My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/10/2019 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
>
10/10/2019 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/20/2019 12:37:39 PM
Creation date
11/20/2019 12:37:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
BOARD OF HEALTH
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/10/2019
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
to be demolished and reconstructed, the plan was to uncover the pipe, extend it out from its current <br /> location, and reconnect it to the existing tank so it will continue to be under the garage. Mr. Borselli <br /> couldn't verify if the pipe runs in front of the garage but stated that, if it does, he would propose to <br /> construct the slab over it. He indicated that it would be an economic hardship to excavate and relocate <br /> the tank,as compared to any potential public health risk. <br /> Chair Baumgaertel agreed that the tank does not need to be moved, advising that, when a variance is <br /> granted in these situations,the Board would typically require a membrane to keep gas from migrating up. <br /> There being no further comments or discussion, Mallory Langler moved to approve the septic variance for <br /> 44 Barbary Circle, with the condition that a rubber or vinyl membrane be installed. Motion seconded by <br /> Brian Baumgaertel. VOTE: Unanimous(2-0). <br /> OLD BUSINESS <br /> 1. Review of Commercial Site & Septic Plan for 10 Evergreen Circle. Mr. Harrington commented <br /> that a revised plan has been prepared that includes a compliant reserve area. The reserve area <br /> was all that was left to be determined,as the other comments regarding the design features were <br /> discussed and resolved at the first meeting. Mr. Harrington stated that he approved of the revised <br /> plan. <br /> Patrick Johnson, of Atlantic Design Engineers, introduced himself for the record. Mr. Johnson <br /> stated that the system was redesigned to include the reserve area. The revised plans show 4' <br /> between trenches, and minor grading adjustments to account for design changes. All required <br /> setbacks will be met. <br /> There being no further comments or discussion, Mallory Langler moved to approve the site and <br /> septic plan for 10 Evergreen Circle, with the added variance of the soil absorption system (SAS) <br /> below the parking area, and provided that standard commercial septic conditions apply. Motion <br /> seconded by Brian Baumgaertel. VOTE: Unanimous (2-0). <br /> 2. Review of Commercial Site & Septic Plan for 31 Evergreen Circle. Mr. Harrington commented <br /> that a new plan has been submitted with a large-scale reduction in the structure and the septic <br /> system. The proposed septic system is now a gravity fed, non-I/A system that consists of a two- <br /> compartment tank with effluent tee filter, a bull run valve, two distribution boxes and two SASS <br /> for primary and reserve, with a vent. The denitrification has been removed, as have 20 kennels. <br /> The additional treatment was required due to the request to flush the dog waste;however,as the <br /> use has been reduced substantially and the denitrification has been removed from the septic <br /> system,the request of the flushing of the dog waste must not be allowed. The dog waste should <br /> go into solid waste. If there is an issue with odor, it must be controlled by having more frequent <br /> pickups and/or odor control on-site. <br /> Michael McGrath, of Holmes and McGrath, introduced himself for the record, stating that the <br /> client could not build the facility unless the price was reduced and,therefore,wished to withdraw <br /> treatment in lieu of a Title 5 system. Mr. McGrath stated that he did not think it was necessary <br /> to remove nitrogen, as this location is far from any nitrogen sensitive wetlands, and the nitrogen <br /> was going to attenuate. <br /> 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.