Laserfiche WebLink
There being no further comments or discussion Ms. Patel motioned to continue review <br /> of the septic design plans of 100 Great Neck Road North until the next meeting on May <br /> 19th, 2022. Mr. Baumgaertel seconded. Roll Call Vote: Kripani Patel (yes) Brian <br /> Baumgaertel (yes). VOTE: Unanimous (2-0) <br /> 3. Discussion of Comprehensive Nutrient Management Strategy and proposed I/A <br /> Regulation <br /> Mr. Harrington commented that the information sent to the Board is the rendition, which <br /> is really a combination of Select Board member Gottleib's initial draft on the coordinated <br /> nutrient reduction at that point a Board of Health regulation. Mr. Harrington wrote a <br /> response stating what impacts of that draft would be, based upon the first requested <br /> requirement was to upgrade all systems to IA systems at time of transfer. Another <br /> response was written in the office that also talked about the financial part and the burden <br /> that it's going to place on the citizens of Mashpee.So what you have now is a complication <br /> of those three documents. The original draft and those responses that came from staff. <br /> MR. BAUMGAERTEL: We did take a look at this at a prior meeting, did the responses <br /> changed since then? <br /> MR. HARRINGTON: no, I don't think it has. <br /> MR. BAUMGAERTEL: We have some areas of concern and how we proceed with this. <br /> MR. HARRINGTON: We haven't met with the Select Board yet. That's what we're waiting <br /> on and I have limited my comments until we talk to the Select Board. This will be the third <br /> response no one's heard yet. <br /> MR. VIRGILIO: I don't think we should be discussing this at this time. The Sewer <br /> Committee and the Selectmen seem to have some differences. Anything we change at <br /> this point, in my view, it not worth it. <br /> MR. HARRINGTON: The two responses that came from our office have already been sent <br /> to the paper and discussed in the paper.The information has been out there, it's just that <br /> we haven't had a chance to review with the Select Board. Certainly, we can discuss it <br /> tonight but some of the ideas have been changed. There are issues the Board needs to <br /> be aware of before we meet with the Select Board. Nothing in here is gospel,this all draft, <br /> so everything is up in the air and up for grabs if anyone has any suggestions to change it. <br /> This is certainly not anywhere near being set in stone. We're several months away from <br /> that because two other things that we haven't gotten to is talking about the effectiveness <br /> of the I/A systems and how to apply this. I need to review the feasibility studies that were <br /> done for the Mass Estuaries Program where they identified priority areas for the super <br /> project. We're basically now at phases I and II and even portions of phase II have now <br /> been mentioned that they may not do. That was only by one sewer commissioner and <br /> was not voted on as of yet. But essentially with phases I and II you're looking at <br /> approximately 40% of the town, where 60% of the town in phases III, IV and V are not <br /> going to be done. So we're looking at 60%of the town that are going to have some other <br /> kind of nutrient reduction in the form of I/A, reducing your lawn, buffers to wetlands, all <br /> of those items are going to have to be looked at in a nutrient control, either regulation or <br /> by-law, to determine the reduction of nutrients. That is the big issue now. We were <br /> hoping that the entire town was going to be sewer, but now we're looking at a 60/40 split, <br /> the proper way to do it, for the protection of the ponds, especially for the treatment of <br /> phosphorus where we know that Title 5 systems don't do that, I think it's still important <br />