Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
Board of Health Minutes 02/17/05
TOWN OF MASHPEE
Board of Health
February 17th, 2005

Mr. Santos opened the meeting at 7:07 PM.

THE TAPE IS NOT PART OF THE MEETING: IT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSCRIPTION ONLY.

Members Present: L. Glenn Santos, Steven R. ball, Glen E. Harrington and Ms. Veronica A. Warden.


NEW BUSINESS:
1.
Sign warrants.
Warrants signed.
2.
Approve minutes of November 17, 2004, and December 12, 2004.
The approval of the minutes was deferred until the next meeting.
3.
Appointment to the Human Services Committee: Elizabeth Johnson
Ms. Warden stated that there was an error and it went before the selectmen for approval through the town meeting article. The board of health was the appointing authority for the human services positions. So the board needed to technically appoint Elizabeth Johnson to the Human Services Committee.
Mr. Ball made a motion to appoint Elizabeth Johnson to the Human Services Committee. Mr. Santos seconded the motion. Motion passed.
4.
Title V Commercial Property: Cape & Islands Engineering, 78 Industrial Drive
Mr. Harrington stated that they could continue this agenda topic because they were missing page two. Somebody put this over on to the agenda and didn’t review it before they moved it over.
Mr. Santos asked where this was located.
Mr. Harrington stated that it was down by Mashpee Medical and that whole area. It looked like they were providing a whole ton of leaching. If those were two-foot effective depth 500-gallon chambers that was 700 to 800 GPD of flow.
Mr. Santos asked where the denitrification was located on the plan.
Mr. Ball pointed it out to him.
Mr. Harrington noted that the other board members got page two.
Ms. Garron stated that she did not realize that there was a page two. She thought they were all just one page so she handed them out to everybody so they could see everything
Mr. Harrington stated that if that was the case he did have some comments. Did this go to site plan review?
Ms. Warden asked what the proposal was.
Mr. Harrington stated that it was 78 Industrial Drive.
Ms. Warden understood that but what was it going to be?
Mr. Harrington replied that they looked like contractors bays. He didn’t even know. He had no idea what they were going to be.
Mr. Ball and Mr. Santos were discussing the catch basin situation.
Mr. Harrington stated that these were 500-gallon drywells.
Mr. Santos stated that they had the typical leaching basins.
Mr. Harrington stated that they were still only looking for 540 GPD of flow.
Mr. Ball suggested that they let them go with. What they may be thinking of now and later usage might be two different things.
Mr. Harrington asked what the land area was.
Mr. Ball stated that it was 73, 568 square feet. He asked Mr. Harrington what his other concerns were regarding this plan. This was not in Zone II.
Ms. Garron stated that most of Industrial Drive was in Zone II if not all of it.
Mr. Harrington asked how they could be proposing over 1100 GPD then.
Ms. Warden countered that it was 73,000+ square feet.
Mr. Harrington stated that that would only allow 809 GPD.
Mr. Santos interjected that it was obvious that they hadn’t had a chance to do a thorough review of this plan.
Mr. Ball made a motion to continue this agenda item because there hadn’t been a thorough review of the plans. Mr. Santos seconded the motion. Motion passed.
Mr. Harrington continued that they were asking for 540 GPD and they were providing a denitrification system. Were they using a FAST system? If they wanted the credit for the FAST system they had to use a different technology because that put it into provisional usage. Total effluent allowable was 1130 GPD.
Mr. Ball suggested that they continue it so that Mr. Harrington could review it and follow up with Cape & Islands.
APPOINTMENT: Deer Crossing-Septic Compliance & Food Permits
Mr. Santos began by stating that although they appreciated the Deer Crossing people coming to the board. He felt that in all fairness they needed to get this done and put to bed so to speak. He was going to turn it over to Mr. Ball.
Mr. Ball stated that he did have a game plan. He was going to begin with Mr. Brady and his client. He would go through the buildings and then show how he reached the calculations. Building A would have a flow of 5374 GPD. Building B had 718 GPD for flow. Building C was 465 GPD per flow. Buildings B and C really hadn’t changed through this whole process. Building D had 3053 GPD of flow. Building E had 385 GPD per flow. The total was 9995 GPD of flow. If they jumped back to Building A. He was under the understanding that there were two failed pits according to the Merrill Association report. Also there was a bull run valve. His recommendation to the board was that they pull the bull run valves on Buildings A and D. Now they had the failed pits. He didn’t know how to get around that issue.
Mr. McGrath asked to speak. They asked him to go out and look at the systems. There were no failures here.
Mr. Ball stated that he was going by the Merrill report.
Mr. McGrath stated that he had never seen that report.
Mr. Ball stated that Mr. Hajjar had it completed by Merrill Association on August 28th, 2002. They failed it by pumping records.
Mr. Harrington interjected that Mr. Al Rivet failed two of the pits. He had faxed it to everyone.
Mr. Brady stated that the Title V report that he had showed that the systems passed. That was the one from August that had been submitted to the town.
Mr. Ball stated that if they could get around it then hopefully they could. He didn’t see how because they also had the other report on Building A.
Mr. Harrington reiterated that he had faxed to everybody.
Mr. Santos reiterated that basically the report noted that Buildings A, B and D with one pit in failure. Actually Buildings B and D had one pit each in failure.
Mr. Brady countered that the report he had in front of him done by Tim Lovell had passed the systems. He had never seen this other report before.
Mr. McGrath stated that he had never seen the report before.
Mr. Harrington stated that the report he had from Mr. Lovell said see attached page for the description of those leaching pits. He did not have that information. What he did have was the Al Rivett inspection that showed to of the four pits as failed.
Mr. Ball asked if it was the top one here.
Mr. Harrington confirmed that that was the one that was used for the transfer that they were referring to.
Mr. Ball asked if they could go by this report.
Mr. Harrington stated that it was incomplete. It said see-attached page and there was nothing there. Did they get an additional page in their report that said see-attached page for description of the leaching pits?
Mr. Brady stated that he did not know if they had it here with them.
Mr. Harrington noted that that was not an attached page that was an actual part of the report.
Ms. Warden produced a document and asked if that was what he was looking for.
Mr. Harrington reiterated that that was not an attached page. That was part of the actual report.
Ms. Warden countered that they did show a leaching pit.
Mr. Harrington stated that there was no description under the SAS. It just said see attached page. There was no description. He again stated that he had faxed everybody a copy of the report from Al Rivet.
Ms. Warden asked if he didn’t think he was referring to page 10.
Mr. Harrington did not think that was the case. He had the Al Rivet hand drawn inspection report that showed pits three and four with liquid levels over the inverts for Building A.
Mr. Brady stated that that was the report that they repaired the valve at that time.
Mr. Harrington asked if that was January of 2002.
Mr. Brady added that he specifically stated that the valve was replaced at that time because it was not working.
Mr. Ball stated that that was January of 2002.
Mr. Brady confirmed that that was correct. He added that the two pits were dry it said that in the report.
Mr. Harrington stated that the flow selector was repaired. Correct.
Mr. Ball stated that the systems were re-inspected after the repair.
Mr. Brady stated that that was correct.
Mr. Ball stated that that was this report in front of them. Could they go by this report?
Mr. Harrington stated that they did not know what they actually said about pits three and four. If the selector valve was switched over to pits one and two the system would have been operating and the other pits may have dropped. He didn’t know because there was no description on the leaching pits there.
Mr. McGrath stated that he had uncovered the three active pits today in A and B. He apologized and stated that he did not do it himself personally. One of his employees did it. Building A has two pits that they call One and Two. They turned the valve and now they were going to flow into Three and Four. Three and Four were empty. One and Two had 11’9” of empty face. Building D had 4’3” of void and the other pit was empty. They turned the valve to the empty pit. So right now they were dosing to three empty pits.
Mr. Santos asked Mr. McGrath if he knew the last time they were pumped.
Mr. McGrath stated that he did not know that information.
Mr. Ball stated that basically they did an inspection and the pits were not in failure. Was that what he was saying?
Mr. McGrath stated that the board asked him to look at the pits and they were not in failure.
Mr. Ball replied that they could go by that. He was a licensed engineer. They asked him to look at the pits.
Mr. Harrington stated that they did not ask him to look at the pits. They asked him to do an inspection and if he wanted to do an inspection report with the information in writing. That would be fine.
Mr. Ball agreed that Mr. McGrath would have to give the board an inspection report in writing for future usage.
Mr. McGrath stated that he could do that.
Mr. Ball felt that that new information made it a little easier now. The system was not in failure in accordance to Mr. McGrath. He continued by stating that the Building A flows would be 5374 GPD. They would be required to pull the bull run valve and install the OAR system. That would satisfy the board on Building A. Then they would jump to Building D. They had a system failure at that building. What was the finding for Building D?
Mr. McGrath stated that he found the same thing. There was an empty pit and the other one had 4’ of void.
Mr. Ball asked if he would provide the board with a report on that too.
Mr. Harrington interjected that he wanted a report that was done on August 5th, 2002. Building D in this report stated that the leaching pit closest to building was ten feet deep and pit was full. It was given a passing inspection even though one of the pits was found to be full.
Mr. Ball stated that since then they had a new inspection. They were either going to go by Mr. McGrath’s findings or …
Mr. Harrington handed Mr. Ball the formal report used for the transference of property.
Mr. McGrath asked Mr. Harrington which sketch of the pit was he missing.
Mr. Harrington stated that it was for Building A. It was not the sketch that was missing. It was the description of the pit that he was missing. He was reading that the page with the sketch was not an attached page. It was part of a report. Otherwise, there would be no description and some narrative on the condition of the leaching pits.
(The tape ends and begins again with the following conversation.)
Mr. Ball stated that Building B was too, he believed. He asked if pit number one was closest to the building.
Mr. McGrath states, “Pit number one, eight foot diameter by six-foot deep liquid level was four foot below invert. Scum line indicates liquid level has been as high as two-foot below invert. No evidence of hydraulic failure, any damp soil, vegetation normal. Pit number two was under asphalt parking lot.”
Mr. Harrington agreed with Mr. McGrath and added that there was no other description available.
Mr. McGrath agreed that there was no other description but he added that they wrote, “passes”. If they looked at the checklist that was on page 4 of 11 he listed all as “no”, which meant that the system passed in his opinion.
Mr. Harrington stated that he did the same thing for the other building too.
Mr. Ball stated that as far as Building B, Mr. Brady, the OAR system would have to be installed. They won’t address Buildings C and E at this time. They could do this at a later date. Other than the concerns on A & D regarding the failures, they would need reports from Mr. McGrath passing those systems. That was the best they could do for flows that kept them under 10,000 GPD.
Mr. Brady asked if Mr. Ball was referring to the total flows. He thought that now that they were under 10,000 GPD they could move forward.
Mr. Ball continued with re-stating that as far as Building D with the total flows being 3053 with the removal of the bull run valve would equal 3200 GPD.
Mr. Brady asked if the DEP had approved that request.
Mr. Ball stated that the DEP would have to approve it with the submittal of the board’s approval of the OAR system.
Mr. Santos stated that the plans that they would receive and eventually approve would have to be changed to reflect flow along with the removal of the bull run valves. He did not believe that the current plans showed that information in those plans.
Mr. Harrington confirmed that that was correct.
Mr. Santos continued by stating that whatever other pertinent information needed to be in those plans. The board would approve it and then be sent to the DEP for their review.
Mr. Ball stated that they were prepared to approve these flows.
Mr. Brady confirmed that they were gross flows without getting into what they had assigned to particular parties. They were not going there and he just wanted to make that clear that they were talking total GPD.
Mr. Ball agreed that that was correct.
Mr. Brady asked if anyone had spoken to the DEP about allowing the valves to be removed just out of curiosity.
Mr. Ball responded that the DEP basically said that they had a bees nest down there figure it out before you send them the money.
Mr. Santos stated that the bottom line was either a discharge permit or to keep the flows under 10,000 GPD.
Mr. Ball interjected that they were trying to get the situation where everyone would be satisfied.
Mr. Santos felt that that had been their biggest challenge and it has been for everybody. They have tried to look at both sides here. In all fairness to Mr. Dalton, would he be agreeable to these flows?
Mr. Dalton responded that essentially he was satisfied with the flows and usage.
Mr. Santos added that as he had mentioned before. He hoped it had been done and presented to them in this format a couple of years ago when this whole thing started. But, it basically came down to somebody stepping up to the plate and that was Mr. Harrington and Mr. Ball. He thought they had gone above and beyond their normal call of duty, so to speak. They had a lot of factors to keep in consideration. He felt that everybody’s aware that the past administration made some mistakes. He felt that everybody involved made mistakes. That was all he was going to say on that matter. They were trying to create a happy medium. Hopefully, the DEP was going to say, “Yeah that looks great go with it.” Then it would be how fast could it be put in the ground.
Mr. Brocado asked if this was all approved then they wouldn’t be doing this in the summer.
Mr. Ball responded that they had not gotten to that point yet. But, they would take into consideration the hardship factor.
Mr. Santos added that the revised plans would have to come back in front of the board. They would approve them with these flows, pulling the bull run valves. He knew that Mr. McGrath understood what was going to be done as far as changing the plans. They probably should come back in front of the board for a final review.
Mr. Ball disagreed as far as everything went in accordance with the expected changes.
Mr. Harrington felt that they needed to review the revised plans because they had other criteria that he was not ready to present right now. It was stuff that they had previously presented at the working session when they were across the hall. He would like that made into a motion for the board to vote on. He was referring to the newer architectural plans, change in tenancy and other things that they had done for other commercial properties that he would like worked into a final vote. He didn’t really want to do that on his review. He would like the board to do that.
Mr. Santos stated that they would have to get it all buttoned up and done here. It would then go up to the DEP for however long they would take. They would like to get it done as soon as they could. But, they all understood that during the summer months every establishment would like to be busy and didn’t want to turn people away because they didn’t have enough room to park. He was sure that Mr. McGrath wouldn’t want to get a contractor out there and have to drive around a whole bunch of parked cars. They would want to do it in the slow months, so to speak.
Mr. Dalton asked if Mr. McGrath had an idea how long the construction would be for the scope of this work.
Mr. Santos asked Mr. McGrath if he had any idea.
Mr. McGrath thought that it would be at least three-months. He assumed that they would run into a lot of utilities because every excavator stated to him that they did not know where any of the utilities were located. So he would throw in an extra month because of that issue.
Mr. Ball re-iterated that what they needed from him and his clients was that if they did or didn’t agree, they needed a set of plans and septic reports from Mr. McGrath for Buildings A and D. Then they could move on from there.
Mr. Brady re-iterated that they were talking about the gross flows still not about the individual units.
Mr. Ball re-iterated the gross flows…
Mr. Brady stated that what they had really done was cut 40% on Subway and Mashpee Bagel. But, they had not cut 40% on Giovanni’s, which was…
Mr. Ball stated that the only reason why they did that was because they were the last ones in and the first ones out. That was the way they looked at it. They were over the flows, not knowing they were over flows. If they had to go that way. They would cut the Subway and the Mashpee Bagel Shop and then they would go right into Giovanni’s. They were the last one’s in the mix.
Mr. Brady asked if they were considering Giovanni’s as a new operation under new management now.
Mr. Ball responded that they were not considering it a new operation. They were taking the flows that they had. They actually cut the flows back on the seating. It was 77. That was cut down to 50 restaurant seats and 11 lounge seats, which was 61 seats. That would be 1750 and 220 GPD. They cut the flows back to what was there. The removal of the bull run valve would help.
Mr. Brady stated that they only cut Giovanni’s by 20%. Again they could debate all day if it was a different operation or entity, whatever. If they went with the State Alcoholic Beverage Commission, it was a different entity. The board’s regulations and the original correspondence from the board instituted that it would be a new application that they would be working under. Although the board’s regulations were unclear on this matter. There was nothing to stop transfer to a private party.
Mr. Santos stated that he needed to interrupt him here. He was the chairman. They were not going to go off into 1500 different directions like they usually did in these discussions. What they had in front of them they were going to approve. The flows to the individual buildings were going to be approved. Mr. Ball and Mr. Harrington had done a hell of a job doing this. A moment ago, everybody was happy and satisfied. Now they were splitting hairs and they were saying total flows…
Mr. Brady interrupted Mr. Santos and stated that they agreed with the gross amounts.
Mr. Santos agreed with Mr. Brady that they would vote on the total gross and what was written for the individual buildings. So what Mr. Brady was telling him was that he did not agree with the individual flows?
Mr. Brady confirmed that he did not agree with the individual flows. He objected to how the cut the individual flows.
Mr. Santos asked if he could ask him a very direct question.
Mr. Brady agreed that that was okay.
Mr. Santos asked why Mr. Brady or his clients come back in front of the board and done a better job of breaking this down in order to determine what the flows were and what they needed to be.
Mr. Brady countered that they had given them this numbers. Mr. McGrath did give…
Mr. Santos asked him what the numbers were.
Mr. Brady stated that on the November 15th, 2004, correspondence because the system was only a 1600 GPD system those were the flows for Building D right there. So they were provided with that at that time. He had the rest of them right there. He was using that as an example. They also had correspondence from their board stating that there was a new entity going into there.
Mr. Santos asked Mr. Brady to clarify what he meant by a new entity going into there.
Mr. Dalton clarified that the correspondence stated that “if a new entity went into there” as opposed to whether it was a same corporation or not.
Mr. Santos asked if that was with the bull run valve in.
Mr. Harrington stated that that was correct. The individual leaching pits were 1613 GPD at capacity.
Mr. Santos added that what they were saying was that when the pulled the bull run valves there flows would be increased.
Mr. Brady agreed and added that at that point there they had no approval and it was illegal to approve it. They could not get something to the board that would be…
Mr. Santos interrupted Mr. Brady and stated that they were going to vote to pull these bull run valves to increase these flows. But, he was still not happy with what they had done here?
Mr. Brady stated that they were not happy.
Mr. Santos stated that that was fine. He asked if anybody else had anything constructive as to what needed to be done.
Mr. Dalton interjected that on behalf of his clients he felt that they had done a very reasonable job to try to work this out as best they could. He appreciated their efforts.
Mr. Ball added that before they close this agenda item. As far as the Merrill Association report regarding the flow and inspection of the systems when his client hired these people. Did they go under the flow rates of 1600 GPD on Building D?
Mr. Brady stated that he had not seen the Merrill report so they had no idea of what they were doing.
Mr. Ball didn’t believe that they did. He states that in the report that 1176 GPD over 10,000 GPD. That was what got this whole thing going.
Mr. Santos added that that was during the change of ownership.
Mr. Ball stated that it was during his ownership because that was how they came up with the settlement figure. There flows were based on the 1995 flows. That was what they voted on a month and one half ago.
Mr. Brady didn’t understand Mr. Ball question.
Mr. Ball clarified that he was referring to the flows that they were using to calculate the plans.
Mr. Brady felt that Mr. McGrath could address the flow issues. They were trying to go with the flows under 10,000 GPD. Mr. McGrath presented the flows for the various entities for the board. They were under the 10,000 GPD. Their calculations had always been under the 10,000 GPD. Maybe and he was speculating completely here that some of the values of the systems were of the assumption that the bull run valves had been removed. He thought that everyone of the years was going under that assumption. Unfortunately that was no the fact, which was why in November the revised numbers were presented to the board because that valve was in place. That correspondence was set to the board with those calculations.
Mr. Santos told Mr. Ball that they needed a motion. First Mr. Santos made a motion to close it to all public comment. Mr. Ball seconded the motion. Motion passed.
Mr. McGrath interrupted Mr. Santos and asked if they were going to re-issue the schedule and take off the failures.
Mr. Ball stated that this was for their information only. But, they had to have his reports before they could do that. Okay he guessed they were in discussion.
Mr. Santos stated that they needed a motion.
Mr. Ball asked if they needed a motion to go into a discussion.
Mr. Santos stated that that was not correct.
Mr. Ball stated that they were in discussion.
Mr. Santos stated that they were in discussion. He felt that Mr. Harrington and Mr. Ball did a really good job working on all of this.
Mr. Ball interrupted Mr. Santos and asked if he wanted a motion for per unit of total flow.
Mr. Santos stated that that was correct. He re-iterated that they had done a heck of a job. The bottom-line was that they had done other people’s work here. They were asked to keep it under 10,000 GPD. They had done that total flow. He felt that they had broken it out as far as they could regarding the ability of the systems.
Mr. Ball made a motion to grant the applicant flows of 5374 GPD, install the OAR system and/or if the system is failed the applicant had to concur with Title V along with removing the bull run valve for Building A. That would be the same for Building D with a flow of 3053 GPD, remove the bull run valve and if the system was in failure they had to concur with current Title V. Building B would be 1718 GPD, which really hadn’t changed. It was a failed system. Install the OAR system. There was no bull run valve. If it were a failed system they would have to concur with current Title V. Building C would remain the same at 465 GPD. Building E would be 385 GPD. That was on hold for a later discussion. They would have to work that out.
Mr. Santos stated that they could not discuss Building E at this moment.
Mr. Ball continued that it would be a total flow for 9995 GPD. That was his motion pending the inspection reports on Buildings A, B and D. Mr. McGrath as a licensed engineer would be able to get those reports to the board. They would like to see these plans within a certain time limit so that they did not have to prolong this.
Mr. Santos asked Mr. Harrington for a recommendation.
Mr. Harrington recommended that they have the plans to the board within the next two weeks.
Mr. Ball stated that it would be by the next meeting with a date of March 4th, 2005.
Mr. Brady stated that they could not pull the bull run valves until they had the DEP approval.
Mr. Ball understood that. They wanted the plans for review and approval.
Mr. Santos asked him if he could have them for the following week.
Mr. McGrath stated that any time after the week of the fourth was fine.
Mr. Ball stated that he would be gone the fourth through the twelfth.
Ms. Garron asked if they were changing the meeting to the eleventh rather than the 3rd.
Mr. Ball said that they would have to if Mr. McGrath were not available.
Mr. Santos suggested that they discuss this later. He was sure that everyone wanted to get this schedule done.  Mr. Santos re-iterated that the plans were to be presented and approved on March 11th, 2005. Mr. Santos seconded the motion. Motion passed.
Mr. Dalton asked if they were going to extend the food service licenses based on these figures now or were they going to grant new licenses.
Mr. Ball stated that they had no choice but to extend them.
Mr. Santos stated that once the plans were in front of them and approved, they would have to go up to the DEP.
Mr. Harrington interjected that they would have to wait for the DEP.
Mr. Santos stated that they would have to continue to extend them due to the current circumstances.
APPOINTMENT: Carmen Shay 30 Wilson’s Grove – Title V Variance
Mr. Shay was present with Mr. Ken Lane, homeowner. They were there to repair a very failed septic system.
He would like to import another 10,000 square feet. They had a 25 x 90 foot lot with an existing house. Not a whole lot of options here. He had come before the board the last time with what he thought was really nice set up that didn’t work out. They couldn’t put it in the backyard because the people who had the well behind them came here and voiced their objections. So they had to abandon that plan. It was a 6 x 50 field gave them a 220 GPD to limit this to an absolutely no more than two-bedroom house. Obviously a deed restriction would apply. They were asking for a variance to reduce the left lot line, which would be the abutter on house number 28 down to one foot. Bear in mind that they were going to put a rubber liner entirely around this SAS. Essentially it was going to leach down and that was it. The next-door neighbor fortunately was on sauna tubes so that they had no basement impact. But, even so they felt it was the right thing to do to put the liner in and it would extend around the system and along the side of the foundation so that they wouldn’t impact Mr. Lane and his house. Also the septic tank would have a rubber liner all the way around it in the event that it would ever leak, so that there would be no impact on everybody in case of a flash flood. The other variance was to be within one foot of the foundation of the house. The other variance was to be two feet off of the street. They were asking for the variance to one foot away from the neighbors lot line. It was actually going to be four feet away from the house because there was a deck there.
Mr. Ball asked Mr. Lane if they got along with their neighbors.
Mr. Lane stated that they did get along with the neighbors.
Mr. Ball continued that some of the stuff was going to go over there while they were digging it.
Mr. Shay stated that the neighbor was notified and didn’t opt to come. The people, who were concerned last time, believe him they came. They spent a good half an hour letting them know about. No one that they even know was here tonight to object to any of this.
Ms. Garron asked if the gentleman in the audience was here for this agenda item.
He responded that he was not here for the meeting.
Ms. Warden stated that she had one small thing to add to the plan. He did not have anything about the Board of Health coming in to do the final inspection just for the contractor’s purpose.
Mr. Shay assumed that that was part of the protocol anyways. Here was what they were actually proposing was that depending on how the construction goes here, they may have to do this in stages by putting a part of the field in so that they wouldn’t have to keep collapsing a whole bunch of material. They didn’t want to undermine any foundation. They would have to work on ten-feet. Have it inspected fill it and run more pipe, put more stone down. Inspect it. They may have to do this in two or three inspections, which was due to the constraints of the lot. So he had already talked to Mr. Lane about that point.
Mr. Ball asked about the lining.
Mr. Shay stated that it would be all the way around the system. The tank also was going to have a 40-mil liner all around as a safety in the event that it cracked. It was an H20 tank just in the event that somebody could squeeze a vehicle back there and drove on it. Also, just in the event that it was a low lying area and if there ever was a groundwater issue. It would be heavy enough not to float.
Ms. Warden asked if it was going to be plastic.
Mr. Shay stated that it was H20 cement. It weighed about 28,000 lbs. The tank would go in first. They were going to plumb the outside shower to the tank.
Ms. Warden asked about the drainpipes.
Mr. Shay stated that they would have to put a down spout drain in the back. They could put a little drywell and run them out to the backyard.
Ms. Warden asked if they would be doing all of them.
Mr. Shay stated that they could pitch them to the back with the downspouts coming down and be tied to an underground to a regular dry well, which wouldn’t impact the septic system. They would recharge the groundwater for them.
Ms. Warden stated that they were doing the best they could.
Mr. Shay stated that Ms. Warden had mentioned that it might have been why the other system had failed.
Ms. Warden stated that that was a guess. She was sure it contributed to the failure.
Mr. Shay added that that about covered it. He would have loved to put it in the very backyard. But, the guy’s well just didn’t allow him to do that.
Mr. Santos asked Mr. Harrington if he had anything to add.
Mr. Harrington stated that he had reviewed the floor plan as proposed and it looked okay.
Mr. Ball asked if he was happy with it.
Mr. Harrington stated that he was happy with it.
Mr. Ball made a motion to approve the variances as requested by Mr. Carmen E. Shay for 30 Wilson’s Grove in Mashpee. The variances are as follows: A six-foot variance from the proposed septic tank to the concrete foundation and nine-feet from the proposed septic tank to the side lot line. A 40-mil rubber liner has been proposed around the entire septic tank. A variance of eight-feet from the SAS to the setback from the side and front lot lines and nine-feet from the side lot line. A 40-mil rubber liner is also proposed around the SAS. A variance to reduce the size of an SAS from 330 GPD to 220 GPD. The existing house was only two-bedroom and a deed restriction was proposed. A variance of one-foot from the reduction of the separation of the bottom of the SAS from the groundwater. Mr. Santos seconded the motion. Motion passed.
APPOINTMENT:  Horsely & Witten – 14 Sampson’s Mill Road
Mr. Scott Horsely and Mr. Joe Henderson were present for this meeting. Mr. Horsely began by stating that this was the general site plan of 14 Sampson’s Mill Road and Route 28.
Ms. Warden asked if she could ask them a question before they started. This project was just totally confusing her. Weren’t there two buildings on this lot?
Mr. Horsely replied that they were separate parcels. Prior to their involvement there was a discussion about combining the lots. When they got involved this was already done. He believed that this was all preliminary as far as he knew.
Mr. Ball asked if this was where they were doing all of the filling.
Mr. Horsely replied that that was correct.
Mr. Ball asked how they got away with all of that with conservation.
Mr. Horsely stated that they went to Con Comm.
Mr. Harrington stated that this was not the property that fronted on Rte 28. There was another property.
Mr. Horsely added that there was a prior site plan before the Con Comm. He thought they might have gotten a permit for it. But, they were here for the septic. He wanted to focus in on a specific area.
Mr. Harrington had a comment on his review was about the four-bays in the retention area. They were trying to get away from having standing water. They were showing a small six-inch berm before you get into. They were trying to get away with have the standing water. Rather than holding back that area. He would recommend that those four-bays do away with the berm there so that it free flowed into the under drain or in the areas where the under drain was rather than trying to hold it back. That was his only comment on that.
Mr. Santos asked what they meant by the four-bays.
Mr. Horsely stated that what happened was that the storm water would go this way and this way.
Mr. Santos now understood what he meant by bays.
Mr. Harrington stated that they were doing it for reduction in velocity so that it went into and allowed some sediment to fall out of suspension. In order to do that if it silted up it would become a little wading pool, which was exactly what they did not want.
Ms. Warden asked if it just went from one to the next. Is that what they were saying?
Mr. Horsely stated that it came in here and this was the bio-retention area.
Mr. Harrington stated that that would actually be a grass planted area.
Mr. Henderson replied that this area would be shrubs.
Mr. Harrington added that it would have an under drain with a perforated pipe so as the water percolates through the nitrogen will get up taken by the plants.
Mr. Santos asked if they were using the best management practices for removing the nitrogen.
Mr. Horsely stated that that was correct.
Mr. Harrington stated that that was what The Planning Departmentwas looking for. But, the way The Planning Department had been doing it was either not providing any subsurface drainage. This met their requirements so that the subsurface drainage got taken away and would ultimately come out the through the wide flange through the six inch conduit out into the wetland, which was fine.
Mr. Horsely added that Con Comm was very happy with this plan. They were in the final stages with them tweaking the design.
Mr. Harrington stated that there were other catch basins here. There was only the other roof drywells. So everything was overland flow. There was no…but the under drain met the board’s criteria.
Mr. Santos stated that that was their sticking point.
Mr. Harrington stated that the four-bay where they were going to having standing water was a sticking point with them.
Mr. Santos felt that they could still follow best management practices because they were going to have the vegetation and water going over that area. They just didn’t want the major pooling. They had probably been around stagnant ponds.
Mr. Henderson stated that they were mosquito breeding grounds. That their storm water guy’s biggest concern was the mosquitoes.
Mr. Santos stated that they could still accomplish everything and not have the ponding by having the water run through that system.
Mr. Henderson pointed out the wastewater system. The site was located in the groundwater protection district. Here was the proposed building. It was two-floors with 3481 square feet. They calculated a design flow of 523 GPD. That was just based on office use. They were proposing a 1500-gallon septic tank with a bull run valve installed at the board’s request. They had two d-boxes so that both systems could be switched back and forth alternating what to do.
Ms. Warden asked if this would be paved.
Mr. Henderson stated that it would be paved. They were proposing a vented system with carbon filters. Groundwater was passed on the frimptered test pits that were performed back in 2001. It was all sandy material. Their groundwater elevation was 28.2. They were maintaining five-feet above groundwater so that the whole system was going to gravity.
Mr. Harrington had a question on the building. Was that going to be two floors above grade or was the basement going to be finished? They were showing a full foundation in the basement.
Mr. Horsely stated that the basement was going to be finished.
Mr. Harrington stated that it was going to be a one-story when they looked at it from the road. It was not going to be two full stories above. As far as the overall calculation and the square footage.
Mr. Horsely stated that it was just the two floors.
Mr. Harrington asked what the other 400 square feet was for. That did not get included in their calculations. He didn’t know what it was for.
Mr. Henderson stated that there were two reasons. They were given this footprint. They were not the designer of it and frankly they were not sure what it was for either. The building was actually going to be designed smaller. One of the comments they heard from Con Comm was that they want the building outside the 150’. They were basically going to cut this building back. Instead of having these jogs they were going to cut it right back to here. It was actually going to be smaller. But, they were going to leave the system designed for this size. In a sense it was going to be over-designed. He did not know what they wanted to do with that.
Mr. Harrington asked if he knew what that was for because it was not included in the calculations.
Ms. Warden stated that it was a mezzanine.
Mr. Henderson agreed and stated that it was some type of reception area kind of thing. It was not going to be an office.
Mr. Ball asked Mr. Harrington was 400 square feet x what…GPD.
Mr. Harrington stated that it was .75 GPD.
Mr. Henderson stated that that was what they would be willing to do was if the board was willing to approve the system for this design. They would limit the office space to whatever square footage that would be.
Mr. Harrington stated that that was fine. He just found it odd that it was not included in and it was sticking right out there.
Mr. Henderson added that they were happy to cap the office space at that flow.
Mr. Ball asked if this wasn’t included in the GPD flow.
Mr. Horsely stated that this little 400 square feet was not and it would boost it up to 7300.
Mr. Henderson stated that just for their information. If they did include that they were still below the 600 GPD.
Mr. Ball stated that was just what he was trying to get at. Those guys know this regulation too well.
Mr. Santos asked Mr. Harrington if he had any other comments.
Ms. Warden asked what kind of drains did they have to put in.
Mr. Harrington stated that there were none because it was all-overland flow.
Mr. Henderson stated that it went right down into the soil.
Ms. Warden asked if it was sloped.
Mr. Henderson stated that that was correct. This was part of the parking lot. It came down and some of it went into the vegetative soil right here. He pointed out the drywells here and here for the roof. It was all collected in the under drain and discharged.
Mr. Harrington added that there was a previous decision, which was still on an active permit. On September 5th, 2002, the board did review the previous plans that were done by Baxter and Nye. The board voted for the applicant to file an affidavit with the registry of deeds stating that vehicle repairs, pesticides and/or hazardous waste and material storage were prohibited on site. The board basically did that for all commercial properties. But, also they were sitting in a Zone II and right on top of a wetland. It was pretty standard. But, what they had done on some of the other contractor’s bays was that they still allowed them some hazardous material storage. They had limited that to 100 and 200-gallons or pounds. But, in this case the board said no and no on all of the above. He just wanted to make them aware of those conditions. That was all of his comments.
Mr. Santos made a motion to approve the plans as submitted by Horsely & Witten for 14 Sampson’s Mill Road on February 1st, 2005. The approved design flow was 523 GPD and was based on the Title V flows, 75-GPD per 1000 square feet. This approval also includes the following conditions: All changes in building use change in ownership or tenancies shall be approved by the board of health prior to sale or lease of the property. Solvents, coatings, cleaning materials must be stored in tightly close containers and disposed of properly or recycled. Manufacturing operations shall not create a nuisance condition i.e. dust, odor or noise. This would also include car repairs or anything of that nature. Mr. Ball seconded the motion. Motion passed.
APPOINTMENT: Brad White – Septic Inspection, Show Cause
Ms. Warden stated that she had called him. He never responds. She sent him a letter to tell him that there was a “show cause” hearing at this meeting.
Ms. Garron stated that he never returned the green card for this meeting. He did return the green card for the first letter in which she told Mr. White to get the reports in order. The second letter to tell him to show up. He did not return the green card.
Mr. Santos stated that they received the receipt from the letter but not from the second, which was dated February 8th, 2005. What was their pleasure on this one?
Mr. Santos asked the health agents that before he goes and does an inspection did he have to come in here. Or did he just go out and inspect the system then bring the report in?
Ms. Warden stated that he would go out and inspect the system and then mails the report in.
Ms. Garron stated that she had never met Mr. White.
Mr. Harrington stated that he had not met Mr. White either. But, Jan would come in for the information.
Ms. Garron interrupted Mr. Harrington and stated that Jan had not worked for Windriver for over one year.
Ms.Warden stated that it was obvious that he did not want to comply with the septic regulation.
Mr. Ball felt that they should make a motion to pull his inspectors license for 30-days.
Ms. Garron asked what would happen if they went over the 30-days and they received a report.
Mr. Ball stated that they would fine him.
Mr. Santos asked Mr. Ball if he could make a suggestion. He suggested that Mr. White’s license to do septic inspections in the Town of Mashpee was revoked until he came in front of the board to show “just cause”. They would then levy another 30-days for revocation.
Mr. Ball agreed with him and stated that that would be his motion.
Ms. Warden asked what they were going to do over the next 30-days.
Mr. Santos stated that after he came in they would revoke his license for another 30-days.
Ms. Garron re-iterated that the motion was to revoke his septic inspector’s license until he appears before the board.
Mr. Ball added that if Mr. White were caught doing inspections after the date that his license was revoked he would be fined.
Mr. Harrington added that it would be a violation of Title V. He could be fined up to $1000.00 per day.
Mr. Santos stated that they would assess the fine right now at $300.00. How did that sound?
Mr. Ball stated that he still had his license. So he could still do it, right?
Ms. Warden stated that they had just revoked it.
Mr. Harrington stated that they had to do it by notification. They could not do it by tonight’s date.
Mr. Santos agreed with Mr. Harrington. As soon as he was notified, after that he could not do inspections. If he did, after he was notified, he would be fined $300.00 per day.
Mr. Ball made a motion that Mr. White’s license to conduct Title V Septic Inspections was revoked per notification by mail. He was to appear for the “show cause” hearing. If he did any inspections after that date of notification he would be fined $300.00 per day.
Mr. Harrington wanted to check to see if he had registered with the town as a Title V inspector. If he was doing work in the town and he didn’t sign up he was in violation.
Ms. Garron checked her information. Mr. White was not a licensed installer. Therefore, he may not have gotten our new information. The main group of people who got this were all licensed installers.
Mr. Santos re-iterated that he got the first letter from the board and they did not respond to the request to revise the reports.
Mr. Harrington asked if he had gotten the new regulations.
Ms. Garron stated that that was not true. She sent out the new regulations to every single Title V inspectors. He was on the list and she re-sent them out with the septic inspectors application with it. Mr. Rabesa wasn’t a licensed installer and he received the information.
Mr. Santos asked if he had his 2005 permit to inspect.
Ms. Warden stated that he didn’t have one because he was a septic inspector. He was supposed to have registered with the town as a septic inspector.
Ms. Garron asked Mr. Harrington the date of the report.
Mr. Harrington responded that it was October 25th, 2004.
Ms. Garron stated that the new regulation went into effect on October 14th, 2004.
Mr. Harrington stated that he was in violation without being registered with the town. That was the first violation. Then the board, by failure to show for the “show cause” hearing the board was revoking his right to perform inspections in town.
Mr. Santos seconded Mr. Ball’s motion. Motion passed.
APPOINTMENT: Cape & Islands Engineering – 15 Horseshoe Bend Way
Ms. Warden asked if they had submitted revised plans.
Mr. Santos reviewed the deficiency memo that had been sent to the engineer.
Mr. Harrington stated that they were supposed to notify the abutter.
Mr. Santos stated that it was under 75’ without an UV treatment.
Ms. Warden stated that they had to have the green card before they could continue.
Mr. Harrington stated that Charlene from Cape & Islands called her. He gave her the wrong date for the hearing. You could see from the number three in his comments. He told her that it was going to be the 20th. But, still if they had the green card they should have provided the board with that documentation.
Mr. Ball made a motion to continue this agenda item until the next meeting. Mr. Santos seconded the motion. Motion passed.
5.
Title V Variance Request: Cape & Islands Engineering – 11 Sheffield Place
Mr. Harrington began by stating that he had sent them his comments. Actually he had sent them a letter never mind comments. The letter stated that they needed to provide him with revised plans denoting all proposed and existing abutting wells within 150’. A new Title V application was required because the existing one was expired. They also needed nitrogen-loading calculations. He added that they needed to notify the abutter.
Mr. Ball stated that the reason he didn’t notify the abutter is that Mr. Marsters was the abutter. He owned the house. It had not been sold.
Mr. Harrington stated that his recommendations were to approve this with the condition of a denitrification required if the reserve was put in the proposed location with the well still present.
Mr. Ball added that if it was in use, he did not have to install it until it was in use.
Mr. Harrington stated that that was correct.
Mr. Ball made a motion to approve the following variances as requested by Cape & Islands for 11 Sheffield Place in their letter dated February 1st, 2005. A five-foot variance from the SAS to the property line. A 40’ variance from house number nine’s well to the reserve area. A 43’ variance from house number 11’s well to the reserve area. These variances were approved with the following condition. A denitrification system would be required if the reserve was put in the proposed location with the well still present and in use. Mr. Santos seconded the motion. Motion passed.
6.
334 Main Street Village
Matt Teague was present on behalf of McShane Construction for this project.
(The tape ends and the discussion picks up as follows.)
Mr. Harrington stated that the plans got sent up to the DEP for their review. As far as the provisional approval for using the Nitrex Filter and the Waterloo Biofilter along with pressure distribution to a couple massive size leaching pits. One thing the DEP made a comment on was that it was a shared system. So they had to go through and get all the paperwork for the shared system. Mr. Teague had done that. He had reviewed everything.
Mr. Santos stated that this concerned the single-family homes versus the condominiums.
Mr. Harrington stated that that was correct.
Mr. Santos stated that if he remembered correctly it was a mix of condominiums and single-family homes.
Mr. Teague stated that they had gone back and forth over the idea whether the DEP would be the enforceability of a homeowner’s association in concert with a condominium complex and then couple it with the potential commercial aspects that they had out there. To err on the side of safety they had converted all of the ownership aspects of the project to condominiums. What he gave Mr. Harrington was a condominium set of documents that talked about 32 units, potentially eight commercial units, 16 attached condominiums and 8 individual homes. The individual homes would have limited use space. The homeowners on the individual lots would pay for their own maintenance of the lot, contribute a little bit towards the septic system and everything else was a traditional condominium arrangement. The reason they went with that was because by statue they could impose a lien on any unpaid dues specifically because of the septic system. There were a couple of other aspects in the agreements that were key and they were looking for input on. One was the means of financial security for the project. Obviously they had a budget that would extend beyond the life of the system. They figured a safe life span of the Nitrex System right now was 15 years. They figured on setting aside around $50,000.00 to $75,000.00 to replace the Nitrex Filter at that time and potentially if there were some tankage issues in there. He didn’t believe the fields would go at that time. But, they felt that that was a safe number given their exposure right now. The question was in the short term how to secure that whether it was a bond or to post cash. Obviously they didn’t want to post cash. So they were probably looking at a bond. They would replace it as the fund grew up through contributions over the fifteen years then the bond could decrease in value proportionately. The only other thing that they had in these documents was the potential to lock out a unit if they didn’t pay. They didn’t even know if that was even legal. They believed that it might not be. It came in on one of the formats that they got. It probably wasn’t a bad idea if it was a legal thing to do.
Mr. Santos interjected that for example if one of the single homeowners said that they were not going to pay them because they wanted to do something different or way. Was that what he meant?
Mr. Teague stated that it was more about them not paying. Obviously if someone owns the house you could not evict them.
Ms. Warden thought that it would be more of a civil matter.
Mr. Harrington stated that it wouldn’t be a civil matter.
Ms. Warden asked him what he meant.
Mr. Harrington explained that it would not be a civil matter if it became a housing issue. The sanitary code said that an owner of the property could not shut off a utility. That was curtailment of service.
Ms. Warden asked who the owner would be.
Mr. Harrington thought that the condominium association would essentially be the owner of the property.
Mr. Santos understood what Mr. Harrington was saying.
Mr. Teague stated that he didn’t want to sound like a jerk. But, he didn’t think it was a bad idea.
Mr. Harrington added that while reading through the documents was that there was a requirement that there had to be some other financial assurance that the system got built and maintained properly whether the board wanted to vote on that was fine or they could leave it up to the DEP’s recommendation. Let’s say that something got blocked up or somebody didn’t want to pay and they got shut and there was a nuisance created by the situation. Once there was a nuisance created the board had the right to step in through MGL 111 Section 127B to go in, take care of the property and put a lien on the property. Then they would have to deal with the town. That was always at the board’s disposal to mitigate a nuisance. Title V stated that there had to be some other fail safes put in so that the system was built and maintained properly. The bond idea was fine. He would recommend something in the $50,000.00. Again, if they wanted to leave it to the DEP and have them set a limit. They would certainly going to review it. They would meet the DEP requirements. Right now they didn’t have an insurance binder in front of them to vote. The board’s vote would have to be contingent upon the binder being proposed and the DEP’s approval. There also had to be an operation and maintenance manual. Right now there was not one in place and it was one of the requirements. Again the approval of the decision would have to be based upon the submittal of the operation and maintenance manual. He would recommend that they have it prior to issuance of the certificate of compliance so they could at least maintain the system once it was in. He didn’t want to wait until occupancy because he preferred to have at least a chance to review it once the system was in.
Mr. Teague stated that they had a general one now. He hadn’t seen it. But, he has heard that it existed. These were kind of like hot of the press types of things. They wouldn’t have a problem submitting that as part of their permit application either. He was in a Catch 22 right now. He needed the board to approve or a least give some sort of acknowledgement of the shared system documents. Then he had to take that back to the DEP. He was kind of caught up in the fact that he had a permit. But, he couldn’t do anything with it right now.
Mr. Santos asked if they had anything in writing that they could make into a motion.
Mr. Harrington stated that he was going take out the DEP document that stated…
Mr. Santos made a motion to put Main Street Village, 334 Main Street on the agenda. Mr. Ball seconded the motion. Motion passed.
Mr. Harrington recommended that the board approve the documents for the shared septic system that was previously approved by the board in accordance with 310 CMR 15.290 with the condition that the documents received are in draft format and that a $50,000.00 financial bond should be set along with the operation and maintenance manual be submitted at the time of application for the installation permit.
Mr. Ball made a motion to approve the documents for the shared septic system that was previously approved by the board in accordance with 310 CMR 15.290 with the condition that the documents received are in draft format and that a $50,000.00 financial bond should be set along with the operation and maintenance manual be submitted at the time of application for the installation permit. Mr. Santos seconded the motion. Motion passed.
7.
Rte 130 Shell Station
Mr. Harrington stated that they were caught selling cigarettes to a 17-year old. CCRTC just let the board know that this had happened.
Mr. Ball made a motion to fine the Rte 130 Shell Station $100.00 for selling cigarettes to a minor. Mr. Santos seconded the motion. Motion passed.
8.
Tainted Mail in Town Hall
Ms. Warden stated that there was the situation with the tainted mail.
Mr. Santos asked what actually happened.
Ms. Warden stated that she didn’t get a call and she didn’t know what happened.
Mr. Harrington stated that he did finally speak with Mr. Baker. They were not notified. Had they heard the details? A letter was opened up in the tax collectors office. It was one larger envelope with three smaller envelopes in it. They appeared to have been dipped in something light blue. One of the employees opened it up and immediately broke into a rash. So the fire department was called and they sent their special team. The board had not been notified that this had been going on. Ms. Warden and Mr. Ball were both in the office. Mr. Harrington was away at a doctor’s appointment. He had his phone on him and it was on. They knew that no one had been notified. Mr. Baker did call him and basically stated that they “plum forgot.” They just did not notify them and took full responsibility for it. That was basically what he said.
Ms. Warden stated that the board had not been notified all day.
Ms. Garron stated that she came down with the news because someone told her upstairs.
Mr. Harrington said that his first notice was the paper. He heard someone talking about it and then it was in the paper the next morning.
Mr. Santos felt that they needed to address this in some other format rather than just discussing it among the board members. He asked Mr. Harrington if he felt that Mr. Baker was sincere enough. For the record, this would be his motion, either have the health agent or the assistant health agent forward a letter to the fire chief and copy the town manager. The letter should confirm their conversation and admitted to his error. However, due to the severity of the possible health risks, the board should have been one of the first people called. There should be something in written format and at the direction of the board of health. Mr. Ball seconded the motion. Motion passed.
OLD BUSINESS
A.
Great Hay Acres
Mr. Santos began by stating that there was a request brought up to them as far as the board changing their position on Great Hay Acres.
Mr. Ball stated that he was not changing his position on the matter.
Mr. Santos agreed and stated that for the record he was not change his position either. It was unanimous and it did not need a vote. They were sticking to their original position and opinion on this matter. They were requiring Great Hay Acres go through town meeting and the state legislature to get approval to use the town conservation property for nitrogen loading purposes.
DISCUSSION
A.
FYI – Results of Budget Meeting with Selectmen & Finance Committee
Mr. Harrington recommend that the board make a motion to have him send the finance committee a letter requesting placement on their agenda. They would like to discuss and at least appear before the selectmen and Ms. Mason. Parts of the finance committee were there. They needed to go talk with them on their agenda. He was not going to get into any of the particulars of the meeting. Mr. Ball watched it. He and Mr. Santos were at the meeting. He had spoken to Ms. Warden and Ms. Garron about it. Everyone had at least been brought up to speed as far as what happened.
Mr. Santos stated that in all fairness if he was in that position he would ask the same questions.
Mr. Santos made a motion to have the health agent send a letter to the finance committee-requesting placement on their agenda to discuss the possibility of a new position and budget. Mr. Ball seconded the motion. Motion passed.
Being no further business, Mr. Santos made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:02 PM. Mr. Ball seconded the motion. Motion passed.
Respectfully submitted by,
Charlotte A. Garron, Administrative Secretary