Laserfiche WebLink
Seabury recommended that the variance be approved to reduce the sampling to 2 times <br />a year, but that this variance is only for this system and for the current owner. If a new <br />system is installed, then the variance is no longer valid and if a new person or entity <br />takes ownership of the property, the variance is void. Also, if 3 test results come back <br />higher than the required limits the variance must be reviewed. <br /> <br />Mr. Livingston asked if the testing had been close to the edge ever – no, the limits have <br />been maintained well below the requirements. <br /> <br />Mr. Livingston made a motion to approve the variance requested to reduce the <br />sampling to 2 times a year, but that this variance is only for the current system and for <br />the current owner. If a new system is installed, then the variance is no longer valid and <br />if a new person or entity takes ownership of the property the variance is void. Also, if 3 <br />test results come back higher than the required limits the variance must be reviewed, <br />which was seconded by Mr. Virgilio. <br /> <br />Mr. Livingston (Yes), Mr. Virgilio (Yes) – Motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br /> Review of Request of Title V Variance – 42 Wheeler Drive, Cauley Site Services, LLC <br /> <br />The applicant stated this was a raze and replace and was seeking a Title V variance. <br /> <br />Mr. Seabury noted the applicant has submitted a variance from the Title 5 regulation 310 <br />CMR 15.354 “Whenever a system is disconnected following the demolition of a building <br />the system will be considered abandoned and further uses is prohibited until after <br />inspection of the system is brought into compliance.” This request to make it so the <br />system is not abandoned when the facility is demolished and would exempt it from <br />needing to be upgraded as “new Construction” requiring an I/A system. Mr. Seabury <br />stated the system would not be required to be upgraded to today’s Mashpee I/A <br />requirements within 300 Ft of a water way as new construction and would set a precedent. <br />The property is on Ashumet pond which has been issued with advisories because of the <br />water quality. Mr. Seabury noted that a system is considered abandoned once a house is <br />demolished. If the system is not abandoned, it will have to be inspected by the Health <br />Department and if found deficient it must have an I/A system installed. The proposal would <br />take 8 to 10 months to reconnect to the system. Mr. Livingston noted that this was an <br />important issue to the Town. Mr. Virgilio was uncomfortable with granting the variance. <br />(The current system was installed in 2015). <br /> <br />Mr. Livingston made a motion to deny the variance, which was seconded by Mr. Virgilio. <br /> <br />Mr. Livingston (Yes), Mr. Virgilio (Yes) – Motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br /> Discussion and Vote of Board of Health Refuse Regulation <br /> <br />Mr. Virgilio complemented Mr. Seabury on the excellent job of preparing the regulation, <br />taking the concerns raised at the last Board of Health meeting into account. Mr. Seabury <br />indicated that he made the changes at the suggestion of the Board, including markings on <br /> <br />