Laserfiche WebLink
i f <br /> f <br /> S <br /> for Holmes and McGrath. They had been in receipt of a denial for the <br /> proposed OAR systems issued by the DEP. He assumed that they had a <br /> copy of that denial. He brought letters for then to review. If they referred <br /> to the statement of denial, the department was saying that they were <br /> unable to approve the applications because of the three paragraphs in <br /> their denial letter. Number one states that, "the department had decided <br /> that the Deer crossing facility has a-combined total of a design flow of <br /> 11,000 gallons." The second paragraph says that the so-called <br /> condominium legislation says that, 'business condominiums or any <br /> condominiums, each facility was totally a separate facility and not <br /> aggregated." However, the departments review of all the board of health <br /> permits, according to their analysis, there had been an increase in the <br /> design flow authorized since December 31", 1995, therefore, the onsite <br /> systems cannot be considered segregate and distinctive so the flows <br /> must be aggregated. The third paragraph.says that the "former facility <br /> owner did obtain a large increase in design in 1995 and was not approved <br /> in December 22nd, 1995, and the bottom line was that Title V went into <br /> effect March 313t, 1995, He wrote this letter in response to their letter to <br /> the board of health. He interviewed a Lakeville engineer, "The DEP had <br /> stated to hien that the removal of a valve between-the sus and the <br /> constructive reserve area is not allowed under the code. That seemed to <br /> be the permit that the DEP was so concerned with that they thought was <br /> not in compliance with the code. They were saying that because of the <br /> increase in design flow. They lose the protection of the condominium <br /> statue that has passed through the legislature. He enclosed a copy of the <br /> DEP charts. 'there were actually two charts one at the top, He believed <br /> that the DEP has a mistake in the design flow of Building A in their <br /> version. He spore to Mr. Steve carr and he agreed with him that he could <br /> change it to 5670. The bottom line down below was that the total flow at <br /> Deer Crossing was 10,610 GPD. That was adding up all of the uses that <br /> existed in Building A, 131 c, D and E. The threshold for the groundwater <br /> discharge permit was *10,000 CPD. What this said was if it existed <br /> exactly the way it was today they would have to go to a groundwater <br /> discharge permit. His client could not afford the increased construction <br /> costs for a wastewater treatment system for all five buildings. His client <br /> could not afford the increase in the maintenance fees for treatment on <br /> the groundwater discharge permit. This situation places an extraordinary <br /> burden on his client that now finds out that because of the mistakes <br /> made by others years ago places him an extremely expensive problem. <br /> Prior to the purchase of the units he had the systems inspected. The Title <br /> V reports were reviewed and accepted by the town, Prior to the purchase <br /> he met with the board and agreed to provide denitrification systems for <br /> three systems. In spite of his conscientious efforts to comply with the <br /> town's requests to have the effluent reduces and so. He had advised his <br /> client that it would be much more economical to reduce the design flow <br /> 3 <br />