Laserfiche WebLink
F F <br /> building is to be located were in locations where trash had <br /> not been buried but that refuse had been found in other areas <br /> that had been excavated for the building ' s foundation. <br /> Mr. Hanlon said an area with trees along Asher ' s path that <br /> the firm had hoped to leave untouched as a buffer had to be <br /> excavated because it was found to contain refuse. He also <br /> noted that an area to the rear of the site also contained <br /> demolition material and refuse although the firm had been led <br /> to believe nothing was buried on the location . Mr. Hanlon <br /> noted that aerial photos taken two years ago indicated no <br /> excavation so that the demolition material and refuse had <br /> been buried within the past two years . Mr. Buckingham related <br /> that the dump contractor prior to the DPW taking over the <br /> landfill had told the Board of Health he had excavated in <br /> this area for cover material but had not buried any refuse . <br /> Mr. 5cipione noted that part of this area in which demolition <br /> material had been buried was outside the area of the assigned <br /> landfill . Mr . Hanlon was asked to prepared a written report <br /> on his findings . He explained that since the general <br /> contractor had excavated this material and because it would <br /> have to be covered with the synthetic cover there likely <br /> would be an additional cost . <br /> Mr. Hanlon and the Committee discussed the need to install a <br /> sprinker system inside the transfer station. Weston & Sampson <br /> would check with the state fire marshall as to the <br /> requirement for such a sprinkler. <br /> Discussion on installation of fencing between the current <br /> area used as a landfill and the transfer station site was <br /> deferred to a later date . <br /> There being no further business, the Committee adjourned at 4 <br /> p.m. <br /> Respectf ly submitted <br /> o eph F. urphy Jr. <br /> Cle k <br /> 1 <br />