Laserfiche WebLink
The board has set previous conditions that included the recording of an affidavit at the Registry <br /> of Deeds. The registrar of Deeds,John F. Meade, contacted our office to say that recording of the <br /> affidavit is not required by a state regulation or statute so the Registry should not be accepting <br /> them. He also said that if the goal was to notify perspective buyers then the notice is looked at <br /> too late. Most title searches occur with a couple of days prior to the closing. Therefore, I have <br /> changed the recommended requirements to just submitting a notarized affidavit to the BOH. <br /> The property is not within the plume of CS-10 but it is located in an area of former contamination <br /> so the VOC testing is warranted as confirmatory sampling. The testing for the PFC's has been <br /> done by the Military and they have stated that it is likely that it will be found in the groundwater <br /> in the ponds and the surrounding neighborhoods. Having the owners test for something that is <br /> presumed to be there,especially at$1,000.00 per test, is not a reasonable request. The guidance <br /> documents for PFC's state that the hazard to humans is ingestion and not dermal or inhalation. <br /> Therefore, I believe that the board's job of notifying the owner's that the contamination exists <br /> but as long as the primary potable water source is town water then the risk is minimal. <br /> Chair Baumgaertel inquired whether this was sub-surface irrigation to which Mr. Harrington <br /> confirmed it was regular surface irrigation. <br /> There being no further comments or discussion, Kripani Patel moved to approve the variance with <br /> the following conditions: <br /> 1. Annual VOC testing be performed on the irrigation well. All fees associated with the <br /> testing shall be the owner's responsibility. <br /> 2. A notarized affidavit be submitted to the Board of Health that requires the annual VOC <br /> testing.The affidavit should include the fact that the owner should acknowledge presence <br /> and risks from exposure of the PFC's and that the owner has read and understood the <br /> EPA, DPH and CDC guidance documentation on PFC's. The affidavit must state that the <br /> irrigation well may be discontinued or abandoned under orders from the BOH,if required. <br /> 3. The spigot/sample port on the irrigation system shall be located below grade and labelled <br /> "non-potable water." <br /> 4. A health agent shall witness the connection to determine that no cross-connection <br /> between the potable town water has occurred. <br /> Motion seconded by Brian Baumgaertel. Roll call vote: Kripani Patel (yes); Brian Baumgaertel <br /> (yes). VOTE: Unanimous (2-0). <br /> Kripani Patel moved to allow the health agent's to address any similar future well variances across <br /> the counter and not bother the board with each variance request. Motion seconded by Brian <br /> Baumgaertel. Roll call vote: Kripani Patel (yes); Brian Baumgaertel (yes). VOTE: Unanimous(2- <br /> 0). <br /> 3. Request for variance— 65 Lakeview Drive, Scannell Well Drilling. Mr. Harrington commented <br /> that, a variance has been requested to allow an irrigation well to be installed in an area of known <br /> or anticipated groundwater contamination. The Military has advised the BOH that PFC <br /> concentrations in the area have exceeded the EPA health advisory concentration. <br /> The board has set previous conditions that included the recording of an affidavit at the Registry <br /> of Deeds. The registrar of Deeds,John F. Meade, contacted our office to say that recording of the <br /> affidavit is not required by a state regulation or statute so the Registry should not be accepting <br /> them. He also said that if the goal was to notify perspective buyers then the notice is looked at <br /> 3 <br />