My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/22/2004 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
>
7/22/2004 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 2:32:06 PM
Creation date
3/26/2018 2:31:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
BOARD OF HEALTH
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/22/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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
• Mr. Ball replied that they have allowed them before. <br /> Mr. Santos stated that they had only allowed one mounded system. <br /> Mr. Ball disagreed that that there were five or six out there now. <br /> Mr. Harrington interjected that there were two. Two of them were located <br /> on Monomoscoy right across from one another. They also have <br /> composting toilets in them. That was the trade off for the variance the <br /> composting toilet. Mr. Costa also had the ability to lower this one-foot. <br /> Right now he was providing six-feet to the bottom of the leaching. <br /> Mr. Costa continued by stating that the small retaining wall would aid and <br /> protect these septic systems as well as their getting them above the <br /> ground water to six-feet rather the five. <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that he had it right with 9.8 with the top of the pea <br /> stone. (I can't understand what he is saying next.) The way the board's <br /> regulation reads he was not artificially providing the separation to ground <br /> water. Mr. Costa had five-feet of naturally occurring pervious soil below <br /> the system. By the board's regulation he was not artificially providing <br /> • that. In the other systems they were in containment. The board's <br /> regulation reads that there had to be four feet of pervious soil above <br /> groundwater, which he had. In those cases, In Mashpee if they did not <br /> have the four feet of naturally occurring pervious material above <br /> groundwater. You would artificially provide the five-feet to groundwater . <br /> then it was considered a mounded system. He had some other comments <br /> if they board wanted him to run through them. First of all Mr. Costa <br /> needed a land surveyor's stamp on the front sheet because he was doing <br /> stuff within the property lines. This was considered an increase in flow so <br /> it was new construction. He was going to take two existing bedrooms to <br /> three-bedrooms total. One concern he had also was that the way the <br /> system was set up. Right now effluent from the leaching could go back <br /> into to the tanks. The leaching was actually one foot higher than the <br /> tanks. The tanks were right next to the leaching. <br /> Mr. Costa stated that they were wrapped and water proofed. <br /> Mr. Harrington understood that. But, he felt that something had to be <br /> done. It could be better engineered as far as the covers were concerned <br /> because they were never perfectly tight. The retaining wall should be <br /> concrete. Was it just retaining fill or some leaching? <br /> • Mr. Costa stated that it was actually a landscaping wall. <br /> 24 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.