Laserfiche WebLink
sane standard as Mr. Haj j ar was. They were over the Title V limits. There was an <br /> approval oftoo many seats for the capacitor that system. The same standards had t <br /> be held for both of therm. In fact, with the Giovanni"s purchase nothing could be <br /> clearer that there was a demand to reduce the seating. The demand cable from the. <br /> owner of the unit to his tenant. The documents that he provided to the board were <br /> very clear that no one could overburden any ofthe systems in the condominium. <br /> When it cane to due diligence he felt that they needed to hold everyone to the same <br /> standards. <br /> Mr. Haj'j ar added that one factor that Attorney Balton didn't want them to hear was <br /> that under the condominium stage here was five buildings and five systems. Each <br /> system was 10,000. But, the increase in flow was what violated the 10,0 00 gallons <br /> per system. They should be able'to go up to 50,000 gallons. S , knowing before that <br /> they purchased the unit that there was over 10, 000 gallons Because they could go up <br /> to 50,000. <br /> 4 <br /> Mr. McGrath stated that he was professional engineer. He had been doing innovative <br /> wastewater for a long time. They actually operated the first residential Ruck system <br /> from 1986 to 1990. He received the first approval for an innovative system in <br /> Massachusetts. He had done this and a lot ofit. This was the first time he had ever <br /> seen the IEP pay such close attention to the history of a facility. What the <br /> department's stance was that yes the legislature created a protection that the <br /> condominiums were not aggregated. The way that the statute read was that each <br /> system was considered a different facility. what Mr. Hajjar said was basically true. <br /> What the department searched for and found was that there was permitted by the <br /> predecessor of this board was an increase in flow after the effective slate of Title- . <br /> It was the second increase in flow after the effective date of the condominium. <br /> Those were not authorized by Tale V. So the department'sq stance was that they now <br /> lost the ability or the protection for the condominium and where now aggregating <br /> the flow. They went through the numbers. A groundwater discharge permit was <br /> extraordinarily expensive not only to construct but the operation cost was <br /> 1, . . He could not afford to build out a groundwater.discharge permit. The <br /> cost t his tenants would be extraordinary if they went for a groundwater discharge <br /> permit. So yes when they first came Dere they thought they had the protection of the <br /> condominium law. But, the IEP ruled that they dict not. That was the box that they <br /> were in. The box that they were in was the predecessor to this hoard decided that <br /> since there was a valve that connected the reserve area to the primary could be <br /> removed and effectively get double the flow. The DEP said that it was not the <br /> hoard's riga to authorize that activity. The septic tanks were too small and there was <br /> no reserve areas. S , the box was Haat there were two systems. The IP said that <br /> there was no statute of limitations it was gust wrong. So they have tried t6 fix it as <br /> best they could. <br /> Mr. Harrington wanted to clarify one thing. He had spoken to Steve Corr about that <br /> comment somebody had made at the last meeting. He thought Mr. Haj j ar had made <br /> it at the last meeting. It was that each property could be treated as one individual <br /> 8 <br />