My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/2/1987 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
>
3/2/1987 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 5:26:37 PM
Creation date
3/23/2018 1:43:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
BOARD OF HEALTH
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/02/1987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
TOWN OF WL9WEE, BOARD OF HEALTH, MEETING, BCH 25 1987 Page five) <br /> OFB; One way or the other. The state requ i rem nt i s f ifty feet from the wet l and y o ur e s h o w- <br /> i n g fifty one feet frm edge of wet l and so you're a foot outs ide-of that, our Town regulations <br /> show 75 and 100 on Conse r vat i n, that's up to Conservation, setback from wet l and s f or septage, but <br /> that's up to Conservation now. <br /> JPS: it's going back to Conservati ori, after the Board of Appeals, it's going back to Conservation. <br /> CFB: I would think it would have to. supercking orders have already been given twice by DE E, <br /> to me it signifies that they are going to say it's more than fifty feet from a wet l and and so ac- <br /> cording <br /> c- <br /> cording to the there's no danger to the wet l rid. <br /> CHL: Well that should be proven with the potable water, DEQF gets involved in it and they say.. <br /> CFB: 1, yes, no or otherwise, Let Conservat i ort make their pitch. <br /> CHL: -But I think to keep-the ball ro l 1 i ng we've got to do smeth i ng. <br /> C FB: Yeh, I w u l d move that g i vert proof of potable water on site..... i nterrupt <br /> RFT: W. Bur conn is here to address this issue. <br /> FB: Oh,, I t m sorry. <br /> W. Burann: I'm here representing an abutter. <br /> CFB: Oh, and ,you are? <br /> * Burgmann: .1 a Bob Burgriann fram Holmes & WGrath and+I represent W. & M s. Kenneth Con i- <br /> kowski, who are the abutters iwediately to the north and the Konikowskils had several concerns <br /> with regard to the situation. One.of them being,, the plan shows the reed to excavate right up <br /> to their lot line and knowing the fact that we've got sandy soils out there, they feel their is <br /> a good possibility of encroacent., onto their property during the-excavation if steps such as <br /> sheeting or other methods of containing the excavation arn't taken in advance and established as <br /> a requ i r ment for the excavat ion. Another thing that we'd 1 i ke the Board to consider is the lo- <br /> cation of the containment wall shown on the plan, the containment wall is well inboard of the ex- <br /> cavation limits for the twenty five feet all around the system and Title v does requ i rye that im- <br /> pervious <br /> m- <br /> peryious material below fill be removed for twenty five feet all around, and what ,you in essence <br /> having here is the c neat i n of an ier}v i ous barre i r within that twenty five foot area that Title <br /> V has said fiat ,you have to. ake -pervious, and I'm wondering if the Board should consider whether <br /> or not that v �re_ entjbe that wall match the 25 foot line that Title V rquires for the re- <br /> moval of impervious material because it would seem to be kind of at loggerheads with the intent of <br /> the remova I* <br /> CHL: You have a g6od point there. <br /> W. Bu nn: Those are basically ray clients concerns. <br /> JPS: I don't think there's anything specific, I agree with W. Burgmann,-there Is nothing specific <br /> in Title v about containment walls. I believe on the abutter to the north, 1 believe they also put <br /> a containment wall in , i bleieve there is and the only place where it exists is parallel with this <br /> lot line, and with their leaching facility being located in the position that it i , if they too <br /> had to excavate twenty five feet from that particular 1 cat i rn if the soil Gond i t i ons wer `{the s arr <br /> it' semis like this Board of D£QE r, whoever granted the permit didn't think that was the case, <br /> mere the conta i rrent wall did have to conform to the twenty five foot setback from the leaching <br /> facility. <br /> CFB: I don't wart to argue with two engineers but, .. <br /> OPS: I don't thin there is anything in Title V but this Plant-Ehas been looked at by DEE more than <br /> one tine. <br /> FB: What 1 was going to say is that the purpose of the twenty five foot excavation and e cavat i ort <br /> down to a vertical excavation to be sure that here is a strong potential if you want to look at <br /> it that way), or essentially what you're saying is that you're guaranteeing bY excavation on that <br /> 25 foot area, that you are not going reach any n aturra l l y occurring impervious soils; the feeling <br /> being there that if they are along side they can gust as well be under and so ,you excavate'to the <br /> natu ra l l y occ urr i n leaching soil, s and, gravel. The p l acerrent of the cont i rmnt wall in proxi- <br /> mity <br /> r oxi- <br /> ity to a water area is to further insure them will not be a lateral or a quick later transmission <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.