01/09/1989 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes

Home Browse Search

(3) BOH MINUTES, 1/9/89 APPOINTMENT - CAPE & ISLANDS (KOULARIS CONIT) SJG there's no way you could protect 'this type of eases ent forever.RGC Again, I think now your discussion should be with Mrs. Anderson. In the event the system fails the Board will probably allow an Evergency repair but not with an addition. JS: this is the kind of advice we were locking for. APPOINTMENT: CAPE & ISLANDS - SALZER WHIPPOORWILL CIRCLE.JS indicated that Salter has owned this lot for 20 som years. The abbutors have since built with -their wells and septic systems at opposites comers of their lots, one well being in front and the others being to the rear of the lot which leaves Mr. Salzer with only a very small area to install a septic system and then even only after precise determination as to the edge of the wetlands. Here again the system will have to be raised thus requiring a 251 strip out. We can do everything according to Title V EXCEPT provide the strip out entirely on Salzer's property. We've approached one abbuttor to move his well and we've received no response. The other abbitor has refused. According to the plans on file the abbutor to the right's well is not placed according to plan, it's about 101 in from where it's supposed to be. Had it been placed according to plan we would have more area to complete the strip out, although still not enough to not require a portion of it to be on the abbutor's property. The attorney has instructed me- to draw a plan according .to where the well is suppled to be. I've never applied for a variance not to do the, 25' strip. This is what I need, as far as determining the edge of the wetland, that will come further down th line. and also the Mashpee regulation requiring 1001 set- back from the wetland. I'll have a problem with Conservation anyway proposing a retaining wall close to the wetlands. ROC: again here you should approach the abbutor to the left and see if he would move his well, since that water is bad anyway. JS: he's been approached and does not answer. EAM: Noone has applied for a variance not to do a strip where requiml -to do so by Title V. JS: Fagan told me that if the local BOard of Health were to approve such a variance DEQE would not oppose it.There are three definitions of wetlands we have to deal with: Title V, Conservation and BOH.RCC: as far as the abbutor's well being mis- located by 101, as long as it rw,-ts the 100' separation to the leaching and Salzer's lot was vacant at the time, we cannot mandate that the well be relocated according to plan. However you must show the ex- isting well when it is located in actuality, not according to the plan. The Board does not repuire. that the well location be staked out in advance, although most engineers do that. In this case unless you can show that the mislocation of the well causes the distance to the septic to be less than 1001, we can't make him relocate according to plan. JS: I can't go to the conservation r.kople to got their opinion without having gone to you first, yet their input would be helpful in advance. Same thing with the Board Appeals. RGC: I would not vote for a variance based on what's in front of me. JS: You've answered my questions. RGC: keep in mind that at score point Highwood water will be supplied to that area. Whether they like it or not.(highwood). They're trying to disown this area but it is in their district. It's already down to Little Neck. You've never misrepesented anything on a plan that I know of before, let's keep it that way. JS: those are the questions I care to have answered. RGC: you've gat our feeling, if you want a vote bring it back.RGC: I think in cases like this perhaps Conservation and BOH should look at the plans together, I've suggested this to them and they haven't gone along with it. In fact where wetlands are concerned you should go to them first. This would save time and money. 21. REPAIR PLAN, HENDRICKS FOR HARSH, 556 TROON WAY.EAM stated fie had not yet verified that the existing system is in failure. A pumping record indicates that is has been pumped three times. RGC: what is ttie distance from the lot line to the proposed leach pit? Determine whether it's in failure and see if it can be relocated to a place whore- no variances are required. EAM to check it out with ABCO. 22. REPAIR PLAN, LABUTE FOR MCELAINEY, 143 MENM-1A ROAD. EAM stated that this plan was already before the Board at which time we questioned the distance from the proposed leaching to the existing well on the lot directly behind this one. LabiAe resub-aitted the plan indicating the distamce to be only 751 . Everyone else is on Flighwood. Although McElaney's not proposing an addition, he needs to upgrade his sys- tem because its in failure which I've verified. RGC: questioned why the leahing could not be swung to the side to create the neccessary distance from the abutter's well.EAM: because you have to remain 201 from the foundation. RGC: I'd prefer, to give a variance on the foundation than on anyone's well. EAM: this Would also be a Title V variance needing DEQE approval and full engineering. EAM stated that tie went out 'there twice to double check the measurement from the well but got no answer at the house. RGC: we need accurate and verified distances. You do it the best way you can. Our response to Labute is to create the greatest distance possible from the well and c", closer to the foundation if need be. We need verification of the well location. EAM: if the house is on a slab he could move the septic as close to the house as is feasible. RGC: work on it with him and well withhold voting on ittil then. 23.NEW PLAN FOR JACKUNAS, METACOM ROAD, TITLE V VARIANCE REQUIRED. EAM stated that there are two variances required. One thesideline setback from the proposed leaching from 10' to 2'. The second is riot having the