Laserfiche WebLink
43 Little Neck Lane is located in New Seabury off of Summersea Road. The Child River East Homeowners <br /> Association has allowed, on several occasions, for the open space area to be used as credit land for <br /> undersized properties to obtain the additional land for more bedrooms. in this case,39,600 SF are being <br /> utilized to obtain the 40,000 SF required area for six bedrooms. A FAST denitrification system is also <br /> proposed to add credit to obtain the six bedrooms. The Credit Land Survey Plan and Grants of Title V <br /> Nitrogen Loading Restriction and Easement for the facility and credit land have been provided. The review <br /> fee has been paid and the plans and documents have been reviewed. No issues were encountered. <br /> The septic design plan was also been submitted with this request. The variances on the plan are for the <br /> setback to watercourse or mean high water. Another variance that is necessary is the coastal bank setback <br /> of 150'to 57'to the new soil absorption system. The 150'setback Is In our Sol]Stability Regulation. The <br /> inclusion of the denitrification has been mitigation for both variances. In regard to the existing septic tank <br /> being converted to a pump chamber, Mr. Harrington recommended It be replaced or cleaned/power- <br /> washed to avoid the sludge from the tank being pumped into the new soil absorption system. The <br /> nitrogen aggregation plan and septic design plan are submitted to bring the property into compliance with <br /> Title V. <br /> Matthew Costa of Cape&Islands Engineering Introduced himself as representing the applicant. He stated <br /> that the proposal is to use the FAST system at a 660-gallon per acre loading rate. He informed the board <br /> that the site has an existing sledgehammer system,which they intend to replace with the FASTtechnology. <br /> There is an existing 3-bedroom leach field that is in great condition,which they intend to utilize. Mr.Costa <br /> stated that a note had been added to the plan, per Mr. Harrington's recommendation,that the existing <br /> septic tank be pumped and Gleaned. He stated that the plan does meet setbacks to the street and does <br /> not interfere with any existing leach fields in the area. He also stated they would be using all H-20 <br /> components and that the system would be vented. An irrigation well had been previously approved, but <br /> will be relocated to meet setbacks. Mr. Costa assured the board that the applicant wants to be in <br /> compliance,and is fully aware that he will need to pull applicable permits prior to making any alterations <br /> to the structure. <br /> Chair Baumgaertel noted the shed is encroaching into the reserve area. Mr,Costa responded that it will <br /> not be on a foundation, and Mr. Harrington added that the shed is not considered a permanent structure. <br /> Chair Baumgaertel recommended that risers be put on the d-box,and that maintenance on the FAST unit <br /> include checking the speed levelers to ensure they are getting good distribution. Mr. Harrington noted <br /> that the FAST unit should be corrected to 0.9, for 6-9 bedrooms. Chair Baumgaertel asked if there is a <br /> requirement that the alarm panel for the FAST unit be located Inside,citing the Importance of accessibility. <br /> Mr.Costa stated they are designed for use outdoors, and recommended that approval be conditional on <br /> the control panel being located outside. Ms. Langler inquired if any building permits were In the works. <br /> In response, Mr. Costa suggested that the board condition issuance of the Disposal Works Construction <br /> Permit on issuance of the building permit. <br /> Chair Baumgaertel asked if anyone present had something to add. Patrick Knight, of 39 Little Neck Lane, <br /> introduced himself as a neighboring property owner. He expressed opposition to the proposal due to <br /> health and safety concerns, namely parking Issues as well as issues with partying/noise by renters. He <br /> indicated that he had not been notified that this hearing was taking place, to which Mr. Harrington <br /> responded that there Is no requirement to notify abutters If no Title V variance Is requested. <br /> Chair Baumgaertel stated that, while nothing stood in the way of approving this request because It met <br /> Title V requirements, the situation warranted a deeper look. He asked if the board thought they should <br /> hold approval until all related matters could be addressed. Mr. Harrington responded that the board has <br /> 2 <br />