball re-iterated that what he was trying to say was that they needed as much as they could in writing. |
|
|
|
Mr. Brocado understood his position. But, everything he every received even from the day he opened his shop in February 7th, 1989, was verbal communication from Elias McQuaid. He never had anything in writing from him. |
|
Ms. Grady interjected and stated that they didn’t his stuff from the board. They could change from three to four. But, they needed to know that the association did approve it in the first place. |
|
|
|
Mr. Brocado stated again that there was nothing. |
|
|
|
Mr. Dalton attempted to explain to Mr. Brocado that this not a board issue. This was an association issue. If he could get a letter from the association saying that they had approved it in the past and provide that to the board. The board could act based on this information. |
|
|
|
Mr. Brocado finally stated that he had to go back to Capazolli and get a letter from him. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady stated that that was correct. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated to Mr. Dalton that he had redone the figures again. It was not cast in stone. He just wanted to run it by them. He was going to start with Michelle’s at 65-seats, barbershop at 4-seats, Carbo’s at 70-seats, beauty salon at 5-seats and Michael’s (Giovanni’s) at 56-seats. He dropped Subway to 6-seats and the bagel shop to 6-seats. He came up with a total of 9790 GPD. He was also putting in reserve 200 GPD, which came to a total of 9990 GPD. The 200 GPD would go back but not at this time. |
|
|
|
Mr. Dalton asked when it would go back. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated that it would not go back to Building C. He had to take it off of the seats from three places. The way he did it was to take the last three people in the permitting process. He didn’t want to take all of the seats and say Subway you have no seats. He wanted to kind of cut that back. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady stated that Giovanni’s was 56-seats. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball agreed that Giovanni’s was 56-seats. |
|
|
|
The representative from Carbo’s asked what they were currently licensed for in seating. |
|
|
|
Mr. Dalton stated that they were permitted for 77-seats. |
|
|
|
The representative re-iterated that it was 77-seats and it was going to 56-seats. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated that that was correct. But, there was no way they could get up to 77-seats unless the Subway and the bagel shop go. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington added that it would still not gain them very much. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball agreed and added that they would only be talking 400 GPD. The lounge regulation did help them. That was how they did it. |
|
|
|
The Carbo’s representative stated that Giovanni’s was going to have 56-seats for the dining room and in addition… |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady stated that it would 45 for the dining room and 11 for the lounge. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated that that was the best they could get now. The 200 GPD would go back to those three places. They would see how it would work out. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady stated that he couldn’t make that promise. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball agreed. They couldn’t make that promise. |
|
|
|
Mr. Brocado had another question in regards to the protection of the business owners. When the board did decide to implement the rules regarding what septic he would put in and everything else. Could they require him to do it within a specific amount of time and not in the middle of summertime? He was worried about him tearing up the parking lot and leave it that way for 90-days. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady stated that they would impose a timeline on the process. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated that they were not even going to take them into consideration because of the hardship it would put on them. This was the way they were going to present it to him. Don’t believe that but that was the way they were going to present it to him. It would put a hardship on him if they made him do it in the mid-summer. He thought that that was just another bartering point. |
|
|
|
Mr. Brocado asked if he could get a copy of the letter from Mr. Hajjar’s letter to him regarding the seats in the barbershop. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that the letter was right by him when the meeting started. (He begins to search for the letter and is eventually found by Ms. Garron.) |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball made a motion to continue this agenda item until the next meeting. Mr. McGrath and Mr. Brady will be sent a certified letter requiring their presence at that meeting. Mr. Santos seconded the motion. Motion passed. |
|
|
4. |
Title V Variance Request: The Phoenix Group, 177 Uncle Percy’s Road |
|
Ms. Warden asked Mr. Grotzke to show her where the new addition was on the plans. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke pointed out the addition on the plans. He then pointed out the existing residence on the plans. They were here to discuss the number of bedrooms. They tried to resolve the issue right up front so that they knew what they were working with. They had taken it before Mr. Harrington and determined that from the history and record and people who were involved with the project including the broker that was here with them as well. It had always been four-bedrooms. Looking at the methodology of how the construction went it was always four-bedrooms. The board of health was kind enough to confirm that it was indeed a four-bedroom residence. The earlier test of the leach pit
suggests that it was a 1000-gallon septic tank. What they were then proposing to do was to increase the master bedroom to make it more functional for the clients out to the side. They were not adding any bedrooms. They were just going to extend the master bedroom to give it a more functional bathroom with more closet space and basically leaving everything else in tact. They were not going to touch the rest of the house and it’s configuration. In conjunction, they had expansion they had proposed since it was a four-bedroom septic and since the existing system was not compliant. He thought this would be a good opportunity to upgrade the system to a current Title V system. He was careful; in fact, in updating it to the Title V system…it would be closer to any of the resource area than the current system. They thought that that would be an improvement. Even though they were not increasing any bedrooms, remaining at the four-bedrooms, there were no additional
residences…He thought it would be appropriate to upgrade to the current Title V standards. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden asked where the old system was located. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke pointed out the old system. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden stated that she could not see it. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke stated that it was super-imposed on the C2 page. Overall it was a win/win situation. His clients were getting a more functional bedroom without increasing the number of bedrooms in the residence. In the course of this renovation they would put in a Title V compliant septic system, which he felt would be better than the existing pit. That was their proposal. They were hoping that the board members would agree with them. |
|
|
|
Mr. Santos asked him if he was going with a straight Title V and no denitrification system. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke stated that that was correct. They were not increasing the number of the bedrooms. |
|
|
|
Mr. Santos asked what the square footage was on the lot. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington responded that it was 26,700+ square feet. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball asked if they were comfortable with the four-bedrooms without a denitrification. |
|
|
|
Mr. Richard Gray, owner, responded that they were comfortable with that. It was a small house. It was primarily a two-bedroom house with two additional bedrooms. It made good sense at this point in time to being in good practice with them, which was very important to them. They were sailors and they appreciated the flora and fauna around here. They felt that it was very reasonable thing to do. He was a 23-year resident of Mashpee. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that the system was pretty deep right now the way they had it. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke stated that it allowed them to place it properly within the grade. It was a very steep ramp up to the house. Since distance to groundwater was not an issue he had given them the go ahead to re-design the system. The current system was also a gravity feed system so it was even deeper. It was probably a six-foot pit so it was a gravity flow from a lower level down. So this might be even higher than the last system. |
|
|
|
Mr. Gray stated that 15’ down was dry peat. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that they had not shown proposed grade for this. They were showing that existing elevation varied 21+. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke stated that it did that. If they looked at C3 they could see that in the grading with the different components in the system varied. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that he didn’t have elevations on the proposed grades that was why it was tough to see. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke stated that it was C21 and 22. |
|
|
|
Mr. Santos asked if these were revised plans. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke stated that they were not revised. |
|
|
|
Mr. Santos stated that they did not have the same date as Ms. Warden. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke asked what ones he had. |
|
|
|
Mr. Santos stated that he had an April 1st. The ones he was looking at was December 15th, 2004. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that each plan had a different date. |
|
Mr. Grotzke stated that each plan had a different because of the existing conditions didn’t change. |
|
|
|
Mr. Santos asked which one they were being asked to approve. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke stated that the existing conditions didn’t change. He was going to approve what he had before him. |
|
|
|
Mr. Santos stated that he was confused because if he was going to approve these plans he was going to have to go and approve C1 this date and it made it confusing. He would like an explanation regarding variance number 5. Why did it say reserve leaching to foundation ten-foot variance to ten foot? Shouldn’t it say that they were requiring a ten-foot variance because twenty was required? |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke agreed that it should say that. Twenty-feet was required. So they were looking for a ten-foot variance reduced from twenty to ten feet. |
|
|
|
Mr. Santos asked if it had a full cellar. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke responded that it did have a full cellar. |
|
|
|
Mr. Santos stated that they require a liner when they have a reduction from an SAS. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke stated that in all likelihood he thought that they could condition it in case for any reason that this reserve leaching was required that they would be agreeable to putting a liner on the foundation. They would, in all likelihood, and ask for an excavation in the event of a failure and a reconstruction of the leaching area. . |
|
|
|
Mr. Santos asked if he was comfortable with that. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball agreed that he was comfortable with that. |
|
|
|
Mr. Santos stated that they were asking for a variance on their active leaching as well as the reserve. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington asked what the basement floor elevation. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke stated that it was 18.5’. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that the system would be below the slab in the basement. So the requirement would actually only be 10’. It wouldn’t even be 20’ because he was below the basement slab. So there was no cellar wall to contend with so the 20’ requirement really wasn’t required. It would just be a deep system. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke stated that unless they dug out that side as well. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington asked if conservation was kosher with him doing that. That was a pretty decent amount of cutting that they were going to do because they were going from six-feet of cover down to three-feet of cover then drop that whole side of the house three-feet. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke asked him if he was referring to the right-hand side. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that he was referring to the right-hand side. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke stated that conservation had reviewed this plan and they were looking at some different issues. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington asked if one of them was the bedroom issue. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke stated that that was correct. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that he and Mr. Sherman did not always agree on that. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball asked Mr. Harrington if he was in agreement with this plan. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that he knew that every time a plan had come before them, remedial or otherwise the board had required a dentrification system for less than 100’ to the BVW. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke stated that he thought they were doing the correct thing. It was an existing four-bedroom residence with supposedly then a septic system that satisfied the requirements of a four-bedroom system. In one sense the client could have argued that since there was no increase in bedrooms that they would not need to alter the system. He thought again, as an engineer, to be technically correct to create a current four-bedroom system in this location to satisfy the requirements of a four-bedroom residence. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated that if they really wanted to go that way. According to this it was a three-bedroom. He was going on the assumption that it was a four-bedroom because the agent went down there and saw four-bedrooms. He could go down there and see six-bedrooms. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke stated that they use something for the basic calculations. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated on how many bedrooms where there. There could be eight bedrooms. They would have to come back and write eight-bedrooms. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke stated that this was before his time. This was as the house was built and not how it was inspected. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington asked if there were any floor plans submitted for the original building. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke couldn’t find any. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington noted that the Title V did say three for the original building. Typically when he went out there it was because there were no records. The argument was made that the house was built originally with four. He went out there and there was four-bedrooms. He was merely stating what was found. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated that they could go on the assumption that if there was no increase in flow it stated a four-bedroom. It was at four-bedrooms. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington had another comment. There was a four-foot hallway to get to the sitting area. It had to be six-foot wide. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke stated that it was really just a closet with a little chair and desk in there. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington asked how big the area was because it may not need…It didn’t meet the size of a bedroom definition. Back to the bedroom issue, he saw it as a four-bedroom. They could re-visit that. The board did not have to go by what he said. That was what he seen when he was there. There was an argument that it was originally four. He certainly saw no signs of renovation. Everything looked typical and original in his opinion. There was a Title V plan on record that showed it to be a three-bedroom system. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke stated that that was why he felt compelled to revise that would take advantage of this opportunity to make the system conform to the bedrooms in the house. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden stated that when Title V came into effect in 2000 and she went to many DEP meetings. The standard procedure was to go by the old Title V application. Questions were raised for incidents just like this. Their comments were that if it were an addition subsequent to the original footprint of the house then they would have to take the bedroom out. If it was built as the house was built with four bedrooms. It would be accepted. She was just quoting what Mr. Dudley said during all those meetings that they went to. If it was built originally with the house then they could count it as a four bedroom. That was why she asked Mr. Harrington before Mr. Grotzke came in if it was
an original bedroom plan. Mr. Harrington stated that it was. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated that they were proposing this addition to expand the bedroom size. It still stays a four bedroom. A bedroom is a bedroom is a bedroom. |
|
Ms. Warden added that they needed to bear in mind that the board had never granted once the dentrification units came into existence they always-required denitrification units for anything that was under 100’ to 75’. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated that after 75’ they would need the ultra-violet light. So they were going to reverse this a little. They could stay at three-bedrooms and if they wanted the fourth bedroom they would have to put a denitrification system in. They could expand their third bedroom as big as they wanted. That was the only other option. They could not set a precedent by saying no they were not going to require a denitrification system. They had never done it before. Once they started it, a lot of other people would be right here saying that they could do it a too. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke countered by stating that with they way the house is currently configured. Were they allowed to leave the rest of the house in tact and just exchange…and not touch the septic? |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated that they would not have to touch the septic unless the septic were in failure. Was the septic in failure? |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke stated that it was not in failure. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated that if they stayed at the three-bedroom and expand it. If they combined two of these bedrooms and combine them into one. It would make the whole house three-bedroom. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke asked if they had to physically go in and remove the bedroom. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated that they could not have four-bedrooms. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke stated that the house was built like that. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden asked what the capacity was for the old system. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke didn’t think there was enough detail on the old system to determine what the capacity was for it. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden asked if it was an old cesspool. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke stated that it was a leach pit with a 1000-gallon tank. They had never dug it up because it was quite a ways down and very deep. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that it was designed for 300 GPD for the old Title V. It was a six diameters and about eight-feet deep. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke asked if there was four-feet of stone around it too? |
|
Mr. Harrington stated that the report didn’t say that. It did say it was a sandy cesspool with two feet of stone. It was certainly big enough for a four-bedroom. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball added that basically they did not have to touch the system, at all. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that the only other building permit that was taken out that knew of or that was in file here was for a deck. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated that the file was very thin. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington added that there was building permit for a kitchen. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball asked where they were on this matter. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington added that one other reason why he thought that he had allowed the four or when he said that there was four was that the basement showed that bathrooms and shower stalls were added in the basement originally. This was the 1974 plumbing permit and it showed that those units were all added. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke stated that one basis for three-rooms was that you would save $20.00 if you filed it as a three-bedroom. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball understood and agreed with that suggestion. |
|
|
|
Mr. Warden suggested to Mr. Grotzke if he kept the system and asked for expansion of that room he would be all set. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke understood that point. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that if it was an eight-foot deep leaching pit. He was saying that the basement elevation was 18’. They didn’t hit groundwater when they dug the test hole. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke stated that they were basing the groundwater on Sasaki, which they had found to be fairly accurate in the past. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball didn’t know anyway around this. |
|
|
|
Mr. Gray asked if they upgraded to a four-bedroom modern system and then did their renovation. Did that avoid their problem with the need for a denitrification system? |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady stated that it did not because of the variance. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated that would not eliminate the denitrification system because they were adding to their habitable space. |
|
|
|
Mr. Gray stated that if they did not put the addition on and still put in the new system. Could they do that and not put in denitrification system? |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady stated that they could not do that according to these plans because of the way it sat. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that they were not going to get 100’ period from the BVW. |
|
|
|
Mr. Santos concurred that they would not get the distance from the wetlands. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated that it kicked in the denitrification system for them. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington added that whether it was a remedial situation or not. Once they were doing work within 100’ of the wetlands the board had required the denitrification system. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated that they had always done that. |
|
|
|
Mr. Santos stated that that was especially when they were increasing habitable space. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball didn’t see anyway around it. |
|
|
|
Ms. Joan Muse stated that it wouldn’t matter if they took away a bedroom. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball stated that even if they took away a bedroom it still wouldn’t matter. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that even as a three-bedroom. When the system failed or when they did the work the board would still require, as in the past, they put in a denitrification system. Now was the time they should do it when they broke ground. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke asked that when the board approved the addition they would require an update of the septic. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that they would when the system failed. If they did nothing and the system failed the board would require it. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady stated that no doubt about it. It will fail. They were not saying that they had to upgrade it just because they were doing the addition. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke suggested that they plan it leaving the existing system intact. They should do a septic inspection on it. If they inspection passes then they were free to expand this bedroom. |
|
Mr. Ball stated that that was acceptable and the denitrification system did not come in to play. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady felt that if they were going to approve it they would need to add a denitrification system. |
|
|
|
Mr. Grotzke re-iterated that they would have it inspected and if it passed they would leave it in place. Then they would do the addition. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball re-iterated that they would inspect the system and if it passed then they would leave it alone. Would they have to add risers? |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that that was correct. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady added that there was no action necessary in this matter. |
|
|
|
Mr. Gray asked for them to get out of the dentrification system would they have to place the system in the road? There was no place on the property to get far enough away from the BVW. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ball suggested that there was probably not an area on the property that would disallow the need for a dentrification system. |
|
|
|
OLD BUSINESS: |
A. |
Persey’s |
|
Ms. Grady noted that there were on violations observed. |
|
|
|
Mr. Santos stated that this was the one that they had talked about at the last meeting. |
|
|
|
Ms. Garron stated that they had paid their fine. |
|
|
B. |
Michelle’s |
|
Ms. Grady asked if Ms. Hamblin had changed the flooring as directed yet. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden stated that Ms. Hamblin had shown her the flooring that she had picked out. She told Ms. Hamblin that this was not washable. Ms. Hamblin’s brother told her that that was the bottom layer of the floor. Ms. Warden asked her why she hadn’t put in a new floor because she was selling the business. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady stated that she couldn’t open the restaurant if she didn’t have a new floor. |
|
|
|
Ms. Warden stated that the board needed to vote on it. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady stated that they did vote on it and she had to have a new floor. She did not have a choice whether she was selling or not. |
|
|
|
Ms. Garron noted that the motion was made in the October 28th, 2004, minutes. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington read from the minutes, “Board denied your request. You were hereby ordered to repair or replace the floor in the food prep area within ten-days of receipt of this letter.” He then noted that she never received it. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady asked that they re-send the letter. |
|
|
|
Mr. Harrington stated that there was no return on the certified letter. He recommended that they hand deliver it. |
|
|
|
Ms. Grady noted that she had not lost a seat during this whole situation. |
|
|
|
DISCUSSION: |
A. |
DEP/Health Agent Meeting |
|
This was an FYI for a meeting at UMASS Dartmouth. |
|
|
|
Being no further business, Mr. Santos made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 PM. Mr. Ball seconded the motion. Motion passed. |
|
|
|
|
|
Respectfully submitted, |
|
|
|
|
|
Charlotte A. Garron, Administrative Secretary |