01/03/1989 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes

Home Browse Search

(3) BOH MINUTES-1 1/9/89 APPOINTMENT - CAPE & ISLANDS (KOULARIS CONIT) SCJC there's no way you could protect this type of easerpent forever.R C Again, I think now your disoussion.s ould be with Mrs. Anderson. In the event the system 400 fails the Board will probably allow. n emergency repair but not with an addition. CJS: this is the kind of advice we were looking for. APPOINTMENT: CAPE & I S LATS - SALZER WPI 1 PPS I LL CIRCLEJS indicated th apt Salzer has armed this lot for 0 som years. The abbutors have since built with their wells and septic systems at opposites corners of their lots, one well being in front and the others being to the rear of the lot which leaves Mr. Sayler with only a very small area to install a septic system and then even only after precise deu mirati n a to the edge of the wetlands. Here again the system will have to be raised thus requiring a 25' strip out. .We can do everything according to Title V EXCEPT provide the strip out entirely on Salzerl.s. property. We've approached one abbuttor to move his well and we've received no response. The other abbutor has refused. According to the plans on file the abbutor to the right's well is not placed according to plan, it's about 10' in frim where it's supposed to b . Had it been placed according to plan we would have more area to camplete the strip out, although still not enough to not require a portion of it to be on the abbutorrs property. The attorney has instructed me to draw a plan according to where the well is suppsed to b . I've never applied for a variance net to do the 25' strip. This is what I need, ars far as determining the edge f the wetland, that will came further down th line. a nd also the Mashpee rye u 1 apt i on requiring 100' set- back fran the wetland. I I I I have a problem with Conservation anyway proposing a retaining wall close to the wetlands. PCC: again here your should approach the abbutor to the left and see if he would move his well, since that water is bad anyway. S: he's been approached and does not answer. EAM: Noone has applied for a variance not to do a strip where required to do so by Title V. d5: Fagan told me that if the local BOa d of Health were to approve such a variance DEE would not oppose it.There are three definitions of wetlands we have to deal. with: Title V, Conservation and BOH*R C: as far as the abbLrtor's well being mis- located by 10' , as long as it ffeets the 100' seperation to the leaching and Sal er's lot was vacant at the time, we cannot mndate that the well be relocated according to plan. F Wever ,your mst show the ex- iting well where it is located in actuality, not according to the plan. The Board does not repuire that the well location 'be staked out in advance, although most engineers do that. In this case unless you can show that the mislocation of the well causes the distance to the septic to be less than 100' , we can't stake him relocate according to plan. JS: I can't go to the conservation people to get their opinion without having gone to you first, ,yet their input would be helpful in advance. Sate thing with the Board Appeals. RGC: I would not vote for a variance based on what's in front of me. d5: You've answered m . questions. RGC: keep in mind that at some point Highwood water will be supplied to that area. Whether they like it or not. highood . They're trying to disown this arrea but it is in their district. It's already down to Little Neck. You've never misrepeserrted anything on a. plan that I know of before, let's deep it that way. CJS: those are the questions I care to have answered. RGC: ,you've got our feeling, if ,you want a vote bring it bac .ROC: I think in cases like this perhaps Conservation and BOH should look at the plans together, I've suggested this to them and they haven't gone along with it. In fact where wetlands are concerned ,you should go to there first. This would save time and Money. 21. REPAIR PLAN, HENDRICKS FOR HARSH, 556 TROON WAY.EAM stated he had not ,yet verified that the existing system is in failure. A pulping recon indicates that is has been p Teed three times. RGC: what is the distance from the lot line to the proposed leach pit? Determine whether it's in failure and see if it can be relocated to a place where no variances are required. EAM to check it out with ARCO. 22. REPAIR PLAN E FOR INEY 1 MEN HA ROAD EAM tat that this plan was already before , LA6�1T MELA E� p y the Board at which time we questioned the distance from the proposed leaching to the existing well on the lot directly behind this one. Laburte resubmitted the plan indicating the distarnce to be only 751. Everyone else is on Highwood. Although McElaney's not proposing an addition,, he needs to upgrade his sys- tem s- t m becaurse its in failure which I've verified. RCC: questioned why the leahing could not be swung to the side to create the necoesary distance from the aburttor's ell.EAM: because you have to remain 20' fran the foundation. RCC: I'd prefer to give a variance on the foundation than on anyone's well. EA : this would also be a Title v variance needing DEE approval and full engineering. EAM stated than he went out there twice to double check the measurement from the well but got no answer at the house. RGC: we need accurate and verified distances. You do it the best gray ,you can. Our response to Labute is to create the greatest distance possible from the wel1 and come closer to the foundation if need be. We need verification of the well location. EM: if the house is on a slab he could move the septic as close to the house as is feable. RCC: work on it with him and well withhold voting on it til then. 2 .NEW PLAN FOR JACKUNAS, METAC1 ROAD, TITLE v VARIANCE REQUIRED. EAM stated that there are two variances required. One thenideline setback from the proposed leaching frorn 10' to 21. The second is not having the